Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 22

New reliable academic source
The Association for Computing Machinery has published a paper substantively relating to Gamergate, Sexism in the Circuitry: Female Participation in Male Dominated Popular Computer Culture: (link removed) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Full ref for the interested. I don't believe NBSB link will work for anyone. — Strongjam (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can find the first page to look at (This site appears legit and not a Scribd-like copyvio waiting to happen) so tenacious linking it here ,) and definitely looks like it would help to describe some of the makeup of GG, though they do stress they don't consider themselves "objectively distant" from the topic. But these are the types of papers I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of to be able to write more objectively on the nature of GG. --M ASEM (t) 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we allowed to dissect a research paper? From the looks of it, it appears that paper begins with a forgone conclusion: "Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are disliked because they are women", and then it proceeds to analyze the methods by which "misogynist harassment" occurs. The problem here is that it fails the first rule of Occam's razor because it makes an assumption at the word "go". The paper could be used to discuss some of the means by which online harassment has occurred, but there's no way of knowing if the harassment occurred because of the subjects' gender or if it's because of the width of subjects' eyes, the pitch of their voices, or any other factor. The dislike against Quinn and Sarkeesian may at this point be political if you could scarce believe that.
 * This kind of paper can be used to discuss the subject that it studies, but do bear in mind that unless they handed out questionnaires to Anita Sarkeesian's detractors or were otherwise able to gather significant demographic data, there is actually not any research here on motives or causes for the described harassment. YellowSandals (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * YellowSandals, that is specious reasoning, and I think you are misusing Occam's razor. To suggest that the only way to determine the reasons for harassment is to ask the harassers, ignores the intentions baked into the harassment itself.--Theredproject (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I said above, it's important to remember that most of the discussion related to GamerGate has occurred out in the open, so it's relatively easy for journalists and scholars who are inclined to do so to go there and document what they find.  I feel that Jesse Singal's piece is particularly useful in this regard, say, and I would assume that these journalists have done something similar.  They can't obtain a perfect brainscan of everyone who has ever expressed an opinion on the hashtag, but in some ways it is actually comparatively easy to get information about what is driving large swaths of the people who get emotional about GamerGate.  We can't do things like use KIA or 8chan as a source, but we can use reliable secondary sources like these when they produce in-depth coverage of what they find there. --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except by that logic, we have had a source that gathered data related to the hashtag and found the overwhelming majority of tweets about Gamergate were not misogynistic. Most were neutral or at the least not recognized as hostile by the program parsing the data. Among those expressing recognized negativity, much of it was misogynistic, but nobody is saying there aren't openly misogynistic people within Gamergate. I suppose it would be fine if you use the study to describe only those actions which were clearly taken to attack a person's gender, but I maintain that's a subset of the controversy and shouldn't be applied to dismiss absolutely everyone's criticism of the press, Anita Sarkeesian, or anyone else. If you use too broad a stroke, you will get people who object. If you're going to use the study to specifically describe gender-motivated harassment, just be careful that the study isn't lumping every negative comment they can find into a single classification of "misogyny". If you're going on forums and specifically looking for people talking disparagingly about women, you'll find it but that's a confirmation bias. If there's no data demonstrating clear motives among those considered within the study, then the study didn't do research on the motives. It's just assuming the motive is misogyny. YellowSandals (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean I get what you're saying, but in academia it's a red flag when a study establishes a model, fails to test that model, then builds a second body of research around the assumption that the model is correct. As I say, if it turned out that Zoe Quinn was harassed because the width of her eyes was subconsciously upsetting people, the study would amount to hogwash because it relied on the accuracy of a model they didn't test. A more realistic hypothesis that might conflict with this model is the possibility that people realized Zoe had feminist leanings and therefore made anti-feminist comments to upset her, which would mean their motives were to upset Zoe individually and they would have also insulted her race or religion if they felt it was a sensitive spot. I'm just stressing the need to be careful with how you interpret something like this because the scope of the research appears to be limited to how to the harassment conducted, but no empirical research has been done to confirm any demographic assumptions. NOTE THE WORD "EMPIRICAL". There are several types of studies and ways data can be collected - this study has a leading premise and may be sound in some regards, but I would not use it to reinforce the assumption of anyone's motives. Instead, seek a study that is actually focusing specifically demographic data and not making foregone conclusions about it. YellowSandals (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't want to put too much stock in a single study, of course -- but it does line up with what a lot of other reliable sources say they've found when they analyze the passions and emotions driving the people who seem most heavily invested in GamerGate. (I recommend reading Singal's coverage, for instance, which I think is one of the most in-depth looks at that.)  Note, though, that in both cases they probably use a different definition of "harassment" than you do, which I think is one of the ongoing points of confusion here; reading the first page of the paper, I'll bet that they define repeating the accusations against Quinn, for instance, as a form of harassment (which, if you start from the perspective that the accusations are clearly false, it is, since it'd be maliciously trying to destroy her reputation.)  By this definition, most of the loudest voices pushing GamerGate are part of its harassment campaign -- and their language (which seems to be driving the controversy) includes a great deal of apocolyptic-warfare talk about crushing their ideological enemies, especially feminism (or, as Singal says they corrected it to, 'radfem thirdwave feminism'.)  Some of that might be people trolling?  But even when we look at the sources that people say are 'friendly' to GamerGate, like the First Things article people were posting a lot before, it boils down to the same thing in a slightly more genteel tone -- "GamerGate is a backlash against the way feminism and our related ideological opponents have used their control over the media to cram their views down our throats" isn't really saying anything different beyond implicitly accepting the arguments of a media conspiracy and arguing that the feminists fired the first shots or words to that effect.  This paper seems usable enough to me, anyway, as one source in the larger analysis of what GamerGate is about and why it's happening.  --Aquillion (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * YellowSandals, empirical data driven research is only one of many academic methodologies which are accepted by scholars as establishing a truth claim.--Theredproject (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Outside of pseudoscience, empirical data is really the only kind of data that is valuable in research. The accuracy of your models is always extremely important. What my concern is, is that feminism can be political, ideological, academic, or none of these things. For some, "feminism" is just treating women fairly. For others, it's about the patriarchy and rape culture, having either to do with those concepts as sociological models or as ideals to live and respect society by. Meanwhile, there also exist feminist lobbies which are involved in law and politics. So anti-feminists within Gamergate, who may be any size of demographic, could be political, ideological, or academic. There also seem to be some who just dislike women. So when looking at a research paper that bills itself as examining "misogynistic" behavior, it's important to ask a lot of questions. What model are they used to describe "misogyny"? What demographic data are they using? If they aren't using any data to justify their model, in terms of the research it needs to be discounted. From what I can tell, this paper focuses on the methods of harassment but doesn't clearly establish a model for misogyny or examine the broad demographics involved in this conflict. So given that, it's a good source to discuss the methods of harassment, but it's important to be careful to discount conclusions or hypotheses that are only speculative. YellowSandals (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also be aware that if the researcher uses case studies to justify their model, this is a very poor researcher. For example, if they cherry pick specific statements or go to a forum and say, "Yep, here we found a thread saying all women are buttheads", they've established a confirmation bias and that's all. That thread could represent the opinions of no more than ten people belonging to a broader group of thousands, and the findings would have no statistical significance. Case studies are by far the weakest form of research and have easily done the most damage to science and medicine over the course of modern history. Most of Freud's work was based on case studies and is now criticized for setting psychology back by a generation. YellowSandals (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the above seems to be an attempt to discount a study on the grounds of the Wikipedia editor's personal objections to the methodology used. That's probably not going to fly. On the other hand this is just a study. It's certainly in order to identify the credentials of the authors and the nature of the publication, so as not to represent it. References to individual academic sources should be used sparingly, because in academia as well as elsewhere a single paper for not usually count for much. --TS 17:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand! I'm not trying to discount the whole paper. I'm just approaching this study the way I've been taught to handle them - the whole point of science is repeatability, and if a study fails to examine or explain a model being used within the study, the study is virtually worthless. If they don't define "misogyny" with an explicit model, how would you repeat this study? How would you determine which harassment is misogynistic? Your data would vary wildly from the data achieved by this study.
 * The bottom line I'm getting at is that, in academics, there needs to be a great deal of clarity where the models for your research are coming from. A researcher in this area needs to say, "These are the clear parameters we use to define misogyny, and here is the data that falls within these parameters". Otherwise, for all we know, this researcher feels it's misogynistic to judge a woman based on her appearance. In that case any comments about any woman's weight or hair would also be classified as misogyny. Maybe some would agree with this, but that's not a universally held opinion it's not clinical to assume everyone will just understand what is meant. Do you follow me? There may be studies out there that do set a clearly defined model of misogyny and then account for who falls within this model, but it appears this particular study is focused more on the methods of harassment that the researcher deems "misogynistic". YellowSandals (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not for us to judge the quality of the research, only the quality of the source and to accurately represent the that source.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See, but it is up to use to decide how a source is used. If this paper is about harassment fitting within a specific model of "misogyny", then you have to recognize the model and the particular scope of the paper's investigation with regard to that model. If the paper does not establish a model for "misogyny", then there is no data in this paper with any actual meaning. It's like a vector - without an established model, the paper has numbers representing velocity, but given no point of reference there is no way of knowing the direction of the study. If you have both direction and velocity, then both need to be clearly defined should this data be used in this Wiki article. YellowSandals (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that academics != science. Plenty of academic journals—even entire academic disciplines—don't model their data or even use numbers at all. And we also don't require that academic journals establish models, reveal their data, or show their math. Woodroar (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A model is just a way of describing a particular set of observations. For example, I know of at least two professors who wrote a book together establishing a model for "politeness" so there'd be a point of reference when they talked about "polite" behavior in their papers. If the academic paper doesn't use models, numbers, calculations, or any serious data, then it's not any different than an editorial from Kotaku. If that's the case, then what's even academic about this organization? YellowSandals (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another example of a model would be "rape culture", which I suspect has probably played some role in the way people have approached or are approaching Gamergate. For most it's sort of an ideological concept, but in schools it's a theoretical model of human behavior. The point of these sorts of things is to make a model and then test the boundaries of its accuracy. Gravity currently operates on a simple, mostly accurate mathematical model, for example, but the model fails at the molecular level. Not every model is mathematical, mind you. In any case, academics is political as well, and there are people who feel that trying to perform peer review against the "rape culture" is an act of misogyny, so this is why I stress it's important to understand the point of reference in a study. They may be discussing people who made threats against other people, or they might be sweeping up criticisms of "rape culture" theory and labeling that as "misogynistic" as well. If this is coming straight from a journal that's another thing as well, but I believe this is a primary research paper, is it not? YellowSandals (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'll come back to velocity again. Suppose you have a car and it's traveling at 60 mph. The car's destination is sixty miles away. When does the car arrive at its destination? You might think, "In an hour", but I neglected to tell you which direction the car is traveling - it's away from its destination because the driver is lost, so the actual answer is "Never, because the car is headed east when it should be going west". A paper like this can be the same way. In fact, even a lot of our news articles have been like this, where they establish our velocity but don't tell us our direction. They keep saying "misogyny" and then let everyone fill in the blanks, which has contributed to the wildly different perspectives on this thing because "misogyny" is not a clear direction or point of reference for everyone. For news journals it's annoying, but it an academic work, it makes the study pure bunk. There's no excuse to not have a solid point of reference in an academic paper. YellowSandals (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be familiar with a specific category of academic writing. I know literary criticism, for example, and it does none of those things yet is no less academic because of it. That's all beside the point, however, because a source's reliability is what matters, it's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If it has such a reputation, then we don't need to see the data in order to summarize the results. Woodroar (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliability of the source aside, if the paper doesn't provide explicit context, how do we make use of it in an an encyclopedia if we intend to be clinical and informational? We really need to get away from these vague concepts and try to be specific about what is actually going on with Gamergate in concrete terms. After all, for some period we had Somners described as a misogynist and anti-feminist, but it was clear that not everyone agreed with that, including Somners herself quite openly. The word "misogyny" as it stands alone doesn't mean anything concrete any more than "evil", "heresy", "stupidity", or any other broad slur. It's a word with numerous definitions and interpretations depending on when, how, and what it is applied. YellowSandals (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you. If the first page is any indication, they're using standard English, not discipline-specific jargon, so we report what they say. Words have meanings and we trust that the sources are using them correctly. I mean, I'm not trying to be jerk or disingenuous or anything, but we're an encyclopedia and we summarize the sources. That's it. We don't have to be clinical or peek at their data for context to do what we do. Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But standard English isn't more specific. The advantage of a good academic source, in the hard sciences at least, is that they use clearly defined data and jargon. I admit I don't know a lot about academia where data or context isn't required. YellowSandals (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like the talk page is full of lengthy arguments about "black and white" versus the concept of ambiguity. "I know what evil is. Everyone knows what evil is. Everyone knows what is meant when we say another person is evil because it's plain English and a commonly used word. The reliable sources say these people are evil. There's no debate here". This is a difficult mentality to work with when people are contradicting each other in public discourse. YellowSandals (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We may have to wait until we can see the full article to see how it can be used, look out for jargon, and so on. As far as your other points go, I suspect they get to the heart of this whole controversy. Some people are speaking in terms of ambiguity and others hear black and white, or vice versa. When I read statements like "such-and-such culture is X", it's nearly always talking about social trends, not about individuals. But someone who self-identifies as a member of that culture may believe that they are being called X, or perhaps the term X carries with it other connotations that they assume the speaker means as well. Anyways, without getting too FORUMy, I'll again say that we may just want to wait for the full article. Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the quality of the source, and reliability, of said source, depends on the research of the source itself. Certainly WP:NOR states we cannot in article space make claims or contradict a source without another source making those arguments. However, in the talk space, we can bring up issues within the source, even using original research, that tend to show that the work itself is unreliable. See WP:RELIABLE under which states that "Any of the three (the work, the author, or the publication) can affect reliability. (clarification added). Not saying that is the case here, but it is certainly a valid line of questioning the reliability of a source. Ries42 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Further academic sources
The Internet Monitor project at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University has published Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World: Platforms, Policy, Privacy, and Public Discourse mentioning Gamergate. In a chronology, they observe:
 * Video game developer Zoe Quinn’s ex-boyfriend publishes a blog post implying that Quinn had exchanged sex for positive reviews of her recent game, Depression Quest. The post provokes a vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morphs into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism. The movement, labeled #GamerGate, involves considerable abuse and harassment—including rape and death threats—of female developers and game critics. (18)

