Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 31

Soapboxing
With all due civility, I'd like to draw your attention to some of the more glaring inefficacies of this article.

I am concerned chiefly with the opening section, more specifically.

As you may recall, I have previously opined--in a rather impudently vitriolic manner--about the galling lack of citations that rears its ugly head in the opening section. Seeing as how we are an ostensible encyclopedia, it's natural that we would be predicated upon citable veracity, yes?

That veracity is one of the chief pillars of our entire methodology, yes?

As such, it's more than somewhat perturbing to witness an entire article section--an article upon such a cause célèbre as this, no less--somehow manage to avoid adducing even a single source. Moreover, many of the sources adduced later in the course of the article amount to little other than grating displays of circular reasoning.

X person is not biased. To substantiate this claim, here is X, saying that they are not biased.

If that isn't circular, humans aren't aerobes.

This would be perfectly negligible if the allegations made were truistic in nature--it's common knowledge, after all, that Albert Einstein was a man who lived. It isn't necessary to cite a list of witnesses. However, the divulged information--or misinformation, as the case may be--bears considerable gravity. It is by no means innocuous--indeed, one wouldn't be remiss to call it indicting. Such circumstances outright demand the presence of stalwart adductions--which makes the fact that there aren't any all the more egregious.

Furthermore, the ramifications of said (mis?)information are quite pervasive. You're attributing some very unscrupulous and frequently abhorred actions to a very wide swath of people--an entire subculture, in fact. Such allegations simply cannot go unsubstantiated if we value our integrity. As I'm sure your fully cognizant of, libelous content is quite vociferously proscribed by our fundamental guidelines--and, what with the present unsourced nature of this article, it isn't too farfetched to construe it as being libelous. To maintain an article which so evidently disobeys this order would be quite a shameful display of sanctimony on our behalf.

Moreover, linking to the various sources mentioned does not constitute citation.

By the reasoning apparently utilized here, this statement is infallible:

I say that X did this. I can show you that X exists. Ergo, X did what I said it did.

Even to the untrained eye, this is a flawed pattern of reasoning. As such, any reader(s) would be well within reason to react with incredulity. Given a superficial appraisal, linking to the mentioned sources appears to get all the boxes checked, but, with a more keen eye for detail, we can realize that this is not the case.

If you'll allow me to digress for a moment: I have been quite unequivocal in admitting that I am pro-gamergate--this, I shall not deny. However, I am, of course, willing to compromise--I'm not exactly content with just how vehemently this one issue is perturbing our fiduciary and ethical stability. As such, I am perfectly fine with staying my a priori believes whilst conversing about this subject here. Furthermore, my own personal biases do not in any way taint or discredit the validity of my objections regarding the current state of this article. While all of this should be more or less tacit, I wish to leave no margin for error.

Returning to my original point, the exigencies of writing a proper Wikipedia article preclude us from being able to dismiss these errors. Now, errors are inexorable, of this, I am keenly aware, but to have ones of such magnitude be so long abiding is quite an atrocity. It's tarnishing our previously at-least-somewhat-credible reputation, and it's engendering quite a bit of social turmoil for our editors. This makes the fact that the solution is so simple all the more regrettable.

What is that solution? Besides simple, anyway.

All that we must do is find sources to cite. In so doing, we shall erase any and all contentiousness regarding the credibility of our allegations. However, it is possible that we may not be able to do so. If this is the case, then I'm afraid we must bar our anecdotal experiences and consider the inclusion of said allegations to be fraudulent. Following this, we must then rectify the contents of the article so that they may more accurately reflect the reality of the situation. As should be tacit, citations must be included.

In conclusion, it isn't particularly pleasurable to witness such a dubitable article go without rectification. As such, I propose that the aforementioned solutions should be enacted as soon as necessity allows. I invite your input, but attempt to remain constructive.

