Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 34

That GG Image
Can we stop with that GG image? It's non-free and as such we need to comply with WP:NFCC. Adding the image is not going to increase the users understanding of the topic. — Strongjam (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We don't need a non-free, anonymously-created unofficial PR image, especially given the color implications. Woodroar (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially as a non-free image. There may be something to argue if it were free, but won't pass NFCC presently. --M ASEM (t) 16:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

new articles March 22
'Gamergate' and gendered harassment - swatting

Anyone familiar with North Shore News? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete thoughts about where people are focusing now WRT GG
There may be another shift coming in public focus WRT GG :
 * Opinion: An e-cop targeting cyber trolls is a step in the right direction - opinion piece
 * New ‘Offworld’ Gaming Site Seeks To Redefine Gamer Stereotypes - ThinkProgress
 * In the digital age: Cost of feminism
 * Twitter’s New “Quality Filter” Starts Rolling Out To Verified iOS Users mentions GG as example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DAILY DOSE: Internet sexism catches up with Mo’ne Davis again using GG as an example of problem on internet ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Human nature in a virtual world: Living with our Avatars (Part 3) again using GG as example ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone noticed Masem's suggestion (in the archive) for reorganizing one of the sections. He suggests, "[...] the section should be written should be "GG is considered misogynist and sexist because (X). GG is considered to be a continuation of existing misogyny and sexism in the industry because (X). GG had the potential to be seen as a way to address these but failed because (X)." That is, make it clear what is the now, why it highlights issues, and why it is not doing anything to help fix those issues."

Now however, as I think about the focus of many of the newer articles have taken, perhaps a better proposal is: GG is not just about itself when it comes up in the news, but now comes up as a notable example of other problems online with various attempted or needed solutions.
 * 1) GG is considered misogynist and sexist because (X)
 * 2) GG is considered to be a continuation of existing misogyny and sexism in the industry because (Y)
 * 3) GG had the potential to be seen as a way to address these but failed because (Z)
 * 4) Reaction to GG has caused or contributed to (A, B, C per above articles and Crash Override etc)

My problem being some of this goes to broader topics, and perhaps we should only bridge from here to those broader topics.
 * I am not sure that building an article from the premise Gamergate is is a solid foundation, given that there is no there there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, GG existing as it's own thing v. people using GG? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is relevant:
 * I've been mulling the idea of a Defining Gamergate section that maybe uses that, the Segal piece, CJR and the Layden quote to write about how hard it is to just nail down what GG is. — Strongjam (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting and probably useful. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Defining Gamergate after the history section? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. Haven't really pulled anything together yet though. Might try to get a draft of it out tonight. — Strongjam (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. Haven't really pulled anything together yet though. Might try to get a draft of it out tonight. — Strongjam (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

extra article

 * Off Main: PAX Expo in Boston offers a glimpse of the future

March 23, 2015
New article in the The Nation from Helen Lewis Lewis is a fairly notable writer. Not sure where, or if we can use it yet. — Strongjam (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

March 26, 2015
I note again, ATM GG (when it appears in the media these days) is mostly presented as an example of broader problems. Note 2: I'm not suggesting using all of these or any necessarily, but to note the evolving view of GG in the media. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The new Gamergate: Angry white men are trying to shut down diverse comics opinion piece. GG as example. Is Salon RS?
 * 'It's About Ethics In Comic Book Publishing' GG referenced in issues about comics
 * Diversity in Games Found Lacking by Asian-American, LGBT Players GG as example.
 * You’re 100% Wrong About: Privacy GG as example.
 * These women used social media to reclaim their bodies GG as contrast.


 * I know I've seen rumblings on social media about the comics-world version of GG developing but not enough beyond this salon source to readily include yet. But it is something to watch for and likely include in the section about sexism and misogyny and demonstrating how this manifested in a different industry under a similarly cultural shift. --M ASEM (t) 18:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comicgate has had a failed start a few times (spiderwoman, thor, batgirl). Also MetalGate. — Strongjam (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's much to talk to these other -gates, only that they represent a case of an entrenched culture fighting in aggressive ways against a culture shift in that medium, GG being a very visible culture war in that manner. --M ASEM (t) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think we need to wait on sources to see if this gets picked up. Some of the actors seem to overlap so maybe an attempt to export GG into other areas (also shirtgate now that I think about it.) Something to keep an eye on though. — Strongjam (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another (but older) example of GG being used in contrast to another occurrence. Bosstopher (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the topic of GG and how it fits into the larger issue of sexism and culture in gaming there is also GTFO (film). I understand (haven't seen it) that they deal with GG in the epilogue most articles about the film mention GG. — Strongjam (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's another film which I can't remember the name off but is recent, similarly adding GG as an epilogue, but about culture wars in video games/internet. All this worth mention that GG is being seen as the most visible case of such problems that extend beyond the video game community (the overall picture being probably worthy of a separate article, in time, as academics throw their weight at the social issues). --M ASEM (t) 20:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Misogynistic attacks" is an opinion
Whether or not this harassment was misogynistic in nature in an opinion. This statement (among others) attempts to disguise an opinion as fact: "...when several women ... were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks." You may use a source's opinion only when explicitly stating that it is that source's opinion. You may not take that opinion and present it as factual. See WP:RSOPINION. Galestar (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not all adjectives are matters of opinion. You are, unfortunately, wrong in your assertion that stating harassment is misogynistic is a matter of opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, not all adjectives are matters of opinion - just this one. To call it misogynistic is to make a judgement about the motives of the perpetrators.  If your source does so then you are free to say "[source] says it is misogynistic" but you are not free to state this as fact.
 * WP:RSOPINION states: ″Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".
 * I will be removing these adjectives as per WP:RSOPINION Galestar (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For clarification (not going to revert and report because this is an easy mistake to make): 1RR doesn't simply count times you press the "undo" button, removing information from the article technically counts as a revert. You have currently passed 1RR please self revert.Bosstopher (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added the disputed adjective back in, with a template. Galestar (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because many reliable sources describe the attacks as misogynistic, I will remove the template once and then step aside. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So now not only can I not remove an opinion disguised as fact, I can't even mark it as disputed? If you wish to challenge my assertion that this is on opinion other than just "not its not" please do so here. Galestar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the bit about reliable sources. Attacks can be misogynistic in nature. The sentence does not ascribe that nature to PEOPLE, but to the ATTACKS. Parabolist (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dozens of sources refer to it this way. Per WP:LEAD, calling them misogynistic is a correct description.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Attacks are only misogynistic if done for misogynistic reasons. To state that an attack is misogynistic is to assert that the people performing the attacks hated women in general.  Your "reliable" sources (I may shortly challenge if they count as reliable) are allowed to make the leap that they are misogynistic; you as an editor may only quote their opinion.
 * Even one of the sources in the article echoes this: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement." Galestar (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Galestar, you are misunderstanding WP:RSOPINION - it is a guideline on the use of "opinion pieces" (e.g. editorials, blog-format sections, columnist pieces etc.) as reliable sources for their author's opinions. These stand in contrast to "normal" articles which are presented not as opinion but as fact vouched for by the news organization. CIreland (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually most of these sources are editorials and columnists. So there's that. Galestar (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Galestar, I reverted your last two edits, which were dedicated to removing descriptions of Gamergate as "misogynistic" or claiming that those descriptions are in dispute. In particular, the CJR piece you linked did not support the lede change. Please propose any other changes here before making edits so that consensus can be reached. Thanks! drseudo (t) 00:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The CJR piece states: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press.".  This is one of several sources that were already in use by the article that point out that whether or not the attacks were misogynistic is in dispute.  Please make sure you are following NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs)  01:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV means that we report fairly and proportionally what reliable sources say about a topic. And they virtually all agree that the harassment was misogynistic in nature. See the "Misogyny and sexism" section and check the sources, you'll find "misogynistic" and plenty of other similar adjectives. (I would also encourage you to browse through the Talk archives, as this has been discussed many times before.) Now sources sometimes acknowledge that Gamergate supporters dispute the term, yes, but they still characterize the harassment as such in the same way that they consider claims of "ethics in games journalism" to be debunked. Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a persistent problem in gender-related articles that there are two quite different meanings of the word 'misogynistic'. One takes it to mean, 'Motivated by an innate hatred of women,' while another takes it to mean, 'Targeted at harming women specifically.'  We see this come up quite regularly in gender-related disputes, where someone's statement or action is described as misogynistic and the response is, "But I don't hate women."  I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that those arguing for excluding the word are taking the former meaning, while those arguing for inclusion are taking the latter.  It's not helpful to our readers if some are likely to make the same mistake (and if editors make this mistake, then surely our readers will also).  Is there some way we can clarify the language to show the intended meaning, rather than removing it from the article?  GoldenRing (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I take the word to mean the former. The word indicates the motivation and not simply that the victim was female.  The act must be a manifestation of the perpetrator's misogyny.  Galestar (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, is there some better way of describing it? I don't think anyone would deny that there has been a lot of harassment targeting women; how do we say that without confusing readers?  GoldenRing (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why find another word when the current one is (1) adequately descriptive and (2) what the RS use?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily arguing for another word. I'm saying I think there is confusion around its use and we should do something to avoid that confusion.  Maybe the ambiguity in 'misogynistic' I've described above is inherent and we should avoid the word.  Maybe I'm wrong and those advocating including the word do mean, 'Motivated by an innate hatred of women.'  Maybe we need a sentence clarifying how the word is used in the article, or some qualifying adjective to go with the word that makes clear which meaning we're using.  GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I could see possibly putting a footnote by it... just an idea... but honestly I don't think it's necessary.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Harassment of women which is threatening, intense, frequent, prolonged, sexualized, violent in its imagery, rape oriented, and reveling in the imagined suffering of its female victims is also "misogynistic", by any reasonable definition of the word. That is what Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian have experienced, according to a large number of reliable sources that we have vetted for months. I read one week of Sarkeesian's messages and was horrified. This matter is crystal clear. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree on this one. The word misogyny stands for hatred towards women. Now, your adjectives describe in no sense whatsoever hatred towards women because it is not clear if the hypothetical perpetrator practices this kind of harassment (especially rape oriented, possibly sexualized - although sexualized harrassment definitely occurs as well if a man is the target) because the target is female (and has for whatever absurd reason drawn the perpetrators attention) OR the perpetrator is just incompetent to argue rationally with the target or whatever other cause (some people react with aggression to certain things) results in hostility towards the target normal people would articulate in a calmer and acceptable manner and instead tries intimidation (people do that sometimes) - and since the target is a women the perpetrator uses this as well - not because the perpetrator hates women - but because the intimidation is specifically targeted. "I will cut off your ...!" just doesn't make much sense if expressed towards a woman. And this is the problem in this discussion. The definition is unclear, misogyny is a catchy word, of course journalists will use it. But we should be able to stand above such unquestioned labelling. Yes, enough people working for outlets considered reliable have said it, but attribute it to them, Wikipedia doesn't judge - they do. Citogenitor [talk needed] 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well here.  Above, Parabolist says, The sentence does not ascribe that nature to PEOPLE, but to the ATTACKS.  Do you think he is right that the article should describe the attacks as misogynistic but not the people?  Or that we should be describing the people as misogynistic also?  This seems to me to be the root of the dispute over use of the word.  It seems fairly clear to me that some people are reading that sentence as a description of the people behind the attacks - eg Galestar above (note Galestar is blocked for 48 hours for a 1RR violation and so won't be commenting here for the foreseeable).  GoldenRing (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a distinction without significance since the lead of the article currently describes the attacks that way since that is what so many reliable sources say. Misogynistic attacks are rarely delivered against every single woman on earth but usually against individual women or specific groups of women. I see no one proposing that we should change "attacks" to "people" so why are we bothering to discuss that? Why waste electrons? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because a significant number of people read 'misogynistic attacks' as attacks motivated by an innate hatred of women in the attackers. Isn't giving that impression, however unintentially, in fact especially unintentially, a problem?  GoldenRing (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't a problem, not in the slightest, because we are accurately summarizing what the range of the best reliable sources say. That is our job here. No more. No less.