Later they also write:
 * Doxing—the practice of compiling (through a mix of Internet research and hacking) and broadcasting personal information about someone—has affected a wide range of individuals, from female game developers and journalists targeted for their comments on the Gamergate controversy (most of whom also received rape and death threats) to Ku Klux Klan members, whose identities and credit card information were published as part of an Anonymous campaign in response to the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. (30)

as well as:
 * The early indications are that partisanship is alive and well, and that the cognitive biases that inhibit open-minded reconsideration of well entrenched opinions have survived the digital revolution intact. The Gamergate controversy, ostensibly intended to address ethical issues in video game journalism, quickly spiraled into a bitter debate about feminism, misogyny, online harassment, and media conspiracy that was both intensely polarized and highly politicized. (99)

Elsewhere, Marie Antonsen, Kristine Ask, and Henrik Karlstrøm write an editorial note in the Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies They observe (quoting partially to avoid copyvio):
 * The newest example of large public engagement on an international level, the hashtag movement #gamergate, exploded on social media in August 2014 and has generated almost 3 million tweets since. It has become a focal point for a range of grievances in game culture, but ethics in game journalism and the role of women in games and game culture are the most prominent and polarizing. For those concerned with the role of women in games the movement, which has been repeatedly linked to cybermobs harassing female game critics and -makers, has itself become proof that games and gamers are sexist. For those troubled by corruption and politicization of the games industry, #gamergate is a much needed grassroots movement. #gamergate has, among others, resulted in a sub-campaign called “Operation Digging DiGRA” in which gamers band together to read through game studies papers to demonstrate that the research on gaming is actually ideologically compromised activism that aims to impose a censorial content control on games. …
 * However, in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens.

I'm unsure if the latter source is available outside of a paywall.--Carwil (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Paywall sources are completely fine, as long as its clear the article does exist and can be obtained by any member of the public (provided they pay a reasonable fee). --M ASEM  (t) 04:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have access to most academic journals online as part of uni's library service. I'd be willing to look at and add information from journal sources if no one else editing this article can access them. Bosstopher (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Loaded language and POV in the intro
My edits correcting the loaded language and the POV in the intro paragraph have been reverted. The current opening sentence includes heavy POV phrases such as "as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women" and defining the whole backlash as nothing more attacks ranging from harrassment to death and terrorist threats, without giving any information or context regarding the controversy itself. The later two sentences in the opening section define the controversy without providing any mention to accusations of wrongdoing and corruption that form the crux of the backlash, and more unsourced and POV claims like "overwhelming majority" allegedly having dismissed the concerns.

