Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 15

Reversion of Halfhat's recent edits in the draft
I made this revert (which in retrospect could probably have been less wholesale) because the effect is to remove or downplay references to sexism and misogyny in the characterisation of certain harassment in the article's lead. This is already well attested in the sources and discussed in detail in the body of the article. I would ask all editors, at this well developed stage of editing, to please not make such drastic changes without careful consideration of the facts we are describing. --TS 14:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The intent was to make it more clinical and less emotional. I'll review what I've done to see if I went about it the right way. H a l f   Hat  14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What significant facts did I remove? They seemed to me to convey little other than opinion and emotion, maybe removal was wrong, I probably should have came up with a different wording. H a l f   Hat  14:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is these two edits. If we want to be more neutral in the wording I think we can do better then just deleting the wording (something like 'widely seen as or reported as etc...) — Strongjam (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't too sure what actual information they were trying to convey. H a l f   Hat  14:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to describe the nature of the harassment (i.e. gender based threats and insults, with some anti-feminist rhetoric thrown in.) — Strongjam (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While we talk this out would you be willing to cut the word severe? I don't see how this at all benefits the conveying of the facts? H a l f   Hat  15:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more attached to severe then I am to misogynistic. The level of harassment is notable (it's probably the only reason this article is on Wikipedia.) I think we can do better then misogynistic though, I read it as a description of the type of harassment, but I realize others read it as a description of intent. — Strongjam (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using gendered. My problem with severe is that it sounds like it's saying how bad it is. We could use weasel words of course. H a l f   Hat  15:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * only if we toss out what all of the reliable sources have determined. We are not going to do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest gender-based. Instead of severe we could use something like, but I think we can just go with severe or intense I believe either one is used in our sources. For the second edit was thinking we could rewrite with ? Trying to avoid assigning motives and stick to the contents of the attacks. Not sure about the word rhetoric though, I also thought sentiment might work. Or we could weasel word it a bit and say something like , but I'm not a big fan of that. — Strongjam (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would we not cover the motives when the reliable sources do? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fine with it as-is. Just trying to suggest alternative wording that I'd also find acceptable. — Strongjam (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For one thing I'm not sure the various new articles really have much weight on the complex issue of intent and motives. It's not been studied in a court of law or widely accepted psychology/sociology papers yet. The words they use are not always suitable for us because they can be more emotionally loaded, this can be used to convey opinion.  H a l f   Hat  16:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A reason to consider not making a judgement on the motives is because we're trying to write a neutral encyclopedia article on the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * a neutral article at Wikipedia is one that presents what the reliable sources have determined about the subject. So do you have actually policy based rationale? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not new here. You want to include reliable source opinion on the topic, others are arguing, perhaps rightly and perhaps not, that the opinion from reliable sources be left out for neutrality reasons.  If that's unreasonable, it's on you to explain why that opinion deserves to be reflected instead of a simple neutral accounting.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are not new here, i dont understand why you keep attempting to push the position that "well, even though all of the reliable sources say X, we should say Y instead." WP:OR / WP:V / WP:UNDUE are all pretty damn clear that that is NOT what we do and NOT how we achieve ""neutrality". Unless you have some sekrit content policy that supports your vision, its not gonna happen and you need to stop wasting everyone's time and all these poor poor pixels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Because you are wrong. We don't agree with people. Basically all RSes say Hitler was evil, but we do not. H a l f   Hat  20:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * back to the "but Hitler!" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Back to dismissing valid argument because of the frequency they're used instead of addressing the points?  H a l f   Hat  12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "but Hitler" is not a valid argument. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that arguments that make reference to Hitler are necessarily invalid. H a l f   Hat  14:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In most cases Godwin's law applies in the sense that the discussion would be circling the drain, but the application here is to compare how we (WP) have covered other topics where there is a clear public opinion that swings one way, and note the tone and neutrality that those articles take - no article on a controversial or hated figure or group comes out speaking of the public opinion's of a person/group in WP's voice, but instead clearly assigning where the public opinion comes from, or holding off on criticizing the group/person until later in the article, sourcing all that. Take for example Westboro Baptist Church, which the first two sentences immediately speak to the negative impression it has but using language to clearly establisht that that is how the public sees it and not as a fact (eg we don't say "The church is a hate group" but instead "The church is widely described as a hate group", keeping WP impartial to the matter). The same logic and approach must apply here. --M ASEM (t) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no understanding of Godwin's Law. Firstly it says someone will make a Nazi comparison (e.g. "That's what Hitler thought"), not that all arguments that refer to Hitler (and certainly not his article) are invalid. And so my argument has not been refuted. H a l f   Hat  16:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're telling me I'm trying to push any position, as I'm not the one trying to make a value judgement on any issue here. Everything you've linked appears to agree with me, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying (since you think I want to go against the sources, which I do not), and your tone here is not helpful or collaborative in nature.    Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support your suggestions. is not perfect though, "gender-based harassment" is a little ambiguous, but improvement not perfection. How about "harassment targeting her gender"? I don't notice any issues with
 * Alright, lets wait for a bit more feedback as I suppose this will be contentions. I'm still a little tepid about "gender-based harassment", I agree it seems ambiguous and I don't want to white-wash or downplay anything. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's tough to get the balance between not downplaying, and not making them overly loaded. H a l f   Hat  18:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that gender based harassment would be appropriate. The article should be focused, not based on strong non-neutral wording. Tutelary (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * please provide sources that call this "gender based harassment" that are on an equivalent reliability and number as those that use  "misogynistic harassment" - otherwise this is going no where. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty luke-warm on the 'gender-based harassment' phrasing (I know I suggested it..) We'd probably be violating WP:SYNTH by using it, and I think we're best leaving it as-is unless someone can come up with better phrasing. If NPOV is a concern then we can always assign the view to the sources instead. I would be interested in feedback for the second suggestion, or maybe that's best left to another section. — Strongjam (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not limited to using the exact phrasing from the sources. H a l f   Hat  20:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While we are not "limited" to the language of the sources, when the sources are OVERWHELMINGLY utilizing particular terminology and similarly overwhelmingly NOT using a particular other terminology, there needs to be some great rationale for us to use the alternative, and some bogus hand wave at "neutrality" is not that rationale - NPOV does not in any way promote "when all of the sources view something as X, we should present it as Y". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a total strawman. The problem with that term is that it is loaded and implies opinion. H a l f   Hat  21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we stay with the original wording, which is a correct summary of the overwhelming opinion of reliable sources, as expressed in the body of the article. --TS 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while "severe" harassment can certainly be supported without quotes (we have plenty of reliable documented facts about this), "misogynistic" can't be - that's how its been characterized widely, certainly, but it's also an observation; stating it factually is heading into "weasel word" territory where we would normally need a source to be clear about that, but we really don't want to flood the lead with sources again. The current wording can be restated without losing anything but staying in a better impartial WP voice for the lead (where we want to avoid anything close to that) with  Note that this clearly states where what we would consider "weasel words" originate from which can clearly be ID'd in the body with sources. All the same info and key words are there, but just where there can be slippage into opinion, it's clear where it came from. --M ASEM  (t) 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Gamergate is rooted in misogyny, as borne out by reliable sources. We can't move away from that. Tarc (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the press's wide opinion, but only opinion. There is no factual evidence of what started GG. --M ASEM (t) 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Verifiability, not truth. The press says it is rooted in misogyny, we report what they say. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Gamergate is misogynistic" and "Gamergate is claimed to by misogynistic" are both verified statements, but one is impartial while the other speaks something that is a clear opinion in WP's voice. --M ASEM  (t) 03:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, our articles reflect the mainstream, predominant viewpoint of reliable sources and relegate fringe viewpoints to lesser prominence, if any. It is indisputable that the mainstream, predominant viewpoint about Gamergate is that it's rooted in misogyny. Our article must reflect that truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We reflect balance and weight, but not tone and emotion as we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --M ASEM (t) 03:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a fact, verifiable in reliable sources, not a "tone" or "emotion," that Gamergate was rooted in misogyny. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alleging that Gamergate is rooted in misogyny is using a contentious label and requires attribution to the source(s). Muscat Hoe (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not contentious — it's the effectively-unanimous conclusion of reliable sources. Views to the contrary are, at this point, fringe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Views to the contrary were never part of my argument so fringe is not in play here. This is about how we ascribe the misogynist label.  If RS weren't nearly unanimous we would avoid usage altogether due to contentious labeling (and it is contentious considering "bigot" is listed as a prime example - I doubt anyone would argue that "misogyny" doesn't fall under the umbrella of bigotry).  However since sources are widespread we can use it but it necessitates in-text attribution per the guideline. Muscat Hoe (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you really sure that "The New York Times, The Guardian, The Irish Times, Newsweek, Time, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The LA Times, Gawker, Salon,Le Monde, On The Media, Australian Broadcast Company, BBC, CNN, NPR, The Hindu, Forbes, SBS, Boston Globe, Fast Company, Huffington Post, Ars Technica, ESPN, KQED, Mother Jones, Fortune, Vox, Inside Higher Ed, The Oregonian, The Journal Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, The International Business Times and every other major media identify gamergate as misogynistic. CHS says its just boys being boys. " is better? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't help but say that I don't think identify is a good choice of word.  H a l f   Hat  16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "insinuate"? "suggest"? "propose"? "liken"? "hint"? "theorize"? or is there some other watered-down term you would propose? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Or we could follow policy and say something like stated. H a l f   Hat  17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No need for a laundry list. The point is it's better to write "The media has described Gamergate as misognyistic" opposed to "Gamergate is misogynistic".  In the latter, Wikipedia would be taking the side of a contentious, albeit popular opinion, while the former we would be describing it and remain more impartial.  Muscat Hoe (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Without any actual sourcing indicating gamergate is not misogynistic, WP:ASSERT we follow the sources and do not willy wolly around the overwhelming evidence and interpretation. WP:FRINGE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any RSs that say Hitler is not evil? But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should share the opinion he is. H a l f   Hat  18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a bogus argument. We might be able to say, factually, "the pattern of harassment is misogynistic" in WP's voice, because of the clear evidence it targetted women, and in a hostile manner, but there is no evidence beyond the claims made by the press that GG is misogynistic - no one has connected which persons did the harassing and if these people were truly misogynistic. It's an opinion, a very possible truth, but one we can't report as fact. --M ASEM (t) 18:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "We took Gamergate into the lab where it registered 137 on the Lépine Misogyny Scale". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That argument works against you. It agrees with it being opinion and that it should not be said in Wikipedia's voice. H a l f  Hat  18:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the people were. The actions were, and those actions were associated with Gamergate. The RS's have noted this and so can wikipedia. Hustlecat do it! 18:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally: "the actions were misogynistic" is in RSs, so it is verifiable. No one can verify whether particular people are "truly misogynistic" in this case. Hustlecat do it! 18:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. The harassment was done by people under the GG hashtag/banner. At the same time, we have a number of people that are using the GG hashtag/banner to try to talk about ethics. There is no evidence that all or any the harassers are the same people talking about ethics, given the sourceable fact that there are groups that are not connected to the ethics discussions using GG to harassment for the purposes of just stirring the pot. We can say, factually, the actions under the GG banner are misogynistic harassment, but it is not acceptable as a neutral entity to make the leap of logical that the GG movement, or all GG members, are misogynistic; we can definitely put in the bulk of sourcing that has the popular opinion of that nature (itself which leads to the whole "but ethics!" complaints), but in WP's voice we cannot take the opinionated stance that GG the movement or the people involved are misogynistic; we will absolutely reflect that opinion as it is weighted heavily by the sources, but we must keep it out of WP's voice.
 * Yes, the actions are verifyable to a point we could probably safely call them "misogynistic" in WP's, but as you just said, there is no way to verify which people are, and thus we absolutely cannot make that jump per WP:V. --M ASEM (t) 18:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When all you got as a "movement" is a hashtag, you get all that is done under your name. And the only thing that resulted in any coverage was the misogynistic actions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to trivialize how GG is described as a movement by some high quality RS, like Time, the Age, and the Washington Post (whereas some other sources do question if it is a movement, but still acknowledge that it might be a movement, and we can add their complaints to that effect). It is clearly defined as a movement throughout RSes, even though we will include all the criticism that its lack of organization, goals, and its tactics and its apparent ties to harassment to beg if it really is a movement. --M ASEM (t) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * we have been through this. for every instance where the source uses it, vaguely, with hesitation and qualification because there is not a better word, there are several sources that specifically call it out as not anything like an actual movement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which means we should call it a movement, and then include the strong criticism against that as appropriate, just like Westboro BC is called a church or Scientology is called a religion. To refuse to call it a movement is twisting the sources against an impartial view of the matter. --M ASEM (t) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hitler is evil/Did evil things is easy to find RSs for, doesn't mean Wikipedia should say those thngs. H a l f  Hat  18:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your obsession with Hitler? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just the useful article to use as an example. (BTW I messed up the formatting and can't remember what I was originally responding to so I moved it all the way back) H a l f   Hat  20:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont really see how. A [specific individual] of [worldwide importance] that has been the [subject of many years] of [very intense scholarship] vs a [recent] [rabble] of[minimal import or impact] where the [sourcing is still primarily non-academic] . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly because of the current [sourcing is still primarily non-academic], we should not be reporting the media's opinions as factual. Yes, we still should report the media's opinions because they are reliable sources, as long as we qualify them as opinions. starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection, or suggestion for improvement, to Strongjam's suggestion of replacing, with ? I support it because it reads much less loaded and more encyclopaedic, and puts more emphasis on the facts. H a l f  Hat  16:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - yes, it sounds better, thank you. starship  .paint   ~ regal  23:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Unnecessary adverbs, sounds fine without them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've given it a go in the draft article. I think it's fairly non-controversial, but no hurt feelings if it's reverted and needs more discussion. — Strongjam (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a better wording from "These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." would be "These attacks often include both anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric, with the direct result being heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny as it exists in the gaming community."Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the final wording listed here above the others. It's not fully encyclopedic but at least it doesn't violate NPOV too badly. I would suggest, however, that: 'Media coverage has focused largely on anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric contained within a number of these messages, with the direct result being heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny, particularly with reference to the gaming community.' Indeed, this deals with the NPOV issue and sums up the general media consensus without appearing to lend additional support to it, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Theduinoelegy (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Reducing the quotefarmy-ness of the article.
I think one of the main problems with the article, at the moment, is how it basically trails into a massive block of back-and-forth quotes at the end. We need to trim these down somehow. In general, remember that the purpose of the quotes is to illustrate some relevant opinion -- the goal isn't to capture what every single public figure has stated, or to list people you agree with in order to make arguments by proxy; the goal (at least, in an article like this) is to use quotes to capture overarching mainstream coverage and to describe the views of the people directly involved. A good quote should have prose text surrounding it that lets the user knows why they should care about what this person has to say -- eg. "many commentators have said XYZ, such as..." --Aquillion (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of the last section of the article was added from the first month or so of the GG situation, and reflect issues with recentism. We're a good 3 months out, sourcing has somewhat died down, so we should be able to trim away most of those quotes without losing the sources. As I've suggested before, the key quotes should be from people that directly have skin in the game, to speak - Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, people like Leigh Alexander or Stephan Tolito (due to their websites being affected); people simply commenting on the situation should not be quoted in full as much as we are, but instead pulling brief text from those, at best. --M ASEM (t) 07:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Scrap/Rewrite?
With all the changes that have happened over the course of the movement, would a scrap of the article as it is now, and a complete rewrite (Taking much of the talking points and notes into consideration) be warranted? I'm not the best writer, but I'll see what I can come up with just to field the idea and link it somewhere when I'm not at work. (Which I am now.) Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have thought about that, and someone has put work into a possible one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaciemonster/gamergate . I had some early involvement but ended up going back to working on the main. H a l f   Hat  14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible draft There are major issues with the draft. BLP claims—including criminal accusations—cited to self-published and unreliable sources (which I've asked Kaciemonster to remove). Also issues with UNDUE, where it seems like every part of the controversy gets eight sentences in two paragraphs, no matter how significant or insignificant. Woodroar (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Woodroar. Calling false accusations the "Quinnspiracy" rather than "False accusations" is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go on Monday morning sometime after my shift ends, or tomorrow (Sunday, Nov 30). It may not change anything, but with Gamergate largely having run its course, it might not hurt to start over with the entry. At the very least, it would help get some of the info included in the talk page, included in the entry itself. There are several good points that have been raised, both pro and against the movement, it's just a matter of sorting out the (to use a saying from my home) "bat shit crazy" from the ones that are valid points. One example being the Newsweek articles, and the counter to their statistical analysis. There's a link to that somewhere, but I can't find it right now. Kitsunedawn (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Scrapping the entire article seems a bit extreme (and fairly unnecessary); the basic structure of the current / draft article is good. It goes into too much depth on certain tangential side-controversies and it has a bit too much back-and-forth claim-counterclaim with quotes, but those are things that can easily be fixed by trimming down unnecessary bits. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Chalk the wording of the talk here up to me working a god awful shift and half asleep. Basically what I'm suggesting is taking the tangential controversies out, paring things down to the base controversy of GamerGate. In a way, starting over, but based on all the information to this point. I've a few drafts of certain sections that I've done recently, and will post them shortly. Kitsunedawn (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are going to do a rewrite I'd suggest waiting until there is some writing about in hindsight (and if there isn't then I think we'd need a serious discussion about whether to keep this). H a l f   Hat  09:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request Nov. 29, 2014
Add new section "Further reading" with link


 * Gurney Halleck, A People's History of Gamergate. www.historyofgamergate.com/

Nice documented presentation of the pro-gg perspective. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Would seem to run afoul of several aspects WP:ELNO that frown upon blogs and self-promotional websites, so I would oppose this. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:ELNO, particularly given the unverified/false accusations and insinuations regarding living people contained in the page. We have no reason to link to a page that furthers Gamergate's harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Gurney Halleck is a character in the Dune series of SF books, by Frank Herbert. Does WP allow pseudonymous sourcing?ReynTime (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were the case that this semi-anonymous, self-published essay gained significant attention in reliable sources, we would consider it a possibility to include. (Another case, but not here, is if it was an essay published in a reliable source, but the author opted to say anonymous per request, that would be a possibility). But we're not here with that yet. --M ASEM (t) 19:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, this will never be an external link on Wikipedia. External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. ... Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. The material being linked to is in flagrant violation of BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I reckon I'm starting to see why the ProGGers have a beef with "ownership" and House POV issues with this article if something as temperate and well documented as that link is tossed aside for apparently ideological reasons or a specious reading of our BLP policies (take your pick). Carrite (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you expected. WP:ELNO is quite clear that links like this should be avoided. It's a personal webpage from a pseudonymous writer with no established authority on the subject. — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of "self-published defamatory claims about living people aren't permitted in external links" is unclear? It doesn't matter how "temperate" you believe it's written - this is an anonymous blog which presents defamatory claims about living people, and as such, is clearly prohibited by policy from being used as an external link.
 * We don't put anonymous external links in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories that say "Barack Obama is a Marxist Muslim Communist usurper," so I'm not sure why you think we should put anonymous external links in Gamergate controversy that make similarly-defamatory accusations against Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just read the article, and yeah, there are definite BLP issues. There are claims and flat out assertions there that if written in Wikipedia would be (and have been) rev-deleted. There is no way this is linked to in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request, 1 December 2014
Uncontroversial spelling correction - our article currently says "Nathan Greyson" in the lead, but the correct spelling is "Nathan Grayson," as per. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion about "Operation Disrespectful Nod"
We should elborate the part "members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites critical of Gamergate". There are sources  that describe Gawker becoming the target largely because of the bullying comments. My proposed edit was "members launched a campaign to convince ad providers to pull support from sites that allegedly condone bullying and are critical of Gamergate" and I feel like the edit is small and relevant enough to be included despite us trying to bring the article down in size. Eldritcher (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the bullying claims apply only to Gawker, also I moved to a different section, I was to keep my discussion general. H a l f   Hat  16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be mainly Gawker, but they have also been the primary target during the last month or so. It seems dishonest to not include the detail. I'd be fine with noting that the bullying backlash was against Gawker specifically, but that might take too much space and we're already lacking. Eldritcher (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the most reliable of the sources you list  says that it is a "joke about bullying" that caused people to get their panties all twisted and become annoying little shits. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not perceived as a joke by those in GamerGate so their reason for targeting the advertisers was to still go against bullying. Also, regarding that Twitter link, haven't you yourself said that linking websites like that is pointless even on the talk page because their source value is nonexistent? If you want to use it to support your argument, you need to allow the same from others. Eldritcher (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought GG was about journalistic ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't think journalists posting support for bullying is unethical? Regardless, can we get back on topic? Eldritcher (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the joke as hysterically satirical albiet "tone deaf" ; but not connecting with "ethics" in any meaningful way, nor as a personal twit as connecting with "journalism" in any way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think what we have is just fine. Stating that Gawker "allegedly supports bullying" based upon a tweet that was in bad taste, but was an obvious joke, is unsupported nonsense. The sources you have listed are marginal, at best, compared to the existing sources we have in the section. If anything, that section should be trimmed down at this point, as it's a bit of WP:RECENTISM, really. The media has stopped paying attention and it doesn't seem to have materially affected Gawker. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This was not a single tweet, but multiple tweets. Other people from the network also showed support. It received a very large focus from GamerGate. Furthermore, it seems odd to say that the media has stopped paying attention to this when several articles on the topic have been released during the last four days alone. As for Gawker not having been materially affected, an article by Gawker itself states that they have lost thousands and could even lose millions. Full quote: "I've been told that we've lost thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions." Eldritcher (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that "it received a very large focus from Gamergate" — that may be so, but that doesn't appear to have translated into anything actually meaningful. Gawker wrote that post a month ago, there's been no follow-up coverage and the matter appears to be a dead letter as far as the sources go. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that the contacting of the advertisers is featured on this article and this is the most high profile aspect of it, it should be included. Eldritcher (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're asking, then. We already include a discussion of the fact that Gamergate supporters have contacted advertisers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The description is very lacking because it overlooks the main reason for contacting Gawker's advertisers. Eldritcher (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering how many times I have see that issue about space, why not just split the article and leave the important details on this page? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Split the article into...what? We don't do preferred versions around here. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he just means that some aspects of the controversy could be split into separate articles in order to cut down on the main article. You're reading too much into it. That said, I'm not sure if the aspects are noteworthy enough on their own. The only one that I could imagine being split is the very case of "Operation Disrespectful Nod" and even then I'm on the edge. Eldritcher (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there is no sub parts of the controversy that could be logically split off and significantly reduce article length. I really don't think there is a way to split this. H a l f   Hat  16:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that some time has passed, I kind of regret my suggestion though I do believe that something needs to be done in relation to the size issue that comes up every few days. To clarify my question, what I meant was that we have an article with only the important details for the reader with a second article with an expanded focus on the details of the topic.  (To be honest, I believe that I might have jumbled up how two articles with related events work together with an article with a separate article on an event related to the first.)  After hearing what was said and what I believe, I realized what I am asking might be closer to an addendum than two split articles.  Having reread Splitting and Article size, I feel like the article needs a split and that we cannot do a split at this time since we lack enough details.  Still, thanks for the replies and sorry for the confusion.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what needs done is to cut out a lot of the "Such and such said (s)he thought". However one of the problems here is people will start accusing you of POV pushing, well especially someone like me who's pretty involved and been accused of being an SPA. Maybe we should ask for uninvolved editors to come in and suggest what should be cut. H a l f   Hat  08:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there might be issues with how to bring uninvolved editors in, but I would say that it is a very good option. Would it need to be done through an RfC?  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

New Guardian article
. More useful probably on Quinn's page, but a couple things I see from this is 1) it notes that there was already resentment by some GG people against selected devs and journalists prior to Gjoni's post, and thus the controversy fed partially on that, and 2) it talks that the use of intimidation tactics has caused many gaming sites to go silent on GG matters, which in turn Quinn feels is harmful since it has made her feel like a solitary entity fighting against GG. There's some other points but it does have a good accurate timeline of the core events too. --M ASEM (t) 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to make a protected edit request to add that to a further reading section along with the History of Gamergate piece I suggested above.


 * Keith Stuart, "Zoe Quinn: 'All Gamergate has done is ruin people's lives,;" The Guardian, Dec. 3, 2014.

Thanks, Carrite (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to include this on the main page while it is incorporated into the draft, as it is the currently best back-looking summary of GG that I've seen. --M ASEM (t) 16:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could add in andto source some facts/add new ones, I don't think the article needs any more opinion though. H a l f   Hat  16:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would definitely use it to get updated opinions directly from Quinn (replacing her older ones), which have more time to reflect on events. EG the aspect of the silence of the VG sites towards GG as to help her defend herself is a relatively new thing. --M ASEM (t) 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Organizing Boycott Against Wrong Store
New source, guaranteed misogyny free: Gamergate is urging a boycott against the wrong store. Remember, it's about ethics. ReynTime (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This looks like a simple mistake, Not many people (including myself) know that target is licensed in Australia. Please dont use a derisive tone when suggesting article contents; it shows a lack of interest in neutrality. Retartist (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a "simple mistake" with verifiable real-world effects of significance (protests against and calls for boycotts against major retailers who have done nothing objectionable.) It's a good example how Gamergate's lack of accountability and central control magnifies the damage the "movement" is capable of doing. ReynTime (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's even close to a reliable source. And cut out the forum stuff. H a l f   Hat  09:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What are your reasons for not considering it reliable? It's only reporting what clearly happened -- you can see the Gamergaters targeting the wrong store yourself by looking at Twitter if you need confirmation that this is a factual occurence. ReynTime (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For context, previous discussions on WP:RSN are here and here. I think it's a pretty borderline source, but even if it was unimpeachable, I wouldn't use this article because this is a minor event in the controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's not very important. I thought it was relevant in terms of showing the problems with running a "movement" primarily via Twitter mobs without any central oversight. ReynTime (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oxford University's Anders Sandberg examines Gamergate
Anders Sandberg, a research fellow at Oxford University, has penned a piece examining the implications of Gamergate for cultural discourse, declaring that "rarely have a debate flared up so quickly, involved so many, and generated so much vituperation. If this is the future of broad debates our civilization is doomed." Useful analysis here in terms of how Gamergate's "Chan culture" mob mentality destroyed its credibility before it ever even had a chance to gain it, because that "Chan culture" has radically different cultural norms than mainstream society — which explains why Gamergate supporters are surprised that nobody else supports them and why basically everyone outside Gamergate is horrified at what they're doing. According to Sandberg, it's the result of "Chan culture" meeting the real world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While an interesting read, I'm not sure how relevant it is, to me it seems better placed on an article about imageboards or internet culture. H a l f   Hat  21:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An analysis by an ethics scholar at a very highly regarded educational institution is very relevant to this, as he speaks about how the controversy took the shape and style that it did. This is an excellent analysis and should definitely be included. ReynTime (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But most of it just talks about interaction on imagesboards, I made a suggestion to include it there, we can't explain every intricacy at every level in one article. H a l f   Hat  08:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * it mostly talks about gamergate as a prime example of a non organized "movement" from an overall impact on the world perspective and is the type of contextual analysis that we should be moving towards and will continue to be moving towards as more academic coverage begins to be published instead of simply news coverage. if gamergaters think the article and coverage of them now paints them in a bad light, they are going to be shitting bricks and Volkswagens once the academic presses start spitting out their coverage.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's include Greg Lisby, too, while we're at it, a lawyer who focuses on journalistic ethics, who points out that video games writers are largely unethical. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular written work or interview by him that we could review for potential inclusion? Appears to be a professor at a major university, so I'd say his viewpoint is likely relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Twitter report tools
I just removed the sentence from the draft article as I don't think it's supported by the text of the article. If someone has a source for that let me know, it may be a case where someone cited the wrong source, or I'm just missing something. If we can't find any source for it I'll probably put a protected edit request in to remove it from the main article.

The whole paragraph about twitter could probably be re-written shortly as Twitter just announced new report tools and I would expect we'll see quite a few articles about it referencing Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Gamergate has already been referenced rather slyly by Twitter itself in the blog announcing this tool: Link. The harassing user being reported in the demo video is represented by a picture of an alligator. This is unlikely to be accidental. ReynTime (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem unlikely at all, and not what is being asked for. H a l f   Hat  14:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's supportive of the interpretation that the true long-term notability of Gamergate will have nothing to do with "ethics in game journalism" but rather with the evolutionary response of social media to the way that the Gamergate movement is utilizing and abusing those tools. The Twitter blog is evidence that this evolution is being driven primarily by Gamergate, as acknowledged by Twitter themselves, which is why I brought it up and linked it. If a few more RSes chime in on this we might want to expand this section of the article and trim some other parts that are much less notable to make room. (I know WP:NOTPAPER but I think this article really is too long to be effective.) ReynTime (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ars Tech and NYTimes mention the chance in light of GG, but note that the service has come under a lot of fire in the page due to lack of tools. We can't say for certain the tools were made because of GG, but in the light of GG, the introduction of the tools has been seen extremely timely. --M ASEM (t) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you find who added it to ask them? H a l f   Hat  14:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Wikiblame to the rescue. Looks like added it. — Strongjam (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I was simply suggesting asking them incase they knew the source intended if it was miss-sourced. H a l f   Hat  15:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. WikiBlame is how I found it was Masem who added it. He's active here so I thought pinging him would be enough. — Strongjam (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've never heard of that tool, I thought you were accusing me of something. H a l f   Hat  15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)I think I added that and that's from the original article, and there was a source for that at the time, but looks like it has been lost/replaced/whatever since. This is a source for that statement, but I could have sworn one of Auerbach's pieces also had it too. --M ASEM (t) 15:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Archive of the BW article looks to be unchanged. May have been just a mistaken attribution of Wu as a GG supporter? I'll poke around on Google news to see if any of the Auerbach pieces (or maybe Kain?) mention it. — Strongjam (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just know when I added it I had a source included for it, I just don't know what happened to it since. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It might have been this WaPo blog article that since been removed. Current version does talk about GG supporters reporting harassment, but not the twitter tools for doing so. May have been updated, I can't check in the wayback machine because of their robots.txt. I think we could cite this article and re-work the sentence a bit and be fine. If anyone can find a better source ping me. — Strongjam (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A few more references regarding Twitter in the light of GG (the first two focusing specifically on Randi Harper's blocking tool):

The Globe and Mail

Newsweek

Tech News World

kencf0618 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Daily Caller
Calls into question a lot of others' characterisations of Gamergate's supposed victims, and the characterisation of Gamergate itself. Points out that Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu have been targeted not because they're women, but because they're.

