Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 4

Edit Request: WP:BLPNAME violation
I noted this above, but I thought I'd break this out into its own thing: her ex-boyfriend is not a notable person and his name is unnecessary to understanding the article. It should be removed per WP:BLPNAME. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree; her ex-boyfriend has voluntarily injected himself into a public debate by publishing personal relationship details on the Internet, voluntarily participated in the 4chan chats which allegedly organized the harassment of Quinn and has voluntarily spoken publicly about the issue. One can't make repeated and very public efforts to air their dirty laundry and then claim a presumption of privacy. He voluntarily widely disseminated his name and has made no effort to conceal it; indeed, he's still talking about the issue on Twitter. There are no grounds for removing his name under BLPNAME. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then we should probably name the game devs involved as well. Also, this contradicts your stated reasons for repeatedly deleting my posts. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Quinn, Fish, and Sarkeesian, as well as various journalists, are all mentioned. Gjoni gets no special treatment.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You've been one of the most insistent voices for including information about the incident to the Zoe Quinn article and now you are trying to censor information about the ex-boyfriends name? He is pretty much responsible for this harassment campaign, GamerGate wouldn't exist without him. As long as this article exists, he should be named as a huge, vocal party of it --5.81.52.138 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm seems like Mr. Dragon's true colors are shining forth. Btw, before ever seeing this section I created the name last night as a redirect to this article.  It is a plausible search term, and we are here to inform the readers after all. No standalone article is warranted at this time, but you never know going forward... Tarc (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not a BLP issue to name him, but I also think that we can editorially opt to leave his name out as that is the only place where it comes up (unlike Quinn's). --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose any effort to remove the name of the person who sparked this whole sordid mess. He voluntarily chose to make his dirty laundry a public issue and the reliable sources have not failed to notice. Doing so would be perverse in the extreme - we would essentially be allowing him to make anonymous accusations of infidelity in the encyclopedia. Rubbish. He started it, he's named in the reliable sources and he's stuck with it now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * while it might feel good to burden someone who has made other people's lives a hell with their "tirade" of "dirty double load of laundry", that is not Wikipedia's job and certainly not an acceptable rationale. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, that's not the rationale. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of the alleged rationale for removing it. The rationale for including it is that reliable sources include it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They have, but consider what we're struggling with in terms of viewpoint, I'd rather see us not include it by editorial choice. There's no policy that prevents its inclusion, it's just a random detail. --M ASEM (t) 21:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not "a random detail," it's the name of the person whose very public allegations sparked the entire mess. These reliable sources all agree, and here is Eron's voluntary interview with VICE in which he makes public accusations about Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but again, in summarizing this all, his name (not his role) is more a footnote to this. In fact, all that is needed is to establish who Quinn is, and that she an ex that allegated something towards her. We really don't need his name. Please note that I am not arguing for any policy-based reason to remove his name as it does fall within allowances of BLP, just that we don't need it for the narrative even though out sources do name it. --M ASEM (t) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we omit his name, we are allowing him to anonymously make allegations of infidelity. He has made very specific and very personal allegations about Zoe Quinn, and it is unacceptable for us to publish those allegations without directly attributing them to the named person who made them. It's bad enough we can't directly source the allegations of professional impropriety to the people making them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not here to fix that, and by at least identifying as her ex boyfriend, that at least means its not a random person making the claims. Additionally, the key charge of professional improprietary has been debunked by Kotaku so who made that exact charge doesn't matter. --M ASEM  (t) 21:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's what BLPNAME says, in pertinent part: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.
 * Eron Gjoni's name has been widely disseminated and there is no evidence that he seeks to conceal his involvement — on the contrary, he continues to involve himself in the controversy. He is directly involved in the article's topic, as the person who acted to instigate the controversy by widely seeking publicity for his allegations about Zoe Quinn. He is not loosely involved and his name and identity are obviously highly relevant to the subject. If we conceal his name, we are, in effect, permitting him to anonymously make allegations of wrongdoing about a living person, which is unacceptable. For these reasons, there is no policy grounds under BLPNAME for the removal of this information. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. the man's name has been used in enough sources by now that it is at least worth a mention. He isn't a minor, thus there is no extra or special protection warranted here.  As I noted earlier, Eron Gjoni is currently a redirect to this article. Tarc (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How he is mentioned is more important than if he is mentioned. He is not a gamer according to any sources.  He is not a misogynist.  He has not been critical of Depression Quest.  He is not a member of reddit as far as I have seen.  He has not made any threats or harassed her except a blog that documents his own thoughts.  So exactly how will he be included?  I agree that he deserves mention as the start of this but it also points out that the start of this had nothing to do with misogyny, sexism or gamers.  He called out what he saw as improper employer/employee relationship (is the name of the boss worth mentioning - he's actually a notable figure?) as well as an improper journalist/developer relationship.  He only named notable people (i.e. boss, journalist, developer).  That it was personal to him and specific to Zoe destroys any broad labels being applied to him.  He doesn't do game development and doesn't appear to be a gamer.  More of a participant in tumblr in some fashion (I'm sure someone can explain tumblr vs. reddit as I have only come across anecdotes).  --DHeyward (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason GG started is because there were those in the gaming community that, already with a strong dislike towards Quinn because of DQ, jumping on the exes accusations to further their attacks; most rationaly wondered if this was a professional improprietary but some, speaking the loudest, harassed her - importantly positing their claims against her strong pro-feminine stance. That's the start of GG and that is what is being called by the press as misogynist, not what the ex did. --M ASEM  (t) 23:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He does have a reddit account and has contributed to many reddit threads about Quinn/GamerGate, as well as the GamerGate IRC logs that Quinn leaked 5.81.52.138 (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of journalists in similar fashion to JournoList
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/40217/the-biggest-gaming-news-sites-are-involved-in-a-massive-conspiracy/index.html http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/

The evidence is mounting day by day about the massive conspiracy amongst journalists/game devs. Arstechnica journalist have acknowledgement of it and is apologizing for it. But that doesn't wipe out the evidence that they have and are still currently conspiring with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You can compare this to "JournoList" when there is evidence of similar widespread mainstream coverage.
 * More to the point, there is no evidence of actual collusion presented; rather, what we have is evidence that journalists talked to one another. BREAKING: People in a profession discuss issues related to that profession with each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The creator of the list offered up a lengthy response, but nothing more so far. Milo Yiannopoulos seems to be planning another piece so it may get more attention after that. For now it is not being taken seriously by reliable sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So...a mailing list that served as a private version of Linkedin is being used as evidence of mass collusion and nefarious misdeeds? The AngryGamers are getting a bit...desperate? Tarc (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So far, we have: gaming media persons saying they won't cover a topic because they don't like it (GamerGate), and that they should all buy a present for Zoe (a developer). Both unethical. More coming. :) Willhesucceed (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there were people saying they wouldn't cover it because they didn't believe it was newsworthy. That's news judgment, and it's part of being a journalist. Journalists are not obligated to write about everything anyone wants them to write about. Otherwise they'd literally write about everything and if everything is news, then nothing is.
 * From what I've seen, there were some people saying they didn't believe allegations about a non-public-figure's private life were newsworthy. Some people disagreed. There were some debates and discussions. Hardly evidence of a globe-spanning conspiracy. I don't know if you realize this, but people who share a profession talk to each other *all the time* and have since the beginning of time. Whether it was in low-rent, smoke-filled bars or on Internet mailing lists, people talk with others in their profession about issues related and unrelated to their work. There is nothing "corrupt" about an Internet water-cooler. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, that's not all they share. They seem to share bed quite often, as confirmed by fellow game journalist of Techradar. "Who here hasn't slept with a PR person or game developer? #AMIRITE

" - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/18/The-emails-that-prove-video-games-journalism-must-be-reformed 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * someone doesnt recognize a joke when it climbs in bed beside them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So the very "worst" and "most damning" evidence of collusion that Breitbart can dredge up is one person suggesting a letter of support, two people sort of agreeing with it, one person joking about it and several others saying that it's not a good idea and that they have ethical concerns with it? That's your "conspiracy"? I don't think this e-mail list could agree on where to have lunch. That's without even considering the fact that we're dealing with selectively-quoted snippets of selectively-chosen e-mails from a thread that was likely much larger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "I like the signed letter of support idea. Even better if we can get some developers in on that."
 * "I'd also suggest that - if others think the letter is a good idea - we should do this entirely under the radar, organizing it through word-of-mouth and email rather than Twitter."
 * Also, no, no, there's even more coming. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your first quote is from one of the two people who sort of agreed with it. Your second quote is from the same person who proposed the idea. Three others are quoted as saying the press shouldn't become involved and two raise ethical concerns. That's out of 150 people on the list. This is hardly evidence of a massive conspiracy.
 * Further, Jason Schreier has stated that Breitbart's selective quoting doesn't show a large number of responses on the list from people who didn't believe sending a letter of support was appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The twitter link you gave shows that the journalists are still hesitant to cover this story because they are uncomfortable with it. There is a story, just that journalist are not covering it. The Miloleak is just a small sample of what is happening. There's evidence all over the internet, with the exception of journalists reporting it themselves, being discussed. Milo is one of the few that is actively reporting this corruption within the gaming industry and putting out new evidence. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Schreier said the letter "didn't happen because most people didn't feel comfortable with it." That phrase in context here. Taking things out of context and misreading conversations isn't evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are now trying to change the narrative there. They conspired. Whether it failed or succeeded is not the question here. That's for another section as that hasn't been verified yet. Right now, the only verifiable source is the one from the group discussion where they conspired with one another. That's a story because the discussion is about ethics of journalists, who sleep around with each other, conspire with each other to write stories that paint a single view, offer/trade favors, etc. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a story, but for now it is not a story that has been picked up in enough reliable sources for it to merit inclusion in this article. Maybe we could justify a single sentence about it, but for now there just is not enough attention on the matter to offer further detail. Of course, I seem to be the only one in this discussion interested in discussing the policy side. Everyone else just wants to have a debate about the validity of the allegations.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Acknowledgement via single sentence is all its needed right now. Until we have more information, this is a good start. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I point out that your statement is not supported by the source because you misread the Twitter thread or ignored the context, and you respond by accusing me of "trying to change the narrative." Quite.
 * It appears that #GamerGate supporters are so devoted to their chosen narrative that their beliefs have become non-falsifiable. I think that means #GamerGate has officially turned into a religion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith 68.191.160.219 (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore that personal attack for now. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A forum for people within a certain industry to talk about things "off the wire"? Happens everywhere in every profession. An editor making a comment and realizing later it was taken in the wrong light and apologizing for that? That's editorial responsibility. There's no story here. --M ASEM (t) 23:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia editors often discuss things on mailing lists and chat rooms and we know nothing skeevy ever happens there . . . Anyway, since this is not a forum for discussion and we are not a news organization I believe all we can say for now is that we only have Breitbart reports and the Ars Technica statement. I think we need at least one or two major outlets covering this on its own to justify any mention of it in the article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay . . . so . . . should we include a single sentence about this in the article citing Breitbart and the Ars Technica source or not?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source, so no. Right now all there is is Ars. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. There's a fairly simple Wikipedia rule here - anything that depends on a cite from Breitbart is automatically bullshit. Amazing how consistently that rule works. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is reliable for the purpose of noting the allegations, though we would have to attribute the allegations to them in any material added to the article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Under no circumstances should we be publishing accusations sourced to Milo or to Breitbart.com, even on this talk page. The site is not merely unreliable, it has a history of spreading malicious lies.  The ars technica article does no more than acknowledge that the accusations have been made and defend itself from them: that's not a reason to spread these rumors, it's a reason not to.  Suggest closing this section and any future ones unless these accusations and innuendos are published in a real source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Breitbart is reliable for nothing. We've already had more than one RFC case due to this "source" (see gun control RFC/ARB passim). To use a simple term, Breitbart makes stuff up. A good percentage of their websites is simply lies. If they posted a story saying it was snowing outside their office (and included a photo) most people would head straight for weather websites to check it. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos is a reliable source. DHeyward (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol, not even remotely. This is a right-wing blogger/tabloid writer, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a complete mischaracterization of him. He's the author of the piece.  He's an advisor to The Daily Dot which we use often and he contributes to a number of other publications.  Complaining about Breitbart for providing the space is a lot like complaining about the color of paper he used.  It's his story and there is no reason to believe he is not a reliable source or credible journalist.  You've providing nothing other than "lol" as your source and it greatly contradicts our own biography of him.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how reliable sources work. Reliability doesn't attach to a person's name, it attaches to the place where the content is published. If a journalist publishes something on their personal blog, that personal blogpost is not a reliable source, no matter how good that journalist is. Why? Because the content hasn't been vetted by a credible editorial process such as those adhered to by mainstream media. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Sources can be a type of work, an author, 'or' a publisher.  It's right at the top of the definition.  An RS requires that it is "published" (meaning available to the public, so, check) and that the source (one of the three types listed) is reliable.  If we used your standard, NBC News reporters would never be reliable because an individual journalist secretly attached rocket motors to cars to show how dangerous certain cars were.  Conversely, if a noted journalist moves to a different publisher, their standards are not lowered by default. If you have a history of how Yiannopoulos is not reliable point to it, but Breitbart doesn't infect him as being unreliable nor would BusinessWeek suddenly attach reliability.  Bob Woodward writes lots of stuff and it's his reputation that makes it reliable, not the publisher that offered him the most money to write it. It need only be published (by anyone) and written by him.  Yiannopoulos looks like a genius with this OKCupid column about two weeks before GamerGate (Zoe and ex met through OKCupid) . --DHeyward (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does being right-wing blogger make him an unreliable source? Are you saying wikipedia is only good for left wing bloggers? 76.27.230.7 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is reliable for noting what Breitbart has reported. It is definitely a partisan source, though, and should be attributed as such. Of course, personally, I don't really have a high opinion of news media generally-speaking so perhaps that is why I am not particularly persuaded by the "Breitbart is evil incarnate" commentary.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything he published on Breitbart is not. For details, see our handy article on Breitbart.com, which helpfully provides a list of just some of the times the site has lied, fabricated evidence, published hoaxes or otherwise tendentiously pursued non-stories. The site has shown a blatant disregard for the truth when falsehoods better fit its agenda. Just as we cannot use DailyKos as a reliable source because it lacks adequate editorial controls, so too we are barred from using Breitbart. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is reliable for noting what Breitbart reported with the response from Orland.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The publication has a history of publishing outright defamatory information. We can not repeat these accusations, not even with the qualification that Brietbart made them, because it would be a violation of our policy on biographies of living persons. You need high quality sourcing for these accusations to even make the argument that they're notable enough to include. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart has put out some inaccurate details after not doing sufficiently thorough checking and sometimes selectively edited material or presented comments out of context to make something look worse. You could say that about pretty much every major news outlet. In-text attribution is more than sufficient to cover for that.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN if you'd like a second opinion. But any controversial information about a BLP subject that is  being essentially ignored by every media source but one is already distinctly iffy.  When the one source that's covering it is one with a reputation for publishing outright lies?  No.  -- TaraInDC (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is BLPN or RSN even matter? The leak isn't about a person, its about group of journalists conspiring. Its a leak. There is nothing specific about a person or their biography. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're interpretting it that way is the very problem Wikipedia is trying to avoid.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the complete e-mail thread that Milo went off about. Makes it very obvious that his examples were cherry-picked, and the vast majority of people responding to the "letter" and "gift" idea made the case that it was not appropriate. To wit, "This seems like an absolutely terrible idea," "It’s just plain inappropriate for a group of relative strangers to offer up what amounts to a reassuring pat on the back," "That being said, I do see everyone’s point about it being somewhat inappropriate for a group of relative strangers to send a public note of support," "This situation is awful, but it’s not the place of anyone here to get involved on any level," "Count me out of the letter, for a wide variety of reasons," etc. None of those responses made it into his article, because they didn't support his narrative. Fantastic conspiracy of journalists agreeing that a public letter of support would be inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would journalists ever offer letters of support for their topics? Let's put it this way: journalists that cover Wall Street don't invest on Wall Street.  Commentators that cover specific financial sectors as experts disclose all of their interests. It would be very unseemly for journalists to offer a specific letter of support for any subject they are covering.  Doxxing as a general matter is fair game to condemn as a journalist.  Doxxing of an individual that teeters on the brink of public figure would not be appropriate to condemn.  This is plainly obvious when it happens in other areas.  Paparrazzi are roundly condemned in general and their targets get sympathy.  Not specifically, though, when they catch a public figure making a racist/sexist rant.  There are never specific letters of support like that. Zoe was a current events topic and other than covering the event, there is no cheerleading allowed for journalists.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Let's put it this way: journalists that cover Wall Street don't invest on Wall Street. " Yes they do, but they usually state if there is some financial connection between them and a specific company they are reporting on, or otherwise simply try to avoid stories on that to avoid conflict of interest. GG has opened the eyes of some journalists in video games to realize that their industry needs this too. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

4 people is the "vast majority"? Okay ... From the e-mails released, it's clear that some of the people who work in games media are unnecessarily close to their subjects, that some of them don't know about what's appropriate or ethical, that they've been cherry picking what to cover, and that they've been trying to cover their own asses. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We, as Wikipedia editors, cannot even begin to touch any concerns on if what these devs are doing is ethical or not in the article without sourcing to back it up. If such "corruption" was bad, we'd have non-VG sources on this determining if it is bad. You are free to think that, but you cannot push that POV without any reliable sourcing to back this up as a point. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is reporting on the leaked e-mails?
Let's collect them all here.