Whatever views one may have on the whole issue, this heavily biased tone is absolutely ridiculous, shameful on the part of Wikipedia community, and would not be tolerated in any other article. --386-DX (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Post your version here, lets discuss it BEFORE starting up the edit war again. --BerserkerBen (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I also recommend that you check out the ArbCom case relating to this article and looking over the talkpage archives before taking on the wording of the lead.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Its an accurate description of events that is supported by references in the main body of the article.©Geni (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then we should be able to cite each ever claim from the main body then. Consider for a moment the Spanish version (I won't assume you can read Spanish so put it through Google translator) notice they have citations for every claim. BerserkerBen (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Leads are article summaries. Individual wordings can't always be cited in the same way as in the body of the article. In a case like this, the article as a whole should be considered mandatory reading for anyone suggesting changes.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As the Manual_of_Style regulation states "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I would say this is a controversy and it would be best and in Wikipedia precedent if we cite every sentence of contention. BerserkerBen (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While my personal preference would be to have footnotes in the lead, the consensus is otherwise. But if you are having difficulty identifying which of the sources support what you have identified as  "loaded language," i suggest you try reading, well ANY of the sources used. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally agree with RedPen here. The Land (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the english wikipedia. If you wish to discuss the spanish wikipedia article I suggest you do so on its talk page.©Geni (talk)
 * Agree with Geni, it's an accurate representation of the sources and summary of the article. Especially "as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women" is an accurate summation of why our sources say the controversy is notable. — Strongjam (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But the lede is not about why the article is notable, it's about an accurate summation of the topic, of which harassment is a part of it but also not the entirety of it, as the lede suggests. Plus, the "majority" language continues to be original research and a synthesis of sources.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD Yes, the lead IS about why the article is notable, and is a summary of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The MOS:LEDE most definitely is about why it's notable. My personal preference for the "majority" language has always just been just to drop it and say "but commentators in ..." — Strongjam (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we're still being misleading with the POV of how we're presenting it, beyond the existing synthesis issues. My error on expecting the language at WP:LEAD to be a little more sane. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What synthesis issues? Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What reliable source mentions the "majority" of commentators or whatever? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a specific case of being a tertiary source, it is not original research to note the relative proportion of sources speak towards something, as long as we are using very broad and demonstrably obvious descriptions - this is the common situation when describing, say, multiple critical reactions to a published work to say if it was well-received, mixed, or poorly received, and with any more demanding accuracy requiring a source for that. It is undisputable most sources (and here, we imply mainstream media and academic sources) that speak to GG are negative of it, so we don't need a source, just avoid superlative language (eg for me, using "most commentators" over "a majority of commentators" is accurate but vague enough. Previous language had "an overwhelming majority" which does beg the need to source that better. --M ASEM (t) 23:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok is there any reason NOT to have citations in the lead? I just don't see why we should not. I cited another wiki using citations in the lead for this controversy, and I have citated the rules specificially saying there is no specific regulation against having citations in the lead.BerserkerBen (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we're summarizing material based on 159 sources (at current count), we could theoretically require 159 sources in the lede. We probably wouldn't need that many sources, I hope, but I'd say about a third of them are cited multiple times, which means they're probably critical sources. So let's call it 50 sources in the lede, which for 4 sentences is 12.5 sources per sentence, all of which would have to be checked every time someone wants to add some nuance to a sentence or tighten the language, maybe juggle some phrases around to make it flow better. To me, that's the single best reason. Woodroar (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because this article already has enough problems with being a bloated morass of overwrought compromises, the last thing the lede needs is a dozen citation notes after every controversial sentence. Which is all of them, apparently. Parabolist (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would we need 50 sources in the lead? The Spanish version manages 9, at most 2 per sentence. We have only 4 sentences in the lead so that would be 8. So it appears perfectly possible for us to use a few select citations.BerserkerBen (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So we should because we can? The guideline on citations in the lede explains that since the lede is a generalized summary of the article, it usually does not require citations because everything it states is repeated in greater detail below, with citation. With that in mind, what in the lede do you believe needs citations, because it is not supported and cited in the article itself Parabolist (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I cited the guidelines, in bold above, it specifies for controversial issue sources in the lead may be warranted. Well since you ask: anything people complain is "controversial" in short it makes it harder to change something that is directly cited, more so you can say "something was done about the complaint, stop complaining."BerserkerBen (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I understand what you mean, but if we added citations to every sentence someone complained about, this page would look more like a phone book than an encyclopedia article. Just saying "cite something in the lede somewhere" isn't helpful, without actual reasoned suggestions for changes behind it. Which sentences in the lede do you believe are not repeated in greater detail with citations in the main article? Parabolist (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Gamergate controversy is synonymous with the hate campaign. Gamergate began with accusations of ethics violations, which have been universally identified as false and disingenuous. Thus, the discussion of "ethics" is part and parcel with the harassment of the perceived critics, particularly Quinn and Sarkeesian. In short, the #gamergate tag is a manufactured controversy as part of the overall campaign. There is no defensible reason to suggest Gamergate is anything other than a campaign of harassment, unless you can provide credible sources that show the original "ethics" complaints were sincere and well-founded. There is further no reason to hedge the well-documented misconduct of people engaged in the campaign. Pawsplay (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that 8chan has directed people to use the Spanish version of this article and import it here, with Loganmac being the main interpreter. They are using direct messages and private forums to push fringe and untrue translations into English Wikipedia. 2604:4500:0:0:0:0:0:5722 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing definitions
I'm not a Wikipedia editor, just a user who came here for information. I tried to read the article, but ended up confused. It starts off referring to the "Gamergate controversy" but then speaks of "gamergate supporters" without explaining what this means. Further on, it speaks of a "Gamergate organization," but only describes it in terms of having no defined goals or leadership. I can't even tell which side of the controversy "Gamergate supporter" are on or what it is they support, nor can I tell what the "Gamergate organzation" is or what the term means. 162.247.60.131 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good point. I only became aware of this controversy recently and had much the same reaction. That said, I realize how difficult it is to say anything about what Gamergate is, in clear simple English, given the charged nature and the polarized views on this group. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Making a bold attempt to clarify this in the lead now... Comments and criticisms are welcome here.--Carwil (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The uh... the article has striven so far to stress the fact that Gamergate is morally wrong and has no basis, organization, or reason for existing. Except to harass women. The prevailing argument for this approach has been that the press is predominantly doing this and it would be UNDUE to not do the same thing the press has done. However, there's a good article explaining, in the broadest sense, what's going on with this movement, controversy, or however you'd like to refer to it. The conflict being faced is that there's not a unified viewpoint on what Gamergate is about - the press has focused on the juicy, emotional stories about women being harassed by a gang evil forum-goers, but originally the thing probably gained steam and notoriety because of DMCA abuses, which haven't been reported or discussed much so I'm not even sure if that's included in this monster of an article.
 * I guess the thing to understand about this article is that it's about the most dramatic and controversial aspects of Gamergate, but currently it's highly partisan, very politically written, and it won't do well in explaining what, why, or how this became a major internet phenomenon. Some editors feel there is no point in trying to examine the subject because the cause is misogyny and misogyny is self-explanatory and conducted for its own sake, perhaps as according to a number of cynical sociological models for human behavior. However, in the past, a number have expressed concern with the fact that an accusation of "misogyny" requires context and perhaps even specific individuals to describe as misogynistic, as otherwise we're only predicting or speculating on the motives of people neither met nor directly spoken to. YellowSandals (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is confusing because the press was confusing. They made Gamergate sound esoteric like Bitcoin. I expect that now that the "movement" has died down a little, more neutral articles may emerge from academic or other sources. Shii (tock) 18:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be really nice if that were to happen. I've seen some talk that a few professors of the social sciences have been doing research into Gamergate and hopefully there will be some published papers in the future, but that would be months away or longer, and with academia there's never really a well-formed look at things until a sufficient amount of peer review gets out there as well. In any case, if you follow social media, Gamergate is a completely different subject than what you read about in the press, which has led Gamergate supporters to fears of intentional conspiracy.
 * Sadly, certain aspects of conspiracy do exist, but not in a really orchestrated way like some people think. It has more to do with the extreme partisanship and how neither side has complete information on the motives or intent of the other, so people are agreeing to specific internal narratives and are shunning each other. Consequently, you've got Gamergate supporters saying they're upset about this or that, and then you have anti-Gamergate people saying that Gamergate supporters are all insidious liars. It's created a lot of huge obstructions to writing an objective article because people can't agree who's an evil liar, and while the press remarks on what Gamergate is about for a number of people in favor of it, it generally does so to accuse those people of being liars and misogynists. Although there are some press articles that don't do that, but they're far, far less common. YellowSandals (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, thinking of it, one thing to look out for in the future would be research on the impact Gamergate has had on business and advertising. I've been seeing rumors that the most profound impact that the conflict has had has been on ad revenue. Specifically, speculation that PR trouble with Gamergate has probably led to a permanent decrease in advertiser trust for gaming websites - all gaming websites, regardless of their stances, because the conflict has created the appearance that these journals are more controversial than they used to be and are willing to be at odds with their audience. The numerous "Gamers are dead" pieces that arose early on have been cited as examples. Unfortunately I can't really find any reporting or mainstream discussion on that except for the consumer revolt details where Intel pulled ads from Gawker. Nick Denton stepped down as president of Gawker following Gamergate, but again, no articles are saying he stepped down because of Gamergate or because of any lasting impact of Gamergate - although Denton himself remarks he was frustrated that Gamergate was their story of the year. YellowSandals (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there is also the discussion that Gawker estimates some pretty substantial ad losses thanks to Gamergate. And then there's an article reporting that a few journalism sites have been laying off the staff, and some staff thinks it's because Gamergate hurt the wallet. I've never heard of craveonline.com, though - no idea if they're considered an RS. YellowSandals (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with your suggestion. The lead is a summary of the article which is a summary of the reliable sources as such the details are out of proportion to the coverage and the article and the claim is factually untrue per the sources which say the mess began with harassment of Quinn. Agree that attributing something to the "movement" is confusing, but thats because as the reliable sources also say, anonymous trollfests without leaders, missions or organizations are not actually "movements" and the issue is with the use of that word. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I once agreed with you, but we have to use something to describe the phenomenon, and I'm seeing an increasing number of sources use the term as a convenient shortcut to to define, for better or worse, that "side." The Guardian, Computerworld, Christian Science Monitor, etc. Using the word "movement" doesn't require us to weaken the description of what it is — as the CSM states, a movement that styles itself as a voice for ethics in video game journalism but which has come to be defined by its vicious anti-feminist harassment campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that it is best to avoid expanding the lead too much with this; we can reword it to avoid the confusion the original poster is talking about without expanding it too much (since, after all, it has to reflect the article; and since we only recently managed to trim it down to its current length.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Somewhat jumping ahead of process, Aquillion deleted this text from the lead on the draft page
 * …as too detailed. This section of text was designed to introduce two concepts—the original meaning of the term "gamergate" (why it's named as a "scandal") and the meaning of "the Gamergate movement." Imho, the former is useful and moves us towards clarity and NPOV. More importantly, however, the latter is critical for making the article readable to those unfamiliar with the issue. Otherwise, the lead only defines Gamergate as "a controversy," which makes the repeated phrase "Gamergate supporters" unintelligible.
 * I'd be okay with NBSB's phrasing a movement that styles itself as a voice for ethics in video game journalism but which has come to be defined by its vicious anti-feminist harassment campaign, but we may have to paraphrase it from the original source.--Carwil (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, as I said -- my edit stated that "some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with ethical concerns in video game journalism", which I think adequately answers your concerns without unduly bloating the lead up with assertions that have a relatively minor place in the article as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, as I said -- my edit stated that "some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with ethical concerns in video game journalism", which I think adequately answers your concerns without unduly bloating the lead up with assertions that have a relatively minor place in the article as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed the lede
Old: A self-described Gamergate movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. However, the seemingly-unorganized movement has been denounced by most commentators and viewed as enabling the harassment, with the movement's stated concerns considered trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics. Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war that is resisting the diversification of gaming culture, the recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video game tropes, and the impact of these things on gamer social identity.

New: "While Gamergate supporters contend that their movement is about ethical concerns in video game journalism, the seemingly-unorganized movement has been denounced by most commentators and viewed as merely enabling the harassment, with the movement's stated concerns considered trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics. Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war that is resisting the diversification of gaming culture, the recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video game tropes, and the impact of these things on gamer social identity."