It is not our job to imagine that some poor misunderstood soul who tweets out a murderous sexualized misogynistic threat is not really a misogynist. That's original research. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course our job is more than that; our job is also to communicate it effectively to readers. GoldenRing (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Accurately summarizing is essentially identical to communucating effectively here on Wikipedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is saying not to summarize the source, but as a neutral tertiary source, per NPOV, we are able to state that information from an RS is only a claim if there are problems with such statements, and strive to avoid stating contentious statements as fact. Calling the attacks directly as misogynyist is an opinion based on observation. We can call the attacks appearing to be amisogynistic pattern or that the attacks are widely considered as misogynistic, but we should not be directly calling the attacks misogynistic in WP's voice because this is a strongly contested statement. It is a very subtle but important point to keep us objective and neutral. --M ASEM (t) 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly contested? Which reliable sources argue that the attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu are not misogynistic? Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be contested, just contentious. Calling an attack "misogynistic" is fully subjective and thus a contentious statement, and can only be determined clearly if that is the intent of the persons behind it, if they intended it to be misogynistic. And we have no idea what that intent is. It is very likely the case that these attacks are driven by misogyny but we have no data to confirm that, only the observations of the press. So instead of saying as we have now "...were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks", we can state "...were subjected to a sustained campaign of a misogynistic pattern of attacks", which keeps that important opinion of the press in the lead, but only stated as a claim, not a fact. --M ASEM  (t) 07:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with Masem's 'fully subjective' statement, but anyway, it's a bit beside the point I'm making. The sources describe the attacks as misogynistic, and so should we.  However, there are two common meanings of misogynistic.  There seems to be a reasonable sort of consensus that the sources we are citing are using one of those meanings, but that is not clear from our article (or at least a significant number of people coming to the article don't read it that way).  That's not effectively communicating a summary of the source.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there are two common meanings of misogynistic. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not the situation here. Misogyny - the hatred, dislike, or prejudging towards women - is pretty much that, but it is a term that gets thrown around a lot by commentators because it is a "hot" word - used right, it will create sympathy from the right audiences, just as the word "terrorism" can swing audience. I am not saying this word does not apply here - the sources make it unavoidable to use, and Occum's razor says that if the brunt of GG's attacks are towards women and specifically towards their nature as females, yeah, misogyny is very likely a cause. But we still have zero idea what these people are thinking for us, or the press, to know if the harassment is being done for misogynistic purposes or not. No one - short of Singal's attempt to rationalize with GG on reddit - has tried to get into the minds of these people as they have with Quinn, etc. Keeping in mind they have gone after men (like Phil Fish) as well, just not with the same vigor, it is quite possible they might simply be trying to troll what they believe are easy targets, or the whole SWJ thing. The result of whatever they are doing appears misogynistic, no question, but we have nothing beyond the claim of the press that they are misogynistic. I will stress that this is no way denying the likelihood that the attacks are truly misogynistic, but as a tertiary neutral source, we have to recognize that some of the leaps of logic made by the press cannot be repeat as fact in WP, and thus should simply make sure that this stance is reported as the most predominate opinion on what the harassment looks like. --M ASEM (t) 13:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Masem. We reflect what the media says, especially (but not only) if it's as obviously accurate as it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot prejudge what the situation is, that fails the objectivity and impartialness we have to maintain. We cannot pretend that what the press says is "accurate" for a claim about the reason for the harassment if they have no spoken to anyone within GG. That's why this is contentious and simply should be clear it is the predominate claim, but not fact. Again, to stress, I'm not say that this is wrong but we are aware that we can't say it is necessarily right based on on their observations. --M ASEM (t) 19:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article can't reflect what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources with a history of accuracy say is correct because ? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. NPOV has this allowance there when the claim is contentious and that is our function/ability as a tertiary source, to evaluate the nature of sources as to how they best apply to the topic in question (this was also confirmed in the RFC about bias in the press that we can judge if there is bias and adjust appropriately). Also note that we don't judge sources on accuracy, but reliability. (That's why it's at WP:RS, not "WP:AS"). --M ASEM (t) 20:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What else would we call it? Terrorist? The sources, including non-WP:BIASED ones, call it misogynistic. I don't think the term is contentious in this case. It's clear from the wording that we're describing the attacks as misogynistic. Would attacks that are misogynistic in nature be better? Seems too wordy.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The pattern of the harassment is clearly misogynistic (that's a factual statement about their observations), but without any evidence that they have talked to people behind the attacks to understand exactly why they initiate the attacks, saying the attacks were misogynistic can't be claimed as fact. We have to understand that the press has been doing a very poor job of trying to understand the GG side and making broad statements about the observed before. I do not question that it is highly likely that the intentions of the attacks were misogynistic, and the press may be fully correct at the end of the day, but there is nothing to back up how they came to their conclusion outside of the natural bias that exists in a story where you have women vs online trolls. What the press has stated is clearly a contentious statement given the lack of investigation demonstrated to make this determination. We can recognize that issue as a tertiary source per NPOV and make sure to avoid stating what is contentious as fact. That's why I've put wording above to not call the attacks directly as misogynistic, but that the pattern of harassment attacks is misogynistic. This is the same situation with something like global warming. There's a huge swath of reliable source that says it exists, but our article still presents it as the predominate theory and not a fact.  (And this might be nitpicking on one or two words, but one or two words do make a significant difference when we are talking about our article's neutrality and tone). --M ASEM  (t) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "We have to understand that the press has been doing a very poor job of trying to understand the GG side" - I'm sorry but that sounds like a poor excuse to throw out reliable sources out the window, when those sources don't say what you want them to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where does Masem say anything about throwing out sources? It seems pretty clear to me he's explaining WP:LABEL. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said to throw out the sources, only recognize that the coverage of GG has been one sided, in part due to the nature of the GG dis-organization (from the CRJ article) and part due to "women vs online trolls". There's still fine sources, but they are simply making claims that are contentious because the coverage is simply not sufficient to be making factual claims about the intent of GG. (And this works both ways, which when I say we have to say, any claims made by GG about their intent is self-statements, not factual actual). Per NPOV we opts to report contentious claims as claims, not fact. --M ASEM  (t) 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with VM here. But even if that is the case, we use the LABELs in the lead if they are overwhelmingly used by RS. For example Boko Haram is called terrorist without attribution in the lead. I use this example because terrorist is mentioned in LABEL and there was someone recently trying to remove it claiming NPOV. To be clear, I am not calling GGers Boko Haram, but there is a parallel in the cases.
 * Masem, we are to present due weight, not artificial balance. The sources are "one sided" in part because the actions of GG are so reprehensible.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in no way attempting to affect the balance. We've been there, that can't happen. But we need to recognize that there is too little information for us as a tertiary source to be stating factually what their intents are, despite the press having overwhelming claiming they know. Also keep in mind with Boko Haram, we have several official government sources that have labeled the group as terrorists, which no longer makes that claim contentious. However, newspapers are not the same as official government sources. If the FBI does get involved and at the end of day calls the GG movement as misogynistic, then we have a fact to build on, just like the case of BH. --M ASEM  (t) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for intruding, I'm very new around here, but I just wanted to try to help. It struck me that the "misogynist" claim was more about the nature of the attacks than any unknowable intent, no?  An insult that used ethnic slurs might reasonably be called racist (or at least ethnocentric!) without appealing to the intent of the speaker.  Dumuzid (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We definitely can say the attacks appeared to be misogynistic, had a pattern of misogyny, or the like. The near-unanimous take of the press on the stuff they can observe and which they explain in detail is clearly something we can state as fact. --M ASEM (t) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm probably missing something. But can't we also say that [simply by way of example!] an attack using gendered slurs is misogynistic in the same way one using racial epithets is racist in an absolute sense, regardless of subjective intent?  I know this does not completely encompass the debate with regard to this section, but I am trying to figure out our definitions. Dumuzid (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While it is very likely that harassment that includes gendered slurs slanted towards women arises from misogynistic attitudes, there are other attitudes that could also lead to that behavior (for example, if there are true third-party users out there trolling both sides of the issues, and are just using the language to mask their activities). It's Occum's razor, yes, but Occum's razor is enough to raise the OR issues with claims. --M ASEM  (t) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because someone uses female gendered derogatives and insults doesn't mean it is misogynistic. This label is used in the controversy for too many instances of any kind of somewhat hostile expression directed at women. It goes so far that people even start to ridicule that notion that critizising a women or wearing a shirt with depictions of sexualized women is already misogynistic. You can definitely write that commentators/journalists have described much of the harassment directed towards women involved as misogynistic. But we don't judge. And we don't label indiscriminately. They do! Citogenitor [talk needed] 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Citogenitor -- Okay then, I guess I am not understanding how you would propose to change the article. It doesn't sound like you think all mentions of misogyny should be excised, but can you give me some sort of concrete suggestion(s)? Dumuzid (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just attribute them to the writers/platforms and don't use universal quantifications. I would suggest in general to ask yourself: would the majority of people actually involved (not necessarily directly) in the matter at hand - regardless of how much their voice gets heard agree with a statement or not. Just because most media platforms tell one story does not equal the truth. We don't research the truth ourselves but we also don't accept statements as truth if there are some indications that a lot of people involved would disagree, which is the case here. This means that attributes (especially judgmental ones) mustn't be stated as fact but as descriptions by third parties. Edit: I fucked up outdenting. Citogenitor [talk needed] 14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument that not all #GamerGate supporters would agree, but I can't see that as overriding reliable sources. And to me, the article does a decent job of marking the "misogyny" bits as opinion (even if there are other issues).  Can you point me to specific sections or sentences that you think should be changed? Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This section begins with an example. It is referring to the lead.Galestar (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well that was quite the conversation I've started. Thanks everyone. I would like to challenge the continually repeated statement that "reliable sources describe the attacks as misogynistic". I've done a sampling of a handful of the (many) sources on this article. Only a small minority of that sample describe the attacks as misogynistic. Most of the sources in general appear to be editorial/opinion pieces, but this is especially true for those that describe the attacks as misogynistic. As per WP:NEWSORG:


 * Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

So would someone please demonstrate to how they came to the conclusion the "RS describe it.." conclusion. Please use non-editorial, non-opinion pieces. Also given the large number of sources on this article, cherry-picking a single article does not allow you to claim it is "the majority".

Additionally, here are two sources that do bring up the (albeit dubious) claim that the motivations were about ethics. Yes, it is a dubious claim. No, you cannot ignore it and state the competing claim as factual.

Galestar (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Whether the crux of Gamergate is ethics in video game journalism or misogyny among gamers continues to spark heated debate online."
 * Still, some justified their attacks on the “manipulative” Quinn in the name of ethics.


 * There are only a handful of reliable sources which describe the attacks as misogynistic. Most of the good sources use neutral language. There is a group-think that goes on in this talk page where editors assume the "majority of reliable sources" say something, then they repeat that mantra without actually citing said reliable sources. Of the 19 reliably sourced articles I reference for questions of this nature, only 5 describe the attacks as misogynistic. Here they are:
 * AFP: "The horrific misogynistic abuse of female figures within the video game industry has triggered debate over whether women are being accepted as equal partners in the sector."
 * Washington Post: "One problem Gamergate supporters face in defending against accusations of intolerance is that the blog post that sparked the controversy set a misogynistic tone." (this is more about the tone of the movement, rather than describing the harassment but I included it anyway)
 * Washington Post: "Here at the Intersect, we have ignored Gamergate for as long as humanly possible — in large part because it’s been covered in enormous, impressive depth elsewhere, and in smaller part because we’re exhausted by the senseless, never-ending onslaught of Internet misogyny, which really can’t be explained in a blog post — or, frankly, anywhere else."
 * LA Times "Far from making a point, the ugly reaction has instead exposed the rage and rampant misogyny that lies beneath the surface of an industry that’s still struggling to mature." (again, this is discussing video game culture rather than the actual harassment, but I think it's close enough)
 * Time: "Despite the fact the journalist in question did not 'review' the game and wasn’t found to have allocated it any particular special treatment, the misogynistic 'scandal' — and fans' fear of women 'censoring' their medium by seeking more positive and diverse portrayals — has launched an 'ethical inquiry' by fans campaigning to unearth evidence of corruption and collusion among people who they feel are too close to the games and developers they write about."
 * But this is not conclusive proof. As with most of the bickering over word choices, sources do not uniformly describe this as one thing or another. For example, an equal number sources actually use the word "misogyny" only to claim that proponents of Gamergate oppose the label, as demonstrated in the CJR article you quoted:
 * Columbia Journalism Review "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement."
 * Al Jazeera "And as consumers who helped to make video games an industry that earns tens of billions of dollars a year, they feel like a focus by the gaming press on issues like misogyny will lead to censorship and alter the games they love."
 * Washington Post "So we reached out via Twitter to Gamergate supporters, who are defending gaming culture against accusations of misogyny, for their opinions and suggestions of who they felt could tell their side of the story."
 * Boston Globe "Gamergate's proponents claim that this isn’t about misogyny but rather about corruption in the gaming world."
 * The New Yorker "Some feel that Sarkeesian, in criticizing games for their misogynistic portrayals of women, is also accusing those who enjoy the games of misogyny."
 * The Guardian "Not all gamers and not even all those who support #GamerGate attack women or support misogynist views, however."
 * The rest of the articles don't mention misogyny and stick to more neutral terminology to discuss the attacks. So that's the scoop. As it turns out, there is actually no agreement in the sources. I suppose, in this crazy la-la land of an article, that means we should default to the most incendiary language possible, right? Because the only section of WP:NPOV that many editors are familiar with is WP:UNDUE. Or something. I have no idea. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read through the archives, as this has been discussed to death. We decided long ago that there's no need to add source after source about certain subjects—"misogyny" being one of them—when we can reasonably source a claim to a handful of high-quality reliable sources. Google "Gamergate misogyny" and you'll find plenty of RS sourcing this absolutely DUE statement. Woodroar (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TALKEDABOUTIT your previous decisions are not binding.  Consensus can change. Galestar (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally: I (or we?) are challenging the assertion that the attacks are being *universally* or *mostly* described as misogynistic. Some sources do.  Most don't.  Telling us to Google for those exact words is begging the question / confirmation bias  ("see, if I search for X I find X.  Therefore X is everywhere"). Galestar (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't use such a label universally. We should in most cases avoid generalization if there is a hint of controversy. @ColorOfSuffering: Thanks for the research! Citogenitor [talk needed] 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those attacks were specifically directed at her being a woman. That makes it clearly misogynistic. I do not see the need for debate.Lucentcalendar (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't. It's the most likely reason, but there are many other reasons from what the GG people have been saying that they could have harassment these targets. For example, one complaint they have is the whole "SWJ" thing, in that they don't want any message pushing in their games whether it is about feminism, LGBT, parenting, etc. So their harassment would be to this end, though obviously more women would be caught in that. So unless we know with strong clarity the motivations behind the harassment (which no one has provided), we as a tertiary source cannot state the attacks are misogynistic, though clearly  they have a pattern that equates to misogynistic behavior, the predominate claim across most sources, which we can cite. --M ASEM  (t) 22:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I started looking at the sources and found 11 instances of sources describing either the attacks or supporters as misogynistic—The Telegraph, again, and again, On the Media, Canada.com, The Daily Beast, Ars Technica, Reason, International Business Times, Metro, Washington Post—and that's only the first row (browsing through 60 of 184 sources), only looking for "misogyn*" and not synonyms, and not even going into the Talk archives or finding new sources with Google. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I've described before, as a neutral tertiary source, we have the ability to recognize that they have only looked at the surface of GG to make that declaration and thus cite it as opinion, not fact. That the attacks have a pattern of misogyny, no question that they can report on that, but they have not presented any reason to make a highly subjective statement, that the reason behind the attacks is due to misogyny, as a fact. So we simple should report this as "the attacks are perceived to be misogynistic", or "the misogynistic pattern of attacks", or "the misogynositic attacks as described by mainstream sources", but we cannot factually state "misogynistic attacks" because that is contentious. This is following what NPOV describes. --M ASEM (t) 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can start here. @Masem would you agree that there are enough reliable sources writing that the movement is misogynistic in nature that to leave that allegation out entirely would be to do the article a disservice?  I can't tell if this argument is over the information itself or the weight given to the information. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Lucentcalendar on this. Quacks like a duck. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Lucentcalendar I don't recall that anyone was ever attacked for being a woman. Is that what you meant? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@AugustRemembrancer: I meant that her and later them being women was at the core of this incident. I have only read this article, but if it is correct, accusations against Zoe Qinn were based on her having an affair and she was then threatened with rape. That is misogonystic. The online gaming community used a lot of strong language. But a man would not have been threatened with rape and it would not have reached such a scope and public attention. So this aspect is central to this article and should be in the lead.Lucentcalendar (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with the majority of this. All of these things can in fact occur without misogynistic intent, to men as well. It is hard to justify this level of strident conclusion in the absence of supporting sources. This is directly related to @Galestar's original point. Are such powerful opinions being allowed to creep into the introduction without supporting sources? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's amazing to me how many people show up here within moments of reaching Autoconfirmed status to make frankly stupid claims like "rape threats are not misogynistic intent". Truly fucking shocking. --Jorm (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is you, that is making false claims. "Rape threat implies misogyny" is not a valid logical implication. A rape threat is a deplorable method to intimidate a woman, but it is not necessarily inherently misogynistic. For intimidation to be effective one would have to target it specifically to the victim. So if for some reason the target would be a women and intimidation is the goal, it is obvious that "I'll cut your dick off" less effective than a rape threat (would you describe the former as misandrist?). I know, this is sociopathic logic but I hope this shows that said implication is logically false. Sadly, nobody in the media takes the time to articulate themselves logically coherent and in this case it is much easier to deflect everything on the victims being women and derail any form of discussion (and I don't mean "discussing" with harassers, that is the job of law enforcement). Misogyny everywhere. Citogenitor [talk needed] 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * your critique of the media while deeply passionate does not belong here. We go by what the reliable sources say, not what a horde of internet trolls would like themselves to be portrayed as. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But the comment above from user Jorm has its place? He judged Wikipedians by their perceived Wikipedia-age. Called their arguments stupid. (This would be an ad-hominem per definition, and I think we can stand above that and discuss ideas on their merit alone) I just answered his nonsensical claim with a rebuttal showing that such generalisations (either way) are false and is unfortunately common in the media (while it should be clear that the last part is just my personal opinion and I wouldn't argue if you dismissed that part as conspiratorial BS). The point I wanted to make was that almost all generalisations in this controversy are sadly enough easily dismissed as jumping to conclusions or projecting and therefor logically false. The only thing you can argue is that there are people on the internet (with some ties to GamerGate) that seem to really hate several people, among them some women. Even if it were only the mentioned women it is a idiotic projection to argue from hating three women to hating women in general (i.e. misogyny). But what do I have to say - it seems that logic is not something of value to you (who argue for such unquestioned labelling). Good bye. Citogenitor [talk needed] 14:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i take it as a sign of how poor the american education system is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Colbert "Misogynistic intent" Sentence
I'd like to raise a specific concern related to the use of the word "misogyny" and derivatives in a specific instance in the article. The sentence about Stephen Colbert citing "misogynistic intent". I'll quote the current sentence (highlight mine)