Inside the secret world of games journalism

Willhesucceed (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone format these into a group ref or note ?
Can someone format this into a group ref or note to tag on the end of the last sentence of the lead so we dont have to continually let the SPAs know that the false claims have been identified as such by multiple reliable sources? Thanks!
 * 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,"
 * Wa Po: "The site investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing"(ref name=WaPo/)
 * Forbes: "the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire"(ref name=Forbes/)


 * There are many sources that point toward an ethics and corruption breach, and we have the sources that I listed earlier that say it. The Time article says nothing about that, and the Forbes article is talking about the Nathan Grayson corruption, not journalistic corruption. The edit you made needs to be reverted. PseudoSomething (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only accusation/claim that matters to how GG started is the statement from the ex that Quinn was in a romantic relationship with Grayson (which is not in question), and that the gamer community took take to say she was using that relationship to get good reviews, which was proven false because Grayson never reviewed or wrote about her after that relationship started. The ex made no claims on journalistic integrity (initially, no idea what he might have said since), and while there are now issues and concerns with journalistic integrity now, those claims did not start GG. --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly, kinda weird how that intro doesn't make sense when gamergate had ethic policy changes, right? The hashtag that included the fast food joint is what was started from the Zoe Post, GG blew up when things like direct funding to certain people and false lies that were directed to people like wizardchan and TFYC. Before that though, they also had the indiecade accusation(she slept with someone on a panel she got an award from), and her boss. So there was more than just the Nathan Grayson thing. PseudoSomething (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, again, wrong. We have to go what was reported, and every RS source points out that the accusations of journalist ethics came out after Quinn and friends were harassed when those allegations around. Everything else fell out of that single event. The issue of ethics emerged from that mess, but it wasn't the cause of the events as determined by reliable sources. And yes, I'm aware of the accusations about IndieCade, but there's nothing in any RS to support that either. --M ASEM  (t) 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian " They are tired of being dictated to by writers they refer to as social justice warriors, interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, then the content itself. Now we have a schism and it has become destructive. Game journalists vs gamers." Forbes "While the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born." Digitimes "What started out as an innocuous sex and bribery scandal involving, among others, a blogger at one of the gaming sectors' leading bloggs, exploded into controversy when those attempting to discuss the allegations were silenced on numerous seemingly unrelated gaming forums as well as link aggregators such as reddit." Kotaku "GamerGate, however, does not appear to just be about the reclamation of the term "gamer. It appears to be, for some, a rallying call to root out the ethical malfeasance of games reporters, a cause that I'm sympathetic with to a degree." Are we going to ignore all the other sources? Like what has been happening this whole time? those are only a few big names I picked out, also. PseudoSomething (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all reasons explaining the situation for why gamers were angry (and these have all been discussed in the Analysis section so they are not being ignored), but it does not explain why some opted for harassment (not complaints) of Quinn and others just because of a possible journalist ethics issue. The media have framed GG around the harassment of Quinn et al, and we are in no place to change that, but we can do everything else in our power as editors to try to help explain why gamers are dissatisfied with the industry they consume. But it is absolutely wrong for us to try to pretend that is the issue when the media does not. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is all reasons -why- gamergate came about. No, it does not talk about why some opted for harassment, but we have RS'es!!!!! to show what Gamergate was pushing for, and that it wasn't just those allegations. I feel like im taking crazy pills, have I gathered sources ::From the Media::, from big names and from independents, but they are -all- being ignored. I have seriously thrown sources at everyone who asked for them, and they just ignore them or don't reply. Why the hell are these being ignored? "They are tired of being dictated to by writers they refer to as social justice warriors, interested more in the issues of representation and sociocultural meaning in games and game development, then the content itself." "the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born." "exploded into controversy when those attempting to discuss the allegations were silenced on numerous seemingly unrelated gaming forums as well as link aggregators such as reddit."" "It appears to be, for some, a rallying call to root out the ethical malfeasance of games reporters," Again, these are only a few of the big names. PseudoSomething (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As "GamerGate" did not exist until after the fact of harassment, there is zero evidence or claims by RS that the community chose to use the impropriety claims to launch a rational discussion on the issue of journalist ethics. In fact, if you take the hypothetic case where there was a vocal element of gamers that wanted change in journalism ethics on Quinn's ex's claims but absolutely none of the harassment issues that came up, we wouldn't be here as the event would never have caught mainstream coverage and there would be no such thing as GG; it would be a small section over on video game journalism or the like. The reason we are here is that the media (mainstream and video game press) saw Quinn and her supports getting harassed and issued death threats because of these allegations about sleeping for reviews. You cannot bury your head on that point; this is the focus of attention and why people are going "WTF?" when it comes to the gamer community. It might now have shifted about a sane discussion of ethics, but it's far too late to say that that was the reason GG started. --M ASEM (t) 15:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of those sources also have heavy Bias, like Times and The New Yorker. That isn't the issue here though. I provided you with evidence from RS'es that gamergate started because of "the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born.", " "It appears to be, for some, a rallying call to root out the ethical malfeasance of games reporters,"" and so on. I have provided you SO MANY RS'es and you still say "You cannot bury your head on that point", these sources are from when it started and during the 'Hatred of women' aspect, also! So I have provided you RS'es that say that, I have shown you in them where they say that, and I have only included the big names that "caught mainstream coverage". GG started BEFORE the 'Death of gamers' thing happened also, meaning that "we wouldn't be here as the event would never have caught mainstream coverage and there would be no such thing as GG" is wrong, because it started -before- mainstream coverage. That is sourceable. PseudoSomething (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is: first - do you agree or disagree that the specific claim (that arose from the original ex's claim) that was put on Quinn that she has a romantic relationship with Grayson for the purpose of getting positive reviews, has been proven wrong by Kotaku and the three sources at the start of this section? If you can't agree with that point, then there's no way to proceed, because we as WPian have to report what reliable sources say about that specific fact.
 * Second, we cannot deny that nearly every article, within the first few paragraphs, talk about how after that accusation against Quinn was issued, she was harassed. They make no attempt to say there was any special movement or the like before GG started (and again, I'm purposely ignoring anything from Quinn's reported logs from 4chan/irc). They start with that as "why are we reporting on this" and then move onto why are gamers so frustrated that some would turn to harassment to express their views. They do not make any attempt to say that gamers were, as a group, trying to address the issues of journalistic ethics or the like before the ex's accusation, but all point out that after the fact, these matters came to the forefront of discussion, and it was recognized that gamers have been frustrated by media issues for some time. But it was not this frustration that created the specific event that got covered. --M ASEM  (t) 15:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I fully agree that the sources, and personally, that Grayson is not guilty of that charge. Yes, ZQ was harassed by a few anonymous users. "but all point out that after the fact, these matters came to the forefront of discussion," ... except they all don't say that. I gave you plenty of both mainstream and independent articles that showed that Journalism ethics were at the forefront of the discussion. Why are these being ignored, because you and others are explicitly ignoring the sources that I and others have given. These sources fall under WP:RS. They were published around the same time as the others, and there are a large amount of them. Hell, we can even find in many of the anti-GG articles about all the edits where they find that Adam Baldwin coined 'Gamergate', and was focused on the corruption that was uncovered. So the coin was termed, the issues of ethics were surrounding it, we have sources for this also, but instead we ignore those sources and go with ones pushing the 'Hatred of Women'? Please don't make me have to go and source every article I already have, because I will. I don't want to though, because they have been ignored 5-6 times by now? PseudoSomething (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not ignoring you or those sources. What the problem is is this, is we have this series of steps: Ex makes claim, then others jump on that to claim she romantically involved to get reviews. If GG was really about journalistic integrity, we would have sources that explain more on this specific claim because, in a rational mode of thought, yes, there would be integrity issues if a dev was involved with a reviewer. But those didn't come then, they came after the harassment and subsequent negative attention the gamer community received. At which point, as the dust from the harassment settled, it was clear that gamers have had a long standing issue with ethics; those might have fueled the accusation about Quinn and Grayson, but they did not start what everyone else calls GG.  Let's put it another way: that while I'm certain the majority of gamers supporting GG want to make sure the discussion about ethics is at the forefront going forwards, the third-party media sources to this (including those you have cited repeated) have focused GG on how it looks externally: the issue of a portion of gamers being misogynic and chosing harassment over discussion to express their opinions. I've been working to try to provide as much "positive" analysis of why we got to this point using those sources to effectively say that only a portion of the gamer community was responsible for such events and that there really is a desire to improve the industry, but I can't outright say that because no sources say that as simply as possible, and these sources do not ignore the flashpoint of the harassment, and in fact make it the central point to start discussion. --M ASEM  (t) 16:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, you -are- ignoring them. "they came after the harassment and subsequent negative attention the gamer community received.". The sources I am listing, many of them, are around the exact same time as the ones over the harassment. They tell what GG is, and what it is working for. "have focused GG on how it looks externally: the issue of a portion of gamers being misogynic and chosing harassment over discussion to express their opinions" Thats not what Forbes, Slate, Kotaku, or many of the other sources say. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Until sourcing reporting on Gamergate downplay the harassment issues, the approach taken by all these articles (including those you just mentioned) that GG was a result of harassment of Quinn and others after accusations were made about her, and in the subsequent fallout, issues that gamers have had with things like ethics, etc. started to become clear. That's how the event is framed through popular media, and unfortunately we can't change that framing without violating POV. --M ASEM (t) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They absolutely do freaking not! Go check my list of sources. All of them are about the ethics. They may mention the harassment, but it is no where near the main point, just like the ones pushing the harassment talking about the ethics. Half the sources, the popular media, Forbes, Digitimes, Slate, Kotaku..... frame the issues as an ethics problem, and I would source every freaking article again if I didn't think, that one again, they would be ignored. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Masem, I feel the Time article is not reliable for that quote. We see from the same authors article on Gamasutra including a very vitrol, curse filled insult toward pro-GG people. I seriously believe we cannot trust that article because of that issue. PseudoSomething (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Time is a reliable source, even if the author was outspoken elsewhere - Time had editorial control and thus that statement is not a problem, additionally as it cooroboates with other RSes. --M ASEM  (t) 14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please address the massive censorship
Discussion of this issue has become very stifled and outright denied on certain communities such as Gawker article comments, reddit, and even 4chan now. The magnitude of this censorship is what drew the attention of Wikileaks. As The Free Encyclopedia, this needs to be prioritized.

Perhaps this can be one section of the article titled dishonesty, where other sections can include other dishonest acts that game journalism websites have committed(such as blatant lack of research and plagiarism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4080:1814:6C9B:769F:4E37:4028 (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * TOO much a point of view or bias neutrality is what we strive for Retartist (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: The censorship should be discussed but the rest of the suggestion violates policy Retartist (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can provide reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards that say there is an issue of censorship instead of just your personal gripes that your comments were removed from several websites because they were just attacks on people, then censorship might be able to be addressed here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see the sources section on this talk page; there are a number of sources which note the allegations of (and actual) censorship. I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with some of the source material. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous comment. Provide the sources right here, right now.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't hard to find stuff. The reddit censorship has been widely publicized with screenshots of threads taken down, mods recording and posting the reasons by other mods, and entire sections of deleted comments compared to screenshots of them beforehand showing no abusive comments.  The amount of censorship was large enough that Wikileaks also waded into the discussion and made mention.

The Reddit censorship has been well covered and there are a number of other site that should meet verification and NPOV guidelines as a reference link. Brainplay (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Game Review site Reddit coverage: http://attackongaming.com/gaming-talk/reddit-mod-outs-reddit-for-censorship-during-gamergate/
 * New Statesman Wikileaks coverage: http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/09/wikileaks-wades-gamergate-says-nato-corrupt-video-games-journalism
 * Here is a Here is a culmination of various points of censorship. http://gamergate.giz.moe/tag/censorship


 * We are aware that there was some sites that shut down discussions, and some aspects of using DMCA takedowns, and thus brought complaints about censorship but no reliable sources have covered these factors and as such we cannot include them until they do. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. None of what you've linked are reliable sources so we can't use them.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Censorship happening at Wikipedia is also a cause for concern. http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/09/19/intellectual-bullying/ Someone did a coverage of censorship on this talk page. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone's blog is not a reliable source. Any "censorship" that happens on this page is because all pages on Wikipedia are governed by the biographies of living persons policy which states that no unsourced, negative, libelous material about any living person, particularly the subjects of articles, is allowed. That's why so much on this page has been removed. And that blog post reads like someone is intensely butthurt that their comments were removed here. It seems like it's focused entirely on Pretendus's interactions on this page as well, as it is putting his comments in a positive light. This is not ending up in the article anyway because it's pretentious navel gazing.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, I was right in my suspicions. Pretendus is absolutely the author of that piece.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why was my submission closed?
See above. I submitted this article

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/19/inside-the-secret-world-of-games-journalism/

from a site that's already been accepted as reliable. From what I can see, this new article hasn't been submitted yet.

This is the second submission I've made that's been closed without discussion or explanation. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * With links to primary sources, no less. Yikes. Well, that is going to be fun for us dealing with RSs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are more as well:


 * http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/09/gamergate-games-journalism-secret-list/


 * Again, citing primary email evidence re: deliberate, organized censorship. So, it seems that the GamerGaters were right about there being an organized campaign of censorship against them. How fun. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't "censorship" to decide that something is not of public interest and doesn't merit media coverage. That's called editorial judgment and it's literally what journalists are paid to do. Not everything is news and yes, journalists make decisions on a daily basis as to what is and is not newsworthy. I mean, do you think journalists just automatically republish every press release they get sent on a daily basis? Do journalists go to every single event on Planet Earth, because missing any event would be "censorship" of that event? Do you think it's "censorship" to decide that one company's PR release is worthy of a story and another company's PR release can be ignored? Because it isn't. You, and others, appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "censorship" means and we can't even talk on the same page until we come to a shared understanding of that word. News sites have limited staff and limited time (historically, limited space too), and the choice of what to cover and what not to cover is a fundamental free speech right of those who own and operate the publication.
 * It seems that some video game journalists felt that a public airing of personal relationship drama was not a subject fit to cover on their sites. And they talked about those decisions with other journalists. Not exactly shocking news for anyone who has a shred of understanding about the journalism profession. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're discussing your interpretation of the primary sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Source List
Bright Side of News - They had one of the best earlier reports on the issue. Pretty neutral, lots of citations of sources, looks like a pretty good article overall.

Vox has a more recent overview of the whole thing; seems like another pretty good source, pretty neutral.

Al Jazeera reported on it and even updated the article after the fact, which speaks well to their journalistic integrity and fact-checking. Originally noted the issue with the writer from The Guardian who was accused of corruption/improper ties to Zoe Quinn. Not sure if there is an archived version available anywhere of the original version.

Forbes discusses the scandal and the Striesand Effect, the Fine Young Capitalists, Phil Fish, and a lot of other things. Pretty broad overview, potentially lots of useful info, big name site.

What Culture had a "10 things you need to know about the #GamerGate Scandal" article which contains an overview of the whole thing.

Business Insider has two articles - Covers some of the reaction and back and forthing between the gaming press and gamers, as well as an overview of the situation.

Cinemablend talks about some of the issues involved with accusations of using claims of misogyny as a cover for discussion of integrity, but I'm not super fond of reporting on Twitter hashtags.

New Media Rockstars mentioned it early on, not sure if they're a great source, but it has links to original material and an overview.

Time magazine wrote something about the conflict between gamers and the gaming journalists. This is probably not a RS, because Leigh Alexander has a conflict of interest; she works for Kotaku and is involved in both PR and gaming journalism at the same time, which is precisely what her article is defending and precisely what the controversy is about.

The Guardian has some coverage of this as well; it was actually their second article.

The first Guardian article is something I'm not sure if we should cite the first or not; the conflict of interest issue there is problematic, but it could possibly be used as a cite for the claims of misogyny? Seems appropriate seeing as the person ended up getting mobbed and quitting as a result.

Kotaku changing their policy re: disclosure and support of game devs via Patreon.

Daily Dot has some info from early on about the thing.

Gamezone talks about the larger cultural context a bit.

Slate wrote about the death of gaming journalism and the fight between gamers and journalists, and the rise of bloggers.

Bustle

The Daily Beast: 1, 2

The Raw Story

The Independent

The Mary Sue

Recode

The Week

Paste

Town hall has an article discussing the whole sociopolitical position pushing.

Cinema Blend has another article about the source of some of these things, as well as contesting its depiction as misogynistic in nature. Interestingly, it notes that the hashtag started with Adam Baldwin, which I've since found several other sources repeating and, looking on Twitter, it appears to be the case. This speaks very poorly of the fact checking on all the stories which claimed that the hash-tag originated with 4Chan.

Arstechnica confirmed the origin of the #GamerGate tag.

Rock Paper Shotgun addresses the issue.

Digitimes has another rundown of the whole thing in chronological order, and concerns about it impacting console sales and thus, manufacturing jobs in Taiwan. Valuable source note: As this is a foreign newspaper, it gives us an outside perspective on the issue.

Comics Gaming Magazine covers the issue, again in rough chronological order and talking about the various stages of the whole mess and controversy.
 * This source has some potential issues as a RS, but we might discuss it if we feel like it is necessary to use for some reason. It was rejected some time ago as an RS more or less on the grounds of "what is this thing" but we might want to revisit that decision, especially given it was arrived at after they tried to insert it as a cite into a bunch of articles for self-promotion. They haven't engaged in such since, and if they're useful, they could be useful. Still, not vital, as this stuff is, I think, covered elsewhere as well.