I don't think the choppy sentences or the two tiny paragraphs are anywhere near as good as them combined. Comments/concerns that I can fix? Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally prefer the two separate paragraphs because it clearly deliniates that the "movement" paragraph has ended, and the "themes" paragraph is not directly addressing the "movement". Further, although it may be clunky or choppy, the two sentences in the first paragraph avoids issues with SYNTH, and separates what "supporters" say versus what "most commentators" say and avoids WP:SYNTH issues with combining them. Also, the single long sentence almost gets to the point of run on.
 * Perhaps instead of "A self-described Gamergate movement" it would be better to say "The self-described Gamergate movement". I don't think there is more than 1. Ries42 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be more like this:
 * "While Gamergate self-identified supporters contend that their movement is about ethical concerns in video game journalism, the unorganized movement has been denounced by most commentators and viewed as merely enabling the harassment, with the movement's stated concerns considered trivial, false, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics. Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war that is resisting the diversification of gaming culture, the recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video games, and the impact of these things on gamer social identity."
 * Overview of what's changed:
 * Added self-identified which I think address Ries42 & Masem's suggestion, but reads better to me.
 * Dropped "seemingly" from "seemingly-unorganzied" Seems to imply a shadowy organization behind the scenes.
 * Added "false" to the list of what commentars think of some of the ethical concerns of the movement. This will probably be the most controversial item.
 * Changed "social criticism of video game tropes" to the broader "social criticism of video games".
 * Criticism welcome of course. — Strongjam (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What are we attributing "most commentators" to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And yours still has WP:Synth concerns. I don't like the whole "While XXX, really what is happening is Y" dichotomy. Yes, sources have said words to that effect, that isn't the issue because they aren't claiming that the supporters themselves said that. If we're effectively drawing from the sources that the supporters themselves would use, we are then synthesizing their view INTO the commentators. They should be seperated, and we shouldn't be using "While... but..." language. Ries42 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do like some of it though, how about "Self-identified supporters of the Gamergate movement say... . However, the unorganized movement..." Also, I disagree with the inclusion of "false". Unfounded would be a better word choice IMO. Ries42 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, how do you like a shortened final paragraph that says "The overarching Gamergate controversy is viewed as a manifestation of the culture war over gaming culture diversification, artistic recognition and social criticism of video games, and the gamer social identity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ries42 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually meant to drop 'most'. However I do think eventually this is going to be WP:SKYISBLUE territory. There aren't many sources at all that don't take one of those positions. — Strongjam (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"While" is the word that makes paragraph 2 work as one series of thoughts as opposed to 2 random sentences strung together. Can someone explain why it's constantly removed? Hipocrite (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have. Several times. You have not engaged me in that conversation. Please scan up to see why and address those points. Ries42 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing this "scan up," thing, because this talk page is poorly maintained. Point me to where "while," was discussed, specifically, please. Hipocrite (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Read my posts. Each time before I make an edit, I attempt to discuss it on the talk page. Please point to the specific posts where you have made a discussion post on the talk page BEFORE your unilateral edits please. Not after. Be specific. Ries42 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not have any right to ask, let alone demand that people discuss before they edit your proposed wording. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If someone is going to make an edit immediately after my talk-page discussed edit, I think its only in good course to discuss that edit before its made on the talk page. Would you like it if I immediately changed your working after you spent time discussing it on the talk page? That seems like common courtesy to me. Ries42 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed this at the top of every edit box Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. If you had established a wide consensus prior to your entry of content, but you certainly cannot claim that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A different suggestion
Could I suggest this for the lede?
 * The Gamergate movement, controversy, or hashtag has been described as a highly partisan, deeply political, online conflict. The conflict has gained considerable notoriety due to threats and harassment, with specific attention granted to the harassment of several female figures in the public sphere. Opinions differ quite pointedly regarding the distinct intentions of the movement.


 * The movement is best known for the blame of levying threats and harassment over an extended period towards Zoe Quinn, a game developer, Brianna Wu, a game journalist, and Anita Sarkeesian, a game critic. However, other figures have similarly received threats, including but not limited to promises to rape, murder, or otherwise bring harm to other people. These acts have been widely decried as misogynistic by a broad variety of sources, and the threats have been the point of most discussion regarding the movement. As a result of these threats, much has been said in regards to the culture of gaming, its demographics, and its interactions with the feminist movement.


 * Supporters of Gamergate have insisted that the movement did not begin nor was ever intended to commit harassment, and they counter that they have been primarily motivated by unethical behavior within the press, citing concerns of collusion among game journalists. However, the movement has remained disorganized, functioning from the base of web forums, and is therefore noted to have a lack of unity in its focus. YellowSandals (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have serious issues with this lede - it does not summarize the article, and it leads like a newspaper overview, not an encyclopedia article. Hipocrite (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted the article probably needs a re-write to be less partisan as well. I write as part of my profession, actually, so this may have more voice than we'd prefer for an encyclopedia, but I think the above is fair, truthful, and accurate, and it doesn't foist any motives or presuppositions onto the article's subject. YellowSandals (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this change at all. Rather than reframing the lede, its changing the meaning, implying that Gamergate supporters are not misogynistic but rather unorganized, their points are not groundless rather they lack unity. I feel this change, rather than being fair or truthful, is distorting the issue...Sheriffjt (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But it does lack unity. There's not a unified goal within Gamergate. There are people who, based on plenty of things we can source, have ethical qualms with the press or other issues. Gamergate isn't specifically misogynistic, but it's not specifically about journalism. It's also not specifically about Feminism. The harassment has gotten the most press coverage, but nobody is actually coming forward to claim the harassment or admit that it's part of a broader scheme. All of these things are components of Gamergate. None of these things are the one thing Gamergate is about. The only way you'll write a non-partisan article is by understanding how each components are involved and legitimately present. Supporters don't think they're misogynists and opponents don't think there's ethics problems. Maybe let's not take a side and instead just say why these various people think these things. YellowSandals (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We need not worry about sides. We aren't here to pick the opinions of various stakeholders to represent. We aren't in this controversy, not even as a 'middle-ground' or mediator. We're not balancing or judging or developing any positions. We just reflect what reliable sources have discussed about this as a topic. We maintain an academic distance, we have no concern for being a representative for the involved parties. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Opinions differ quite pointedly regarding the distinct intentions of the movement." I have a lot of problems with this suggested lede, but I'll start with this. The opinions of whom? People? Journalists? Former U.S. Presidents? A lede should be lightweight, but this is downright ephemeral, and says nothing except creating a false weighted equivalency in the opinions of our sources. Also, the second paragraph seems to imply, through mis-ordering, that the "other figures" received much harsher harassment than the named victims. I'd try to workshop more of this, but I don't think this lede has wings at all, honestly. It's competently written, I'll grant you that, but it's hardly encyclopedic. Parabolist (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think you can work it into a more encyclopedic style, changes are welcome. I'm used to writing to engage readers, so like I say, it may have too much voice. As for the harassment thing, I'm trying to convey that those three women are the most well-known subjects of harassment but that it's not limited just to them as far as discussion has gone. YellowSandals (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The major issue of the proposal is that this article is not about the so called "movement" aspect - as a "movement" it is non notable. This article is about the controversy raised by the vile vile harassment and the subsequent discussion of sexism and misogyny in gaming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The movement itself is quite notable. Under the heading "Gamergate organization" you can see many citations and quotes that talk specifically about the movement. Shii (tock) 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They analyze it as a "movement" and dismiss it entirely. It is only notable in that it spawned/has been used as transparent cover for vile vile harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some do. Others don't. This is a very reputable source examining the movement. Ries42 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Look the title is gamergate "controversy", not "movement",perhaps you should consider starting a "gamergate movement" article BerserkerBen (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going to move away from "Gamergate controversy" I would suggest "Gamergate harrassment campaign", since we know that's a thing everyone agrees exists and has notability, whether or not any  "movement" does. Artw (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there's no way in anyone's mind that's a neutral version of the article to call it that. It downplays any sources that do argue a push for ethics and improvement for a sole focus on claims of harassment? How does that fix anything? I'm not saying the claims don't have any merit to mention here, but to focus solely on them seems counter-intuitive.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this text's efforts to obfuscate what the controversy here is; the notability here is about the misogyny of parts of the gaming community being brought to wide public attention through GamerGate. It's also incidentally terribly written - it would need a complete rewrite if we wanted to adopt a tone like that. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We are to be neutral and impartial, so we can't take the tone the press has taken with GG. We need to present the press's side as the predominate view on GG, but their tone and condemnation of GG is not accept for us to take under NPOV policy. --M ASEM  (t) 05:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, the need to be neutral and impartial requires that we go along with reliable sources; we must report what they say without the sort of emotional judgment you are trying to bring to bear against them. I can sympathize if you feel that the press is unfair or inaccurate, but Wikipedia is not the place to try and confront that; from our perspective, if the majority of reliable sources say that the topic is primarily noteworthy due to the harassment and misogyny associated with it, then we must make that the primary focus of our article; it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to do otherwise.  --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't question that the primary reason this article exists is the attention the harassment got, but we should not pretend that is the only reason. There's plenty of coverage of the other facets of this, albeit in fewer amounts. I will say based on doing the editing on the draft with the suggested order as encourages by Tony, that it is probably better not to make it about the movement as there are parts of the controversy that are exclusively target at the movement (ignoring the harassment) and then parts about the overall situation  which is targetted at the combined group of the movement and those that have done the harassing. The point though is that it is not a good strategy for consensus and neutral editing to fixate too much on the harassment aspect - it will get predominate focus, but focusing on that and ignoring other parts we can source leads to an imbalanced article. --M ASEM  (t) 06:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * in terms of this lead diff by Aquillion, putting the culture war stuff before the claims of the GG side is not proper. The article is not ordered in that manner, and we've already hit the crux of the GG issue, the harassment, in the first para. We only get to why GG is seen as a culture war over gamer identity after we've explained why GG has posted ethics issues, and as such that paragraph in the lead needs to come second. --M ASEM  (t) 06:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad, my head was wrapped around the reorged version on the draft version. I still think in the broader sense the culture war stuff should come after we've explained the movement's ethics, but that needs the overall article to be that way, not just the lead. --M ASEM (t) 06:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yeah, as you said, the article currently is ordered in that manner; and, more importantly, I believe that the majority of sources in the article have clearly described the ethical issues as being an outgrowth of the culture war (that is, a concern driven by the fact that many people believe that their ideological opponents have used illegitimate methods to push their views in video-games.) The lead must reflect what the rest of the article says, which means it has to reflect that; I know we've had this discussion above (at length!) when it comes to the ordering of the rest of the article, but either way, lead sections have to reflect what the article says and, like the article, must reflect the coverage in reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of the views in those sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that consistency I can't argue against. I'm still not sure if we need to highlight the one time threat of shooting in the lead when we have identified death threats (If anything, the doxxing has happened more often and should be put there instead) already. Also, the wording on the movement and ethics concerns is clunky, "Some people" comes out of nowhere, but I can't figure out an easy neutral rewrite. --M ASEM (t) 07:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm done.
There is no such thing as collaborative editing being done on this article. I've tried. I've tried to talk about my edits before making them, to discuss with people the issues, only to be told I'm the one edit warring. I would like to bring nuance and perspective. But that is clearly not what many people on this article want. There are way too many people with a POV to push, aggressively. I'm not going to name names. That's not the point of this post, nor will it help matters. This is just me taking a step back. I know it has affected me, even when I attempted to not let it. It has permeated several others, whether he or she wants to admit it. I implore them to step back as well. For their own sake and sanity.

