Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 53

Navbox
Fellow editors, I have created a rudimentary Navbox template, Template:Gamergate controversy, with some of the more obvious articles listed. It is not currently added to any of the articles included. Please make any improvements that you think would aid our readers. If any other editor feels that it is a good addition, please feel free to do the needful. NOTE: Persons should only be added if the Gamergate controversy is a defining aspect. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why Gamergate is excluded from Template:Video game controversy – it's true that it centres more on games journalism than games content, but considering that games content is what games journalism is ultimately about, I have difficulty finding a meaningful distinction here. Surely all games controversies involve the intersection between games and their surrounding culture? I would say that Gamergate is more games-related than, for instance, Burger King Pokémon container recall or Disappearance of Brandon Crisp, both of which are currently in the controversy navbox.
 * In any case, a specific Gamergate navbox seems like a useful tool for readers. My only concern is that there are so many edge-cases – how often does a commentator have to engage with Gamergate before they can be added? Should related works like Depression Quest and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games be included? —Flax5 18:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I really do think GG needs to be in the Video game controversy navbox. Clearly, that's not limited to video game controversies, but anything with the industry (as it includes things like Brown vs EMA, the SCOTUS case that put forth games as protected speech).
 * And actually, I would agree that DQ and Tropes vs. should be included in this one; following the aspects below for BLP, if the topic's involvement in the GG controversy is significant, as it is for both of these, they should be included. This would prevent a game like Gone Home from being included, as the game is highlighted as one of those GG supporters thought was artificially inflated, but that's not really much discussion on the actual topic page. --M ASEM (t) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a great idea! What could help the project more? After all, all those canvassed, clueless Gamergate recruits -- and all those banned accounts returning as IP socks -- need better access so they can harass people more efficiently without having to refer back to 8chan and reddit. And sure, we can (and will) oversight them when they use Wikipedia to make an example of women in the computer industry, and we can ban them again. After all, everyone knows Oversight is like the old Maytag Repairman ad -- they just sit around with nothing to do. And, as Flax5 observes, the edge cases are all so easy and straightforward! US Rep. Katherine Clark? President Obama? Domestic Terrorism? Balder's Gate? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Or they could just read the article and click on all the blue words! - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And the answers for those four articles are "potentially", "hell no", "lol wut?", and "don't be silly", respectively. Of course, it would be good if we only had a principle like "consensus" to help with these sort of questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support navbox – useful for readers, and does not suffer from the problems with a Gamergate category. SST flyer 11:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm all for this. I've thought making something that can help with navigating this event would be useful. GamerPro64  03:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many questionable entries to really fly, I would strongly oppose putting it on any bio pages and argue that all links to them bar maybe Milo (who has voluntarily associated himself) be removed, one of the links barely mentions Gamergate and another goes to a page that probably should be deleted. Just not likely to be worth the hassle, I'm afraid. Artw (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources have mentioned that a person has been involved in Gamergate, and the (BLP) article discusses it, there is nothing inappropriate about linking such articles in the navbox. SST flyer 13:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: has removed all people from the navbox, and has also removed the navbox from all biographies it was placed on. SST flyer  13:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but with extreme caution on the names. The last version with names I think captured only the key people that are significantly associated with the topic; the only one that is at the cusp would be Leigh Alexander (if we are arguing that her "Death of Gamers" article was part of it - as she wasn't the only journalist that wrote on of these so that might be putting too much on her alone). Arguably, I can think of a few others (Rep. Katherine Clark, Cathy Young, and maybe a couple of other outspoken critics on either side), but there's definitely people that while connected should not be included, like Phil Fish, Adam Baldwin, TotalBiscuit, etc. It should be limited to people that have actually shaped how the controversy and responses to the controversy have proceeded.  I do understand the caution with the names, as attachment to GG can broadly be seen as a negative impact to a BLP article, but if the article already has discussion of their involvement in GG, we are not introducing anything new. --M ASEM  (t) 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Gamergate isn't particularly noteworthy in the history of most of the things that were mentioned, and if you limit it to just the ones where it is, it doesn't cover very much of use. With the BLPs removed, most of the things currently in the template don't actually have a huge amount of coverage among reliable sources that have discussed Gamergate, which makes associating them with it via a template feel a bit WP:UNDUE.  In particular, I took out Kotaku, which didn't have any mention of Gamergate on its article and only gets a few passing mentions here; while my feeling is that if you went to Gamergate hangouts, they'd call that site their "archenemy" or whatever and name it as a primary target, virtually no coverage of Kotaku itself references Gamergate, and very little of the reliable coverage of Gamergate has touched on it -- it has passing mentions at best, usually ones that word it as tangential to the controversy (eg. the sources mention it as a place one person involved happened to work, rather than describing it as a focal point.)  That sort of thing is not enough to support a template. --Aquillion (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added Kotaku because this article contains the sentence "Gawker blog Kotaku was at the center of the initial allegations that started Gamergate." It seemed an appropriate inclusion because of that. I don't really have a strong opinion about the navbox either way though. —Torchiest talkedits 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just removed that sentence (before seeing your reply, because I double-checked the article to make sure about what it said about Kotaku!), since it's not supported by the ref, which doesn't mention Kotaku specifically (just Gawker, its parent company) and doesn't really mention the overarching history of Gamergate, just one incident. Thinking about it, it's possible we could find a ref for something like that, but we probably should have one if it's going to be in the article, and certainly if it's going to go in a navbox.  I think what it was trying to say, though, was that Grayson wrote for Kotaku, which I don't think would be enough to support inclusion in the infobox on its own.  --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not worth the trouble It's clear that exactly who appears in the box and what pages the box would appear on would provide a never-ending fount of conflict, and its not clear the box provides a greater service to the reader than wikilinked article text does. Rhoark (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What Rhoark said: I was having a hard time trying to put in words why I think this is a bad idea, but there it is right above me! Thanks Rhoark! --Brustopher (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose No point having a navbox for a grand total of 4 links. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of RfC Closure
An editor requested that I make a clarifying statement regarding my closure of this RfC, specifically with regard to whether my close supports expanding the usage of "movement" in the article or using it sparingly. The original text of my close was "There is clear consensus that referring to Gamergate as a movement can be appropriate and is supported by the sources. Editors are cautioned that this close should not be taken as a consensus to remove information from sources that do not treat Gamergate as a movement or criticize Gamergate."