APGNation did an interview of The Fine Young Capitalists regarding that whole issue with Zoe Quinn.
 * Masem noted that this isn't a great source, and suggests we use cinemablend instead.

The New Yorker - Takes the stance that it is all misogyny, is primarily sourced via Zoe Quinn, but does make note of the GamerGate sorts claims that it is about journalistic ethics and integrity as well. Not the best source due to being a biased source (which is problematic because their claims all have to do specifically with what they are generally and specifically biased in favor of, and the article itself doesn't really seem to make any attempt at seeing what "the other side" has to say), but we might be able to make some use of it.

Marketplace - Broadly discusses bullying, but has almost no specifics at all. Is mostly just an interview with Jennifer Hale about bullying in the video game community. Not sure how useful it is.

The Telegraph did an interview with Zoe Quinn, who claimed that it was all misogynistic attacks on her; article also interviewed (much more briefly) a few GamerGate folks, who noted that they were angry at Zoe Quinn because of unethical behavior, and that their concern was journalistic integrity and ethics in the industry.

What Culture ran another piece on it.

Brietbart.com has run a number of pieces on the whole thing, but has RS issues. They did, however, leak a bunch of very embarassing emails circulated amongst gaming journalists about censorship of the thing.

Cinema Blend has hit the high points of the above apgnation interview with TFYC, so we have a reliable source now on that side.

Paste] notes Phil Fish calling Zoe Quinn's attackers rapists and notes his aggressive behavior.

Crowdfund Insider talks about the hacking of The Fine Young Capitalists.

lemonde.fr writes about the points Sommers made in her video. Valuable source note: this is another foreign news site, this time French.

The Mirror wrote an article about it.

The Washington Post wrote an article about it, giving an overview.

Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(please add more potential sources here; if we have a good source list we can try and pull stuff in from more places)

Background Sources
The Verge and a number of other sources documented the last time Phil Fish got in a fight on the internet when he supposedly cancelled Fez 2 after yelling at gamers online; a number of articles came out around that time noting his angry attacks on people.

Bright Side of News - This article details a lot of the background leading up to GamerGate, and going through and noting various things in this might help make for a good background section.

Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

New Sources
Adland reports on the lack of wisdom of insulting one's audience. But given it was written by someone named "dabitch", I'm not exactly impressed, and I sorely doubt they're an RS. Apparently I am unaware of the world of marketing. Adland has a Wikipedia article, and apparently "dabitch" is Åsk Wäppling, who has apparently been doing this for nearly 20 years now. She apparently has been involved with reviewing ads in conjunction with the New York Times in some capacity (though alas, I am over my free article views for the month, so the article in question is behind a paywall - can anyone verify if this article mentions them in some prominent way?) and were rated as one of the most important "advertising, marketing, media, PR and digital blogs" of 2011 by Brand Republic. So, uh, maybe I'm wrong on this one? Dunno. :\ Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Gamesided reported on a survey run by GDC Next that showed that in a poll of 339 surveyed members of the gaming industry, they trust YouTube video makers over traditional press and media. Ouch. Note that this was members of the gaming industry, not gamers (though lets face it, almost everyone who makes video games also plays them). However, the mention of GamerGate was somewhat peripheral, and it was basically "look at how little trust there is for these websites". Which, well, isn't terribly surprising given recent events. Here is the primary cite on the study, but it doesn't mention GamerGate at all. Not sure if it is really relevant; possibly might be mentionable regarding the shift away from "traditional" media (when did websites become traditional?) to YouTube.

Bustle ran an article defending Anita Sarkeesian's work.

The Frisky mentions GamerGate briefly, but I'm not sure how reputable they are in general. Probalby not useful anyway; they mostly just mention it in passing in the context of "secret identities online are good because people get doxxed". I think everything mentioned in this single paragraph is mentioned elsewhere. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nichegamer talks about some men who were targeted by Gamergate. Article is from September 4th. Dunno really much about NicheGamer. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Leaked GamesJournoPros Emails
Ars Technica has a piece about the leaked journalist emails by one of the people involved (Kyle Orland), defending his own actions in supporting Zoe Quinn as well as apologizing for them.

Chinatopix wrote an article about the leaked emails from Breitbart, and talks about how Ben Kuchera participated in an organized campaign of removal of information about Zoe Quinn.

Gamer Headlines has an article about the Breitbart emails, quoting the primary material and describing it briefly.
 * "The email correspondence between the members of the GameJournoPros mailing list seems to attest to many gamer’s leering suspicions of the corrupt state of modern games journalism., due to the manipulation of coverage in regards to relevant gaming stories, as well as the manipulation of a variety of gaming websites, forums, Reddit, et cetera, in order to support gaming figures that they are sympathetic towards."

Brietbart leaked a bunch of emails from a private mailing list of game journalists, and discussed the role of Kyle Orland in promoting Zoe Quinn, Ben Kuchera's attempts at getting rid of posts about the topic, derision by several folks of the idea that there is a connection to journalistic integrity, and some confirmation of stuff we already knew as well from other sources. While we can't really use Brietbart as a RS itself, and it is busy being outraged, it is citing a lot of primary material here and is cited by some other articles noted here, so I thought I'd at least give a direct link so folks can find it more easily. EDIT: The full log of the emails has been leaked, see below. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Kyle Orland (Ars Technica): "Maybe we should just use this as an excuse to give more attention to her work... I know I've been meaning to review Depression Quest since its Steam release." "I don't want to in essence reward the jerks doing this by giving their 'issue' any attention at all ... I'm not even going to give the bullshit 'journalism ethics' excuse for these attacks the time of day."
 * "In emails seen by Breitbart London, Ben Kuchera repeatedly pressures other journalists and editors to take down material on their websites that is critical of Zoe Quinn and to close down debate about her role in the video games industry by removing comments and forum posts by members of the public asking questions about journalistic propriety." It has the text of at least pair of emails, asking for a thread to be pulled from The Escapist; following the link seems to lead to a merged thread, so it seems that The Escapist did not, in fact, delete the thread.
 * Jason Schrier notes that Grayson never reviewed Depression quest.
 * James Fudge notes that because the thread was not deleted quickly, they couldn't get rid of it now without being percieved as engaging in censorship because the thread was calling them out for censorship. I'm not sure if this was the same thread spoken about by Ben Kuchera; the context is, unfortunately, unclear in the source material. EDIT: It was indeed the same thread, as found in the primary source.
 * Ars Technica is arguably the only reliable source here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, the Ars article is problematic because it presents a conflict of interest due to reporting on something about himself; this makes it tricky to use as a source.
 * I'm not sure what is wrong with ChinaTopix; they seem like a fairly standard news site.
 * GamerHeadlines is a gaming journalist website; like most such places, it is a small outfit, but it does have an editor and apparently controls its content. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GamerHeadlines have released two articles in recent days on related issues based on incomplete material - in one they claimed Fish was being investigated based on a misinterpretation of a pulled YouTube video, and had to pull the article and any mention of it they could find, and in the other that claimed that Sarkeesian had made up the death threats based on incomplete information from Breitbart, which they had to dramatically correct. I wouldn't use them as a source - if they publish something valid, other sources will emerge that have a better track record on the issue. Chinatopix makes a fairly large error in the article regarding Quinn, and mostly seems to be just repeating the allegations from Breitbart. Again, I would expect better sources to emerge so that we wouldn't have to rely on this one. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamer Headlines updated their earlier article with a new one. Not much context given to the emails, and just has a bit of a "this is what I think at the end". Meh. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bright Side of News covers this topic as well. They have emails which don't appear in Breitbart, including a series of emails between Ryan Smith (who was asking where the line was drawn) with very, very aggressive responses from Zoe Quinn's supporters. It specifically notes Andy Eddy, Editor in Chief for @Gamer Magazine, regarding censorship of the issue. It also notes Kyle Orland noting that Zoe Quinn's Patreon getting a boost was a silver lining.
 * "My two cents: This is barely a game-industry story, no matter how some people want to frame it. This is a story about a person who happens to be in the game industry and their personal relationships (no matter how it may weave back into “the industry” and however poor the person’s judgments may have been) and public expose of private materials by that person’s partner as revenge, so I don’t think we, as games press, should support furthering the story by commenting, editorializing or even allowing others to ruminate on it." Bold is from original source.
 * The article also has a link to the full email dump from GameJournoPros, which would be a primary source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has a second article about the leaked emails pulling out a bunch of little snippets. Again, not an RS. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading through the leaked emails
On the whole, the actual context of the emails doesn't really change anything about most of them. Nothing quoted in Bright Side, Chinatopix, or GamerHeadlines was quoted in a manner so as to distort its meaning, I don't think (but see below).

Daniel Starkey of Destructoid noted "owing (Quinn) one" from previous interactions, but subsequently apparently washes his hands of it. Possibly something to watch for if we cite an article from him about this.

The "Who here hasn't slept with a PR person #AMIRITE" thing that Brietbart stuck in their article image is, in fact, in here, but in context, it is a response to someone noting that they have "slept" with a PR person in the sense of sharing a room with them at an event to save money, thus resulting in the (I assume jocular) response "Who here hasn't slept with a PR perso (SIC)" and the further response adding the #AMIRITE thing. So, nothing exciting there.

That's about it, really. So in case anyone wants to go digging, that's about all you'll find in the primary source, and none of it is very useful for quoting in the article (but some of it calls other things into question). I think the sources have it pretty well covered, though they don't talk about everything. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * None of this matters because we're not going to use this stuff.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also a pretty ridiculous BLP, COPYVIO, and NOTAFORUM violation. "I know this isn't a reliable source, but here's a link to [unreleased movie][medical records][password dump], let's discuss it." User:Titanium Dragon, you should know better and I suggest redacting all of this. Woodroar (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason given that Breitbart does not qualify as a RS. WeldNeck (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Brietbart is problematic as a source because it it is biased and is likely to exclude stuff which doesn't fit with its point of view. This makes them problematic because they may be presenting stuff out of context or in a biased context which leads us to incorrect conclusions; it is the same problem as seen in many of the other sources (The New Yorker, for instance), though I have to say, their investigative reporting is actually better than The New Yorker's was in this case, which is sad on many, many levels. I wouldn't rely on Brietbart as a primary cite for anything, really, though in this case, it is (mostly) legitimate (other than, as noted, the image that they used to draw eyes). Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken about what this is; it is a primary source. This has nothing to do with Breitbart; it is an email dump which Breitbart happened to get (much the same as any other media organization getting a leak). Primary sources are usable as RSs, but we can only use them in very narrow circumstances; see WP:RS for details. The primary problem with primary sources is that usually making use of them violates WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. All of this is public at this point, these are all reporters, and at least some of them have Wiki articles - I'm pretty sure Andy Eddy does at any rate, and the others are associated with notable outlets (Destructoid, Ars, ect.). I was going through it and making notes to basically talk about what was in it here, so that other people wouldn't have to go through it and see if there was anything interesting in there. There isn't anything which is usable, really, without violating WP:OR. I was also confirming the reliability of our sources; if the sources were quoting stuff terribly out of context, then we'd be looking at these not being well fact-checked or showing bias or whatever, and that would be problematic. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cut down the cruft to what is actually relevant to our needs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And if Breitbart's YouTube channel had uploaded the new Star Wars movie, we wouldn't link to that, either. And we wouldn't discuss how it does or doesn't affect other reliable sources, as we're not a forum and Breitbart is only a valid source about Breitbart. Woodroar (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at primary material is important for ensuring the reliability of sources; if a source is accurately using primary sources, then it is more likely to be reliable. If it is inaccurately using them, it is obviously isn't reliable, as it isn't looking at them (or is deliberately distorting what they say). We use primary sources all the time for this sort of source validation. We don't tend to use primary sources in articles for reasons articulated in WP:RS, but that doesn't mean that looking at them isn't useful to Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't link to primary sources that violate BLP or COPYVIO. Woodroar (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't violate BLP, and I don't think this would violate WP:COPYVIO either, given the nature of the material in question. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They are emails—which are automatically copyrighted, if you didn't know—about living people. Woodroar (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of copyright law. The issue is that it probably isn't a copyright violation. We have a link to the Stratfor email leak as the very first cite in 2012–13 Stratfor email leak, which suggests rather strongly to me that leaked emails are not considered to be a copyvio, nor a BLP violation. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is very odd. The FAQ at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy specifically states that linking to leaked emails is a copyright violation. Woodroar (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Emails, as per almost anything people write, are automatically copyrighted. Leaked emails are therefore copyright violations if they are published without the permission of the authors. Under US Law, linking to copyright violations, (as opposed to copyrighted material - we almost always link to copyrighted material) is seen as contributory copyright infringement and isn't something we can generally do per WP:LINKVIO. My reading would be that we can link to articles republishing part of the emails under fair use, or discussing the emails, but we can't directly link to copies of the emails themselves. Generally, as our interest is on what secondary sources say about the copyrighted source, this isn't a major issue for articles. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * : Ah, I love when Wikipedia is inconsistent about these things. :\ Wasn't there some lawsuit a while back about this? I seem to recall someone having their emails leaked and then suing people for publishing them, and not getting any money for it, but I don't remember if they lost because it was deemed legitimate or if they just were not awarded any remuneration because there was no damage because the emails had no economic value. The specific incident eludes me because there have been so many such leaks at this point that they all blur together at this point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did some Googling. Do you know how many email links there have been? I found a few lawsuits. Unfortunately, it was utterly unhelpful. This lawsuit suggests that some/many emails are probably not protected by copyright, but this lawsuit suggests that if something has a significant amount of creative effort put into it, to the point where it becomes a literary piece, it would indeed qualify for copyright protection, which is... exactly what I already knew, really. Thanks, Internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * whatever emails you find googling doesnt matter WP:OR and please stop bloating the talk page with irrelevancies WP:NOTCHAT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, did you even read the conversation? We're discussing whether or not linking to leaked emails is a WP:COPYVIO. WP:OR refers to article content, not researching externalities like whether or not something is a reliable source, whether or not something is a violation of copyright, ect. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * and all of that discussion is irrelevant bloat to the talk page as the policy shows we could not use them anyway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to analyze the emails from the primary source will be removed as original research (as well as even faster if they attempt BLP violations). If the emails are deemed to be important to be commented by on reliable sources, then maybe we can talk about them. --M ASEM (t) 01:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bias
This article is incredibly one-sided and leaning incredibly towards the side of the "SJW" as they are called from my observations- my, it's almost as if we have people with a bias and specific ethical / political affiliation editing this article. Might be something to look at / do something about! Wikipedia is about transparency and equal representation, is it not?- or has it suddenly become a place for people with radical views / ideologies to soap box / use as their echo chamber? At the moment, I'm seeing an odd amount of Wikipedia loopholes / regulation being abused or shoehorned into discussion, to prevent the other side from having a say within the article. This is very disturbing, and these regulations, at least for the context of this article, only censor / prevent people from posting source because suddenly what they're posting is 'copyright' or 'biased' or 'unsourcable'- what a joke!- You mine as well completely stop using Kotaku, RPS, Fox News, NYR, Drudge Report, etc and these other "clickbait" websites as credible sources. Please fix this article, thanks. 99.253.30.53 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC) swami

Gamer allegations
What is the best, most neutral way of noting what the gaming community was complaining about? Presently we're using "alleged", but I'm not sure if that is the best term to use here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WE don't summarize. We find third parties who have summarized. 2) the mainstream sources so far identify as "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "misogyny" "quit saying we are about harassment" "gamers arent dead" "harassment" "more harassment" "journalist have been in bed literally and figuratively with the gaming developers" "harassment" "harassment" . 3) There is not much coherent there to summarize. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, you seem to be confused about what Wikipedia is; we do not copy-paste from sources, we write in our own words. And we have WP:NPOV. Using "allegations" is probably a violation of WP:SAID.
 * Also, you apparently haven't read the sources on this; they're right underneath this. Tons of them talk about what GamerGate is about, and it ain't harassment. Harassment is frequently mentioned but it isn't what it is about. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt The Red Pen of Doom is confused about what Wikipedia is, check their edit count --94.175.85.144 (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * to clarify, we dont summarized what the gamergaters want to be seen, we do summarize and represent what the mainstream reliable sources say are gamergates significant impacts - which i have read and which are : "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "misogyny" "quit saying we are about harassment" "gamers arent dead" "harassment" "more harassment" "journalist have been in bed literally and figuratively with the gaming developers" "harassment" "harassment" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you clearly haven't read very many articles about it. Look at the section below. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * i have looked at the reliable sources below and have confirmed my understanding that the mainstream representation is "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "harassment" "misogyny" "quit saying we are about harassment" "gamers arent dead" "harassment" "more harassment" "journalist have been in bed literally and figuratively with the gaming developers" "harassment" "harassment". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Reporter heresay as gospel
Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post wrote:
 * "sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem"

