Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 21

Objectivity
I did not follow this closely, but I find it interesting to note that at this point, and apparently after much debate, Wikipedia's introduction is less objective even than gawker's, the latter being an actual party to the dispute.

Wikipedia: "The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture".

Gawker: GamerGate is an online movement ostensibly concerned with ethics in game journalism and with protecting the "gamer" identity.

of course they go on to explain why they thing the "ostensible" scope is a sham, and it's really all about sexist geeks, but at least they did put up front what the thing is "ostensibly" about.

The "know your meme" definition is also more objective than Wikipedia's, "GamerGate refers to the online backlash against perceived breaches of journalistic integrity on video game news"

So, I assume it is clear and undisputed that "GamerGate" is "ostensibly" about accusations of "perceived" breaches of journalistic integrity. It is not intrinsically about sexism, the "sexism" claims are brought up by the people accused of such breaches. Perhaps they are right, I don't know, but even according to the movement's distractors, it seems, what this is about is a debate of ethics in journalism. The "sexism" part only enters secondarily, as part of the defense on the part of those being accused.

It would in principle be easy to set this right in the article, I suppose, but I'm not going to touch it. I just find it interesting to note that the "encyclopedia that slashdot wrote" (2000s) when now (2014) confronted with a choice between taking the side of geeks vs. the side of feminists will tilt to the feminist side (while of course it shouldn't tilt to either side).