I'm not leaving WP, and I even may eventually return here when it isn't so radioactive. I felt like we actually had a decent thing going with the Draft and protected article. Editors were forced to be civil. We didn't always agree, but there was courtesy. That was tossed out the window yesterday when the protection dropped. Now there is panic over the pending Arb Com decision and the articles that were pushed by "reliable" sources, despite their factual inaccuracies and clearly slanted view. I'm not talking about against GG, I'm talking about the articles attacking Wikipedia itself. This isn't a war. The fact that the media is trying to make it one, and that there are several editors feeding and pushing that is absolutely deplorable. I don't have the stomach to fight it though. So I'm done. Ries42 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't leave, report people. The more eyes we get here, the better chance we have at an article within the project's policies.  It's the only way out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting us know. I too strongly hope for the day when this article is edited by people who are here to support Wikipedia's policies and mission. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to be more of the battleground mentality that is driving people away, especially with the piping. Please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel any editor is simply on wikipedia to push a POV, and is doing so against policy, you're welcome to report them. You sound like you have a lot of evidence to be making such sure statements, and I look forward to you proving that you're not simply making stuff up. With hope- PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit (to Include gamer/pro-GamerGate perspective)
''[Original edit request removed by user. Shii (tock) 08:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)]''

Lightja


 * So, where did you copy-paste this from? A new editor who immediately posts a massive rewrite, full of wikicode, but is unable to format it correctly, reeks of someone delivering a hot and fresh POV-load from some 8chan board. This comment seems relevant. Parabolist (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Pfft. *laughs* Yeah, no. You're exactly the kind of SPA that the discretionary sanctions are meant to be enforced against. Silver  seren C 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't copy+paste it from anywhere, and yeah this is my first time editing on Wikipedia. Normally everyone involved does a pretty good job of objectively getting all the information right. I had just spent a particularly long time looking into this subject for my own reasons, and it seems that the page was pretty heavily biased towards Sarkeesian/Quinn. Admittedly, I didn't quite match the standards expected, but then again, it's my first edit. What do you see wrong with it besides the formatting? As for the 4chan stuff, a lot of this originated there, and that's honestly, the major side of it, that isn't currently be represented. I can probably find a slightly better source for that particular piece of information, or not focus on it. Lightja (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the pages WP:RS to understand why we can't use imgur as a source, and WP:OR to understand why we can't make serious accusations about journalistic ethics when no sources have done so. Shii (tock) 05:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think it was a bit imposing to come in on such a busy page. I incorrectly thought it was being neglected, not just so busy that there was this much behind it. Because it was my first edit and the protection of the page, literally the first thing that I saw was only AFTER I posted anything, at which point I realized that it definitely was not the best way to go about things. I'll read through other proposed changes and give much smaller suggestions. I deleted the vast majority of my request. Thanks for making Wikipedia so awesome! Lightja (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Lightja: Glad to hear you have come on board. For future reference, Internet forums, etc. are not valid sources when you have to collaborate on a public wiki with others who may be skeptical of your claims. Even Internet-related articles must use good reliable sources, for example DeSmogBlog. Shii (tock) 06:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Shii: Thanks for the warm welcome. My original post was very cringe-worthy... I do know that Internet forums are not typically considered a valid source, it was probably a mistake to include that picture at all, as I didn't quite 100% anticipate what the implementation process would be. I definitely would not now. Not sure if you saw all my sources (don't blame you if you didn't), but I'm pretty sure that was the only questionable one, though I'll ask about them as I see useful. I do think that a major difference between media and player community beliefs are making it harder to find reliable sources that express views similar to what is found among the You-tube community. @Parabolist you can be sure I'm not trying to import some spanish translation from 8chan, though your suspicions are totally understandable. Looked super sloppy among the others I'm sure, but I'll be sure to remedy that from here on. (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The summary at the top of the GamerGate Controversy seems to be non-neutral. Since the opinion of media, and therefore a majority of reliable sources, is very different from the gaming community (via YouTube, forums, etc) I'll be exploring potentially useful reliable sources exploring the pro-gamergate angle (or neutral angles). I'd be interested to hear from some of the more experienced editors as I integrate myself a bit more fluidly into this process. Bear with me, I am new.

Method article: Why GameJournoPros is a problem, and why it is not. Medium discusses the implications of the journalists working together, and how that affected how reporting on this incident was handled. Even though they did argue and not always share the same perspective, they ultimately ended up working more or less together, with the one exception being the Escapist Magazine, which Greg Tito hosted as a place for interested parties to discuss as long as they followed the forum rules. >Shows multiple instances of the editors/writers/administrators of various Games Journalism sites delay their actions to discuss them, or try to convince others to follow suit. Does this give any credit to the "Gamer Journalism Ethics" side of the argument?

Also: I have 4 separate sources where Kotaku writer Patricia Hernandez writes about 4 of her friend Anna Anthropy's Games and books, as well as another where Hernandez writes for a separate friend, Christine Love's, game. Since the Gamergate scandal, Kotaku has required her to disclose all of her previous relationships, which now she has done completely as far as I can tell.

Forbes article: What GamerGate is Actually about... Forbes discusses how the two oppositions: Gamers vs Media are both wrong about what Gamergate means, and it is actually just a representation of the separation between the Gamer and Media intent/understanding. I agree with this a lot, even being very pro-GamerGate.

Lightja — Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 27 January 2015‎
 * Hi again Lightja. First of all, please don't rewrite your talk page posts entirely, but make a new post when you have something new to say. You can learn the details of how to use a talk page here. (You could have also learned there not to post large blocks of wikicode to this page.)
 * The Forbes articles have been discussed before. As you can see, Erik Kain's posts are currently cited over 10 times in the article.
 * Medium.com is actually a blog host in disguise, not a news website, so it is not RS. You yourself can write a post on Medium.com if you want your blog to look cool.
 * Last but not least, mere accusations that a primary source is engaging in unethical conduct doesn't mean we cite them as an example of ethics violation. GGers seem to have very high standards of ethics but I have yet to see a source that is willing to back them up. Shii (tock) 08:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Gamergate is a term used by supporters to publicly denounce claims made by games journalism that videogames, their consumers and the videogame industry as a whole are inherently sexist. This is all the Forbes article explains, and goes on to explain Gamergate supporters regard claims of sexism as mere "clickbait" resultant of recent trends in online publication. Lightja was in no way asking for an official stance on the validity of either side, nor is he/she asking that you "cite [anything] as an example of ethics violation". They are explaining that denouncement of claims of sexism repeatedly made of certain journalistic circles, regardless of personal stance or legitimacy, is the core of Gamergate. An article on Gamergate must at least explain Gamergate as a concept, just as the neutral Forbes has done.--ImpliedFibre (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was talking about his statement, "I have 4 separate sources where Kotaku writer Patricia Hernandez writes about 4 of her friend Anna Anthropy's Games and books, as well as another where Hernandez writes for a separate friend, Christine Love's, game." Shii (tock) 14:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To address this clarified point though, it would be difficult to include your proposed version of what the "the core of Gamergate" is, based on Erik Kain's perspective, without giving him undue weight or creating a very bloated section. His perspective is one contradicted by most of the other RS for the subject, and there's no real reason to consider him a particular authority on the subject outside what you see as his "neutrality". The article's job is to report on the general consensus of the RS, and that is a current Kain is swimming against. This doesn't mean he's being ignored, however. In fact his other articles are among the most often cited in the article. L ord L ion L ad 15:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordLionLad (talk • contribs)

Scale down use of the Guardian here
Reliable sources are "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". But it has come to light that the Guardian is publishing articles on this topic that employ no fact checking and are in fact inaccurate. I think this would be hard to dispute.