I am not clear on why Kaplan claiming this is true means we should print it as fact. Shouldn't she actually have to support that with research? Or is anything a reporter says automatically just included? Ranze (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is reported in a reliable source and is consistent with statements from the vast majority of other reliable sources discussing the issue.
 * Journalism is not academia and news stories are not scientific research; a journalist is not required to provide citations for each and every statement.
 * Our content is based upon the predominant viewpoint expressed in reliable sources covering the issue. That is policy. As has been repeatedly discussed here, the fact that some people disagree with what the reliable sources say does not permit us to ignore what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not an alternative media platform for presenting viewpoints which you believe are not properly covered in mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-including SJW as a term
I understand some of the previous reasoning this was removed but I feel that it is a problem not to include, since the term is used by many of the RS we cite, despite its derogatory nature; it also arguably should be a searchable term redirected here for anyone searching for that. We should be able to clinically define it so that the term is explained in as minimally problematic manner, but never otherwise touch on it again unless it comes up in quotes or the like. --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is problematic since different people refer to it as something different. The first citation on the article says that SJW is "a derogatory term for people in the video-game industry who use the medium to talk about political issues". What if someone uses it as meaning something else? Are there rules in place for that? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That isn't really an accurate description of a SJW anyway; it is not about political issues in general, it is specifically about people who advocate for the Tumblr idea of social justice, specifically centering around the idea of privilege. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We would probably need to rely on one or two external quotes for the definition, but it is improper to ignore the fact that some threw the term "SJW" around to describe their opponents, with that term being reflected in discussions. --M ASEM (t) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel that in the selecting of the quotes there could be ample opportunity for someone to craft a narrative i.e. referencing only the times in which is was used to deride people for campaigning for a cause, thereby making it seem as though SJW is something always said with derision. Or I could be paranoid about nothing. But the part about how it is used should be the main meat of the article, not what it is defined as. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The term is a loaded term to start, so it is going to present a bias. The key is to say that the term is a biased term, in a clinical manner. Eg "The term "SJW" was used by some supporting GG to describe those game developers and journalists that promoted the use of video game and video game journalism to push political and social justice issues." --M ASEM (t) 17:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the article to be defining terms for the reader, though, that would be Social justice warrior, if there is enough sourcing out there to support that. Although, much the same as the hip-hop community took the "n" word back, some within the gamer realm are embracing this term as well.  Be careful what you wish for, if you're going to put a spotlight on "SJW". Tarc (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I... actually agree with Tarc. The phrase started as a derogatory term toward extremist in mainly feminist movements, but especially after this controversy, some are trying to redefine it as fighting for equal rights. So the term is not stable, and not well defined. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we could make an article on it as a neoglism. The other option is simply to say that some gamers called involved journalists/devs as "social justice warriors (SJW)" and let the term be left on its own, letting the reader make their own judgements. I just don't think we can ignore the term. --M ASEM  (t) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So considering the above, I think the right and only place to include this is about others who got harassed after Quinn: currently this is Those who came to her defense were also targeted, including...  I would add it here: ''Those who came to her defense were also targeted, and frequently called out as "social justice warriors" (SJW). Among those targetted included...'' That's it, it provides a term for readers to know when they go into sources that repeat it. Please let me know if this is a problem. --M ASEM (t) 19:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we mention the phrase we have to mention that it's considered derogatory, and because it's not self-applied, we must identify the people or groups making the claim. That is, we cannot say that "people are SJW" or "are called out as SJW" — we must in-text attribute the claim and discuss what reliable sources say about the phrase. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording I give implicitly states who is calling out others as SJW, though can be worded to say "by detractors" or some other language. We do not have to get into if the phrase is specifically meant demeaningly (I have seen essays from proGGers that use it without insult only to refer to Quinn and those that support her in discussing the issues in a non-threatening manner), or what it means, simply that it exists. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is really no correct way to describe them, because they haven't really gotten a whole lot of coverage as a group in reliable sources of which I am aware. The Tumblr Social Justice brigade is a "thing", but I'm not sure if it has really been noted, and while they are described as SJWs by many people who are familiar with them, they do not call themselves such. I'm not sure if we should really be referring to them as "social justice warriors" in the article; if we do, it should probably be contextualized. I don't think we need to describe Zoe Quinn et. al. as SJWs in the article text, convenient as that may be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that we don't need to say specifically whom called whom that phrase, but that it is a phrase used in the GG context and repeated in multiple sources. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I say that we should keep it out for now. Without an idea of what it means people who read sources with it will probably get confused when it is said. And if we add an idea of what it means then what do we do if the sources conflict with our definition? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Sexual harassment in video gaming
I came across the sexual harassment article after seeing it mentioned in the GamerGate AFD. The scope of the sexual harassment article isn't actually sexual harrasment, and so I've suggested a move to a more generalist harassment article based on some of the GamerGate content, particularly the Analysis section. See Talk:Sexual_harassment_in_video_gaming - hahnch e n 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol I saw plenty of raiders wanting to do this when the deletion discussion took place, where do you guys even come from Loganmac (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment is meant to be the furthest thing from politics??
I take it these people have never heard of Stephen Colbert.

But seriously, how do we correct opinions which are obviously incorrect in Wikipedia articles, without being perceived as pushing the opposite agenda?--greenrd (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We allow other reliable sources to do the correcting for us, and present the POVs weighted in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources. For example, we follow up those quotes with discussion from Leigh Alexander who we quote presenting the opinion that games as culture and games as entertainment are not mutually exclusive. If you think there could be more discussion of the issue added, feel free to give a shot at adding some. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Events section
This section feels like a bit of a muddled mess at the moment, and gives WP:UNDUE notice to harassment, while failing to talk adequately about other issues. I think it might be better to break it up by topic - start off with the events which started the whole thing (which is where it starts now), then go by topic chronologically - start out with censorship (we have plenty of sources on this), then harassment (we have plenty of sources on this too), then the ethics issues (we have a number of sources here, including the ones about various gaming journalism organizations revising or reviewing their ethics policies, people hiding their Patreon support, issues of journalistic integrity and conflicts of interest, ect.).

I'm honestly not super sold on the response section as-is, but I think hashing out the events is important here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep starting new sections for the same discussions, and we will keep telling you the same thing. The discussion of harassment is not WP:UNDUE. Drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a huge number of sources, noted above, which note otherwise. Ergo, it is WP:UNDUE. I have noted this repeatedly. Harassment is a major issue, but it is not the only issue, as noted by innumerable sources. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Harassment is the primary issue of "gamergate"; the concern about ethics in journalism is secondary. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus on this page clearly disagrees with you about your interpretation and weighting of the mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the consensus on this page agrees with me. You seem to be mistaking volume for quantity. The vast majority of the drive by folks are saying that the article is biased. And a lot of new people who come here get bitten immediately if they disagree with your point of view. The consensus is clear - the page is biased. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are avoiding going into all the specific issues (even the section on TFYC is perhaps too large) because many of them are unfounded claims -both directions- to cover.  The harassment has to lead this off because that is what brought all issues to the attention of the world at large. --M ASEM  (t) 21:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, as noted in the Forbes article, it was the censorship which did that; the Streisand Effect occurred after the initial attempts at discussion were suppressed. The harassment of Zoe Quinn began in earnest after Zoe Quinn issued a takedown notice against MundaneMatt's video on YouTube, as well as suppression of discussion on Reddit, 4Chan, and elsewhere. The earliest reports of harassment appeared after that point, IIRC; it was a very small story until InternetAristocrat posted his Five Guys video and got 750k+ hits, and the video spread all over the place. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The censorship boosted the volume, but it wasn't the spark; harassment was there before that point. And the timing of all these events are extremely difficult to nail down (we have absolutley no sources on that) so that's why it's best to simply highlight the key events that have been recounted a few times. --M ASEM (t) 21:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. But the censorship has been noted by a large number of sources. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And we have noted the censorship and the increase in participates including the Streisand Effect (as one RS uses that description) in the section. --M ASEM (t) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as yet another form of the "she was asking for it" excuse-making. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You realize that it's incredibly obvious how much you are leaning on one or two cherry-picked sources and ignoring the overwhelming weight of mainstream reliable sources, right? The Washington Post, The New Yorker, Toronto Globe and Mail, NPR Marketplace, The Independent, The Telegraph, Time, The Guardian, Vox, The Los Angeles Times, Recode, The Week, etc. etc. etc. etc. all focused articles on the harassment endemic to the campaign. You simply dismiss all these sources as "biased," of course, but that does not make them so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Cracked article by Quinn
Again, I iterated the issue with Cracked.com's article by Quinn but to stress why we can't use that: Cracked is a satire magazine/website. Yes, they will sometimes touch on topics of interest, but they are always presented with sarcasm and crudeness; Quinn's piece is no less different (particularly when you compare to her more serious interviews). So we don't know where Quinn is speaking honestly, and when she's not. In contrast to APGNation, they are simply not a strong RS but they aren't certainly writing for humor and sarcasm, and an interview would be an carefully accepted primary source). To add: pay attention to all the claims about bias here on the talk page, and how this isn't about the harassment, etc. I'm not saying those are true, but be aware that adding more to have Quinn talk about her harassment has very little to do with understanding GamerGate, as we already have some viewpoints from her from non-questionable sources. --M ASEM  (t) 02:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This in relation to what edit and what discussion here? Without links and references and for a new user, this would appear to be a comment made in a vacuum and merely a WP:NOTFORUM violation. Dreadstar  ☥   03:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the history but it's specifically this edit. --M ASEM (t) 03:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a link to what you are actually referring to. I suggest all editors do this so one doesn't have to guess what the comment is referencing.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At the point before my edits, Masem, we actually had zero quotes from Quinn discussing her experience of being harassed. The "Events" section has more discussion of the TFYC issue that's barely mentioned in a couple sources than it does of the harassment that made this a national media story. If anything, this article's discussion of the harassment in the "Events" section needs to be expanded because they are the most notable and widely-discussed events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We've established harassment occurred, it's what led this all off, etc. etc. We do not need to dwell on that point here (perhaps on her article, yes); we are working from the premise that everyone knows harassment is not okay and thus we should not glorify it futher, but given all the claims and issues of bias, we should be fully aware on adding anything more that might seem anti-GG that doesn't need to be there. And in terms of quotes, there are no quotes about TFYC - there are quotes on the Vivian character, which is reasonable for this article since that character was created in response and is the closest thing to a unified front the pro GG side has. --M ASEM (t) 03:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We extensively paraphrase TFYC's statements. We neither quoted nor paraphrased Quinn in any discussion of her experience of the harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree how much we're giving to TFYC is a bit too much - outside of leading into the Vivian character. --M ASEM (t) 04:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The standalone TFYC page might not exist much longer though.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * agree that material from Cracked cannot be taken at face value and should not be used as a primary source in this article. if some reliable source comments on the Cracked piece, that third party commentary might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure, on the Quinn page users tried to use a Tumblr post by her as proof that she acknowledges that the events took place. It's strange to now see that users are against using a blog post by her on the subject with editorial for anything at all. Would people be okay with using it as direct quotes from her? I.e. "There was harassment... Zoe Quinn said writing for Cracked that blah blah" 94.175.85.144 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A point that some editors have brought up before is that the harassment of Quinn was the spark but that isn't what GG was about, which is a very fair point, and hence getting on this article into significant details of her harassment (beyond understanding the extent it was) is probably too much "pro Quinn" side. Maybe it would be okay on Quinn's page? I don't think the Cracked source at all would be appropriate because Cracked does not draw the line between obvious sarcasm and earnest reporting, even if it is a guest piece. Tumblr pages if we are 100% sure the author is Quinn (or anyone else) would be appropriate to include, though again if we are sure the piece is being written in earnest and not for fun. I've seen what Quinn said on twitter, she does have a very sarcastic side and thus I would be wary of any self-pub source from her for quoting her. --M ASEM  (t) 13:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A point that some editors have brought up before is that the harassment of Quinn was the spark but that isn't what GG was about, which is a very fair point, and hence getting on this article into significant details of her harassment (beyond understanding the extent it was) is probably too much "pro Quinn" side. No, that is not a 'fair point.' For Wikipedia's purposes, GamerGate is about what the sources say it's about, and overwhelmingly, they're saying it's about harassment, most notably the harassment of Zoe Quinn. The harassment of Zoe Quinn and the resulting conversation about misogyny in gaming industry and culture is the reason thus article exists. If "media ethics" and the fine young capitalists were the main story there would not be enough coverage for this article to pass WP:WEB. What you're suggesting is making this article a WP:COATRACK that minimizes the topics and sources on which this article's notability depends in order to push what GamerGaters wish the sources were saying about their movement rather than what they're actually saying. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The harassment aspects have been explained in depth already, there's no attempt to dilute here, nor taking away that GG started because of harassment-based attacks at Quinn. But since that point, it's all been trying to understand why does the gap between gamers and journo/devs exist, and why would gamers turn to such harassment as a tactic; nearly all of our sources work on the assumption that harassment of the nature given is never a good thing and thus do not dwell on the specifics of the actual attacks beyond establishing what the level of vitriol was. As such, for that purpose, Quinn is the victim here (I know some think this is debatable but...) and her role as a victim is not as important to the analysis and understanding of the importance here beyond being the initial spark. Her opinion on being the victim doesn't help the overall aspect of GG and its subsequent analysis because sources actually implicitly condemn the harassment so they don't go into Quinn's feelings (or any of the others) further.  On the other hand, if Quinn spoke about what could be done to improve the relationship between gamers and journos/devs, that would be valuable inclusion. --M ASEM  (t) 14:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked is not a reliable source for anything other than what Cracked has to say. Zoe Quinn is not a reliable source for anything other than what Zoe Quinn has to say. Easy peasy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cracked has editorial, with the executive editor being David Wong: http://www.cracked.com/members/David+Wong/ --94.175.85.144 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
Virulent is not NPOV for anything other than a disease. Quoting a source on it doesn't mean it is any more neutral. Wikipedia is neutral; sources are not. We cannot simply quote sources in order to insert unacceptable behavior into Wikipedia articles, otherwise we could put all sorts of nasty things about people in. That's not Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * /yawns. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can quote reliable sources, and indeed, we are required to adhere to the predominant, mainstream point of view espoused in reliable sources. "Neutral" does not mean "no point of view." Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can quote reliable sources, but we cannot quote reliable sources and insert their quotes into text in order to say things which we are not allowed to say under WP:NPOV. To do otherwise would be to push a POV, and would allow us to insert very negative things about people or events directly into the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to say that the campaign was "virulent" because the viewpoint that the campaign was "virulent," or similar language, is widely used in the reliable sources that discuss the issue. There are no reliable sources which attempt to downplay the harassment or which state that the harassment wasn't "virulent." In the absence of any opposing POV, it is effectively an unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only time we use words like this is when we attribute them to a specific source and it is in a reaction section. For instance, the only place we use the word "evil" on Adolf Hitler is to note that many historians use the word "evil" to describe him. It is simply not neutral to do otherwise. We can note specific people's reactions and suchlike, but when we are delivering factual information, we simply do not do this. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that our article on Adolf Hitler doesn't include any mention of the historical consensus about his regime in the lede paragraph is a spectacular failure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about providing its opinion on things. It is not about presenting majority opinions on things. Wikipedia is impartial. Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view. We use reliable sources to convey information about the world around us, but we avoid letting the bias in those sources into the articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to spread propaganda. You seem to be confused about what Wikipedia is. The article on Hitler doesn't need to describe him as evil, nor should it, nor is it our place to call him such; it is our place to present information about the world. It doesn't matter if Hitler, Zoe Quinn, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Pope Benedict the Sixteenth are "good" or "evil"; if we are doing our job, the article should allow the reader to come to any such conclusions on their own. If we aren't, if we misguide the reader, then we have failed.
 * You don't seem to understand this, but it is a vital part of being a neutral source of information. It is why Wikipedia is great. If you don't like that, there are other places, like Liberapedia or Conservapedia, where such POV pushing is accepted, even welcomed. Wikipedia tries to be neutral. It is one of our central pillars. We don't pass judgement on things. It is our job to present information as neutrally and in as balanced a manner as possible, while avoiding bias. If you want, you can create a page on liberapedia about Zoe Quinn and rant about how awful it is all day long, and then get in a yelling match with someone over censorship when they paint her as the devil. But that is not what Wikipedia is about. It is our job to help the reader understand what is going on, what happened, all that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT "impartial" in presenting all sides as equal as they wish to be presented. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it's "biased" to describe the harassment of Zoe Quinn but "neutral" to describe her sex life. Got it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is only two words pulled from the article, and the way it looks, may of been pulled for the exact negative connotation that it Virulent would show. Since it isn't a quote that provides any real context, it could be replaced with a more neutral, unquoted descriptor. PseudoSomething (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * when attacks are virulent, expect them to be called virulent. WP:NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Intro needs to be revised

 * The present intro is not compliant with WP:NPOV and does not follow the standard article format which we use for controversial issues, and violates WP:IMPARTIAL, among other things. It was never agreed on by consensus and it needs to be revised to be more in line with the introductions of other controversies. The goal of my change was to make the introduction much more neutral and to follow the general guidelines for such articles, which is that the introduction starts out by describing what advocates of whatever issue claim. Look at various conspiracy theory articles for reference, such as 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Reptilians, ect.

My suggestion is to bring it into line as follows:


 * #GamerGate is an ongoing controversy in video game culture about journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly long-standing issues of conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers, disrespect for the core gaming audience by gaming journalists and games developers, a reaction to a perceived change in the "gamer" identity, and the coverage of social issues in gaming media.    The controversy became high-profile on social media in August 2014 after the removal of posts about the controversy on Reddit, 4Chan, and other online message boards resulted in the Streisand Effect. A number of people involved in the controversy were harassed; several journalists and game developers received death threats from angry gamers and advocates for social justice, and personal information about a number of people involved in the controversy was leaked online.   Targets of the campaign and some members of the press and video game developers have described the campaign as misogynistic in nature, an attempt to drive women and social justice advocates out of the gaming industry, while supporters of the campaign say their goal is to uncover corruption in the media and that claims of misogyny are a straw man attempt to deflect criticism.

This way, we start out with:


 * 1) What the controversy is about, according to its advocates.
 * 2) When it started.
 * 3) What happened. (We might also want to include that several websites reviewed/changed their ethics policies as well, as that was a fairly major development which is immediately relevant, though we might also want to put that last as it occurred last chronologically).
 * 4) What the detractors of the controversy have to say about it.