Perhaps the people locked the page in the "convenient" revision of the lead should stop to ask themselves why the page did not at least end up with a neutrality warning tag? Yeah, a page is always locked in the "wrong version", but when there are glaring neutrality issues, we used to use warning templates for that. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutrality issues were raised by several editors in the past and the article was tagged for over a month. When this handful of editors failed to gain consensus for their propose changes to address their concerns, the tag (after some edit-warring, and ANI-solicited admin intervention) the tag was removed.  If Gawker and some meme blog are unable to describe the subject accurately, that is an issue to raise at their respective sites. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This highlights a key difference between ad hoc terms like "objectivity" and our relatively well developed policy of the neutral point of view. To some readers, a piece that derides Gamergate after describing its projected self-image is somehow more "objective" than our article. On the other hand, we allow ourselves to be guided by the consensus of reliable sources, and from this our article takes its shape and tone. We don't know whether a given person will agree that our article is objective, but we can certainly discuss whether its content and general shape, its tone and every single statement conforms to our published criteria. --TS 15:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We should be using reliable sources to set the shape - in that the predominate point that GG is "bad" is not going to go away - but we do not use RSes to set our tone. We are writing for an encyclopedia, we need to write neutrally, regardless of broad agreement of public opinion, and that usually means writing in a more disconnected, sterile manner. That's the struggle that's been here for months is that it is very easy for the writing to slip into the same critical manner that most of the RSes do. We have to be better than that, and show an honest attempt to use what is documented on the minority points and give what we can to the proGG regardless of how the rest of the world sees them. --M ASEM  (t) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, let's put it another way. The predominant narrative in an area I've spent some time in is with genetically modified foods being unsafe.  The European consensus is that they're unsafe for consumption, the media coverage is overwhelmingly negative, but the scientific reality and the point of view we use is the latter.  There is an issue where the mainstream media struggles to report on and discuss games and the "culture," as it were, and defaults to the existing narratives as we see in the article about games being misogynistic, about abuse, and so on.  This is not to say the article should be written from a "gamer point of view," but we have to consider that the media might actually carry a perspective or flaw that results in our article being unnecessarily heavy on ultimately minor aspects.  Maybe it means we have a gamergate article with a "gamergate-related harassment" sub-article, maybe it means a broader perspective on this article, maybe it just requires us to be better editors on a whole.  I don't even think we're at that point of the conversation yet, and maybe it's time we get there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But with the GM foods thing, I'm assuming you have scientific papers and stuff that allow you to supersede poorly researched newspaper articles and stuff? If we took your plan wouldn't we have to wait around until people start writing sociology papers on Gamergate? Oh also on the topic of future sources, would the book Milo Yiannapolous is planning to write be considered a reliable source? Bosstopher (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm not holding my breath in the expectation that by some scientific process yet to be determined, authoritative and persuasive evidence will emerge that death and rape threats are far less important than ethics in gaming journalism. For now we go with the most reliable sources we can find, and they fall firmly on the "death threats are bad" side of the "debate". --TS 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of the problem, though. Death threats are bad, yes.  Death threats and rape threats are also sadly typical in online arguments in general, and are not special to Gamergate or any specific topic area.  Anyone who has been on the internet for more than a few days knows this.  The mainstream media, however, doesn't appear to be aware of this and acts accordingly.  This is why we might need to make some better consideration as to what a good source is here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or is aware of it, and doesn't care, because it's heinous and pretty much invalidates any legitimate points you did have. These is no less simple way of explaining the mainstream other than it specifically reflects that which is in itself "notable". People complaining about "ethics" isn't notable, they have achieved nothing. Threatening to rape, murder and harassing individuals is notable, they have achieved something (in this case garnering legal responses). Unsurprisingly, wikipedia reflects that uneven break between notability and subjectivity. Koncorde (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is an awareness of it, I haven't seen that awareness generated. The end result of being more careful with sources and sticking to sources that are better for the broader subject matter might result in the same article.  At the moment, we don't know that and arguably never will without significant changes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "sticking to sources that are better for the broader subject matter" is actually referring to. Sounds vague and mysterious. Koncorde (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically, sources that understand the topic area, not general information outlets. A focus on the former, if not some sort of MEDRS-style guideline, might be a good way to fix the problems of the article itself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, saw your comment below also. Seems a bit far fetched, unnecessary, and completely pointless slicing of an already thin wedge in terms of reliable sources. MEDRS makes sense - science is science. Creating a MEDRS for flamewars on the internet? Sounds ridiculous. Koncorde (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you see the topic as narrow as "flamewars on the internet," that's part of why we need to get better sourcing for the topic at hand, and perhaps for more game-related articles in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I see it as is irrelevant. Sources > My POV. However your suggestion appears to be "if a POV is not being represented, then we haven't looked hard enough, and even a certain POV is being presented we should probably cut it back". Either which way you cut it - MEDRS wont work in this situation as we're not referring to something highbrow - we are literally scraping the barrel of internet culture. Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is your POV regarding the value of the topic. My suggestion is that the article reflect the real world, and that if we're struggling to do that, it may be a problem with our standards for sourcing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How does our article not "reflect the real world" as viewed by reliable sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like exactly what our reliable sources discuss, however. Claiming that "death threats and rape threats are also sadly typical in online arguments" does not give gamergate amnesty from those threats. I personally haven't ever experienced that, and I've been going online for 20 years. The assumption that this behavior is ordinary and non-notable is inherently flawed. Gamergate has directly drawn its notability from the fact that those who are opposed to it have received death and rape threats, regardless of who those threats are coming from. As far as our reliable sources are concerned, that's the only reason they began to write about gamergate. Again, I think User:Masem brings up a solid point, that just because all of the available reliable sources are disdainful toward gamergate doesn't mean our tone toward them must also be the same. It's a point worth considering, and may be where a lot of this criticism of our article comes from. However, I also think it's important to emphasize that our reliable sources are in something of an overwhelming agreement that gamergate is bad news, and it would be somewhat dishonest not to portray that here. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone who has been here more than a few days thinks the article shouldn't reflect that to some extent. The issue is about the weight, about the actual extent, and about how we're letting the chosen sources portray the topic at all.  Hell, that there's even a debate above about whether we can call it a "movement" suggests some significant debate as to what our sources are telling us and their relationship to what we know about the topic, about the media, and about historical coverage.  It's complicated, which is why I think it's good to be having this broader discussion.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I fail to see how debating the gravity of death and rape threats is part of a "broader discussion." This is not the place to litigate the mainstream media's coverage of events on the internet, nor is it the place to debate how serious threats made over the internet are. Debate over whether or not gamergate can be called a "movement" is not honestly the same thing as debating the veracity and credibility of our reliable sources on the topic and, the user most vociferously debating that point was largely arguing against consensus. There is no "broader discussion" to be had. That's not what we're here for. We're here to write an article that teaches readers about how the 21st century mainstream, reliable press viewed gamergate, to teach them what it was responsible for and how it developed, and to help them achieve a better understanding of what exactly happened. We're not here to say that because some sources don't realize death threats on the internet are commonplace, they should be completely disregarded. We're also not here to say that because death threats on the internet are common they are not notable, which seems counterproductive to me. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct that we're not here to litigate the media on a whole. We are here, however, to create an accurate, neutral encyclopedia article about this topic.  This means actually reviewing sources, not just accepting them as gospel.  This means putting information in the proper context.  We're not reporting on what the press had to say, we're writing an encyclopedia article about the topic.  What you're describing is Wikinews, in a sense.  Also, no one is saying to disregard any specific information, just properly contextualize it.  You're misreading my point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Context is important, correct? Understanding the context of a situation is very important, maybe even paramount, when determining what occurred. For instance, understanding how a particular culture chooses to react or how those reactions are normally viewed within the culture is important. Especially when dealing with a culture clash, with two different cultures interacting. When one culture acts a certain way, it expected a certain response in return, but when dealing between cultures, that might not be what they receive. To use a mild example, check out V sign. It means many different things, and if in gamer culture it meant hello!, but another culture it meant "fuck you", you'd have a very big disconnect if a gamer did a V sign to that other culture. How a culture, specifically gamer or internet culture, views "death and rape threats" is then absolutely paramount to this article. Does that make them in any way "right" or "correct"? No. But there is a difference between condemning a juvenile practice and refusing to try and understand why that culture may not view it with as much disdain as another culture. Please don't misread me and think I'm defending these threats in any way. I'm just trying to encourage some perspective. Properly understanding the cultural significance of an action is important to a neutral and accurate explanation of what an event might have been. There is no right or wrong way to view the action, but the action will have different meanings to different cultures and we should accurately and neutrally present all good-faith contextual explanations. Ries42 (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there's a pretty dramatic difference between the V sign and saying to someone "I'm doing to kill you." But, my opinion doesn't matter. What matters is what the reliable sources say, and they're in agreement that treat these death threats related to gamergate are notable and worth of mainstream coverage. You're welcome to disagree with that, but you're running counter to what the reliable sources say. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to keep this focused. No one here is arguing that they don't deserve a mention, so you're arguing against a point no one appears to be making.  The question is more about the balance of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What, related to death threats, do you believe is unbalanced in the article, specifically? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They probably get more play than they should in the broader context. That is not to be read as it should get no play.  Whether threats are a big deal is an irrelevant value judgement.  Whether threats are part of the broader internet culture and thus not special or significant to this topic is a more important point and speaks directly to the tone and accuracy of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeez...are we honestly debating the tone of an article because maybe "death threats" on the internet are common parlance and therefore because the mainstream media doesn't "get it" they're over-blowing the significance of such threats? Honestly? It doesn't matter if the mainstream doesn't get it - read the computer gaming websites - they say the exact same thing because threats against a persons life are still, shock horror, more important and significant than anything else within the "broader context". Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's your point of view. You're allowed to have it, but we're trying to write a neutral article here, and "shock horror" is not neutral, especially in context.  We're allowed to be horrified by repeated death threats as individuals while also writing neutral encyclopedia articles. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of death and rape threats being a broader part of internet culture can kind of be seen in a between the lines reading of . But it argues that its worse in the situation of GamerGate because identifiable individuals instead of anonymous posters are being attacked. There's also this pew survey about the widespread nature of Online Harassment. From another angle you've got commentators like Mary Beard and Laurie Penny, who've written about the idea of women being unwelcome on the internet in general. Also I think its important to keep in mind that anyone noted as recieving death threats in the article (I think) is also noted as being doxxed. This admittedly is also depressingly common in online disputes, but I dont know of any sources that discuss how commonplace it is. I'm not sure I exactly understand how you want this to influence the article though Bosstopher (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed response. I offer this link not to endorse any specific conclusions, but just for some datapoints about the overall pervasiveness.  Death threats aren't new and, arguably, not actually news, and they might be more pervasive now with the internet in general.  Now, can any of these links be used as sources for this article?  Not without synthesis concerns, which is an unfortunate problem, but it does give context as to how we should address the existing sources.  If you read this article, you'd think that the death threats are somehow specific to this topic, and they're really not.  The question for me is how to balance the sources with the real world. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The death threats at issue here are specific to the topic — they're being made by a particular group of people with a particular set of ideological goals, targeting a particular set of people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's also in dispute, both in this section (plenty of reading available for you) and in a section above regarding how these are being treated. Just one of the many issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it's not really in dispute. There is effectively no dispute among the reliable sources covering the subject, and those are what matter here. Which is why there's overwhelming consensus (one I agree with) that we should describe Gamergate as a movement. It's loosely-organized and nebulous, certainly, but there is an identifiable common thread of misogynistic hate targeting specific people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that you believe this regarding the sources. Others disagree, and the issue with the reliable sources we are using as well as other sources is where the crux of this is.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This literally makes no sense at all. "The reliable sources don't reflect the opinions of people here, therefore the issue must be with the reliable sources"...is that actually your argument? If so, it's patently ridiculous. If not, then I suggest you actually start a new section and spell out in detail what you are actually angling at because so far it does not read well. Koncorde (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a difference of scope, absolutely, but we are talking about culture differences. That article demonstrates that. Additionally, that sounds like you're using circular reasoning and moving the goal post SPP. RS say X. Cultural context says Y. Argument: Could RS be wrong in culture context because they don't understand it? Your response is essentially "RS are absolute". That isn't how we use RS though. WP isn't just supposed regurgitate what the press thinks, it is trying to neutrally explain an issue, and all of its relevant parts. Ries42 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my response is that a handful of editors aren't allowed to say death threats aren't notable or meaningful, particularly when reliable sources say the opposite. Death threats aren't like pornography- it's not a "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it" situation. The blase attitude toward death threats, again, is something specifically mentioned by our sources as being one of the more specious attitudes of gamergate. I'm not saying we should regurgitate what the press says. I'm saying wikipedia is not the place to suggest that death threats aren't a serious issue, unless there are reliable sources to support that statement. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors can say what they will. That isn't important. Nor is anyone saying that the RS view should be taken out. In fact, I said specifically "There is no right or wrong way to view the action, but the action will have different meanings to different cultures and we should accurately and neutrally present all good-faith contextual explanations." The RS view is present in the article. If there is an equally good faith contextual and cultural explanation, that view should be represented neutrally and fairly as well. Ries42 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But, Thargor, you've said you want a "broader discussion" about what "our sources are telling us and their relationship to what we know about the topic, about the media, and about historical coverage." That doesn't sound limited to debating how to use reliable sources in our encyclopedia article, that sounds like questioning the editorial and ethical standards and practices of our reliable sources. Furthermore, if what you're arguing is for proper context, I don't see where our article has fallen short in that. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, any discussion about reliable sources and whether to use them is a discussion, in part, on the editorial standards therein. It's unavoidable when you're picking an choosing which articles to use.  The point is, really, proper context and weight, as you note.  Reading this article, I don't feel I get a complete picture of the topic at all.  I get a pretty significant accounting of one aspect of it from one point of view, but if you want to know what Gamergate is, you're going to walk away thinking one thing and one thing only, and that doesn't appear to be accurate.  Quality of sources, context of the industry, an so on, are all issues we haven't really been able to explore so far. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources indicating an alternative point of view that are reliable and have any level of editorial standards? Koncorde (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles we currently use are fine, as long as we give the proper balance. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've no idea how this discussion somehow morphed into an advocacy thread for the "rape and death threats are probably not such a big deal" tendency, but I think it's time to stop. You've had your fun. The reliable sources, and the authorities, say it's something to investigate. Nothing said here is going to override that. Let's just try to conduct ourselves with some dignity, and not give the thugs and hatemongers encouragement. Rape and death threats are a big deal not just for the obvious reasons, but because in the real world that's the kind of thing we take seriously. That is reflected in the response of the authorities, the media, and I fervently hope, most human beings. --TS 22:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , no one is advocating anything here, to my knowledge. Surely you understand that the implications in your comment are pretty negative attacks on your fellow editors who do not deserve it, so perhaps you'd like to rephrase or, preferably, remove. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the topic, you appear to be saying we give too much emphasis in the article to the rape and death threats. I'm sorry if I misread your statements. I addressed my understanding of what you appeared to be advocating: that we write the article as if our reliable sources incorrectly gave too much emphasis to the element of terror. The reason why I object to this is that, well, these are our reliable sources and this is what nearly all of them write about. How can we write a neutral article on Wikipedia if we ignore the most reliable coverage of the subject matter? --TS 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing what you claim, and your comment is a pretty bad attack on your fellow editors. We're not looking to ignore the "most reliable coverage," we're looking to give it the proper weight and context.  As a show of good faith, fix your comment so you're not slagging those of us you disagree with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One point of note: There is no affirmed investigation from law enforcement. We know the FBI has been helping to advice the IDGA prior to GG on harassment, and we know they have some documents relating to GG, but there's no affirmed active case. We even know that tracking the people is difficult if not impossible . There's likely some type of investigation going on, but we have no sources to say that is the case. I think what the point TO is going for is the fact that it has long been the case that Internet forums, like 4chan, have long had a locker-room feel, where "casual" jokes about rape and death threats are the norm to the people that use them; this is by no means saying this attitude is good, but that's something that I had tried to introduce into the article, that GG is not only an extension of the culture war from the VG industry side, but that it is also demonstrating what the depths of the Internet can hold; what GG is doing now is only a much-more visible demonstration of what happens commonly on those boards, and now that the larger world is aware, it's being called out as very wrong. --M ASEM (t) 22:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really sure about the book but what I think what is messing is actually studies regarding sexism/misogyny in gamergate as until now we are relying on the word of mouth of reliable sources. Avono (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We definitely will have that argument when the book is actually released. With that being said, Milo ≠ Brietbart. He certainly has shown to be a bit biased in other arenas, and perhaps in this one as well, but to say that our current sources do not include bias already would be inaccurate as well. He has also shown to be a very accomplished journalist in his own right independent from this. Sure, many of his pieces may not be WP standard, but that's not what I'm saying. There are biases on both sides, so disqualifying a source just based on real or perceived bias would leave a very barren article.
 * As for Avono's point, let me ask this: Would it be WP:NOR for an editor to bring a scientific study that is ostensibly not about Gamergate, but which might prove or disprove something that is on this page (i.e., if a study that said video games do not cause sexism, would such a study be appropriate on this page?) Ries42 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you wanted to use it. In your example since we don't ever say that games cause sexism, it wouldn't fit. However if there were an assertion that was clearly in dispute by another RS then including it should be fine. Perhaps it would be best if you created a new talk page section outlining what you wanted to add. — Strongjam (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything in particular to add at this point. I am curious though, are "scientific" reliable sources have a different requirement than "journalistic" reliable sources. i.e., if a scientist puts a study up on his blog, how would we judge if it were reliable? Ries42 (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's case-by-case, but if there's some sort of scientific/sociological point that disproves a common theme on this article, we are required by policy to note that. I'm unaware of anything like that at this point, but I confess to not having looked into it yet either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * we do have WP:MEDRS that has been established to cut through the nonsense in that area. Perhaps this kerfuffle is one that requires us to come up with a sub-guideline to handle games-related media?  MEDRS was put in place because of irresponsible reporting on science and medical issues in the media, and there is a good argument to be made (and hasn't fully been explored here for a variety of reasons both good and not) that the traditional media has a similar problem in reporting on games-related activities.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ...so, wait, you expect slashdot users to be swayed to the geek side because the geek side has no feminists? So if wikipedia is reflecting the majority of reliable sources that are predominately concerned with the behaviour of "gamers" means it must be populated wholly by feminists...so where did all the Slashdot people go? Alternatively - maybe it's about notability, verifiability, and reliable sources - regardless of where you are from.
 * While quoting random websites, rationalwiki has their own take of it. Is it objective too? Koncorde (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism
Guardian article on Gamergate bogeyman "Cultural Marxism" that may be useful as a source. Artw (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that's an opinion piece. not rs.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. See WP:USERG: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So is the author a professional in the study of Marxism? Avono (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need to be. He could be, like, an expert on the far right. Anyway, I just checked his profile, which is easy enough to find:
 * "Jason Wilson is a writer and researcher whose work is focused on the intersection between new media technologies and politics. He is a visiting fellow at Swinburne University's Institute for Social Research, and lives in Portland, Oregon". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Without getting into the question of whether this source is suitable for purpose, I'd observe that it is still just a single source. As such I don't think it could bear the weight of anything more than a passing mention.