P.S. I've received complaints regarding the apparently gargantuan volume of material that I've been dispensing with these edits. If such is truly the case, I offer my sincerest apologies. As a relatively nascent editor, I suppose I haven't completely eschewed my freshman naiveté. However, some things simply must be said, however luridly lengthy and tumescent they may be. Even still, I shall attempt to avoid perpetrating such errors in the future. Ghost Lourde (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * tl;dr, but apparently you have not read WP:CITELEAD nor the archives where it has been determined by consensus many times that this lead does not need citations because all of the claims are clearly supported by the content and sources in the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconding TRPoD, this is very verbose. If you have multiple issues I'd suggest opening multiple, focused, discussions (or just stick to one at a time.) Otherwise we'll just end up with a long rambling discussion going nowhere. And do try and be brief. — Strongjam (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I truly cannot make heads or tails of this.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "X person is not biased. To substantiate this claim, here is X, saying that they are not biased."
 * False. If you take a look at the citations demonstrating a lack of bias, you'll see that it's external bodies making the claims that the "involved" bodies are, for all intents and purposes, unbiased. The circular reasoning, in fact, lies in the claim that every new, independent body (elsewhere treated as reliable sources without controversy) that finds the previous bodies to be unbiased, is thus biased because of what is said, or in other words: "X is biased because it said Y is unbiased, Y is biased because it said Z is unbiased", repeat ad infinitum.
 * "As I'm sure your fully cognizant of, libelous content is quite vociferously proscribed by our fundamental guidelines--and, what with the present unsourced nature of this article, it isn't too farfetched to construe it as being libelous."
 * The accusations are not unsourced. If you haven't finished the article yet, it's okay to skip ahead. Here they are, for your convenience -- we actually have ~180 of them.
 * "As such, I am perfectly fine with staying my a priori believes"
 * You misspelled "beliefs" as "believes". For shame.
 * "You're attributing some very unscrupulous and frequently abhorred actions to a very wide swath of people--an entire subculture, in fact"
 * I started playing video games at the age of six, in the mid-nineties. With all due respect, I've been playing video games for longer than you've been alive, according to your user page. (In fact, so has my little sister, come to think of it -- she's real big into Zelda, Pokemon, Smash Bros, and Team Fortress.) I was introduced to them by my aunt and grandmother, who played Donkey Kong, Mega Man, and Primal Rage with me, among others, for years, and they play similar games to this day. My mother introduced me to board gaming (and not just family games, but Catan, Discworld, etc.) and fantasy literature, which she had been into for nearly twice as long as I've been alive. My other aunt is a dedicated gamer, anime nerd, scifi nerd, LARPer, sword collector, etc. -- and she's older than my father, and has been at this more than twice as long as I've been alive. Her collection alone is larger than my house.
 * As far as the, ah, "subculture"? If you mean "being a gamer/nerd", well, we're not being attributed anything, and with all due respect, women/"SJWs" have been there and enjoying it longer than you've been alive, much less longer than you've been in the scene.
 * Although, to be fair, if you instead mean that they are attributed to the subculture of "Anti-SJW/female-voices gamers", sure, I think we could run with that, but if we're going to talk about any such attacks in the article, we'd have to spend a reasonable amount of time belaboring the distinction between gamers and "gamers who want women to shut up".
 * @Masem: The OP admitted in their own words that this was soapboxing. It's extremely irregular to dehat self-admitted soapboxing with the claim that it is a "severe issue that needs discussing". Almost by definition, it is not. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A severe issue that needs discussing: is this a satirical allusion to Romney’s "governing as a severe conservative?" How can an issue be severe? And you aren't just whistling Dixie,. Is it satire, perhaps? "Stalwart adductions!" "Truistic allegations!" "Errors are inexorable!" A "dubitable article" is consigned to "go without rectification." (of our bodily humors?) A "relatively nascent editor"! An article that is "luridly lengthy and tumescent"! (Hello, Fred Merkle)  I think TRPoD was right to hat this. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as a comment on the process that needs to be employed here under sanctions, not the content of what was hatted, it is not helping towards consensus to simply hat a comment without allowing for any back and forth discussion. If the discussion runs the course of the usual lines, or you can point back to a previous discussion, that's different. But to simply hat without commenting is silencing discussion and that's something that ArbCom's findings would be problematic. (Also, I did not interpret the comments that the poster was soapboxing, but how they felt that the article was running afowl of policy regarding soapboxing (WP:NOT), which is something that should be given time to discuss, particularly if replies asked the user to summarize their points better.) --M ASEM (t) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not helpful to soapbox, nor encourage WP:TE, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem, if you can distill any sensical comment that is a legit concern that has not yet been addressed, I'm all ears. I still don't know what they were saying.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, yes, it was rambling, and the points weren't clear, and someone commented after unhatting that if the poster could provide more cohesive points to help discussion. As such, there's plenty here to be discussed further if the poster was given the proper chance to respond. Shutting down discussion without giving a bit of back and forth to figure out if the discussion might be fruitful, is not helpful at all. ArbCom has told us to use talk pages to avoid editing warring. --M ASEM (t) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * With 30 archived talk pages, one thing that can't be asserted about this article is that there hasn't been enough discussion. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It could just as easily be argued that the state of the article is what's encouraging the continued soapboxing, and that a more collaborative tone on this talk page as well as a NPOV article would cut back on the so-called "soapboxing" we're seeing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Occam's razor or it could be the well documented outside organizing to disrupt the page the leads to the disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * TRPoD is correct in regard to canvassing and its attendant woes. Speaking of the state of the article, I believe a talk page is intended for discussing concrete improvements? It's hard to find an actionable suggestion amid the luridly lengthy and tumescently inexorable errors. If the poster believes there is an NPOV concern in the article, the 25+ pages of archives are thataway and discuss this at length, concluding in a consensus that is reflected in the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect.

Yes, yes indeed.

Please, gentlemen. Don't eschew civility for my sake--as risible as you may believe my words to be, your mockery is quite unwarranted. There is no need to be anything but amiable--after all, we are all fellow editors, no? The aforementioned 'collaborative tone' has my backing, at any rate.

"Well, we're not being attributed anything" is the contentious subject of the hour.

Are you really sure that that's the case? Examine this quote. It's verbatim. "The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats, including a threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event."

That's nothing to sneeze at, I'm afraid. As I mentioned previously, those are some very unscrupulous actions. Moreover, they are being attributed to the GG movement. Ah, but perhaps I was unclear. I suppose they're not being attributed to the entire gaming subculture--upon this, I concur. However, they are nevertheless being levied against quite a wide swath of individuals. My mistake. Nevertheless, the same logic applies: Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Mind you, I wouldn't actually be all to irritated if such were actually the case--indeed, you appear to have stated that you have substantive evidence proving that it is. The issue, then, is one of inline citations. As I recall, it's typically preferable to reference a source immediately after the statement which requires it. However, the opening article, sadly, does not presently do this. For ease of verification, I suggest that we rectify this immediately.

Oh the subject of the circular reasoning, I suppose your portrayal is more accurate. However, as you have so dutifully noted, it is nevertheless equally fallacious. If these are the '180~ sources' of which you speak, I'm afraid the article's predicates are looking a bit unstable.

Another point of contention:

"we'd have to spend a reasonable amount of time belaboring the distinction between gamers and "gamers who want women to shut up"."

I beg your pardon?