It gives the reader a quick and dirty impression of what it is about, when it happened, some of the major events, and why it is controversial. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with this. We have a large amount of sources that say that this movement was about journalism ethics, which is also what the movement(The "Common Voice") defines its goals as. These sources should be more than enough to write what gamergate is about by its advocates, but still talk heavily about the major criticisms. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * WhatCulture is not a reliable source and thus cannot be used here, which undermine most of your statements in the rewritten lead. The lead does not follow the rest of the article. Additionally, because we're still in the midst of the event, it is better to keep the lead short to the core details until we can say the matter is closed and write a better more encompassing lead as to avoid incorrect allegations, etc. in that. --M ASEM  (t) 16:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Forbes talks about the same things, which would not undermine the statements. Current, since we are in the midst of it, shouldn't it be short and sweet then, instead of pushing only one side of the sources? Currently, there are incorrect allegations against gamergate, which have sources to back it up. All of these sources can be provided. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The present introduction is three sentences long. Mine was four. I'm not worried about breaking the bank here; it is still a pretty short paragraph either way.
 * The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.).
 * The present introduction violates WP:IMPARTIAL, and gives WP:UNDUE notice to Zoe Quinn; a number of people were harassed (her, Sarkeesian, Bain, the writer for Breitbart, ect.).
 * Why isn't WhatCulture a reliable source?
 * Forbes is used to cite the Streisand Effect. Indeed, Forbes specifically uses the term.
 * There are a number of other sources who can be cited on this as well: Digitimes tells the same story, so does Forbes. The death threats thing is attested in numerous sources.
 * The intro presently cites Time magazine, which is not a reliable source in this case because the writer of the article, Leigh Alexander, works for Kotaku, who is a major target of the controversy, and has a conflict of interest, especially given that she herself works in both PR for games and gaming journalism; this dual role is precisely what the controversy is about, and she advocates for why what she is doing is okay. I'm not saying that her article is worthless, but we shouldn't use it per WP:RS, at least not as a source for factual statements about the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WhatCulture is a clickbait site and does not show a history of fact checking and editorial control, so it's not usable. At point in the future when we know how everything will settle we can expand the lead, but this expansion includes things not even mentioned in the articles proper. There's also claims that I can't find in the sources, eg the straw man argument (Forbes mentions the reverse, that media think the corruption issue is the cover for misogyny in the gamer community, but not the other way).  It's not a violation of impartial given what we can use for sourcing. Quinn's name is important because it was the harassment toward her that initiated the events. And while Leigh works for the gaming industry, Time would have editorial control and fact checking before it would publish such a piece so it is not wrong to use it, though I would not see a problem with removing it from the lead as long as all other issues are cited. --M ASEM  (t) 16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, TD brought up a big point. "The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.)." This article currently puts detractor arguments first. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How many fucking times are we going to have the "this article is not neutral" argument come up just because the pro-GamerGate editors here are upset that the aspect of ethics is not being acknowledged as a primary factor? It's just the same arguments rehashed every 12 hours. It's clear that neither PseudoSomething nor Titanium Dragon can be expected to contribute to this article in a constructive and neutral manner.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to calm down. That had nothing to do with neutrality. If we want to talk about what you are saying, you are trying to silence anyone making any contributions that you don't like, even telling me to "Shut up". Calm down, step back. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When we are months out from this event, and there's no more GG articles being published, then we can have a lead like the other articles pointed to. But GG is still a mostly shapeless blob and it is unnecessary to have a detailed lead until we can identify the shape better. There is no deadline.  --M ASEM  (t) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So why don't we make the lead like all the articles that are being pointed to? Why do you have to disregard WP policies, since this article doesn't seem to be going anywhere, when this article is still up? We have details of the movement we can make sense of, but currently, it doesn't seem to be up to WP standards by starting with detractors of the issues. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have yet to fully define what GG is, so trying to write a detailed lead is pointless at this time. The suggested lead provided skews too many issues that at this time we don't know if they are the major facets of GG or not. --M ASEM (t) 17:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fully define? No, but we have enough sources to cite the Journalism Ethics and Corruption are major issues to the movement, which would make the lead line up with WP standard writing. This makes it not pointless, since currently, the article starts with detractors, so it does not. So we have information about the GG movement, but it stills starts with detractors... PseudoSomething (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have enough sources to know that journalism ethics is an issue (so as such, it is defined in the lead) but what is the ultimate goal of proGG in respect to this? "We want more ethical journalism" is an aim but not a specific goal. As such, we can't write any more details on this in the lead because we have no idea what is wanted or what the core problems are. --M ASEM  (t) 17:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well.. an aim still defines what GG is aiming for. Start with that, since right now it starts with detractors. Such as, "Gamergate is a movement that aims for high Journalistic ethics in the gaming industry". That would be more than enough to define what Gamergate is and line up with standard WP policy. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there's no evidence that GG is solely about that, that's the problem. It's part of what GG wants certainly, but it is not clear that it is only issue at play. That is belying what the sources call GG. --M ASEM (t) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no evidence that it is 'Solely' about it, as there is no evidence that it is 'Solely' about the hatred of women, and thats the problem. Currently, the stable facts we know about GG (Wanting higher Journalism Ethics in the Gaming Industry), are not being introduced first, which is against WP policy. We can use the facts we know (We have a ton of sources that talk about wanting higher ethics, even ones that criticize that idea) to write the intro to be up to plicy. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All sites are clickbait sites; just look at the titles of these articles. :P
 * re: Time: Again, we try to avoid sourcing things to folks who have a conflict of interest, regardless of editorial controls. We have tons of other sources on the matter.
 * re: What Culture: I'll note that the Washington Post itself made note of what What Culture had to say, which would imply that the Washington Post thinks that what What Culture has to say is interesting and important:
 * In a post on the entertainment Web site WhatCulture, Jordan Ephrain argued games journalists are uncritically promoting social issues games such as “Depression Quest” without considering whether they really qualify as video games — and then dismissing any criticism of those same games as “trolling.”
 * This suggests to me that they considered their criticism important. Also, the Washington Post makes the same note of claims of deflection by gamers:
 * But many gamers saw this as an effort by the media to deflect criticism of the increasingly leftist orientation of indie games.
 * Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the WaPost cites one element, and infact we use that one element though the Wa Post article to describe one good opinion in the Wa Post's eyes, but that doesn't make the rest of the article usable. But I also point to the fact that many points in the lead are not introduced in the article, which is wrong by lead standards. --17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, you still need to acknowledge this point, " "The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.)." Currently this article starts out with detractors, instead of the movement. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no organized movement, that's the problem. It's thousands of gamers without unified thought, so we cannot shape what GG is until it either dies or or someone figures out how to solidify it. --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, well expect a post hopefully today going over the major sources... that I already went over..., that many a many go over the Journalist ethics and corruption. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you misread (and please don't waste time in writing, not because I'm ignoring he sources - I know what they say and what is lacking). What is lacking is any type of (may not the best words but the point should be there) an agenda or manifesto of what the GG "movement" wants. "We want X in journalism. We want Y in journalism", etc. If that actually is defined and presented to gaming websites, maybe there will be good traction to improve coverage. Right all we can do is hodgepodge several different sources to say "Well, we think the proGG want this and this", but nothing concrete.  You're not going to be able to do better than that from the sources provided.  That's why as long as this GG "movement" remains as disjointed as it is, very little weight is being given to that side by the mainstream media because it looks just a bunch of angry gamers speaking up.  Maybe we will have some source in the near future that clearly defines the specific goals of the GG movement, but we don't have that now. That's been the issue from the start, and why we can't really write a strong lead until we know how best to describe what's going on directly. --M ASEM  (t) 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, you just posted about that "We have enough sources to know that journalism ethics is an issue " "We want X(Higher Ethics) in journalism." There, done. This article now can be written to conform to WP policy. Right now, it starts with detractors. You already have a line about ethics in the lead, so you can use those sources. It will be a stronger, and it will follow WP policy, if we rewrite it to conform to those standards. Also, many of the sources I provided are not being used, and instead, are ignored in place of ones that push the 'Hatred of Women' aspect. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's nowhere close to what would be expected. How do you define higher ethics? That's a hand-waving goal. Meaning that it is fine out it is called out in the lead presently (that the issues of journalist ethics are part of this) but until we know what exactly gamers want, it's vague and nebulous. Do they want reviewers to mention all friendships and relationships with specific game devs/publishers when a review is published? Do they want journalists to be able to participate in Patreons or the like as long as there is disclosure?   That's the type of thing that would help define what GG wants better but there's nothing like that in sources, just cries of "be more ethical". --M ASEM  (t) 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, the article at present is in an unacceptable state and needs to be fixed, as it suffers from WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV issues. The fact that the article doesn't really talk about censorship at present, given how important it was to the whole thing, is pretty ironic and needs to be corrected, and the fact that the lead doesn't match the article - when that is, indeed, the proper lead for the article, at least in my eyes - is an indication of problems with the article, not problems with the lead. I was going through and trying to work on the article when you reverted my edit. We don't really need to cite What Culture on a whole lot; we can simply remove who was doing the harassment, as that is the only thing which was cited uniquely to them. Everything else is found in other sources, as noted - the Washington Post sources the claim that gamers perceive the claims of misogyny as an attempt to deflect criticism.
 * Also, re: the allegations further down in the article: actually, yes, we do care. The nature of the allegations is noted in innumerable reliable sources, including the Washington Post, and even her supporters acknowledge what the allegations were, though they view them as slut shaming (I tried to find a RS on that, incidentally, but unfortunately, it seems that they don't really use that term in a lot of the articles - I found it in tons of blog posts and comments sections, but in very few real sources). Understanding what the allegations were is very important, and the fact that it wasn't just Nathan Grayson has been noted in numerous sources. Understanding that it was her ex making a post accusing her of infidelity is important to understanding why there was so much feminist outrage over the issue, because the nature of the original blog post pretty much was what enraged them so. Well, that and the implications of corruption, which it seems were well-founded, given the leak of internal emails which went out today.
 * We have tons of RSs on what they see the thing as being about; it isn't about any one thing, which is why I listed off a bunch of issues because those are the ones attested to in the RSs. But it certainly isn't about sexism and misogyny from the point of view of the GamerGate supporters, and thus, the lead is just outright wrong. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You will continue to be reverted if you continue to attempt to rewrite the article against both the mainstream POV of reliable sources and the consensus on this talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)This article is written in full compliance with what the sources have actually reported on keeping to the structure and format they use for presenting the event. Does it make gamers look bad? Heck yes, I fully agree, and hence why I've tried to get as many things to support the proGG side in the article that have been identified. But we cannot change the views that are given by reliable sources without breaking our core content policies. Sources, not our personal knowledge or desires, drive our content and we cannot change that.  If the media is presenting this in what can be considered an non-impartial manner, our hands our tied.  And that's the problem is the press is clearly painting the proGG side as villainous here. Get the press to produce more positive coverage and the arguments from the proGG side, and then we can do something about that. --M ASEM  (t) 17:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it doesn't actually act in full compliance with what the sources have reported on, contrary to what you're saying. Look at that big long list of sources that I posted in the talk thread; how many of those talked about the gamer standpoint? Many of them! Heck, we cite Forbes, which notes the censorship and the Streisand effect, and now Breitbart got their hands on a bunch of emails from various game journalists and people involved in games journalism detailing their organized attempts at censoring this material on various websites, which is now being picked up by other sources. Ars Technica even wrote a response article because of it. Right now the article sucks and is biased, and it excludes an entire, major viewpoint. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course they talk about the gamers' POV, but they do not present a cohesive discussion, a lack of clearly shared ideals in the gamer community. As such, we cannot say there is even a true GG movement (akin to Occupy Wall Street). And right now, if Breitbart is the only source of this apparent collusion, that's about as useful as Quinn's reported logs - eg zero value for us and not something we can go into. --M ASEM (t) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They do present a cohesive discussion. They bring proof of things, as well as report on events such as the censorship, and create a discussion from it. They even have results to back their articles up (the ethics policy changes). We can honestly say there is a true GG movement if this article is still up and we have those sources talking over and over about what Gamergate wants (Higher Journalism ethics). We have Forbes, Slate, and many others talking about it. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No they don't. You have to use multiple sources to create this idea that GG has specific goals, and that is synthesis. Ideally, someone in the GG community will put out a statement of what the GG movement wants, gaining backing back the community as a reflecting of its ideals, listing a number of specific things they would like to see in journalism going forward, and present that as points for discussion. That single source, assuming journalistic sites pick that up, then makes it clear what GG is, and thus we can move forward on actually expressing the shape of GG. You cannot do that with the hodgepodging that is there right now. We can try to make heads and tails of all that in the analysis section, but that's the best attempt to define a shape without it. --M ASEM  (t) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", we wouldn't have to, many sources talk directly on Journalism Ethics. Even if you don't think that, we already have a sourced line that we can move to the front to follow WP standards. "The controversy also includes discussions about journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers,". So really, we already have a sentence that can be used for standardization, but it is not being used, and therefore, does not hold up to standard. - Also, so we don't have two separate discussion, even though we cannot pin an exact goal, we still know an aim, a high sources aim of the movement, which should be the starting point of the article, since as TD pointed out, it starts with detractors. We have the information, we have at least one aim of the movement that is sourced heavily, but it still starts with detractors. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources do actually say that the GamerGaters are interested in such things - the sources indicate that its advocates are for all of these things to varying degrees. One thing all of them agree on is that the folks that they interviewed all say that it isn't about misogyny. And I even have a cite from Slate for the social justice advocates harassing people:
 * After game critic John Bain, aka TotalBiscuit, asked everyone to calm down, he was branded a misogynist and shouted down. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Irregardless of the above, I have added two things to the article that are proven sourcable through this discussion: the issues leading to the streisand effect (censorship) (From Forbes), and the claim of gamers that the media used the misogmy aspect to deflect criticism (from WaPo). --M ASEM (t) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Also to address points in this, I did a small rework of the lead so that both the misogynmy of gamers, and the ethics of gaming journalism, are on the same line, in otherwords giving them about as much "equal" weight in terms of this being part of the controversy. (eg we are saying what each sides, journalists and gamers, are saying). It is completely fair and balanced to say these two points are equally weighted in the sources if we are talking about what the controversy is about. (If we were talking about the movement, yes, that's not true, but that's not what is given so far). --M ASEM  (t) 19:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is better if we are talking about a controversy, I will agree. The only thing is, when do we say when its a controversy and when its a movement? Considering here, and in sources, we talk about 'Pro-GG' and 'anti-GG', shouldn't we consider this a movement, and like the writing style on the conspiracy theorist article (since that seems to be a good example), write about what the movement is, and then the controversy around it? PseudoSomething (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick google search suggests this is still a controversy (4x more hits) than a movement. If it actually gels as a movement, we can likely then source it that way, but right now, it is a 2-way debate between gamers and journalists. --M ASEM (t) 02:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well lets go back to the WP writing style for these sorta things. Lets go back to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, since it fits really well here. Are you going to find very many articles that speak of the conspiracy theories in the way they want? They define themselves as truth seekers, and their detractors see them as crazy people. So right now, if the writing style for this lead was use, it would state, "The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories are people who have been reported to be delusional, but see themselves as trying to find truth in the 9/11 situation." It doesn't fit the standard writing style, even though the current lead you made made it slightly better. So, according to the standard writing style for these sorts of articles, we need to describe what #gamergate people define the movement (or what we can find, because even you said we can pin down the ethics part). PseudoSomething (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so here's the question: apart from citations, what is wrong with my proposed lead? I can resource everything, but this seems like it mentions all the big points - we talk about what the GamerGaters are advocating for, we talk about when it started, we talk about what happened (harassment, which is obviously one of the big stories here), and we talk about their detractors' view on them. This seems to follow from things like white supremacy, reptilians, 9/11 conspiracy theories and the like. The lead is supposed to explain to people what the people who are advocating for it are about - white supremacists are about whites holding cultural, economic, and social supremacy over people of other races. We don't say "they're a bunch of racist jerks" in the lead, even though that is the majority viewpoint on them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The primary issue is that it focused too much on details that we don't know how important they are to the overall long-term issue here. We know some issues are certainly core, and the events around Quinn as the spark, but that's it. The details you go into are certainly elements of the problem but how much weight to be given to be put into the lead is questionable. (Also, and I shouldn't have to say this, but it flipped around the weight of the misogymy claims with the journalism claims, when as mentioned over and over, the misogymy issues remain foremost discussion in all reliable articles) --M ASEM  (t) 02:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that doesn't follow the writing style on WP articles like this. Again, look at the articles that were provided. They describe what the people think of themselves, before detractors. Right now, detractors are first, which mean this article doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the standard writing style. You even admitted we can find enough to know they are even fighting for journalism ethics, so we have the information, but you are refusing to allow the GG people to define themselves in the lead, and forcing them to take a back seat to their detractors. PseudoSomething (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, There is no deadline to get the lead right; all those other articles, there is no real new flow of information there so they can figure out the key points and work from there, while we are still waiting to see what GG is really about. And we have to go with how the issues are presented in the sources; the proGG side may see it as putting the detractors first, but because the incident was sparked by harassment, the press have put them as the focus first. We can't change that until the press themselves change their tune.--M ASEM (t) 17:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait wait wait.... so since there is most likely more articles talking about how 9/11 conspiracy theories are delusional, instead of seeking the truth of the matter, we should go change it right? I mean, that is what you are saying here, And we have to go with how the issues are presented in the sources; the conspiracy theorist side may see it as putting the detractors first, but the press have put the delusion as the focus first. Right? We can't change that until the press themselves change their tune. (Of course I am not going to go change it, but basically word from word right there we saw how similar the situation is, and it is not be standardized). PseudoSomething (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a controversy, not a group of people. If this article were "GamerGate Supporters", then yes, we would introduce it as gamers that want to see ethics changes in the media, followed by some possible detractions. But we're talking the controversy here, and to that, the first thing on the menu from all sources is the negative aspect of harassment that bore it out. --18:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except, the 9/11 conspiracy theorist isn't entirely a movement either, but it still lets them define themselves first. Most of the 'Hatred of women' aspect in these articles are aim -at- gamergate, not describing their goals. Lets look at the first 5 sources. Forbes "While the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born." dailydot This source doesn't even mention Gamergate. cinemablend "#GamerGate seems to be the term summing up this general dissatisfaction with the press. " \telegraph "But trolling women is not what gamers claim that 'GamerGate' is all about. They feel that Quinn’s alleged sex life proves a questionable relationship between journalists and developers." Aljazeera "But a counter trend alleging corruption and condescension in gaming media is now spreading through the hashtag #GamerGate (link is external). The hashtag has been used (link is external) more than 189,000 times, as members of the gaming community debate what they call snobby attitudes of gaming journalists towards players." So Forbes says this is a movement from further revalations, dailydot doesn't even mention gamergate but talks about the hatred of women, cinemablend says its dissatisfaction with the press, telegraph says gamers say its for ethics, but they think its for trolling women, and aljazeera says its a counter trend against corruption. So in two sources, they have direct claims that it is about journalism ethics, one says its about general dissatisfaction with the gaming press, one says its a counter trend, and one doesn't even mention it. So instead of going with the sources saying that Gamergate people define themselves as pushing for journalistic ethics, we go with the source that says, "They say its about this, but we know its about this." This does not follow precedent like the 9/11 controversy article. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, comparing apples to oranges. There's no strong evidence that this is being considered - overall - a movement (but yes, it might turn that way? but it's still 4x as many hits for "controversy" as there is for "movement"), so it is a multi-sided controversy, and as such, we're presenting the core issues as reported by reliable sources that all sides have with it, and, in the bulk general order of all sources in the article (not just those 5), the misogymy is still foremost over the ethics. We cannot change from what the media (even the non-VG media) present this as, and because a small number of people took to harass others, which is a much more appalling act in the eyes of the media compared to possible collusions between developers and journalists, that issue is going to be reported on first by those sources. We would need the press to completely reframe the subject for us to reflect that it is a movement about ethics, over the issues of misogymy; keep in mind while we've identified that GG generally refers to the gamer's side of the equation, many press associate the harassment as part of what GG entails and use that term to reflect any part of the controversy. Also keep in mind that there are still some in the press that are convinced that the ethics aspect was a means to quickly cover up the mess that those that harassed Quinn and others made, and as such, until that attitude is gone or proven wrong, the ethics question will always be secondary.  I am totally understanding that if there was a reframing of this in the press, we could write this better to present the ethics first, but we are stuck with sources that focus on the harassment and misogymy first. --M ASEM  (t) 19:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not though, its exactly as TD stated. "The present introduction does not follow the standard formatting for such things, as I noted above; we never start out by describing a controversial topic with criticism by its detractors, even when it is completely ridiculous (see also: 9/11 conspiracy theories, reptilians, ect.)." It does not follow precedent. This is a controversial topic that has been stated (even in detracting sources), that this movement is or claims to be about ethics in journalism. I just showed you the first 5 sources that state that... well 4 do(The other doesnt even talk about gamergate). Two state about harassment against someone, yet it is first. "because a small number of people took to harass others, which is a much more appalling act in the eyes of the media compared to possible collusions between developers and journalists, that issue is going to be reported on first by those sources" Ok, great, they are detractors then, since they focus on what is happening from the movement, and not what the movement is about. It does not hold up to WP standards. "convinced that the ethics aspect was a means to quickly cover up the mess that those that harassed Quinn and others made" And many people think 9/11 controversies are delusional, but that article still starts out with what it is, not what it is described as. This article does not follow the precedent already set about these topics, and as such, should be rewritten. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about a controversy, unlike all those other examples, and as such has more than one side. As such, talking about the issues involve, one side is going to be listed in the negative first, whichever way it is listed. If we put ethics first, that's a detractor towards journalists; if we put misogyny first, that's a detractor towards the gamers. One side is going to be slighted first, we can't help that. And as the press presents the misogymy aspect first.  If we could reframe this as a "movement" so that it was about their ideals, of course we then can put the ethics first, but there's not enough to set it as the movement. --M ASEM  (t) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, provide me sources that say Gamergate is about the Hatred of Women, that doesn't include, "The people in the movement say it is about ethics, but we know its about the hatred of women." Since the only source that currently describes the first sentence, that includes anything about the movement being about the hatred of women, says, ""But trolling women is not what gamers claim that 'GamerGate' is all about. They feel that Quinn’s alleged sex life proves a questionable relationship between journalists and developers." Hell, the first sentence is sourced by more RS'es saying its about ethics, and one saying its about the hatred of women, yet the later point gets told first. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You just did, pointing out that there are two (or more) sides to this. The GamerGate controversy is about both sides, not one. If this was the GamerGate "movement" then yes, that would be different. --M ASEM (t) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Except, currently in the intro, we are giving undue weight to the criticism of the movement. Three mainly talk about the ethics/corruption angle, while one talks about the harassment. The other one has no mention of gamergate. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No we don't. Both sides are discussed once. --M ASEM (t) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you were going with the sources, you would list journalistic ethics/corruption first, as 4 of them list something about it, but only one talks about harassment. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are more than 5 sources in the article. We are not just counting the five listed. --M ASEM (t) 21:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why I asked for more sources that explain what #GamerGate is, since 3 of the sources in the lead talk about journalism ethics and corruption. If that lead is correct, there needs to be sources that say what people under the hashtag are saying, since this article is based on the hashtag. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at; you're suggesting that GamerGate is more about a scandal than a movement - the name itself suggests scandal. I can see making that argument. However, when we talk about stuff like that, we yet again follow the same sort of formatting; look at Watergate scandal or Lewinsky scandal. We don't put into the lead of the Lewinsky scandal that it was an attempt to assassinate the character of Bill Clinton, even though that is a, very possibly the, mainstream perspective. We talk about what it was about. The only people who claim that the whole GamerGate thing is about misogyny is people outside of the push behind the controversy. Therefore, it is inappropriate, per our usual way of writing said articles, to include it in the lead sentence. The first sentence is typically what the whole thing is about, followed up by some additional major details, with people who are detractors of whatever the issue is typically coming afterwards - including if the mainstream view is that the issue is nonsense. Look at 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 Truth movement. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a scandal (or at least proven out as one, if we're talking about the ethics side). It is a controversy, where there are multiple sides so the lead needs to be covered in the lead. --M ASEM  (t) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would actually say, with how this article is laied out, #GamerGate is a hashtag that many gamers started using to use to show their dissatisfaction with gaming journalism. The sources from the first sentence will back that up. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, several outlets have changed their ethics policies to ban behavior which has occurred in the past. Given the usual definition of "scandal", I'd say this probably qualifies as one, seeing as these events have certainly spawned widespread outrage in the gamer community.
 * That being said, a number of sources refer to people who are advocating for change to be "GamerGate supporters" or talk about the "GamerGate movement" or "the movement" when talking about people who are pressing the issues. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We cannot call it a scandal without reliable sources calling it that; it is definitely OR to compare "changing policies" to a scandal. And while I will agree that the concept of GG being a movement is building in sources, but it is far from sufficient to switch this article to that facet, but it is a possibility to consider. --M ASEM  (t) 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So I did some reading on WP policies, just to keep up my knowledge on policies and such. If I am thinking about this correctly, essays are not pure policy, but are things that are good guides to go by. Well considering two of these essays I found, the intro needs to be re-written. WP:CONTROVERSY states, "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." This states a group of people, not a 'movement'. People under the #GamerGate tag fall under a group. Again, TD included some articles for precedence in his writing. Also, on the same essay, it says "When characterizing a person, event, or action, an assertion should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source. A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately.", so words like 'Vitrol' need to either be directly sourced when quoted, or not be quoted at all. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As Masem has noted, this article isn't "about a controversial person or group." This article is about the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The people who support #Gamergate put themselves under that hashtag, meaning a group of people. Even the telegraph source from the first sentence indicates, "The hashtag is being used by some video game fans around the world, (known as gamers),". That is a group of people using the hashtag. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's correct, but this article does not cover the mere existence of that group. The article is about the controversy as a whole. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Going by your logic, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories doesn't cover the mere existence of 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but it still is written by WP:CONTROVERSY. There is precedent backing up the rewriting of the intro. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there really isn't. That article is a content fork to expand conspiracy theories beyond the (small) space allocated to them in our main article on the September 11 attacks, which covers the mainstream point of view of the events of 9/11 and mostly omits mention of the fringe conspiracy theories. The main topic is not "conspiracy theories," it's the 9/11 attacks.
 * The comparison here would not be to rewrite the main article on GamerGate in the way that you want; this article would remain the home of the mainstream point of view of the events as discussed in reliable sources. Rather, the logical comparison would be to create a separate article called GamerGate conspiracy theories, in which we would document the fringe conspiracy theories espoused by some people, accompanied by extensive rebuttals from mainstream sources which declare them to be nothing more than conspiracy theories and debunk the claims.
 * I'm guessing that's not really what you want, though, is it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Soooo, "Someone brought up an essay that covers the subject, and precedent, lets find a way to try to mock them and discredit their point." The precedent would be to rewrite the article, or the lead at least, just like the precedent I showed you. By your logic, it does not deal -directly- with the group, but relates directly to the group through the hashtag, so precedent says we go with WP:CONTROVERSY. Let the group define themselves through sources in the intro. Since you know, Forbes, Slate, etc. etc.PseudoSomething (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Once again with feeling, the main article for the 9/11 attacks is September 11 attacks, and that article is written with an entirely-mainstream point of view. The main article for the GamerGate controversy is GamerGate, and that article will be written with an entirely-mainstream point of view.
 * We have a separate article for the conspiracy theories about 9/11, and if you want us to have a separate article for the conspiracy theories about GamerGate, that's a discussion to have. But we don't make the main 9/11 article feature the conspiracy theories, and we aren't going to make the main GamerGate article feature the conspiracy theories either. Your analogy doesn't work the way you want it to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my analogy fits perfectly, your just trying to push the point past what we are looking at, and making it about something else. We are not talking about the specific article, we are talking about precedent of the lead. Again, WP:CONTROVERSY states "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." An example of that is 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. There's nothing past that, especially since we have WP:RS that show what #GamerGate people are pushing toward. So this is a controversial subject, with a controversial group, that their views are currently not being described accurately, even if you think it is misguided. It fits word for word what WP:CONTROVERSY says. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is about an event more than it is about a group.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We go through this every few years in different topics. For a time, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories was a battlezone, with legions of outsiders swamping the page with demands that "The Truth(tm)" be represented in the article...Obama was a Kenyan, a Muslim, a Marxist, and all that birther jazz, citing a laundry list of fringe sources.  In the end, they are driven off, it is the way it will happen here too, it just takes time and patience. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good thing we have WP:RS and not a fringe view. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Which do not identify GG as a "group", yet. There's a possible trend it might go that way but it's both OR and Crystal-balling to make the change to that at this time. --M ASEM (t) 01:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am using the first ten sources for this next reponse. Out of the ten, seven contained a mention of gamergate. WaPo "But many gamers saw this as an effort by the media to deflect criticism of the increasingly leftist orientation of indie games. So they adopted #GamerGate." A group of people adopting the tag. Time "The GamerGate crusaders leap to employ legal terminology like fancy weapons they are clearly confused about how to wield." aljazeera "But a counter trend alleging corruption and condescension in gaming media is now spreading through the hashtag #GamerGate" ("A trend that opposes mainstream or popular trends.") telegraph "The hashtag is being used by some video game fans around the world, (known as gamers)," cinemablend " If journalists don't support our interests, these gamers reason, let's just get rid of them. #GamerGate seems to be the term summing up this general dissatisfaction with the press. " Forbes "While the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born." newyorker "Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators." So many, if not most, of those sources point toward a group of people adopting, or coming together, under that hashtag. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But some of those are vague about it being a movement over a controversy, and there are very few calling it outright a movement. They're going that way, as I've said, but they're nowhere at the point that we can do a complete inversion of this article give that people are still talking about the event (the harassment and subsequent fallout) first and foremost, and the ideals second. Patience here might be better. --M ASEM (t) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I was pointing out though, WP:CONTROVERSY is specific about a 'Group', not specifically a movement. Many of those RS describe it as some type of group. I know what you mean by patience, but we have current RS stating in one way or another that there is a group of people behind the tag. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You have reliable sources describing a fringe view as fringe. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is factually incorrect. We have already comiled a large number of RS that describe and focus on, the GG movement, and not criticism. PseudoSomething (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that an overwhelming number of sources say otherwise, and indeed, given that numerous members of the press have noted Zoe Quinn as being personally insignificant, would that not suggest that Zoe Quinn's viewpoint is the fringier thing? :P There are huge numbers of sources on this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenn Frank has not left games journalism
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/20/women-gamers-new-concept-community