Cultural Marxism used to be a particular concern of the John Birch Society, but extraordinarily it seems to have become an acceptable concern within a large section of mainstream conservatism over the past six years. To the extent that some of the most prominent Gamergate supporters are on the right (even while many supporters are not), the appearance of a commentary like this isn't surprising. I wouldn't want to use it as material in our article just yet, irrespective of its reliability or lack of the same. That would be undue weight. --TS 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree about the undue weight. The term often appears in primary sources, but it's been pretty much ignored by secondary sources. It's too bad, would be useful to expand on the culture war aspect of the controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello, the FAQ info box says:

''A2: Content on Wikipedia is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (ex, Vox, Wall Street Journal, etc). The article and its talk page is under protection due to constant edit warring and attraction of people with negative comments prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP).''

However this is contradictory, since Vox says that Gamergate is not just about sexism in video culture but also about ethics in game journalism. See: #GamerGate: Here's why everybody in the video game world is fighting (Todd VanDerWerff, VOX) '''Like all hashtags, #GamerGate has come to mean about 500 different things to thousands of different people. But at its heart, it's about two topics:'''

Yet, the intro of the article doesn't reflect this. This leaves only two options:

Option A: VOX didn't check their facts correctly and is not a reliable source, at least for this article. VOX should be removed from infobox since it's misleading. Option B: The article does not represent a Neutral Point of View and violates the second pillar of Wikipedia. The article (especially the intro) should be edited to reflect that it is about both sexism in video games and ethics corncerns in video game journalism. 09I500 (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't an uncontroversial request and your request does not outline a specific change that an editor unfamiliar with the topic can make. Please review WP:ERQ for instructions on how to make edit requests. — Strongjam (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: Category:Women and video games
I'd like to create Category:Women and video games as a subcat of Category:Gender and video games, as a way to group articles and link to the higher-level Category:Women and the arts. Could an admin please add this, even as a red link, and I'll then finish populating the category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Rami Ismail on Gamergate
Rami Ismail, co-founder of Vlambeer, spoke about Gamergate at GameCity. I thought it was interesting and could be useful in the Industry response or the Political views section, he talks about the cultural issues. I haven't added to the draft though as I don't want to start turning it back into a quote farm, and also we use The Guardian quite a bit and I'm worried we may end up (or even are) giving them undue weight. Any ideas if we can use this to maybe expand on the cultural war aspect of the controversy?

— Strongjam (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a good reason The Guardian turns up a lot in sources. Their reputation for editorial independence is strong. I do appreciate your recent switch from the Graun to Christian Science Monitor (another very good source) for another recent story, though. Diversity of sourcing held to ensure reliability.

I don't think this story would add much to our article's coverage. It's the opinion of one independent developer. -TS 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly have no issue with The Guardian, in fact they line up very much with my own POV. Just want to make sure we have a broad set of sources and POVs. Don't want this article to be "What The Guardian and Verge think about Gamergate" after all. On reflection I think you're right about this not adding much, I think it's an interesting opinion (probably because it just confirms my bias) but probably not notable enough for inclusion. — Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ismail has been called on before in RSes on his view of issues of sexism in the industry well prior to the events of GG (I think a 2008 or 09 GDC talk he gave), and this seems like a logical extension of his observations then. --M ASEM (t) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At risk of bring up the good old undue weight to Erik Kain problem, his article on What GamerGate is actually about seems to agree with Ismail that Gamegate's been a long time coming, but for very different reasons. "Mostly it’s about a toxic relationship that’s formed between the video game press and gamers themselves, one that’s been bubbling and brewing for years, not months." So there is more than one source taking the long term angle. Bosstopher (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: use draft as of 17:12 GMT, 19 January 2015 as main
The main article has been protected for many weeks now and it's rather out of date. The Arbitration Committee has published its draft proposed decision so those who were holding their breath and expecting an unorthodox content-related decision can now breathe out.

I propose that:
 * 1) Wikipedia being of its nature a perpetual work in progress;
 * 2) The current draft (timed as above) being our current best effort and containing no glaring defects;
 * 3) The current main article being protected from editing owing to frequent edit wars;
 * 4) Stipulated on consensus (to be obtained) that the current draft is of no lesser quality than, and more up to date than, the current main article:
 * 5) We agree that the named draft article revision (this one) should be moved copied over the current main version by an administrator, thus updating the article.

Your thoughts on this, please. --TS 06:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification: This isn't a proposal to unprotect the article. Editing of the draft can continue during and after this discussion. The proposal pertains to a particular revision of the draft. --TS 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support — Yes, I think this works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I have issues still (see reordering above) but it's fine to move into place for now. --M ASEM (t) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This version seems good to me. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support.Avono (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The draft continues to have far too many issues, and many editors have been waiting to see the results of ArbCom before contributing significantly to fixing them.  We'll have a ruling within a couple days, the proposed decision is up.  Then we can fix the draft and article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Draft version seems better to me. Editors who have been waiting for ArbCom can collaborate if they wish, we shouldn't hold up Wikipedia on the chance that someone might contribute in the future. — Strongjam (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering a number of the supporters as well as people contributing are facing possible topic bans, the idea that we need to move on this now appears more than a little premature. We've waited this long, waiting another few days isn't going to make the situation worse while inserting a draft proposal that lacks input from many editors for a variety of reasons would.  It will almost certainly result in edit warring on the main article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No one weighing in is at this time under any sort of restriction. Topic bans are not retroactive, and if anyone thinks votes in this discussion will be stricken down the road, they are in for a bit of disappointment. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is "grave dancing." The issue that brought the page and its topic to ArbCom is still tendentious, and trying to push in a draft page that has limited interaction and reserved discussion because of the ArbCom case and the players involved (on both sides!) seems premature.  There is absolutely no harm whatsoever in waiting until we see the results of the case before moving on the draft. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cautious Support The Draft is better, but the article still needs significant work. Suggest following the draft being implemented that the new page continue to be fully protected and a new draft environment be created for future edits. Ries42 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To iterate, this is my thinking - we have a reasonable decent draft that still needs improvement but better than what is presently at main page, so let's fix that, and then allow more broader sweeps of the draft article to take place. --M ASEM (t) 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - No issues. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The reading is better, and while it still needs work that defines pretty much all of wikipedia. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Ries42's above statement entirely. I understand Thargor Orlando's reasoning but the pending decision is no reason to not introduce a better version of the article and continue to work to improve it. Weedwacker (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you advocating for the full replacement of the current article by the draft version? Couldn't it just supplement the current version for aspects that are out of date? It seems like the draft version is more opinionated and less neutral. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * can you give some specifics about what issues you see? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  08:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Liz is currently a sporadic editor who has edited in batches separated by days' absence. If she hasn't responded by 1200 GMT on 22nd (Lunchtime tomorrow in London) and there are no further objections, I'll put up an edit protected notice and let an admin judge whether to perform the proposed edit. --TS 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until such time as someone can create a reasonable diff between the contents that is human-understandable, or can explain the various changes. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a diff of the changes. Although I don't know if it's reasonable. I might go through it later and try to explain the various changes, but don't have time at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did that, but that's why I said "human-understandable." Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, I can review from that diff - I must have done something wrong. Reviewing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever. No substantial changes are made. Don't care. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Freeform discussion

 * As nearly always happens on talk pages of this encyclopaedia that doesn't have votes, we've got an impromptu vote on my proposal!


 * Well I can't make that go away, but instead I can add this discussion section. If you really want to turn this into a vote (and a vote is still a vote even with an exclamation mark in front of the word "vote") go up there and vote. But I want to encourage everybody to discuss this properly below. --TS 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to make two counterpoints in response to points made against:
 * Firstly, arbitration. Arbitration isn't an excuse to stop improving the encyclopaedia. I'd argue it's the reverse.
 * Secondly, every revision of every article has its faults, but if we intended to wait for the perfect version of every article to come along we wouldn't have started with a wiki.