Willhesucceed (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You need a link here to the actual article before it can even be considered. ReynTime (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller is a right-wing house organ, and at best anything from its pages can be viewed as a highly-partisan opinion. Furthermore, your statement presents the claim that those three people are "dishonest" as fact, which is not supported by anything presented here. I request that you either support your statement or redact it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I found the article and it's an opinion piece that says Zoe Quinn deserves to be harassed because she cheated on Eron Gjoni. This does not seem in any way reliable or useful in building the article. ReynTime (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm shocked. Gamergate is about "ethics in video game journalism," for values of "ethics in video game journalism" that equal "let's slut-shame Zoe Quinn." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, in no uncertain terms, it points out that harassment is wrong. Are you sure you should be involved in this article,, if you're misrepresenting articles so egregiously? Willhesucceed (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Has there been any discussion before on using it as a source? Something having rightwing viewpoints doesn't stop it from being an RS anymore than something having leftwing viewpoints. H a l f   Hat  08:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The statements of the two users above me are ridiculous. This is an article which wrote ReynTime can't distinguish between "Zoe Quinn deserves to be harassed because she cheated on Eron Gjoni" and "Zoe Quinn was harassed because she cheated on Eron Gjoni". North clearly hasn't even seen the article, because it's talking about how GamerGate is about . Yeah.  starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to explain what's "ridiculous" about noting that initiating a vast campaign of Internet harassment because someone had sex with someone else a) is the opposite of ethics and b) has nothing to do with video game journalism, which the movement has strenuously and vehemently claimed to be all about for the past three months. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoted from the article. starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Eron Gjoni might have reason to get angry at Zoe Quinn. I'm not aware that that justifies or even provides a rational reason for a whole bunch of random people on the Internet to get angry at her, other than the pile-on-mob mentality common in Chan culture. Moreover, is that an admission that the 'ethics in gaming journalism" line is truly a complete lie, and that it is and always has been about an Internet mob slut-shaming Zoe Quinn? That doesn't even begin to touch on Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian, for whom his "case" that they are "dishonest" is, at best, flimsy ginned-up out-of-context bullshit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again,  Also, what's this about an "admission"? You think the writer is some spokesperson for GamerGate, affirming your strongly-held belief that "the 'ethics in gaming journalism" line is truly a complete lie"?  starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, a question which he effectively answers in the affirmative. The author is arguing that it is reasonable for thousands of random people on the Internet to be angry at Zoe Quinn - a private person whom they have never interacted with - because of her sexual relationships. Congratulations, you've demonstrated what Gamergate is really about - angry anonymous Internet mobs slut-shaming a woman. QED. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * People can get angry at whatever they want. I was angry with Tiger Woods because of his sexual relationships - likewise a person who I have never interacted with. Before you claim "private person!" Quinn on YouTube: I jammed a frickin huge needle in my hand in order to shoot a microchip into it - and is featured on Kotaku for doing exactly that. starship  .paint   ~ regal  01:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can get angry at whatever they want. Nobody else has to consider that anger reasonable, purposeful or meaningful. Getting angry at someone you don't know because they allegedly cheated on someone else you don't know is not reasonable, not purposeful and not meaningful. It's petty tabloid soap opera drama bullshit of no societal value, and when it spills over into large-scale real-life harassment of the target, it becomes actively malicious. Which is why Gamergate tried to paper over its malice with the sanctimonious "ethics in gaming journalism" facade that lasted all of about five seconds under any sort of scrutiny. It's interesting to see that scab being ripped off, and someone actually trying to defend Gamergate for what it really is. At least the author's honest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see ReynTime has hopped over to the Enforcement page to report Willhesucceed after clearly baiting Willhesucceed to post the link. Hmm? starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A quote without sourcing can't be included. If Willhesucceed wants the article to be considered he needs to actually link the article so it can be evaluated, not just quote it without attribution. ReynTime (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given how you reported Avono, my suspicions was that you did not want the article to be "evaluated", rather, you wanted to report him. Obviously, my suspicions were proven true because you did exactly that. This has resulted in a chilling effect, IMO.  starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't use unsourced quotes. You might want to refresh yourself on the basics of what an encyclopedia is and how it is created. If Willhesucceed's article was not suitable for WP as a whole, cutting out two sentences from the article and presenting them without attribution isn't going to make it any more suitable. ReynTime (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I never advocated for using unsourced quotes. Funny how a less than two-weeks old account is already lecturing others on the "basics of what an encyclopedia is". starship  .paint   ~ regal  01:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Back to the subject at hand, I oppose inclusion of this opinion, as it's a marginal, highly-partisan source of an even lower quality than BuzzFeed, Gawker, etc. which we collectively agreed to exclude from the article quite awhile ago. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think we're doing Gamergate a favor by excluding this, because it literally makes the case for Gamergate's opponents that the movement has nothing to do with ethics in gaming journalism and everything to do with slut-shaming a woman and harassing two other women who came to her defense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose inclusion. We're supposed to be improving the quality of the sourcing, not adding in fringe crap. Artw (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently no one here knows how to use Google? http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/04/what-gamergates-critics-get-right-and-why-it-doesnt-matter-ethics/2/ Your report is pointless, by the way, person-who-reported-me. The article links to evidence for all its assertions. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick note: The article linked above is an opinion piece and does not pass WP:RS or WP:BLP. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It does link to some primary sources, however, and those might possibly be suitable if they make sense in context (being careful to avoid WP:SYNTH. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces can be reliable sources if they are published in a professional publication with fact-checking and editorial review and if it is written by a professional journalist. Mytheos Holt has significant experience in journalism in reputable publications, while The Daily Caller is run by long-time journalist Tucker Carlson and has a decent-sized editorial staff. I see no issues presented about this other than bias, which is true of a large number of sources currently in the article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. I should have phrased it better: The link is an opinion piece and it also does not conform to our policies. Judging by the discussion i've seen on |RSN, it is not reliable enough to source controversial facts about living persons. A quick look at their homepage and their dubious history confirms that they play fast and loose with the facts where it can get them pageviews, and we cannot have that here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 05:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's definitely things in the DC article that are BLP issues if we only rested those claims on this article (or more specifically, the lack of a much stronger source making them), but they are not grossly violating ala the student paper from the other day (as TDA points out, with editorial control, they know exactly what they've got in there in, and whatever legal hot water they are willing to get into. And it is a primarily opinion piece which we are trying to cut down on too (both ways). I didn't see anything on first read through to immediately include but if other sources eventually corrobate on it, it might be worth while, but not yet. --M ASEM (t) 06:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All I see are a bunch of discussions where opinion is split by partisan affiliation. Basically every major outlet has made glaring errors or oversights in their reporting and failed to own up to them, if such errors or oversights are even noticed. The situation is actually the same with Breitbart in that most of the issues are common issues with news outlets. I do tire of this game where editors who disagree with a piece try to dismiss the source as unreliable without any serious evidence.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with the above and second the call for serious evidence against Breitbart before its exclusion can be contemplated.Bramble window (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue with Breitbart is that as a whole, any piece by that website is considered problematic due to them playing a cry-wolf game too many times; there are probably legit pieces among the rest but it's far too difficult to make the distinction. On the other hand, with this Daily Caller source, it's not that DC is unreliable, simply that this piece here is more opinion (as well as a bit into rumor mongering) that given the sensitivity of the rest of the information, it should be avoided. (But I do note this has to swing both ways, weak sources stating primarily opinions/rumors against GG should also be avoided). --M ASEM (t) 14:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are distinctly higher barriers for content about actual living people and assessment of internet culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly link to policy documents that specify higher barriers for "assessment of internet culture".Bramble window (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry, that was unclear: There are distinctly higher barriers for content about actual living people than for assessment of internet culture.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion the consensus seems to be use it for uncontroversial facts, but preferably use less biased sources, and it can be used for opinions. Unless other pieces start to share opinions here I'd not include it. H a l f   Hat  09:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so fast there! Count me as steadfast against what you call the consensus. I strongly support the insertion of references and links to that article in the interest of correcting the extreme anti-GG bias of the WP article.Bramble window (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your position is noted, but doesnt actually hold any water. We follow the majority of reliable sources and the DC fails both points. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence against DC to show they lack editorial oversight on journalistic contributions? All news stories posted to date on GG show a major partisan bias, and it would be surprising to see DC be an exception. Please do not claim a consensus that DC is unreliable. I do not condemn before I see good evidence.Bramble window (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * as linked above |RSN -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen people starting to use this strategy where they fail to link to a decisive conclusion regarding a source being reliable or not and simply link to the search results for RSN. Usually, when I see this tactic employed, the discussions show inconclusive results where opinion was divided and that appears to be the case here as well. Can you point to any discussion with a clear and persuasive consensus that The Daily Caller should be regarded as unreliable?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the results are so divided, as they are in this case, coupled with even the briefest of glances at The Daily Caller, its easy to see that they absolutely should not be used to source information about living people. WP:BLP explicitly states "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Daily Caller clearly doesn't meet the high quality standards that BLP requires.
 * Who posted the above? Also, what about the fact that a source might make reference to non-identifiable living people. For instance, a report on an election might state "the candidate received 400 votes". Now those voters are living people, but the statement doesn't put WP in legal jeopardy because they cannot sue WP. That's why there's special rules for living people: dead people can't sue. But do you know who else cannot sue? People who are not named or otherwise clearly identified in an article. It follows that there's no need to be nitpicky about BLP when the source document preserves the anonymity of the living person involved. And what if we quote the source document without mentioning any details that could be used to identify the individual? WP is, AFAIK, completely safe legally as long as the person's identity is not revealed by WP. Bramble window (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We can use it as a source for other claims. I mean if we are going to cite Liana Kerzner's work at MetalEater, I think it is acceptable to include a piece by Mytheos Holt from The Daily Caller. The latter is undeniably a much stronger source than the former, probably a stronger source than various other sources currently in use on this article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, last month the Republican party dominated the US elections and now constitutes the majority/dominant party in both houses of the US congress and in most state houses. Therefore, a news site which claims to be speaking on their behalf is actually representing the majority opinion of current US political thought.  We would definitely want to have such an opinion included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede improvement
Moved from the Gamergate ArbCom thing for a chance for a productive discussion. DHeyward believes that the first paragraph of the article unduly concludes "that a fringe position is the dominant cultural view of gaming," and while I don't quite see how he's reading that, I think I feel what he's getting at, and if we can make things clearer, we should. I'll not put words in his mouth and will let DHeyward explain in more detail if he so chooses (and I hope he will). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence is "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture." The premise outlined in the ArbCom case by NBSB is that gamergater supporters are a small, fringe element (If the article does not make clear that "Gamergate" does not represent all gamers (rather, it is a small fringe within the community), then I agree with you that we should make that distinction clearer.. I believe that was accurate.  The opening line attributes it to "video game culture" in general.  It says "the  movement is rooted in a culture war against women."  I do not know how the view that gamergate is a fringe element is juxtaposed against the wider community without any of the fringe coverage rules.  If it's fringe, why aren't we using WP:FRINGE as the guideline and balancing the fringe gamergate harassment?  Why don't we say that a "small, fringe minority of gamergate supporters engaged in harassment and misogyny."  My counter example was 9/11 hijackers and Islam.  Coverage at the time was not lacking in the religious identification of the terrorists.  However, I hope we would recognize that they were fringe and treat their form of religious observance as generally unrelated to Islam as it is a fringe expression.  It would be quite offensive to use a specific terrorist attack as a springboard to a more general discussion about Islam.  Either the article is about the fringe harassment campaign, in which case the fringe aspect is missing.   Or it's a mainstream article on video game culture, in which case the fringe harassment shouldn't be the prominent lead-in sentence.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Perhaps other editors could comment also, as well as a reply from North. starship  .paint   ~ regal  09:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yeah, actually, I see what you're saying here, and I think I get where the confusion is coming from. It's definitely true that the really severe harassment/misogyny comes from a fringe element, but the entire movement is seen as being tainted by an inability or unwillingness to repudiate or move beyond that misogynistic harassment, and that became a springboard for reliable sources to discuss broader issues of sexism in video gaming, which are viewed as longstanding problems in a wide part of the community (so much so that we have an article about it). In fact, why don't we just straight-up go with that? "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and resulted in widespread debate about issues of sexism in video gaming." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * North, could you clarify, you are proposing that change to the first sentence, and no changes to the second sentence? starship  .paint   ~ regal  10:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. I think the second sentence adequately sums up what each side claims. Stating the mainstream argument that Gamergate is "a culture war against women" is more or less properly repeating the argument that it's misogynist but in perhaps a less inflammatory way, and we use "misogyny" a bunch in the second paragraph so much so that I think the point is well and truly made at any rate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This goes back to a point I made a few months ago, that at the core, there are actually two controversies that are named Gamergate, but which once is dominate depends on who you ask: there is the controversy as it exists from the GG side, in which they believe there's ethics issues in journalism and want to correct that, but with the fact that harassment has occurred and tainted their message; and there is the much more predominate controversy over the movement itself (not the issues it raises) by the press about the use of harassment and threats to try to affect journalism or even just to silence opponents. The article does not presently do a good job making this distinction. As I've suggested before, we should piece the central topic - which controversy is key - and write the article to clearly make sure it is understand that the presentation of details is towards that controversy.
 * It would seem obvious per COMMONNAME that this article should be about the "controversy over the Gamergate movement", in which case saying that controversy is about sexism and misogyny is correct. While it would be more impartial to frame the article as the "controversy from the Gamergate side" or as the "Gamergate movement" (in which we would start with establishing their FRINGE position before moving onto the harassment issues and strong criticism against it), that's going to be a lot more difficult to write towards without it being too much of a soapbox for GG particularly due to the lack of sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that, as far as I can tell none of the RS that have covered this subject are saying that there are two controversies, and it is the RS on any subject that then informs the page and its contents. Whilst I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that there are two controversies going under the name 'Gamergate', unless this can be backed up using RS then it remains WP:OR and, I'm afraid to say, unable to used in Wikipedia.
 * Yes, many the RS used in the article do state that the stated objectives and claims of Gamergate supporters are x; however, given that x has already been included in the article (and there isn't enough evidence from RS to spin off x into a new page), I do not see how trying to create two separate pages on the Gamergate controversy can achieve anything, except maybe accidentally remove or silence the requisite balance already included in the page.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is more the analysis and a mindset from our side as WP editors as to how we write the article in a manner that makes it clear what the topic is. Right now, much of the problem is that proGG side come in expecting to read about their controversy, and see instead the article based on the opinion, because the lead does not make that clear. If said, first sentence "GG is a controversy surrounding actions of the Gamergate movement that involved issues of sexism and misogyny" (not that exact wording but just highlighting the distinctions), then the angle that we're talking to write about the article would be crystal clear, and would help structure the article better (identifying what we can of GG movement's fringe view as to then proceeed into the massive amount of criticism and condemnation it has garnered). And no, absolutely not suggesting two pages; the two controversies are forever attached to each other so separation makes no sense in addition to sourcing issues. --M ASEM  (t) 18:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of our article is not to make everyone who visits it happy; I daresay there are plenty of articles here that make visitors unhappy. But I think that if we go by the reliable sources it's clear that Gamergate's notability comes primarily from harassment, which means it should be the main focus of our article -- outside of the harassment, it's just a few thousand people shouting at each other on Twitter and 8chan, so it's hardly surprising that that has no coverage.  I think that there's also disagreements over what constitutes "harassment" -- my impression is that most of the reliable sources discussing harassment in the article include things like spreading debunked rumors about people in order to destroy their reputation, or having huge mobs of people constantly focus waves of tweets on people who have earned GG's ire for one reason or another.  If you include that, I think it's reasonable to say that the majority of GG is about harassment, at least in the sense that that's most of what the hashtag is used for...  and this is why there's so many reliable sources characterizing it that way.  People within Gamergate (the people who, as you're saying, come to this article and are unhappy because they feel it portrays them in a negative light) would probably argue that those things aren't harassment -- that the accusations are true, that they're just talking to those people, that having a bunch of people insulting you on Twitter when you offend them is just a normal part of being on the internet, etc -- but we have to go by what the reliable sources say, and they characterize the majority of what's done under the #Gamergate tag as harassment, not just a small minority.


 * More importantly, maybe, my impression (and what I think most of the more reliable sources say) is that the second goal -- the ethics goal -- is primarily about a culture war against so-called SJWs and feminism in particular (what was once called "political correctness", too, although that terms seems to have mostly fallen out of use). If you read the RSes in the article that have taken the time to read and analyze the various Gamergate manifestos and focus on the reddit and forums where they congregate, it's reasonably clear that that what Gamergate means when they say "corruption" in gaming is, usually, "feminists and SJWs advancing their wicked agenda", with the movement as a whole being marked by a total fixation on anything it can use as a line of attack against those ideological enemies, and near-total disinterest in anything that doesn't involve attacking them.  Again, it's more an argument over definitions than a focus on different parts of the movement -- people within Gamergate feel that its primary targets have committed major ethical breaches, while most of the sources from outside it feel that they haven't and that Gamergate is targeting them for ideological reasons.  (And, of course, this ties back into the first point, in that when commentators dismiss the ethical breaches Gamergate is fixated on as clearly trivial-to-nonexistent, that means that constantly trying to use them to attack the reputation of individuals becomes, at least in the eyes of the media, a form of harassment.)


 * Obviously any movement covers a diverse range of people with many different goals, but I think that if we go by the more reliable sources GG's two threads are harassment and *culture war*, not harassment and ethics. And these two goals are much more tightly connected than you're suggesting, since again, it's the harassment that has given them notability and has elevated their culture war to public attention. Most of the unhappy Gamergate people you allude to would probably define their role as "defending" in this culture war rather than attacking, but I suspect that even the majority of people affiliated with it wouldn't disagree with an assessment saying that they're focused on confronting feminists and SJWs who keep unethically by bringing their ideology into games and game reviews -- most of the Gamergate sources we have in the article seem to be saying that, and it's the assessment of every journalist who has gone into the main GG subreddits and forums.  I even think that most people in GG would agree that Gamergate itself is generally focused on doing many of the things that our reliable sources are lumping under harassment, as long as it's not described as harassment -- confronting their enemies on Twitter, attacking the reputations of a few specific journalists and developers, etc.  So the debate is not really over "which part" of Gamergate to focus on, as it is over how to characterize its actions and views. Now obviously movements are broad and have lot of people, and I'm sure that there are people who think of themselves as a part of Gamergate and who aren't obsessed with SJWs and feminists and who don't participate in even the broadly-defined sort of "harassment" I outlined above...  but we need to cover what the reliable sources say, and they're nearly unanimous that Gamergate is a movement based around using harassment by that definition and that it is not concerned with ethics beyond the extremely narrow so-called "anti-politics-in-gaming" scope necessary to fight back against what they see as their political enemies.  I think part of the issue is a culture-clash between 4chan / 8chan culture and the rest of the world, where what 4chan sees as harassment is very very different from what the NYT sees as harassment.  But I'm not sure how many sources have focused on that particular angle. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "And no, absolutely not suggesting two pages; the two controversies are forever attached to each other so separation makes no sense in addition to sourcing issues." Sorry about that, for some reason my brain read your post as suggesting two separate pages. I blame a combination of flu and chemo for my reading failure.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Beautifully put, Aquillion. Hustlecat do it! 18:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse everything Aquillion said above, and there's no need for me to try and repeat this excellent summation of the issue. There is a reason that reliable sources have dismissed the "ethics in gaming journalism" line, and it is not that every reliable source is part of a vast, insidious conspiracy against Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing here is that do we absolutely need to say "harassment and misogyny" in the first sentence when it can be stated in the second (or a third) sentence of the lead without losing any other context/weight/etc? Because it is a debatable issue between the key party (the proGG side) and the way the press reports, stating that issue in the very first sentences sets a tone that is unencyclopedic. Waiting for one more sentence, or even adding a third to read better, doesn't change the weight, doesn't change the predominate viewpoint, but simply makes the article less aggressive from the start and puts use in a neutral stance on the matter.
 * Eg Everything is still there, it sets the stage for the rest of the article, but it avoids us (WP) from stating in WP's voice what the controversy is about, but atttributing it to the proper groups in the second and third sentences. --M ASEM  (t) 19:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We do need to reference sexism in the first sentence, because that is what the public controversy is about. That is essentially the only thing that non-GG reliable sources have examined. So I would modify your proposal thusly: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd drop the "overwhelming majority of" bit. We don't need that many descriptors, and inevitably someone will drive-by tag it as . — Strongjam (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "the majority" can easily be defended, but "overwhelming" is unnecessary. Tweaked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of "sexism in video games" how about "gender issues in video games" (same link otherwise). Consider the proGG disagre about what they see as a strong push of feminist ideals into the vg culture. That's not so much sexism but it is a gender issue. Note that I am agreeing that something that is common to the whole issue that both sides have touched on is reasonable to include in the first sentence, and it's not that "sexism" is not appropriate but I think there's a more precise phrase we can use. --M ASEM (t) 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole introductory section of our article discusses the background of the controversy, which is that the gaming community has long been viewed as having issues with sexist behaviors, tropes, etc. If we go all the way back to one of the very first reliable sources to examine Gamergate, The Washington Post reported that Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.” I think "sexism in video games" is a fair and well-sourced descriptor for the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable then. As noted, it's not that "sexism in video games" (or perhaps "sexism in the video game industry") is wrong, but it is probably the best word that covers all fundamental issues. --M ASEM (t) 19:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Gamergate has never been about sexism in gaming. That discussion has been going on for years. Gamergate is different because it started from slut-shaming and harassment of real life people about real-life events. Once you go beyond that, into sexism (or violence) in video games, it's no longer GG but a rabbit hole of history and a much larger social issue than gaming culture. The big names that have made GG mainstream issues are not gamers and their position cannot be attributed to gaming culture. Sommers and Baldwin, for instance are not representative of gaming culture. --DHeyward (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources disagree with your opening sentence. Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls: Inside the dark world of video games (The Telegraph), Gamergate might be gaming sexism's Waterloo (The Week), Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign (The New York Times), The Gaming Industry's Greatest Adversary Is Just Getting Started (BusinessWeek), Online culture war prompts mass shooting threat (CBS News), What Is #GamerGate and Why Are Women Being Threatened About Video Games? (Time), etc. etc. etc. The conclusion of reliable sources is that Gamergate has torn off the scab covering up a sexist undercurrent in video game culture. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly the opposite. They acknowledge sexism has been an ongoing discussion for years and that this incident is defined by specific harassment from a small number of trolls. Sexism in gaming is background material for that, not lead material. --DHeyward (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's precisely the point. Here, have another: GamerGate: facing misogyny in the video game world (Australian Broadcasting Corporation News): If you live with somebody who likes to play video games - and millions of adults do - you won't have escaped hearing about Gamergate. It's rocked the hundred billion-dollar video gaming industry with allegations of sexism and misogyny. It started with an allegation against a female gamer of sexual favours for good reviews and quickly turned into an all-out culture war. The public debate about Gamergate is about sexism and misogyny in the video gaming industry/community, full stop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the bigger point by focusing about "ethics in journalism." That is not what we contrast in the opening sentence. We juxtapose harassment and misogyny by one fringe element of gamergate supporters against gaming culture as a whole. Is harassment and misogyny a fringe position or is it the mainstream position of gaming culture? If it's fringe, then we need to say it's fringe. The ethics argument might represent a large portion of gamergate supporters and can be juxtaposed against the smaller fringe element of harassers. But the real problem is the juxtaposition of harassers within the gaming community overall which is how we are framing the article. I think it shows that "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture." is simply wrong as "misogyny and harassment" is a fringe viewpoint in video game culture (so is "ethics in journalism"). That doesn't dismiss the harassment and misogyny occured just as an "ISIS suicide bomber" is a fringe expression if Islam. We wouldn't ever leap to news sources that link the religion of a billion people to a suicide bomber even though "Islamic State" is in every single reliable source. It's fringe and fringe says to be very careful in using news sources for recentism events. The false balance that gets repeated is the harassment and misogyny are more prominent that ethics in journalism so it's okay to label the entire culture. As it's fringe, the opening sentence could easily read "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and has been largely defined by a small, fringe group that harassed specific game developers and journalists." --DHeyward (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Misogyny and harassment" is not a fringe position; it is the core of Gamergate, a fact which is supported by reliable sources. The lead cannot move away from that, if it is to be an introduction to the reader as to what the subject matter is. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whose core position is "misogyny and harassment?" I missed that part.  Is it just the fringe group of of harassers?  Everything above says it's a fringe group that holds those views.  If so, then GG is about a fringe group, not video game culture.  If not, then it shouldn't be the lead sentence that links gaming culture to misogyny and harassment. --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It may not be the core position of any particular person you ask, but it is certainly the core of the events that have transpired (per RSes) and the core of what has made Gamergate notable in the first place (again per RSes). Hustlecat do it! 19:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal for consensus-gathering
OK, here's what I formally propose:

The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture. While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture. Some Gamergate supporters are widely viewed as responsible for ongoing harassment and threats, targeting primarily women in the video game industry. These attacks have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic by media, video gaming academics, industry and community figures.

This addresses DHeyward's concern — one which I believe is fair — that the current version does not properly attribute the "misogyny" and "harassment" aspects directly to the movement, and instead appears to apply it to video gaming culture as a whole. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "broadly condemned by the mass media as..." (and possibly "ongoing harassment") but I feel that's an improvement without conceding away the majority viewpoint (keeping the right weight). --M ASEM (t) 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not wild about it, but it is acceptable so that we can move forward. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have precise wording, but I think it would be fair to indicate that the nature of the concerns about ethics in journalism revolve around treatment of sexism in video games. In other words, there's very little concern about mainstream game publishers influencing reviews in favor of traditional games with scantily clad babes; there is a lot of concern about an alleged force-feeding of anti-sexist ideology. Spit-balling here, maybe something like
 * "While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, these concerns revolve around a perception that feminist views are being imposed on reviews by writers and editors, and a search for malfeasance by publishers (such as Gawker Publications and Kotaku) that advocate for less sexism in games." Msalt (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Being imposed on reviews" by the very people who write reviews? I haven't seen any statement of any kind -- reputable or otherwise -- from a writer or an editor saying they were forced to change the wording of a review to make it more in line with "feminist views." Reviewers remarking on issues of sexism in games are doing so entirely of their own accord, as is their right as reviewers expressing their own sentiments. If you are suggesting that outside forces have been pressuring reviewers and editors into denouncing sexism in games when they would not choose to do so on their own, I would like to see sources for that. ReynTime (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what he's saying is that that's the allegation (silly as it is) that Gamergate is putting forth. I think this proposal gets too much into the weeds for the lede — let's just say what Gamergate supporters think, say that pretty much everyone else thinks something else and leave it at that. Details of what Gamergate believes about "ethics in gaming journalism" can be expounded upon in the body text. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I'd like a clarification. As I understand it, Gamergate's position (to the extent that there is a unified position on anything in this "movement") is that reviewers ought not to be allowed to discuss sexism in reviews. This was the reasoning behind their boycott of a particular Bayonetta 2 review. As in, a reviewer saying that he or she finds a game sexist should be redacted to remove that sentiment from the review -- in effect, a pro-censorship position.  The justification for this was that it was "unfair" to the game to mention sexist content and perhaps could negatively affect the developer bonuses to give them a lower review number due to sexism issues, because some companies have tied developer bonuses to a game's Metacritic score; thus, lowering a game's score due to finding it sexist is "unethical" because it unfairly reduces the devleper's income.  I have had great difficulty in following the logic behind this thinking but since Msalt is proposing adding it I thought he might be able to explain and source it. ReynTime (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposed lede looks okay to me. The only problem I have with it is that, as an opening paragraph, it feels a little clunky and its internal flow gets broken up in the second sentence.  Maybe:


 * The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture. The majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture, but many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism. The movement's targeting of primarily female individuals in the video game industry for harassment and threats has been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic.


 * as an alternative?--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The deeper mindset that I gather from reading proGG information is that they believe that they fear that there is a strong collusion by feminists and people that support them to drive the hard-core "gamer" out of video games and/or changing the demographic away from them; the things we do see like their request for disclosures or their demand for more "objective" reviews (eg leaving sexism or any other political/moral points out of it in favor of graphics and gameplay) are short-term steps towards exposing that. Some of the culture war stories we have sourced allude to this concern. Some of these concerns like the need to feed the MetaCritic beast is something they do share with journalists, but as well described, the tainting of GG by harassment is not helping in these legit aspects to be discussed in any manner. --M ASEM  (t) 00:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If this "formal proposal" by North will add in Masem's addition of "condemned by the mass media" - then I support. starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase "mass media" pigeonholes the criticism, though — there's been pretty broad condemnation of the harassment from figures not just in the media, but in academia, the video games industry and gaming culture — which goes toward DHeyward's point of ensuring we don't conflate the small minority with the broader majority. I'm not opposed to some phrasing there, but "mass media" is not broad enough. How about media, academics and video gaming figures? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO it is very natural for others in the gaming industry to condemn harassment of game developers. Pardon my ignorance but could you inform me which are the condemnations coming from academics? starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the whole DiGRA thing, for one. and . Others: , , etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, (I didn't listen to the Iowa one though and it's not condemned in words) the main problem I see is with "broadly condemned". I don't doubt that GamerGate is broadly condemned by those in the video games industry and the mass media, but would it be accurate to say that it is "broadly condemned" by academics? That would require many more examples. Perhaps if you cancel "broadly", then you can mention academics. starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would more say that we only have a couple data points so far from the academic side to say that is been condemned (if not broadly condemned), though that's not to say that this is likely the academics' position, simply a lack of sourcing for it. VG industry we can speak to, the mass media we can speak to, but we can't speak to academics. My only concern with adding a phrase of the type "by the mass media" is to make sure the "who" is addressed so they know exactly where to look in our article for sources to confirm, any clarification towards that point, I'm fine with. --M ASEM  (t) 00:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can keep finding more sources if need be., , , , , , etc. etc. How many would you like? Considering that the world of video gaming academia is not particularly huge, this is a significant cross-section. I don't think the statement should be particularly controversial — we can qualify by saying "gaming academics" if that narrows the field sufficiently. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah okay you can leave in "broadly", and go with "gaming academics". starship  .paint   ~ regal  01:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Two quick things: first wordsmithing to remove the doubly-close "and" as well as grouping things better: "...condemned by the video game industry and academics, the media, and community figures as...". Second is a bit of small correct " The movement's harassment and threats, which have..." - we don't have 100% connection of the movement to harassment, but we do know the harassment was done under the GG banner. So instead "Harassment and threats generated by users under the Gamergate hashtag/banner, which have..." might be better. --M ASEM  (t) 01:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And if that second piece is reasonable, we should be able able to add "Harassment and threats....are sexist and misogynistic, and has considered to have tainted and overshadowed the movement's concerns." or some wording to re-add about how this has harmed the image of the movement, as this is a key point in the article. --M ASEM (t) 01:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, I think if we go there, it's going to get way too much into the debate over "does Gamergate have legitimate concerns" which is a contentious discussion best left where it is, the third paragraph NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As much as it can be called a movement, the harassment has been attributed to it. That is, you can't enjoy the benefits of a single flag when you want them and, at the same time, deny collective responsibility when you don't want it. Proposing Gamergate supporters are widely viewed as responsible for ongoing harassment and threats, targeting primarily women in the video game industry. These attacks have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic by media, video gaming academics, industry and community figures. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with the point, but I'm not 100% sure that we can say "GG supporters are widely views as responsible for ..."; many sources, at least as I take them, know that the main body of GG users aren't likely doing the harassment, but their inability to stop it, condemn it, or distance themselves from it makes them complicit in some reporters' view. Others take the view that GG is directly responsible. We know that whomever did the harassing inferred via hashtagging or the like, no question there. So perhaps "Harassment and threats performed under the GG name..." and then don't add the second suggestion. It doesn't factually say the movement's at fault but neither clears them, nor begs the question of their ethics like you said. --M ASEM (t) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's from The New York Times. The NYT directly attributes the threats and harassment to supporters of Gamergate. We're not saying all supporters of Gamergate, but they are supporters of Gamergate. "Performed under the GG name" infers that the harassment isn't really aligned with Gamergate, and that's the precise opposite of what the sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed the font to not confuse with proposed wording. I think allied with a broader movement as per the New York Times is the whole point. Perhaps A portion of Gamergate supporters are widely viewed as responsible... etc. Actually there might be a small distinction between "allied with" and "is a part of" but I'm not too inclined to pursue that further. starship  .paint   ~ regal  03:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True enough, Starship; I've tweaked it to "some." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "some" for purposes of lead brevity. --M ASEM (t) 04:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We musnt get too far away from the analysis that the GG is purposefully maintaining a " 'plausible' deniability" organization strategy to maintain the visibility gained from the harassment while claiming that they cannot be held culpable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think "video game academics" exist do they (I think "social critics" might be better term)? Harassment has been condemned by virtually everyone. Sexism being condemned in the gaming industry would be done by social critics, certain journalists and named developers. Condemnation of sexism/tropes/male gaze has been much more limited to specific instances by much smaller critics (i.e. Sarkheesian is a social critic that highlights these issues) . The Blizzard CEO, for example, condemned harassment which was reported as a condemnation of GamerGate. He then introduced his next game containing trope/male gaze characters and nobody batted an eye. Again harassment is to GamerGate what Terrorism is to Islam.  The same people that stood up and applauded the Blizzard CEO for condemning harassment then bought/reviewed his trope/male gaze video game.  What gamers, developers and publishers didn't want to hear (and didn't as only only one or two journalists picked it up) was that they were misogynists for buying and/or playing the game. The article needs to be careful about attributing identities with actions. More careful than the press. It's very likely that harassers/misogynists support gamergate.  (ISIS terrorist are very likel islamic). Not nearly as incendiary as saying supporters of GamerGate are harassers/misogynists ("supporters of Islam are ISIS terrorists."). This is the pitfall of identity politics and flipping the equivalency is not okay (except for those that oppose both identities). --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, video game academics exist. Hence, y'know, Digital Games Research Association. The rest of your post is veering off into a different territory and I'd like to keep this thread on topic. You're right that Gamergate doesn't represent all gamers, and that's fair enough reason to tweak on the lede so that it doesn't suggest so. But Gamergate, the movement, is inextricably tied to misogynistic harassment and to pretend otherwise simply isn't in keeping with the clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then say DiGRA if you mean DiGRA and source it. I don't see any sources for "video game academics" existing outside that group and that statement is an appeal to authority argument without any RS's backing it up. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are presented above and in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Very plain and neutral, seems like an accurate reflection of the article and an improvement on the current one. I'd suggest linking video game culture though. H a l f   Hat  10:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I am satisfied with the tweaks made. In addition, I hope that the sources about academics are indeed in the article as North claims above. starship  .paint   ~ regal  00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some of those which I presented are currently in the article, and if it's unprotected I will be happy to add the others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps those sources about academics could be worked into the draft? starship  .paint   ~ regal  03:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we get some closure / consensus (approvals LOL) on this? /  - please read "00:56, 3 December 2014" /  /  /  /  /  - this solves your overwhelming issue  starship  .paint   ~ regal  12:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Although dropping 'overwhelming' is a step in the right direction, I do not agree that 'majority of commentators' is necessarily accurate. Commentators is too broad a term if we are only going to weigh people who win the reliable-sources-game when it comes to Wikipedia citations. I would accept "many commentators" or "majority of sources used on this article". Ranze (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Article focus: Is this WP article to be about the Gamergate group or the Gamergate controversy?
In reading the long discussions here and in other locations on WP such as the ArbCom pages, I’ve noticed that the editors on this article seem to have two conflicting ideas as to what this article is about. Some seem to believe the article is about describing a series of events that occurred in the video game industry in the fall of 2014. Some, by contrast, seem to believe that the article is about describing “Gamergaters”, the people behind the actions. We need to make a decision on what the focus is going to be as this will have a large bearing on what kind of statements we can appropriately make in the article itself.