I'm sorry, but as of yet, I haven't met any gamer who wants 'women to shut up'--at least, not any that have associated themselves with the subject of this article. You seem a bit misguided about the ostensible purposes of the movement--as well as just who its members are, moreover.

And, yes, I utilize the term 'ostensible' rather frequently. I know what it means, I swear. I'm not using it as an intensifier.

Additionally, I'm a bit curious as to why you felt compelled to solidify your merits as a gamer--I'm not exactly concerned with that. My complaints have surfaced as a result of a perceived lack of citations--whether or not that lack is actually present has yet to be cemented.

I'm not discussing gaming here--and, evidently, neither is the article--so you needn't attempt to dismiss a skepticism which is quite nonexistent.

One final note: If we are going to discuss harassment, we should perhaps hold both sides to the same standard. That's only fair, after all. If, indeed, these harassers are representative of the sides as a whole--a claim which, I might add, is somewhat dubious--we should highlight that in this article. Before you claim that Anti-GG has not perpetrated any harassment, I'd like you to watch this video.

Before you accuse me of cherry picking, do note that many notable anti-gg figures are quoted.

That was a very hasty closure of that discussion. An unwarranted one, I believe. I respect your judgement, however, so I decided to address some somewhat different issues. However, an accurate representation of 'consensus' cannot be attained so swiftly, I'd think.

Once more, I invite your input. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. Be consice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Consice'? I don't think I need you to read it. It's a 'long' issue, I suppose. If you can't read that, well, sorry. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that your manner of communication is going to lead to results that are the exact opposite of the resolution you desire.--Jorm (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Brevity is the soul of wit. You don't need to have 3 sentences before you even begin to discuss your point, nor do you need to start a new paragraph each time a shiny object distracts you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinions--and marginal incivility--are duly noted. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:CITELEAD which TRPoD recommended that your look at or Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 25 that Strongjam offered to previous discussions of this issue in the talk page archives? I think that would really help before pursuing this conversation. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of the rest of the article and does not require citations. The rest of the article includes citations for the "extraordinary" claims you think the lede is making. The youtube video is not a reliable source. Not everyone on this talk page is a gentleman. Consider shortening your post. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the question about lede citations to the FAQ so people will stop asking it. Bosstopher (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.

At the very least, you should pay due attention to the other issues addressed by my queries. Furthermore, if the video isn't credible, the tweets contained therein are. Your advice about length is noted. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * when you bury issues in a wall of text, you should not expect people to pick through to find that needle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A wall of text? Naturally. You didn't read it, after all. Come to think of it, I wonder why you're even participating in this discussion if you haven't. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "However, the opening article, sadly, does not presently do this."
 * And, by longstanding convention, it's not supposed to. You should read at least a few of the responses to your screed if you expect the community to read yours.
 * "However, as you have so dutifully noted, it is nevertheless equally fallacious."
 * ...correct, as I noted, it is fallacious and circular for you to be claiming that sources like the New York Times are biased because, in their estimation, the groups you are criticizing are unbiased. "They're wrong because they disagree with me, and disagree with me because they're wrong" is textbook circular reasoning.
 * "At the very least, you should pay due attention to the other issues addressed by my queries."
 * Beyond vague, inactionable claims of circular reasoning, your only request given is to claim that the lede is uncited. As has been stated multiple times, this is by convention, and your willful ignorance of policy does not mean that the policy is in error. In short: I recommend that henceforth you hesitate to articulate for fear that you may deviate from the course of true rectitude.
 * Other replies are on your user talk page.
 * Also, per your BLP-violations noted on your user article, I would strongly recommend you to reconsider that youtube link, before the admins get a chance to look at it. Friendly advice. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant by being fallacious. By longstanding convention? Well, I'm somewhat curious as to why that's conventional, but I suppose it is. Oh well. My apologies, then. What? The video contained pertinent information. I'm not entirely enthused by its evidently biased writing, but it highlights something worth discussing. I'll attempt to be more lucid in delineating just what, so that it might be perceived as 'actionable'. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you said that I dutifully noted that it was fallacious. Do you need me to phrase things in plainer words for you? I would be happy to facilitate your understanding by whatever means necessary.
 * NORLY, dood. Links like that gonna get the mods breathin down ya neck. In the friendliest possible terms, I rly think you should rethink posting it. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggested changes to the policy or questions about the policy history would need to be made at the policy page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The truth can sometimes be contentious. Shoot the messenger if you must, but I'm not taking down that video.
 * I'm not yet inclined to revise such abiding conventions, but I'm curious as to there function, at any rate.
 * I maintain that circular reasoning has been employed here--not by me, but by the article. No, no, you needn't patronize me. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Occam's razor but its more likely the truth is simple. do you have any specific and actionable requests that you can present as such so that they do not get lost in walls of text? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll bite. Terseness isn't my forte, however, so bear with me.


 * I'll go with this: It's somewhat biased of us to only be noting the harassment perpetrated by one side. It's quite clear that harassment has been coming from both, frankly. It's rather undeniable.
 * As such, I suggest that we include some mention of it in the lead, preferably alongside the other harassment-mentioning already present within it. We are dedicated to covering all bases, after all.


 * There. That seems like a fairly cogent request. Happy? Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE we follow the sources, and the sources focus almost entirely on the harassment emanating from gamergate. that is how we will present the harassment in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to append a few more, then.