 * The question we should ask is: warts and all, is the draft as of yesterday afternoon an improvement and update on the current main article? If you agree that this is true, then we can in all good conscience improve Wikipedia at a stroke by copying that revision over the main article. No ifs, no buts. The article would remain protected so there is no risk of edit warring. --TS 15:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There does not appear to be anything objectionable or controversial in the recent edits, apart from the now-indef'ed sock contributions that were quickly reverted. If people have objections, IMO they should be raised at the time the addition is made.  That's why we have a draftspace version at all. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been issues, but they have been at times railroaded over; further, it made sense to see which if any issues on the content the ArbCom made before addressing them in the draft. Further, the story still changes as we get farther out from the original onset, so like the rest of WP, these remain living documents. The key with the draft now is simply to get a version that at least avoids some of the major issues on the main page ( like quotefarming), but we still have much more to address once that's done. --M ASEM  (t) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do get the impression that many editors thought the arbitration committee might make some significant pronouncement about or affecting content; as a nine-years veteran of arbitration cases, I had no such expectation and cannot account for those who thought that might happen. Now I think the excuses for inaction are dwindling. --TS 21:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem, and the issues with railroading. Without naming names, sometimes its exhausting to deal with certain editors. Editors who have stepped back perhaps hope that some of those exhausting editors would be encouraged to move on by ArbCom. That is definitely a reason to wait to see ArbCom's resolution before deciding whether its worth submitting themselves to the scrutiny of this article. Some of us have tougher skin though. Ries42 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes a sort of sense, I suppose, though it amounts to people saying to themselves "I hope the arbitrators will make people who disagree with my edits go away," which is abit sad. The sanctions exist to stop or prevent misbehaviour, and they're clearly quite effective. In this case it shouldn't affect the decision, though. The only question is whether the more up-to-date draft version is even a tiny bit better than the current article. Also I think we're heading into "unnamed people doing it all wrong but I won't take them through dispute resolution" territory, which should be a thing of the past. --TS 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was purposefully vague because I both don't think there is one side/person/editor completely at fault or responsible for the current state and I don't want to make accusations because they indirectly reinforce that state of things. Things have gotten better, yes, but there is still an atmosphere that can sometimes be on the razors edge. I am very careful about what I write both because of the sanctions and the state of affairs that forced them to be required. The ArbCom hearing hanging over the head of the article reinforces that atmosphere, even if the end result is zero action. I did not intend for it to mean "I hope X editor goes away" so much as I hope that if editor X returns they are not as difficult to work with and hopefully ArbCom will have that effect on any editor that may have been more difficult to work with previous to it. Ries42 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected article edit request: sync draft
After this conversation it's clear to me that there is no substantial objection to this proposed edit:
 * Copy this revision of Draft:Gamergate controversy (timestamped 17:12 GMT, 19 January 2015) over Gamergate controversy.
 * Uncomment the protection template and ensure that it corresponds to the current page protection parameters in the page log.
 * Uncomment the categories and ensure that no vandalism has slipped through there.

Thank you.--TS 01:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of article mention in media
First, why? When does a media source requiring to be a reliable source for wikipedia been a requirement for the usage of Template:Press? I have not seen anything where Frontpage Magazine is not a reliable source. Others may disagree with its political point of view, but that does not make it an unreliable source, just a biased one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Frontpage is regularly determined to be less than reliable by WP:RSN - have you reviewed the archives? No comment with respect to the press template, because whocares. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The press template isn't really part of Wikipedia, it's just an adornment we put on some article talk pages to make us feel good about what we do. If you can get consensus to put the FrontLine link up, go ahead. But it's not worth fighting over. The encyclopaedia is in that other tab. --TS 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if reliable, reading it doesn't give much to work with. It says "X won" but doesn't go into a lot of specifics. I'd keep it just to show that not all the press believes that "gamergate" is a "misogynist campaign against women," but I can't quite find a place to put it in the article. Can we agree to leave it in the sources for now and figure out if it can be directly used later? Ries42 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frontpagemag is not a reliable source and should not be used in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism references the WP:RSN determination that FrontPage Magazine is "not RS for factual info." A Wikipedia search of the project space (beyond my capabilities at this location) would be required to locate RSN discussions on this. --TS 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The historical citation from RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WND and its associates are clearly among the least reliable types of sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question/Comment: FrontPage is a reliable source for OPINION, not FACT. That's clear. A lot of the views expressed in this article are opinion. Some editors feel that if the opinion is supported by a significant majority of sources, it should be considered a "fact". My question is this:
 * Does an opinion, which has become considered a "fact" because of support from a majority of reliable sources, then become immune to opposing opinions from sources which would be reliable for opinions, but not for facts? Ries42 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:V and WP:RS. This is reasonably clear. Frontpagemag is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
I'm trying to get a feel of what gamergate is all about, but barely a few paragraphs into the article and I'm starting to have some serious doubts about how certain elements of the story are being presented and how sources don't convey the text used in the article. For example take a look at this paragraph from the History section: (emphasis mine)

"Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack",[7] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.[8] This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game.[2][8][9][10][11][12][13] Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship, but clarified that Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced and had never reviewed her games, though he did acknowledge a piece written before the two began their relationship."

When a bit of text is overinked inline such as this is (7 times) I would expect that each of the sources would confirm the same facet; the allegations about the Kotqku reporter were false -- because that's what the article says!. All of them except one mention the Kotaku editor's remarks denying the charges, and the lone standout (whose usability as a reliable source is questionable at best, being an editorial piece) doesn't even try to reconcile the gamer gate allegations. This is a serious abuse of the sources, using Wikipedia's voice to state to the reader that the allegations were demonstrably false, when the sources themselves did not make this claim. This is easily fixed by simply removing the word "false" and let the reader decide for themselves if they believe the Kotaku editor and the those who accepted his findings, or those who are making the allegations.

Considering the epic disruption this article has caused I'm not surprised that there might be POV editors involved, but I am surprised to see what appears to be a glaring error so early in the article. Does the rest of the article play this way, or am I just missing something?Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 07:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The allegations are demonstrably false, as most of the cited refs state in various wordings, and as these additional refs (and plenty more) make clear.
 * The Telegraph — Users from the messageboards Reddit – a sprawling series of communities – and 4chan – largely the trolls in the internet’s basement – hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews. already cited
 * The Washington Post — It’s a movement based in false accusations against Quinn — that she traded sexual favors to advance her career — and mushroomed from there. already cited
 * Wired — an unfounded smear campaign involving the sex life of a female game developer
 * Canada.com — GamerGate faithfuls still cite Zoe Quinn and Kotaku Journalist Nathan Grayson as the motivation behind their movement, despite the allegations of collusion associated with Quinn and Grayson’s relationship being (repeatedly) proven false.
 * The New Yorker — Baldwin, seeking to point out an example of unethical journalism, linked on Twitter to a video claiming that a video-game writer had promoted work by the independent game-maker Zoe Quinn while the two were in a relationship. (This claim that has since been proved false.)
 * BBC — The posts detailed that Ms Quinn had had a relationship with a journalist at prominent games site Kotaku - prompting accusations from others she had done so in an attempt to get positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest. While the relationship happened, the review did not.
 * PBS NewsHour — Zoe Quinn, a game developer, was accused by her ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for receiving positive game reviews. Those false charges spurred a wave of rape and death threats online.
 * NY Magazine — There was no Kotaku review of “Depression Quest,” the supposed “scandal” of journalistic impropriety that allegedly touched all this off. already cited
 * On The Media — All of the accusations of sexual favors for jobs and favorable press have been debunked. In fact, the ex-boyfriend who made this very public website that kickstarted this whole thing has gone in to clarify that these accusations are unfounded. That people insist on harping on this developers alleged infidelities simply has nothing to do with the integrity of the gaming industry or the gaming press. cited in draft
 * Other sources to this effect:     , etc. etc. If we need to add and update sources, we should.
 * There's been extensive previous discussion of this issue in the archives, here, among other places. The sources say the claims were false, because it's easily demonstrable that they were — Grayson didn't write anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship, the end. I think several of the sources cited in that line are used to source the discussion of what the claims were, not to source the fact that they're false. I agree that we can and should add many of these additional sources to suppor the phrasing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. The sources you present are not cited in the text above, whereas the sources that are cited, don't support the text they are supposed to be supporting. You can't just say, well we know the sources are out there, and then slap up any source.  It's sloppy and it goes against the core values of scholarship, not to mention just plain old wrong.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 08:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that we should add more sources, although I note that several of those above are already cited in the text, and I've called them out as noted.
 * Not all of the sources already cited in the text are there to support the "false" part — they are there to support other parts of the sentence and paragraph. If you think we should add more sources specifically supporting the "false" wording, and move/remove the others to a different section of the page, I would certainly support that.
 * And now that I take a look at it, the draft article has already had some of the refs for that wording moved around and upgraded. We've been stuck on a protected version on this main page for quite awhile now. I think we can pull the Slate reference out of that section, as it doesn't appear to support, really, anything in that sentence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I just lost a bit of text in an edit conflict. I'm fine with this then.  Im dead.  Can you close or collapse this please?Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

New Daily Kos Article
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359740/-Dear-Internet-Can-we-please-stop-harassing-women-online#

Not sure how reliable Daily Kos is. Interesting article, this time of a quote-unquote "Pro-GG" person being harassed and doxxed. Might be worth inclusion. Ries42 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User generated content is not reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's not WP:RS, not that familiar with the Daily Kos structure, but I believe this a diary from a user, effectively a WP:SPS. — Strongjam (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, did not realize that. Ries42 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Add Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
Please add Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press

Latest entries therein relating to Gamergate controversy are dated 23 January 2015. JohnValeron (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on PetertheFourth's recent edit to the Draft
Edit in Question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=643769425&oldid=643701035 Peter, you removed the second part of a phrase because you said it is redundant. Specifically the phrase was "In First Things, Nathaniel Givens agreed that supporters were abandoning the hashtag, stating it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" regardless of the actions of supporters" and now it reads "In First Things, Nathaniel Givens agreed that supporters were abandoning the hashtag, stating it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" " which while technically correct, completely changes the meaning of the sentence. I disagree that the last line is redundant.