The concern I would have is that neither reference uses the word "misogynistic" or "misogyny". The sentence currently gives the impression that Colbert used that phrase, or something equally as strong. Since the statement is basically ascribing those words to Colbert, I think the references would need to be stronger.


 * Verge Reference
 * Washington Post Reference

I don't have an interview transcript to hand, but my recollection of the interview was that Colbert was fairly droll throughout, and I personally don't remember him making a statement quite that strong. Since the topic is fraught enough as it is, I think the article needs to be careful about making any undue ascriptions. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My skepticism of your very fresh account aside, I agree this should be reworded. That wording ventures a bit too into SYNTH for my liking.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the extensive and highly controversial nature of this subject, it would very easily fall under the second bullet of WP:VALIDALT. Reviewing his/her edits, it doesn't look like a new editor. This was a very good issue they brought up and they are obviously familiar with WP. Mores so than I am at least. I think it's more than reasonable to extend some additional good faith to new accounts and judge editors by their actions instead of the age of their account. TyTyMang (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When one hears hoofbeats, one does not expect zebras.--Jorm (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed according to the sources. starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  10:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

call for a close of this section
If no one has 1) a specific line in our article that is misrepresenting the sources or 2) several reliable sources that state that gamergate is NOT misogynistic, then we are clearly done here and are merely beating an already WP:DEADHORSE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I endorse this idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.--Jorm (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This talk page is littered with dozens of abused equine corpses. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop the beating already. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reopening as EvergreenFir and others seem to believe that they have won, without adequately addressing the main points brought up. You cannot state an editorial source's opinion as fact. Period. Galestar (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is well covered. They're misogynistic attacks. There is a wealth of sources for this in the discussion above. Every single one of them can't be an editorial. — Strongjam (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they can be all editorials, particularly when we are talking a story that is by its nature biased in coverage (no one is going to give "online trolls" any due in a story that pits them against female journalists and developers). Not a single source has shown how they can prove the motivation of the attacks are misogynistic, as no one outside a few source like Singal have spoken to the GG directly or implied they have. They are looking at a pattern (which is clearly misogynistic, no question) and making a leap of logic that because they appear misogynistic, they must be driven by misogyny. That's a logical fallacy. It's well within possibility and probably true, but it simply cannot be said as fact under NPOV policy. It is a contentious claim that we should make sure it is stated as a claim or attribute the misogyny to the readily-observed pattern of harassment. As a tertiary source we have the ability to recognize that, not assume the press is automatically right, and simply attribute these as claims. --M ASEM  (t) 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a contentious claim. For it to be contentious there would have to be disagreement in reliable sources. — Strongjam (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't fully read this section. There is disagreement and it has been brought up a few times.  Galestar (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, NPOV does not require the claim to be contested in sources (that's what FRINGE is about), but if we as tertiary source editors believe the claim is contentious (which should be readily obvious here). NPOV stresses this, this is what WP:BIAS lays out, this is what WP:LABEL defines, and is practice throughout WP for other people and groups that are generally negatively covered by the press. It keeps us impartial and neutral when we know that there is an implicit bias in the sources (and this was reaffirmed at the RFC on this point earlier). --M ASEM (t) 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not obvious. Both "misogyny" and "misogynistic" are used widely in factual reporting by reliable sources, not just one or two editorials. In addition, we do not require reliable sources to show their work. That their information is vetted is part of what gives reliable sources a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Woodroar (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:YESPOV - If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
 * WP:BIAS - Essays aren't policy.
 * WP:LABEL - Applies to groups and people, not attacks. Are we going to argue about wether we are going to call them "attacks" next or are they just "vigorous critiscm"?
 * — Strongjam (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do put more weight on sources that show work - things like peer-reviewed journals and the like that demonstrate scientific method. And especially when we are talking a subjective measure as opposed to something objective; this is why we don't flat out call Westboro BC a hate group. (A recent case in point is the shootings at Parliament Hill in Canada a few months ago - major sources raced to call the event terrorism, and while it eventually was considered a domestic terrorism attack by government officials, the article stressed until then that the terrorism label was cited by certain people and not factually). If a "fact" is made by an RS without demonstrating the route they got there that one would normally use to demonstrate it as fact, that begs that it is a claim, not a fact. And this happens a lot in the media of late, not just with GG. And they don't have the same responsibility as we do to being absolutely neutral.
 * And the obviousness of the issues here are clear if one reads more than just the RS involving GG and keeping an objective mind about things. RS policy doesn't state at all that we only glean information from RSes and ignore all other sources. We can't use those sources, and certainly not to prove the RSes wrong, but that's not what is being said here. It is simply that these are claims. No one has any idea of what is really at the center of GG, probably not even more GGers themselves. We can observe their patterns, what goes in, what comes out, but because by both nature and design the unorganized nature of GG we can't identify any actors, much less their motivations for what they are doing. There's tons of Occum's Razor explainations, and I do not doubt misogyny of some of the GGers is a factor here. But we cannot use the court of public opinion as a basis of fact when there's no basis for how they arrived at that fact as given.
 * to Strongjam, for NPOV there is "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." If we are calling the attacks misogynistic as fact, that means we are labeling GGers as misogynistic as fact, so LABEL very much applies. (that's why the pattern of the attacks appears misogynistic is completely fine - it remains a claim as to the purposes of the attacks). And just because BIAS is an essay still means it is advice to consider, which was re-enforced by the RFC. --M ASEM (t) 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * to Strongjam, for NPOV there is "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." If we are calling the attacks misogynistic as fact, that means we are labeling GGers as misogynistic as fact, so LABEL very much applies. (that's why the pattern of the attacks appears misogynistic is completely fine - it remains a claim as to the purposes of the attacks). And just because BIAS is an essay still means it is advice to consider, which was re-enforced by the RFC. --M ASEM (t) 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