I think the Guardian has to some extent disqualified itself as RS for this particular topic. This has nothing to do with how it's used elsewhere on this website. I've accordingly removed several superfluous citations to the Guardian, and one sentence where it is used as an informed opinion. I ask other editors to confirm the validity of these changes. Shii (tock) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While the article on the case from the Guardian is a shameful display of poor factual reporting that we can actually demonstrate (eg published before the case was closed, and misstating the reasons users were blocked) it's also one article, out of thousands. And past experience shows that the Guardian does normally have fact checking and the like throughout many more topics, so no, it does not make sense to cut down Guardian coverage due to one article. Perhaps review articles and information we use from the Guardian written by Alex Hern, but not reduce or eliminate it. We need to show a larger pattern of "mis reporting" to begin to show a problem, which I doubt we'll see. I believe it's really only this specific author in this case to consider. --M ASEM (t) 16:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but I think we do have a larger concern than just Alex Hern -- were the Guardian's usual fact checkers asleep at the wheel for this specific article alone? It does seem to cast their entire management of this topic into doubt. I'm not doubting the many other sources being offered for the claims cited to the Guardian. Shii (tock) 16:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mistakes happen. One poorly fact-checked article doesn't spoil the entire thing. Further, there's two things to consider: one - once the ArbCom statement goes around, the Guardian may issue a correction or similar statement apologizing for the mistake, and that's "good" for what we expect of an RS - that if they did get it wrong they attempt to correct or the like. The other thing is to see if they do continue to report on this if they do not correct themselves or continue to report mistaken facts that we can easily verify against, which would show a pattern of a problem. I would object to removing articles from the Guardian otherwise not penned by Hern, until we have more points to consider. --M ASEM  (t) 16:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would this be better to raise at the WP:RS noticeboard than here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think for the time being Masem has made a good point; it's too soon to judge the paper by this single article, since a correction might possibly be forthcoming. I've reverted my edits accordingly. We should take a second look at the claims being attributed to Hern. Shii (tock) 17:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't we supposed to report the sources and not the truth? The claims in these sources haven't been challenged by other sources, and we can't use Wikipedia as a source itself.  Are we allowed to dismiss sources just because we're participating in the dispute and know the truth and that the reliable sources are lying?  That seems rather ironic given the article we're on right now. Weedwacker (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this has much to do with the Guardian or even with Gamergate, but with coverage of Wikipedia in general. Most journalism just doesn't get us and our funny ways. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this. As with everything, Context Matters. In the specific context of Wikipedia politicking, Hern and possibly the Guardian as a whole might be worth watching more critically in the future. But they've been consistently fine when it comes to the context of the wider controversy, and even the general Gamergate sections in Hern's article weren't the controversial parts. His citations on general events within the article are in fact each corroborated by 2 or 3 other Reliable Sources, so I'd say they're pretty safe. L ord L ion L ad 17:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of "sexist" and "misogynistic"
Claiming the Gamergate movement was responsible for "sexist and misogynistic attacks" is unsourced and non-neutral.

Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian are people, and to state attacks against them and their controversial actions are instead attacks against women as a whole and the female sex is a dangerous and irresponsible statement to make on such a public forum without substantial evidence.

Gawker Media and similar publications have chosen to emphasize sex at various points, yet there is no evidence Gamergate supporters hold any specific views on sexuality. Zoe Quinn has been involved in a large number of controversies, including alleged attacks against thefineyoungcapitalists and depression support group Wizardchan, and was never a stranger to harsh criticism. Opinion pieces by large enough journalists are not enough to label all criticism of her and others or the movement as a whole simply "sexism", nor do they deserve to be explicitly labeled as such in an apparently neutral article.

I propose these accusations be reworded until more substantial evidence surfaces. --ImpliedFibre (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussed in some detail at Talk:Gamergate_controversy further up the page. The Land (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky point but I think it's the best wording we can work with. The attacks (not the movement) have clearly been described as sexist and misogynistic by the press because they focus on women. I have argued that we cannot apply those terms to the movement in WP's voice, but in describing the attacks (and not directly associating those with the movement) in that manner in WP's voice is actually reasonable, because that's how the press and academic sources has seen the attacks, that can't be changed no matter what the motives of GG's goals are.  All the stuff you describe in your second para is not about the reason for the attacks (or at least I hope not nor can we source that in connection to the movement) but the ethics issues, which are described elsewhere. The lead carefully balances this factor, recognizing that "those using #gg hashtag to harass" and "GG movement" are not equivalent sets.
 * Or to put it another way, the way you are phrasing the above is that you are say "Yes, GG has harassed Quinn et al but not because of sexist or misogynistic reasons but because of these reasons", and I'm pretty sure that's not what we want to say, that's frying pan into the fire right there.
 * When we actually talk about the movement, we do make it clear that the outside perspective is the one that takes the view that the movement is sexist/misogynistic and do not speak that in WP's voice, since the movement has claimed different. --M ASEM  (t) 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, over 20 of the cited sources do in fact use some variation of this terminology in their titles alone, to say nothing of the body of the articles, which I have to imagine bumps that figure up quite a bit. To say that language is "unsourced" is a perspective divorced from the reality of the reliable coverage of the controversy. The "non-neutral" complaint is also misplaced, as wiki policy on neutrality demands proportional representation of events and perspectives. Large proportions of the sources characterise the attacks in this manner and it would in fact be a violation of neutrality to imply otherwise in the article. L ord L ion L ad 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from what LLL just said, the attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu include rape threats. No doubt about the misogyny there.--Carwil (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We as Wikipedia cannot make the leap of original thought that rape threats equates to misogynistic attacks, but we have more than enough sources to make the leap for us, to make that clear.--M ASEM (t) 19:53, 27 J anuary 2015 (UTC)


 * added by Danieljames626** I throughly support what you are saying. I have not entered in on #GamerGate at all up until now and I have not been writing on wikipedia in the many years I have been a member and supporter because I don't believe in talking just to add stuff that has already been said.  But seeing this article shocks me.  This is the first time, in my experience of specific accuracy arguments and wikipedia controversy where I have seen that people, whose agenda runs counter to the principles of wikipedia have taken such a level of grotesque control over a topic for the expedience of their own political and biased agendas.  It is really sad to see.  The people who seem to have control, in this wikipedia topic, over the definitions and depiction of narrative do not even seem to be required to have logic or reason constitute a part of their arguments; just pure politics.  For example, whether one person is attacked or not, is NOT grounds to suggest the alleged attacker, let alone an entire movement of other individuals is mysogynistic.  But the writer is an intelligent person who understands this and is, yet, using language in such a way to further an opinion, despite facts or reason and regardless of KNOWING that they are misrepresenting reality.  This issue is not about all women or even feminism generally; GamerGate, as I watch from the outside percpective, is clearly about something else.  But, importantly, this topic is not a demonstation of the principles upon which wikipedia has been built and, furthermore, it is one thing to say that 'wikipedia is not a battleground' after one side as already taken the high ground and refuses sane, alternate comment.  What I see is the defence of a strange hegemony.  I will not call it feminism because I greatly respect the achievments and literature that has come from feminism over the decades but there is some other strange movement which seems to be posing as feminism, which is abusing the principles of both feminism and wikipedia to peddle absolute nonsence.  It is sad to see what is happening to Wikipedia, as evidenced in the obvious, protected bias and bigotry expressed in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljames626 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

False information with no citation?
Hello, I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia articles. I noticed there is much false information, perhaps even disinformation, that is provided without any citation. I have attempted to remove such information, but my changes have quickly been reverted. What is the correct procedure to remove false information from Wikipedia that has no references to back it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike20599 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which information are you talking about specifically so we can address the issue? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources for the material you removed. See the Gamergate hashtag section of the article. Shii (tock) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor removed from the lede "These attacks, which were often performed under the #gamergate hashtag or by people connected to it, included online harassment and death threats, and were frequently coordinated and promoted within subforums of virtual communities such as Reddit and 8chan; at the most extreme, they included a threat of a mass shooting." The Gamergate hashtag section is what the lede bit is summarizing and that section has plenty of citations. So many edit conflicts — Strongjam (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edits to Leisure Suit Larry make it clear that you don't care in the slightest about citations. Please explain why we should be paying any attention to the latest gamergate agender pushing single purpose account.©Geni (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I concede that there are citations in the body of the article. However, the information provided in those articles is still untrue. Can someone explain to me how Wikipedia verifies the authenticity of information in cited articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike20599 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be a little more specific as to what you're protesting. I don't want to assume or guess, but we can help with specifics. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm asking in more general terms. Let's say there is an article on Wikipedia that has information that is incorrect. That information has a citation. The fact that it has a citation doesn't make the information any less incorrect. I wish to correct the false information. What am I to do about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike20599 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Either find a reliable source that backs your belief that information is incorrect, or write the publication you feel is wrong and convince them to correct. Suggest you also read WP:V and WP:VNT — Strongjam (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case you can "challenge" the content formally by following the steps described at WP:BURDEN, and other editors can "defend" the content by stating what references they think support the content. I suggest that you read the Neutral point of view and Verfiability policies in full before challenging content under "WP:BURDEN", though. This is a lot of reading, but it's expected before you can contribute to controversial topics like this. Diego (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With a case like this, honestly, it's probably best to raise those concerns here. Other articles are easy to just fix, but this is obviously a pretty controversial area.  So my suggestion would be to tell us what information is correct, and with sources that explain why or give the correct information.  Please review our rules on what a reliable source is before linking here, though, so we're not running around in too many circles.  Newspaper articles, magazine coverage, those are good sources.  Blogs, YouTube videos, probably aren't.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN seems to just say people have to provide citations from a reliable source. What if the so-called reliable sources are making false claims? And the only sources refuting those claims are not "reliable sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike20599 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mike, you're being a little vague right now. If you believe that there is a source making false claims, or if false claims exist in the article, please list them here.  Many of us are eager to help you out on this, especially if it's an issue we've missed up to this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try to be more specific. I believe that much of the information in this article is false or misleading, even though there are many citations from many "reliable" sources. Gamergate has brought light to these sources' unethical behavior, so in retaliation they have written false and misleading articles against Gamergate in order to undermine the movement's credibility. But since they are considered reliable sources, their word is treated as Gospel by Wikipedia. And the system that Wikipedia has in place seems to be, "Only reliable sources can provide reliable information. Those sources are considered reliable because they provide reliable information." Does no one sees the circular logic behind that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike20599 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mike, be sure to sign your comments with ~ so we can keep track of attribution. Which claims are you speaking of?  This is still very general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Posting on the talk page should be the first step, as you have correctly done.  However, for your fellow editors to be able to help you address your concerns, they need to know what they are.  Could you please specify your concerns here for the benefit of other editors?  Thank you.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is actually one part that I would say might not be supported by sources and that is saying the attacks were frequently organized in Reddit/8chan. That Reddit/8chan forums were used to organize, yes, but we don't have evidence/sourcing for frequency. It is true that Reddit/8chan forums were a central hub of that, and we know but can't yet source that one specific 8chan forum (baphomet) is a highly problematic one not just to GG, but it's bit disenginous to implicate all gg forums in this manner via the word "frequently". At the moment I don't know how to wordsmith that better. --M ASEM (t) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We could just leave the language as "various internet forums" without singling any specific ones out (especially since we know it's not limited to Reddit and *chan). Remains accurate without picking and choosing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not so much which forums, but that saying that frequently these forums were used. We don't have a lot of sources that affirm the origins of the harassment in every single case. What I'm worried about this is that it is tying what we know about the organization of the movement using Reddit and 8chan to the harassment under the GG hashtag. There's a way to wordsmith it to show the harassment was coordinates on boards (verifyable), including Reddit and 8chan (verifyable), just not every single time that the frequently provides.  is a suggested rewording. (Note this brings in 4chan (Verifyably, but only for the initial ones to start), and noting the doxxing part of this that is also critical to include. --M ASEM  (t) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about this? I feel like it combines the language into something clearer, while also making the bit about coordination flow better into the sentence. Parabolist (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that but lets get more eyes to review. --M ASEM (t) 20:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. — Strongjam (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing to note- Gamergate discussion was at some point banned from 4chan. Do we have reliable sources that indicate as such? Do reliable sources show 4chan as as a significant hub of organisation as they do 8chan? I think it's disingenuous to include them in the same sentence as equivalent without any clarifying statements, but I'm really not sure what the RS's say about the matter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we actually have a good RS on this (I think it's a WAPost article without looking) It's explained some GG stuff started at 4chan, and when discussion was banned there, 8chan became a central point. (This is also tied to the steisand effect which is also sourced). We have sources that say it started and then moved from 4chan to 8chan. --M ASEM  (t) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes
For everyone's information, I've put this article on level-2 pending changes, which means that only edits by editors holding pending-changes reviewer or administrator rights will go 'live' immediately; all other edits will require by a reviewer or administrator. The purpose of this is to prevent vandalism and BLP violations, and is in conjunction with semi-protection. Reviewers: Please accept all edits which are in compliance with policy, even if you decide to revert the edit on other grounds (for example, a BLP violation should be immediately reverted and should never enter the 'live' version; an otherwise innocuous edit that is contrary to talk-page consensus should be accepted and then reverted). In the event of misuse of reviewer privileges, advice will be offered in the first instance, but failure to heed that advice may result in your being asked not to use your reviewer permissions on this article or—as a last resort—sanction such as page bans or revocation of the permission. Please note that use of reviewer permissions to edit-war constitutes abuse and will be grounds for sanctions. Any editor with a good track record (as an approximate guide, I would say 1,000 edits, an account older than this article, and editing interests that are not solely confined to GamerGate and related topics, but really anyone with a practical understanding of BLP and other content policies) should feel free to ask for reviewer permissions on my talk page, by email, or at WP:PERM/RW.