The line "regardless of the actions of supporters" implies that the tag's reputation as "toxic" will 'stick' so to say, whether the supporters do good or bad, and that is why people are leaving. Removing this loses the meaning as to WHY supporters are leaving, which is very important to the context of the phrase. I'm hoping you'll agree. Ries42 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright. I can see where confusion could arise here. Would the rephrasing "but stated it was due to negative media coverage making the tag "toxic" and not because of other factors" or "not because of the actions of supporters" work? It seems to be very sloppy grammar wise to add the 'regardless' at the end, and I believe it would be clearer to phrase it as one of the two I've suggested, as well as establishing Nathaniel is disagreeing with some of the earlier points. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe change the second line to "no matter what supporters accomplished, negative media attention had made the tag "toxic"". I think that gives the correct paraphrasing of the source and is better grammar. Ries42 (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * it was not the media attention that made anything "toxic" - it was the repeated toxic actions waving the GG banner that made the tag toxic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what the source says. " Regardless of what gamers did or didn’t do, they were successfully painted as vicious thugs, and now the term “Gamergate” is toxic." According to the source, the label is toxic because gamers were "successfully painted as vicious thugs." I think "negative media attention" is a fair if mild paraphrasing of this point. Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the paraphrasing. I think it's closer to what the source says, but critiscm is welcome. — Strongjam (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a comma, otherwise I think it works. Can I ask why it has an "undue" tag? Can we remove that? Ries42 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TRPoD added that a little while ago. I don't feel that strongly about it (I think the bigger problem is the undue weight to Kain's WP:NEWSBLOG articles.) I'm okay with the tag coming off as there is no active discussion about it anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Would you mind removing it? Ries42 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Shii (tock) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed.
"The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan, 8chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. These attacks often include anti-feminist and misogynistic rhetoric, and have heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community." Quoted from article Exefisher (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEDE stuff in the lede of the article doesnt have to have a citation as long as the information is repeated later on in the article. The entire article is proof that discussions about sexism and misogyny have heightened. As for the other stuff, mentions of harassment on 4chan 8chan and reddit are kinda dispersed throughout: such as the thing about Brianna Wu being doxxed on 8chan, but perhaps its not enough for a lede mention. Also it could mislead readers into thinking 4chan still allows discussion of GamerGate. The current draft sentence is: "These attacks, which were often performed under the #gamergate hashtag or by people connected to it, ranged from online harassment and death threats to threats of terrorist attacks, and were frequently coordinated and promoted within subforums of social media platforms such as Reddit and 8chan." I like the phrasing of this one less because it implies the terrorism threats (the uni shooting) were coordinated on reddit and 8chan, which nobody has claimed they were. As it stands I am incredibly bad at summarising and cannot think of a better alternative. Does anyone have suggestions for an alternative sentence. Bosstopher (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding lead section
The lead section seems to be very conclusional, as if GamerGate has ended and we are looking back on it. This is not the case at all; the news continues to report on the topic, for instance. I also have some issues with some of the claims made, such as "false allegations of ethics violations" which doesn't have any citation. What false allegations? At least a news article saying GamerGate has made false allegations would be appreciated. If Pro-GG wikipedia users aren't allowed to put stuff in without context, then why should Anti-GG users? BlookerG talk 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The false accusations in question are detailed in the history section. The quote from the lede is "Gamergate's origins in false allegations of ethics violations." This is because Gamergate's origins are false allegations of ethics violations regarding Zoe Quinn, which are described as false by all of the reliable sources that have commented on them, as detailed in the history section. Please focus on the content, not the contributors. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are very "conclusional". They have looked at GG's "accomplishments" and likely hood of being able to have any future impact and made their determination. We follow them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * RedPen, that seems to be at odds with WP:SYNTH as I understand it. We report on the sources, but synthesizing it like that seems to be toeing the line, or maybe crossing it, seems to violate WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and maybe even WP:NPOV. I guess the argument I'm making is that a lot of this article might have issues with Synth, as a lot of hte article reads like the "bad example" of :The [Gamergate] stated objective is to [ethics or something], but since its creation there have been [harassment of peoples]. Ries42 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What text proposed or currently in the article do you believe violates WP:SYNTH, the elements of which are 1. Multiple sources 2. Combined 3. reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please be sure to define each of the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to get into specifics, but it seems like the areas this might be an issue would be things like the lede: Some supporters of the movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories or unrelated to ethics. While not directly sourced, we source all of those comments. SYNTH would likely prefer something more along the lines of: Says the same thing, but separates the synthesis to remove the implication in WP's voice. (Note, I did remove some more... aggressive words, like overwhelming. I thought we took that out) Ries42 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked you to get into specifics about violations of WP:SYNTH, so let's get into specifics. There are three elements to violate SYNTH - 1. Multiple Sources, 2. Combined, 3. Reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Please detail where something violates SYNTH by detailing the section and the elements. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Ries42 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the content, not the contributors. You are alleging synthesis. I'm asking you to show it to me, using the three point test for WP:SYN. Could you please do so? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop wikilawyering me, and being so pointy. Second request. Ries42 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no syn in the single sentence as there are multiple sources which address all 4 of the components. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But it does have language that falls into wording to watch, like the "overwhelming" that was removed above. It creates a tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --M ASEM (t) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also notice there are mentions the end of the history section of at least some of the attackers potentially being trolls who want to stir up trouble, who don't support either side of the GamerGate debate and are tweeting abuse mostly through new twitter accounts to hide their identity. The lead says that the media has been focussing on attacks from GamerGate supporters, but there is no mention of the trolls. This seems to conflict. BlookerG talk 17:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The media has been focusing on attacks from GamerGate supporters. There are notable other opinions, however - specifically, the ones pulled out by the quote you reference. For example, Ice Cream, generally, is sweet. However, there are also savory ice creams, like . The media has been focusing on ice cream as sweet. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, would putting "Some supporters say ice cream is savory, but the overwhelming majority of commentators say Ice Cream is sweet" because that's what the media has reported on a fair and impartial lede from a neutral point of view? Ries42 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it would provide massively undue weight to savory icecream. See, for example, Ice_cream, which does not even mention savory ice cream. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you've gone and confused me. I thought you were just making an analogy and I assumed were not intending to use "real life" stats in it. I.e., you made it a given that ice cream was notable for being savory. You then made the other given that media attention is that ice cream is sweet. My question was that, with those two items as given, wouldn't the above lede, that "X says ice cream is savory, but the overwhelming majority says ice cream is sweet" be inappropriate for the "theoretical" ice cream article (not the real one). Ries42 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The analogy is that the media, and so our article, covers sweet ice cream even though savory ice cream may exist. The sources, and so our article, covers the toxic gamergate even though non-toxic gamergate may exist. It is not relevant to the overwhelming discussion of the topic.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the response I was looking for. On this line of reasoning, does the fact that a non-toxic gamergate exists, although perhaps not notable on its own because of its lack of media coverage, become notable because the toxic gamergate is notable. Further, following that reasoning, can we make broad generalized statements against the toxic gamergate (which I feel like everyone agrees with, even myself), but have issues because although this article isn't intended to cover the non-toxic gamergate, it effectively lumps them in when generalizing? I feel like this is the crux of a lot of issues with this article, and if we can find a way to make that distinction clear that it will in general significantly improve the article. Ries42 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - just because you have an obnoxious notable uncle does not make you notable. And any "effectively lumping together" is because all parts of GG have refused to any type of organization or leadership or mission that would allow any "unlumping" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Un-lumping would require WP:OR for the most part. — Strongjam (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no source at all has defined the line between what is the GG controversy and the GG movement, because the controversy is about the movement's actions. It's not that the movement is not notable, but its that the controversy and the movement are, presently, the same topic. And because that movement is so central to it, it is not a fringe aspect of it, it just has not many sources that attempt some objective qualification of the movement. Per NPOV and UNDUE that means what we cover won't be a lot but the movement's aspect needs to be covered in a non-prejudgemental manner. --M ASEM (t) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is totally unrelated to any suggestion to improve the article. I will close and hat it as unproductive in 15 minutes barring policy-grounded objections. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. It is about what the topic actually is, and thus how that is properly represented in the lead. --M ASEM (t) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific proposed change? What is wrong with the lede? Be specific and refer to the text. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See the example given above by Ries which addressing one case of peacock wording. It attempts to complete dismiss anything objective about GG and "glorifying" the moral-wrongness of the harassment (including the use of the word "terrorism"). It makes the article take a side about which way WP is taking GG which we cannot do, and then when it introduces the objective information we have about GG, it immediately negates that with public opinion. The facts the lead presents are all correct, but the wording is specifically chosen to attack the GG side. --20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I chose not to read anything by Ries42. Please restate any objections clearly, referring to policies and explaining how they were violated or are complied with better by alternative text, in your own words. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I also strongly disagree. We are discussing issues with the article, which is perfectly acceptable. BlookerG  talk 20:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific proposed change? What is wrong with the lede? Be specific and refer to the text. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the article itself, it provides a big ego boost to Anti-GG users by basically saying the opposition is way more in the wrong. I focus on the lead in particular because it's the section the most people will see, a summary of a long article. All of the reliable sources seem to have a very Anti-GG opinion, so maybe my issue is not Wikipedia orientated. We should strive to find some more Pro-GG sources that are actually reliable. I also find it funny that in the History section, the line about "false allegations" regarding Grayson publishing "a positive review of the game" on Kotaku uses Kotaku itself as a source to show that Kotaku's in the right. There are a bunch of other sources on it too, so I think this one should be removed. Basically, I feel this article needs a hell of a lot of neutralising. Seeing as I've had to justify myself on my reasoning behind wanting to change the article, could you justify why you're ignoring Ries42? BlookerG  talk 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the reason we use Kotaku as a source for that is that is the primary source which then other sources build on. It is completely appropriate in this specific context to use them with the other sources present that voice their agreement the allegation was false. --M ASEM  (t) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should be editing our articles based on who is going to like them or dislike them, rather based on what reliable sources say. If all of the reliable sources are saying things one way, then so will Wikipedia - and you state that all of the reliable sources have a specific slant, which means, unfortunately, that we will mirror that. Wikipedia does not lead opinions, we merely document what other people say. Kotaku is a valuable source that we should link to with respect to that citation - if they were the only source, I would agree that it needed further qualification, but since so many other sources agree with them, there is no need to remove what is a valuable citation or change the language. Finally, I am ignoring Ries42 because I find that reading him makes my day less good. Given that I'm not interpreting consensus or editing the article, I feel that ignoring people who make my day less good will improve everyone's day, on average. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the case that reliable sources widely view Gamergate as being in the wrong. That reliable sources hold such a view is an indisputable fact. That some people disagree is interesting and should be noted in our article, but it cannot override the clear consensus of reliable sources and it must be subordinated to this clear consensus of reliable sources. Whether it gives an "ego boost" to anyone is not our concern as encyclopedia editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how we write articles; public opinion is not the same as fact. That GG has a hugely negative perception is important, cannot be ignored, and the negative criticism of GG has to be a majority portion of the article. But, we cannot act like the public opinion is the factually "right" answer, nor that the pro GG is "wrong". The controversy continues (albeit much slower than it started), and there's still no conclusion reached. As such, while the predominate of the opinion of the press will be the bulk of the content, it cannot be the tone we take with the article. --M ASEM (t) 23:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, harassment, death threats, terrorism and doxing ARE wrong. Claiming that "objective reviews" is an "ethical question" IS  wrong. Stating that "Objective reviews would be those that only rate games on objective criteria like 'is it fun'?" IS wrong.