--M ASEM (t) 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC) have you actually read WP:BIAS? while this article is a PRIME example of BIAS in that a western troll harassment group has a far more developed article than most leaders of South America, Africa or Asia countries, i dont think that is what you mean. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BIAS talks about any type of systematic bias, which while more about geographical issues, includes other biases in the press. We know the press wants to paint GG as a troll movement but we absolutely cannot take that stance as a neutral, impartial entity; we recognize this is how it is popularized, but that's all claims, not fact. --M ASEM (t) 19:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no systemic bias that an internet troll harassment group is widely covered as an internet harassment group. That is just factual reporting.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's all claims made by the press. They are probably right, but until we have an authority (such as the FBI starting to make GG-related arrests in the name that GG engages in harassment) we must keep in mind that the group is only perceived by the press as troll group. We cannot take any other stance on this matter without becoming partial and non-neutral. --M ASEM (t) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it does not take an FBI report to identify misogynistic harassment as misogynistic harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We need something more than just press people making claims without evidence. It's jumping to conclusions. FBI or a similar group would be the type to identify the actual people involved in harassment and do the psychological profiles as to understand if the attacks were purposely done for misogynistic reasons, which we then can factually say they were misogynistic attacks. But we have none of that and no sign the RSes did this at all, and as such, it is a label that should be stated as a claim, not fact. We are not saying the press are wrong here, just that they are claiming this in lieu of anything else to say. --M ASEM (t) 19:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * it is perfectly within the normal capabilities of reporters to look at twits and chan posts and see that they are harassments emanating from people identified with gamergate. it is not rocket science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We know the press wants to paint GG as a troll movement We don't actually know that. — Strongjam (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, in our role as a tertiary source. We know the press is standing very much against the GG harassment stuff. We can't source it, obviously, but this is not something to source - it is simply knowledge we need to be aware of in writing about the article. (a simple example would be using FOX news to include views about Democratic subjects, knowing that FOX has a clear GOP-leaning bias). We need to be looking at the GG issue from a 60,000 ft level, knowing all details far and wide (including what GG have said themselves) but then distill that down to what RSes are saying about that, and when we are aware of RSes taking a side, we should evaluate anything they say as claims when they conflict with the larger picture. We have to write this article knowing what GG thinks of itself even if we cannot include a single bit of that due to lack of any RSes. Otherwise, we are as biased as the press here in the matter, which we can't be. --M ASEM (t) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't say out of one side of our mouth that we know what the press wants, and then out of the other side say we can't speculate on the motives on people making misogynistic attacks. — Strongjam (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We know what the press has said through plenty of editorials (their stance is worn on their sleeves); we know what some GGers want through reddit and other sites. Of course, the side that GG presents publicly is not about harassment at all, but we know this is also not the full picture. This is the problem - the people making the harassment attacks keep very much anonymous, keep their goals about harassment (if they have that) quiet, to a point we have no idea who is the harassers and who are simply trying to discuss ethics (the whole leaderless, unorganized issue at length). We can't write to that in the article, but at the 60,000 ft level of a tertiary source, we need to be very much aware of this issue and use the RSes appropriate towards it. --M ASEM (t) 19:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you keep attempting to present this as "press vs gamergate" it is not . it is the press reviewing what emanates from gamergate. what emanates is 1) harassment and death threats 2) claims that harassment and death threats dont represent gamergate but no official gamergate emerging to give such a claim any basis.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We know the press wants to paint GG as a troll movement - and therein lies the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that plagues this article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not righting wrongs. Righting wrongs in this context would be demanding more balanced coverage (which this is not), or demanding that we don't give any time to a troll group that is harassing women to protect them. And this latter is what happened in Arbcom, editors battlegrounding on this article in the name of protecting the harassed targets. If anything, the only wrong that I am asking to be fixed is to keep up more neutral and impartial by simply downgrading statements made by the press from fact to claims. Not eliminating them, not giving more space to GG, etc. but simply recognizing that no one knows who is in the right or wrong here, so we should not be presenting this as a fact at the current time. --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: RFC?
I'm going to suggest we have an RFC on this issue, because this remains the point of contention in the article - are we required by WP:RS to take the press's stance as fact when it is the overwhelming opinion of the press on this point. It's clear that policy does not well cover a case like this (you can read policy both ways) and we really need to have a global consensus on this point instead of fighting this among a small # of editors. I don't know how to word it yet. --M ASEM (t) 19:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My immediate concern is that RFC are often treated as votes. Any setup of an RFC needs to be clear about that, especially given the off-site coordination surrounding this article. Personally I'd rather discuss some of your suggestions at rewording instead.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would pre-RFC ask ArbCom to nominate an uninvolved individual (or set of three) to mediate/decide the RFC. I've been a mediator as a result of an ArbCom case before, so this is certainly not outside their scope or ability. That way there would be no reason to doubt the involvement of the mediators. --M ASEM  (t) 20:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that was an option. Wonderful idea.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, let's just have the RFC instead of mediator. Given past history, a mediator's decision is unlikely to be enough to settle things. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of the mediator(s) in this case would be the person(s) that would review the RFC at the conclusion as well as handle any attempts at problem posters and keeping discussion on track. --M ASEM (t) 21:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that your last RfC was decidedly less than neutral and you STILL went on beating the dead horse afterwards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I respected that decision of the RFC which noted we can't change the UNDUE/WEIGHT of sources in this case (that is, we are no way going to be able to have "equal time coverage" here), though with some IAR as needed. Much more NPOV issues have arisen since then. Also please discuss content, not contributors. --M ASEM (t) 00:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please identify where these horrible new NPOV violations are so that they may be addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The key issue is this article is written assuming that the press is "right" without zero consideration of anything that is not in an RS. While that arguably is a strict reading of WP:RS, NPOV says we do not take a side, and make sure contentious claims are stated as claims, not fact, and that requires handling the GG situation with a objective, impartial, non-judgement approach, but also being aware that the situation is made more complex that RS policy limits us to only using what is found in the RSes even though we know there is much more to the story that exists beyond that. It is being closed-minded to any other viewpoint but the press and assuming that the press is infalliable is what is the major NPOV violation here. And that's why we need the RFC to establish how to approach how to write this article knowing that the press (explicitly or not) have really only cared about writing one side of this story and omitting what can be readily observed but not included that represents the missing side. It's not a simple problem with a simple solution, and that's why we need more than just the small group of eyes on this, but instead establish how such controversial topics need to be approached in the future too. Policy conflicts on how to handle this as well, hence the need for more consensus building from uninvolved people. --M ASEM (t) 03:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem, it is not in any way an improvement to the encyclopedia to throw away WP:V and WP:OR because you think all reporters are incapable of properly interpreting "Die fucking cunt" as misogynistic harassment. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We know there are third-parties that are neither pro- or anti-GG that want to simply stir up the pot and are engaging in harassment "for the lulz". That's not misogynistic. We know the entire story, not just what is limited to RS, and know that the conclusions the press are making fall in the ground of WP:LABEL problems. It significant improves the neutrality and impartiality of the encyclopedia to say that the press's statements are claims, not fact, but does not affect the weight of their opinion on the article. But we should be trying to get consensus to make sure this is the right approach to take - again policy conflicts on this point. --M ASEM (t) 03:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are a significant amount of people using #gamergate just to stir up the pot, that doesn't mean a thing in terms of whether or not that involvement is legitimate. #gamergate is as #gamergate does- it's a leaderless group based around a hashtag. You can't say some people are real gamergaters and some aren't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're assuming the press is infallible, Masem. Are you really trying to argue that we use sources that are difficult or impossible use as RS? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem. The press is not always right. And in this case, the claims of the hashtag users are against the press that we are using as RS. Having an RFC with mediation sounds like a good idea for the sake of NPOV. If the notion is so ridiculous then things will remain the way they are now anyways. I don't understand the opposition to the idea. TyTyMang (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * while the press is occasionally wrong, you would have to be some type of conspiracy theorist to believe that EVERY MAJOR MEDIA OUTLET has been WRONG for 6 months of coverage. Do you have any slight piece of actual evidence to support such a FRINGE claim? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has said the press is wrong. But we don't have enough information (no one does due to the anonymous nature of GG) to say they are right, and hence the need to keep their claims as claims, which is not the same as saying they are wrong. --M ASEM  (t) 04:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are pushing that we cover stuff the reliable sources dont because...... well, you think we should. That is not how things work Masem, you are experienced enough for god's sake to know better. 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And they have covered the aspects Gamergate_controversy and come to the conclusion, "God, not only are they misogynist trolls, they are so stupid they wouldnt know ethics if it hit them over the head with a brick." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I'm reading this, the argument is that the RSs are not nice to GG, so must not be reliable? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely not what the issue is. Also, we cannot discuss and write this article with that attitude about GG, even if the press thinks that's the case, as that's overly prejudgemental. --M ASEM (t) 05:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, masem, it is NOT prejudgmental. No judgment was made prior to reviewing the facts. It is based on what the reliable sources have reported about what gg has done and presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No legal authority has made any statement about any person involved in GG or the GG group to date. As such, we cannot assume them of any wrongdoing in terms of being objective and neutral. We'll let the wealth of press statement state their condemnation of the group, but we absolutely must stay away from judging the group ourselves to avoid COI and stay neutral and objective. --M ASEM (t) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument is: there is plenty of non-RS material out there that has not been covered by the RSs. And this article has been written from the POV of the press as fact.