As an alternative to lengthy spells of full protection, edit-warring on this article will be dealt with robustly, which unfortunately means sanctioning editors, so please watch your reverts. Finally, if anybody comes across any libellous material added to this (or any other article), whether or not it makes it to the 'live' version, please email the diff to me or another admin (or the oversight team) so that it can be deleted. My talk page is open for any queries relating to any of this. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede: most commentators ... say GG ignored more serious ethical concerns
The lede made the point that most commentators ... have said that it ignored other, more serious, ethical concerns, focusing exclusively on ones that fit into the context of its culture war. I have hidden that sentence at the moment, because I am not sure whether this is such a hugely discussed point to warrant mention in the lede. Could someone point out where does the Wikipedia article state that most commentators feel that there is an ignorance of more serious ethical concerns? I did a CTRL-F on "ignore", and there is only one such use in the body (RE: Quinn) irrelevant to this issue. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  06:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, here, and here are citations appended to sentences that make this exact point in the text of the article itself, and that's without finding the other pieces that we aren't directly quoting that say the same thing. I found them by rereading the article, as relying on ctrl-f often leads to missing crucial details. Parabolist (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015
The introduction of this article seems deeply biased and is written in an aggressive stance towards what seems to be the editor's opposition (supporters of gamergate).

Please review and be aware.

128.187.97.21 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 *  "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"."  Please try to present actual content changes you would like see. Using a template you didn't even read to demand we change the article in some vague way is way past useless. Parabolist (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Video Game Industry and Media Critics" to "Video Game Industry and Media Commentators"
I thought this would be a fairly straightforward edit, but I'm making a section just in case people disagree. I don't really understand what's intended by characterising that large majority in the mainstream media who denounce gamergate as 'video game industry critics' & 'media critics'. It has legs beyond that, so I've changed the wording to commentators. Also, 'media critics'? That seems like really weird phrasing to use. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I would appreciate somebody telling me how 'at the expense of not focusing on other, more serious, ethical concerns.' is supposed to be interpreted. Who's not doing the focusing here? It feels as if somebody has come in overnight and inserted some seriously sloppy language to the article which hinders readability. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it's supposed to mean that there are legitimate ethical concerns, but most commentators see GG as focusing on things that are either not ethical concerns or trivial. I believe we have sources to that say that, although I don't have them on-hand at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that event, there might be a way to shorten the sentence and make it more legible. Instead of 'unrelated to ethics- at the expense of not focusing on other, more serious, ethical concerns', we could write 'unrelated to the actual issues of ethics in the industry'. Would this be an appropriate change? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that, but lets give some time for some more editors to weigh in. Every change to the lede is inevitable controversial. — Strongjam (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is the other side though too, that GG essentially ignores the actual ethical journalistic issues from the AAA firms and big budget projects - ie Shadows of Mordor game paying reviewers for positive coverage of the game down and even dictating phraseology that needed to be used . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a very poor example, actually. Since it was revealed originally BY a GamerGater, TotalBiscuit to be specific. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if anything, the roots of GamerGate appear to be in situations like the Mordor game reviews or this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Example is still apt. The point isn't that they never bring up legitimate issues, rather that it's not the focus or that it's overshadowed by bad actors. — Strongjam (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mordor issue was specifically cited in a lot of coverage as something that GamerGate ignored because (as they say) it didn't fit into their specific culture war. While it is true that Totalbiscuit was involved in it at the start, he was denying being part of GamerGate at the time, and all sources seem to universally agree that it failed to "gain traction" in GamerGate the way, say, attacking Wu or Sarkeesian did. We have to report that coverage; saying "well, TB did it, and TB was later involved in GamerGate, so I feel it is connected to GamerGate" is original research.  More generally, a huge number of sources have discussed the way GamerGate ignores eg. reviews being influenced by ad-purchases, and have connected this to the fact that GamerGate is primarily interested in fighting a culture war over gender politics (or, as its most prominent figures tend to put it, pushing back against what they see as the unethical way feminists and social justice advocates have advanced their cause in games and the media) rather than fighting for ethics in game journalism in a more general sense.  --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When things settle down more, and (hopefully) the reordered version I've proposed on the draft page is accepted, there are some aspects and criticism of the ethics angle that can be expanded on; the Mordor issue is one - I'm 99% sure I've seen a few sources go "where's the GG on this big scandle" and the reasoning Aquillion gives above. There's articles after GG broke from the VG industry journalists and developers going "Here are ethics issues we know exist..." but none that lined up with the GG side; arguably the whole thing with Intel's $300M and the industry recognizing they've created a sexist environment internally is a similar fallout or the like.  That said, I am also very well aware that GG sides Gerstmann's outster from Gamespot and Doritosgate as fuel for their fire (and there are some VG commentators agree), but we lack RSes that cover this. This is what makes writing this article hard is that I know there are some truths on what GG have identified but with no sources that discuss it to include outside their own manifests, which fail RS (and to some extent, BLP) for this situation. --M ASEM  (t) 03:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Masem said, we lack the RSes for a lot of these things. Most RSes have taken up a specific viewpoint and not deviated from that view. Just worth the mention (I think) that Totalbiscuit himself says "The idea that 'Gamergate' did not care about this issue [Shadows of Mordor] has no basis in reality. Revisionist history, nothing more." HessmixD (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per Masem isnt a policy. per WP:UNDUE IS policy and says that when "Most RSes have taken up a specific viewpoint and not deviated from that view. " THAT is the view that we report. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * UNDUE says nothing about taking the view or the tone, but simply balancing the representation of the views proportionate to sources; WP:IMPARTIAL does state to keep everything to a neutral tone. --M ASEM (t) 16:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please identify where the article is not impartially representing the sources or stop making such assertions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the 'Video Game Industry and Media Commentators' characterization entirely; we use all reliable sources, and the statement encompasses covers all of them, not merely ones who are specifically focused on commenting about videogames or the media. Beyond that, saying "...according to the mainstream media..." in a Wikipedia article is redundant (and, I would argue, prejudicial in the sense that it tries to prejudice the reader against the majority of reputable sources by lumping them together under that characterization); we go by what reliable sources say, so if the majority of the reliable sources condemn something, we can just report that it is broadly-condemned. Even beyond that, though, we have many sources that, in turn, compile quotes and responses from other sources that don't fall into the general categories listed; these cover the overwhelming majority of commentators overall.  Finally, I would add that it is absolutely essential to quantify the scale of each respective view (per WP:NPOV); that is, we must use words like 'overwhelming majority' or, at least, 'most', which were lost in some of the proposed changes.  It is important that the lead make it clear that the dismissal of the ethics concerns (at least, as something separate from the cultural warfare aspect) is nearly universal across the broad field of all commentators. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider "media commentators" to include those from the mainstream sources like NYTimes, etc. and as to distinguish from bloggers, etc (because from a blogging side, the GG has an overwhelming # of support, so we could not say "most commentators" unless this is clear.)  Also "overwhelming majority" is both a weasel/peacock term, and reflects original research - meaning that someone had to go through and count sources and make that accessment. "Most" is a much fairer and non-OR way to state that. --M ASEM  (t) 16:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for GG having "and overwhelming # of support" among bloggers? Because the article has many sources saying otherwise; numerous sources (including some who can, roughly, be characterized as 'friendly' to GamerGate) agree that the hashtag is 'toxic' and describe people abandoning it.  Likewise, we have a huge number of reliable sources saying that the ethics concerns have been widely debunked.  (eg. the CJR doesn't simply dismiss the concerns itself; it says that "Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate—about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked.")  Our responsibility, as an encyclopedia, is to go with the coverage of reliable sources; if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that an accusation has been debunked (especially, as in this case, where it is one against many specific living people), we have a requirement to describe it as debunked in the article text and to make it clear that it is seen as universally debunked among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ESPN blog
ESPN blog is clearly discussing historical/contemporary views regarding sports and gaming. It's misleading to pull quote one sentence from the blog. Misogyny in sports journalism would be more apropos for contemporary comparisons. --DHeyward (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What is "pro-Gamergate"?
"Wu and a number of sources have attributed to Gamergate supporters." It is unclear to me if the pro-Gamergate crowd is supporting the misogynistic harrassment, or if it is in opposition. Can someone clarify this please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to mean that the death and rape threats were attributed to the pro-Gamergate crowd. The way it's written is a bit WP:WEASELly at the moment though. — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Could you add this to the article please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dropped the wording for now. The salient point is she mocked Gamergate and then was harassed. — Strongjam (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