For example, many new editors here and on the ArbCom pages appear to be very invested in describing the group of people calling themselves “Gamergaters.” They state that the article cannot refer to these people as “misogynistic” because that is passing a “moral judgment” on those people. (I disagree with this statement, incidentally, as I don’t believe this is an issue of moral judgment but simply one of description, but nevertheless that is what some editors are saying.) However, if the article is about the acts and not the people behind the acts, then obviously the acts themselves are clearly misogynistic and need to be stated as such in line with the RSes we have. And obviously it is immoral to send rape and death threats to industry figures, predominantly female, in an attempt to terrorize them out of the industry. I don’t think anyone can argue that that is moral behavior.

If the consensus is that the article is about the controversy and not the group, then these descriptions are required because there is no disagreement in the RSes about the awfulness of these actions. But if the article is to be about the group, it would need to be restructured, perhaps along the lines of the Anonymous (group) article, with a lede that we could, in fact, crib directly from that article and suitably adjust: Gamergate (used as a mass noun) is a loosely associated international network of entities organized primarily around Internet gathering areas such as Reddit and various anonymous image boards. It has been characterized by anonymous individuals claiming membership as being devoted to the cause of promoting ethics in game journalism. The group became known for a series of well-publicized harassment attacks on figures in the video game industry, predominantly women, pursued via Twitter, email, and other anonymous digital attack vectors. Then have a section to list the most notable attacks; the group's (short) history, genesis, and christening, to the extent that it is known; a section for analysis of the validity of the group's claims; and a section for the reaction of the world in general to the group.

Also, the talk page here has gotten derailed onto a strange discussion about the "fringe" of Gamergate. This discussion is only relevant if the article is actually to be about the group itself and not the controversy, and in that case, I don't see how this concept of “fringe Gamergate” has any validity given that Gamergate, by conscious design, has no center. It has no official leaders, no membership roll, no standards, no official agenda. To be a member of Gamergate, literally all you have to do is utilize a certain Twitter hashtag for a certain purpose. You can’t talk about the “fringe” of Gamergate any more than you can talk about the “fringe” of Anonymous. So let’s try to get a consensus here: Is this article just about what was done under the Gamergate hashtag and rubric, in which case editors need to stop complaining about entirely apt and sourced terms like misogynistic, or is this article about the loose anonymous group calling itself Gamergate, in which case it needs a thorough restructuring? I am not certain that the group itself is notable enough to get a page dedicated to describing it – certainly they have done nothing nearly as impactful as the actions of Anonymous. But if this page is about the controversy, the actions themselves, then editors should stop asserting that statements made about the actions equate to statements made about the group. ReynTime (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been using the term "fringe" to discuss the fact that Gamergate's claims clearly fall under Wikipedia's fringe theories guideline and in terms of making sure our article is clear that Gamergate is a fringe element within gaming culture, and doesn't represent even a significant minority of gamers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I was mostly referring to DHeyward's, Masem's, and starship.paint's posts about the Gamergate "fringe", as in "the core of Gamergate isn't doing that bad stuff, it's the fringe." I'm not contesting that Gamergate is a fringe viewpoint, which it clearly is. Only that you can't have a fringe unless you define the center, and Gamergate deliberately has no defined center. ReynTime (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that that to view the harassment as coming from a "fringe" within Gamergate is not supportable based on the reliable sources. It certainly isn't coming from everyone who supports Gamergate, but it's not a tiny minority either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually we do have sourcing in place already that says it's a vocal minority believed responsible for the harassment, or possibly even not from the same group (other users that just want to stir the pot). They don't remove the guilt by association for GG in general due to harassment. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which sources are those? Artw (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NPR, Slate. --M ASEM (t) 15:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the NPR article to support the "vocal minority" argument. The Auerbach opinion peice is just dumb. Artw (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're ever going to get perfect agreement on this issue, as it is largely subjective. The last two bits on this Brianna Wu story discuss this angle, basically... "Some Gamergaters say the harassers are just a vocal minority, but to the outside world there's no distinction between the ethics GG'er and the harasser GG'er."Tarc (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's rather weak sauce: "We may not be actually performing the harassment we've been encouraging, says maybe-representative of inherently untrustworthy group" - I would lean towards not including it. Artw (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is saying they are "encouraging" harassing, but the atmosphere they've created internally is one where harassment as an option to express discontent is not strongly condemned/discouraged, which is what the press sees. There are some trying to uncover the harassers but they haven't gotten a lot of press coverage beyond one or two pieces. --M ASEM (t) 15:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How can anyone at all know that the harassers of Gamergate are a "minority" when there's no membership count? In order to factually establish minority status someone would have to count all Gamergaters, then count the harassers, then determine what percentage that was. None of these numbers exists nor can possibly exist as long as Gamergate has no structure or organization. (No, membership on the subreddit doesn't count as real data.) Anyone saying that the harassers are a vocal minority is speaking from opinion and not from fact, so I don't see how WP can include any factual statement indicating how much of the nebulous cloud that is "Gamergate" engages in harassment. And that's even if you could agree on a definition of what behavior exactly crosses the line from simple obnoxiousness into harassment, which...good luck. All anyone can factually state is that the majority of the threats and harassment received by the victims in this mess was done under the banner of "Gamergate", mostly by direct use of the hashtag on Twitter, some via other communications (email, phone) where membership in Gamergate was claimed by the harassers. ReynTime (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources have used the subscriber count at reddit KIA's board to get a number, which a while ago (when reported) was at 10,000; and yes, the sources note this is the best estimate they got. There was also another data source that I'd have to find (and I don't think it was an high quality RS but an RS nevertheless) that put the number of very active proGGers at around 450 based on twitter messages (eg unique accounts using the #gg hashtag). But we have no reliable sources that affirms any self-identified member of the GG movement (the "ethics") stuff engaged in harassment.  It is very likely there are some, no doubt, but that's OR to say that. And we do have sources that say some members of the GG movement are trying to end/discover those that engaged in harassment, so we can't say every GG movement member is part of the harassment. The movement, as an entity (not a collection of people) is still called out as a environment that fosters the use of harassment to silence people they disagree with, but you can't pin that on any specific named person, nor to every person within it. --M ASEM  (t) 18:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When the harassment is largely conducted via anonymous social media, of course people who harass using it aren't going to identify themselves via their real names. That doesn't change the responsibility at all. It doesn't. Moreover, there is no separate "ethics stuff" and you cannot intimate that the "real" goal of Gamergate is "ethics in gaming journalism" because... yeah, that's not what the reliable sources say. At all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As my lengthy statement that started off this section shows, I don't think we can say anything at all about Gamergate as a group, or at least not anything more than we say about Anonymous: That they exist, that they have no structure or organization, that they operate via the Internet, and that the only way to define this group is by cataloging the things done under their name. Since this article is, as far as I can tell, intended to be about the events called the "Gamergate controversy" and not about the Gamergate group, we really shouldn't be saying much of anything at all about the group's composition if it's not backed up by solid reporting in the RSes. Membership in a subreddit is not useful data; many people have multiple Reddit accounts, and many people sub to subreddits just to be able to track the subreddit and not because they necessarily support the group or engage in its activities. None of the numbers regarding Gamergate are verifiable WP:V at all. I think we will make a lot more progress in getting this article into readable shape if we divorce the material that is actually verifiable through RSes from material that is all pure supposition and guesswork (How big the "Gamergate group" is, what percentage of it harasses, whether or not the people involved are misogynistic/immoral/noble warriors for truth, justice and ethics, et cetera and so on and so forth ad nauseum.) Our article should catalog the events of the controversy as reported in the RSes and not engage in identity politics or try to define the people involved in the Gamergate group for either good or ill. ReynTime (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can use the metrics that RS have identified to estimate their numbers, as long as we source/name the publication that does that, so that we're clear it's a rough estimation and absolutely not an official number. It gives a very ballpark figure what the size of the group is to the reader. --M ASEM (t) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, which metrics are you referring to specifically? The numbers you gave up above aren't sourced. ReynTime (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is ignorant to pretend that the GG side has not self-stated ethics claims just because the press keep going back to the "but ethics" issues. It doesn't matter if the claims are impossible to enact, are oxymorons like "objective reviews" or the like; some documentation of those self-stated claims have been made, and thus we should discuss them (We do, but we could do better organization to be more impartial within the context of a FRINGE viewpoint). We can also easily document the reason these claims are deemed silly by the press, as well as the fact that a large number of the press think any attempt to justify GG as an ethics front is really trying to mask the environment of harassment (which we have already too). The way I see to keep everything we have and without introducing any new material is simply to organize all the bits and pieces about "GG as an ethics movement" in to short 2-3 paragraph section, and then the rest of the article would primarily about the harassment events, and the critiicism of the "but ethics!"/ethics as a front for harassment that we have already. That would isolate the movement itself in a small section, relative to the weight of the rest of the article, and make it clear how the lines are drawn out in the press. --M ASEM  (t) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A section titled "Gamergate as an ethics movement" states, as fact, that they are an ethics movement, which is not supported by the reliably-sourced evidence. Rather, the idea that they're interested in ethics is a topic of significant debate and is generally rejected outside the movement, and we appropriately title the section accordingly. At best we have sources that say "well, there are some people in Gamergate who say they are interested in ethics," which doesn't permit us in the least to say that "Gamergate is an ethics movement." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence to say they are not an ethics movement, but that's also to say that there is also no evidence, beyond the group's claim, that they are an ethics movement as well. It is a clear predominate opinion that GG is not an ethics movement, and that's got to be presented as such. But it's not appropriate to ignore the sourcable-to-3rd-parties self-stated claims that the movement had made about itself; again. I wouldn't necessary call the section "GG as an ethics movement", I would simply call it the "GG movement" (as there is also a "consumer revolt" angle too that is self-stated that we can source), and make sure that within the discussion to note that much of the press have difficulty in accepting that a movement without a leader by mostly anonymous people could really be a movement. --M ASEM (t) 19:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We have been over this, and yes there are many sources which deny the attribution of "ethics movement" to gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, in that if there were a heading labeled "GG as an ethics movement", all we would have under it would be words to the effect of "GG says they are an ethics movement, but no one else in the world agrees with their definition of ethics; and also, even by their fringe definition of the word, they haven't actually accomplished anything of note," and a very long list of citations about how the "ethics!" talk is anything but credible. What else would go in there? Can any editor provide a single instance of any accomplishment by individuals acting on behalf of the Gamergate movement that advanced the cause of ethics, as the term is defined by the greater world? I'd really like to see it. ReynTime (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - the fact many gaming sites have started to include disclosure statements, one of the original ethics claims of GG. --M ASEM (t) 19:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources please? Which sites, what changes were made, how substantial, and does the site itself credit Gamergate for the change in a positive way? As I understand it, what actually happened was that these sites had existing policies already in place but merely acted to make those policies more visible. Does that count as a notable achievement for ethics? ReynTime (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if we grant that as an accomplishment, one barely-noted event three months ago cannot be said to define a movement which later went on to international media infamy for its penchant for mob harassment and death threats. We already discuss that event in our article... and it is the one and only example of anything meaningful which anyone can cite. Meanwhile, there is a veritable flurry of reliable sources right now discussing how Gamergate's harassment campaigns so disgusted the general public that Twitter has been forced to upgrade its blocking and reporting functions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many sources make the claim that GG is not an ethics movement, that's fine. They are not sources in a position of any authority to state as a fact that GG is not about ethics, since all they are going on is a pattern of behavior, not any actual analysis of the membership or the like. It's a predominate opinion, one that is properly reflected in the article, but we cannot treat is as fact when it comes to article organization or verbage. --M ASEM (t) 19:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, Gamergate doesn't have actual membership so you're asking for something that can't exist. Gamergate is intentionally leaderless, unorganized and anonymous. Such a "movement" cannot then logically complain about being analyzed as if they are leaderless, unorganized and anonymous — which means that their behavior is the only thing anyone can go by. Reliable sources have drawn a conclusion at this point, and you're in no position to rebut those sources by demanding impossible evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Intentionally leadership" citation needed. I'm sure that's a claim made by the press, but here's the problem - everyone is trying to assess the motivations of Gamergate based on behavior and not actually speaking to any specific person or persons or groups. The closest we got was the Boston Globe editor that spoke to KIA to try to get some information and came out with little solid. If the motivations were well documented, that would be the facts we can use to make all these claims, but there is no established motivation, which makes the press's statements all their opinions and conclusions, but at the same time wears away at any credibility that GG may have. We still must be neutral and impartial. It readily apparent that when you step away to look at the GG situation from the 60,000 ft level, without emotion or the like, that the press is making its fair share of reasonably conclusions based on the little evidence as provided, but that's only their conclusions, it does not make them true. We don't do that when the press calls out Westboro as a hate group or Scientology as a scam, we cannot do it here for GG with what is presently reported. --M ASEM  (t) 20:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation right here and right here. Chan culture disdains leaders, and leadership inevitably means identifiability and accountability, both of which Gamergate has studiously avoided.
 * We are neutral. We discuss the fact that Gamergate claims that it's about ethics. We also discuss the fact that literally everyone else thinks that's bullshit. That's "neutrality" in Wikipedia's sense. We are not required to give equal time, equal space or equal credence to all viewpoints. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, because of Gamergate's disdain for official organization, there is no one who is a position to give an official statement as to the group's motivations. This leaves outsiders to the group in the position of having to infer their motivation from their deeds, which the RSes have tried to do. This is entirely fair given that the group cannot expect to have the benefits of the lack of centralization (no one to be held accountable for the group's actions) without also having the downside, which is that there is literally no one who can make official statements about what the group is "really" about, who leads it, what behavior will and will not be tolerated by the membership, who is allowed to speak and act officially for the group, and so on.  Again, the group has deliberately set themselves up this way, to make it necessary to infer their motivations rather than just ask them for an official statement, and therefore this is an entirely fair way to approach the question of their motivations as a group. It's the only method they've allowed. ReynTime (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (to both) That's about the chan culture, and which yes, I agree GG is certainly connected to and the implication is there and Occum's Razor, but that does not say "GG movement has specifically avoided any leadership", in a manner we can speak in WP's voice. We certainly can use sources that say that GG's lack of leadership is likely from its chan roots, which have typically been against any form of leadership, citing those sources, but we can't say that GG has purposely chose to remain leaderless because we would need statements from GG members to affirm that. If no one speaks to the GG group about their motiviations or ideals, no one can make a valid claim as to what they actually are, and can only make assumptions and guesswork from their actions. Again, to stress, the opinions that GG is nothing about ethics due to harassment is predominate and clear and must be presented, but we cannot write that in WP's voice or work the article in that fashion treating this as a fact. There's a lot of logic pitfalls that the lack of information from GG is creating here, but that doesn't mean we fill those gaps by treating opinions as facts from other sources, and that's what is happening here when we make assumptions on this talk page like "GG is not a movement" or "GG is not about ethics". Instead we should be saying "GG claims to be a movement but they don't demonstrate it well".


 * Also keep in mind: there are 9 major facets of WP:NPOV, weight and balance are only two. I'm well past the issue of weight and balance, but we're still far from impartial as well as still not using only the best sources that we can. --M ASEM (t) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused about what it means to “speak in WP’s voice.” WP’s “voice” is merely the synthesis – the distillation, if you will – of what the RSes on the topic are saying. In order to make a case that this article has an inappropriate voice, you need to show how it differs from the consensus of the RSes. I am not seeing this. Instead, I am seeing you say that even though the RSes say that there is nothing substantive at all in GG’s claims to be about ethics, WP’s “voice” should give that viewpoint a fair airing because anonymous people claiming to be in Gamergate are insisting that it is true.  That is not the case.  Anonymous people claiming to be members of a group that has no official organization, stance, agenda, position,  or anything but a hashtag, a subreddit, and a bunch of threads on an imageboard do not get to influence WP’s “voice.”  They simply don’t. ReynTime (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to distill sources, and when sources give opinions make sure those are cited as opinions and not spoken as fact in WP's voice. But there's also a matter of avoiding advocacy, both for and against GG, and the way this article is structures and choices of certain language facts, it toes that line towards being an anti-GG advocacy piece. See, for example, the above discussion to rework the lede para into something that is more impartial without conceding anything (if in fact putting more weight towards) the antiGG side of the GG situation, specifically by moving the misogyny aspect to the point where it applies most, the harassment and criticism of GG but not the core of the conflict from both sides.
 * As an example of where impartiality is not being give a fair shake is how diffuse we discuss anything credible about the proGG side before including the press piece that tear into it. We're going to have the press criticism, no question about that, but by diluting all the aspects of GG with criticism, we are not neutrally reporting on GG and instead speaking more from the anti-GG piece; it is the equivalent of acting like the press must get the last work in, injecting that opinion into every point of the article. Simply by reordering some parts of the article - adding no new sources or information outside of phrasing and grammar for readability and flow, we can present the GG side in small coherent set of paragraphs (2-4 at most), and then let the press sourcing do the rest of the work for us to provide the strong and overwhelming amount of criticism against GG (stating that as the press's opinion, obviously). I have contended for some time now that this article is 90% fine, and just needs a bit of wordsmithing and reorg, and not the addition of new sources, to make it more impartial without changing the balance/weight aspect. --M ASEM (t) 21:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * “acting like the press must get the last work (sic) in”: By the press, you mean the RSes? If the “last word” doesn’t go to the RSes, who do you think it most appropriately goes to? Are you seriously arguing that anonymous individuals claiming to be members of Gamergate, but who cannot speak with any authority about the movement because the movement has no authority (again by its own design and intent), should get the “last word in” instead? Yes, the last word belongs to the RSes. That’s one of the core principles of this encyclopedia.  That is who must get the last word, Masem. There is no one who can officially speak for Gamergate. It’s not possible. There is no official Gamergate. Just volunteers who can in no way speak for any other member of the group and who cannot be considered any kind of a source at all for Wikipedia’s purposes, let alone a reliable one. We can’t put forth an article where we put the New York Times on one side, and “balance” the other side with the opinions of “some random guy who tweets under a hashtag”. That’s ludicrous. ReynTime (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually yeah, there is lots of evidence that they're not an ethics movement, and I'm not sure why you think we should ignore it. Their lack of meaningful ethics claims, their incredibly-unethical tactics, their origin in misogynistic, slut-shaming attacks on Zoe Quinn, etc., all of this and more has led reliable sources to conclude that they are not seriously concerned with actual ethical issues. The lack of anything meaningful emerging from Gamergate in a month or so is a telling point. Surely there are ethical issues they can come up with... or no, wait, they're too harassing Brianna Wu over her dead dog. Such ethics as one has never seen before.
 * Gamergate's most notable action of late has been its harassment being widely cited as responsible for Twitter upgrading its abuse prevention function. As we get further away from the major initial events, it's clear that the most significant impact the movement has had is bringing worldwide attention to the issue of anonymous Internet harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All that is their conclusion as press members, not as authoritative experts in the article (which I would expect to be social science academics and the like). We as WP cannot use opinions of the press to state something as a fact in WP's, nor should be led by the press to write in a non-neutral fashion. Yes, there's not much that GG has for it that we can really build on and their case for anything positive in the article is weak to nil at best -- but we have to remain neutral and cannot sway our writing (not balance) because of the lack of information or the predominate opinion of the press. We can write out their opinions as the major aspect of this article, but we cannot pretend that those opinions are fact, because what really is GG actually is factually unknown. --M ASEM  (t) 20:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The nature of the group membership is unknown by the group's own deliberate choice, but the facts of what has been done (harassment, death threats) and not done (ethics) under the Gamergate banner are quite public. Saying that the visible actions taken under this rubric of "Gamergate" have been all about harassment and not about ethics is a statement of fact. We don't have to circumlocute around this point to spare the feelings of a group of people who have chosen to remain anonymous, leaderless, and without organization or official purpose of any kind. ReynTime (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Masem, we have a draft page now. Rather than arguing around hypothetical terms, why don't you develop a draft section of what you think should be included/rewritten and present it for discussion, just as I developed a draft proposal for a new lede which has gained at least the beginnings of a consensus? We're going around in circles here and futilely spilling thousands of talk-page words in large part because we don't actually have a concrete proposal to pick over, and merely claiming that the article is "not impartial" doesn't outline how you propose to improve the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Student newspaper issue

 * This says otherwise . If Gamergate's concern were a fringe matter, why would have this source bothered to write an opinion article about it? Avono (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "source" is a student newspaper article written by a college freshman which contains multiple false statements about living people and does not speak well for Amherst College's journalism program. I'm tempted to send an e-mail to the editor-in-chief and faculty adviser, actually.
 * More to the point, "fringe" theories get written about all the time. What distinguishes a fringe theory is the lack of credence given to it by mainstream reliable sources. It is demonstrable that mainstream reliable sources dismiss Gamergate's core claims of "ethics in gaming journalism" as a false, even tendentious, argument to provide cover for a vicious campaign against people, particularly women, who are discussing social and cultural issues in video gaming and working to shift the culture's zeitgeist. In short, a culture war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we then atleast then make distinctions like DHeyward argued above ? The source I gave shows that there two sides to the gamergate issuse (i.e that "Fringe theory"). Maybe a disclaimer like "this article deals with the harassment women in video games culture have received". There is no denying that the harassment happened but the problem is that the article gives the impression that the "fringe" movement is responsible for this harassment. I actually think that the "The 2014 Harassment of Women in Videogaming" (this would stop the NPOV arguing) would be a way better title Avono (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That link isn't a reliable source for the reasons NBSBaranof stated. And the WP article can't be separated from the Gamergate hashtag because that's what the harassers were, and still are, operating and organizing under. Plus, the harassment of women in video gaming is something that's gone on for far longer than just these few months; what's notable about the Gamergate controversy is not that women were harassed in video games, but the degree of viciousness and level of organization in the effort which had not been previously seen in this industry. ReynTime (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: That link actually contains flat-out libelous and damaging statements about Zoe Quinn so I wrote to the paper's editor to let him know they'd better get that down post-haste if they don't want to get sued. Avono, I can't believe you'd try to use that illegal garbage as a source. I think this needs to go to ArbCom as well. ReynTime (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think this was published without oversight. Did I ever say that I supported what he said? No. What I wanted to show with this that they there is a group that is not involved with the Harassment but are Critical towards these Figures. Or are you going to state that the author who wrote this harasses women? Avono (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are fully aware of the BLP issues associated with this article and yet you linked to a clearly libelous "source" that puts forth proven falsehoods about the individuals at the center of this vicious harassment. You suggested this libelous material as a useful source for this article. I have requested sanctions against you for this action and may enter it into Arbcom as well as a fine example of the problems certain editors are deliberately causing with this article. ReynTime (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's slow down and take a deep breath. I agree that it should be redacted, and have done so. I don't think a topic ban is needed here necessarily, but yeah, Avono, that's exactly the sort of poorly-researched and not-at-all-fact-checked garbage sourcing that we simply can't countenance on Wikipedia. The piece is frankly worse than I thought — there's some terrifyingly-libelous statements that I missed on the first read. Student newspapers are not acceptable sources for living persons issues, and for precisely this reason — their fact-checking and editorial oversight can be incredibly hit-or-miss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The material in that opinion piece is thoroughly actionable in the legal sense and the college is exposed as long as the page is up. I've contacted Amherst (which is a good school, generally) and reported this matter to their legal staff so they can deal with it as well, as soon as the East Coast of the US wakes up. The student who wrote it is about to get a very harsh lesson in what ethics in journalism is actually about, I'm afraid. ReynTime (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ReynTime, this is about the article and not about the person who wrote it. The "source" has already been retracted above and, as far as I know, we are focusing on improving an article and not about teaching a lesson to potential sources.  If the piece cannot be used, then that is as far as we should go instead of taking the matter into our own hands.  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggesting we give up our rights as private citizens (and our duties as decent human beings) when we edit WP is ....a really fascinating argument I've never seen before. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? ReynTime (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

identification of the "ethics" in the draft article
The original and primary "ethics" claims are about personal relationships between developers and the press that are too close. The "ethics" that reviews should not contain social commentary  came later and have been secondary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

While this is partly true, before #Gamergate, the video game community was concerned about corruption in game journalism via paid brand deals. This was known as Doritogate, named because the brand deals were primarily sponsored by the Frito Lay company, the company behind the Dorito chip brand, which promoted games such as Halo 4 and Modern Warfare 3 using a code that will unlock "XP points." Recently, Activision, the publishers of the Call of Duty franchise, told Machinima, a gaming partner network on YouTube, to take down videos of Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, specifically videos that showed bugs, glitches, or other flaws. An article on Kotaku written by Nathan Grayson himself covers this. Battlesnake1 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * fair enough: "The "ethics" that reviews should not contain social commentary  came later and have been secondary or tertiary."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I have some clarification on what the,"reviews should not contain social commentary" means? Battlesnake1 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The various claims that reviewers or entire outlets are "SJWs" for discussing issues of race, gender and class in video games, and that such discussion is inappropriate for a video game review. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a broad generalization of how #Gamergate perceives game journalists. The issue at hand here is that these journalists accuse certain video games of being sexist, just because it features an overly-sexualized character. Even if a video game has an overly-sexualized character or sexual content, it does not mean video games themselves are sexist. Video games can have social commentary as well. Take a look at a game such as: Grand Theft Auto IV and Grand Theft Auto V, while it may look like a violent shooter from the outside, Rockstar satirizes current politics. One example of this is the torture mini-game in GTA V, this scene is dramatizing the alleged torture of suspected terrorists, such as water torture. By adding this mini-game, Rockstar sheds light on the issue of what our government is doing and how it affects us. It's not that reviewers can't discuss these things, it is how they word those discussions. Battlesnake1 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have just presented your own opinion about the issue. The reviewers you criticize are also presenting their own opinions. It is not an issue of "journalism ethics" for them to put forth an opinion you disagree with. You can't prove either your opinion or their opinion factually correct or incorrect — it's a matter of taste, judgment and perception. Neither opinion is necessarily more valid, and there is plenty of space on the Internet for everyone to put forth all of these opinions. That's what the marketplace of ideas is all about.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

this section is regarding this series of reverts on the draft aticle

Data analysis
http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2014/12/07/Gamergate.html "those accusing #Gamergate of systemic, large-scale harassment must find a way to explain the absence of mathematical evidence for it" "if #Gamergate were a hate group, I would expect results to be different" Beep boop. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a request to add something to the article? If so, this doesn't look like a usable source to me. Just a blog post. — Strongjam (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I should even respond to this...but if faulty hypothesis based on "what he expects to see" is not bore out in the stats then it either means, by gosh, gamergate isn't what isn't large scale harassment, or his hypothesis sucks. I'm sure his maths is correct. It just doesn't say anything, and his additional comments at the bottom basically each time backpedals into "please don't interpret my data in any way as this is just data". Koncorde (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Opinions from personal blogs are not even up for consideration as sources for this article, so there is really no point in discussing or refuting its claims. Keep in mind that a user assumes responsibility for the content of the links they post, so hopefully this link was vetted before use, for your sake. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the threats, Tarc. Is everyone really saying the guy who's involved in "big data engineering" https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisvoncsefalvay (linked in the source, this is not "doxing") wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about when it comes to analysing data? He went to Oxford University. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Threat? Don't be melodramatic.  We just had a recent case where an editor was banned for a month for posing a link to something inappropriate; it's just a common sense reminder to be mindful of what one links to. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So people are just going to ignore this RS? Perfect. Good job, Wikipedia. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera segment on GG (weighing more on proGG)
I don't have a linkable source yet, but there was an ~11 segment on GG from Al Jazeera's America Today's program today (Dec 9), weighing a bit more on the proGG side. It would be here likely once it is streamable. --M ASEM (t) 05:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In many video games, women are sex objects to be saved or slaughtered. When female gamers criticized this, some gamers unleashed anonymous rape and death threats. But other gamers say focusing on the threats obscures their message: keeping games free of political correctness. Harassment of women in gaming? Check. "Ethics in gaming journalism"? Nope. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that one facet of the proGG argument related to political correctness in VGs is when journalists promote such games without disclosing any ties with such, and with the idea of "objective reviews" that focus more on the "video game" of gameplay and graphics and less on the message they sent. It's tied into their ethics aspect, but it's part of the larger logic that the proGG has been running with since (the whole "SWJ" thing). --M ASEM (t) 15:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Calling it "ethics" is gibberish. Artw (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, as previously discussed, "objective reviews" are not a concept recognized in any mainstream conception of journalism ethics. Critical reviews of creative works are inherently opinionated and you will not find a single mainstream source suggesting that such reviews are in any way unethical. Gamergate may have the opinion that they prefer such reviews, but claiming them as an "ethics" issue is a fringe theory with no acceptance outside GamerGate's bubble and unworthy of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * North, you appear to be trying to use "argument from authority" when you debate content issues with others here. If an al Jazeera article says that gamergaters are saying that keeping political correctness out of video games is one part of their agenda, then that's a valid viewpoint in a reliable source, and is in line with WP's policies on sourcing and content. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * which is less "ethics" and more misogynists defending misogyny, which we pretty much have covered. Artw (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cla68, I'm not saying it's not a part of their agenda. Of course it's part of their agenda. I'm saying we can't present "objective reviews" as an issue of "journalism ethics," because it factually isn't. The conception that it is "unethical" to critically review a creative work's message is a fringe theory not in any way linked to mainstream discussions of journalism ethics. This is easily demonstrable by any reference to widely-used journalism ethics codes, ethics codes of major newspapers, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is anyone here really trying to put that concept in WP's voice? The primary issue here appears to be an idealogical conflict between Gamergaters and their opponents.  Therefore, almost any opinion in this article needs to be put in that context. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the GG side believe objective reviews are part of their ethics concerns, then we are going to report it like that, as long as we state that this is what the GG side believes. It is a judgement call to say that their objective review argument is not ethics based, even though the rest of the industry doesn't believe it is the case, but that's what they say. We'll let the industry say they are wrong, but we can't nor should refuse to include because they might be wrong, as long as the fact is documented in good reliable sources. --M ASEM (t) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not without immediately discussing the mainstream view of this as total nonsense. It's a fringe theory with no acceptance outside the Gamergate echo chamber, and no reliable sources discuss such a claim in the context of "journalism ethics" except to dismiss it as irrelevant to actual journalism ethics. As Alex Goldman of NPR's On the Media media criticism program says, The service of the press is to critique the world it interrogates. That is the service that the gaming press and Anita Sarkeesian provide when they look critically at the way women are treated in gaming. We certainly can say "Gamergate supporters believe so-called "objective reviews" have something to do with journalism ethics," but we must immediately follow it up with "but everyone outside Gamergate disagrees, says it has nothing to do with journalism ethics and views it as incomprehensible nonsensical culture-warring." But the last time we tried such wording, you flatly reverted me. So color me skeptical that you'll accept it this time around. You cannot present so-called "objective reviews" in this article as a legitimate, accepted issue of journalism ethics, because it fundamentally is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No you do not have to immediately call it out, especially when it is being done to go out of the way to call out the idea as bad before actually discussion ("This person has opinion A but before we discuss it, keep in mind this other person thinks it's crazy and not worth listening to. Now, Option A says...") as it prejudges the material and creates non-impartial writing. Critical response has to be called out on the same article and likely within the same main section but it does not have to be the immediate or same sentence. Once the full idea of what GG means by objective reviews can be put out, then we can go ahead and counterpoint that. --M ASEM (t) 00:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouth, whether or not it is a "fringe theory" (and I don't think this has been established anywhere except in the minds of some of the participants here) is immaterial. What matters is what the sources are saying.  I've seen the "fringe theory" approach used in other topic areas to try to discredit sources, although I don't know if that's what's happening here.  Anyway, if the sources say that GamerGaters feel that ethics in journalism are applicable, then that's fine because they are one of several principle actors involved in this issue.  Just make sure that it says it is their opinion, not WP's.  Same thing with the claims of misogyny, make sure it is explained as that is an opinion of GG's opponents, not WP's. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The undisputed predominant viewpoint in mainstream reliable sources is that Gamergate is responsible for misogynistic harassment. We don't present it as a fact, but we do present it as the predominant viewpoint, because it is. It is an undisputed fact that the controversy involves misogyny. The establishment of Gamergate's viewpoint as a fringe theory is self-evident based upon the reliable sources. As states WP:FRINGE: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. It is trivial to demonstrate that Gamergate's viewpoint of "objective reviews" having anything to do with journalism ethics departs wildly from prevailing viewpoints in journalism ethics. I invite you to produce evidence demonstrating that the concept of so-called "objective reviews" has any credence or merit in mainstream thinking in journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do. We call the idea nonsense because the overwhelming and undisputed mainstream viewpoint is that it is nonsense and not calling it out fundamentally violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE by giving undue credence and weight to a fringe idea which has been thoroughly dismissed or ignored by mainstream sources. As per WP:BALASPS, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. The body of reliable sources on the subject gives effectively zero weight to the idea of "objective reviews" as "journalism ethics" and treats them dismissively, if at all. That is the weight we must accord them in our article — e.g. barely any at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We cannot take a position here. We can report neutrally on both sides, but as soon as we take a position on a conflict, we are not longer neutral. This is not a weight issue, because clearly when we get to reporting on the media's side, we're going to have plenty of sources to use compared to only a few, but that has zero impact on how present each side in an impartial manner. --M ASEM (t) 01:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have said, we may state that Gamergate supporters believe so-called "objective reviews" are an issue of journalism ethics. We must immediately follow that with a statement of the fact that this viewpoint is rejected, dismissed and not taken seriously by mainstream thought in journalism ethics, as WP:FRINGE specifically directs: The proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. Weight is not merely an issue of sourcing, it is an issue of space, prominence and identification. As WP:NPOV states in WP:GEVAL: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ... We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. We are not required to treat ideas which are clearly unequal in mainstream acceptance as having equal validity. That is not what "neutrality" means. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no policy support for what you are saying at all. Nowhere does it say a fringe view has to be immediately countered, only that it is covered with the weight attributable to sources (which means not a heck of a lot of statements about the GG view, and a heck of a lot countering that) The way you are reading the NPOV does not apply here because we are in no way legitimizing their claims, when we add "According to GG supporters..."; I'd further argue that your desire to put the "but..." language immediately after a claim is taking a stand against the position as cautioned against by GEVAL quoted above. We don't do that approach on any other article about a hated group who have otherwise opinions that are strongly counter to the rest of the world, we're can't start that here.  Further, given that the de facto standpoint of this article is about the controversy over the actions of the GG movement, rather than the controversy the GG people have with ethics in journalism, it is unfair to treat their side as a FRINGE view with resepct to Gamergate - they are a central party to it so it is completely proper for an encyclopedia to document - as best we can be the reliable sources - their side of the story, and then present the otherside. If we were talking about the topic "video game journalism", I am right there in calling the GG side a fringe view almost to the point I wouldn't even include their view. But as a central party to this controversy, treating their view as fringe is harmful to a proper encyclopedic treatment of the controversy. WP:UNDUE obviously still applies, and I'm no way suggesting we pull in weak RS to give more space to the GG side, but it is not neutral to not [properly document their issues without taking a position on that, and how that has led to both events and opinions resulting from it.  --M ASEM  (t) 02:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem. We need to document what GG claims to be when sources are available to do that. We don't need to instantly caveat every single thing we report as their viewpoint from reliable sources. The article is already loaded with sources providing the opposing view. —Torchiest talkedits 03:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting the "but" language is not taking a stand against the position at all. It's properly framing the minority viewpoint in the context of the majority viewpoint, as NPOV policy demands. And no, WP:FRINGE is not judged relative to what a fringe movement believes — that is an idea which has less than zero policy support. Fringe theories are judged, as policy and the guideline state unambiguously, with reference to viewpoints in mainstream reliable sources. Gamergate's claims are a fringe theory, the end.
 * And Masem, once again, you're wrong. Immediately countering fringe/minority viewpoints is exactly what other Wikipedia articles on fringe/minority issues do. For example, where we have an entire article on creation science, the second paragraph is entirely devoted to presenting the mainstream scientific viewpoint of creation science as nonsense. Therefore, where we write a paragraph on Gamergate's claims that "objective reviews" have something to do with journalism ethics, the second sentence of that paragraph must likewise present the mainstream viewpoint of it as nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Academic Roundtable
GamerGate has become a subject of academic interest, not least because some of those studying it have themselves come under attack. How scholars deal with a hostile on-line environment has become a study in and of itself, as this roundtable shows. http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/safeguarding-research/ kencf0618 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like they got very far. Having a psychological point of view would probably be more revealing. --Hengsheng120 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dyson returns to Gawker
Dyson rejects Gamergate, returns advertising to Gawker, as per The Telegraph. Probably worth a brief add to the "Gawker Media and Operation Baby Seal" section to note that the furor has died down without a lasting impact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On Gawker, there's this piece claiming they lost 7-figure amount due to GG; I don't think the source is unreliable, but they are going off the reports of 2 people from an all-hands meeting there. --M ASEM  (t) 18:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

How can an 'un-organised leaderless' movement distance itself from anything that isn't the core values?
"The unorganized, leaderless movement has hitherto been unwilling or unable to distance itself from continued harassment." This line struck me as odd. The first line of that paragraph states that many involved "are concerned with ethics in video game journalism", and if the main aspect of the movement is the ethics concerns, how can that group be judged to have "failed to distance itself" from anything other than the viewpoint re ethics?