 * Are you seriously suggesting that anti-gg hasn't harassed anyone? Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * are you seriously suggesting that what has received the overwhelming lion's share of ALL coverage about gamergate has not been the harassment emanating from gamergate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

−
 * Ok, firstly harassment against members of Gamergate is noted in the article in the subsequent harassment section, (start reading from various supporters). There is probably some room to expand this section using reliable sources, but not enough to make it a significant part of the article (youtube is not a reliable source). The lede, as has been mentioned multiple times, is the summary of the article so if you propose a change to the lede it should be to make the lede more representative of the article, your change does not do this. As it stands harassment of GGers is not a significant enough part of the article to warrant mention in the lede, and I suspect even if expanded (and there is some room for expansion), it still wouldn't be able to warrant a place in the lede. My advice for you would be to search for reliable sources that mention harassment of GGers and to try and improve the article with these sources, not the lede. Also please back away from the thesaurus.Bosstopher (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Making no claims on whether they believe that claim is true or not, no, what they're suggesting is that there are no RS that have been found of provided that claim that Anti-GG has been harassing anyone. At the very least, not enough for it to pass WP:UNDUE. If you want such a thing added to the lead, you would need to find enough WP:RS making that claim that they pass the WP:UNDUE threshold. It would probably be the most efficient use of your time to go on that hunt. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What? They're not looking at it, ergo, it doesn't exist? Is that what you're saying?


 * Of course they're only focusing upon the harassment perpetrated by GG. They're opposed to it, after all. And, yes, they *are* opposed to it. Article after endless article has been written by the aforementioned sources about it. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What the policies say, is that if the reliable sources are not looking at it, it doesnt matter to Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * [comment retracted by original poster]
 * This source is biased. That's evident. The content contained therein, however, is incontrovertible harassment.


 * I wouldn't cite that as a 'reliable source', per se, but, were I to compound the same information into an unbiased document, it would be rather difficult to refute. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you have b
 * Bring in reliable sources (not YouTube videos) that cover harassment of GamerGater folks and it will be included. It is mentioned in the article, if you read through the entire piece.
 * And I'm not comfortable with hatting that entire discussion, Mark, as we did cover some ground there that I fear might all have to be repeated again now that it's hidden. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you have been told several times to be careful about what links you place on this page per WP:BLP .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to mention one side's harassment in the lede, then we should mention both side's. That is my contention. I am aware that that video is not a 'reliable source', of course, but take a long hard look at those tweets. Tell me that isn't harassment. I dare you. If that still doesn't satisfy, however, let's get a bit more empirical. I invite you to read this study. [blp redacted] Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GEVAL we dont create false equivalencies. (please read the policies) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And that site is completely inappropriate filled with BLP violations and posting it on Wikipedia has lead to users being blocked/banned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon?


 * I don't know what you mean by 'false equivalencies'.


 * Moreover, that study is presented with a completely unbiased tone. The media outlets you cite are filled with BLP violations, in fact. That doesn't seem relevant, however.


 * In any case, you should read the study. Empiricism cannot violate BLP guidelines. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * is your objection to that specific page, or the host URL in general? Not seeing anything terrible on that specific link.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier the article already mentions harassment against GGers, and nobody is denying that it didnt happen. Instead of responding to this comment, you chose to revert a retracted comment by another editor, for no apparent reason other than soapboxing. Pointless 'I dare you to say this youtube video isnt fact' rhetoric gets nobody anywhere. Harassment against GGers is acknowledged in the reliable source so please stick to the reliable sources if you wish to make some productive changes to this article. Bosstopher (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert a retracted comment by another editor, nor am I soapboxing. I really don't know what you're talking about.