 * Also, it is sourced that some/many/(some quantity) of the gamergate proponents have claimed #gamergate is about ethics in game journalism, however we are using game journalism and affiliates as reliable sources to discredit that claim. This seems to be a specific violation of NPOV. TyTyMang (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you almost have it TyTy. Yes, there is a lot of not reliable junk that we do not use- because we are writing an encyclopedia and we focus on using the reliable stuff. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The argument is that they are blogs/opinion pieces and as such they are only appropriate for use in an encyclopedia as statements of opinion, not as fact.  Galestar (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to cut it back to the New York Times, The Guardian, Newsweek and PBS, you still are not going to get a different article, just shorter. We can do that if you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: Clarification
My apologies for wading into this and then disappearing - I've been away from electricity for a few days. I set out trying to reword the first paragraph to spell out more clearly what is meant by 'misogynistic', but ran up against a problem: I have difficulty articulating what the phrase 'misogynistic attacks' means. Here are some options I came up with: At least three of the above four, possibly all four of them are true of the attacks in question; my question is, which meaning are we intending when we describe the attacks as misogynistic? GoldenRing (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Attacks motivated by an innate hatred of women.  This essentially changes 'misogynistic' from a description of the attacks to a description of the attackers.  At least some above indicated this is not what they meant, while for others I'm less sure.
 * 2) Attacks directed primarily (though not exclusively) directly at women (ie women are the immediate target of the attack).
 * 3) Attacks meant to drive women out of a particular (cultural) space (ie while the attacks might not be all directed at women, nonetheless they are an attempt to drive off women beyond the immediate target by making the space hostile to women).
 * 4) Attacks which use methods that particularly or disproportionately target women (eg rape threats, certain insults etc which are seen as an assertion of male dominance).
 * If at least three of these four meanings are accurate, then we'd lose more than we'd gain by narrowing the definition so tightly. 'Misogynistic' is accurate to the sources we're using and the article we have currently, so we can keep it like that with confidence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if the answer is, "All of them," then fine. You only needed to say so.  Is it?  GoldenRing (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You typed: "At least three of the above four, possibly all four of them are true". What do you think, buddy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I said at the top, I don't know what I think. I asked what you (and others) think because I actually want to know and think that it could be helpful to develop the article.  GoldenRing (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could say I think at least three of the above four are true :) PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How many angels dance on the head of a pin? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can "attacks" even be misogynistic? Do the attacks themselves hate women?  The sentence doesn't even make any sense.  Why does everyone want to keep it so badly when its an obvious grammatical failure and sensationalist headline? Galestar (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can "attacks" even be misogynistic?. Yes. The answer is yes. The same as attacks can be "racist" or "sexist". It's not an uncommon phrasing (see also, "racist/sexist/misogynistic joke".) — Strongjam (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that this is covered by WP:NAD. That is, "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used...."  Even if you disagree with a word as used in the RS, I think we should follow them.  Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange how you neglected to include the rest of that sentence from WP:NAD - "but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used". WP:NAD means that the article should not discuss the words, not that we should not take the meaning of words into account when editing the article.  Galestar (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this article is not about the usage of the word "misogyny." I think if those sentences stand for anything, they stand for the proposition that we should not gainsay RS based upon a perceived inaccurate usage.  Wikipedia is a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive source, if you like.  Dumuzid (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * this article is not about the usage of the word "misogyny." Entirely agree. This thread on the talk page is though. There is a distinction between the two.  I don't think WP:NAD means what you think it means.  It is attempting to avoid the article becoming a word usage guide - which no-one is advocating.  Galestar (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I retract my previous statement (can "attacks" even be misogynistic). The joke analogy was surprisingly convincing.  I do still maintain that it is a contentious opinion (as would any outright claim of racism would be) and only supported by sources that count as opinion under WP:NEWSORG.  Galestar (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I believe the most common interpretation is #1. Even if you interpret it as any of the others then #1 is implicit to the reader.  Galestar (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is this even such a contentious issue?
I've refrained from commenting on this issue before, because I could never see what the big deal surrounding it is meant to be, but now that this is going to RfC I may as well ask: why does it matter so much whether the attacks are classified as misogynistic or not? If the attacks are not labeled as misogynistic it's not as if it's a win for GG that slants things positively in their POV. Doxxing, harassment, death threats and rape threats are just as horrifying whether or not they're labelled as misogynistic, and its not as if the article doesn't fail to account for the role of sexism. Conversely, it is not Gamergate itself that is labelled as misogynistic here but instead the actions of harassment, doxxing, and online threatening as manisfested during GG. Why does the reputation and integrity of the death threat have to defended against claims of misogyny? This seems like a template color tier issue. Bosstopher (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The highly misogynistic nature of the attacks is 1) key to why these attacks were noted in the first place and 2) key to the conclusion that this is a culture war against women. Erasing from the lead is erasing the heart of the entire issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRPOD on this point. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Directly calling the attacks misogynistic is stating the attacks were done for misogynistic reasons, which is something that the press (much less anyone else) can't know if no one knows the specific people that have done the attacks and their motivations for doing the attacks. The pattern or nature of the attacks are clearly something we can call misogynistic ,since they do target women and use gender-bias attacked language, and while being done by a misogynistic motivation is perhaps the most likely and simplest explanation of why these attacks are being done, it is not the only reason. And if we start labeling the attacks as misogynistic in a factual nature, this is implicitly labeling any GG supporter as misogynistic (with the way the rest of this article is penned), and per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, we should not be doing that even if the press has swung the story that way. Since we know - beyond the RSes - that there's factions within GG, including some that are just playing the harassment game "for the lulz", there are many other possible motivations that would generate a series of attacks that appear misogynistic in nature but not driven by misogyny.
 * The larger issue, which is what I would focus the RFC is, is basically how much of a slave we are to RSes when we know there's more story here that we know we can't include, when it comes to issues like NPOV and the like. We know that the predominate opinion of GG is negative, and the press by its nature have made claims that, we as a tertiary sourcing and having the ability to look at the situation from afar and more objectively, are aware of it being somewhat exaggerated and beyond their ability if they have not shown their homework of talking to the GG side, though far from being so wrong to invalid their use as sources. Policy is unclear if we are forced to pretend that no other information on a controversy exists beyond the wall of RSes, or if we should be aware of that and make sure to simply temper the use of press as opinions and claims rather than facts when the full picture, even as unclear as GG is, shows that there remains contention of what is happening. --M ASEM (t) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the ArbCom decision was extremely clear: that we must accurately summarize reliable sources and avoid original research and synthesis. WP:LABEL is irrelevant if reliable sources widely use the word "misogyny" or "misogynistic". Likewise, WP:NPOV says to avoid reporting opinions as facts but also facts as opinions, and—with the exception of a handful of opinion pieces—the references we use were published as factual reporting. All this talk of being a "slave" to reliable sources and suggesting that "they have not shown their homework" looks like an attempt to sidestep our core content policies. Woodroar (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do not "widely" use the word. There are about a half a dozen out of over a hundred and 4 of them are easily identifiable as blogs.  If you wish to continue repeating this claim, provide your evidence.  Galestar (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I already have. I'll copy it here: I started looking at the sources and found 11 instances of sources describing either the attacks or supporters as misogynistic—The Telegraph, again, and again, On the Media, Canada.com, The Daily Beast, Ars Technica, Reason, International Business Times, Metro, Washington Post—and that's only the first row (browsing through 60 of 184 sources), only looking for "misogyn*" and not synonyms, and not even going into the Talk archives or finding new sources with Google. Woodroar (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will analyze that. Galestar (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is not going against RS. We can't include other sources beyond what meets RS and we do have to summarize them - the point is whether we document the RSes statements as facts or as claims eg "X is Y" verse "X is claimed to by Y by Z". As a tertiary source, we should be aware that the claims made by RSes are contentious by involved parties that can't be used as RSes, so should we be documenting claims with that knowledge, or are we policy-bound to ignore all other non-RS sources and write like the RSes are final word. We're not changing how the RSes are summarized or what RSes are used, but simply how to word what they state. --M ASEM (t)
 * There's no need to throw away WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT just so that some gamer denials of misogyny can be pushed into the article. The "wall" of reliable sources is actually the foundation. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no wall of RS that describe it as such. There are about a half a dozen out of over a hundred and 4 of them are easily identifiable as blogs.  If you wish to continue repeating this claim, provide your evidence.  Galestar (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about adding content or pushing more sources. It is simply tempering statements made by the press that are presented presently as fact to simply claims. No need to include any rebuttal or counterpoints, just that because no one has a full picture of what is going on, we're simply treating the press's statements as claims and avoid contentious labels without identify who said it. --M ASEM (t) 14:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not "temper" the reliable sources by making them appear as they do not appear. Where do you get that doing so is in any way appropriate, particularly given the clear instruction from ArbCom that WE MUST ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE SOURCES - (the ArbCom decision was not temper the sources so that they meet your personal interpretation) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not misrepresenting sources by stating what they state as claims rather than fact, simply taking the objective, impartial view; it does not say they are wrong. And this is exactly in line with NPOV, where contentious statements should not be stated as fact. --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * actually we are. there is no contesting of the evidence and the assessment of the evidence of misogyny through and through. to misrepresent the universal analysis is not acceptable. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And this is why we need an RFC on this situation. If we limit our vision to only what the RSes say, yes, this is the case that the statement is made without contest. If we take in the entire picture going beyond the RSes, knowing full well that we can't include those sources but simply aware of their existence and content, it paints a very different picture, which directs us how to best use the RSes that we do have. However, policy is conflicting on this, and this discussion keeps going in the same loop, hence the need for more eyes. --M ASEM (t) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * quite plainly. no. we do not need an RfC to see if we should follow our own interpretation of things instead of the reliable sources. that has already been decided by the arbcom and is just a complete TE. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. We have too small a pool of editors here to be making decisions that involve major conflicts in WP policy. And there is absolutely zero harm in having an RFC about this, that is what ArbCom wanted was more eyes on this article to help resolve problems like this. Purposely trying to block discussion is a battleground mentality. --M ASEM (t) 03:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy is not conflicting. Please show me policy where it says that we should temper what the reliable sources say because some editors think that every major source has gotten something wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV says it twice: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." amd "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." And let me remind you: I have never said the sources have it wrong, they instead have reached a conclusion that is impossible to make without knowing much more about the people they are accusing; their conclusion is likely right, but we should not be presenting it as fact because it clearly is contentious with the people they are accusing. --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem, I believe the point of "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" is to state the claim as an opinion if the claim is contentious among reliable sources, not the accused. The claim is not contested in reliable sources. Also, that the conclusion is impossible to make without knowing more about the accused is just your opinion, and multiple editors are disagreeing with you on that point. Kaciemonster (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the issue that needs wider discussion - NPOV is very unclear and/or conflicting on this as it does not outright say that the contestability must be documented or stated by RSes. Particularly emphasis is needed on whether the group that is being accused or labelled should have their contestability of the claims ignored even if RSes do not report that, and thus the nature of how much of the story outside the wall of RSes can we consider in developing the article even though we know we can't use those sources. --M ASEM (t) 14:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Different reliable sources are not making conflicting assertions on the matter, it doesn't matter how the accused feels about it unless it's reported by reliable sources. We can't write about what reliable sources do not report. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you take the first bullet of NPOV, it says to ascribe these as views, and doesn't mention that the contesting has to be done in RSes. As I said - it is conflicting, as well as the general fact that the way GG has been reported in RS presents a situation where a viewpoint of a core party has been left off the reporting table. As an objective source, we need to be able to question that. Thats why an RFC around this issue to get wider input is appropriate, because we can sit here all day and throw conflicting policy statements at each other but it doesn't address the uniqueness of this situation. We get a global consensus and we go with that. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV is how we analyze reliable sources, of course the contesting has to be done in reliable sources. The second bullet point specifically says that it's about how to handle different reliable sources making conflicting statements. The first bullet point says, "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." This is coming back around to a conversation me and you have had before. If it isn't presented in the reliable source as an opinion and multiple reliable sources agree, we aren't presenting an opinion as a fact. Describing attacks as misogynistic isn't an opinion, it's analyzing the nature of the attacks. Didn't you already have an RFC on source bias? Kaciemonster (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite, NPOV is how we present reliable sources. We don't take a side, we present the sides.  The fourth point of NPOV is Prefer nonjudgemental language.  Misogyny, and misogynistic is a judgement call. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I meant present, not analyze. The rest of my comment still stands. Calling something misogynistic is no more of a judgment call than calling something racist is. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And the point of that statement is that if even if there is a predominate number of sources calling something by a judgemental term, we should keep it clear that it is a judgement call and not fact. --M ASEM (t) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of my statement is neither of them are judgment calls. We're describing the nature of attacks aimed at women and their supporters that use violent and degrading gender-specific threats and language. "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." For clarity, we call this misogynistic. It's not passing judgment on it's subject, it's a description of the type of attack faced by the targets. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned elsewhere, there are two ways the phrase "misogynistic attacks" can be taken. 1) That the attacks have a pattern of misogyny, which indeed is something that is indisputably fact from the standpoint of the sources and a fully valid assessment they can make by observation. 2) That that attacks are driven/guided by misogyny, which is something we don't know is true or not. It is a hypothesis, potentially a correct one, but one that remains unverified (as described elsewhere, there are ways for a misogynistic pattern to come out from other drivers that are not misogynistic - its a symptom but not a cause).  It is the nature of the English language that there is confusion here which is why we should be either stating "misogynistic attacks" as a claim, or using language that clearly establishes that the pattern of attacks being misogynistic as a fact. --M ASEM  (t) 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There should not be any confusion here. Regardless of whether or not the intent of the harassers was misogyny, the attacks are and can accurately be described as misogynistic. It doesn't matter if they didn't mean for the attacks to be misogynistic. It doesn't matter if someone says "I'm not a misogynist, I love women!" The attacks contained misogynistic content, so we describe them as misogynistic. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement of your assessment of what we can describe as misogynistic, but I am pointing out the language issue that when someone calls out "(subjective word) attacks", there are two possible meanings here, and by simply using clearer language that ascribes the assessment to the pattern or nature, and not the motiviation, we remove that issue. "A misogynistic pattern of attacks", for example, clears up the wording completely to avoid the English language ambiguity. --M ASEM (t) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is what all that all of this is about, the difference in meaning between the two is not worth the extensive conversation that has happened here. Misogynistic attacks is more accurate in meaning than misogynistic pattern. If we call it a pattern, we'll need to describe the pattern, and will probably head into OR territory. Misogynistic attacks is unambiguous and makes no judgment on the motivation, although we do have sources that describe the attacks (and movement) as motivated by misogyny so I'm still not sure what the issue here is. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is about what is happening. If we are using language stated in a factual manner (as it presently in the lead) that can be taken in a different possible meaning that is really a subjective claim, either we change the language to be clear what we are stating as fact, or make it a point that it is a claim. And to that, that it is claimed by the press that the harassment is being done for misogynistic reasons when they have not made any attempt to talk to the people doing the harassment is a contentious statement given that GGs say they are not about misogyny. WP as an objective, neutral source should be as conservative as possible to avoid stating anything that can be contentious in WP's voice, and that's why the RFC is needed is to assess whether knowing what is not printed in RSes should be used to judge the contentious nature of a statement. --M ASEM (t) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want us to do. It's not a contentious claim among the reliable sources. It's a contentious claim in your opinion. You personally don't like how the reliable sources did their research. Should we follow your opinion over policy? Being neutral doesn't mean not saying anything that someone might consider mean. Misogyny is misogyny. We have reliable sources to cite "misogynistic attacks" to. Didn't you already have an RFC on source bias?
 * I suggest we shut this section down. If you want to have a conversation about misogynistic attacks vs pattern of misogynistic attacks you should start a new section. This section has gotten bloated and sad, and we're off topic from the original purpose. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are missing the point. The question on the table is whether we are to consider the entire story that goes beyond the RSes in trying to judge how to present statements made by RSes. GG deny they are about misogyny. That may be a lie or a cover statement, but they do make the claim they do not stand for misogyny, but it is not documented strongly in RSes. As such, outside the bounds of WP, stating that the attacks were driven by misogyny is a contentious claim. But if we are limited only to what we can pull in from RSes, then that contention completely disappears. That is not how objective or neutrality should work on WP, but NPOV does not give consistent advice to this end (as noted, the policy has conflicting statements here). And this goes more beyond the misogyny issue (how it is phrased in the lede is but one facet), its understanding that there is much more to the GG story that we certainly can't document on WP, but can be used to judge how to write what the RSes state. That's the point of the proposed RFC. Not about bias (that bias was established in the previous one, and reflecting that we can't weaken what RSes we use, but that's a far different point).  And because I can see this happening in many other cases where the press has only opted to cover part of a story, this will affect many other potential articles so getting some consistent advice towards this is necessary. --M ASEM  (t) 18:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing the point, I just disagree with you. The answer to your question is no, we shouldn't consider anything beyond the reliable sources to determine how we present statements in reliable sources. Why should we? Because you disagree with the reliable sources? Kaciemonster (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It sound a lot like Masem is suggesting we use OR because the RS doesn't cover what he thinks the RS should cover. If it's not in RS, then its unreliable sources; it's that simple. Masem, if you want to add something, find an RS to support it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am saying. What this boils down, simply, is how we write about certain predominate statements that the press have stated: do we write those as facts in WP's voice, or do we write them as opinions that the press has made. No new sources are to be added to do this, but the question does involve whether we should be fully aware of what exists past the RSes that we can't include. A hypothetical example is the statement "Gamergate is misogynyistic" that appears true if you fully limit yourself to the available RSes, but clearly contentious beyond that; policy is unclear/unspoken/conflicting on whether we are to be fully aware of these outside issues in writing the WP article. In other words, how beholden are we to stay exactly in the press's footprints or not. Nothing here involves new sources at all, or at least any new sources that can be used on WP, only recognizing their existence. --18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You look past the reliable sources and see the statement as contentious. I look past the reliable sources and see the statement as accurate. That's why we stick to reliable sources and don't go beyond them to determine the Truth. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem, perhaps you could draft an edit and let us look at it? Because at this point it I still can't pin down what you mean. "The question on the table is whether we are to consider the entire story that goes beyond the RSes in trying to judge how to present statements made by RSes." seriously sounds like doing or using OR to me. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC proposal drafting
A rough version of the question in general would "In determining if a statement made by a significant number of reliable sources is contentious or not (thus labeling it as fact or opinion), should editors consider the contentiousness of the statement in sources that do not routinely qualify as reliable sources? If the statements are directed towards a person or group that falls outside the scope of BLP, should the contentiousness of the statement by members of that group made in non-reliable sources be considered?" This arguable is OR but it is the same type of OR associated with being a tertiary source - it has to do with how we select and use sources, which does require a minimal amount of OR. --M ASEM (t) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you draft a proposed change? It would be easier to see what you mean. (also could we move this conversation by starting a new section) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The change to the article would be far too much to go into, and again, this is a larger issue than just GG in terms of source evaluation. --M ASEM (t) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should we consider sources that we can't use in the article to determine how we use content in the article? Kaciemonster (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because we're looking at objectivity here, and knowing that a statement made by reliable sources is contentious by the people that the statement is directed at should be something we'd ought to consider if we are trying to stay neutral and impartial. --M ASEM (t) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The opinions of this amorphous, unidentifiable group of people are far less important to the article than sticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in original research. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #unknown