How fair is it that a group, apparently leaderless and disorganised and comprised of multitudes of people but are (according to the first paragraph) united in a viewpoint regarding ethics as their main concern, being judged on something that isn't part of their 'core' value ie ethics?

Should the harassment coming as a result of the controversy be handled in a separate manner from ethical 'movement' that originated it? Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If they did somehow "distance themselves" from it (what does that mean?) would it be reasonable to expect the "distancing" to be faithfully reported by the "reliable" folks?
 * It's an established fact that all of the "reliable" sources who have taken it upon themselves to publish on the topic have flat-out stated that Gamergate = misogyny. It follows that for the "reliable" sources to subsequently print a story titled "Gamergate distances self from misogyny" would inherently make the supposedly "reliable" sources look stupid. Call me a cynic, but I've tended to note that human beings generally avoid making themselves look like gullible idiots when they can. Bramble window (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the sources that are the most virulently anti-GG are the same publications that GG is criticizing, so there's a conflict of interest there. Regarding Mack's comment, it does indeed seem illogical for a "movement" with no leadership or structure to be able to distance itself or even take an official stance on anything. The same thing is what destroyed Anonymous (group) and Occupy Wall Street. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Time to recast the article subject as a moral panic.
It fits the description very well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

Editors are making much of the fact that this particular witch-hunt is rhetorically backed 100% by the "reliable sources". But if newspapers and academic journals had existed during medieval witch-hunts, it's probable that 100% of them would have parroted the mainstream line that these witches were using their supernatural powers to wreak all kinds of magical mischief, and that the burnings and ducking-stools were absolutely necessary. The voices protesting that these women were innocent victims of superstition would have been relegated to the medieval equivalents of blogs and youtube videos. Nevertheless facts are facts: the women were innocent. The reliable sources of the day (church records, court documents) were erroneous.Bramble window (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If newspapers and academic journals existed to any degree of similarity to current newspapers and journals (i.e. objectively based outside of superstitious theology, and not simply a tabloid) then I very much doubt that they would have followed the path you describe, given that (typically) very few people did actually take part in such cases. In any case I point at conspiracy theory, fringe theory, furtive fallacy and stigmergy, and also - this is a not a forum. Koncorde (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What we call "superstitious theology" today was conventional wisdom and entirely mainstream back then. Merely questioning the conventional wisdom was cause for execution by burning. There's a great short story inspired by real events on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theologians. We probably disagree on whether Gamergate is a conspiracy of misgynists, but I bet we can agree that that story is an excellent bit of fiction. Bramble window (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is, assuming you are correct. This isn't workable, Wikipedia isn't it's own analysis based off original thoughts and ideas. It simply explains the facts from reliable sources and presents major points of views neutrally. H a l f   Hat  14:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that support such an interpretation? Without a significant number, this is merely a WP:FORUM and inappropriate use of the page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I do. Brandwatch's study commissioned by Newsweek. I thought that was clear. Those data single-handedly dismantle the claim that gamergate is synonymous with misogynist attacks. To support that claim you'd need a majority of the tweets to be detected as negative (and arguably negative in a gender-specific way to satisfy the criterion). It's not even close. The only data analysis of the facts in the canon of reliable sources is wildly inconsistent with the oft-repeated myth that Gamergate is inherently demonstrably misogynist. Bramble window (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not clear at all. This section had nothing to do with Newsweek or Brandwatch until you mentioned it. Unless you intended it as a continuation of the section above? If so, you should probably combine the sections.
 * Also, I'm not sure how else to say this without being absolutely blunt, so I will be: your interpretation of the data means nothing. If Newsweek wants to interpret "10% = misogynistic" or ".01% = misogynistic" or "there was a Tweet referencing 9/11 so all Gamergaters are Truthers", that's their choice. We presume that Newsweek is a reliable source because their editorial process includes fact-checking of some kind, but the misogynist/not-misogynist threshold is theirs alone to set. Sure, one could argue that it's an unfair threshold, but per WP:NOTFORUM they should argue elsewhere about it. Woodroar (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The word Newsweek used was "neutral". So unless you think Newsweek has redefined "neutral" to mean "misogynistic" (if you do, you'll need a citation, I fancy), then the record shows that the only study done in the reliable sources shows that Gamergate tweets are overwhelmingly neutral. Bramble window (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, if Newsweek wants to say that Gamergate is misogynistic based on a single Tweet out of millions, then they can do that. It doesn't matter if you feel that's an unfair threshold or a poor interpretation of the data. The article even clarifies—as have others—that "neutral" has a specific meaning in data science, and that meaning is not the one you are using. Woodroar (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to conflate Newsweek with Brandwatch. Brandwatch "is a social media monitoring company headquartered in Brighton, England." Their analysis is reliably sourced. And it directly contradicts the WP article. Bramble window (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Brandwatch gathered and analyzed data for Newsweek, which is the reliable source we use. We would never "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate" that data ourselves, because words like "neutral"—as well as "trick" and "hide"—mean different things to data scientists. It is precisely because of this that we rely on reliable sources, not our own interpretation based on dictionary definitions. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the dozens of sources that cast Gamergate as centered on misogyny and harassment? Editors do not get to cherry-pick a single source that is to their liking and ignore the rest that contradict it.  This "recast" suggestion of yours is a dead-end. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Power OVERWHELMING
So this intro here...
 * the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

I don't see a source used for this statement. I would like to see actual evidence of "majority" being proven to have this stance. Who exactly has weighed the sum of commentators and then divided it into portions of those who think this and those who do not?

Is this based on a single source claiming that the majority of commentators say this?

What qualifies a person to be a commentator to be counted on this issue?

Beyond whether or not it is majority (a single 50.5% would give that) I would like to know when it is that we consider a majority to be 'overwhelming'.

Who has gone beyond diagnosis of a 'majority' claim and called such a hypothetical majority overwhelming?

For those who did, should it matter to Wikipedia that they feel overwhelmed? Isn't the rate at which people are whelmed by different percentages actually variable?

I think we should strike 'overwhelming' from the intro since it is too subjective a label. We should convey as accurate a number as possible (if 'majority' is the closest we can get, fine) and then let readers decide how big a number has to be to feel overwhelming. If some reporters have said 'overwhelming' then we can say 'which reporters have called overwhelming' or something along those lines. That is clearly just feels-opinioning and not relevant encyclopedic data-facts.

If we can get past the overwhelming nonsense then I would like to request a source for this 'majority of commentators' claim. Who has the authority to count such a tally? What if 1 source said the majority of commentators were for GamerGate? How would we decide who is correct? --Ranze (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have given a minion +4/+4 and that minion will die at the end of the turn. Horribly.
 * Hearthstone jokes aside, "the overwhelming majority" is based upon even a cursory examination of the reliable sources which have commented on the matter. We base our articles on what reliable sources say, and we weight viewpoints based upon the weight given to those viewpoints in mainstream reliable sources. It is trivial to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of mainstream reliable sources commenting on the matter view Gamergate as such.
 * That said, the new version of the lede which I have proposed above removes the word "overwhelming" as an unnecessary adverb. The "majority" is incontrovertibly factual. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem there then is the statement is misleading, since it's based on reliable sources, and not all commentators. H a l f   Hat  10:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And on the reliable sources chosen for this article, not necessarily overall. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The use of the word commentators in no way specifies people who belong to the tiny group whom wikipedia classify as "reliable sources" (academics and journalists for the most part). On reddit alone there are enough pro-GG individuals to easily outnumber the few dozen journalists worldwide pushing the anti-GG line that their editorial staff have decided to take. If we count twitter, then pro-GG would outweigh the "reliable sources" by at least one, maybe two orders of magnitude.Bramble window (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE as an encyclopedia, we dont care what the rabble thinks, unless the reliable sources comment upon it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By that logic, the word "commentators" needs to be replaced with "commentators outside the rabble". The word commentators as it is presently used by English speakers is non-exclusive of the rabble. If you mean to be rabble-exclusive, you cannot use "commentators" without a qualification to specify that you only mean a specific elite group.Bramble window (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That response is both rude and uninformative. The link you gave does not speak to a defence of using "commentators" with the meaning of "non-rabble commentators" that you propose. In future, please try to be civil and specify your reasoning using language rather than posting one-word links to pages whose relevance is far from apparent.Bramble window (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The link i gave says that we dont even molly coddle it as "commentators" - we simply ASSERT what the reliable sources say. And it says nothing about the non reliable sources, because they dont play into creating an encyclopedia AT ALL. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So we agree that "commentators" needs to go?Bramble window (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * as of the last time i looked at the draft, its gone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this being written somewhere else? I still see it on the locked page here, it's ridiculous. "Reliable sources" would be far more accurate than "commentators". We should not mislead the public with fictions like this. Ranze (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you think an encyclopedia would need to call out that it wasnt being created from non reliable source materials? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does WP:NOR not apply here? Feathergun (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that it's "original research" to make an assessment of what mainstream reliable sources say and make that editorial judgment? Because no, that's not original research. It's what we do on Wikipedia — write articles based on the predominant weight of mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a RS saying, "The overwhelming majority of media commentators have said that GamerGate is misognyistic" then that's in compliance with our policies. If it is us who are asserting this in WP's voice, then it violates WP:NOR.  Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if the term 'overwhelming' is used by a reliable source then I want that RS cited directly after the word overwhelming, please. Otherwise, it should be removed. Ranze (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm the person who introduced the term into the lede. I did so because this is a good summary of the article body, which refers to a large number of commentators. If the exact wording is contentious, perhaps a phrase like "large majority", "huge majority " or even "vast majority" should be used instead. If quantifying the majority in this pragmatic way is problematic (I don't see why, but I'm open to such arguments) we can use the plain word "majority". --TS 18:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 December 2014
From the section ‎Industry response remove the sentence from the third paragraph, mirroring the same edit done on the draft article. This statement isn't supported by the inline citation given and the source that did support cannot be found any longer. See the above talk section "Twitter report tools" for the discussion about this. — Strongjam (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that we do have Draft:Gamergate controversy at the moment, which this talk page can be used to discuss changes that can be made to the draft. If you would like to do so, I would recommend a discussion to make your changes to the draft which will be merged eventually into the article.  --Super Goku V (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Change was already made to the draft a week ago (see Special:Diff/636455819) and was discussed above. — Strongjam (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, then if that is the case, then I would agree that this change should be made. Sorry for my assumption and for not reading enough, Strongjam.  --Super Goku V (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Supports of GG have been trying to police harassers." is supported by this piece from Slate . I can't find where this group specifically has argued about Twitter's tools, though I am pretty confident one of Quinn, Sarkeesian, or Wu has made a statement to that degree. --M ASEM (t) 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No other reliable source takes the "harassment patrol" seriously, which suggests that it merits little if no mention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable soruce, and it is not stating an opinion, but a fact (in so much that GGs are trying to patrol themselves), and coorrelates with sources facts that the ones actually doing the harassing being a vocal minority of the large group. So yes, it does warrant mention (half a sentence at most per UNDUE), as does not fall under the idea of a fringe opinion. --M ASEM (t) 06:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * its only an opinion that they are trying to police, others suggest that there are members of the "patrol" that are coordinating harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's original research. Yes, there are some that use the GG hashtag to harass, but there are some that use the GG hashtag to stop harassment, both are facts. We rightfully present both factual aspects. --M ASEM (t) 20:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are presenting two profoundly-unequal things as equal, and they are not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 06:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Making the article less quotefarm-y.
The one remaining dispute tag is the quotefarm one; and there's definitely some parts of the article that suffer from it. In general I think there's two issues (though they all come down to people using quotes to argue in the article by proxy rather than to illustrate views.) First, a lot of people are quoted at length whose opinions don't really matter; we don't need a full-paragraph quote from everyone who ever weighed in. It's particularly important to avoid the point-counterpoint situation where one person puts in a quote, someone else digs up a quote to rebut it, etc -- we should focus on quoting reputable commentators, primarily, and avoid making the quotes longer than is necessary to establish their views. And second, maybe more importantly, I think the quotes need to be surrounded by more prose to work them into the article -- explaining what view the quote is there to illustrate and so on. If we can't articulate why a quote is there, it should be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a worthwhile task, though I currently can't help with it. Essentially every quote in the article should be examined to see whether it needs to be there. We can summarise now with greater clarity as to due weight than we did, say, three months ago, so there should be little problem in doing so.


 * As a separate task, it may well be time to remove or trim material that seemed to loom large at one time, but is no longer of much relevance. --TS 05:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

To what extent can an article be reasonably be non reputable but still used as a source/Some reputable pro GG sources
Reading RFC1, the conclusion is that the article is fairly neutral, but that there are a few easily fixed issues and we may "Have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term."

As far as I can tell, most of the specific issues outline there that "are easily fixed" are still pretty present, such as wording of the momvment being misogynistic or the claims of harassment as factual (In fact, one of the section titles outright says "False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment", despite to my knowledge, some of the allegations of relationships, have been confirmed, and others have had various factual pieces of evidence in favor of them, but in any case, it is egregious for the title to call them false when it really comes down to it all we have is theories and statements by the people involved, which obviously cannot be considered factual). There a variety of other issues, but having read most of the page, that is easily the most common claimed fault of the article. I am not an accomplished wikipedia editor, so I don't plan on trying to fix those issues myself, but I hope that somebody who is can do so.

Secondly, how do we know what sources that would normally be avoided are acceptable to use in this circumstance, given the RFC1? I know of quite a few news sites, such as gamernosh, which give neutral or pro GG articles, but to my knowledge, edits using those sites as sources have been reverted due to not being reputable. Lastly, here are a few links, all from the escapist (which is considered reputable as far as I am aware) that give neutral or pro GG outlooks from game devolpers, which has it's own section here that is in need of some viewpoints other then those of Anti GG individuals: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12306-Female-Game-Developers-Make-Statements-on-GamerGate.7 (page 7, developer 4) and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12397-Brad-Wardell-GamerGate-Interview and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12400-Daniel-Vavra-GamerGate-Interview and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12384-Xbro-GamerGate-Interview Jabberwock xeno (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As amply stated by dozens of mainstream reliable sources, the allegations of violations of journalism ethics standards by either Quinn or Grayson are factually false. Our article states such and will not state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see the evidence or proof of them being factually false mentioned anywhere in the article other then in the title itself, which obviously is unsourced. I should not need to point out why Quinn or the other parties saying it's not true doesn't qualify as factual proof, it's no more factual then the claims that the harassment they received were falsified: Even if it is reported on by a reputable source, it should still be worded as "Quinn denied..." or "Grayson denied...". If I am missing something, please point it out to me. What of the rest of what I ask?Jabberwock xeno (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to understand Wikipedia policies. Please see Wikipedia's five pillars. The fact that the reliable sources have said it is false is, for our purposes, all we need to say that it is false. Our articles are based upon reliable sources, and reliable sources have unanimously declared the allegations to be false. We do not further investigate what reliable sources say or demand that they provide "evidence or proof" — such is going down the road of original research and synthesis, which are things we don't do here.
 * If you wish to propose specific wording for addition to the article, feel free to write something up at Draft:Gamergate controversy and post it here on the talk page for discussion and consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would arrgue that if a "repubable" source claims that something factually did or did not happen without evidence, they should not be considered reptuable, but that's not my call to make. Regardless, this goes against my understanding of wikipedia policies, and while I admit that understanding is not that good, it also goes against the vast majority of what was stated in the RFC1 link, which has many, many more Wikipedia contributors more knowledgeable than I am. There are more of them then there are of you, and as such, I am more inclined to believe that. Nonetheless, I will read through the policy pages and other articles to attempt to get a better understanding of the them, but off the top of my head, I also know that there are many returnable sources that do NOT claim that the allegations are false, and correctly refer to them as allegations, not as slander or factual claims.


 * I am well aware that this is a highly contentious article, and as a person who values the truth, accuracy, and stuff being unbiased, I as such want to help it be a better article so people reading it can be well informed without being misinformed by bias in either direction. In any case, I will make an addendum here or a response if somebody else posts once I have more information, but I still would like responses regarding the other stuff I brought up. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is exactly the same thing you're trying to get at, but should a source be considered reliable if it contains a major factual error, even if it comes from a reputable publication? Because I'm fairly certain (havent checked recently) that this article uses quite a few sources that claim that Gjoni was the one who made the sex for positive reviews allegations. Bosstopher (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take the source to the WP:RSN if you feel that you have evidence that will indicate the source is not reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss it here? To clarify, I'm not saying any publication that claims Gjoni made the sex for favours accusation, should have every article its ever written disregarded. Just that in this case they've proven themselves (through poor factchecking) to have released an unreliable article that should be cut out of the infinite list of sources this article is using. Bosstopher (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no, they haven't. Given Gjoni's noted cheerleading in 4chan and participation in the spreading of the "sex for reviews" smears as per this source, it's not a particularly far leap to argue that Gjoni participated in making the allegations public and, hence, also made them himself. While it's true that Gjoni's original post didn't make such accusations, he didn't turn around and disclaim those accusations until much later. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "The logs also allegedly include at least two appearances by Eron Gjoni, the author of the original blog post about Quinn." != participation in the spreading of the "sex for reviews" smears. The source doesnt argue what your saying it does. The Escapist article on the IRC doesnt even think Gjoni's presence to be something worth mentioning. Also here are the articles I found that made the false claims  Bosstopher (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Several reliable sources state that Gjoni participated in making the accusations of using relationships to gain reviews. In particular, this Vice interview with Gjoni states that Gjoni wanted to steer the conversation away from misogyny and toward the aforementioned nepotism and corruption in gaming and games journalism. I don't think we can at all conclusively state that Gjoni never made such allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. First of all relationships != sexual relationships, whole different kettle of fish. That Gjoni's made the nepotism and "indie clique" accusations are indisputable. Secondly the Vice article you note was published the day after this article by Allegra Ringo, which is discussed in the article. Ringo notes that Gjoni never made the sexual favours allegations and clarified his blogpost to point out that they werent true. To argue that the Vice interview, says Gjoni made sex for reviews claims requires extreme mental gymnastics. Bosstopher (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

SunNews interview with Jennie Bharaj

 * conducted 11 December 2014

Bharaj is credited as a gamer and YouTuber. I am wondering whether this interview would qualify as a reference usable to build this article or source any data (existing or to-be-added) within it.

She states that a lot of media is trying to create a smear campaign on the Gamergate movement, and that it isn't about women-hating (or misogyny) instead that it is about ethics in journalism, games' journalism specifically.

This appears to be a point against this '(overwhelming) majority of commentators' statement we have circulating here. Or does Bharaj not qualify as a commentator? I would like to get an official tally going here on Wikipedia for us to actually calculate a specific majority for our considerations. Ranze (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * not really, the fact that they have to dredge up some random youtuber to make the point rather enhances that all of the reliable sources have a different interpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would there be an ethical concern or conflict of interests if she only goes (and gets) on TV to promote her indiegogo project she's hoping to crowd source from Gamergaters? Bit of a weird piece. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a usable source for sourcing Jennie Bharaj's opinions about Gamergate, if we deem it relevant to the article to include her opinions. It doesn't do anything to tip the balance of the "overwhelming majority of commentators." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't play videogames (with the notable exception of Pokemon) and don't know who this person is. However, I've seen her name being tossed around quite a bit in my research on this issue (I think HuffPo did an interview with her), so it might be worth including a quote or paraphrase from her if those who know more in this field think she's a valid critic. The interview itself contains no unsupported claims or BLP violations, so it would appear to be valid for sourcing the opinion of Bharaj. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * like the part where she says that "gamers want objective reviews, like... is the storyline good." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this interview is a rather amusing demonstration of the total incoherence of Gamergate. Because whether a storyline is "good" or not can now be determined as a matter of objective fact! Learn something every day. But hey, if that's the illustration of Gamergate's logic that Gamergate supporters want included... who am I to stand in their way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no particular reason why her opinions on the controversy would be considered more important than anyone else's (she's not a notable commentator or anything), so including them would be giving her personal views undue weight; in general, interviews with random people from YouTube are not useful for building articles. If she was eg. the subject of the article, a well-known social commentator on something related to the topic, or something along those lines it might be worth mentioning her views; but as it is, the article has far too many quotes already from people throwing in the opinions of random people they happen to agree with. --Aquillion (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that this doesn't seem to be much more than we can already get from existing sources. "Gamergaters tend to agree with one another in ways that most informed outside commentators find absurd" is one running theme of our piece, so at this stage we're probably not searching for more material to establish this theme. --TS 03:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Metalgate
This probably does not yet have sufficient coverage for inclusion yet, but along "comicsgate" it seems there's now an attempt to spawn a "metalgate", spreading GGs brand (heavy quotes) "activism" to metal. time will tell if it has legs -"comicsgate" certainly didn't. Artw (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that article sums it up nicely: Basically, this whole thing strikes me as pretty silly. #Metalgate is not a thing; it’s a childish expression of angst from within the gaming community that seeks to draw a connection between #gamergate and heavy metal where none actually exists, in an effort to prove that their values are the “right” ones. . Would strongly recommend against inclusion unless somehow it surfaces above the handful of HM blogs talking about it. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 December 2014
From the harassment and threats section:"Actor Wil Wheaton and former NFL player Chris Kluwe also posted criticisms of GamerGate, with Kluwe's being noted for its use of "creative insults", but both apparently escaped harassment."

Can someone please change "being noted for its use" to "being noted for his use"?

Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as it stands now it is grammatically correct; Kluwe's criticisms are the subject of what is "being noted", not Kluwe himself. Tarc (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn you're right. Is it ok if I delete this or do I need to wait for an admin to close?Bosstopher (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * withdrawn per above -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

GamesIndustry.biz article
This noting that regardless of all else w/ GG, it has highlighted issues across the industry about how they treat women and minorities. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * it should be noted that per the article that's a result of GGs terrible behavior, not anything they have set out to achieve. Artw (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's clear in the article (nor do I think that was what GG wanted to expose in the first place). --M ASEM (t) 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out how absurdly meta this article is. As in, all this talk about Gamergate being misogynist was, according to this article, actually beneficial to people like Anita Sarkeesian and those who share those politics about this industry. I just - I don't care any more what you guys do with this article because I know which editors are going to add what to it, but come on. "Gosh, everything we wrote kind of seemed to support us and rally our political base in the end." Well duh. Is there any way at all this article can be tied into some actual info about the gaming industry and its history instead of just randomly grabbing a bunch of personalities of the week? So much has been said, and so little has substance. Do any of the editors for this article know about the gaming industry outside of how it relates to feminism? YellowSandals (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Turns out the games industry is made up of people. Artw (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I've mentioned this before - this Wiki is written full of points to rally a political base around, and a lot of it is just ignorant. It's so bad I strongly suspect it's a propaganda piece, but it's also possible that the more prominent editors are just plain clueless. Certain little factoids, like "Gamers don't want politics in their games and they don't want games to be art" are among some of the most blatantly stupid opinions being expressed as fact here. Games have been discussed as art for as long as I can remember, with a number of popular critics holding the opinion that they are art - yet somehow this gets ignored to paint some politically convenient narrative. Politics have also been a part of gaming for a long time - FF7, which was considered revolutionary for setting a bar in its time, contained a number of messages about corporatism and environmental protection.
 * My suspicion at this point is that if editors involved in this article aren't writing with an intentional bias, then they're most likely basing their entire expertise on the limited and heavily slanted perspectives offered in exclusive relation to Gamergate. Or in other words, a lot of this is uninformed writing motivated by emotional conviction. I mean, can I get hands up? Who is involved in this article who actually knows about the history of the medium or who has actually played anything Anita Sarkeesian has criticized? Because I can tell you, a lot of griping from the other side is there because so much of this "misogyny" criticism seems ignorant, and based on seeing screen-shots of Dead or Alive instead of first-hand playing something more story based like Wild Arms 3. YellowSandals (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, while I'm on it, speaking of Dead or Alive - it's actually not a well respected title despite being one of the front-runners selling sex above everything else. Mainly because there's not too much too the game and the gameplay isn't all that stellar. Some developers resort to sex appeal to sell their work when they realize they don't have much going on to set them apart. If they have really good art teams, sometimes that's enough to pull a profit, but only if the mechanics of the game are good enough to pass. Games that rely on this trick have always been criticized because gaming enthusiasts are clever enough to see what's going on, there. Anita Sarkeesian isn't unique because she has an emergent perspective - she's unique because she's gained an extraordinary amount of notoriety without appearing to have any in-depth knowledge about the games she talks about. She criticized New Vegas, for example, calling it sexist, but New Vegas was a game featuring a number of political and philosophical discussions including gender politics. New Vegas was not only insanely popular and successful, but it was considered politically progressive by a fair margin. However, what did Sarkeesian criticize? The fact that you could move the bodies of dead women after they were killed, because that made them "set decoration".
 * It's a criticism so detached from the actual substance of the game that nobody who played New Vegas could begin to believe that Anita had played it too - if she wanted to talk sexism, Caesar's Legion, an evil faction (actually labelled "evil" within the game files and represented as such), produced numerous themes regarding gender politics and gender roles. Anita didn't address that, though. She complained that you could move the dead bodies, which is just a part of their physics engine - you can move dead scorpions and lizards as well.
 * So this is why I think it's important to ask: does anyone editing this article actually play video games or watch reviews or know anyone in the industry? Does anyone here have any real background or understanding of this subject? Or did all the actual gamers get chased off or banned when they questioned the narrative? YellowSandals (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been playing video games since I put my fingers to the keyboard of a Commodore 64 in kindergarten. Thanks for asking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Because you are one of the most prominent contributors to this article. I've got to ask you, why do you include these snippets about gamers not wanting art or politics in gaming? What modern games are you playing? Which reviewers are you reading? I find it really challenging to believe you just kind of accidentally wouldn't know about any of these discussions if you've been a part of this industry for any period within the last decade and a half. YellowSandals (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They're what reliably-sourced external observers are saying about Gamergate, based upon the rhetoric coming from many Gamergate supporters. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say. That you disagree with what the reliable sources say is self-evident, yet personal disagreements with the conclusions of reliable sources cannot impact how we write Wikipedia articles. It is indisputable that many Gamergate supporters have themselves criticized the rising tide of social criticism of video games — cf. the calls for "objective reviews" as if video games are appliances to be ranked on how well they clean dishes rather than art forms to be analyzed and discussed. One cannot simultaneously demand that games be taken seriously as art and that they not be subject to the same analysis and critiques as other modern creative works. Feminist critiques of the depiction of women in mainstream art have been a "thing" for decades. We have an entire article on feminist film theory, for example.
 * Disagreement with Anita Sarkeesian's points is one thing, deluging her with rape and death threats is another entirely. The sane and logical thing to do when you disagree with a critic is to put forth one's own points in return, not to make mass murder threats when that critic plans to speak at a major university. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah, "reliable sources defeat a decade of recorded discussion about these politics". You're like a broken record, North. Actually, you know what else is bad about this article you've been writing? There's a dev named Amy Henning who has been insanely popular ever since she directed the Legacy of Kain series, which nostalgia places as one my favorite series of games. I was a little heartbroken when they decided to launch Nosgoth without her influence, but Nosgoth wasn't story-based, so I suppose it is what it is. Now, I assume, since you're real big into gaming, North, that you know you Amy Hening is. But just in case you don't, she's one of the more influential women in the industry.
 * Now here's what's crazy, though: I don't see a peep about her in this article. I mean, a whole article about a controversy about women in gaming, and not a peep about any actual female game devs! Strange, isn't it? However, there is a litany of activists and political pundits, and they seem to be divided into good guys and bad guys. All the good activists and pundits are martyrs and heroes, and all the bad pundits and activists are anti-feminists and misogynists.
 * And you're telling me that you've been playing games since the Commodore 64? You're saying you know about this industry? Because nothing about this article implies that you do. As it's written now, it implies that there's virtually no understanding of the gaming industry. YellowSandals (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu are female game devs, you know. They've actually both just released games in the last six months. The entire controversy blew up because the ex-boyfriend of a female game developer dumped their relationship drama on the Internet. So to say that this article has "not a peep about any actual female game devs" can only be taken as a failure to read, y'know, the article.
 * If there's a reliable source that discusses Amy Hennig's views on Gamergate, it should probably be added. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Because Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu are just on the cutting edge of the gaming world. I'm sure real gamers like you and I would have known who they were in a year or so if a giant controversy hadn't exploded around them. Forget those women working on million dollar titles. What relevance do actual industry veterans have when we have Quinn and Wu? Come off it, North. This Wiki article is just a bunch of clueless political activism. If you really are keeping up with this industry, you would know that. So why are you doing it? We both know there are things wrong with this industry. I mean don't get us gamers started on EA, right? You know what I'm talking about. So granted we have tons of documented discussion about ethical problems in gaming and whether or not games are art and so on, why did you choose to write only the most trendy and ill-informed terms? What's the deal? YellowSandals (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * YellowSandals, please remember to be WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks. Artw (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek's data provided by Brandwatch contradicts both wikipedia and Newsweek's articles
Newsweek has the same anti-GG bias as the rest of the articles accepted as "reliable" by wikipedia. However both they (and wikipedia's editors) have missed a piece of quantitative data that punches massive hole in their basic narrative.

Reading the present and draft WP article, you see it's a long-winded way of saying "Gamergate is a group of misogynists who gathered together with the sole purpose of harassing women; they have a flimsy pretence that it's got something to do with journalistic ethics but the only motive that it's fair to ascribe to these people is misogyny and a desire to hurt women".

Now here's the relevant quote from the Newsweek article:
 * Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. "If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral," a Brandwatch representative told Newsweek. "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive."

The article provides helpful bar charts to make it even more obvious: green means positive comment, red means negative, grey means neutral. There is a LOT of grey. Add the green and red together and it's not even close to the grey.