 * Once more, I invite you to read this study. Empiricism cannot violate BLP regulations. [Redacting potential BLP] Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First, please start indenting your comments. Second, that's not WP:RS. It has no use here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies. It has no use here? It's a scientific study. I believe it has plenty of use here. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do read WP:RS. It's not peer reviewed (and not scientific really, just data description). It's also not a secondary source.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! The site you linked has many, many BLP violations, so I'm redacting the link. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, is it that particular page with the violations, or the site in general? If the latter, not sure we should be redacting it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically the site- I scanned the article and didn't find anything, but I didn't really want to have to trawl through the extensive comments and the site has numerous BLP violations readily accessible elsewhere on it. If I was wrong to have redacted the link- my apologies, and feel free to reinsert it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That data description is quite pertinent. It's not peer reviewed, but it's certainly peer reviewable. How is it not a secondary source? Furthermore, there are no BLP violations. I'm reposting the link. (Redacted BLP violating link) Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ghost the comment I am referring to is this one. Please read through it and try to take the advice I have given you about reliable sources to heart, here are a list of sources you may find useful. I will be disengaging from this conversation until you start making productive suggestions that are possible within wikipedias policies and guidelines. I strongly suggest other editors do the same.Bosstopher (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That was accidental. My apologies. I'll look into those sources. Thank you. Moreover, the suggested changes are perfectly actionable within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've run out of coherence for the day. Terribly sorry. I'll be back tomorrow, though. Please don't delete the discussion, however. I think we might finally be getting somewhere. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The so-called study on the gamergate site is (a) not peer-reviewed, (b) methodologically unsound, and (c) user-generated content. It can't be cited in the article, end of discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, there's some serious bite-age going on here. I still can't tell if this editor is serious or not, but if he is we definitely owe him the benefit of the doubt. He's wandered into a minefield and may not know all of the relevant policies regarding original research and reliable sources. We were all new once. I say we stay cool; just because a link is unreliable, doesn't mean it immediately violates BLP. It might not be suitable for inclusion in the article, sure, but let's not go throwing around threats of bans and blocks just because someone isn't familiar with all of the policies of the site. His history of edits show that he's not an obvious troll, and he had made productive edits in article spaces in the past. Give the guy a chance. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This editor has been blocked once already for BLP violations on this very talk page.drseudo (t) 04:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that this editor is not here to build the encyclopedia. Can we just impose the sanctions and move on? This thread is taking up a lot of time and energy.--Jorm (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, and my sincerest apologies, this is absurd. Firstly, yes, I have received sanctions for BLP violations on this very page. That, I do not deny. Proposing that you should impose further sanctions upon me when I have perpetrated no further violations, however, is quite ham-fisted. Yes, I am here to discuss the merits of the article, and I am doing with so with the intent of improving it. Now then, let's get on to something actually salient: Firstly, you've stated that it's not 'peer-reviewed'. That shouldn't come as any surprise, however. It's a peerless work. It's a cake that no one wishes to taste. It's not that the baker's shop isn't open, it's just that the consumer base despises the proprietor for having baked it. In any case, it is certainly peer reviewable, but, thus far, everyone has declined to give it the necessary attention. Moving along. Secondly, you stated that it is 'methodologically unsound'. Please elucidate for us just how this is so. To me, it seems like a perfectly innocuous act of empiricism. Finally, you've stated that it is 'user-generated content'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you asserting that I conducted this study? Because I didn't. Are you saying that it's an incredulous source merely because I am the one who was brought it your attention? That would be quite an objectionable justification. Or, are you saying that, because it wasn't posited by Jezebel.com or Forbes, it's an impertinent source? That would be equally objectionable. In fact, it's quite a bit more credible a source than the aberrant conglomeration of poisoned wells and straw men you've so regularly been citing as reliable sources. On a final note, I have had it up to nine feet above my head with people redacting the link to the study. It does not violate any BLP guidelines. If I see one more knee-jerk redacting of the link solely because someone saw the 'gamergate' and '.me' in the URL, this computer is going to be fucking defenestrated. I'm reposting the link. Redact it once more, and your efficacy as an editor shall be brought into serious question. (REDACTED BLP VIOLATION) Ghost Lourde (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an anonymous work posted on a website that does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Please familiarize yourself with WP:IRS. It's simply not a reliable source and is not usable in this article. — Strongjam (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I've posted an inquiry regarding the redaction of this link here: . —EncyclopediaBob   (talk)  18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you even bothered to read the article? It's accredited to a specific individual at the very beginning. Fact-checking? Check this: It's an empirical study which utilizes, compiles, and displays numerical data for your scrutiny, interpretation, and reproduction. Please familiarize yourself with Empiricism. Ghost Lourde (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is becoming WP:IDHT. We've told you multiple times that that link is not a reliable source. Moreover, it's a primary source from a group with an invested interest in the topic. The source cannot be used in the article. Ever.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's actually the wrong reason it can't be used. There is nothing wrong with primary sources from an invested group as supporting references in an article (this is done all over WP for filling in finer details that might be useful), but they simply cannot be used for demonstrating notability on their own (which requires secondary sources), nor should they be given undue weight in comparison to secondary sources due to their lack of independence. What does prevent this source from being used here is that it makes BLP claims that we should not be linking to at all. If there was a filtered version without BLP claims, it may be a usable source. A second issue is again the nature of the GG lack-of-organization, as we cannot verify that this site "represents" GG in any manner so we have no sense of authority on who wrote this and if they speak for GG. That's why we pretty much stuck with how secondary sources represent the claims that GG made. But it is not simply because this is a primary source that we cant use it. --M ASEM (t) 19:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it didn't have BLP claims, I don't see why we would treat it differently than any other anonymous blog post. It isn't usable at all. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * However, it is on a site that has numerous other BLP issues in various articles, and without the quality controls of an RS. For the same reason we avoid sources like TMZ for celebrity gossip, even if the specific article does not have any BLP concerns, the same thought process works here - the site is "tainted" because of this fact. I will also add that, in checking the analysis, it is one of those things that "statistics can be manipulated"-type concerns. At least to some extent, the Newsweek survey of tweets was done by a third party so there was enough separate of interest to not be a concern, and while this specific article does try to outline how it avoided any biasing of the data, it was done by someone tightly connected to events and thus a lot of doubt (in addition to the lack of RS nature of the site to begin with). It would be different if it was a list of what the GG goals were, just stating claims; but with this analysis, its really really hard to accept above and beyond the BLP issues. --M ASEM  (t) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... Did you mean for this to be a response to me? Kaciemonster (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread your comment. The analysis still applies in terms of the specific article being very unusable. --M ASEM (t) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and no worries, I was just trying to point out that it would still be unusable even without the BLP violations. I thought you might've meant it as a response to Ghost Lourde's comment below, it seems relevant. Kaciemonster (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still not entirely sure what the precise issue is with these ostensible BLP violations. Could you, perhaps, highlight some specific contraventions? I'm not seeing any. Sure, it's an article that's being hosted by gamergate.me, but beyond that, it seems perfectly innocuous. Were it to be republished anywhere else, it would be perfectly viable. Moreover, many of the sources you so frequently cite have much more of an 'invested interest' in this topic than this source does. Once more, I request that you analyze the article in question. Set aside your personal predilections and deliver an informed opinion regarding its merit, please. Ghost Lourde (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Once more, I request that you analyze the article in question. Set aside your personal predilections and deliver an informed opinion regarding its merit, please." It's been made clear that the source is not usable for this article, so this is not the place to discuss it. This is not a forum to discuss Gamergate, rather a place to discuss how to improve the article. — Strongjam (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it hasn't been made clear that the source is not usable in this article. Presently, that is what we are discussing. This is the place to discuss such things, after all. Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Self published blogs are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look at the comments, it has been reviewed -- by Eastgate, who is apparently a prominent statistician. The thing is, said review found it extremely wanting. The claim that "the opposition simply refuses to give it the time of day" is categorically false -- it's been reviewed, by at least one authority who knows how to math, and their opinion is that it's a piece of junk. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Blog comments are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, do you mean this? https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68 Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Self published blogs are not reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As opposed to non self-published blogs, I presume. In any case, I was not calling it a source--I was merely wondering just what Krypton was alluding to. Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As my computer appears unable to access this comment section, I'd appreciate if someone did me the courtesy of duplicating it on here. However, if it's just a statement of disagreement--well, you shouldn't exactly waste the effort. I'm looking for sound methodological deconstruction, not gnashing of teeth. Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, *now* I get it! You're calling *my* article an unreliable source. Care to elucidate just why you believe this is? Presently, I can think of no reason why you do. Furthermore, please stop deleting the article being discussed--we've already established that no BLP guidelines are violated by it. Your delete shall be reversed, and, if you question this action, you shall be delivered the preceding reason. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Self published blogs are not reliable sources. They may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you'd examine the article's preface, you'd probably glean from it the information that the author *is* an established expert. Furthermore, as has already been cemented by Masem, its ostensible status as a 'primary source' is immaterial, even if it is veracious. If you have no further reasons, you should voice no further objections. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the author's name? Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Claims to be an expert. Also, note even if their credentials were verified it still wouldn't matter per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.". — Strongjam (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
FOURTH edit conflict Let’s clear this up and move on. We are discussing a study of some Gamergate tweets written by "The_Nimbus" and published on the GamerGate wiki. This cannot be used in the article because self-published sources like weblogs and wikis may only be used for a few specific things -- chiefly for the author’s opinions or non-controversial data like birthdates.