 * Indeed, I also don't see how saying an attack is misogynistic is the same thing as saying all GG supporters are misogynist, that's quite a leap. — Strongjam (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The language of the article says the movement is anyone using the hashtag, and that the attacks are done by those supporting the hashtag. That's an implicit connection to be avoiding. --M ASEM (t) 14:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What bothers me here is that ultimately this is an argument from the unknown. As discussed, there is no way to get any sort of accurate demographics from a hashtag.  It is asserted that there are factions within GamerGate, and that much I think is obvious.  What is not obvious is how big any of them are.  Is it possible that the "misogynistic (for lack of a better term)" element is infinitesimally small?  Absolutely.  Is it possible that that element represents 98% of the hashtag users?  I don't believe that, but it's certainly possible.  In the face of the unknown, I think it's more important than ever to remain agnostic and simply go with the RS.  That being said, I agree that this doesn't need to be so contentious.  Perhaps there's some sort of compromise describing the attacks as "apparently motivated by misogyny," or some such? Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly on target. The point is not saying the RSes are wrong, because we clearly have nothing to show they are flat out wrong, so this is not saying to go off track of what the RSes are saying, but simply to temper the language to show this is what has been claimed by the press and nothing yet factual. In the case of describing the attacks "apparently motivated by misogyny" or any similar language is completely fair, particularly as we have a whole section that goes into detail why misogyny is believed to be tied to GG. It is not at attempt to bury the claims of misogyny but simply state as claims. --M ASEM  (t) 16:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I re-read the lede, the less I think my suggestion works. "Misogynistic" there clearly is describing the attacks themselves, and not the intent behind them.  I think it does the article a disservice to not mention that said attacks were directed at the targets AS women, for a clumsy way of putting it.  That being said, perhaps "gendered" attacks would be one way to put it while avoiding this apparent hot-button? Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "gendered attacks" would be using WEASEL wording. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The attacks being perceived as misogynistic in nature is completely fine. They focused on women, they used gender-directed threats. That aspect is supported with the near unanimity of sources without question, but that language also keeps it to a clear and fair observational stance without knowledge of the true intents. --M ASEM (t) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