So here it is, the only quantitative analysis that exists in a reliable source, and it flatly contradicts the "Gamergaters = misogynists" narrative. A self-published source exists that has a similar conclusion. Side issue: There's an exception to the RS ban that states that an expert's self-published analysis may be used by wikipedia. I quote:
 * Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.

Has it been established that Chris von Csefalvay lacks the necessary expertise and history of reliable third-party publications in the field of data analysis?

This means that the lede needs to be altered to reflect the fact (and it is a fact) that quantitative analysis shows that a large majority of Gamergate tweets lack detectable misogyny (and indeed any other type of negativity). We should maintain the reference to the fact that 100% of "reliably" sourced media narratives equate GG with misogyny, simply pair that with the fact that the analysis (definitely one by Brandwatch used by Newsweek, maybe the one by von Csefalvay if his data analysis expertise warrants his work's inclusion per WP policy) demonstrates this to be unsupported.Bramble window (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Erm, no. As per the source, Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive. The fact that a computer algorithm couldn't determine positivity or negativity for 90 percent of a sampling of tweets does not in any way disprove the qualitative view that Gamergate is responsible for a long-running campaign of misogynistic harassment. Rather, it suggests that the algorithm isn't very good at what it does — returning "undetermined" for 90 percent of a sample is perhaps the textbook definition of unhelpful results.
 * Your statement that quantitative analysis shows that a large majority of Gamergate tweets lack detectable misogyny is not supported by the evidence — as per the source, the algorithm analyzed only whether tweets were "positive or negative," which cannot be said to prove or disprove whether a given tweet contained specific biases such as misogyny or racism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a decent case for re-phrasing "detectable". A more precise, accurate phrase would be "The data analysis did not detect misogyny or other forms of negativity in a very large majority of the Gamergate tweets". The core fact is the same: the article's current thesis equating Gamergate with a simple campaign of misogynists is belied by the data analysis commissioned and published by Newsweek. That is the fact.Bramble window (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't though, is it? Even supposing that 90% were actually neutral (rather than that the algorithm was not sensitive enough to decide), that doesn't tell you anything about the attitudes of those tweeting. (For an analogy, consider an analysis of British wartime communications about Nazi generals: most will be neutral (informative, for strategic purposes etc.); a few might express admiration; a few might condemn their actions.) If Newsweek had made such an obviously false argument, it might be a problem for us, fortunately they didn't. So let's not make it for them. N p holmes (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Was the above post intended as comedy? I will observe that people have made up their minds about Nazi generals because they have many more sources to draw upon than British wartime communications. I hope neither you or I get in trouble for daring to allude to WW2. Apart from their tweets, posts and other internet contributions, what sources exist to indicate the attitude of gamergaters as a group towards women, and specifically to justify the article's labelling them as woman-haters? The answer, as far as I am able to make out, is "as close to zero as makes no difference". Tweets are virtually all we know about Gamergaters. Apart from tweets, the amount of data is small. And the evidence for high incidence of misogyny in those tweets? Not there. Bramble window (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether or not to include the source in the article; in limiting my involvement to strictly user conduct issues. I will say, though, that the source is interesting, and would meet Wikipedia's guidelines if whoever includes it is very, very careful to make only the claims explicitly presented in the article and avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the source is already in use in the article. (control F and search for Newsweek) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article's reference to Brandwatch's work fails to mention the most significant aspect of Brandwatch's work: the fact that the analysis does not detect negativity in the overwhelming majority of the tweets. Because I assume good faith, I take this to be a simple error and not deliberate deception. Bramble window (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We go by the sources interpretation of the data, not your personal interpretation of the data. The source's interpretation as reflected in their headline is " gamergate: journalistic ethics or harassment? harassment." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Newsweek, in part of its article, chooses to ignore the neutral tweets and simply compares the positive non-neutral tweets with the negative non-neutral tweets. Which it is perfectly entitled to do. But it also clearly states the silver bullet data: the overwhelming majority of tweets are neither positive nor negative. It basically ignores that fact in its discussion of the matter, as it is perfectly entitled to do. We wikipedia editors are under no obligation to ignore that data. I propose we include it. The specific, reliably sourced fact that the vast majority of gamergate-related tweets are neutral. Bramble window (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What the reliable sources choose to ignore, we ignore. see WP:OR / WP:V. You can make your own blog and rant about mainstream media conspiracies, but you may not do that here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What conspiracy are you referring to? I didn't mention any conspiracy.
 * Did you miss the point on the "original research" policy page headed "Routine calculations"? Let me quote: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Even if it's decided that "Routine calculations" doesn't apply, the fact is that the data is "out there" in a Newsweek article. We are obviously not bound by Newsweek's editorial slant on that data. "Comment is free, but facts are sacred." Bramble window (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are absolutely bound by what reliable sources say. We cannot conduct our own independent analysis of data, as such is original research. As a tertiary-source encyclopedia, what we publish is, by foundational policy, based on what is published in reliable sources. Newsweek's analysis here is controlling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What analysis? Newsweek does not analyse the data marked as "neutral" in any form. It mentions it, but makes no comment on its implications. It analyses the minority data, the ones that are detected to be non-neutral. "Mention" and "analyse" are not synonyms. Bramble window (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * " mentions it, but makes no comment" EXACTLY - why would we focus on what the source has determined is not worthy of discussion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source of the data is Brandwatch. They thought it was worthy of mention, because they mentioned it. It was reported in a reliable source which brings it onto wikipedia. (I personally assume its inclusion in the Newsweek article may be accidental, as it contradicts the article's central thesis, but what can you do?) Bramble window (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't contradict the central thesis. This is the mistake you're making — null data can't prove or disprove a hypothesis, and "undetermined" is precisely that: null data. If an algorithm can't determine whether something is positive or negative, that does not constitute proof that the content of the tweet is not positive or negative. It simply means the algorithm can't decide which it is. As the article states, Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive. You can't use an algorithm's shortcomings as proof of anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice research. Very original! I like it. Bramble window (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, I must conclude that you're willfully failing to understand the article, because the above is not "original research," it's an explanation of exactly what the data scientists at Brandwatch said. I gather you haven't taken any graduate-level statistics and data analysis courses, which would explain your lack of understanding of what data is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As an editor, I want to know how you reconcile the following facts that are known to you:
 * The majority of tweets by Gamergaters are neutral in content according to the only reliable source that has claimed to have commissioned a study of the source data.
 * The article at present paints Gamergaters as, on the whole, non-neutral misogynists. This is presented as fact, not opinion, in Wikipedia's voice. Bramble window (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. As has been pointed out numerous times, your use of "neutral" is incorrect in this context. Think of it as "noise" or "stuff we can't include in analysis because our algorithm doesn't work on it". This isn't even original research, either, because it says it right in the article. You are using it to mean "not positive or negative, but in between". It doesn't mean that. Woodroar (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, why do you think your original research gets to go in the article when that of others does not? If you can find a reliable source backing your claim that this specific instance of usage of "neutral" by Brandwatch about Gamergate means what you claim it does, post it and we'll look it over. Until then, we need to use dictionaries to define words. Remember, the thrust of the article at present is that Gamergate exists solely for the promulgation of anti-woman hate speech by woman haters. It is absolutely devastating to that thesis that it is on the public record that hate speech was not detected in the vast majority of gamergate messages. Meaning, the article as it stands is known to be massively untruthful, and verifiably so. People love to repeat that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth. But an entire article that is verifiably false is also contrary to policy. In a big way. Bramble window (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, can you read the source? ""If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The original research you are trying to insert into wikipedia is as follows "Brandwatch's algorithm is faulty and is not able to detect misogynistic hate speech in a tweet, and therefore erroneously classes misogynistic hate speech as "neutral"". Quite apart from being unacceptable owing to being original, it's unacceptable due to being entirely baseless. Bramble window (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * when the reliable sources stumble upon your brilliant analysis and publish it, then we will begin to reshape our article accordingly. Until then, please stop WP:FORUMing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not foruming, I'm trying to protect the article from your original, misconceived research. There is a difference. Bramble window (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * presenting what the sources present is absolutely the OPPOSITE of original research. Inserting your interpretation of the source data counter to what the professionals have determined IS posterchild WP:OR. Now stop your ranting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The objections to this new amendment are all based on a highly dubious set of assumptions. Bad assumption one: Brandwatch are so incompetent that their algorithm can't catch misogynist tweets most of the time (I'll grant you that it's hard to write any algorithm to study natural language that gets it right more than 99% of the time. It would be normal for an algorithm to accidentally mislabel a non-hateful tweet as hateful 1-3% of the time, and vice versa). Bad assumption two: you can take the first bad assumption, without waiting to see it confirmed in a reliable source which delves line-by-line into the source code of Brandwatch's algorithm, applying it to the GG tweets and proving that demonstrably misogynistic tweets are mislabeled as neutral in a high percentage of cases (certainly no fewer than 35% of the time, given the overwhelming dominance of neutral tweets that we all know of), and just throw it into wikipedia. Wrong. Brandwatch went public saying "our algorithm labelled the vast majority of tweets as neutral". That's all. You want to say Brandwatch's algorithm has a significant amount of false negatives (misogynistic tweets of the type that the article says Gamergate literally exists to create wrongly labelled as "neutral")? Get a reliable source to say so first.. Until then, Brandwatch says what Brandwatch says. Those tweets are labelled neutral. And the entire article is based on the assumption that those tweets are (at least mostly) non-neutral hate speech. Bramble window (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Until you have a reliable source that interprets the data as you do, it will not get into the article and certainly will not get us to dramatically change the entire article. Continued ranting without reliable sources will lead you to be topic banned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To repeat, Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive. A tweet that the algorithm has not classified as "positive" or "negative" is simply that — undetermined. The algorithm is not able to classify it. One cannot draw any conclusions about the content of a tweet that the algorithm can't classify. It is null data. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The essence of your repetitive claim is "Your honor, the video evidence simply shows a man who looks a lot like my client killing that prostitute." We all know that there can be a disjunct between appearances and reality. But you're trying to omit mention of the appearances, appearances that are not flattering to the anti-GG campaign, by postulating a disjunct that is not reliably sourced. Bramble window (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the essence of my argument is we dont make interpretations or analysis that is not specifically made in the source. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing you're demonstrating here is your lack of understanding of scientific research methodology, qualitative and quantitative content analysis and the limitations of a given set of data. The article, on the other hand, properly explains it and doesn't attempt to draw conclusions from the "undetermined" data. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem you have is that you miss that even your preferred wording of "undetermined" in relation to the tweets is a contradiction of the article. If the wording had been "undetermined, but probably misogynist" you might have a point. Misogynistic language is not a subtle thing. Either a tweet expresses hatred towards women or it doesn't. I seem to know something about negative evidence. There is a massive tension between a quote that says "undetermined" and the rest of the article that effectively says "definitely determined misogynist". This isn't foruming, I repeat. It's absolutely an article content dispute. This is a 100% legitimate disagreement in line with policy. Bramble window (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I hatted this a day or two ago because it's rather blatant original research and has become a forum debate. Here it is again. Friends, we've got general sanctions running and an arbitration case. Could we please try to use this page for its intended purpose only? There are loads of forums where you could discuss the topic, this is for discussing the article. --TS 03:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Circular reasoning problem
A big problem here is that a lot of the journalist sources that have been accused of corruption ( Such as the Guardian ) are currently being used as sources to prove otherwise simply because they have previously been considered a reliable source. This is very problematic, as it means a large portion of what is currently written on Gamergate here can be summarized as "Gaming journalism is not corrupt and/or Gamergate is mostly about misogyny because the journalists accused of corruption say so." This falls quite firmly under the definition of circular logic, and therefore the parts that utilize these sources are in clear violation of NPOV. There are also a ton of journalistic opinion articles like the one from Leigh Alexander( Source 5 ) that have been accused of poor ethics which are currently being used as a reliable source to "prove" otherwise. This violates Wikipedia policy against False balance. Despite being locked for editing, Wikipedias Gamergate article is still in some real need of clean up.

And then there are other parts that don't even cite a source, thus preventing them from being falsified. The opening into is especially guilty of this "the overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture." Since no source is provided for this "Majority of commentators" it can't even be determined whether or not false balance applies here as well. How is this Neutral at all? It isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottsdie (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire lot of the "accusations" against the mainstream media such as the Guardian are meaningless claptrap and we treat them as such. If there were any substance to the accusations, the rest of the media would have been all over it.
 * Please do not fill up this talk page with conspiracy theorys --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So we know the media isn't lying because if the media was lying then the media would tell us? Round and round the logic goes, where it stops, nobody knows. You have provided an example of the problem I am talking about here. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that many of the sites currently being used as sources have a large financial gain from advertisers or a political agenda that gives them incentives to lie. Pointing this out is not a conspiracy theory. Incentive is something that should always be taken into account. Pottsdie (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So The New York Times, PBS NewsHour, The Atlantic, The Telegraph, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Columbia Journalism Review, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Businessweek, Mother Jones, On the Media and The Colbert Report are all part of a vast secret media cabal conspiracy against Gamergate, is that what you're alleging?
 * It's infinitely amusing to see folks claim that The Guardian and The Telegraph would be conspiring together on anything — if you put those two papers in a room together they wouldn't agree on what day of the week it was. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pointing out the possibility of an Echo_chamber_(media) being in effect. The larger members of the mainstream media are most likely just repeating the original barrage of information started by the likes of Kotaku and Gamasutra ( Both whom have a massive financial incentive to make sure their voice is perceived as the correct voice ) because they don't know what else to say. This is actually an expected result of the pro gamergate side being too disorganized to easily understand, so they instead echoed the anti-gamergate side. A vast organized conspiracy is unlikely, but lazy journalism on the other hand is entirely possible. Dismissing this as a conspiracy theory shows you really don't understand how the events of Gamergate unfolded. Pottsdie (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You will need to make your case at WP:RSN . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Laurie Penny's "Uppity Cunts": Any rephrasing ideas?
User:Retartist is now the second editor to have misread the quote from Penny as an actual attack on feminists instead of obvious sarcasm. Is there anyway we could phrase this better, so readers don't make the same mistake?Bosstopher (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was sarcasm? I really couldn't tell, These people cut a fine line and i don't really believe sarcasm since the "Bring back bullying" quote that gawker claimed was a joke. Retartist (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should we even include such a sarcastic remark? It's a problematic quote with people misreading it. I don't think it's worthy of an encyclopedia. I'd say replace it with another point from Penny or just remove it altogether, it'll help us cut another Boing Boing source. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * i see it as caustic, not sarcastic. and in keeping with the attacks. Offer alternate suggestions below: -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were not sarcastic, I think it would violate WP:BLP. Oh, and the definition of caustic is "marked by incisive sarcasm", so... starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  01:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Options

 * Offer alternatives


 * 1) In an essay condemning the attacks and the ideology behind them, the feminist journalist and author Laurie Penny wrote that the attackers hold a belief that "The problem is that women are creating culture, changing culture, redefining culture, and those cunts, those poisonous cunts, those disgusting, uppity cunts must be stopped."
 * 2) Remove quote completely, satisfying the quotefarm cleanup.
 * 3) Something like "Feminist journalist and author Laurie Penny rejected what she characterised as the extremely misogynistic ideology of the Gamergate attacks in blunt terms." This focuses on replicating the opinion of a notable feminist commentator without contributing to the quote farm.

discussion

 * Option 2: Removal makes the most sense - it is by a person not at all involved in the situation, and it only repeats the same attitude already established in the paragraph; we don't need yet another attacking opinion added on. Add that it is a weak source for this type of article (boing boing) and removal is even a more sensible option. --M ASEM (t) 01:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * clearly not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. this is one quote whose essence cannot be parsed in alternate language. there are plenty of other quotes of duplicative nature and easily summarized and combined that would better satisfy cleaning of the quotefarm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the "cunt" part, the attitude expressed in the quote is the same as those already in the section by people more directly involved in the GG situation, so this is not giving the reader any more new information or a new unique viewpoint that must be shared. It is difficult to judge what the intent of the "cunt" part of the quote (whether it is sarcasm or pure bitterness, as already demonstrated), but either way, that part of the quote is not the reason to remove, as correctly identified, NOTCENSORED would allow us to keep the quote otherwise if it provided more value. --M ASEM (t) 01:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * why would we ignore the "cunt" part? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing in that we should ignore the fact the quote uses "cunt" (aka recognizing NOTCENSORERED applies) in terms of saying that's a reason the quote has to go or stay. --M ASEM (t) 01:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Option 2. It's a good quote, but since we have resolved to clean up the quote farm I think the article will be fine without it. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * in cleaning up the quote farm, the strategy would be to remove the bad quotes, not the good quotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no bad quotes, only bad web sites. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is our poor writing. I'm not convinced this particular essay, powerful as it is, needs to be quoted directly; aren't we trying to get rid of the quote farm? but if it is quoted in this article the reader must be given to understand that Laurie Penny is reappropriating language that has been used to exclude women, and not attacking women herself. Without vital contextual information, and sometimes even with it, many quotes are of little use. --TS 03:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a preference for "Feminist journalist and author Laurie Penny rejected what she characterised as the extremely misogynistic ideology of the Gamergate attacks in blunt terms." If we were writing an article about Penny or about feminist opinion journalism, we might comment more on her trenchant and graphic language, but here there is much more material and we probably shouldn't showcase personalities more than absolutely necessary. --TS 03:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd rather go for a more general description of Penny's criticism, than dropping the c-bomb for what seems like shock value. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just for shock value. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I think the actual use of the "c-bomb" appropriately places tone and tenor of her comment in relation to the on line communities she is discussing. When discussing trolling, whitewashing their severe nature does not appropriately represent the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Cunt" would be fine if she wasn't sarcastic. But because she was sarcastic, misinterpretations occur in what could be seen as a WP:BLP violating edit. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article already quotes threats made by trolls to Zoe Quin, removing this quote (which isn't even a direct quote of a threat), is hardly whitewashing.Bosstopher (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with removal of the quote, the article doesn't particularly need it. Artw (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd go with Option 2 first, otherwise Option 3, with Option 1 eliminated. My reasoning are in my posts above. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Data analysis
No one's yet explained why this is being rejected. It's by an expert. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Going to Oxford University does not make everything you write about the subject you study a reliable source. Bosstopher (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a self-published blog, which can be considered a reliable source in certain situations, when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. There is no evidence that's the case here. Furthermore, the author's argument makes a number of unsupported leaps of faith. For example, the author states A hate group would have a high degree of centrality, very often centered around a charismatic leader. Who says this, and that statement is based upon what research? The author doesn't say. No relevant sources which would support his characterization of the networks of hate groups are cited, and he is not, based on any available information, an expert in how hate groups are organized. Thus, this statement is nothing more than a bald assertion, and removing it topples the whole house of cards — if you don't truly know what the network characteristics of hate groups look like, you have nothing to compare Gamergate's network characteristics to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

New Erik Kain piece
This is a pretty good piece overall. I believe his characterization of it as about the increasingly oppositional relationship between gaming press and the gaming audience is a very good summation of the issue that has been provided in other reliable sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool, an article that gives some good information on the "other side." This should help us to balance out and improve this article some. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We already cite Erik Kain's opinions in this article more than any other single commentator, so I would object to giving his viewpoints even more weight than they are already accorded. However, there's surely some recentism in his other quotes/mentions that we can probably trim to give this "perspective" piece space, because it presents a cogent and arguable take on the movement with some time and distance away from the initial kerfuffle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

He's evolving and here repudiates some of his earlier opinions, but I note that his "gamers versus journalists" line has had little traction. I'm inclined to give him a line or two as perhaps one of the few observers who see Gamergate as something where journalists are the provocateurs, though as the majority have also observed, strangely the harm is nearly always done to women, and seldom at the hand of journalists.

Note that I'm currently trying to hack the quote farm into something fit for Wikipedia, and I'm also trimming opinion journalism heavily. So within those tight constraints a sentence or two will count for enough to satisfy due weight. --TS 01:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In working on historical articles (like WW2, for example), there often are many more sources, sometimes like 10 times more, that give the English-speaking POV over the non-English speaking POV. So, when I was working on those articles sometimes I needed to give more weight to certain sources in order to make sure both sides had a balanced treatment in the narrative. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but he's just this guy, you know? He's not from another country, he sees the same data the other commentators see. I'm not going to quibble about history articles, but if there are issues of systemic bias here they won't be resolved by simply giving one guy more weight than dozens of other commentators whose opinions, it seems to me, match the facts of a highly misogynistic campaign of harassment. --TS 02:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously, "balance" does not mean "equality." Balance is specifically found by giving due weight to viewpoints based upon their prevalence in reliable sources. If, in your opinion, the reliable sources themselves are unbalanced due to some sort of bias, that is not a problem Wikipedia is chartered to solve. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergater
This monolithic and conveniently revertible block of recent edits is my attempt to replace awkward references to Gamergate supporters with a consistent terminology that mirrors everyday usage. If you think "Gamergater" isn't quite the right word, do revert. It's just a style change, and is offered as an attempt to make the article easier to read. --TS 02:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Should we be consistent on Gamergate vs GamerGate? Tarc (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's something that's been nagging at me for some time. I don't care which but we should choose one and stick to it everywhere except when quoting a source that spells it differently. Personally I'd vote for small g to match the article title. — Strongjam (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I too prefer the small g, mainly because use of camel case is very unusual in English. I tried to change to Gamergate and Gamergater as I went, but that's pretty difficult in Chrome on an Android tablet so I wasn't as thorough as I'd have liked. --TS 16:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I used an external text editor that has case sensitive search to move all "GamerGate[]" text to "Gamergate[]" that was outside of quotes or reference names. --M ASEM (t) 17:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Time to finally move the article back to semi-protect?
Does anyone oppose having the article moved backed to semi-protected and its contents replaced with that of the draft? There hasn't been any serious edit warring on the draft for a while, GamerGate seems to finally be winding down, a lot of people have been topic banned, and from what I can see people on reddit and 8chan have stopped caring as much about this article and the accompanying ArbCom case. Bosstopher (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope springs eternal... I'm provisionally inclined to support this proposal. Let's consider making a formal request, though. Anyone can put up a request on the appropriate page (shortcut WP:RFPP if memory serves me). If you could link back to this discussion, however it may turn out, it would help any admin to make an informed decision. I'd also advise notifying the original protecting admin of this discussion, though that's not strictly necessary. --TS 18:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I've started a request. Bosstopher (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Now on semiprotection per Bosstopher's request. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't we need to do a history merge, not just a c&p?
I see that the latest edits from Draft:Gamergate controversy were added to this article, but doesn't doing it that way break the GFDL, since we're losing attribution? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I've tagged the page as requiring a history merge per WP:HM. — Strongjam (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually not. When we merge Page 1 into Page 2, it's not always possible to do a history merge, so we're allowed just to leave an edit summary of "Merging stuff from Page 1 ".  It's normal at that point to redirect 1 to 2, which allows us to keep it for attribution purposes without worrying about the second page sitting around and getting found by Special:Random.  It's a lot easier, especially as there were occasional edits here while the draft was being worked on; a history merge would have resulted in very-convoluted diffs at some points, e.g. this.  Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks for taking care of it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the copied template to better track the copy-over for attribution purposes. --M ASEM (t) 18:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Need a source on this lede change
I agree this is a truthful statement from everything I've read, but we don't have the "unwillingness" factor sourced in the body of the article, as best as I can tell, and I'm not finding one immediately. --M ASEM (t) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, all we need to is get a source and make sure in the body about the makeup of GG, that this is put in place. I'm sure there is one, I'm just coming up dry at the moment). --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To pick one that makes the argument pretty directly, Chris Ip discusses it in detail in the Columbia Journalism Review. But if readers are still mostly confused by what it is, who composes it, and what they want, that’s because coverage of the so-called movement has been pieced together mostly from tweets under pseudonyms and anonymous chat logs on websites like 4chan-offshoot 8chan and Reddit. ... The difficulty of reporting on Gamergate reflects faulty PR from the movement, but also the difficulty of covering any digital-era subculture that works in anonymity. ... The problem is that when anybody can tweet under the Gamergate hashtag, and no one wants to take responsibility for the movement, it becomes a challenge for reporters trying to nail down verifiable facts. When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. ... Meanwhile, the abusers and the reasoning debaters cannot be separated. ... To Polygon’s Grant, however, there is no clear resolution to reporting on Gamergate because the lack of coordination appears to be by design. “They resist cohesion, they resist leadership, they resist order,” he said.
 * This point is also made by Jesse Singal in his New York piece: So what is Gamergate “really” about? ... You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do. I’d argue that there isn’t really any such thing as Gamergate, because any given manifestation of it can be torn down as, again, No True Gamergate by anyone who disagrees with that manifestation or views it as an inconvenient blight from an optics standpoint. And who gets to decide what is and isn’t True Gamergate? You can’t say you want a decentralized, anonymous movement and then disown the ugly parts that inevitably pop up as a result of that structure. Either everything is in, or everything is out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, Ip's "by design" and Singal's comments work, I'll just add language specific for that in the body. --M ASEM (t) 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING
Less an hour and we're doing this already? --M ASEM (t) 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ....I am not surprised, but I am very disappointed that apparently the consensus from a drafted article is attempted to be derailed within minutes. What was the point of the drafting? Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "consensus" for that draft.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I would agree there should have been a straw poll or something before it was moved over, its there now, and this page is under sanctions. Talk about it if your BOLD edit is reverted. While the GS do not have 1RR, we all should be acting that way. --M ASEM (t) 19:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, if we are talking this change, it is actually more accurate and more impartial to call out the harassment from those using the hashtag, because that reflects that we have no idea if they are supporters just because they tag it with #gg, and the implicit problems of people hijacking hashtags. I'm completely fine with that. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this version of the article actually managed to be worse than the previous one. This looks more like a liveblog timeline entry than an encyclopedia article. Weedwacker (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If Gamergate partisans continue to ignore sources, consensus and policy and continue to edit in a disruptive manner then they should be banned. We have given them way too many chances here. Artw (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The version in draft space has been worked on by several editors for weeks. For the likes of TDA to swoop in and declare "no consensus" is seriously beyond the pale, and grounds for a last-minute Arb Evidence section, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't even see any sort of discussion about whether that draft is preferable in the last few days. I would have chimed in against it had such a discussion occurred.  There seem to be a number of "consensus" situations in which many editors are unaware of this consensus existing at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have to, but I'm working on the assumption that we have this to work from and we should edit it as appropriate per the sanctions. --M ASEM (t) 19:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO this should've remained locked until the end of ArbCom. Weedwacker (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There were a number of eleventh-hour changes by basically a single editor before the draft was moved into article space. I have not touched those, but they include removing all mention of GameJournoPros members trying to pressure The Escapist's editor-in-chief to shut down GamerGate discussion on his site and reducing mention of The Fine Young Capitalists to a two-sentence entry. Another change from a few days earlier was the removal of Usher's piece in Cinema Blend about female GamerGate supporters. It is only because I objected that there is any material attesting to the existence of female and minority supporters, despite ample reliably-sourced coverage about them in outlets such as The Washington Post, though that detail is still attributed as opinion and was moved to the less obvious "nature and organization" section.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"But I didn't know about the draft!"
I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous. It was first mentioned at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 14. That's November 13th, folks. Ignorance cannot be used as an excuse here. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus the big blue flag that was at the top of the page until a few hours ago. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference of being aware of the Draft, and being aware when it was planned on being moved into article space. The former, no excuses to not know, but the move from draft to main was a surprise. --M ASEM (t) 20:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's been an open discussion for doing just that since the 16th, it's not that much of a surprise. — Strongjam (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So a discussion of two people and nobody else resulted in the draft moving over? This is the consensus everyone is talking about?  Weedwacker (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The header seems to imply the discussion is only about protection, not about actually moving the draft. I'll assume that wasn't purposeful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what, bureaucracy to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy? Should there have been steering committees formed, meeting minutes, and schedules drawn up so we could devise a sub-committee that would eventually vote on the final form and shape and second of when the draft will be proposed for moving?  Will there be punch & pie served? Geez, I think it'd be common sense that if an article is locked and a Draft:* version is created, that the draft and the talk page are where issues can be hashed out without edit-warring a live article.  That objections are raised at any point during that time on the talk page, and that when protection was lifted, the draft would be merged. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In a situation like this, a simple straw poll would have worked. I'm not opposed to the draft version being moved or its current state (in broad terms, I've other concerns but will wait to see what comes from ArbCom if there's anything to act on), just that just like we should be editing with 1RR and more discussion on bold changes, we shouldn't be doing mass movements without a quick straw poll check. --M ASEM (t) 20:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No one had been objecting at all to the cleanup that TS and others had been doing to the Draft version though. You should only really need to take straw polls when there's doubt about where we stand, and there didn't seem to be any.  This is the second time that TDA has professed unawareness of a very large and very public discussion regarding this article, the first being irt the RfC. Tarc (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because no one has had issues with TS's updates and the like doesn't mean that the draft was necessarily ready for prime time. For example, I was working under an impression (my own) that we'd wait until ArbCom was resolved and issues from that dealt with before moving the page, so I simply wasn't paying that much attention unless a specific matter was brought up on the talk page, figuring to review the work at the end rather than in an intermediate state. --M ASEM (t) 22:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, Baranof created the draft literally ten hours after this happened. I am using "coincidentally" ironically here. It was not a coincidence.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no, it is entirely a coincidence. I created the draft because the main article was locked for forever and a day, everyone was arguing about hypothetical wording on the talk page and I wanted to create space for people to propose stuff and try to move the article forward even under protection. I'm not sure what significance "ten hours" is supposed to have, because it doesn't actually have any. On the other hand, creating the draft actually resulted in significant productive collaboration and improvement. That instead of recognizing that positive contribution, you choose to go off on some conspiracy tangent is telling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Go ahead, pull the other one.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it elsewhere. This section is far enough off-topic. — Strongjam (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The draft is where we work on the article content while it's locked. We discuss those edits and resolve issues on this same page we use for the main article. There will be issues with any version of the article, and these can be fixed by further editing and discussion. To be absolutely clear:
 * No version of the article is "ready for prime time". It's a wiki, we edit content in place.
 * Consensus can change. No content is beyond scrutiny, no single version "has consensus." The encyclopaedia has no deadline and will never be complete.
 * Arbitration changes nothing. The arbitration committee could conceivably pass an injunction to halt editing on a topic, but in my experience this has never happened.

Those late to the party are urged to join in and edit the article, with due regard for the purpose of Wikipedia etc, to improve our coverage of the topic. --TS 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cutting
This paragraph:

Depression Quest was released through Steam in August 2014, which coincided with the suicide of actor Robin Williams. Quinn, who had received the notification of the release from Steam shortly after the news about Williams' death, decided to release the game free as a service to those who may be suffering from depression, the only revenue the game receives is "pay what you want" proceeds, part of which are donated to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.[10][11] She said she did not want to be seen as capitalizing on the public tragedy, and decided that instead she would promote the game some time later out of respect for Williams.[12][13][14] Nonetheless her timing was criticized.[10]

Appears to be... unnecessary and long-winded and doesn't really talk about the controversy or really provide much relevant context or history. Can we edit the next paragraph with something like the following and just cut that whole first paragraph:

"Shortly after the release [Depression Quest in August 2014], Quinn's former..." Ries42 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Endorsed as irrelevant. Propose replace with DQ was originally released in February 2013 as per the above paragraph.  starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  05:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm partly unsure, but I also think this information would be more fitting for the page on the game and not on this article. Weedwacker (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This para yeah, it is a bit too much (we need to establish Quinn and DQ prior to the event but at this point, we don't need info about the release ). --M ASEM (t) 06:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not really relevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed, thanks all for the comments. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  06:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be un-fully protected?
I don't know, but was it a good idea to remove this article from full protection while an ArbCom case involving the topic and editors involved is ongoing? I feel this will only lead to even more strife, just after the evidence collection period of the case is supposed to have ended. Weedwacker (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi is fine as long as all respect the sanctions and expected editing behavior. The brief stint of EW earlier stopped fast so that's a good sign semi works. --M ASEM (t) 22:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was won over by the stability of the draft page. Should edit-warring resume (I didn't notice it as it was happening some hours ago) or should we see a resumption of extensive vandalism, I will take it as a misunderstanding by the people who said "it's ready for unprotection" and put back the protection that I removed.  Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an ARBCOM case about this and documented extra-Wiki organization to push POVs here. It needs protection at least until ARBCOM is done.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitration and external campaigns have been experienced routinely throughout Wikipedia's history. We don't lock down articles unless there is an active and demonstrable issue on the wiki, and even then we remove full protection as soon as possible. --TS 23:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, many assumed the draft page would not replace the main article while an ArbCom case about it was ongoing. Weedwacker (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the draft, but only in the sense of reverting it and putting it back. See "Don't we need to do a history merge, not just a c&p?" up above: all I did was ensuring proper attribution for what someone else had put in.  Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to discuss unprotecting the talk page first, before moving onto considering the actual article?Bosstopher (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're obviously not referring to this talk page, but I thought this was a discussion of this article. Which talk page were you referring to? I'm confused. --TS 07:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused about what he is referring to. Weedwacker (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Depression Quest initial release
I am confused. Depression Quest was released on Steam in August 2014. But it was initially released in February 2013 - on what platform? The sources are unclear - Daily Dot doesn't say anything from what I've read, and New Yorker just says Depression Quest, a free interactive fiction game released in 2013. From the Depression Quest Wikipedia article, Game Politics write that The game was originally released on February 14 of last year. Verge writes lo-fi Twine games like Depression Quest. A mystery indeed. starship .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  07:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Steam is a distribution platform, not a publisher. DQ was self published prior to its distribution on the Steam platform, likely from a website. This is why it was released and available prior to its Steam launch. With that being said, inclusion on Steam likely substantially increased its visability and rate of distribution. Ries42 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. It would be good to get a source saying that it was released on a website. Perhaps it is this website. So it was already readily accessible, it seems. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  09:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not have a source to corroborate that; however, I suspect you are correct. Ries42 (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Solved - presented a reliable source on my talk page. I have added the relevant information to the article.  starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  13:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the quote farm gone yet?
We recently hacked out a lot of quotes, either removing them as redundant or unnecessary, or else refactoring them. Is the work far enough progressed that we can remove the tag? I suspect not. And if not, I strongly recommend reducing the problem by vigorous editing.