Second, the term "peer-reviewed" used in [WP:RS] has a specific meaning. Papers submitted to many academic journals undergo rigorous review by anonymous experts, often called referees, who may approve a paper for publication, recommend changes, or reject the paper. This study has not undergone peer review or been published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference.

Third, I am a chemist by training and a computer scientist by profession, not a statistician. In the course of reviewing papers for the ACM Hypertext Conference and the ACM Web Science Conference, I've encountered many studies of social media. I outlined some methodological flaws in commentary on the paper when I first read it; some of the flaws I noted included a very small sample size, an apparently-arbitrary sampling method, a failure to explain who performed the coding or whether the coding is consistent or repeatable, and a metric -- frequency of harassment -- that seems difficult to justify. I think it unlikely that this paper would have been accepted at either conference without substantial changes.

So: the work can't be used because it's not published in an appropriate place, because it has not been appropriately reviewed, and because it is methodologically unsound. (I've got no idea what you mean by "methodological deconstruction". What do you mean when you say that "you shall be delivered the preceding reason?" What tense is "shall" -- hortative? future subjunctive? One can be delivered of a child, if one is both archaic and pregnant, and one can be sent something which would later be delivered. Why shall be delivered and not sent? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as what I said about Eastgate: he is very much not just gnashing his teeth. Although in comment form, he gives a pretty concise and legible rebuttal of the Nimbus's methodology. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A request for enforcement has been opened.--Jorm (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pedantic grammatical quibbles aside, Hipocrite, you have restated the exact same reasons for your objections. Once more, whether his is a third-party source or not is immaterial.
 * The same rejoinder goes for 'it's not published in an appropriate place'. You have no idea what I mean by 'methodological deconstruction'? Well, that's hardly surprising, seeing as how you've yet to present any. That said, let's move on to the proffered reasons as to why this study is methodologically unsound. Firstly, you really need to elucidate just how the sampling method is 'arbitrary'. Secondly, it's obvious who performed the coding--The Nimbus. Thirdly, the code is both consistent and repeatable--the author states this numerous times in the article. Fourth, said metric is imperative--how does one measure such things without establishing a frequency? I think it unlikely that your objections would be considered effectual by a reviewer. That is not been appropriately reviewed--by you, anyway--is evident. Furthermore, I'm not exactly certain what you mean by 'non-controversial'. Are you insinuating that this study is controversial? How? Only subjective things can be controversial. The study allowed the reader to draw their own conclusions. That you specifically consider the *ramifications* of the study to be controversial is irrelevant. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RS, "Self-published media ... are largely not acceptable... Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Per WP:V "Attribute ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Please follow our policies and guidelines, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, you've stated the same inapplicable reasons. What exactly are you driving at? Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The very clear and easily comprehended point is that the page you keep linking to is in no way compatible with WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do these reasons not apply? Hipocrite (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite’s explanation is clear and concise. You say these reasons are inapplicable, but they are not; the paper is a self-published source, and those are usable only under specific circumstances which do not apply here. You ask, “What exactly are you driving at?” But this is quite clear: he is saying that this source cannot be used in the article until it is published by a reliable journal. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's concise, but chiefly from a lack of substance. As Masem has already cemented, whether or not it is a primary or secondary source is completely immaterial. Ergo, I maintain that these reasons are inapplicable. Thus, I am wondering what exactly he is driving at. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To cement something is to attach it to something else. I don’t think Masem cemented anything. It’s a self-published source. Self-published sources can only be used under specific circumstances. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Glad to see you're astute enough to look these things up. Anyway, It's not a 'self-published source'. The author didn't publish it himself, if that's what you're saying. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you ever read any of the policy links you are guided to? Before you continue to post, please actually read WP:SPS and WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why reread something at the behest of frivolity? In any case, I maintain that this is not a 'self-published' source. You're really pulling out all the stops to try and invalidate it as a source, aren't you? Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, but it appears it's that time of the evening again. Terribly sorry. I'm afraid I've run out cogency for the day. For me, cogency is quantifiable. Encapsulated, if you will. I shall return tomorrow. Try not to set the BLPtalk on fire while I'm gone. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of my reverted edits
So I removed the following text

''On Twitter, Sarkeesian called the episode "sickening". She wrote, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment." ''

Which was reverted. The reason I removed it was that the only source is the tweet itself. Nothing established it's significance. H a l f  Hat  15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it being removed. We don't need any individual reviews of the episode. Something summarizing the general response to the show from RS would probably be better to replace it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I reverted. While self-published sources can seldom be used in biographies of living persons, one exception is that a self-published source is a reliable source for the author's opinions. The stated rationale was that the source was Twitter, and since (a) there's no reason to think that the statement does not in fact reflect its author's views, and (b) that she holds these views is uncontroversial, there's no reason not to use the reference.