While I am not sure that using "gendered" would be weasel wording (though I will happily defer on this point), the more I think about it, the 'perception' issue is. "Misogynistic" here is arguably not describing the motives for the attack but rather the mode of attack itself. Forgive my jargon here, but there is an actual act and a mens rea--a guilty mind. We can certainly call attacks that "focus on women [and] use[] gender-directed threats" as misogynistic without regard to the subjective intent of the speaker. In the actual body of the article the claims seem to me well-sourced, and so I think the lede needs to mention this in stronger terms than "perception." Sorry to vacillate so, but I tried to think hard about the function of the lede and this statement within it. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've proposed "a misogynistic pattern of harassment" which is something we can say as an unequivacle fact, and defer factual statement of motives to the larger discussion in the body of the article. It's that pattern that brought attention, regardless of the motives of GGers. --M ASEM (t) 19:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Urgh. No thank you. The less weasel words the better- if news sources can state it clearly and understandably, so can we. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no weasel words in that, and it avoids any contentious statements or labeling of groups. --M ASEM (t) 19:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the phrasing 'a misogynistic pattern of harassment' is not just a weasel wordy way of avoiding the use of misogynistic as an accurate adjective for the actions of those discussed. Also: Spellcheck is telling me that it's spelt 'unequivocal'. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it strikes me that a misogynistic pattern is different from misogynistic attacks. If I call every woman I see "stupid," arguably that's a misogynistic pattern without being a misogynistic attack. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly; the symptom - that the harassment is directed with gender-biased language towards women - can come about from other causes than just misogynistic motivations. For example, we know an issue highlighted is that GG have issues with "social justice warriors" - that they don't want people pushing any type of message in games. By nature of this so-called social justice, most of their SJW targets are female, but that doesn't mean they have an issue with feminism or are misogynistic - just anyone pushing a message. But without knowing the reasons, the end result is a misogynistic pattern. Clearly, we have a whole section in the article that highlights why the most likely cause of GG is misogyny in the gaming community and that's great to build out the opinions of why they think GGers are misogynistic, but that all is properly identified as opinion and claims, not factual, as it should be.
 * Now, an issue that I am seeing is that there's two possible ways to read the term "misogynistic attacks" based on how people are discussing this. I've always read the phrase as "attacks that are motivated by misogyny", but there's clearly others reading it as "attacks that appear to be misogynistic". In the latter case, the phrasing "misogynistic attacks" would be fine, because reading it that way, its only describing the end result, not the people behind it, and which is readily visible without knowing the inner workings of GG. But the phrasing can be read in a different way that can assign the label to the people behind it. Hence the need to be a bit more exacting in describing the terms to avoid the potential misread. --M ASEM (t) 20:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * several articles clearly deal with the discussions of the "but ethics" people explaining their motivations: nope, not ethics - misogyny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a claim, not fact, particularly when the people that are being called out that they are really about harassment are stating otherwise, even if we consider the possible case that the GG group is flat out lying and using it as a cover. That's a clear and obvious contentious statement and must be presented that way. --M ASEM (t) 02:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * no, it is a fact that segal and several others who have directly connected with the "but ethics" and when asked "what do you mean by that?" comes up with "more talking points that are clearly not about ethics" and when clarified that [objective reviews are not actually ethics or whatever other fatuous point has been shown to have no meaning or be actually debunked] the next layer is right there blatant misogyny about feminazi cunts need to die because they are ruining my games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Singal's pieces at no time state that GG is not about ethics. From his NYMag piece "I think Gamergate is primarily about anger at progressive people who care about feminism and transgender rights and mental health and whatever else is getting involved in gaming, and by what gamergaters see as overly solicitous coverage of said individuals and their games. And here’s the thing: That’s fine! It's an opinion I happen to disagree with, but it’s a coherent, concrete viewpoint. Say what you will about the tenets of anti-progressivism, dude, but at least it’s an ethos." He recognize what they claim about themselves - and then rightly goes on to say that their message is being lost being being unorganized, leaderless, and staying with the GG label. He never states factually that GG is not able ethics. --M ASEM  (t) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be reading a different part of the article than you quoted, because what you quoted is clearly stating that what they are about is not ethics- its anti-progressivism. And that they are either oblivious to the fact that that is what they are actually championing is anti-progressivism and not ethics or are actively attempting to hide what they are actually about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The part about overly solicitious coverage is about ethics of journalism (when taking the entire article article in whole). And it doesn't matter if they are misstaken about what they are asking about, that's still their claim. Yes, it very much weakens and undermines what they claim to be about, but that's not our place to be judgemental about that. --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An ostensible claim made by particular anonymous individuals who have nothing to back up that they are speaking for anyone other than themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Singal identifies that this is out of the KIA forum. The individuals may be anonymous but this is identified in RSes as a central point. Singal makes this clear. That is their self-stated claim as reported by Singal. --M ASEM (t) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, KIA IS gamergate? and if so, there are plenty within KIA to support that gg IS misogynistic WITH misogynistic intent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear that your trouble with interpreting the term is something that most readers would not have, and by changing how we're describing these misogynistic attacks we would obscure its meaning from the average reader. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's clearly others in this discussion that see it read the way I described, so that confusion is possible. Hence why we should be using the language that removes any ambiguity. --M ASEM (t) 22:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence 'most readers' and not 'most editors', Masem. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be making that distinction. If editors see that a phrase can be misread and give a different meaning from that misread, we should use a phrase that avoids any ambiguity. (For example, this is why we avoid using seasonal terms since what they mean have different meanings in different parts of the world). --M ASEM (t) 22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears we need an RFC on this issue, and a few others in the article.  Marcos12 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Marcos12 What other issues do you think should undergo the RFC process? It would be helpful to know.  Thank you.  Dumuzid (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This distinction is what I was trying to get at with my clarification above. I suspect that to someone well-versed in gender politics the meaning will be clear; to the average reader, it is not.  Masem's 'misogynistic pattern of attacks' above is the sort of thing I was looking for – something that says 'misogynistic' but is clearer about the meaning – but it still feels clunky.  GoldenRing (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the arguments I've seen on this talk page before is about how gamergate is an "amorphous, leaderless, structureless phenomenon" or how "the "movement" has steadfastly refused to identify a leader or spokesperson or generate an official manifesto". But in the Lede it says it is coordinated on 4chan, 8chan and Reddit to commit these misogynistic attacks and thus we are defining the movement as a misogynistic movement. Masem's wording seems to work well. It separates the nature of the attacks from the nature of the group which is of course amorphous etc and cannot be defined as misogynistic... At least without some qualifier as per the "Some/Many users in Lede" section. TyTyMang (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But we can still make statements of fact about it when the coverage among reliable sources is overwhelmingly in agreement; in this case, I think it clearly is. The only argument above seems to be "yes, but these people are opposed to the reliable sources, so we shouldn't treat them as reliable in this case!"  That's not a valid argument to ignore WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: KKK, Osama, The Holocaust, EP Massacre

 * It is intentionally loaded, emotive language, and it only serves to poison the well right from the start. Let's drag up some of the worst parts of human history where we have managed to avoid such inflammatory language in their lede's:
 * Ku Klux Klan - Never directly called racist or a hate group, only attributed.
 * Osama bin Laden - Never directly stated as a terrorist, only attributed.
 * The Holocaust - Never directly stated as racist, only attributed.
 * École Polytechnique massacre - Never directly called misogynistic or sexist (or the attacks called such), only debated.
 * I submit that the above pages avoid this kind of language as they are actually attempting to be encyclopedic, rather than this page's intention the invoke emotional reactions or right great wrongs. We should be better than this. Galestar (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a problem at other articles then those should be fixed. I would not argue for mistakes made elsewhere to be repeated here. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those pages are doing things right. They are not POV pushing or attempting to right great wrongs.  This page is.  Galestar (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * KKK are noted for promoted racism. Use "GG is noted for promoting misogyny" wording? Osama, in the lede, is noted having been on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. The Holocaust is called genocide - using a more specific term than racism. Use "GG is anti-feminist"?  The EP Massacre is perhaps more debateable.  ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I ask that no-one take this as an invitation to go over to those pages and starting to insert incendiary language. Galestar (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: close this section, too, start new sections
This section is a monster and covering a range of topics. I propose we close this, and each person who wants to continue a sub-topic, start a new section. I'm reaching the limit of my ability to follow what's happening in this section. (I originally meant to put this on this section, but I added it to the wrong one above, but it probably needs the same treatment.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually just about to make this section. I support this 10000% Kaciemonster (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do. Scrolling past these constant walls of text is wearing down on me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Total agreement. Currently a mess. New, focused discussions would be very helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)