Discussion of the finer points is okay too, but putting prosaic statements of fact into quotations (or, even worse, scare quotes) is a symptom of timidity and is bad practice. Be bold!

Perhaps we should paraphrase rather than remove entirely, when and only when the alternative would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Hacking stuff out is probably okay at this advanced stage. --TS 07:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever progress was made elsewhere it was probably overwhelmed in the gamejournalpros -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly TRPoD hasn't read the latest version of the article, even at the time of his post. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  13:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

An unusual sourcing quandary, part 2
We use an archived version of the Vox piece to support, and we also use it to talk about the mailing list. The problem is that the archive version doesn't really talk about it, but the live version does. I'm not sure how best to resolve this. For some background see archives. — Strongjam (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the point isn't supported by other, current reliable sources, it should probably just be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also sourced from the guardian article "They often did this with style and humour, but they knew their audience – predominantly young males."Bosstopher (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to re-word based on other sources. I think the only thing we needed the Vox source for was the "gendered interpretations of the identity" — Strongjam (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros debunked
The Columbia Journalism Review reporter states that the claims have been debunked. It doesn't really matter where any hyperlink goes to - the reporter is making the statement that they have been debunked. The CJR is an unimpeachable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But what do the vast majority of sources say? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That CJR is wrong. Weedwacker (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty bold claim to make. Every report on the supposed "collusion" that I've seen has been firm that the issue is a complete non-starter. Parabolist (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could supply some mainstream reliable sources for that statement, it would be helpful. And I don't mean RealGamerNewz.com. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Random editors don't get to second-guess reliable sources, sorry. There's always the noticeboard (WP:RSN) if someone feels they have a case to make. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the reliability of ArsTechnica generally? Or of Kyle Orland? Isn't he accused of creating the GameJournoPro's list? If he is being accused of creating it, can we trust him to reliably report about debunking it? Ries42 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've misread the page. Kyle Orland's ArsTechnia piece is referenced to source his statement AS creator of the list, and is not among the four sources referenced as debunking the claims of collusion. Parabolist (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 4 Sources? I thought we were talking about one source, Chris Ip's CJR article. What are the other 3? Ries42 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion, but as a platform for professional debate and discussion.[93][1][77][94]" Which cites the CJR piece, alongside ones from The Verge, The Week, and Vox. None of which written by members of the mailing list, as far as I know. Parabolist (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The other three that were added upon request. I can find even more if you really want, but that would seem like piling on citations for their own sake. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * North, please do find more sources which are not affiliated to those being accused on the list. CJR and Week are fine. Polygon is on the GJP list, and Polygon is owned by Vox, which also owns Verge. They have a vested interest in decrying the list. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  04:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that dog doesn't hunt, and your "vested interest" claim is ridiculous on its face. The sources stand, support the statement and that's pretty much the end of it. The existence of shared parent ownership among three different media properties does not permit you to discard two of them by claiming tenuous, Alex Jones-level conspiracy links between their positions. Moreover, Polygon was not "on" the list - certain staffers were, but that does not constitute any sort of institutional membership or endorsement of the list. This looks for all the world like an attempt to carry fringe Gamergate conspiracy theories into the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely ridiculous. Two reliable sources debunking that tabloid-esque garbage is more than enough. The fact that almost no reliable sources actually picked up the story should be proof in and of itself. This is not the hill for Gamergate supporters to lay down their lives on. Parabolist (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'd like to see them as I must have missed them in the article itself. I could only find 2, the CJR article quoted above and Todd VanDerWerff's article here. In the mean time, I am relatively new here, so I don't know the "Wikipedia" answer to my question above. Could you tell me how reliable is Ars Technica generally and Kyle Orland's claim that GJP is 'debunked'? (HAHA, trying to post this is hard with all the "edit conflicts" I keep getting) Ries42 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the exact wording of the CJR report - which does not say how the GJPro list was debunked, just that it "was" - and the lack of any other source other than the ArsTech/Orland statement, begs the question of how it was debunked and we should not be stating that factually with at least a few other sources to assure that. Please note that I in general agree that GJPro is a red herring in GG evidents, but to be accurate, there is only really the word of one person that I can easily find to counter the GG claim of collusion. (On the other other, as one of the comments in the CJR piece states, the press have generally ignored the GJPro claim as anything actionable, but that's just a comment, we'd need a source to back that up). --M ASEM  (t) 04:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we have four separate sources saying the same thing, and if you really, really want a fifth and a sixth and a seventh, ad infinitum, we can do that too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Mind letting me pick your mind a bit?


 * This source (Vox) appears to have ties to the "list". Isn't Vox the owner of Polygon, whom Ben Kuchera is the editor of? There are several Polygon journalists on the "GJP" list, so there may be a bit of a conflict of interest with this source. Additionally, at least the article you linked to appears to have been written on September 6, before the "list" articles in mid-September and early October. This doesn't appear to be a reliable source targeted at "debunking" the GJP list. Do you disagree?


 * The next article from the Week is also suspect, in that it doesn't actually say much about "debunking" the GJP list. Specifically it says:


 * "... because he leaked a trove of basically anodyne emails between game journalists, thus giving the appearance of confirmation to #gamergate conspiracy mongers."


 * It doesn't read like a fact that the list is "debunked," if anything it confirms that a list exists (although it gives no information of the purpose or content of the list).


 * The third source you linked is the Verge article here, which actually appears to be the 'strongest' article of the four in terms of reliability, but even that doesn't appear to say the list is "debunked" as a fact. It says specifically:


 * "... there is no real scandal with the game journalist list — unless you believe that journalists merely speaking to one another constitutes some kind of shadowy media illuminati."


 * The source here doesn't appear to "debunk" the list's existence or address any other claims. Again, it seems to, in fact, prove that the list did in actuality exist without commenting on the content of the list. This source would not be a reliable source as to the content of the list, either positive or negative though, based on what is written here.


 * The last source is the CJR article here. There is a reason I'm asking why you believe the creator of the list, Kyle Orland, can be reliable as to "debunking" that same list. Specifically this article is the first one that actually uses the word "debunked" and states:


 * "about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked."


 * There are two links there within the article, the second one is the important one, and I have recreated it here for ease. It links to an ArsTechnica article written by Kyle Orland as the "source" of the fact that the GJP list has been "debunked". Therefore, I challenge the reliability of this source because it does not appear to be making a claim itself that the list is debunked, but linking to an article written by Kyle Orland, as evidence that the list is already debunked. As such, the reliability of the statement "the list is debunked" is contingent on the reliability of Orland's article. So, do you assert that Kyle Orland, the creator of the GJP, is a reliable source to debunk the GJP list? Ries42 (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (Thanks, Sorry! :) )
 * I'm afraid you're not on point here. Our article does not state that the claim is debunked; rather it states that Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion, but as a platform for professional debate and discussion. We do not question on what basis reliable sources draw their conclusions — that amounts to original research. CJR is an indisputable reliable source, and that CJR writer Chris Ip views the claims as "debunked" (in his words) is more than sufficient to be a supporting source for our article's statement that Most commentators viewed the list not as evidence of collusion... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course we question on what basis reliable sources draw their conclusions... in the talk page. WP:NOR states that "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages," so anything presented here is fair game, although of course it won't make it to the article, that research CAN be used to challenge the WP:RS for its WP:V and reliability. Here, there is a serious question to the reliability of the source here, not because of the author, or even the publisher, but the work itself. It states its claim is based off of an article that has a clear WP:COI, and therefore, is unreliable because of that. If the linked article would not be considered a WP:RS on its own for it's stated claim, why would another source linking that first source change it if it does not bring anything else to the claim other than parroting the first article. Ries42 (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Go to vox.com theverge.com and polygon.com/games. Scroll to the bottom. You'll see a logo of VOX MEDIA at the bottom right. They are under the same parent company. They have a vested interest in protecting themselves from allegations of collusion. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  05:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to believe your absurd conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A company protecting its financial assets is not a conspiracy theory, it's called business. Weedwacker (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it actually is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence that either Vox Media nor Polygon were ever members or "financially involved" in a private e-mail list of games journalists. There is no conflict of interest, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just like someone saying BBC One is corrupt, and then using BBC Two as a reliable source "commentator" against that allegation of corruption. Yes, I really, really want a fifth and a sixth and a seventh source which is wholly unrelated to organizations on the GameJournoPros mailing list. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  05:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to your recent edit, would it be more accurate to say "Ryan Cooper of "The Week" labeled the list as "basically anodyne emails between game journalists" while ..." I still question the reliability of using CJR specifically as a source for GJP because of the reasons listed here. Ries42 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * North has fixed that for you. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  06:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * - where are your "fifth, sixth, seventh" sources? Why do you keep persisting in adding Verge and Vox? And your Westman Journal ref is broken. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  05:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears he's just going to ignore talking about it and make changes to the article... I'm lost. Is that how this is supposed to work? Ries42 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he'll reply once he's done making changes. Assume good faith. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  06:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I just figured we'd determine which sources were the best/most reliable first in the talk page and use those instead of this more carpet bomb type approach. But I suppose we could just cut what is redundant after all is posted, so nothing is really lost. Ries42 (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * - When I first removed the information, it was only the Forbes source, and the inline text stated "most commentators". We've progressed from that point already in having new sources. You've got CJR, Week, Forbes and Westman Journal. Four unaffiliated sources are plenty. Forbes is the most critical but even Kain states that "a largely civil conversation". Why the need for the affiliated Verge and Vox?  starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  06:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because neither Vox nor The Verge are "affiliated" as you keep suggesting without a shred of actual evidence. You have nothing more than a conspiracy theory. You have presented no evidence to suggest that Polygon as an entity has anything to do with GameJournoPros as an entity. The mere fact that some members of its staff participated in the list is not evidence, much less proof, of your supposed "COI," even for Polygon, much less trying to attach this to two entirely editorially-independent news sites that happen to share a common ownership. The articles in question were written by writers with no connection to the e-mail list in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * writers with no connection to the e-mail list in question from news sites that happen to share a common ownership. There is a business or financial interest in Vox Media debunking allegations of collusion in one of its subsidiaries via two other of its subsidiaries. Surely, the reputation of Polygon was sullied due to one of its editors being in GameJournoPros, and GameJournoPros being alleged to be a collusion. Now, if I were Vox Media, my interest would to be how to reverse or minimize the damage of the reputation. It's simple as that. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  07:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have an interesting claim/conspiracy theory there. Oddly enough, it's not actually supported by anything other than your personal beliefs. Particularly the claim that "the reputation of Polygon was sullied" needs a citation, because... well, yeah, no, it really hasn't been, at least among anyone who isn't part of the Gamergate movement. There is no evidence in hand that anyone outside Gamergate considers those allegations to be a serious issue. The best you can do is Erik Kain waffling around the edges but ultimately admitting that pretty much everything on the list is just normal discussion. So while you're welcome to your personal beliefs, they don't really have an impact on how we judge reliable sources. You might personally believe GJP to be the biggest scandal since Teapot Dome, but the reliable sources universally disagree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with reliable sources not affiliated with the subject at hand. Breitbart published 11 Polygon writers as part of the list, including its Editor-in-Chief. Even Chris Plante - Senior Editor at The Verge is there. This has resulted in negative coverage, see the sources in the article, Forbes: "Breitbart piece suggested collusion" Re/Code: "spurred belief in media collusion" Washington Post: "An article at Breitbart ... didn't help matters." --> how can you twist that into something positive, I don't know.
 * Vox acknowledges Polygon as a sister site and Polygon acknowledges the Verge as a sister site. The connection is staring at you in the face, but you don't want to accept it. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  08:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your quotes are quite telling. Re/Code notes that the allegations "spurred belief in media collusion," which acknowledges the fact that some people believe in said collusion, but doesn't suggest that belief has any grounding in reality. The part of The Washington Post quote you conveniently omit notes that Breitbart's claim is purported, which again acknowledges that Breitbart's story led some people to believe in media collusion, but does not suggest that there is any factual basis to the claims. The issue withered on the vine thereafter and disappeared from view when it became clear that there was no there, there in the e-mails.
 * You keep skirting around the fact that you don't have evidence for your purported Vox Media conspiracy theory. You have only a deep-seeded desire to believe that the opposition to Gamergate and rejection of its claims is some shadowy secret conspiracy of basically every journalist in the world, rather than simply being a logical conclusion which the facts unanimously support. I'm sorry to tell you, because this apparently must come as a shock, but the world at large has examined Gamergate's claims and largely concluded that they are at best nothingburgers (GameJournoPros) and at worst, malicious lies ("Quinnspiracy"). Endlessly repeating the claim that this conclusion is the result of underhanded conspiracy is not constructive nor does it aid in the writing of an encyclopedia based upon reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear North, I neither a gamer nor a GamerGate supporter. I just don't want a potential COI when we have other reliable sources already present. It's like you're on this moral crusade to destroy GamerGate that by my opposing your content, I automatically become some evil harasser or something, that's just what I feel. I'm off to edit things I feel better about. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  09:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This pile-on attempting to overturn the conclusion of, among other sources, the highly reputable tertiary source CJR, is fuelled by original research and unlikely to get anywhere within policy. I'm minded to close this discussion down as unlikely to get anywhere. Rebuttals to my suggestion, please? --TS 07:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's a highly reputable source, but the sourced line in question here is one wherein the CJR cites the subjects of an allegation about them. Nobody is arguing that CJR isn't a reliable source, just that with that mention it's not. Weedwacker (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't really care who they cite. The credibility is CJR's. News articles are not Wikipedia articles — the mere existence of an inline link to something doesn't mean that link is the only reason they're saying something. Given CJR's long history of credible reporting on media issues, there are no evident grounds upon which to second-guess the statements of a reporter for that outlet. We presume that they conducted the necessary research and reporting to make that determination and their conclusion has been reviewed by a credible fact-checking and editorial review process. If you have evidence which tends to disprove this presumption, now would be the time to produce it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very bold statement NS :). But I'm not sure exactly if it tracks. WP:RS says a source is three different things: The piece itself (the article, and if I might be so WP:Bold, the claims the article makes), the creator (author), and the publisher of the work. WP:RS then says in bold, Any of the three can affect reliability. No one questions parts 2 or 3. No one is questioning CJR, or Chris Pi's integrity. But as WP:RS states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."
 * In this specific case, for this specific claim, that "GJP is debunked," the reliability of the source, the work itself, is in question. The mere existence of an inline link, with nothing more, does not in an of itself, make the work itself unreliable. However, the work states GJP is debunked as a fact, as if it were indisputable, and the inline link in this case is being used as evidence of that fact. If that evidence has serious reliability issues, how can we not then immediately question the reliability of that fact? Ries42 (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * * May I ask you, can we at least agree that the above makes the source questionable? Even if you ultimately believe and answer that question as "The source is still reliable," can you at least agree the above points make us, as good editors, have to question the reliability of the source? Ries42 (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly think you believe in good faith that there is a question of reliability, but that belief is not well-founded given the lack of any evidence for the conspiracy theory you posit. There are a number of people who believe in good faith that there is a vast global media conspiracy against Gamergate, but those beliefs cannot have an effect on the encyclopedia, any more than the fact that a number of people believe in good faith that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president would require us to present that claim as having any basis in truth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy Theory? You're saying I am doing what now? That... what? Please, explain yourself, because that is quite an accusation. How is questioning the reliability of a source because it links to an unreliable article directly in its claim in any way a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you're conflating my argument with another?
 * Holy... Wow. Are you seriously equating this situation to the "Birther" movement or even the "mass Gamergate conspiracy". None of that matters. I'm asking a very specific question on the reliability of a specific source, irrespective of any other source. How is your conduct in any way appropriate? I believe you misunderstand good faith. Ries42 (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. The continual questioning of reliable sources with strong or impeccable track records of reliability and accuracy — the Columbia Journalism Review is one of the most respected media criticism publications in the world — because they are consistently reaching conclusions that Gamergate supporters disagree with is, at this point, beyond tiresome and repetitive and into the range of being tendentious. It is very much akin to the various birth certificate conspiracy theories, whose proponents constantly declaimed that only the biased liberal media was preventing the world from knowing the truth about Barack Obama being a Kenyan Muslim socialist usurper.
 * It's evident that y'all don't want to hear what the reliable sources have to say about Gamergate, but that's not Wikipedia's problem. The movement's total public relations failure is not going to be fixed on Wikipedia. That's not what we're here for. We're here to document the world based on what is published in mainstream reliable sources. The argument that your personal interpretation of the meaning of an inline link in an article makes Chris Ip's reporting on the subject of GameJournoPros suspect or unreliable just isn't going to fly. Ip's reporting, which has passed through CJR's editorial and fact-checking processes, is in all certainty more reliable than the self-published blogging of Erik Kain, whose work is not routinely edited or fact-checked at all. But I don't see you demanding that Kain's claims be removed from the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, relax. Secondly, relax. Thirdly, relax.
 * Stop clumping me with someone else. I am no one else but myself. I do not appreciate you imparting me with bad faith because of nothing I have personally done. I'm questioning a source, not trying to overthrow your world view.
 * First, it is not just my own personal interpretation, it is a reasonable interpretation for what is presented. When an inline link is placed in such a way that it directly underlines a claim that is stated as fact, it is implied that the inline link is supportive of the supposition being made. That is basic sourcing. It's exactly the same as if he put a footnote at the end of the line and linked to that article.
 * WP:RS tells us that we must look at each item on a "Case-by-case" basis for a reason. That reason is because, no matter how infallible a source may have been in the past, WP:RS states, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains error." Sometimes things slip through all the fact checking in the world. Sometimes those things even become laws. I'll tell you a story one day maybe, but this isn't the time for that.
 * Whatever your personal issues that have made you so agitated, I am sorry for them. I am sorry you have had to deal with so much shit here. And I'm sorry that it has made you angry, and resentful, and maybe even a little bit paranoid. I do not wish to make it worse, or exacerbate them. But you are using them as an excuse to abandon critical thought, and that I cannot, in good conscious, ignore. I'm going to step back for a few hours and ask you to do the same. Perhaps we can discuss this again later. Ries42 (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with all this is the word "interpretation". We don't interpret, we quote. As long as you don't have reliable sources that corroborate your interpretation, that is original research - simple as that. Also please refrain from speculating about other editors' mental state and engage with the issues at hand. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:OR, in the talk page it states we 'are' supposed to use original research to verify reliable sources if there is reason to call the source into question for the stated proposition. Its one thing to say, "this person's opinion is X," but this particular source is saying that "X is a fact" and then using a very unreliable source as the basis of that claim. The unreliable source being Kyle Orland himself, ultimately the person who created the list in question. If that isn't unreliable because of WP:COI or WP:BIAS I don't know what is.
 * Therefore, to call it "CJR's opinion" is wrong, per WP:V, which would " imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source." The source treats the debunking of the GJP list as a fact. If we were to use that source in the article, we would have to treat the material as a fact. When that fact appears to be sourced on unreliable information, it would be inappropriate to put it on Wikipedia, no matter who wrote the article. Ries42 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "CJR's opinion," that's correct. It's a statement of fact in a reported news story published by a well-respected journalistic organization. Your claim that the fact is "sourced on unreliable information" is merely an unsupported personal opinion based on your interpretation of the article, and it's obviously not widely shared. Challenging the reliability of sources generally requires more than a personal hunch or gut feeling — to use the example of Breitbart, there exists a consensus that anything from the site is presumptively unreliable based on the wide array of reliable sources which have exposed the organization's repeated ethical failings and generally consider Breitbart to lack any journalistic credibility. What you are doing here is challenging CJR's credibility supported by nothing more than your own credibility, and CJR wins that fight by TKO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except... I'm not challenging CJR, or the author. I'm challenging the third prong of WP:RS, i.e., the work itself. If you or I, or anyone were to write that exact same line in the article, and sourced it as the CJR article does, would you let it stand as reliable? Ries42 (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? You are stating that the author and publisher are fine, but if the author and publisher were not reliable would it be OK? well of course not. But they are, Blanche. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's my point. WP:RS states there are three elements to a reliable source, and that each of them affects the reliability. I grant that the reliability is generally good in this case because we have a good author, and a good publication. If the assertion was neutral, there would be no issue at all. But that isn't the case, the issue is the work itself, the fact itself, is supported by a very unreliable source. My challenge above was to spotlight exactly how unreliable the assertion is. It cannot stand on its own, its only being entertained because of the author/publication. But WP:RS states that any of the three can affect the reliability, both positively and negatively. In this case, there are other sources that could very well be sourced to assert the opinion that the GJP list is not very notable. We should use those because they are ultimately more reliable. There is, as far as I can see, only one source that labels it as a fact that the list is completely debunked. And that fact is on shaky ground because it bases that fact from a piece written by Kyle Orland. For that reason, the CJR source should not be used, specifically related to GJP. Otherwise it is a very reliable source and its other assertions are, as far as I can tell, reliable and unquestioned. There should be no issue using this piece as a source in other sections of the main article, but its inappropriate as a source in regards to the GJP list because the only assertion it makes to that issue is unreliable. Ries42 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's what it boils down to. You are claiming to know exactly how Chris Ip reported and wrote the article based on nothing more than your inference drawn from the existence of an inline link in the article. News articles are not Wikipedia articles, inline links are not necessarily the only "sources" used and you have absolutely no idea what other reporting Chris Ip did to draw the conclusion he did. Unless you can read Chris Ip's mind and tell us with metaphysical certaintude that the link in question is the only thing which supports his reportorial conclusion, all we have is your personal opinion about what you think of the source, and your opinion does not outweigh the clearly-expressed judgment of Ip's editors and fact-checkers at CJR who approved the piece for publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess at this point, the best thing to do is say, I disagree with you, I'm not the only one, and leave it at that. Perhaps we should see if there is a consensus as to whether this source is reliable besides the two of us? Ries42 (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you really want to keep wasting everyone's time on this quixotic quest to declare one of the most respected journalism magazines "unreliable," you're welcome to launch a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless, can we please avoid turning the section into another massive block of quotes used to argue things by proxy? I think that given the sources we've been able to find, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of commentary does agree that there is no scandal there; Erik Kain seems to be the only noteworthy source outside of Breitbart that disagrees (and even then, only slightly, since he says that only two things caught his eye); and nothing about him makes him notable enough for us to turn that section into a back-and-forth about his views, especially since "overwhelming majority" still clearly allows for a few dissenting voices (like his) to exist. --Aquillion (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I certainly want to avoid turning this section into a quote fest, I'm trying to nail down the reliable sources that actually state your proposition that an "overwhelming majority" of reliable sources believe that. There are reliability issues with many of the sources which state that proposition, for WP:COI and WP:RS grounds. Ries42 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Orland himself recognises some slight wrongdoing as well in this article. "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." He seems to sympathise with Kain's POV a bit here.Bosstopher (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that rather than supporting the claims of "collusion" or "groupthink," this bit of evidence supports the idea that the list hosted freewheeling debate and promoted healthy, professional discussion – Orland admits to a pair of personal missteps, but says the other members of the list disapproved of his proposals and did not, as has been charged, engage in "collusive" behavior. Later in the discussion thread, cooler heads prevailed and made me realize that this would be overstepping our primary role as reporters and observers (which is exactly the kind of productive, self-correcting debate the group engenders). No such note was ever sent. and No one else in the group took this suggestion seriously, as the game still has only one scored review on Metacritic. While I was wrong to suggest it, the utter lack of response clearly disproves allegations of "collusion" among game journalists. Instead, it shows the independent spirit of those who participate in the group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and this is pretty similar to what Kain's POV is on the issue for the most part. Kain's eyebrow raising moments, arent argued to be examples of collusion but rather examples of personal wrongdoing.Bosstopher (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, agreed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * support closure given zero evidence of collusion and multiple sources identifying no collusion, this "discussion" is over. consensus does not rely on converting every tinfoil hat wearing crusader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * L Agreed. This is classic attempts to ignore reliable sources and make them appear more controversial than they actually are because some people aren't happy with what they say. Consensus and policy are both clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The only issue with the present wording that I see is: isn't accurate in the emphasized part s the GJPro list has been relatively overlooked compared to the harassment, so few have actually commented on it, but we do have.  captures the "size" of the commentator pool better as well as the fact most were like "this is what every professional does". --M ASEM  (t) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with saying "most commentators" as some sources did not address the collusion allegations and Kain at least felt there were disconcerting conversations. Obviously, not everything has been dismissed either. From what I have seen, members of GameJournoPros do more or less concede that there was a serious issue there, but they put it on Destructoid rather than the mailing list.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 08:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede is overlong and full of repetition. Discuss.
"Wintergreen determined the outcome by throwing all communications from General Peckem into the wastebasket. He found them too prolix. General Dreedle's views, expressed in less pretentious literary style, pleased ex-PFC Wintergreen and were sped along by him in zealous observance of regulations. General Dreedle was victorious by default..." -Catch-22, Joseph Heller.

Let's imagine the reader is Ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen. The lede should be written by General Dreedle; General Peckem can collaborate on the finer details in the body of the article.

I suggest we work out carefully what needs to be in the lede. There are some themes that appear there several times when once should be enough. The main body of the article should contain elaboration of themes, the lede should just quickly summarise them. --TS 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Arguably, you could keep the current first and fourth paragraph and it would be much easier to read, as to get into all the details of the harassment, the claimed ethics, the criticims of GG, etc. is bulking it up. 1st para is a strong overview, 4th is a good understand why we are here. --M ASEM  (t) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Weedwacker (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support trim to only paragraphs 1 and 4 of the lead. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the second paragraph is absolutely essential (it provides a broad overview of the key points of the article), but the third one is definitely unnecessary and mostly restates stuff covered elsewhere in the lead. In fact, I think only the current first and second paragraphs are really needed -- they cover the core facts and history of the controversy. The third and fourth paragraphs mostly go off on tangents about analyzing it from various perspectives, which isn't necessary for the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really: the phrase "primarily targeting women in the video game industry" in the first sentence summarizes that well, if we need to add an adjective to describe the nature of the harassment that drew public attention to GG, then that's fine. --M ASEM (t) 04:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The lead needs to reflect the article; and the article spends a huge amount of text summarizing the overarching history and focus of Gamergate.  That history, in turn, is primarily about how they came to focus on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu, and "primarily targeting women in the video game industry" is not a remotely adequate symmetrization of that history.  I would say that overall the second paragraph of the lead is the most important and most well-written part, and it is the one part that absolutely must remain in some form in any revision.  My feeling (and the thesis of at least large portions of the article) is that the second paragraph describes the heart of the GamerGate controversy and the core of the events that the rest of the article approaches from various angles; the other parts just summarize less-important editorializing by various talking heads and a variety of sub-controversies that grew out of those attacks. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "primarily targeting women in the video game industry, including Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu". starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Insufficient. The origins of the controversy make up much of the core article, and deserve the full paragraph they have now. I reiterate my opposition to any changes that would remove the second paragraph.  The third paragraph, I agree, is mostly redundant, but the history-focused second paragraph is exemplary and I see no reason for it to require significant changes, let alone to remove it entirely or to replace it with one sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we're making progress! Thanks everybody. Keep the ideas flowing. --TS 07:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I like this idea (of cutting the second and third paragraph) although I feel like there is one line that might be of use from the third paragraph, specifically how it defines the "culture war" as a "culture war against the diversification of video game demographic". If we cut the second and third paragraph, can we slightly rewrite the first paragraph to state in the last line:


 * "...a manifestation of a culture war against the diversification of video game demographics and gaming culture." Ries42 (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, the last paragraph could be rewritten slightly to take out some repetition as such:


 * The events of Gamergate are widely attributed to perceived changes or threats to the gamer identity as a result of the maturation of the gaming industry. Recognition as an art form has led to social criticism and commentary, prompting opposition from traditional adherents to the gamer identity, or hardcore gamers. The resulting clash has led to conflict and harassment.


 * I realize after doing it that is a much larger rewrite than I intended, but I think it still keeps the same information in a more formal tone. But I am willing to scrap that entirely if no one agrees. Ries42 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's some great work — much more concise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Implementing Ries42's concise version of the fourth paragraph - I don't see why anyone would oppose. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  13:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then here's a proposal for the full lede:

Its not perfect, but I think we can get a consensus on this and move forward with nitpicking specifics afterwords. As it is such a big change, I think we should have a consensus before putting it on the article itself, and at the very least its a significant improvement, IMO. Ries42 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is drastically better than the lede as it stands, but still stands to be improved. The first sentence is a bit of a run-on, and the second paragraph is redundant with the end of the first paragraph. More importantly, it still employs some weasel language. I suggest something like this:

Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * outside of the gamergate echo chamber, the only "controversy" is the harassment. the "but ethics" are peripheral smokescreen at best. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Before making a statement like that, educate yourself on what activities GamerGate is actually devoting tremendous man-hours to http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-ftc-info-updates-will-address-affiliate-links-native-ads/ compared to some salacious but isolated death threats. We don't need to agree on what GamerGate "really is", but the lede should avoid drawing a conclusion on that matter either. Rhoark (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * nobody cares what gamergaters are doing except for their horrendous viscous harassment. look at the sources. Our article is NOT about the self proclaimed "consumer movement" - its about the controversy. As a "consumer movement" its completely non notable. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We as a neutral source have to care, in as far as it is documented in reliable sources. There's not much we can, but there are definitely things that are available. We can't plug our ears and go "la la la not listening" to anything said by GG if a reliable source describes it (even if then going on to ridicule/criticize it) --M ASEM (t) 19:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "We" as a as a neutral source only care about what the reliable sources care about. and the jury is fully in on that. they do not care a horses ass about GG self proclaimed crusade whether it be "but ethics" or "consumer revolt". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a controversy, we, to be neutral, need to cover both sides, even if one side has been otherwise mostly ignored. If it was impossible to document one side with reliable sources, that would be one thing (this happens all the time in video game articles where user reviews are vastly different from published ones - we simply can't use SPS sources to support the user side). But we can document, a small degree, the GG supporters sides, and thus our responsibility as a neutral party is to include that documentation in proportion (read: very little) relative to the rest of the sources. --M ASEM  (t) 19:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BALASPS No, we dont need to create some false balance. We cover it as the sources do. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPARTIAL "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." There are respectable sources for people believing they are activists for ethics and not misogyny. Wikipedia can and should note that most media disagrees, but can't go so far as to say or imply which is right. Rhoark (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing violating WP:IMPARTIAL in stating that GG is noted primarily for the harassment it has done when all of the reliable sources focus primarily on the harassment that it has done.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course there isn't an impartiality problem to say that GG is noted primarily for harassment. But it is a violation to act like GG has no stated claims of ethics or is a movement, when we do have reliable sources that make it clear that the group has self-identified these aspects. To ignore that under the claim "but the rest of the press ignores them" is not impartial for WP. --M ASEM (t) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We cover the "but ethics" as much or more than the reliable sources do. However, we should not give them excessive credence in the lead. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That I agree, we can't flip this around to make it about that issue. The current language in the first paragraph, being half a sentence long, is about right. --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Be careful what you link to. There was defamatory content in the forum that you linked to. — Strongjam (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no defamatory content on the linked page. Rhoark (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. Search for "Wu". Please don't re-add, or if possible find a way to link only to the text you want to highlight. — Strongjam (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a stretch to call any of that defamatory, but I replaced the link with one that summarizes the main content Rhoark (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

semi arbitary break

 * I see where you're going with this, and there are some points that I do think are good, but I don't think it reflects what the article states at this time, or gives due weight to the reliable sources that are within. Until and unless the article itself more accurately follows how you summarize it, I do not believe your attempt is an appropriate lede. That being said... perhaps something like this might be more palatable. Label it proposal B.