 * Now, we're asked to consider an entirely different rationale. The argument for significance is, presumably, that Sarkeesian is a noted expert in the area and is mentioned elsewhere in the article; her opinion is perhaps more notable and more interesting than a random writer. However, if we want to remove opinions, there are plenty of isolated minority opinions that remain in the article; Eric Kaine comes to mind.  MarkBernstein (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarkeesian, along with many others, have made countless tweets, it's a site infamous for unthoughtout blurts. A tweet from anyone per se, I don't think is significant to any topic. H a l f   Hat  16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the opinion of the person upon which the character was based and whose life was "ripped from the headlines" for the show is far more relevant than many of the other tangential content included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not like it's an article written by them though, it's a single tweet. It barely even shows what they think of something, let alone how strongly, and how relevant to the issue. If their important find a quote from an article. H a l f   Hat  18:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "it barely shows what they think of something"?? really? while 95% of twits are incoherent rubbish, "They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment."" makes it pretty damn clear what they think . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRPoD. While it may be decided not to include that quote in the article, it's clear that this TV episode is based, in part, on her life experience. Including her perspective on whether it was fairly represented is of more significance than the view of an uninvolved viewer. Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be more efficient to clarify what policy grounds leads H a l f   to dislike the quotation. My first impression from the edit summary was WP:RS, but that’s not an objection because Sarkeesian’s own statement is a reliable source for her opinion. The question of "significance" might be WP:DUE, but as Liz says, since the episode is partly based on her experience, her own reaction seems germane. It might be argued that the entire television episode is insufficiently important to discuss here and that it's a question of WP:COATRACK, but we include several very obscure statements from much less prominent pundits above who express minority views. WP:COATRACK applies to them with even greater force, since WP:DUE requires that we remove the outlandish coats along with the others. I do think we should not imply without argument that any of Sarkeesian's statements are "unthoughtout," even in a talk page, as thats skirting WP:BLP. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing I was really criticizing at all was the reputation of Twitter since it requires no editing or care to make a tweet, we are talking about a site where very respectable people get into flame wars, as mentioned in a Sixty Symbols video. Just to clarify though, my objection is two fold, 1. it's only a primary source with nothing to show mainstream sources consider it even slightly notable. 2. It's on Twitter, a sight known for glibness. H a l f   Hat  01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding your points, Verifiability states Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field and then lists some exceptions which I don't think applies in this case. Social media, while seemingly ephemeral, is treated the same as if Sarkeesian had written a blog entry on her opinion of the show. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Or if Sarkeesian had said this in a public speech. Lots of people say silly things, but we continue to quote people who do say interesting things. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the quote a bit shaky - her reaction hasn't been covered by any independent sources (as far as I know, slap me if I'm wrong), and it would be silly if we cited a tweet anytime we wanted to get a view in lieu of the absence of secondary sources. The only reason I see to include it is because multiple sources have mentioned that one of the episode's characters is modeled after Sarkeesian, and so a reaction from Sarkeesian seems natural and appropriate - though I'd much rather see any reactions to the episode come from reliable and independent sources. Regardless, my larger concern is with whether or not the tweet is coming from Sarkeesian herself, as is implied in the article. The Twitter account represents the Feminist Frequency organization, and while it seems apparent that Sarkessian does post tweets on the account (and if I had to toss in a bet, I'd say she posted this one too), sans confirmation there's ultimately no guarantee that any particular tweet from that Twitter account is from Sarkeesian herself. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 10:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Where will we be setting the line on what tweets are viable for use here if this is allowable?  This is not a road I think we want to go down, no one will be happy as a result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even on simply the basis that Feminist Frequency has become a major voice in the critique of GG gaming culture, lacking any of Sarkeesians personal involvement, the analysis is appropriate to be covered. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so when we have pro-GG journalists, game industry insiders, and so on who have tweets that say otherwise, their analysis on Twitter should be included too, right? We're not going to try and have it both ways, where Twitter is only acceptable when it reflects the point of view of the editors on the talk page? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is in fact probably the biggest issue, if Tweets can be significant per se, then that directly destroys the idea that significance is based on the coverage, basically editors can just say any opinion is significant. H a l f   Hat  16:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, editors cannot just say [that] any opinion is significant. If Slats Grobnick tweets an opinion about Gamergate, that's not significant; if one of the Gamergate targets, someone who just happens to be an expert on misogyny in gaming -- someone who is a Gamergate target because she is an expert on misogyny in gaming -- then, yes, her opinion is significant, and her Tweet is just as reliable for her opinion as a speech would be. This is policy: see WP:RS.  If an noted expert in ethics in journalism -- the director of Harvard’s Nieman Center, say -- expressed an opinion on Gamergate, we'd cover that, too. (If Dan Marino tweets that Tom Brady’s the best quarterback of all time, that's worth covering; if Slats Grobnick says it, it's not.)  MarkBernstein (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay firstly what qualifies her as an expert? I'm honestly not sure if you'd read what you are referring to, since nothing there refers to cases where opinion is expressed on something else in a self published sourced, it just says it can be usable for information about themselves. I don't see this being settled by us lot so I suggest bringing in external voices for this.  H a l f   Hat  17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What qualifies her as an expert? She is the creator of an influential series of works on female representation in video games, in connection with which she has been widely interviewed and discussed. She has been invited to lecture on the subject at major universities: for example, NYU: . She is the recipient of the 2014 Game Developers Choice Ambassador Award. She holds an advanced degree in the area.