Apparently she wasn't run out of the industry. She was just gone long enough that news outlets could write about it. The Wiki article should be amended. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From that "Days after the publication, I retired from writing about games. Then an editor at the Guardian asked me if I would venture out of my two-week retirement and explain why I love video games. It’s easy to be coaxed out of retirement when you have loved video games for 30 years and written professionally about them for nine." So yes, she's still retired. --M ASEM  (t) 13:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is a real issue under WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RECENT. If someone says that they're quitting the internet forevers, and then doesn't, that's a bit of an issue, and we're talking about future events here, as they're claiming that they are not going to ever do it again. As-is, all we have as far as that goes is their word. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessarily complex article naming
I can understand why this article was originally created at GamerGate. That styling is often used, and the name gamergate is already occupied by an article on entomology. One other aspect of the naming puzzles me: the hatnote that says the article should really be called "#GamerGate".

This seems unnecessarily complex and slightly misleading, and as far as I recall it's not in accordance with our disambiguation guideline.

The article isn't about a hashtag, so we don't need the hatnote. The capitalisation also varies and reliable sources on the topic have referred to it as GamerGate, Gamergate, Gamer Gate and perhaps even more.

For these reasons I suggest that we move the article to "Gamergate (video game controversy)", or possibly "Gamergate" with a corresponding move to "Gamergate (ant)" for the other article. --TS 01:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * your gamergant (ant) is not gonna happen, this flash in the pan niche use has nothing in comparison to the long established and widespread scientific use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that calling it by the hashtag is not really the best, and agree that MOS for naming would have it at a disambiguated title. But there's no need to move the ant article for this to happen. --M ASEM (t) 01:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that the original gamergate article is in the right place already. I offered it for discussion in the interests of completeness. --TS 02:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * CamelCasing and pointing out that it's technically impossible to have the hash mark in the article title are not pressing issues.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a note, nearly every other -gate issue is not camelcase, even in cases where the original "somethinggate" word was not a real one. --M ASEM (t) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * support move to Gamergate (video game controversy) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As there seems to be clear support for this article at a standard disambiguation name I've gone ahead and performed the move. I also removed the hatnote (which nobody seemed to think necessary) and clarified the nomenclature in the opening sentence. Please improve. --TS 14:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Eron Gjoni's allegations
This sentence is presently a disaster, but is unhappy with my changes to it. Numerous RSs, including the Washington Post, note exactly what the post was - allegations of infidelity with men in the video game industry. This is precisely what it was, and we ALREADY note that he alleged that she cheated on him with Grayson, so I'm not sure why this is an issue.