I think that hits all the highlights. Ries42 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that may be the most balanced possible lede that could be said to reflect the article such as it is. Rhoark (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unhelpful to attempt and conflate two major changes at once, particularly given the extensive discussions and consensus-gathering which underpinned the development of the new lead paragraph just two weeks ago. Downplaying the fact that the controversy is centered around sexism in video gaming is just not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the changes I see suggested here seem particularly viable to me; they make the lead less reflective of the article, and nearly ignore huge sections of the article. I will reiterate that I feel that the current second paragraph is excellent as-is and provides a vital overview of the core background; I am completely opposed to removing it or significantly reducing its size.  To me, keeping the following in some form (with at best minor tweaks) should be seen as a given:


 * This description, as noted above, was the result of extensive discussion and consensus-building just two weeks ago, and I think that it is one of the most well-written and balanced parts of the article. The third and fourth paragraphs can go (they're fairly vague and redundant with the first two), but the second paragraph is utterly essential, and I haven't seen any actual arguments for cutting it at all. Likewise, I do not see any particular need to significantly revise the first paragraph, which is more or less excellent as it is. However, I think we have a general consensus that the third paragraph can go...? --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's significant repetition there. How about we collapse the third and fourth paragraphs into this:
 * The issue of the movement's unorganized, leaderless, anonymous nature is repeated in enough reliable sources to be lede-worthy; it's frequently cited as a reason why the movement hasn't been able to control harassment conducted under its name, or even to clearly define what it stands for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is still trying to say too much without citations. It should be a single, brief paragraph in the vein of what I or Ries42 suggested. The feeling that the lede needs to be much more is driven by the lack of directness in the first sections of the article proper. It's drowning in he-said-she-said, tertiary cultural background, and full quotes of opinions from every journalist under the sun. Its deficiencies cannot be compensated for by an over-ambitious lede trying to explain what it all really means. Rhoark (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An article's lead doesn't require citations, since it is supposed to reflect the article; the things it references are cited down there. Regardless, I'm still not seeing any arguments in favor of removing the second paragraph -- have we agreed that it needs to stay? It is, as far as I can tell, an uncontentious history of the core parts of the article's subject. I want to get this settled first, since I think that it's the most clear-cut part of the discussion; we can discuss how we want to revise (or remove) the third and fourth paragraphs later, but I want to be sure we're all in agreement that the second / 'history' paragraph needs to stay. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the only change I would suggest is to change the wording in one part to say
 * Exactly, a lede does not require and should not have citations. That's why it should be brief, general, and cautious in its claims. Rhoark (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)
See /RFC1
 * RFC closing statement: "There is a general feeling here that the article does have a slight bias, however, the point is also made that this seems to reflect the reliable sources available."


 * Also from the closing statement: "Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term." Rhoark (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Recasting the lede second sentence
New wording, and note that I've split it into two sentences because it seemed natural to break out the culture war aspect into its own sentence. Nearly all media commentary refers to the disgusting attacks. Quite a lot of it relates that to Kulturkampf. I've also taken note of potential confusion about which "commentators" we're talking about.


 * While many supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism, the great majority of media commentary has focused on the attacks conducted under the #gamergate hashtag, which have been broadly condemned as sexist and misogynistic. Gamergate is often seen as a manifestation of a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

Being bold in the draft. Have at it. --TS 20:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After the word "misogynistic" we need to add the phrase "although the only data analysis published in reliable sources states that the overwhelming majority of tweets are "undetermined" and fail to meet the algorithm's criteria for negative." Bramble window (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that is not going to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Far too much to worry about even if we could say that for the lede. Conciseness in the lede is very important and that's sidetracking the issue. --M ASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any mention of the twitter analysis in the lede should reflect the usage in the body. Wherever the matter is treated in the body, whether or not it is mentioned in the lede, the methodological failure to classify most tweets should be given equal weight to the conclusions that are drawn from it. If that caveat is not included, the study should not be cited at all. Rhoark (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think TS's suggestion is an improvement, his second sentence is still putting too much certainty into WP's voice. I suggest changing it to, "Commentators in the media see it as a manifestation of a culture war against women and diversification of gaming culture."  Later in the intro I think we can add a sentence along the lines of what Bramble suggests above. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No we are NOT going to add content that contradicts the essence of the source itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Each of us gets a vote, RedPen, and each of our votes is equal to the others. Please relax and enjoy the process.  Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've been around long enough to know that we don't vote. Original research doesn't get a vote. --TS 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TS, your opinion on how to interpret and use the source counts as one opinion. So does mine.  We don't spend time here trying to disenfranchise each other's opinions, because that it contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.  We give our opinions and the consensus is what goes into the article.  About the only exception is BLP concern. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone's opinion who says that the source  which states "Is GamerGate About Media Ethics or Harassing Women? Harassment, the Data Shows"  should be used to state otherwise is an opinion that will be discounted as being irrelevant. WP:V. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is clearly implied as a "opinion of the masses" and not as a fact (using "is seen as..." language to defer any implication it is WP's voice stating that. I'm not worried about it. --M ASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reads fine to me. --M ASEM (t) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The final sentence is intended to indicate a sizable fraction of informed media opinion. If there's a better way to say that commentators often see this event as a symptom of Kulturkumpf, please edit the draft. --TS 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Identifying material that has fallen to the spell of Recentism
Identifying material that's been given too much weight because it loomed larger at an earlier stage can be tricky, but I think it may be worth trying to get consensus on the bits that are now starting to look "too fat" or that have coverage but don't really seem to go anywhere.

I don't expect we'd all agree on exactly what counts, but I think we might at first look at what criteria to use. Did the inconclusive nature of the GameJournoPros affair count against our quite detailed coverage? It's hardly ever mentioned outside Breitbart and one or two other fringe political websites. Do we spend too much space covering the endless and largely uniform opinions of the pundits? Do the Fine Young Capitalists merit so much space, given that their role was quite incidental? I'm inclined to support all three suggestions, but I'd like to see what other editors' opinions on this are. -TS 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've trimmed some of the punditry quotes around the "ethics" issue, as there's only so many ways to say "there is no ethics issue." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I carried on trimming. Seems to be a better read now, at least. We may soon be able to remove the quote farm tag. --TS 08:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be all for removing The Fine Young Capitalists entirely, or paring it down to a single sentence at most, since they seem to just be one incidental group that attached themselves to this and not particularly significant in the scope of the larger controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Fine Young Capitalists has it's own page, pretty much entirely dedicated to Gamergate related material. Either that should go or the mentions here should consist of a single sentence and a link. Artw (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think the TFYC incident is worth mentioning, since the actions alleged to have been taken by Quinn in regards to the Game Jam, were one of the factors that caused gamers under the "Gamergate" movement to at best be angry with Quinn, and at worst, target her for harassment. As it is, the current edit is a touch lacking, though it would be hard to really say anything without seeming biased one way or the other, or too wordy. One possible solution might be to say "Early on in the movement "  Granted someone would need to write it better than me, but the idea is to give just a general idea of what is reported as happening, and how it relates to Gamergate as a whole.  Basically, leaving this out leaves out some of the motivating factors to the movement, or at least one of the early ones. Kitsunedawn (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those allegations are non-starters and have no place in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this is an article about viewpoints, positions and motivations of significant minority viewpoints are owed adequate space to maintain a neutral point of view. This particular matter may or may not be due a portion of the space given to the minority viewpoint, but that is a determination that must be made from within rather than from without. Rhoark (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've redacted them as unsupported and unsourced claims of wrongdoing, which have no place in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Top-level organization
This article kind of stumbles around, going back and forth between presenting developments by theme, then chronologically, and back again. It also has problems of scope, with lots of citations about background developments and cultural context outside the sections devoted to those topics. The problem is of an organizational nature that will not be fixed by incremental edits.

I propose a top level reorganization: History - a chronological recap of events with a direct proximal contribution - namely, Depression Quest, the Green Label and TFYC game jams, Eroj Gjoni, early threats against Zoe Quinn, and Adam Baldwin's creation of the hash tag

Gamer and Minority Identity - general cultural context, Tropes vs Women, Jennifer Hepler, "Gamers are Dead", and NotYourShield

Ethics Concerns - GameJournoPros, endorsement disclosures, Polytron financials, IGDA and Indiecade voting structures, blacklisting, and news outlets' reactions to these topics

GamerGate structure and activity - leaderless nature, political leanings, fundraising, boycotts, advertiser pullouts, etc

Online Harassment - anything about anyone getting harassed about and because of the hash tag

This would initially entail no addition or deletion of text or citations, just a reordering. It will no doubt help clarify though where the content itself is in need of further editing. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that a chronological reorganization might be more effective. We could start off with the pre-Gamergate events, like the initial accusations against Quinn and the TFYC events, then move into the creation of the hashtag, the harassment of Sarkeesian, the "Gamers are Dead" articles, NotYourShield, and Gamejournopros, Operation Disrespectful Nod and Gawker stuff, then the harassment of Wu, Day, and Sarkeesian in October. Any events I've forgotten can go wherever they belong chronologically. After that we could have sections on media analysis and whatnot. That way, there's a clear rundown of what exactly happened instead of piecing the events together by theme, and then we can get into why it happened. I think it would help tremendously with clarity and readability. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think chronological ordering is only helpful when there is a sequence of causality for that ordering to put a spotlight on. Past the creation of the hashtag, there are so many strands to the issue that putting everything in a single timeline would obscure rather than illuminate how one event relates to another. Rhoark (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's necessarily true in this case. You have Quinn's harassment leading to the creation of the Gamergate hashtag. At around the same time, Sarkeesian released a new video and was subsequently harassed. The harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian led to the "Gamers are Dead" articles, leading to Operation Disrespectful Nod etc. The only thing that I think falls outside is the harassment of Wu, Day, and the school shooting threat, but with Wu and Day the harassment was a result of their opinions on Gamergate. I don't think that obscures anything at all. From my perspective, at least, it's a pretty straightforward cause and effect series of events. We don't need to overcomplicate it by sorting events by theme and explaining over and over which events are related to other events in different sections. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Those things are consequences of one another, but more in a gestalt sense than in the manner of a Rube Goldberg mousetrap. The real issue is that a strictly timeline-oriented approach gives undue weight to minor events happening in between major ones. Rhoark (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So then we either don't include the minor events, or we give them coverage equivalent to the amount that they're given in reliable sources. I don't think that's giving minor events undue weight, and if they're worth mentioning at all why would it make sense to mention them outside of the context that makes them worth mentioning in the first place? Kaciemonster (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's kind of my point. Putting citations in context avoids the catch-22 that mere presence might give undue weight. I think I may be taking a finer-grained view of what constitutes an "event" here. The scenario I want to avoid is for the reactions to an event to be orphaned from discussion of the event itself due to overly-mechanical adherence to a chronological organization. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we might be talking past each other. I'm not suggesting that we separate commentary on events from the timeline, I'm suggesting we organize events in the order that they happened. It doesn't make sense to separate related events because they have different themes. Why would we separate the TFYC events from the initial allegations against Quinn and put it into a section about the Gamergate movement when most (if not all) of the events involving them happened before Gamergate even existed? Why would we separate the "Death of Gamer" articles from NotYourShield and Operation Disrespectful Nod? The current article removes events from their context, leading to an article that jumps forward and backward in time and makes it significantly more difficult for a reader to piece together what actually happened and why. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying, but I can't envision how the clarity could be improved by combining the section on GG as an organization with its activities and the section on gender identity into a shared timeline. Maybe that reflects how people are talking past each other in the controversy as a whole. Rhoark (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've produced an example of what I propose. The lede is excluded, since that's being worked elsewhere. Otherwise nothing has been added or removed, only rearranged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Rhoark, although a timeline approach may be appropriate after the article has been cleaned up significantly more to where such an issue wouldn't be as likely. In either event, I feel that any reorganization should be on hold until the article is cleaned up significantly. Ries42 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Having undertaken the exercise of actually reorganizing it, I feel more than ever that cleaning can't be meaningfully addressed without also tackling organization. As it is, citations of different things are just peppered all over without rhyme or reason. Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cute that you moved all of the material about harassment — the single most notable part of Gamergate — to the bottom. It's rather obvious that such an organization is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not an accurate characterization. The History section is mostly about the harassment of Zoe Quinn, while the Gender Identity section discusses harassment as a general phenomenon. Exhaustive listing of who was harassed and when fits best after the history and context have been fully established. Rhoark (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, really. The only reason Gamergate is even notable is the harassment campaigns its members undertook. As has been exhaustively discussed here previously, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, PBS NewsHour, ABC News (Australia), Wired, The New Yorker, New York, The Telegraph, etc. etc. etc. all wrote articles about Gamergate's harassment campaigns — not "but ethics." The controversy Gamergate spawned has nothing to do with "ethics in games journalism" and everything to do with anonymous, misogynistic harassment of women in video gaming. Much of what Gamergate has subsequently done is, in fact, a direct result of its negative reaction to media characterizations of the movement as an excuse for online harassment and as an exemplar of the existence of sexism in video gaming culture. Operation Disrespectful Nod, for one, would never have existed if the movement hadn't been launched by vitriolic attacks on Zoe Quinn, which spurred many in the video games media to write columns which criticized video game culture for misogyny, juvenility and a blase attitude toward harassment, which were responded to with... yes, more harassment. Your proposition is a non-starter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While this statement (GG is here because of the attention the harassment got) is absolutely not wrong, it's also not a long-term thinking aspect - but that's part of the difficulty here. We should be considering how to structure this article when a year from now (assuming GG is effectively a non-story) how to present this information for posterity. The current structure was great with events happening rapidly, but that structure is not well suited for understanding the situation from a stable situation. I don't know the right answer, but I dont think we can be as closed minded to restructuring that better explains the narrative with the dust settled. How to do that, though, I just don't know a clear answer. --M ASEM  (t) 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not saying that the current structure is perfect, and I agree with you that it should be improved. But moving all the harassment to the bottom, when the reason Gamergate appeared on the front pages of newspapers worldwide has everything to do with harassment, is not an option. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again "all the harassment" was not moved to the bottom. It is very well represented in all sections. The principle cause of a topic's notability should be addressed in the lede but doesn't otherwise dictate the structure of an article. Context belongs before an exhaustive list of incidents. Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I really think we're putting the cart before the horse so to speak. There is a lot in this article that needs to be trimmed or just completely cut. Trying to find a good, sane, and logical organization scheme with so much else to do is going to be difficult. I say we revisit reorganization after cutting a bit more fat. Ries42 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Organization is entailed in deciding what needs to be cut. In my example, the "Media Reaction" section consists entirely of citations that are quotes not supporting any other claim in the article. Some of them may be extraneous, while others could be reworked as a citation for a claim somewhere in the article that isn't just a direct quote. Preserving but reorganizing them is an effective aid to deciding their final disposition. Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Harassment shouldn't be at the bottom (though criticism in regards to it should be lower), however, one arrangement I've brainstormed would be to have the current background, but ending on the accusations against Quinn and likely Sarkeesain, which would be the point of departure for the two threads (ethics vs harassment). The first would be who the GG group are, their issues against Quinn, Sarkeesian, and journalism, and how their stated ethics claims are unworkable. Then the second is the continued harassment including Wu, the "Death of Gamers"/email Operations, and so on. And then we get into the criticism of GG. It's not a perfect idea yet, but it does avoid putting the harassment too far down the article but giving enough details to talk about who GG are and getting into the rest of the historical record of the harassment. --M ASEM  (t) 21:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm been long thinking about the structure, and the way this story has developed, there's no good way to present it because for all purposes we have two "story" threads - GG's issues with ethics, and the harassment, which only touch when the first false accusations about Quinn came out. Everything else that GG itself has done beyond the ethics are in response to what the press has said about them (the various Operations, etc.). Who GG are should be explained early on, but explaining them earlier than the harassment seems wrong, and either way I order it in my head, there's no good narrative thread. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I really don't know. We should have separate sections on the group, on the actual events (without commentary unless necessary), and then criticism and analysis of the situation, that's clear, but the ordering is a mess due to the overall situation. --M ASEM  (t) 20:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the criticism of the placement of the Harassment section, to address concerns I've tried to find homes higher in the article for as much as possible of the content. The material has been distributed around the History and Gender sections. The final section is now termed "Subsequent Harassment", consisting of specific incidents happening in or later than October. These changes are reflected in the current revision at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The second proposed revision was boldly posted and reverted. Criticisms that the first revised version gave insufficient weight to incidences of harassment has already been addressed in the second version. If there are further concerns, please share them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your changes amounted to a wholesale rewrite, and I don't see any consensus on this page for a wholesale rewrite. Nor do I agree that you have in any way addressed the concerns. Gamergate appeared in The New York Times due to death threats made against Anita Sarkeesian — your rewrite moved that fact to the very bottom of the article. It's not "recentism" to depict the movement primarily based upon what has been written about it in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The changes are far-reaching, but hardly a rewrite considering nearly every paragraph of the original remained contiguous. Harassment is a significant part of the controversy and retains principle prominence in the modified article. The Eron Gjoni letter received enough media attention to meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Media attention above and on top of that is worth mentioning, but is not the defining feature of the controversy or the article. Sarkeesian is given space in the section on Gamer Identity and Minorities, where her views are contrasted with those of GamerGate. The threat against her in Utah occurred after the GamerGate controversy was well underway, and has no substantiated connection with GamerGate apart from the fact that Sarkeesian is unpopular among GamerGate supporters. As such, a place in the further reaches of the article is entirely appropriate for the Utah incident. The article as a whole has a problem with recentism, as it was built organically with unfolding events. Individual editors added their contributions in ways that neither presented a chronological or topic-themed account. Rhoark (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Utah threats DO in fact have a direct and documented connection to gamergate. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The university received copycat threats after Sarkeesian publicized the original. It stands that the threat she cited in her decision to cancel her appearance had no connection to Gamergate. Even if the threat had been connected, and it was widely deemed as the most notable incident of all related to Gamergate, that would not be cause to place it higher in the article to the detriment of chronological or topical ordering. You can see this in any WP article about a person or organization most known for illegal or notorious acts. The matter is mentioned in the lede, then addressed in full after more biographical and contextual matter. Rhoark (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What exactly allows you to distinguish a copycat gamergater threat from a real gamergater threat? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Copycat threats are real threats. That is not the salient question, of which there are two. First, whether the threat that caused the engagement to be cancelled was connected to Gamergate. It was not. Second, if the threat was or was not connected, does this mean the incident must be described early in the article. In either case, it does not. Rhoark (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Sorry. As per The Washington Post: The Utah State threat is just the latest one in the ongoing saga of Gamergate, an increasingly nasty culture war between video-game critics like Sarkeesian and a mob of gamers. (See this post by the Post’s Caitlin Dewey for more.) Sarkeesian isn’t the only woman who has received death threats in connection with Gamergate. On Friday, game developer Brianna Wu left her home after alerting police that she received a death threat that included her home address. Zoe Quinn, an independent developer who was the original target of Gamergate, was also forced to leave her home because of death threats. In August, the threats grew so severe that Sarkeesian was forced to flee her home too. Your personal opinion that the threat isn't linked cannot override the fact that the reliable sources universally link the threats to the movement. And if you're going to argue that all of the reliable sources are part of a worldwide media conspiracy against Gamergate, then this is not the encyclopedia project you are looking for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of that is pertinent to whether GamerGate caused the Utah cancellation, and where on the page the topic should be addressed. Rhoark (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When you start declaring that multiple reliable sources that explicitly connect gamergate to the utah cancellation are not pertinent, you are clearly establishing either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or a WP:NOTHERE issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Take care that you are not developing an ad-hominem issue. I am not discussing whether Gamergate is connected to Utah by a general cloud of opprobrium. The cancellation was caused by a specific letter. The specific letter is not identified by itself or other evidence as coming from a Gamergate supporter. FBI investigation determined the letter was consistent with threats Sarkeesian received in the past, before Gamergate existed. All of these facts are confirmed by reliable secondary sources, but the pertinent question, which no amount of block quoted spam can resolve, is what any of it means for how high on the page the incident should appear. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Utah cancellation was caused by the fact that the interpretation of Utah gun laws would mean that guns would not be prohibited from the auditorium after death threats involving guns and bombs were received. to claim that it was canceled because of a specific letter that did not specifically mention gamergate is not supported by ANY source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nooooope. Sarkeesian, in turn, has drawn heavy criticism from some gamers, and even threats of violence that led her to cancel a speech at Utah State University. But Sarkeesian’s case is only one part of a broader online assault on women in the gaming industry in recent months. It goes back to August, when an ex-boyfriend of video game designer Zoe Quinn posted an online blog. In it, he accused Quinn of sleeping with a reporter to get a positive review on one of her games. That sparked a campaign that came to be dubbed GamerGate, highlighting perceived corruption among video game journalists. From there, GamerGate has grown to include outright harassment of women like Quinn and Sarkeesian who work in or critique the industry. Threats on Twitter even forced Brianna Wu, another game developer, to leave her Boston area home after her address was made public. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, the claim that it's not linked to Gamergate is just flat wrong. The defining nature of the Gamergate controversy, to use your words, is the misogynistic harassment of Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and others. That's not my opinion - that's the overwhelming consensus of a wide range of mainstream reliable sources which have examined the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note here, as I understand things, the harassment of Wu in the start of things was not tied to Gamergate, but was found to be the work of a Brazilian "Click Bait" news "reporter" (I use that term loosely). Later targeting of Wu came in response to her involvement in a mass banning of members of the "Mighty No. 9" forum after their names showed up in Wu's blocklist of Gamergate members.  The main argument which members had with her in that later point being that they had backed the kickstarter for the game, some substantially (one claiming upwards of a thousand dollars US), and posting on the forum was a perk that came with the donations.Kitsunedawn (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the structural concerns are unfounded, but we should be slow and methodical about this. For example, I think the "Hashtag" section should be above the "Debate about ethics concerns" section, because it's true that we should explain what the movement is before we explain the debate over their claims. So I'll make that one change and see if it gains consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm basically not seeing anything in the article that would require such sweeping changes. At the moment I feel our most important goals should be to try and reduce the quote-farmyness a bit and remove some things that seemed important in the past but which are now clearly less significant in retrospect (eg. The Fine Young Capitalists section, the DiGRA section); but I don't see any particular reason to push for, say, a total rewrite of the lead or a massive reorganization of the article.  Overall this article is pretty good (and given the amount of very recent time and effort and discussion that went into getting it up to its current quality level, I think that we'd need more reasons than have been provided here to make such sweeping changes.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The rewrite of the lede is a process with support and participation from a lot of people, higher on the talk page. Reorganization is needed for several reasons. Firstly, the article has been built incrementally as events unfold, leaving information presented in an order that is not the most logical (It exhibits "recentism"). Whether you believe the most logical order is chronological or topical, the article is presently neither. As you noted, there is excess material that should be excised, but placing everything in a coherent order helps show what information is and is not contributing to a coherent presentation. Reorganizing is a way of facilitating pruning, not a competing process. Rhoark (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, 100% Protonk (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward
The ordering of the article as it stands exhibits WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROSELINE. The naming of sections does not adhere to WP:NDESC (a policy for article rather than section titles, but similar reasoning applies.) The gestalt effect is that the article does not conform to the directive of WP:STRUCTURE that structure should not "make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints." The proposed rearrangement mitigates these concerns without inducing new problems, maintaining all existing content, and as such any general refusal in principal to come to a consensus that addresses the above problems should not alter a default decision to accept the modification as a baseline for further editing.

Specific and justified objections to the modification should of course be resolved before consensus can be considered to be achieved. The view has been expressed that the article should be organized in a more chronological and less topical manner. The proposed revision prefers topical organization, but is still more chronologically coherent than the article as it stands. The possibility of hypothetical superior edits without specific problems noted in the actual edits does not justify reversion. Accepting the proposed revision does not limit the possibility for more chronological organization in the future. There have been suggestions that pruning excess material should be a higher priority than reordering material; however, these are not competing objectives. Improved organization puts material in a context that allows its importance to be more fairly judged. There is no cause to delay reorganization. Finally, there was the concern that the article order did not give due weight to the place of harassment. To allay these concerns, more material about harassment was placed higher in the article. Again, no sentence or citation has been added or removed. The objection was retained on the specific placement of the Utah Sarkeesian incident. I have given my position, which is that this placement is consistent with policies on due weight and analogy to the structures of other articles on WP. Given that this remaining objection is tied to a specific paragraph and not the general project of reorganization, the placement of this specific paragraph can be pursued with further bold edits that do not require complete reversion of the reorganization. The state of the lede remains its own separate matter. In light of the above, barring new specific and justified objections in the interim, the revised order will be published again shortly. Given that concerns have been presented and addressed, discussion or bold edits should be preferred to reverts for further consensus-seeking. Rhoark (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A Counter-Proposal
All right. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I'd prefer to avoid from WP:Battleground articles, but this is one case where an article definitely needs some editorial help. I tried perusing it, and found it frankly unreadable. To be fair, the ongoing focus on most of the discussion here has been on what content and sources to include/exclude, and there have been a slew of more recent edits and comments that seems to have improved things, but there's still work left to do. The single outstanding issue with the article that I can see is, as @Rhoark states, the lack of any coherent organization. I tend to disagree with Rhoark about the validity of a timeline-based format, though I agree that there are clearly some elements that would not mesh well into such a pattern. I propose the following top-tier organization for the main body, leaving every else as sub-headers within the various sections: There are plenty of substantive changes I'd like to see, but as a new editor, I think it'd be safer for me to stick to the more non-controversial end of the spectrum. Thanks for listening. PublicolaMinor (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Background would cover anything relevant that occurred prior to August 2014, specifically focusing on 1) the development of a 'gamer' identity and culture, 2) prior incidences of sexism/harassment and/or prior discussions of feminism within video gaming, and 3) prior notable incidents involving tech and video game journalism.
 * History would cover the major events in chronological order from August 2014. This seems to be the most hotly debated point, so I leave it to other hands to flesh out, though I would encourage concision - short enough for a single subheader covering the early days of the controversy prior to the hashtag, a single subheader covering the circumstances of its initial use, that sort of thing.
 * Responses would cover any notable elements that for one reason or another did not suit the chronological treatment of the other two sections. This would of course include the existing content 'Media Reactions' and 'Industry Reactions', but I would be inclined to compile and include subsections for 'Feminist Reactions' (for any material re: Sarkeesian and/or Sommers that didn't fit in 'History') and possibly 'Police Responses' (covering any material on police investigation of harassment and/or death threats, including the USU incident). The big danger of such a section would be its tendency to start resembling a kitchen sink (Mention all the things!) so in this as before I would encourage concision.

New developments; FBI investigations
As we prune down the verbiage from past events, we have to make sure to keep an eye on recent events so the article remains current. #Gamergate Is Reportedly Being Investigated by the FBI will be noteworthy as it develops. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's already been added (I did that earlier today). And to be truthful, all we know is that the FBI has a GG file based on a request under a Freedom of Information request, they are no established details of how extensive it is. --M ASEM (t) 00:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, well silly me I searched thru the talk page first and found no mention; didn't think it'd be in the article already. Looks good, just a brief blurb for now. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are also no details on exactly what they are investigating. It could be an investigation of the movement itself, it could be specific threats on any number of people that were reported to the FBI, we don't know and we can't make presumptions in the article.  Weedwacker (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Something to watch re Jimmy Wales + GG
(Not a reliable source to add from, but it is documenting what you can find elsewhere). This hasn't been picked up by major other sources, nor do I immediately thinks it needs to be documented in here if this gets covered (Perhaps at Press coverage 2014), however, it could be a possible inclusion since arguably Jimmy's response is straight to the point to what is wrong with the GG movement, and I've seen many devs on twitter repeat it in 100% agreement with it. --M ASEM (t) 01:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another mention: - "Attempts to influence Wikipedia" may be a better section heading, though I worry that it may be too meta. Artw (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, so Wikipedia has officially become a part of the story. Weedwacker (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. It might, this would be the start of where WP gets involved in the story, but far too early to tell if even necessary to include here. --M ASEM (t) 21:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Masem. We're not at the point where this merits inclusion yet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutrality in section titles
Renaming section titles to push a point of view, such as "Ethics Concerns" to "Alleged and debunked ethics concerns" is an unacceptable breach of neutrality. It is not relevant whether the preponderance of secondary sources takes a particular view. The requirement for WP:IMPARTIAL is not waived. There are already sections dedicated to rebuttals of Gamergate claims. To insert judgement in the very title of the section where the claims are first presented is a particularly galling example of WP:HOWEVER. @NorthBySouthBaranof and @TheRedPenOfDoom have been reverted several times on this matter, with reasons provided. They and any others are called to present their case for discussion here and refrain from these types of edits in the meantime. Assistance will be appreciated in policing the neutrality of section titles while the matter is discussed. Rhoark (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stating that there are "ethics concerns" is similarly a violation of neutrality, as it presents the claims as legitimate without noting that mainstream reliable sources have entirely rejected them and view them as not actually having any merit or credibility. Which is why the section title previously stated "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns," presenting the matter as a subject of debate between two sides. You are the one who made the section title non-neutral by removing the description of those claims as debated and disputed. If you are willing to return to the longstanding consensus section title, Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns, I have no problem with that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" would be a better title than "Alleged and debunked ethics concerns". Weedwacker (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is still weasel language designed to raise doubt about the legitimacy. "Ethical Concerns" is a neutral title not suggesting that the concerns are or are not legitimate. Rhoark (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that nobody outside Gamergate takes the ethics claims seriously means that we must present the claims in the context of the mainstream view of those claims — which is that they don't actually have anything to do with ethics. As per WP:GEVAL, we frame unaccepted minority viewpoints which have been rejected by mainstream sources in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The relation of majority and minority views must be established, but section titles are not the appropriate place to do so. Nor is there any appropriate place for the article to take a side on the issue, even if it is the majority one. The way to avoid false balance with a significant minority is allocation of proportional space. Rhoark (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are writing an article about a controversy, part of which involves significant debate and discussion about the validity of a particular set of claims, with the broad consensus of reliable sources being that they have no legitimacy. Hence, the section title presents the issue as a debate within the broader Gamergate controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the section is describing a debate within the majority viewpoint rather than between the majority and minority, the requirement for due weight to the minority is still in effect. A new section treating the minority view in a purely descriptive fashion would need to be created, and its contrast with the majority view explained. Much of the identity section and the response sections would belong better as an internal debate of the majority also, if that's what the section is. Rhoark (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We would also have to return the structure in which the claims were presented in the context of mainstream sources, as per the due weight policy, because that presented the debate between the two sides. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No "Ethics concerns" under a section about the GG hashtag/movement is not a violation of neutrality, because we are only stating that they have ethics concerns. It neither justifies that they are legitimate concerns that can be acted on, or criticizes them as inactionable as the press as done. The body has plenty of room for the later aspects. Stating "Alleged and debunked ethics concerns" is a major violation of neutrality policy because that is taking the side of the media, which we cannot take. --M ASEM (t) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * contrary to your repeated claims, the media is not a "side". they are our sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the specific source that labels the concerns as "debunked"? Preferably one that uses the word. Ries42 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to say just this, as the section itself doesn't appear to show any debunkings at all, at worst just some disagreements as to whether certain situations are ethics concerns. I support going back to "ethics concerns" or, as a compromise, "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the section is actually about the debate over their legitimacy, I think the title should reflect that. — Strongjam (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are a side in this. That doesn't mean they can't be our sources, but we have to separate their opinions from facts; it is clearly their opinion (and the predominate one) their ethics claims are bunk, but that's still an opinion WP cannot take. --M ASEM (t) 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The claims presented are that a professional journalists' e-mail list represented collusion and that a group of academics is conspiring with journalists because feminism, or something. We have half a dozen sources saying there was no collusion, and the only reliable source which bothered to cover the DiGRA claims described them as a conspiracy theory. So, well, yeah. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All based on opinions and claims, and not yet proven by any normal methods we would accept something as WP. The court of public opinion is not where facts are determined. We can present all those findings as opinions, but they are only opinions and not facts. So no, we cannot state in WP's voice that these claims are debunked, only that the predominate sources believe they are. We must keep the fact that there are extremely few facts in the overall GG situation that we can state in a WP voice, short of the known accusations and harassment, and what the GG have self-claimed about themselves. --M ASEM (t) 21:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the original "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" title while this gets debated. — Strongjam (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with NBSB, in so far that just Ethical Concerns may be non neutral. With that being said, 'Alleged and Debunked Ethical Concerns' is also very clearly non neutral. How about just 'Alleged Ethical Concerns'? It makes it clear that WP is not confirming the Ethical Concerns are legitimate, but it allows the sources to present the debate below without using non neutral language that begs the answer as "Debate of Legitimacy" may do. Ries42 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The original title "Debate over legitimacy of ethics concerns" worked because that also is neutral, perhaps a bit weighted to the predominate view but more accurate of the section contents. --M ASEM (t) 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Its definitely closer to neutral, but it begs the answer before even asking the question. Its the word "legitimacy" that is the issue. If it just said "Debate over Ethical Concerns" it would be more neutral. If anything 'Alleged Ethical Concerns' I feel has the proper weight without begging the answer. Ries42 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposing Debate over alleged ethics concerns as a mashup of what's been tossed about here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Using both "debate" and "alleged" together puts a double emphasis, but I'll agree it is better than using legitimacy. I'd prefer either Debate over Ethical Concerns or Alleged Ethical Concerns. Could you live with either of those NBSB? Ries42 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Debate over alleged ethics concerns is best; the section is about the debate over them, and the concerns themselves are only alleged, so it's factual. --23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is that both 'debate' and 'alleged' give the same connotation, that the concerns are nonexistant. Whether or not that may be, unless we can say, for a fact that is the case, using both is giving too much emphasis that way. We can source that many reliable sources believe they are nonexistant, we have many opinions of reliable sources on that. The weight is clearly against the ethical concerns being legitimate. Having that weight in the title is appropriate. If we go too far though, we give the appearance of nonneutrality immediately though, instead of allowing the reader to view the reliably sourced opinions themselves, and then draw their own opinion on the legitimacy of the ethical concerns. Alleged or Debate alone does the trick. Using both makes it appear closer to a WP:Truth than a WP:Opinion (I have no idea if those are links or not) :). Ries42 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that there has been no ethics violations presented and much of what is being fronted as "ethics issues" is not actually "ethics" at all, identifying it as the big nothingburger that it is, is NPOV compliant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let it be noted that I am neither fooled nor impressed by the efforts to shuffle off balancing material into the far reaches in order to create a contiguous block of material for which the title "Misogyny and antifeminism" seems apt. Rhoark (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the predominant description of Gamergate in reliable sources is in relation to misogynistic harassment and opposition to feminist and other social critiques of video games (e.g., , , , etc. etc. etc.), this is in no way "unbalanced." That you disagree with the reliable sources' characterization of Gamergate is apparent. Your personal disagreement with the sources does not give license to ignore or dismiss their conclusions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the section was taken apart in Rhoark's rearrangement. After thinking about how that made the article parse, I thought it'd be best to put it back together in some form. Generally I don't think it makes sense to put all the comments from it into a 'media responses' section, since the reason we have so many quotes is to give a useful overview of GamerGate's politics as described by reliable sources; some quotes could be condensed or the general overarching tone of coverage could be summarized more briefly, but we need a section describing the politics behind GamerGate, and misogyny and antifeminism have (for the better or worse) been the focus of enough of that analysis to support a subsection. The main point is that the section needs to be clear and easy to read, giving the reader an overview of what reliable sources say about the politics involved, and I think that the current layout -- with one section for issues of Gamer identity and one for discussion of misogyny and antisemitism -- provides a much more clear picture of that than lumping them together. I do agree that the article reads better with the 'gamer identity' background moved to the politics section instead of having it as a slog before the main history; I just think it's important to separate the primary threads of how RSes cover GamerGate's political identity rather than lumping them together. --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My attention at the moment is too divided at the moment to argue this in detail; however, by analogy to the opinions in the first half of this thread, given that the claims are contentious, and concern a group of living persons the section heading should be tempered to "Alleged misogyny and anti-feminism" Rhoark (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) BLP is about actual living identifiable people, not anonymous groups and so doesnt apply, 2) the sexism and anti-feminism are quite clear and quite well documented facts, so it is inappropriate to whitewash with "alleged" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is effectively no debate among reliable sources that misogyny and anti-feminism play a significant role in Gamergate. It is simply not a matter of dispute among the mainstream reliable sources documenting the issue. Therefore, while we should present any rebuttals that Gamergate has to offer, it is not a violation of NPOV to describe the views as involving "misogyny and anti-feminism." You may complain that this is not "equal" and that's probably correct. Wikipedia's policy does not require "equality" — as policy states, Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Whether you or I or anyone else agrees or not, the majority view of the issue indisputably describes Gamergate as involving a significant overt level of misogyny. It is a factual claim.
 * Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. There is no "bias" in writing, accurately, that Gamergate involves misogyny and anti-feminism, according to the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream reliable sources reporting and commenting on the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict!) Yes, this. The characterization of misogyny and anti-feminism as part of the background to the controversy is not contentious among reliable sources, which is what we use to guide how we write articles. Based on the sourcing in that section, at least, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree that there is some misogyny and anti-feminism involved in the discussion; given that, and given that the section is about the general cultural background and tone of the dispute rather than allegations against specific people, qualifying it strikes me as both unnecessary and inappropriate. The ethics allegations, meanwhile, are primarily focused on specific living individuals and relate to specific claims that have been dismissed as false or trivial by the vast majority of reliable sources; therefore, they need to be qualified. (As an aside in that regard, it's important to note that BLP does not generally apply to descriptions of large, anonymous groups of people; it can apply when the group is so small that describing it functionally describes specific individuals, but given that GamerGate is both comparatively large and almost entirely anonymous it's hard to see how that concern applies. Even if it did, we can still describe things as fact when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree on them, which is the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Industry condemnation is misleading at best at worst outright lies
The section titled industry condemnation isn't focussed on Gamergate but more general harassment. None of the statements made were directed at or specified Gamergate. As such their inclusion in this article is in fact pure speculation. As has been said multiple times Wikipedia should not be seen to be the source of truth as said by WP:truth as such said statements by Blizzard and ESA do not belong here and should be moved to either Sexism in video gaming or made into part of a separate article Harassment in video gaming. Dwavenhobble (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * source please. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * source please thatsaid statement was about Gamergate and not simply an interpretation of said statements. However I can provide this