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying "harassment, death threats, terrorism and doxing" are right, nor was that what Masem was arguing. Its easy to strawman certain views and say they're wrong. Sure, "objective reviews" are not an "ethical question," but "conflicts of interest" are. Ries42 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They may be wrong, but first) WP is amoral, we cannot write articles based on this being "bad actions", meaning we can't take sympathy for the victims or judgement towards those that might have done the wrongdoing, and second) no single source has established factually that those that are asking about ethics changed have engaged in any of these activities directly, nor can we presume that. We can include all the opinions that because the ethics side of GG has not done enough to separate themselves from the harassment side as to be implicitly responsible for the harassment, but we cannot make any presumption that what the group that calls themselves the GG movement has done anything wrong for purposes of writing the article. --M ASEM (t) 23:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not " taking sympathy for the victims or judgement towards those that might have done the wrongdoing". We are merely reporting that the sources have reviewed GG and have come to the overwhelming conclusion that what they have done is wrong. Our reporting those conclusions is "amoral". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we are, by the means of the use of weasel/peacock words to prejudge the GG movement's side of the issue, as one example above, and by failing to cohesively describe their ethics requests in an objective manner (instead sprinkled throughout the article making it hard to follow); the argument against changing these has been because the predominate view ridicules the GG side we don't have to give them any respect. Being neutral and amoral we can't take that view or attitude; we should be documenting the group objectively to the best our sourcing policy lets us before letting in the wave of negative criticism about them set that part. --M ASEM  (t) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not here to be gamergate apologetics doing something that they have failed to do for themselves. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor are we here to criminalize them just because the sources have opted to. --M ASEM (t) 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources didnt criminalize them. The terrorism and harassment they conducted criminalized them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's original research, and not acceptable. We can use the sources that are vastly negative of GG to show how much criticism the group got and condemn the harassment/etc, but that's it. We treat what actions were done in a neutral tone, either praising nor condemning even if the moral high ground says otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 00:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not original research. It is what the sources report - you know the threats against Sarkeesian speaking at Utah are literally criminal terrorist acts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I completely agree with Masem, but to be blunt... what criminal charges were filed and what criminal convictions were sustained? Has there been even one criminal prosecution during this whole event? Ries42 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously contending that threatening to gun down an auditorium full of people is not a criminal terroristic act? (Here is a hint, I would DEFINITELY NOT suggest that you try it to find out for yourself)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you saying it is not a criminal act. But I'm also not saying it definitely is. To use a little legal mumbo-jumbo, it actually may not be, based on a rather large list a things. The legal analysis for legal criminal threats requires certain things, including actual fear, and the fact that the FBI declared "no threat" and the fact that there was no "fear" based on the threat all lend to the possibility that said threat was not actually a legal, criminal threat. This link is to a California Criminal Defense firm that goes over a lot of ways a "threat" may not actually be a legal, criminal threat. Note, he is analyzing California law, and the threat you are referring took place in Utah, and I don't know exactly which Utah or Federal laws will apply. I said all of that to get across the point that a "criminal threat" is actually a very high burden to meet legally, and it is certainly possible that the threats that occurred in Utah may not be actually criminal in nature. You can argue it was criminal. Many people can. But it isn't factually criminal without at the VERY least indictment, and even then, it isn't confirmed criminal without a conviction. Here, we don't have any facts of that. Ries42 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your blithe justification of terrorism leads me to the same conclusion that Hipocrite arrived at. Good bye. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what I did at all, but thank you for the accusation. Ries42 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your point? I'm afraid I don't follow. What would you like done to the article? Would you like us to characterize the threat of a shooting as something other than criminal? I'm honestly asking, but I don't understand why you put so much effort into trying to argue that this wasn't a criminal act? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The actions are certainly criminal or approaching that in nature, and that itself we can't pretend to say anything less because it is a fact that issuing a fake threat like that equates to a crime. The problem is, we have zero idea who are the people doing the crime, outside of the fact that they often tie themselves to the gamergate hashtag. We have zero evidence (though I don't dismiss the possibility) that those that have harassed and threatened are the same that are arguing about ethics, despite the fact that a number of press sources go "Gamergate is guilty of this", more or less. There are several sources that do a very careful job not accusing GG as a whole for these things and stating that it is somebody using the GG hashtag, but then proceed to say that by implicitly supporting these (for example, continuting to call Quinn et al by disingenuous names, or not doing enough to styme the harassment) that the group is guilty as a whole, which is okay as an opinion but still again not fact. To that point, when we write about the GG movement objectively, we cannot presume that they have done anything wrong. Some of their actions, alone, speak for themselves, and others we'll definitely include the press's take on their faults, but we cannot presume this group is, in its entirety, out to harass women and others that speak for them.  And that's what is the problem in this article - it's written with a tone that the GG supporters are bad people and that the press are right.  We can't take that position at all. --M ASEM  (t) 16:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Wikipedia should take that view in the encyclopedia's voice, only that that view must be presented as predominant in our article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of that was pretty much a direct reply to RedPen's comment that "The sources didnt criminalize them. The terrorism and harassment they conducted criminalized them". The point of the topic there was to show that the reported actions themselves are not factually criminal because there is a difference between something that is factually criminal, and what may not actually be criminal (but may still be wrong). Criminal is a specific legal conclusion, one that isn't "given" at any point pre-conviction. With that being said, it is certainly not necessary to remove all mentions that characterize the threats as criminal, merely that they should not be in WP unsourced or be in WP's voice as facts. Someone can have the opinion that they are criminal, and that can very well be in the article. That was the nuance of the dicussion as I saw it. Ries42 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure I understand. You're saying that WP cannot state in its own voice that threatening to shoot up a college campus because someone is giving a speech is a criminal act? I think you could not be further off the mark. I'd maybe understand if you were saying certain individuals could not be characterized as criminal due to the lack of any self-evident facts suggesting such, but to suggest that a threat of mass violence isn't a criminal act seems a bit far-fetched and quite an odd position to stake out. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand why you think its odd. Frankly it IS odd. But the law is a weird and at times contradictory beast. You can't have a "criminal act" without a criminal. You can say something is criminal in the abstract, sure, but criminal acts require context. For instance, it is certainly a criminal act to murder someone. But if someone is accused of murder, are they a criminal? What if that person is acquitted, are they still a criminal? It is easy to say a "terrorist act" is criminal, because technically it could be. However, its complicated by International law, but let's just say its a given. Terrorist Act = Criminal Act. Something has to then be proven to be a terrorist act, in order to be a criminal act as well. Lets assume that Joe Blow is the person who made the Utah threats. Completely made up person. Joe Blow is indicted for making them. He goes to trial, and for some reason, he is acquitted. Joe is not a criminal. And in that hypothetical situation, Joe's "threats" are also not criminal. However, if Joe IS convicted, he is then factually a criminal, and his threats are factually criminal acts.
 * It's like saying XXX is committing libel against me. It may certainly be true. I can accuse XXX of libel. But without a judgment, it isn't factually true that XXX committed libel. It would be inapprorpaite of WP to say on XXX's profile that he committed libel against me at any point prior to an actual judgement. WP could say that I accused XXX of libel (maybe, idk if BLP might be at issue there with just an accusation), but that's the nuance. Ries42 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "For instance, it is certainly a criminal act to murder someone. But if someone is accused of murder, are they a criminal? What if that person is acquitted, are they still a criminal?" No, but we're not talking about the person. We're talking about the act. It doesn't matter who threatened to shoot up the school, doing that is still a criminal act. What you seem to be suggesting is that a crime is only a crime if someone is caught, which is, again, an odd thing to argue. This is a remarkably pointless semantic debate and, again, you're mostly reasonable, so I can't begin to fathom why you're arguing this point. If we can't characterize a mass shooting threat as criminal without a debate, then what are we even doing here? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not an "if you get caught" thing, although I understand that may be closer to the truth than is wrong. Its simpler than that, there cannot be a criminal act, absent a "crime". We can't be sure that a crime occurred, for certain, without a criminal. Its still an opinion until its a fact. Hence why I said, in hypothetical, or in abstract, we can refer to something as "factually" a criminal act. But we can't describe something as factually a criminal act unless there are facts that show that it was actually criminal. Yes, the words are absolutely deplorable. Horrible. I can go on and on with my opinions of what they are. What I can't say, though, is that they are factually a criminal act. In fact, we have two-three big facts showing that they may very well NOT be a criminal act. I.e., the FBI's determination of no threat, the fact that Ms. Sarkeesian canceled not because of the threats but because of the gun control laws of Utah, and the threats themselves were never actually show to have caused an actual, real apprehension of fear. That isn't to say these AREN'T criminal threats. I want to be clear, it is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that they are criminal threats. But it would be incorrect to factually label them that. Ries42 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this doesn't seem to be based in any sort of legal reality. "We can't be sure that a crime occurred, for certain, without a criminal." Really? Tell that to any number of detectives attempting to solve homicides. Furthermore, the FBI determining there's no real threat to safety is not the same thing as them saying no one sent in a threat. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater and then use the lack of a fire as your defense against punishment. If we can't assert in wikipedia's voice that the threat of a mass shooting is criminal behavior, what can we assert? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Criminal is both an adjective and an opinion until it is a proven fact. It can only be proven by a conviction. A detective can have his opinion. He can say "that damn criminal scum" that he is going after for a homicide. But a homicide can still not be a criminal act, if it is determined there are mitigating factors or other things. If that detective caught the person who was the cause of the person's death that he was searching for (Person X for clarity), but we find out that Person X acted in Self-Defense, and the dead guy was going to kill Person X if Person X didn't kill him right back, is Person X a criminal? Did a criminal act take place? Was there a crime?
 * That's how the law works. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not criminal because of fire, shouting fire in a crowded theater is potentially criminal because it can induce panic and cause injuries to others because of that panic. The actual shouting of "fire" could be the criminal act. But you seem to be mistaken about something, you used it backwards. If there actually IS A FIRE, then shouting fire in a theater is NOT a criminal act. You can use the fact that there WAS a fire as defense against punishment. As to your hyperbole: we can assert facts. Opinions, even ones that seem 'common sense' should be attributed. It doesn't have to be a quote. It could be as simple as "the FBI labeled these threats criminal". If the FBI said they were criminal, then cite the FBI at the end of the phrase. If they didn't, then cite someone else. Ries42 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, this is my stop. Back to the recent changes for me. I'd suggest someone come in and hat this entire conversation as it's drifted far off topic. I'd also suggest Ries focus less on trying to win a semantic debate and more on opening his mind up to the fact that he is arguing that threatening to shoot up a school is perfectly legal or otherwise justified. He seems to be under the impression that there are "mitigating factors" in which this act would be ok. There are no mitigating factors where it's ok to threaten to shoot up a school; even if it's an empty threat, it's still against the law. I'll WP:AGF that you aren't here for an agenda, and say this: no one is suggesting every Gamergate supporter is a criminal, or even that any Gamergate supporter is criminal. We are suggesting that threatening to shoot up a school is criminal, no matter who did it, and asserting that in WP's voice is obviously ok. This is the word's very definition: "Of, involving, or having the nature of crime." Threatening to shoot up a school fits all three criteria. Best of luck trying to convince other editors otherwise. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a strawman and I feel an inappropriate twisting of my words to say I am arguing that "threatening to shoot up a school is perfectly legal or otherwise justified". My argument is simply that there is a difference between opinion versus fact. You can't call something a fact, one way or another, unless its a fact. Whether something is for a fact criminal or for a fact not criminal (like not guilty ≠ innocent) is determined for a fact by conviction. Both (criminal or not criminal) are conclusions that are not supported by the facts as they have been presented. Both (criminal or not criminal) are opinions that do not belong in WP's voice as fact, and should be supported by the source that holds that opinion if it is in the article. I never said nor do I believe it was "perfectly legal or justifiable" I said it wasn't, for a WP fact criminal, it is an important distinction because I believe that some of the issue with this page is that opinions are being stated as facts and that doing so is making the page poorer in quality than it can be. Ries42 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can clear this up a bit. A criminal threat does not exist, in law, unless there is a credible actual threat.  If someone says they are coming to your house to punch you in the face, and yet actually do nothing, that is a threat, but not a criminal one.  Regarding the Utah State University threats, the FBI examined them in conjunction with local police and its Cyber Terrorism Task Force, assessing the email and its contents as representing "no threat" to anyone --- not faculty, not students, not the speaker Ms. Sarkeesian.  Now, when an individual repeatedly threatens someone, that IS harassment, which MAY be considered criminal in many areas, but this is covered by local and state laws which vary as to what qualifies as prohibited conduct. [Redacted BLP]  Calbeck (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Women and video games
Hi again, another edit request, I guess: I've created Category:Women and video games, and added it as a hidden category on the Draft version of this article. If there's any way to add it to this protected article, I'd appreciate it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify, you mean a category that is currently commented out in the draft (a hidden category is something else).