 * External Voices: this page is well watched, but of course more experienced eyes are always welcome. Just how many aspersions can we cast on a professional person’s expertise, by the way, before “'What qualifies her as an expert? She's just not.”' rises to the point of a BLP violation? Just asking for my general fund of information. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You said she is "an expert on misogyny in gaming". Her Masters related to Strong female leads in TV. None of the other stuff implies expertese. Creating an influential series of works in an area doesn't imply expertese unless the influence is on academia. Many nonexperts create influential works in various areas. I'm not sure why you'd think the other stuff makes her an expert. Note: okay by expert I mean demonstrated to be an expert looking at the definition I see that's not required. I'll redact my statement that she is not.  H a l f   Hat  17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Her expertise in "misogyny in gaming" isn't germane here. This is about citing her opinion on a TV show episode that was clearly model in part on her personal experience. — Strongjam (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So where do we draw the line? Shall we embed a bunch of tweets from Gamergate supporters as well, since the TV show models what it believes to be their experience, too?  Of course not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We draw the line where we always do. The opinions of anonymous online trolls are never reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about non-anonymous non-trolls, then, since you're now opening that door? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So everything else is okay then? Clearly not. Just saying "where we always do" without specifying where that is, isn't helpful. H a l f   Hat  09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the episode depicts harassment directed against an expert in the area of Sarkeesian’s expertise, based in part on her widely-reported experiences, her response to the episode certainly seems germane, while Slats Grobnick’s might not. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's just us deciding it matters, not mainstream reliable sources, none of which thought this was important. Given it was based on GG to an extent, the same argument could be made to include the opinion of any GGer. I'm sure you would agree with me that we shouldn't. H a l f   Hat  09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Raina Punjabi, the character of the SVU Episode, was a Game Developer of a successful fictional game serie. As such the character's origins, motivations and goals are different than Anita who is a critic for Game Sexism. The only semblance to Anita is the hoop earings when it comes to modeling. And hoop earings is deemed very short on inspiration from a model point of view. As for a character in the story itself I can see an inspiration I can easily agree with, even if said "Women in distress in Gaming Industry" has been a point of discussion since early era of gaming, but we have not a single source that is not speculation that proves the connection. If anyone do know a source where it's said with proof please find it. TheRealVordox (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure on where but article on the "spoof" Jace Connors thing
. --M ASEM (t) 17:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we use the Buzzfeed sources isntead? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is probably the currently highest RS source there. --M ASEM (t) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But the mcvuk is sourced from Buzzfeed's interview.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * International Business Times is also reporting on this as well (while still citing BuzzFeed). IBT is a reliable source, IIRC, and given the media attention that the "Deagle Nation" videos got re: GamerGate, inclusion I think is warranted -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to figure if this belongs in Wu's article, Women in gaming, sexual harassment, and/or here. It adds context to the harassment of Wu, and speaks to the effect of the GG harassment. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can build a consensus that it belongs on Wu's article. kencf0618 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering all of the twists and turns that GamerGate has gone through since August, this doesn't rank in the Top 10 of notable revelations. It only belongs in the main article if it is used as an example of the harassment certain women have experienced. The fact it was later revealed to be "fake" (and that occurred only after "Conners" received harassment), complicates things a bit but it involved very specific death threats and that is considered harassment. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * this has received far less coverage that Klewe's "poop sock sniffers" commentary . per Liz, it's very minor aspect for which there is no need to try an shoe-horn it in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that this is one of the threats that Wu based her decision to cancel her studio's PAX East presense, it is relatively important - in addition to the fact the person subsequently was harassed once his identity was revealed, making it part of the further harassment. (And it has gotten more coverage). --M ASEM (t) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per UNDUE then, we are going to reintroduce the "poop sock sniffers" quote as that received far more space in far more reliable and important sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been reported in The Verge, Sydney Morning Herald, NY Post, and WAPost, among other cites. I wouldn't suggest the buzzfeed source at all. --M ASEM (t) 22:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As a question, I don't see a BLP issue here that was claimed to remove the names. High RS sources name the guy already (he wasn't unknown before due to this prank group), and he admitted to doing it, so there's no accusations or the like here. --M ASEM (t) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Abundance of caution and WP:HARM (I know not policy, but good guideline.) We're not news and don't need to report his name, and I don't think it adds any important context. I don't think putting his name in the article is strictly a BLP violation, but if we don't need then why include it? I have the same problem with including Quinn's ex-boyfriends name in the article, but consensus is clearly against me on that. — Strongjam (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * However, do consider the searchability of the name, at least the fake name that he had used. The harm had been done before by the mainstream press by reporting his name, so WP is not changing that (in the same manner that Quinn's ex-bf's name has been). --M ASEM  (t) 01:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fake name I'd be OK with. Search-ability is one of the reasons I think we should be careful about names of living people. Especially taking the long view. — Strongjam (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the BLP issue, and I think it obfuscates the problem. The spoofers are on record with what they did, and in fact they come forward as victims. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)