"not mentioning the Gamergate name directly" so as such claiming it is connected to Gamergate in would be creating a truth and reading in an implication which was not explicitly stated. Unless I am hugely mistaken here Wikipedia requires solid proof said statements are about gamergate not solid proof they are not about gamergate otherwise you are asking people to disprove creationism Dwavenhobble (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources given in that section all reference gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This connection exists as per reliable sources. PC Gamer, Though Morhaime didn't specifically say "GamerGate," he notes that this has been occurring "over the past couple of months," making it entirely clear that he's referring to the Twitter hashtag which has, since August, represented a campaign ostensibly meant to fight for ethics in games journalism. The fact that external reliable sources make the interpretation allows us to do so as well. What is prohibited on Wikipedia is original synthesis — that is, a new conclusion not found in reliable sources. It is not prohibited — in fact, it is categorically allowed — to report that a secondary source has made a particular synthesis. That is precisely what secondary sources do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If a secondary source makes the synthesis, then it can be cited. Not all online harassment, even since August 2014, has been related to the Gamergate hashtag. The presented article does not say that Morihame was speaking with Gamergate in mind. Claiming that the secondary source meant to imply the primary source was thinking about Gamergate is original research. This is material that belongs at Sexism in video gaming, but not here. Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no. The sources cited in the section all discuss the connection to Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Then by said reasoning we must therefore edit the 2014 World cup article to include the North Korean media version of events stating that North Korea made it to the final. again as you say it is up to media to determine truth and if that is the case then the North Korean Media has as much right as any other considering it is their national media. Unless of course you would like to suggest media may have a bias and that medias own interpretation is not absolute truth. Remember WP:VNT states that the information must be verifiable. So I put it to you can you categorically verify that the ESA and Blizzard statements are about gamergate or are you taking original unverifiable research presented in articles as truth. If you choose the latter I will edit the 2014 world cup page according to these same standards as new requirements of media = truth. If however you cannot verify said statements were specifically about gamergate by providing a verifiable source not media speculation then said statements being present here as fact are not accurate. At best should be moved more appropriate locations at worst should be properly noted as the unverified media speculation that they or in similar vain any media rumour and speculation should also be reported as fact here. I'm sure you can understand how damaging such claims would be Dwavenhobble (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your example of NK media is flawed, as we don't consider them WP:RS. If you don't think the statement is supported by the sources then WP:RSN is the place to take it. All that matters per WP:VNT is — Strongjam (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And my second example of the events surrounding Christopher Jefferies ? Said events were reported by reliable sources and turned out not to be true. Also from WP:RSN "we need to know which source (i.e. specific article, not just publication)" Just because a single publication is seen as reliable doesn't mean that a specific article is and as such said articles must meet WP:VNT rules which unless someone can show the ESA or Blizzard directing the comments at gamergate and not simply it being implied via secondary source articles without verifiability then it cannot be considered truth on Wikipedia. Dwavenhobble (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not truth finders, and it is verifiable, reliable sources have said it. That's what matters for WP:VNT. If you don't think these are reliable sources, or that the statements aren't supported by reliable sources then WP:RSN is where you can argue that. — Strongjam (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So by the same right we should have written at the time on Wikipedia that Christopher Jefferies was guilty of murder ? as you say we are not truth finders but the truth must be verifiable. It is not in these articles. As has been said previously by others in other wikipedia areas as stated by me prior. the publication itself should not be considered entirely reliable on it's own but the article in question is the source not the publication itself. So therefore said articles must be subjected to WP:VNT and not report rumour or speculation as fact. Dwavenhobble (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only should we have, but we did. (Reported him as being arrested, that is. We would only report someone as guilty if they were actually found guilty.) Of course, when the reliable sources reported otherwise, we changed the article. Woodroar (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiable here does not mean that the reader can verify the truth of the statement, but rather that they can verify that it is in a reliable source. We do not get to do original research and question if the reliable source is right. Also in your example WP:BLPCRIME would also guide the editors, but does not apply here. — Strongjam (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The visibility of the "page protected" icon
Can we please not edit war over this?

And those coming to say it should be visible (I see threads at KIA that mention this), the icon does not mean the page's contents are disputed, necessarily, it means the page is protected in some degree from editing. We don't need the icon visible to show, as per the above edit that the page is "disputed", based on the results of the POV tag issue a few months ago. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As an outsider to this who has taken interest ever since the whole Ryulong drama started (you know, with him making a list of 20+ accounts and trying to get them all banned for being "SPAs"), it seems to me like the article is under dispute for good reason. There is an ArbCom going on, and there is constant arguing over the contents of the article. It seems to me that there is no good reason to try and hide that fact by removing the banner and making it a tiny lock icon. Because the general public would not even notice that, and assume the article itself is otherwise 100% factual and that it represents a neutral point of view. What purpose is there in hiding that banner, when we've got the "this article contains too many quotes" banner with no issue? DarknessSavior (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact the template is called "pp-dispute" does not mean that the article is necessarily disputed, just that it is page protected. And there has been a previous discussion about having a POV notice on the page, but the general agreement is that the issues that the POV tag is meant to address are not the type that this article has to keep that POV tag in place. I personally am in agreement there are still some disputed issues, but that lock icon is not a thing to edit war or try to manipulated based on past consensus; that is not the Wikipedia way of doing things. --M ASEM (t) 20:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case the specific wording would be "Because the article has been the target of relentless vandalism, unregistered editors cannot edit."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, do you have any source for the claim that "the general agreement" statement you made? I just glanced over the last two archives of the talk page and could find no such thing. And if two editors are here saying that we disagree with that, clearly there's at least a few people who disagree and there might be more.DarknessSavior (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * again, the protection level is not because of any "dispute" - it is to protect the article from IP vandals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was over at ANI, here . --M ASEM  (t) 21:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which proves what, exactly? That discussion is on the NPOV tag, and not the dispute tag. It was never decided to remove the dispute tag, AFAIK. Also, that thread was simply closed for being beyond the scope of ANI. If you actually tally up the votes, there's five for each side. Again, not exactly a majority. DarknessSavior (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are completely mistaken, it is not a "dispute" tag to signify a "dispute". It is a notice to potential editors that the page is blocked except for registered editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, the fact the "pp-disputed" template that puts that lock icon on the page is named "disputed" is perhaps unfortunately named. It is certainly not a cleanup or maintenance tag like NPOV was. It is only to warn editors that if they don't have proper rights they may not be able to edit the page. It is not a means to indicate there is a dispute with the page. --M ASEM  (t) 22:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems odd to me, given the fact that in the banner itself it mentions "...or until editing disputes have been resolved." Combine that with the link that you just sent me which proves there was no clear consensus on getting rid of the NPOV tag, and the protection history of the article itself, only having recently been removed from being completely locked. Surely you don't mean to tell me that the current state of the article is fully agreed upon by all those editing it.DarknessSavior (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there was a clear consensus to remove the "POV" tag. There were a group of people saying "The article is POV!!!!!" and another group saying "Please identify where the article does not represent the sources" and the first group saying       [crickets].  WP:CONSENSUS is not making the article such that "white knight crusaders"  are satisfied that their POV is represented, consensus is based on those who demonstrate the article meets policies and sources. That has been the primary issue throughout this whole article and talk page discussions, there is a group of editors that is dissatisfied with the article, but they fail to provide reliably published sources or policy to back up any rationale for making the article less dissatisfying to them. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Gamer identity, "hardcore gamer" means what?
I read the Gamer Identity section and it talks about "hardcore gamers" and just moves on. I was wondering if we should add any information that differentiates what a "hardcore" gamer actually is, apart from a normal gamer. Are we saying that "gamers" include the candy-crush players and mobile phone players? Are we saying hardcore is only streamers or tournament attendees? What are the parameters here? While I don't feel like this article would be a good spot for an entire discussion on it, maybe pointing readers in the direction of an article that does just that would be beneficial to the article as a whole. It seems like those who aren't well versed in the gamergate controversy are denied the chance of entering a discussion that they could be passionate about, but lack the vocabulary to contribute in this area specifically. I'd love to know what your thoughts on the matter is. Thanks, Complete turing (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To a certain extent, disagreement over what the gamer identity means and how (or if) it's changing is at the core of much of the controversy, so I don't think we can just summarize it in any easy way. We do have a Gamer article, though (which briefly defines the terms you're asking about), so I've made sure the article links to that in appropriate places. --Aquillion (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the "hardcore" gamer identity, is really limited to a small niche of gamers within the larger "Gamer" identity. I know, I know, that's rather vague, so I'll try to explain it as best I can. Basically, it works out like this:  Casual gamers are those who really don't think much about the games they play, putting less than eight hours a week into their gaming.  They aren't overly competitive, and don't care so much about the game mechanics; as much as having "fun." Average gamers fall somewhere in between Hardcore gamers and casual.  They put in an average of nine to sixteen hours gaming, and while they do have some competitive nature to what they play, they still find their interests governed by what they determine as being fun.  They're the type that often play Player V. Enemy type games, or primarily non competitive single player type games.  Hardcore players are the polar opposite of Casual gamers, in that they care less about having "fun" at the game, and more about their standing when compared to other gamers.  They are the ones that spend the most time at the game, who work hardest to get the highest rank, level, or the best "gear" (as defined by mmorpg standards.) They also tend to be the most competitive, and to some degree, the most offensive? I suspect I'm using the wrong word there, but they're the ones that will scream "Faggot" and various racial slurs into open channels as they play. I hope that answers some of the question. Though I'm just a simple writer, if you want to quote me on that, feel free. Kitsunedawn (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While the most competitive gamers are probably hardcore, I disagree that competitiveness is a key determinant of being hardcore. Those who spend hundreds of hours in games like Skyrim or Minecraft, and go on to create game mods and fanfic, are undoubtedly hardcore gamers. Rhoark (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexander Macris of The Escapist put forth "Gaming Enthusiast" as a more apt description of "Gamer." I tend to agree. Enthusiasts love their hobbies, talk about it with other Enthusiasts (or people who don't care about it if the case maybe) and do things like go to conventions. I'm sure most people who consider themselves "Gamers" would feel that Enthusiast is a bit of a weak descriptor however. HessmixD (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's get some things straight about reliability
I keep seeing a general sentiment echoed along the theme that Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing mean that WP must privilege sources from commercial news outlets concerning Gamergate, or that Gamergate would not meet notability guidelines without the attention of commercial news outlets, and therefore the article must agree with news outlets that Gamergate is mostly about sexual harassment, that ethical considerations are minor or illegitimate, or must otherwise be generally critical of Gamergate. Such ideas stem from a superficial misreading of policy.

First let's get notability out of the way. News media attention does not itself constitute notability. WP:NOTNEWS Notability requires attention from reliable secondary sources, of which news outlets are a representative, but not the only kind. (Reliability will be further discussed below.) There are further criteria to meet for a news event to be notable. Description of criminal activity is not automatically notable. WP:N/CA A key criteria for the notability of an event is that it have lasting effects WP:LASTING. Contributors to the notability of Gamergate would include spurring Twitter to partner with outside organizations to contain harassment, Gawker Media's loss of millions of dollars in advertising revenue, and the FTC issuing new guidelines on disclosing advertiser affiliations. These things, and not national attention on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and Brianna Wu, cause Gamergate to meet WP notability guidelines. (There are further requirements, which Gamergate meets, at WP:EVENT.) Once notability is established this justifies the existence of an article, but does not determine the scope of that article. WP:NNC An article does not need to limit itself to the aspects of the topic that caused it to fulfill WP notability standards. So, even if one persists in believing harassment to be the cause of notability, it does not constitute an editorial mandate. In fact, it is a guideline to avoid letting the aspects of an article that attract particular news attention and criticism dominate WP's coverage of the topic WP:BALASPS

As to the matter of what makes a reliable source, national news organizations are indeed reliable sources when it comes to the reporting of facts; however, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG In effect, when not dealing with matters of fact news organizations are operating on the same level as any biased source. In WP's particular usage of the terms a source can be both reliable and biased, in that they are reliable reporters of a particular point of view. WP:BIASED As such, an editorial commentator would be reliable in reporting a fact, such as the number of tweets made with the #gamergate tag, but would not be reliable in the context of claiming the tweets were mostly misogynist. At best it would be reliable in reporting that the opinion exists and in identifying specific individuals who hold the opinion.

If an opinion is numerically preponderant, that may be worth noting that in order not to give undue weight to minority opinions. WP:UNDUE This does not however mean that editors must tacitly accept the preponderant opinion as true. On the contrary, editors have a duty not to endorse or reject a point of view WP:IMPARTIAL. If a point of view is a fringe one to the point that a population of supporters cannot be readily identified, then it can be justifiably omitted from consideration at all, but such a circumstance clearly does not apply to Gamergate. It would be impossible to carry on a controversy in which the opposing side cannot be found. Indeed, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." The population believing that women should not be in the game industry is a vanishingly small number of anonymous individuals, so that point of view is rightly given no space in the article. The number of people advocating for ethics in game journalism is in the tens of thousands, easily forming a peer group to those who have written about misogyny in Gamergate. Therefore, adequate space should be given to describing ethics activism. Page space should be dedicated in approximate proportion to the availability of reliable sources, so criticism of Gamergate should receive a degree of preference in space. To reiterate, this is a preference in space, not content, and the space for the minority view must be sufficient that, "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." The minority section should also be unburdened by insertions of WP:HOWEVER.

Now, as to the sources that are available to support the minority view, they can be found among factual matters in mainstream sources, the grudging admissions of fence-sitters, and a few friendly journalists. As someone who engages in professional fact checking and issues retractions, TotalBiscuit fulfills the WP:VERIFIABILITY that underlies reliability. However, there is also an ocean of untapped content at KotakuInAction. Although Reddit is in general a "questionable source", such sources are reliable on the topic of themselves. WP:ABOUTSELF Consequently, there is a great deal of material about the membership, aims, and achievements of Gamergate that can and should be included in this article. There are limitations too of course, on claims that are exceptional or about living persons. On the topic of living persons, it should be noted concurrently that as a group of living persons the members of Gamergate are not due the same level of defense as an individual living person on WP, but the onus is on editors to use high quality sources and deploy statements of opinion judiciously.

At last, if I may wax philosophical for a moment, there is an objective truth to the situation that we can't yet agree upon. The numerical preponderance of secondary sources is mandated to influence the structure of the article, but we are not required to take the popularity of an opinion as part of the epistemological underpinning of all our editing. There are things we can know to be true even with a dearth of Wikipedia-ready sources, and let those truths influence our editing within the existing guidelines. What I know to be true is that there are tens of thousands of people in Gamergate who value and welcome the contributions of women and have no desire to silence them or drive them out. Every suggestion I have seen of violence or harassment has been condemned unanimously. They would gladly be partners against online misconduct with anyone who would engage them without presumptions of guilt, but the continual demonization gives cover and encouragement to those actually engaging in hostility. It certainly doesn't compare to the affronts that have been shown to women, but the sincere efforts of Gamergate have been maligned by the failure of WP:NPOV in this article, and that will be corrected in the weeks to come. It is my hope that incumbent editors will challenge new contributions, but in a spirit of cooperation, and without misapplying WP policies to stymie the process as described heretofore. Rhoark (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Call me pessimistic but I don't think you will actually persuade anyone, or at least established editors, with this particular long post. They will come out thinking the way they were already. Though, I must laud your effort, but I fear you will be summarily dismissed. starship  .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  05:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responding to all of this at once is improbable, but to address one key point, KotakuInAction is never acceptable as a source in this article. You cite WP:SELFPUB apparently without reading it. In pertinent part, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves ... so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities) (and) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.. All of Gamergate's "aims and achievements" involve claims about third parties, and many of them are derogatory or defamatory. No self-published source is acceptable for such material. Furthermore, due to the fact that Reddit posts are anonymous, there is every reason to have doubt about the authenticity of statements made therein. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, there are limitations, including on claims about third parties. There is ample material that does not make such claims. For example, from the mission statement: "We welcome artistic freedom and equal opportunities for creators and creations. We condemn censorship, exclusion, harassment, and abuse. This is a community for discussion of these issues, and for organizing campaigns for reform, so that the industry can be held accountable for its actions and gamers can enjoy their medium without being unjustly attacked or slandered." WP does not appear to establish formal guidelines for judging authenticity. Wikitionary definitions are "The quality of being genuine or not corrupted from the original" and "Truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, and intentions". Use of a pseudonym does not in itself compromise authenticity by these definitions. Rhoark (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "What I know to be true is that there are tens of thousands of people in Gamergate who value and welcome the contributions of women and have no desire to silence them or drive them out."
 * Exactly what universe are you living in? Kaldari (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Above, you said that there is also an ocean of untapped content at KotakuInAction. OK, let's examine what that content is. Right now, when I look at the front page of KotakuInAction, the top three stories are an AMA with someone who wrote a story in which a prominent Gamergate target is raped, a claim that a prominent Gamergate target tried to have someone killed and a Simpsons mashup mocking "social justice warriors." Is that what you mean by "a great deal of material about the membership, aims, and achievements of Gamergate that can and should be included in this article," then? Shall we add a section to the article noting that "According to posts on KotakuInAction, Gamergate is about talking with a person who wrote an erotica featuring the rape of one of Gamergate's targets," as per your request? Somehow, I think you would be rather stridently opposed to that addition.
 * The validity of KotakuInAction as WP:ABOUTSELF does not mean that everything appearing there is WP:DUE coverage in Wikipedia. Rhoark (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that you want us to include material from KIA that portrays the movement in a positive light, but exclude material from KIA that portrays the movement in a negative light. That's what I figured you would say. You want to use Wikipedia as a platform for positive PR, and that's not what we're here for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that would not be WP:IMPARTIAL. Material that reflects badly on Gamergate would be equally valid if it fulfills the same WP:ABOUTSELF requirements, and a case can be made that inclusion is WP:DUE. Judgement of what is due is complex. Rhoark (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The current Gamergate outrage-sea-lioning target is Jimmy Wales (not a journalist, by the way), who apparently committed the cardinal sin of calmly telling a Gamergate supporter that their rallying cry is fatally tainted by harassment and that their total lack of organization is a vice, not a virtue. Besides Twitter, there are also a slew of threads on KIA and 8chan endlessly declaiming the "corruption" and "unethical behavior" of Jimmy Wales. This is not an aberration, but an easily-observable trend — say something negative about Gamergate or do something Gamergate doesn't like, and you instantly become the target of all manner of wild accusations and crazed, utterly-unfounded conspiracy theories. Let's be quite frank here: that sort of nonsense is precisely why literally nobody outside the Gamergate echo chamber takes you seriously.
 * Here's the thing. You can proclaim all day long what you want people to think Gamergate is interested in. Unfortunately for the credibility of your proclamations, it's not at all difficult to examine what Gamergate is actually saying and doing, and what this says about how much interest Gamergate has in actual issues relating to journalism ethics as opposed to tendentious culture-warring. The conclusions of reliable sources are inescapable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the problem, when saying just what one group, whether it be Gamergate, or anyone in general, stands for; is you open yourself up for a great deal of conflicting views, and in many cases data. More so if you take the actions of a few to be representative of the whole. When I was growing up in the deep southern United States, I experienced a similar gross generalization in regards to how people behave and or act.  There, the common thread when people discussed African Americans, was less about what good they did, and more about the actions of a few bad seeds.  The overreaching belief being that "Because a minority of African Americans deal drugs, are criminals, or are not productive members of society; then the entire African American race is the same way."  By suggesting that the actions of a few members of any movement, which, as I said could be any movement and not just Gamergate, are indicative of the greater whole, you move away from seeking the truth of whatever that group stands for, and move more into the realm of stereotyping and gross generalization.  In the case of the wiki article, you move more in the direction of a biased statement/opinion, and further away from the facts.  Whether you (meaning anyone in particular) as a person agree with what they claim that their stance is or not, the fact remains that such opinion has no place in an article that claims to be reporting the facts and or history of the events. Kitsunedawn (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a classic false equivalence, Kitsunedawn. Gamergate is not a human ethnicity based on fundamental personal characteristics. Rather, it is a loosely-affiliated political movement based around ideological goals and specific methodologies, which a person can choose to join or leave at any time. This means your analogy simply logically fails. It's a non-analogy.
 * One cannot join or leave being an African-American, and the mere state of one's ethnicity can make no conclusion about the content of that person's character or their beliefs. Thus, making judgments about a person based upon their ethnicity is widely reviled and effectively deprecated.
 * Being part of Gamergate is in no way analogous to the above situation. Affiliation with Gamergate is voluntary and self-selected, as with any political movement. When one proclaims themselves part of Gamergate, they are explicilty standing with and behind the actions of Gamergate. That is literally what it means to be part of a movement. The actions of Gamergate, as widely noted in reliable sources, have involved numerous false allegations, vicious personal attacks, vile harassment, bandwagon-jumping men's rights activists and fringe conservative figures, and all other manner of essentially unconstructive nonsense. When you wave a flag that says Gamergate, you're saying that you believe in, and implicitly endorse, those activities. That's what being part of a movement means.
 * If I stood on a street corner and waved a flag that said "WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH," you would probably think me a homophobe. And you would be perfectly justified in doing so. I've just publicly proclaimed that I'm a part of an organization known worldwide for homophobic nuttery. Well, frankly, that's about the point Gamergate is now. The name is permanently tainted and poisonous, identified not with any "journalism ethics" issues but with toxic harassment and a misogynistic fringe. And the only way forward — if you really care about journalism ethics, that is — is to abandon the name and find something else to identify yourself by.
 * As umpteen dozen outside observers have suggested over the last four months, set up a non-profit advocacy group that discusses video game journalism — staff it with identifiable people in leadership roles, have an elected board of directors to make decisions, put together a unified platform of realistic goals and reject crazy fringe bullshit, develop a code of ethics for gaming journalism, etc. That's the way forward to have a meaningful impact on video game journalism — not calling Jimmy Wales names on Twitter and whining about "social justice warriors" on Reddit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion, but as it does not pertain to the editing policies that are the cause of this thread, I will not engage further than to say you are welcome to deploy reliable sources to support your apprehension of the truth. Prepare yourself to accept graciously that the article will include reliable sources of another apprehension of the truth. Rhoark (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As you are apparently new to Wikipedia, you may wish to familiarize yourself with our reliable sourcing policies, and you may wish to refer any disputed sources to an open discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is a community hub for discussion and consensus-building around the acceptability of sources for various claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The text of the policies are sufficiently clear in establishing what is and is not permissible use of a self-source. If you have concerns about a specific use of a specific source, the RSN would be an excellent resource for you to consult before performing any reverts. Rhoark (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are QUITE clear. anonymous postings of self serving nature on a non official website are not even REMOTELY acceptable.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anonymity of users on Reddit is relative and variable. Most (but not all) users are pseudonymous, but even then meet the criteria of being identifiable, reachable, and trackable that constitute non-anonymity. Reliability is always in a context; some posts will meet guidelines and others will not. Information that merely has a salutary effect on someone's reputation is not on that basis automatically self-serving. To be self-serving also entails a disregard for the welfare of others. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you really dont understand Wikipedia's reliability requirements at all, do you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have supported my positions with specific policies and clear definitions. The opposition has been mostly emotive. Rhoark (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * AHHH the ever present "gamergate supporters are objective and everyone else is emotional" gambit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still doing it, there. Rhoark (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mommy mommy he's emoting on my objectivity!!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reddit is a forum, and forum posts are not reliable sources. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to agree on these lines; because of the lack of any authority we can point to, nearly every self-published GG document has no sufficient authority to be even acceptable under SPS lines. --M ASEM (t) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been thoroughly addressed. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". There are additional stipulations that have been noted. It is clear that not all, but some Reddit posts comply with the applicable guidelines. Rhoark (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was the case that a person that we know was the organizer of GG and were assured of his identity posting at Reddit, yes, that's acceptable per SPS. But we are talking posts of identity we don't know to any degree, so SPS cannot work here. That's the problem with the lack of organization around GG, they have no information we can source from them directly. --M ASEM (t) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why care must be taken to ensure a particular citation meets all the stipulations placed on a self-source. Many or most will not, but it is not consistent with policy to determine that Reddit posts are categorically incapable of reliability in an appropriate context. Rhoark (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also something that is slightly... odd about this article in particular. This is not an article on "The Gamergate Movement," and as such, items that might have been reliable and notable when talking about the movement itself may not be reliable and/or notable here. This article specifically is on the "Controversy" that surrounds Gamergate. I personally believe the article may need to be renamed or split into two separate articles, because it is trying at some points to be both. It attempts to define the "movement" and the "controversy" and it appears there are sides that have formed that have different definitions of both. Ries42 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * any "split" is unlikely to happen, the "movement" as such is non notable outside of the harassment it has generated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is addressed in the root of this thread. The movement is not notable on the basis of harassment or media attention thereon, but is notable for its lasting effects, independently of harassment. Rhoark (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT the ONLY "lasting" effects are harassment related -setting back the image of gamers 15 years as socially incompetent misogynistic trolls, making recruitment of women into the gamesoftware business near impossible, public debates about how social media needs better defenses against harassment --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL WP:LASTING. Preeminent lasting effects are the creation of 8chan, WAM getting involved in Twitter, financial losses and reorganization in Gawker Media, and issuance of new guidelines from the FTC. Even if you disagree with all that, WP:NNC Rhoark (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the evidence that you are pointing to verifies the harassment. 8chan minor imageboard only notable as the base from which harassment emanated, the financial hit to gawker is temporary as the advertisers have all returned, and WAM for godsake is there to monitor harassment on twitter!--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the lasting effects are consequences of harassment, but it is still not the harassment itself, nor the news coverage of the harassment, that causes the topic to be notable. Rhoark (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 8chan existed before GG anyway, and Gawker's revenues are up, and I know of no RS tying the FTC updating their website FAQ to gamergate, which is a pretty minor thing, we'd need RS for all of this to put it into the article anyway, not forum posts. — Strongjam (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources are certainly needed. This discussion is laying the groundwork for their inclusion. Rhoark (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "groundwork" to be laid for Reddit posts being acceptable sources in this article. Not going to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm... confused. Why do you care, ? I'm not saying I completely agree with Rhoark, but why not just let him do his own thing. If he can support the notability of the movement, let him. If he can't, then he can't. Certainly you aren't suggesting that if something could be notable, you should ignore it, correct?
 * I think we all can see that the controversy surrounding Gamergate may be more notable than the movement, but that doesn't mean the movement couldn't be notable beyond that. Ries42 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If in some fantasy never never land where the "movement" actually does something that is noted beyond its harassment sure, it could have an article then; and if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well how can you personally determine whether something is notable? Do you have a crystal ball that you're not sharing with the class? Have you personally determined what is or is not going to be in this article? Why don't you stop biting and let Rhoark try to build his case, and once he's done, we can all as a group determine if his contribution proves there is WP:Notability. Surely, this is a contentious issue, so we need to keep an open mind. Ries42 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone is welcome to present reliable sources here. Anonymous posts on Internet forums are categorically not reliable sources. Please see the verifiability policy, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. You can present non-reliably-sourced information here for consideration (so long as it doesn't violate BLP or other core policies), but do not expect that non-reliably-sourced information is going to be acceptable in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not making many people feel welcome. Ries42 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many people are not presenting reliable sources, but rather long screeds that categorically misinterpret/misrepresent policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom This is the second time you have attempted to use page formatting to stifle discussion on this topic. There is no cause for urgency in declaring any discussion topic to be closed or done, and if it is finished that should be supported by an outside party or a consensus of multiple participants. If there is something at RSN you feel has particular relevance, please link to it directly, as it is non-obvious. If no justifications for the collapse are forthcoming, it should be removed posthaste. If you decide to remove it, you may remove this comment along with it. Rhoark (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The rationale is that this is NOT a forum - it is for improving the article. "discussions" that are leading nowhere toward improving the article and in this case are also being discussed in the proper forum elsewhere SHOULD be shut down . and given the 17 pages of archives, more should have been shut down earlier and oftener before as well. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * just because you got slapped down there too ("I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia policy here - we don't second-guess sources, and rule them out for specific statements because we don't like sources they may have used." ) doesnt mean you can come back here and continue such disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused. The discussion you have linked concerns entirely different matters. I have never been a party to that discussion. Matters of opinion have been raised by different sides in this thread; however, the thread root and most of the branches concern WP policies and how they should be applied to improve this article. I reiterate that you should remove the collapse formatting yourself, then read the thread root in full before taking any other action here. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I am getting this new flock of SPAs all confused. But the issue is the same, this is not the page to discuss your unique interpretation of the policy. Please go to WP:RSN to receive your personal slapping if you feel it is necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ask a final time that you remove the collapse, or solicit a WP:THIRDOPINION. If you remove the collapse, feel free to also remove the discussion of it. Rhoark (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. The request for a 3O in reference to this dispute has been rejected because it primarily pertains to a conduct matter (whether or not to collapse a discussion), not a content matter. 3O only handles content matters. For conduct matters consult ANI or ARBCOM. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case ANI would be a bad idea, they're pretty tired of GG related topics. WP:GS/GG/E is the place to go. — Strongjam (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that WP:TPO gives a clear admonition against participants in a discussion collapsing it over objections, and no further justification seems forthcoming, I will no longer refrain from removing the edit myself. Any previously given approval to modify my comments on this are hereby rescinded. No external enforcement seems required at this time, though that will certainly change if @TheRedPenOfDoom continues to use collapse or archive templates to suppress active on-topic discussions. Rhoark (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)