I will also note that we are violating WP:SAID in this section at the moment. We should simply use "said" whenever possible, or "according to" or similarly neutral language; someone scolded me last night for "claimed", and "alleged" is not really any better. Also, in this case, we actually have primary evidence of his claims, seeing as he posted the primary material online, so it makes it even stranger. I think rewording this sentence (possibly breaking it up into two sentences, as I had done) might be the best way of going about fixing this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We only need to know of the claimed allegation regarding Grayson. Any other facet of her personal life (including additional claims of personal impropriety) are not issues in GG, and beyond the bounds of this article, and are also BLP issues and should not be incldued. Hence why the focus on making sure the one specific claim (which, would be a BLP Issue if not core to this problem) is clearly identified and address. All others are to be ignored here. --M ASEM (t) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * are you alleging that gamergate is about a woman's alleged personal relationships and the horrific response that people using the gamergate hashtag have promulgated about them? I thought you were one of the many claiming that gamergate has nothing to do with harassment and is only about journalistic integrity.... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Zoe Quinn has received numerous death threats and people have criticized her behavior on pretty much every front imaginable. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that people have not acted reprehensibly against Zoe Quinn. The fact that you believe such suggests tribalistic thinking you should divorce yourself from. Just because I understand why people are upset does not mean that I am on "their side". Indeed, the original reason I came to the Zoe Quinn article was because I had assumed it would be overrun by angry gamers ranting about Zoe Quinn.
 * The nature of the allegations is central to the narrative that the whole thing is grounded in misogyny; not making note of the allegations, which are attested in innumerable sources, is to leave out something very important from the issue. We report on sex scandals all the time.
 * In the end, this is not "really" about Zoe Quinn, but the Zoe Quinn incident is what sparked a greater conflagration from a bunch of pre-existing issues, and it is important to note what it was. A lot of people used it as a launching point for whatever their agenda was - yelling about how misogynistic gamers were, yelling about corruption in video game journalism, ect.
 * It is also important to contextualize the Grayson thing, because Grayson was not the only focus of Gjoni's ire; Grayson ended up being the one that got picked up on the most by the gaming community precisely because of pre-existing issues with journalistic integrity and pushing of a certain point of view in gaming journalism. His situation is probably the most understandable of the lot of them, and the reason people got so upset over him instead of one of the other people who was named was because of long-standing issues with games journalism. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So basically you're saying that we should cover this as a sex scandal. You can never again be taken seriously when you claim that this is about "journalism ethics" - your true colors have been shown. This is not about journalism ethics, it's about trying to shame a woman for having sex. QED.
 * The other allegations are not encyclopedic because they have not been widely discussed in reliable sources. In general, news outlets do not consider accusations of infidelity noteworthy unless there is a matter of public interest attached - such as the possibility of a journalistic conflict of interest.
 * Quinn's relationship with Grayson had the potential for a conflict of interest, and therefore was a legitimate subject of public interest. There is no apparent public interest in any of Gjoni's other allegations and therefore reliable sources have ignored them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The present conflagration was sparked by a sex scandal and, to a lesser extent, Zoe Quinn's claims of being harassed while Depression Quest was going through Greenlight. This is uncontroversial and is attested by pretty much every reliable source.
 * Given how many sources I have linked to which are, in fact, reliable - including Forbes, Al Jazeera, ect. - I am forced to assume you have not read any of them. There are a huge number of sources on this. The Telegraph interviewed some GamerGate folks and they discussed it.
 * And, well, let's face it - they actually report on sex scandals all the time. Look at the royal family thing, or Bill Clinton. All that they really need is for someone to be famous and salacious details. In this case, the fact that there were other issues beyond the salacious details was what allowed others to pick up and run with it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is GamerGate about journalism ethics or is it about who a woman slept with? I'm having a hard time keeping up with your changing story. First you want to rewrite the lede to downplay any connection with misogyny and harassment of women, now you want to add more allegations about Zoe Quinn that 1) have no sources and 2) have nothing to do with journalism ethics and everything to do with a jilted boyfriend airing dirty laundry in public. For a movement that's not about Zoe Quinn, you sure have an awful strong interest in depicting her negatively. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Forbes:
 * Jilted ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a long treatise on the alleged infidelity of his ex-girlfriend, video game developer Zoe Quinn. Members of the video game industry and press were implicated.
 * Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * per that same forbes "the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, " - be aware that WP:NEWBLP content about living people is under discretionary sanctions and your repeated crossing the lines to cherry pick and misrepresent content about living people will get reported. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, several other sources note the opposite - the problem is, ultimately, the "all smoke and no fire" thing comes from them citing Kotaku, who claimed that Grayson did nothing wrong, really. And meanwhile participated in encouraging the censorship of all discussion on the matter on all gaming websites. We'll never really know, because all of it is ultimately dependent on Grayson's own testimony on his own behalf.
 * Agreed. Eron makes claims on his blog. He cites chat logs with admissions from Zoe. Zoe does not deny claims, and in fact several of the other people have come forward, including her former boss, to own up to the affairs. Kotaku did an investigation and declared Grayson was not at fault for journalistic ethics violations, on the basis that their affair didn't begin until slightly after one of the articles was written. This was later contradicted by an article and livestream showing Grayson and Quinn on a trip to Las Vegas, right before the article was published, and a chat log where Quinn said, "the Vegas trip was when we got serious". Kotaku's determination that there were no ethical violations is their own prerogative, which many gamers disagree with. But at the end of the day, the sentence is poorly constructed. It implies that all of Eron's allegations are false, when in fact many of them have been confirmed or uncontested. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * sooooo, people are riled up because someone is alleged to have a more interesting sex life than they do and we should spread these allegations because ..... ???-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondly, the "all smoke and no fire" relates to Grayson, not to the issues with infidelity, which are well-attested across dozens of RSs. So, it is not disputed by the RS at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you think issues of alleged infidelity have ANY pace here? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got the impression that I don't think that this was set off by an angry ex-boyfriend accusing his girlfriend of cheating on him and posting logs to prove it. That is precisely what set the whole thing off, that and the previous (possibly false, as all of the claims came from Zoe Quinn herself, which later caused The Escapist's article on the subject matter to be edited to note the lack of any sort of evidence) allegations of harassment claimed by Zoe Quinn when Depression Quest was going through Greenlight. However, the underlying issues and rage were pre-existing conditions, and additionally, Zoe Quinn showing vulnerability meant that some of the folks she had previously attacked (namely, The Fine Young Capitalists) felt like they could go public about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So some people saw a woman being slut-shamed and decided to use that opportunity to dogpile her at her most vulnerable moment.
 * OK then, thanks for confirming what the reliable sources have said about this being misogynistic harassment aimed at a powerless woman.
 * You literally are sabotaging your own case with every post. "Journalism ethics journalism ethics journalism ethics!!! Wait but make sure we talk even more about who Zoe Quinn slept with because sex scandal!" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It started with Zoe, it's impossible not to discuss the allegations that she slept with other people while she was dating him. As it's been pointed out above, that people discussed "five guys" was used by some to underscore their claims of misogyny in gaming, while others pointed to Nathan Grayson's involvement as a professional/ethical concern. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is necessary background and context. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, re: dogpiling: you don't understand. It is the old saying: "When you appeal to force, there is one thing you must never do: Lose." you had TFYC who came forward and noted what she had done to them, ect. It is much like with Bridgegate up in New Jersey; once Christie had been hit on one front, people pointed out all the other corrupt things he had been up to. Also like the fall of the old Ukrainian government, where after he fell, all the corruption-type stuff came to be much better public knowledge, even though the reason he had been forced to flee was largely unrelated (namely, cracking down on the protesters, who ended up winning). It is very common.
 * Indeed, that is why folks are using this to promote the anti-corruption agenda; basically, they saw the gaming press as having been weakened and its integrity questioned by this, so they could bring up a whole bunch of other issues against them. And it is worth remembering the only thing which has actually happened as a result of all this is several places changing or reviewing their ethics policies, which goes very strongly against the idea that it was all a bunch of misogyny.
 * Okay, that's not true; Phil Fish may or may not sell his company. I haven't seen any actual sale yet, though, so it hasn't really happened yet. Unless it has and I missed it, because I really don't pay much attention to these things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * you have been warned a number of times. STOP your WP:BLP infringements or you WILL be subject to the discretionary sanctions -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that is a link to "Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people", right? Did you mean to link to something else? I'm not violating BLP. It is well-attested in numerous sources on the subject matter. You seem to be confused about the policy you are citing. I would recommend re-reading it. We discuss this sort of thing all the time on Wikipedia, but only when it is notable. Dozens if not hundreds of articles indicates that it is probably noteworthy, and given that it was the impetus behind the whole thing, it would be impossible not to include it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry wrong link, i thought that was to a page that clarified Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions the bottom entry, items about living people anywhere are subject to discretionary sanctions. You are now aware and I now expect you to follow the BLP policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP states that we must adhere strictly to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. None of these are issues in this case, as it has been reported in dozens of sources at this point, making it readily verifiable, and obviously isn't original research. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "readily verifiable" is not a justification for unsourced, irrelevant BLP issues on the talk page. If you dont care to be careful, I wont care when you are blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New material, pro-GamerGate source
http://www.viralglobalnews.com/technology/gamergate-anita-sarkeesian-video-games-journalism-time-change/17327/

This article takes a broader view, and focuses much more on the concerns of gamers. It points out that this has been a long time coming. It points out that coverage of the topic has been very one-sided. It points out that the very outlets which are being criticised are of course manipulating the way they're reporting on the topic. It points out how Anita is treated with kid gloves, and that this has stifled debate and discussion, which has made people angry. It points that the fact that certain outlets changed their policies during GamerGate means that there are legitimate concerns. It points out the unfortunate way gaming media have treated their audience. It mentions that the reporting on the topic has become an echo chamber of parrots. Most notably, it references a video interview, which happened as a result of Gamergate, with Greg Lisby, a lawyer and ethics researcher who's also the Associate Chair of the Department of Communications at Georgie State University, who states that there are ethical concerns when journalists are friends with their subjects, sleep with their subjects, and/or give money to the people they're supposed to report on.

Willhesucceed (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a chance. This isn't anywhere close to being a reliable source. On the same day, they published an article titled "ISIS Created by the United States and Other Conspiracy Theories" based on Facebook posts and asked readers to chime in with their own theories. Woodroar (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a pretty well written piece about conspiracy theories with official responses. Plenty of mainstream sources published pieces on conspiracy theories that the journalists weren't beheaded.  That article provides facebook posts from the U.S. Embassy and other places to both highlight the CT and refute it.  It's pretty neutral if only the headline grabbed your attention.  Apparently you are unaware that these theories are widely circulate in the middle east.  If you think referencing this facebook post  invalidates them as a source, you may want to rethink your criteria.  It's also in the editorial section.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't characterize the article as refuting anything. The section opens with a detailed Facebook status pushing the theory, there's a short US Embassy status generally denying everything, and it ends by saying pro-theory YouTube videos are out there. The claims in the beheading video section aren't refuted at all, and they go one step further by making allegations about the reporter. Editorial or not, it's a terrible source. Woodroar (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is several notches below even The Raw Story, a link to which was generally considered not reliable in earlier discussions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Eventually we (well, people other than me; I have no interest in a debate that will end inevitably) are going to have to talk about how the reliable sources have largely been incompetent. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So Gawker media and Buzzfeed are reliable, as well as a heavily editorialised Independent article being cited and quoted in the Events section, but whenever a source questions goes against the bias of the WP article, it shouldn't be included? Surely that's at least a little against WP:RS. Tempo River (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Market concerns
Digitimes has already noted a similar worry. Here's a second voice.

http://adland.tv/adnews/gamergate-insulting-consumers-shrinks-market/1027025677

I'm not sure as to this source's reliability. I refer you to the author's about.me and Adland's press clippings. She's a marketing and advertising expert.

Willhesucceed (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * see our reliable source policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Digitimes is fine. I don't really know much about Adland, as I noted above, but the fact that it is written by someone under the penname of "dabitch" isn't exactly an encouraging as far as reliability goes. Though in all fairness, a lot of folks go by pseudonyms; Zoe Quinn's own name is a pseudonym. I actually just ended up looking into this and apparently, dabitch is Åsk Wäppling, and has apparently been involved in this since the mid-90s. She was listed as one of the most important bloggers in 2011 by Brand Republic, and apparently have been involved in Super Bowl ad stuff, so she actually might be a reliable source. Because, clearly, what Wikipedia has always wanted but has never had is an article reference with "dabitch" listed as its author. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Parenthetically, this isn't the first time Vivian James has illustrated an article on GamerGate. kencf0618 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They can afford the usage rights. We can't.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked them if they'll release some Vivian James art under a free license. News on that when there is some. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If they are willing to do so (and it should be the actual creator, or if TFYC had had it done work for hire, themselves) they can either upload that to Commons directly (with appropriate assertations of ownership), upload to Flickr using a free license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), or if it is something more complex where the identity wants to be kept private, following the instructions at WP:CONSENT to send a ticket to OTRS. --M ASEM (t) 02:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently she's public domain, so if anyone wants to draw her or track down the artist of one of her drawings and ask them for permission to use it, feel free. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if that was a reliable source, it is unuseable as the crux of the article is to try to compare gamergate with the villaination of D&D in the 80s, which is definitely a FRINGE point and would not be acceptable to include. --M ASEM  (t) 01:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one sentence right at the end of the article. The rest doesn't mention anything about D&D. Surely there's other content there that's usable. Whether it's relevant or needed is another discussion. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged this article as a "current event"
It does seem to be a current event. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 19:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That tag is for a breaking event like a hurricane where details and facts will be changing by the minute. Not the case here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to add the DDOSing attack to The Escapist
I realize that almost any request here gets denied by the owners of the article but Forbes has made an article on it. Today The Escapist forums (which were the only of the mainstream news site to contain GamerGate discussion was DDOSed, this has been confirmed by The Escapist's co-founder Macris himself

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/20/the-escapist-forums-brought-down-in-ddos-attack/

That article has some info on the GameJournosPro but apparently that's not reliable because a right-win guy wrote, oh well. Also refers to the recent censorship on 4chan, and the still unmentioned reddit blackoutLoganmac (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Where should it go? Into Events or Response? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Events, I'd say. It's a new development within the encompassing incident, not something that someone decided to do after deliberating on the consequences of the controversy. Diego (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Forbes article about the Escapist attack puts the journalists mailing list in the category of "reliable sourced through secondary sources. Together with Ars Technica's WP:ABOUTSELF, it's enough to mention the existence of GameJournoPros and the involvement of Breitbart as the snitch; although the contents of the emails other than the few covered by Forbes are still out of reach, the rest not being analyzed by secondary sources.
 * There's also some coverage from TweakTown, is it usable? Diego (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It's literally just the Breitbart crap credulously regurgitated, with no evidence of independent reporting. "Here's what Breitbart said! OMG massive conspiracy, says Breitbart! Wow, if true." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that's precisely what many of the sources here do, yes? They regurgitate Zoe Quinn's claims and that's the only thing THEY use as evidence. Why can they do that and get mentioned, but when a different narrative comes doing the same thing, it can't be mentioned? 68.191.160.219 (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it you have a massive bias towards ZQ, of course you wouldn't want Milo's info in here Loganmac (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a bias toward ensuring that our coverage of issues relating to living people is fair, written conservatively and with regard for privacy and the avoidance of sensationalism and rumor-mongering. Additionally, I have a bias toward ensuring that our articles are based on reliable sources and properly represent the mainstream viewpoint of issues. Those "biases" I freely admit, because they are biases toward compliance with our encyclopedia's basic content policies.
 * On the other hand, every edit you have made since returning to the encyclopedia from a more-than-three-year absence has been related to attempting to depict living people in a negative light while downplaying what the reliable sources have to say about the campaign of harassment targeting them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Due to RedPen removing the section for 'undue emphasis', archiving it here for consideration:
 * The The Escapist underwent a DDoS attack that was specifically targeted at the #GamerGate thread in its forums. Site founder Alexander Macris claimed that “a large number of IP addresses targeted the #GamerGate thread for reload many times per second.” The Escapist were forced to temporarily take down their forums as a result. The shutting down of #Gamergate conversations on Reddit and 4chan had led to the Escapist becoming one of the main centers of online discussion regarding #GamerGate.(ref name="Forbes Escapist DDoS")(/ref)(ref name=BSN)(/ref)
 * How well was this DDoS documented? Ranze (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason this topic has 2 sections dedicated to it. The 4 sources documenting the DDoS are detailed in the other section covering lower down on the page section 18.1 Bosstopher (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Virulent Campaign" not being a violation of WP:NPOV
Is there a specific part of NPOV that backs up your point NorthBySouthBaranof? I assume it has something to do with with the fact that is has been quoted by a source, correct? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have gone over this fifty god damn times on this page already. "Virulent campaign" is explicitly mentioned in one of the sources cited. Go look it up.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As was noted, it is a clear WP:NPOV violation. Here we can even see user:NorthBySouthBaranof agreeing with me. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That was 2 weeks ago and you should know consensus can change. There is a thread above where NorthBySouthBaranof is clearly showing a changed opinion.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Reliable sources have described the campaign of harassment as, variously, a "virulent campaign," a "cavalcade of threats," a "flood of threats," "reams of appalling threats and abuse online," "unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment," "nothing short of an online form of terrorism," etc. Take your pick if you prefer a different descriptor than "virulent." There are no reliable sources which contest the idea that the harassment was of such a character.
 * And no, TitaniumDragon, I'm not "agreeing with you" in that diff. In that diff, I removed POV statements which were not uncontested or uncontroversial such as the in-Wikipedia-voice statement that supporters of left-wing ideology (are) called "Social Justice Warriors". That is a clearly-controversial claim which applies a pejorative term to a group of people and was not supported by any reliable sources, much less being uncontested and uncontroversial fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * NBSB, the text of the guideline continues "...unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information". This incident is being reported by all reliable sources as a controversy, so we should follow the order "to describe disputes, but not engage in them", and attributing loaded terms to the people making them. It is not an uncontestable fact that there's "harassment" - many people have contested it; even it they're not reliable sources, they've been identified by RSs as part of the controversy. It's uncontestable that the people at the center of the controversy have been receiving rude personal attacks, death threats and so, which reliable sources have described using the word "harassment".
 * So let's follow what the policy actually says and describe what has happened, but attribute subjective terms to the people that used them; what must appear in Wikipedia voice is the factual description of those attacks and threats that these people received. So let's follow what the policy actually says. Diego (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is entirely uncontroversial and uncontested that the harassment happened and that it was of such a character. If you want to use another set of the descriptors, take your pick. I like "online form of terrorism" myself.
 * "Uncontested" and "uncontroversial" does not mean "something literally nobody has ever contested." Otherwise, we couldn't even say "The Earth is round." Helpfully, we have another policy that allows us to effectively ignore theories and ideas that are held by virtually nobody. The idea that there was no harassment of Zoe Quinn is a fringe theory worthy of absolutely not a single shred of consideration in this or any other article. As WP:DUE states, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Further, Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The fact that someone, somewhere on Twitter said that the harassment didn't happen simply doesn't even merit our consideration. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, can you please calm down and read what I actually write? Ok, here it's difficult because I lost half my post in an edit conflict badly corrected, but I'll try to make it clear again in the following. For a start I'm specifically *not* claiming that there was no harassment, nor that the article should state such in any way. What I'm defending is that WP:NPOV was carefully crafted to achieve the optimal result, and you're doing it a disservice if you try to adopt the POV of the majority of RSs as the official Wikipedia POV (which is the approach you have stated as your goal to adopt). This is simply not how articles must be written, and the opposite of what policy states in spirit and letter. The whole point of NPOV is that, if you follow it, you don't *need* to adopt the POV of the majority to convey it as the most significant one, because it will defend itself by the amount of references documented in a neutral and dispassionate wording. Please try to understand this before engaging in further details about the content here, because you don't have a good record in crafting the optimum wording with respect to neutrality. Diego (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Earlier, I removed the word "tirade" quotes and all because it introduced an unnecessary value judgement. I left the word "virulent" because I felt it clarified that it was not an isolated campaign by a singular crank. I can launch a campaign, but it isn't virulent unless others join in. I removed the quotes, if you quote isolated words and phrases, they look like scare quotes and call into question the validity of the quoted material. For example, Jenn Frank's Guardian piece uses them a lot. - hahnch e n 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it clarifies it at all; the primary definition is "full of hate", and there are multiple other definitions, but I don't think it is mostly an appropriate word to use; it has too many very negative connotations, seeing as the word comes from the spread of disease - the root of the word is poison, after all. I felt like "campaign of harassment" did a good enough job of indicating it is more than one person, though that itself is semi-problematic in that it implies it was a very large number (campaigns, like military campaigns, are big things); we really have no idea how many people actually harassed Zoe Quinn. It might be better to entirely reword it. I mean, what is wrong with saying that Quinn and her family were harassed, or became the target of harassment from people online? Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I confused virulent with viral. It should be clear from the death threats that the campaign was virulent, and so the term isn't really necessary. - hahnch e n 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You dont think its "full of hate" to orchestrate and participate in a campaign rape and death threats against people and their families who even if the worst allegations were true got a good review for their game?????? that is not only virulent, thats sociopathic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't call Adolf Hitler evil inline, either, and we don't do it for the same reason. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if you think that's the worst of the accusations, you haven't been watching this stuff very closely. details a couple of the more serious ones, but I have no intention of using them for the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Erm, I was going to suggest that we add a citation next to the quote "virulent campaign" (citation 7, the source where it came from) so that people know that is a quote. But I had to leave before I could add that in. And anyway, isn't putting citations next to quotes a Wiki-policy? At least, that's what I've seen around here. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is just a pair of words taken from an article that gives next to no context for any situation, and is being used to add a negative descriptor to the article without directly stating it. It can be replaced easily. PseudoSomething (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * But it won't be, as it is a quote from a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So... Can we add a citation next to the quote "virulent campaign" without people getting angry/insta-revert? --86.140.193.228 (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It already is, "Quinn and her family were subsequently targeted by a "virulent campaign" of harassment...", cited to the WPost, Daily Dot, and the Daily Beast. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Only the Washington Post calls the campaign "virulent", Dailydot calls it a "sustained campaign", and the Daily Beast just calls it a "harassment campaign". What I want to do is move/add the citation for the Washington Post article after the quote "virulent campaign" so that people know that it was specifically the Washington Post that said that and it wasn't a phrase repeated by the other sources.
 * I'm sorry that this is causing so many problems, I just saw something which seemed like it could be fixed with what I thought I knew about Wikipedia i.e. put citations after quotes. But it seems like I just made the whole thing worse. Sorry. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I read the article and those words jumped out at me as not being Wikipedia's voice, even with the quotes. We give enough examples to make the nature of the campaign clear. Seeing that my concern is echoed here, I have changed the text. It would perhaps be OK to say "subject to what the Washington Post called a 'virulent campaign'..." but we would still have picked that over "sustained" and "harassment". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC).