 * The full protection will expire tomorrow (unless an admin extends the period of protection at the last minute) so I guess the article will then acquire your new category at that point either through your edits or somebody else's. --TS 16:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'd meant. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request
An edit request was made here, but was automatically archived before it received a response. See Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_21. Please discuss/re-request as needed.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article full protection is set to expire tomorrow so no further action is required. We can review the situation if the full protection period is extended. --TS 17:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WAM
The draft includes "In November 2014, Twitter announced a collaboration with the non-profit group Women, Action & the Media (WAM), in which those who believed they have been harassed over Twitter can report harassment to a tool monitored by WAM members, who would forward affirmed issues to Twitter within 24 hours. The move, while in the wake of the Gamergate harassment, was due to general issues of the harassment of women on the Internet, and the data will be studied for further discussion." however I'm not seeing where either source supports the collaboration "was due to general issues of the harassment of women on the Internet". Can someone please quote the exact text that does support this? --Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 03:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal says The announcement comes amid an intense spotlight on the treatment of women online. A recent Pew survey found that 40% of Internet users in the U.S. said they had been harassed online. That spotlight is now dominated by “GamerGate,” a controversy that has included threats of rape and death against women who are critical of how females are portrayed in videogames. But “the issue has been going on long before GamerGate,” Friedman said. Slate says . Woodroar (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if we where to combine the two sources (which we can't) they still don't say Twitter did X because of Y. The sources are speculating, whereas the article is definitive. Perhaps we should say "the announcement coincided during a period of intense focus on the treatment of women online", which is a more accurate replay of what the WSJ said?Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think that's stretching to beg for more exactness. The tone and writing of both articles are clear this was made in response to harassment of women on the internet which predated GG but became more poignent from it. Every article about this news from around mid-2014 is clear that this is a reaction to increased gendered harassment. A better question to ask is what is your challenge with the statement? --M ASEM (t) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is clear, then we need sources that clearly says this. Shouldn't be too hard if what you say is true.  My primary "challenge" is that you are inferring a conclusion contrary to what the sources provided actually say. Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the original press release. "Women, Action & the Media (WAM!) has announced an unprecedented collaboration with Twitter, aiming to cut down on the harassment of women on the popular social media platform." It is pretty clear that they establish there is general gender-driven harassment of women through Twitter and they want to cut it down. Our statement collaborates with that. --M ASEM (t) 05:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we use that in conjunction with the WSJ source, and remove the (IMO) lesser reliable Slate source. That would alleviate my concern.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 06:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds eminently reasonable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A legitimate use of WP:PRIMARY! --TS 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