'Overwhelming Majority' vs 'Most'
Hi! I don't believe WP:PEA in the Manual of Style is appropriate to reference when making this kind of edit. When considering the difference between 'overwhelming majority' and 'most', it's very clear they are talking about different degrees of size. I believe nearly all the sources we are currently using that comment on its concerns dismiss them, which reflects 'overwhelming majority' moreso than it does 'most', and as such I have reverted your edit. If you disagree, feel free to discuss it here or on my talk page. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to include this talk page discussion in my edit summary- my apologies. An aside: Does anybody know how to add in an edit summary after the fact? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people do a null edit. As for "overwhelming majority," is that an observation made by a reliable source? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like we've had this argument 20 or 30 times. Each time overwhelming is taken out, and eventually it weeds its way back in. Ries42 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is a far more accurate descriptor of the fact that no reliable sources say otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But the lede doesn't say "reliable sources" it says commentators. Ries42 (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would an encyclopedia article need to specify that it was only using reliable sources? No encyclopedia bases content on non reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if you're talking about what commentators say, that would imply you're saying what RSes have said it has been described as. H a l f   Hat  09:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, it's original research? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * can you please cite where "The Columbia Journal Review et al" states "most" commentators saying what our lede currently claims, and why you believe "most" is more accurate than "other?" You've chosen to edit war so far, but not explain your edit or cite your work. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(I've changed the title of this section.)
 * I did. Can you answer my question please? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, both 'most' and 'overwhelming majority' are references to quantity. I don't see either as being different to each other except in terms of size implicated- I don't think one is more emotive than the other, for example. If we are okay with talking about quantity of commentators in the lede (aka if you are okay with using most) you should be okay using 'overwhelming majority', given that it more accurately reflects the number of those reliable sources we use who denounce the movement compared to those who don't. In order to make it more clear that we're talking about reliable sources, I'm also going to call them 'commentators in mainstream media' as opposed to 'commentators', given that concern was raised over how 'commentators' by itself would be interpreted. Let me know what you think! Is there a better phrase than 'overwhelming majority' that also clearly describes just how many reliable sources denounce it compared to those who don't? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In considering original research related to this statement, we as a tertiary source can make rough quantitive calls when considering the number of sources, as long as it is an obvious result and we keep to broad terms. For example if we were talking film reviews, we fairly state that a film was well received, poorly received or had mixed reviews simply by editors' observation of the number of positive and negative sources, and if we can't easily make the call, then it falls to the default "mixed". Here, it is completely fair to call out "most" commentators because that is fairly obvious from the source. But to use the more contentiously precise language "overwhelming majority" is original research because it is a more subjective call and thus requires a secondary source to express the number to that size, which we do not have anywhere (much less about the lead). As such, "most" or "a majority" are acceptable terms, but not "overwhelming majority". --M ASEM (t) 04:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's agreeably contentious, then I agree that we should find better phrasing than 'overwhelming majority'. I disagree with simply using 'most', but it's preferable to 'majority' which simply indicates something greater than 50%. Does 'vast majority' have the same issues as 'overwhelming majority'? Would 'a great majority of commentators' be less objectionable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted the PC Peter made, precisely because of the reasons Masem stated above.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Would people be okay with me reinserting 'commentators in mainstream media' in the meantime, or is that also contentious? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Many" or "several" also work - again, it is very obvious from a simple GNews search which way the opinion falls. Leaving it without a quantitative qualifier does beg, in context, if this was a minor viewpoint or not. It is not - we do need to state somehow this wasn't a few isolated commentators but a large number of them. --M ASEM  (t) 05:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we're really discussing a proportion or ratio, "most" would be most accurate. Something like "many" or "several" could mean just a few out of perhaps tens or hundreds of sources. I would also argue against "commentators in mainstream media" because that should be assumed. Woodroar (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how 'commentators in mainstream media' is an improvement As opposed to non-mainstream commentators?  In other words, I think it is implied they are mainstream.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm specifically referring to the complaint Ries42 made, which I admittedly did view as frivolous. It's still worth considering ceding to points where readers may be confused, which I'm glad we've done in this case. Seeing general consensus, I can agree that it's not at all a point of confusion for most of Wikipedia's literate readers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Commentators in media" could include every blogger on the planet, in which case the statement would be very difficult to quantify. Clarifying mainstream limits it to our body of RSes and that makes "most" easy to observe from the sources. --M ASEM (t) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ries42 above, it's extremely inaccurate to estimate what proportion of people hold an opinion if we don't qualify which kind of commentators, specially without a reliable source making the claim that we can refer to. To be accurate we should refer to "most commentators used as reference for this article", but that only says something about the criteria used for selecting sources, is not informative about the world. Lacking a reliable source that analyses the frequency and king of commentators holding certain opinions, it's best to avoid the synthesis and omit any quantifier. Diego (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Diego, if you have reliable sources that do not denounce gamergate, you're welcome to add them. I invite you to re-read WP:SYNTH and understand what it's about and what it's not about, because I feel you're misusing policy when you say it discourages the use of quantitative language when talking about sources. Masem mentions film review sections on the articles about films, which frequently make these kinds of quantitative judgements based on the reliable sources, and are perfectly fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say "most sources considered reliable by Wikipedians...", it says "most commentators". SYNTH is pretty clear that the article should not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Synth may not discourage quantitative language, but it certainly discourages unverifiable quantitative language. The burden is on you to provide a reference that makes that claim, not mine to provide references disproving it. Film reviews are not exactly comparable; there exist professional critics whose work is dedicated in exclusivity to make such reviews, so in those sections it's clear about whom they are talking about, while there are no professionals dedicated to comment on the GamerGate. Yet if there was a highly controversial film for which reception was divided, where it was unclear how many media outlets are covering it, we would all agree that a statement like "most commentators think this is a good film" would require support from a direct reference.
 * The essential point about that sentence is that it needs to be verifiable, so that a reader wishing to assess who are these commentators and how the majority is being calculated can go to the sources and check whether they agree with that assertion. If we had an academic or news outlet saying something like "I have selected a random sample of articles coming from online newspapers with a paid editorial staff, and we consider that they dismiss ethical concerns if they include any synonym of the words 'ethics' and 'dismiss', and we considered a majority when their count exceeded 51%", then we would have a verifiable claim. But there is no such source; a reader willing to verify the claim would find out that it's only supported by "a Wikipedia talk page, where a number of editors have agreed that 'most commentators' is a valid summary of the number of references that have been selected for inclusion in the article, which only includes sources that pass the criteria listed at WP:RS". Sourcing article content with talk page discussions is the very definition of WP:Original research, and cannot stay without a strong consensus to ignore WP:V. Diego (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth being aware that "mainstream media" carries linguistic baggage; The article on the phrase notes that it has history in internet circles as a pejorative and euphemism for 'disreputable from our perspective'. If qualifying who is saying these things is necessary, is that the best way for us to state it? Sappow (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly attempted to fix this by listing the sources that made the comments in question. Please edit, or revert me, or request I self revert. You'll get faster service if you also request I revert on my talk page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a good compromise - it attributes the claim to specific commentators without attempting to assert that they're a majority like the previous wording did; and provides a taste of the nature of sources making the claim without describing them with a controversial qualifier like "mainstream media". Though I don't know what others think of its length? Diego (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not crazy over it myself, but I think it's probably the only thing that's going to make everyone happy, or at least not angry. I think we could maybe trim the less well-known publications if we have to. — Strongjam (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to sidestep the obvious "Why you put in this one but leave out that one," in my attempt to be as inoffensive as possible. I agree that we can/should trim. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the trimming. Please oblige and any of you do the trimming, I have no preference over which links to keep and which to remove. Diego (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have taken out the Daily Dot - that's a weak RS, but the others are generally okay and reflect a broad selection of higher reliability sources. I'm not thrilled with a list but it works until a better solution can be found. --M ASEM (t) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll again offer the some/other option I tried here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The goal in editing wikipedia is to improve articles. The mechanism we use to do that is consensus. Do you believe that you could ever reach consensus with that wording? Specifically, imagine your most strident detractor, and what they would say about that edit. What is it they say? How could you fix that? Iterate until you believe your most strident detractor is convinceable, and pitch that edit. The way you are going about it - by pitching these edits that even the least jaded editor knows would never fly isn't going to work. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only do I think even a marginally jaded editor wouldn't protest against the neutral language I supported, I offered it up specifically as a sort of middle way. If people aren't willing to collaborate, then there's a bigger problem at hand. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I definitely object to that wording, as it massively misleads the reader as to the scope of the commentary. I cant see anything to justify that wording in the sources or article.192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)