 * And I have reinstated it with in-text citation. If you prefer a different quote there, such as a "cavalcade of threats," a "flood of threats," "reams of appalling threats and abuse online," "unprecedented levels of death threats and harassment," "nothing short of an online form of terrorism," "poisonous abuse," "a torrent of unfathomable outrage," "a horrible rain of rape threats," "a vicious and ugly online backlash," "a wave of rape and death threats," etc. let's discuss that. All of the above are reliably-sourced. The reliable sources are effectively unanimous in describing what happened to Quinn in the strongest possible terms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny removal
I removed misogyny from the introduction because misogyny is a form of sexism so saying "sexism and misogyny" is unnecessary.

I request that if misogyny deserves especial focus to mention it distinctively (in which case "including misogyny" would be better phrasing) that this notability be supported by references.

References must support the idea that Misogyny is a "long-standing issue" to support adding it back.

I do see of the initial 5 references following the first (sorta run-on) sentence that two have 'misogyny' in the title:
 * 1) September 3rd Misogyny or corruption in the gaming community?, a web-only article by an unidentified AlJazeera person, here are the 3 author-summarized mentions I can find of the term (the rest just being twitter quoting):
 * 2) Criticism of video games and gaming culture, for misogyny and other issues, is commonplace.
 * 3) *does not say commonplace for a long time, refers to frequency not duration
 * 4) Technology commentator Milo Yiannopoulos wrote at Breitbart that #GamerGate was the "widespread frustration from players that every blog out there seems more concerned with policing misogyny and 'transphobia' than reviewing the latest game releases"
 * 5) *Is talking about current blogging, not long-standing issues.
 * 6) An article on the entertainment site What Culture maintained that the hashtag is not about misogyny
 * 7) *Clearly not supporting it being a long-standing issue, instead objecting to a current accusation of it.
 * 8) September 10th Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls by Radhika Sanghani of Telegraph UK.
 * 9)  A quick glance at Twitter shows a number of misogynistic, sexist and pretty shocking comments coming under this hashtag.
 * 10) *Is discussing current trends, not long-standing issues.
 * 11) A number of GamerGate participants on Twitter all tell me the same thing – that GamerGate is not about sexism, misogyny or hating women at all.
 * 12) *Is discussing a current conversation, not long-standing issues, and is actually objecting to misogyny claims.
 * 13) Quinn, who has been receiving death threats for almost a month, thinks otherwise: “As someone who has been an outspoken feminist who makes weird artsy games about mental illness, I’m an easy target for them because I’m everything they hate. I think there’s been a background of hatred and misogyny in video games and now all this hatred is focused on me and other women.”
 * 14) *Is quoting a person who only got their game Greenlit last month, not qualified to comment on a 'background of misogyny' as a reliable reference.
 * 15) Sam Ovett tells me: “I’m a strong supporter of GamerGate, as I feel that certain ‘journalistic’ sites are insulting me purely for liking video games, and painting an entire group of people as white, bigoted misogynists. .. Gamergate supports women and it’s sad to see there are indeed some people that misogynistic that claim to follow ‘Gamergate’.
 * 16) *Is quoting a recent interview which does not support it being an ongoing issue.
 * 17) Her advice to them would be to “stop using a hashtag that originates in hatred and a misogynistic campaign .. she suggests they use another hashtag such as #GameEthics which raises those same issues without the misogyny
 * 18) *Simply referencing Quinn again, not actually supporting the idea of misogyny being a long-standing issue, Sanghani is neutral regarding judging the issues.

So I need some help here, guys who want to add 'misogyny is longstanding' type statements to the introductory sentence of this article: which article (please provide an excerpt) sources such a claim? I ask that you add a direct link to it after the word misogyny, should you revert my removal. Ranze (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * so now the al jazeera article which certain editors claimed over and over and over was evidence that gamergate was not merely harassment is no longer among the reliable sources because it clearly labels the issues as about misogyny . hmmmm --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about whether or not Al Jazeera is a reliable source. I'm saying that this AJ article (reliable or not) does not contain any statements supporting misogyny being a "long standing issue" in the "gamer community". The unidentified reporter is summarizing current discussions about misogyny and did not state it had been a longstanding issue. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All five of those sources discuss misogyny and specifically include the word. Woodroar (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The complaints were specifically (as noted by sources) feminist supporters, and very few of the males that were at the center of this (eg Grayson). That's why misogyny is a key word. --M ASEM (t) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence does sound somewhat redundant though. Why not just use misogyny by itself then? (And just a BTW, with the anti-GG people reverting everything and trying to skew everything, I have stopped most of my efforts until the DNR. No use to try to make it better.) PseudoSomething (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sexism and misogyny are two very different, though related, issues. And sexism has been called out too in the industry (see my list below). --M ASEM (t) 20:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "sexism (especially misogyny)"? 20:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they are too very different concepts. Misogyny is not simply a form of sexism. --M ASEM (t) 20:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Although they are different concepts, misogyny is definitely a form of sexism. Hating a gender is an extreme form of prejudice on the basis of gender. Ranze (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do think "Sexism (including Misogyny)" would read much better, since the hatred of women does fall under sexism. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wired UK, LA Times, BBC. And before GG: GDC 2014 presentation, (Eurogamer summary), Rock Paper Shotgun in 2013, CBC. No reason to remove the word as that's central to this. --M ASEM (t) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Woodroar, using the word is not enough. This article claims misogyny is a long-standing issue in the gamer community. Discussing misogynistic accusations in 2014 is not the same as establishing it as being a long-standing issue.
 * I suggest you read HOW the word is being used. Let's take a look at the three which do not have it in the title:
 * August 20th sexist crusade to destroy game developer Zoe by Aja Romano of Daily Dot
 * Trolling, sustained campaigns of harassment, intense vitriol, and a rhetoric on the part of the harassers of being conspired against by mainstream media—these are all familiar parts of the misogyny that various women in the gaming community have endured in recent years.  (the only use of the word misogyny in the article)
 * The phrase "recent years" does not support the view of "long-standing issue", it's talking about a RECENT issue.
 * The phrase "the misogyny" in this page links to http://www.dailydot.com/tags/sexism-in-gaming providing no actual support for Romanjo's claim. Why is she qualified to assess misogyny when she can't even tell it apart from the wider topic of sexism?
 * August 31st Everyone Hates Each Other And I'm Really Tired by Pete Haas of CinemaBlend
 * This list isn't exhaustive but already encompasses arguments about misogyny, professional responsibility, privacy, the direction of the gaming industry and copyright. 
 * Only mentions that the topic is being discussed, not that it is a long-standing "issue"
 * There are gamers who defend their hobby from misogyny while still acknowledging that the industry could be more inclusive.
 * Does not allege it to be a long-standing issue.
 * The people you consider misogynists or social justice warriors aren't going anywhere, either.
 * Is addressing hypothetical labelling that readers might engage in regarding persons involved in current events, is not commenting on long-standing misogyny.
 * September 4th Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games by Erik Kain of Forbes
 * Game writers claimed that all cries of corruption in media were merely thin veils to give cover to what was, essentially, a misogynistic movement. 
 * Is discussing the current "GamerGate" movement, not the "gamer community" movement.
 * Terms like “misogynerd” and “SJW” help label opponents on either side of the aisle .. “Gross nerd” evolved quickly into “Misogynerd” which is a super convenient way to label a large and diverse group of people as both icky nerds and misogynists.
 * Is discussing current slang within the conflict, not ongoing gamer culture issues.
 * there are plenty of true-blue misogynists polluting video games
 * Even supporting we take Kain as some sort of authority on the issue because Forbes lets him write, there is nothing in this statement to indicate that this is a "long-standing" pollution.
 * What I come away with here is not “feminist bullies” destroying the industry or “misogynistic neckbeards” out to scare away all the women.
 * Particularly when Kain provides neutral interpretations like this, actually supporting the opposite viewpoint: that misogyny is not what he comes away seeing.
 * #GamerGate isn’t about conspiracies. It isn’t about scandal and corruption. It isn’t about feminists or misogynists.
 * And that there is the final occurance of the term. I have now broken down all 5 articles listed as references after the initial sentence in this article, and not a single one actually supports the declaration that misogyny is a long-standing issue in gamer culture. If this claim stays, it should be properly referenced, and it isn't. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot ref links to another Daily Dot article on misogyny going back to 2005. The Forbes ref also touches on issues caused by the industry being male-driven from the start. It also calls the industry "young", something that is casually mentioned everywhere, and which I think confuses things: if we think of video games as this recent invention, then of course everything related to video games will be "recent". But your "recent" is not necessarily my "recent". If you consider the first "Cathode ray tube amusement device" as a video game, then video games predate most of us. I was born in the midst of one of the earliest video game market crashes, and I certainly don't consider myself "recent". So when a source says "recent", we have to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of assuming that they mean "this year" or "this decade" when they could have meant 2005 or even 1982. Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * you seem to be arguing for us to highlight the recent misogyny by changing the lead to " Gamergate ... is a controversy about misogyny in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism in the gamer community became high-profile on social and mainstream media,..." I dont object to that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's all I want. Clearly the controversy is about a CURRENT conflict in which the issue of misogyny is brought up and thrown about. Sexism is everywhere, both toward men and women, in video games, so that's fine to say. To say that video games are either misogynistic or misandric is a far stronger claim which we need references for though. Ranze (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a worst solution for presenting the conflict, as it is not just about misogyny anymore, and thus turns this completely against the proGG side. Further, plenty of sources throughout the article assert that misogyny is long-standing in the industry. It might require adding them to the lead, but they absolutely do exist already. --M ASEM  (t) 21:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You claim "plenty of sources". Please link them and provide the excerpts which support that. I don't think the initial sentence conveys "just about misogyny" as you say, the 2nd half of the sentence also says stuff like "along with issues regarding journalistic ethic" and such. My change did not affect that order. If you are saying you would like journalistic ethic and CoI and stuff to be given earlier mention, I support your view in that. Here, I'll move it up on the page, it deserves it. Ranze (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: as rude reversions (ie not explaining yourself adequately) are occuring, I am going to document them and my counter-responses to what I feel is edit-warring on the issue without supporting the edits:
 * "reliable sources disagree" from NBSB. They were only half-right. The source provided only discussed sexism, not misogyny, so I altered my approach based on that.
 * "no more downplaying" from Ryulong. The thing is: if reliable sources do not actually support words in Wikipedia, they should be downplayed, questioned, or really, removed altogether if nobody steps up and sources properly.
 * "not a chance in Hades" from Tarc. As you can see, I gave copious reasons for the removal, because no reference clearly supports the claim made in the opening sentence, as I explained. Tarc doesn't even bother to try and support the claim, he just restores it.
 * If this keeps up, I think this topic should have a moderator assess these types of edits. I'm all for saying misogyny (hating women) is a long-standing issue in gamer communities, but only if a reliable source supports that viewpoint, and a source has not been put next to this strong-meaning word, so I intend to remove it until it is properly sourced, and request others also object to this apparent Original Research. Ranze (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

regarding this latest reversion, you mention "that makes it WORSE towards the GG side". Can you explain what you mean by that? The before/after is: Why is 1 better than 2? How does 2 'make it worse' for GGers exactly? If you think it is alleging that GG is misogynistic, then I disagree and would like to discuss how we can phrase it to steer people away from that interpretation. It is only meant to reflect that misogyny is an issue that has come up, that opposition accuse GGers of misogyny, not agreeing that they are.
 * 1) controversy in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community
 * 2) controversy about misogyny in video game culture in which long-standing issues of sexism in the gamer community

Furthermore, you mention "the sources throughout the article support this". Please specify which ones. If a reference supports misogyny being a long-standing issue in gamer community, that reference must be listed next to the claim, otherwise it is unsupported. I analyzed the closest references (the 5 cited after the initial sentence) above, and I believe I showed that none of them actually claim misogyny is a 'long-standing' issue. If we will not omit 'misogyny' then we should at least omit 'long-standing'. If you disagree with my analsis of the 5 above, or would like to bring up a different reference, please do. Simply claiming references support a statement doesn't make a convincing argument, showing the reference doing so, on the other hand, would. Ranze (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the controversy is not just about misogyny, and stating that as what this is about completely .. insult? the proGG side and ignoring the arguments they have present. I know the press is biased a bit in presenting the proGG side, but they aren't ignoring the journalism ethics issues.  And the lead does not need to be sourced as the body does; I've identified three sources already in the article above and at least 3 additional sources showing misogyny is long-standing. --M ASEM  (t) 21:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, this is a two-way controversy - journalists and devs complaining about sexism and misogyny in the gamer community, and the gamer community complaining about collusion and other questionable practices by journalists and devs. Yes, the media has focused on the former as the larger problem, but there's no denying the second aspect exists and not being ignored. --M ASEM (t) 21:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem here is we need a way of mentioning misogyny accusations while detaching it from "long-standing" while keeping "long-standing" attached to 'sexism'. My edit did not convey misogyny to be the sole issue, but I can see how the earliest mention gives it undue focus. Any suggestions on how to detach without moving up front? What 3 sources have you identified supporting the perception of long-term misogyny in gamer culture? Ranze (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Misogyny has been long-standing too. This is not a new factor here. (See the previous harassment of Quinn here). And yes your edit made it seem like misogyny was the only issue in this controversy. --M ASEM  (t) 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FAQ
Wasn't there a FAQ? There's a blank section at the top for one and I thought we had discussed it, but I can't find anything in Talk or the archives about that. I can't imagine that would have been revdeled, but you never know. In any case, I think it would be helpful if we filled out the blank FAQ. Woodroar (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When the page was moved, the FAQ page, which was a separate page, was not. That should now be fixed. --M ASEM (t) 22:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thanks and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I initiated the move and neglected to check for the FAQ. --TS 00:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)