self-reporting?
What is Wikipedia's policy when it is itself the subject of news stories?

It's worrying to see an editor talk about "what the Guardian would have you believe". Of course, that newspaper is a reputable source, while a Wikipedia editor's perception of the wbesite's inner workings is not.

Distingué Traces (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:SELFREF.--TS 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If reliable source quotes a Wikipedia editor, we can quote the Wikipedia editor's quotes as established and in context of that reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Full article protection has expired
I have copied the latest revision of the draft to the main article, which is no longer protected. The full protection expired today at 1413 GMT. --TS 14:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a process last time to merge the edit logs? Ries42 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's messy and doesn't really work in cases like this. The process last time was to do a copy and paste and note that with a template. Which I've done above. I'll see if I can dig up the last time this was done to make sure. Found it [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_15#Don.27t_we_need_to_do_a_history_merge.2C_not_just_a_c.26p.3F here]. — Strongjam (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that was a good idea. Do we actually have consensus for the draft version?  I'm not reverting at the moment, but I'm considering it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion was pretty supportive of it. With one oppose and one comment that I'd count as an oppose. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There appeared to be strong consensus that a January 19th revision was better than the current main at the time. I don't know of any major changes since then. Of course the article is here on a wiki so it can be improved, so if you want to do so, have at it. --TS 14:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that was a specific version of the draft. The draft has been changed since then. This looks like TS took the latest version of the draft. There were some... interesting edits made between the consensus was reached and the protection was dropped. TS, did you take the consensus version or the latest version of the draft? Ries42 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gamergate_controversy&diff=644251654&oldid=643225970 Diff] between the consensus version of the time and the version copied. I don't personally think there is anything controversial there, and some changes that if were reverted would probably upset some people, the change to the paraphrasing of Givens for example. — Strongjam (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My point being that the consensus was not for that draft. Ries42 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of changes are small an uncontroversial. If they don't have consensus it would be more productive to target specific changes rather then try to reset back to Jan 17th and have everything re-hashed here again. — Strongjam (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Long overdue, thanks. In the event of protection being restored we should consider rolling back to this version as a baseline. Artw (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The significance of Wikipedia being a wiki is that there is no authorised version of the article. I copied the latest draft revision, which in my estimation is likely to command the strongest support among editors. I'm allowed to make mistakes. Please do try to improve the article in any way you can. That's why it's here on a wiki and not in a dusty old leather-bound book. --TS 15:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming everyone behaves and the mainspace page keeps stable under semi, would it make sense, purely to avoid disruption, to lock down the draft and attach a note that editors are encourages to edit within consensus/policy or request edits to the mainspace page? If the mainspace page does get locked down again, we can then unprotect the draft and repeat the process again. --M ASEM  (t) 16:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a causal editor who has watched but not partaken in this aah "battle" I think the above suggestion is valid and we should do the utmost to adhere to a firm protocol that tries to maintain civility and discussion on this controversy. BerserkerBen (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem has been discussing a proposal to reorganise the article for over a week now. I think this would be a good opportunity to overwrite the draft with Masem's proposed section heading skeleton and start to fill it in, so we will have a chance to see what the proposal looks like in practice. --TS 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect the article?
Now than the bans have been handed out, any chance the article will be reduced to a semi-protection level, anytime soon? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Case isn't officially over yet unlike what The Guardian wants you to believe. Avono (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I'd perused the Arbcom wiki page and it looked like the decisions were all handed out, but I'm sure I misunderstood... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some foregone conclusions there, but they look more like grounds for continuing protection rather than removing it. Things are about to get very messy. Artw (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like how the current method is: editing the draft article and then establishing consensus for a merge to the mainspace article (like a more sophisticated pending changes). Avono (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is going to be how things continue to work going forwards. Artw (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. I didn't think of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Once activity drops down on this I say that solution would probably not really work, but that has happened yet. H a l f   Hat  18:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that the current method (draft space workup) is the best method to handle this situation right now, particularly in light of the articles being written about the decision that is likely going to draw attention, both sides, to this. --M ASEM (t) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it bad form to add a category I'd like to create for Category:Women and video games to the draft version of the article? I feel like it is. And do we think someone will have time soon to sort through the various edits that have already been made to the draft article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Categories can be added, but for technical reasons please add your new category within the comments that surround the other categories at the end of the article. --TS 20:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, there they are. I suppose it's better to wait until all the pending changes are implemented -- or not. There's already a backlog for the admins to sort through, on what I suppose will be a case by case basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, if the main article becomes unprotected (or semi-protected) the next thing that happens will probably be that an ordinary editor will copy the latest revision if the draft overt the main article, removing the comments at the top and bottom which conceal notices and categories for technical reasons. You can either wait for that or you can add the new category now. If anybody disagrees they'll remove the category and discuss it here. Administrators play little or no part in editing decisions about the contents of articles they perform administrative actions on. --TS 21:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. So when the full protection expires in a couple of days I expect normal editing to resume, strictly observing all Wikipedia's policies and welcoming newcomers. If there are any problems, WP:AE will turn out very useful. --TS 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see little point to having a couple of hours of edit warring before the protection is inevitably restored. I don't believe WP:AE will be helpful in preventing that, possibly the opposite. Artw (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to edit war? If not, why assume others will edit war? If anybody does, that's where WP:AE comes in. There is no need to protect the article now that everybody knows what happens to people who treat Wikipedia articles like a battleground. --TS 21:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * if your best case for what will happen when the article is unprotected is that SPAs roll in and rework it because regular editors have been blocked or will be blocked if they oppose them then I'm absolutely in favor of the article remaining protected indefinitely. Artw (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can have a pretty solid assumption that people will edit-war over this article. I would definitely prefer to keep it protected. The Land (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, we all know that the moment the protection goes away, Gamergate trolls are going to start vandalizing the article. It's what happened before and, if you looked at any of their threads on the topic, they're just waiting for the chance to do so. At the very least, we should keep the article on semi-protection, so they won't be able to vandalize anonymously and will have to at least put the minimum amount of effort into their SPA accounts. Silver  seren C 23:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think semi-protection might be appropriate, but we can't leave an article fully-protected forever. And, truthfully, it's not as though Wikipedia has never had to handle articles about controversial (even internet-controversial) topics before.  If you're worried, the best thing to do is to keep an eye on the article and make sure to check in every so often.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I don't think Wikipedia has ever had anything quite like gamergate to deal with before, in terms of committed, organized, collective action. I'd agree with those above that keeping the page protected indefinitely is the way to go. NoahB (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just not true. They're not as well organised as most actual organisations and there aren't that many who are committed enough to present a serious challenge. And we're Wikipedia. We don't preemptively full protect any article. Even Barack Obama and George W. Bush aren't fully protected. I'd prefer both talk and article to be unprotected, until a need for protection is established based on fresh evidence, but we can go with both semi-protected if that's how we feel.


 * We shouldn't, as Wikipedians, ever preemptively say we can't trust people to edit and justify that by arguing that "everybody knows" it won't work. If we hadn't trusted people to edit, Wikipedia would not exist. --TS 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is committed to open editing. It is, or should, also be committed to preventing the use of the encyclopedia for slander and harassment. You've got plenty of evidence from the past history of this article, and from the history of the gamergate controversy, that there are some bad actors eager to use any venue in general, and this one in particular, to defame and harass a range of targets. That's a serious ethical and logistical issue, and needs to be taken into serious account. At some point, perhaps a year or two from now, gamergate will not be such an active controversy, and it will make sense to make the page public again. Doing so now just means that you'll get slanderous attacks for a day or two before having to close it again. Or at least, that is by far the most likely outcome. Given the downsides and the upsides, I think continuing to page protect is the way to go.NoahB (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of lede?
Generally, the lede is meant to be a reflective summary of the rest of the article. The current lede seems a bit...short. For an article this size, I would think two good sized (five or so sentences) paragraphs would suffice. More than what's currently there though. Silver seren C 19:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous consensus was that it was too long and it was cut down to what it is now. Personally I have no problem with an expanded lede (within reason.) — Strongjam (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What started to happen with the expanded leaded (we did have 4 mid-size para at one point) is we get into various details that, to be fair on summarization, had to include equivalent details, and because we were aiming for something that could be left unsourced (per suggested lede practice), it made for a lot more conflicts on if the lede fairly summarized the article. The shorter lede was meant to reduce as much of the perceived conflict of the situation and avoid editors continually demanding for citations. --M ASEM  (t) 19:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue of conflict or disagreement isn't really a good reason to not strive for a better article. If we have to get consensus for one sentence at a time, so be it, I guess. Silver  seren C 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

reference order
The reference section is impossible to navigate. How can we fix it? Alphabetization? Something else? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You can create a separate reference list as in Peasants'_Revolt. Are you sure you really want to start a debate about a new reference format, though?
 * Peter Isotalo 18:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe he just means the reflist in source. Personally I've just been copy and pasting the reflist into Notepad++ and using the find tools there, been getting by OK with that so far. — Strongjam (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's actually a really good idea, didn't think of that. Still a navigation nightmare, but it's a short term option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it's used in every single video game FA we have as well as in natural science articles.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you create a new Draft?
I'm not exactly sure how to do it... I'm interested in mocking up Masem's proposed article layout so that we can have something to look at. Could anyone help me set up a new Draft to do so? I would love help in laying it out as well, but I can take care of that if no one is interested until seeing the final project. I'm not intending to make any (or many) content changes, and hope to take no more than 24-48 hours to set it up so we can move forward. Ries42 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DRAFTS should have everything you need. I've never done one that way before, but it looks fairly straight forward. As an aside, I agree with this method for large-scale organizational changes. It should help avoid week-long discussions about theoretical changes and move us forward toward something actionable. Woodroar (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was hoping someone would put Masem's skeleton outline into a user sub-page and flesh it out there. As the draft is no longer in use you could just go ahead and overwrite that (which I think would be preferable overall). --TS 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DRAFTS is more about topics that do not yet have articles, for options related to existing articles, user sandboxes are probably preferred. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I get the idea that the community has been moving towards AfC and Draft-space over User-space in the last couple of years. A lot of it has to do with having a central space for articles where they can be worked on by the community, and also to avoid elements of "this is my userspace, hands off!" I personally don't care if someone wants to take a crack at it in their user space—keeping WP:BLP and everything else in mind—but Draft-space seems significantly more transparent. Woodroar (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done the heavy lifting in the draft. It'll definitely need fine tuning from here, but the basic draft is up and running. I'll take a look at fine tuning in a little bit. Ries42 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks as horribly unbalanced on the page as it did in my mind. We shouldn't put the most important part of Gamergate into a criticism, as if the major topic were some ill-defined "movement" and all negative statements were mere "criticism". We've had months, still ongoing, of really awful stuff all coming neatly under the rubric of Gamergate controversy. That's why it has that name. --TS 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done some reordering as I spoke to, though it is far from finished. There are two major sections that I need to work through carefully. The last part of the Organization section needs to be moved elsewhere but after checking a few things in my mind. The "Debate over Ethics Allegations" needs to be worked through to pull out the core ethics pieces from the broader "but ethics!" complaints. Note that I am keeping some of the more specific complaints about the group where it is. --M ASEM (t) 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, rethinking this, I think I hit on what makes this read better to me. There is criticism specifically aimed at the movement itself that cannot be misattributed/misidentified to anyone using the hashtag (that's the lack of organization and the ethics debates). The issues of misogyny, gamer identity, and political views are more broader than just the movement and would include anyone that used teh GG tag (so includes everyone that did harassment), so those I put into a broader analysis section, and pushed the misogyny part to the start (as this is the key point of discussion). Not saying the draft is perfect now, but I think adding a specific "criticism of the movement" section gets better balance there. --M ASEM (t) 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)