I would like to clarify the following points.


 * 1) Gamergate should be referred to as a movement when generally discussing the sources that identify Gamergate as a movement. This may seem obvious based on the close, but I'm spelling this out due to how contentious this subject area can be. The arguments for identifying Gamergate as a movement entirely hinged upon the wording available in certain sources and WP:RS. If it's ever appropriate to use the term "movement", then it must be appropriate when specifically discussing the sources that justify the use of that word.
 * 2) Gamergate should not be referred to as a movement when generally discussing the sources that do not identify Gamergate as a movement. Again, fairly obvious, rationale similar to the above.
 * 3) As the sources referring to Gamergate were significant enough to warrant inclusion of that view, it is reasonable to conclude that Gamergate should be discussed as a movement briefly (but not exclusively) in the lead as per WP:Summary style and MOS:LEAD. Quoting from MOS:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This is the default unless a discussion concludes with consensus against summarizing that aspect of the article in the lead, since it is the position supported by existing guidelines given the RfC's outcome.

As a side note, whenever people start arguing about a close, the appropriate thing to do is message the closer. Spending pages saying it means/doesn't mean something isn't very helpful. ~ RobTalk 20:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

lede changes
How does my edit remove the fact that Gamergate is associated with harassment? It's very clearly still there in the lede sentence. Brustopher (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was more the fact that the change was chalked up to BLP concerns, which strikes me as a non-issue. I'm not totally opposed, but I am still considering that lead (as are so many of us!).  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah basically I think the previous version of the lede gives off the implication that the only people the term GG can be used to refer to are harassers. This is why I replaced it with something else that works better. Brustopher (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Put in a compromise edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just putting in that my revert was unintentional. I didn't realize there had been an edit after Brustopher's change. I was intending to simply correct the spelling of organise to its American variant. Having said that, the current version seems redundant to me: "the harassment campaign, actions by those perpetrating the harassment". It's difficult to see how those are meaningfully distinct. One or the other should go, or they should be combined somehow. —Torchiest talkedits 21:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that,, I thought you supported the new version. I rolled back to the consensus version. I think separating the 'harassment campaign' and 'actions by those perpetrating the harassment' is a nice way of establishing that people refer to both the wider phenomenon of Gamergate, and the individual incidents of harassment. I'm open to suggestion of improvements. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do support the changes made by Brustopher, but I was out of date when I made that edit. Otherwise I would have attempted a revert myself, rather than make a spelling change to the new text. I also didn't realize there was already a discussion ongoing, or I would have come to talk straightaway. So I support your compromise version as opposed to the original version in the interim while we discuss here. —Torchiest talkedits 21:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The sentence reads "Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign, and actions by those perpetrating the harassment". It is still incomplete, and the way it reads, that sentence has a comprehensive tone. There are people who can be called "Gamergaters" who do not harass anyone, and they cannot be considered covered under the "controversy" rubric either... a "controversy" is not a person or people.Marteau (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the closure of the RFC at the current top of this talk page - in which we should refer to GG broadly as a movement though obviously not ignoring the harassment, the lede sentence should be something like this:  --M ASEM  (t) 23:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than some fairly obvious copy editing, I suggest that this version aligns with the reliable sources which we are using. It also has the benefit of being, for the most part, English. I thank for their effort; and support inclusion, post-copy edit. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * loosely unorganized? My strongest objections to any lede that reads so poorly, or so misrepresents the bulk of reliable sources. Your interpretation of the RfC's conclusion is flawed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the lead sentences offered by closely align with the bulk of reliable sources, per my recent reading of each and all of them, and as demonstrated in the analysis provided in, and consensus reached by, the RfC above. Respectfully, I challenge editors asserting that the bulk of reliable sources is different to WP:PROVEIT. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not those challenging it. If the current consensus lede does not reflect the bulk of reliable sources, I don't think it would have survived the crucible that is this topic area. I do not think the lede proposed by does reflect the bulk of reliable sources, and do not agree with its implementation without severe workshopping and a consensus on the version proposed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing doing. The harassment and misogyny is the most notable thing about Gamergate so burying it deep in the lede won't work.--Jorm (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Notability is not content. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem, that is not how the RFC was closed. The closure says that we can refer to Gamergate using the term in the article, not that we should primarily refer to GG, broadly, as a movement.  The closure supports the idea that that take is one aspect of the controversy, not that we can rewrite the lead to make that the primary focus or the core way we approach the subject -- that reading is clearly not supported by reliable sources, which tend to refer to it as a movement only in passing when they reference it at all.  The closure specifically says that we cannot remove or downplay sources that do not describe Gamergate as a movement; most of the changes proposed here clearly violate that and would therefore go against the RFC's results. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me give it a try:

I think this does a good job of integrating other aspects while keep the focus on the most widely covered parts of the controversy. —Torchiest talkedits 01:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I, likewise, thank you for your efforts. There are a couple of phrases for which I am not certain that we have reliable sources - The movement has been widely viewed as a harassment campaign ..., there is mention of harassment campaign in some sources, but equating the movement to a harassment campaign is not commonly found, and this would appear WP:UNDUE in this context; criticism and harassment have been primarily coordinated through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, while sources state that criticism/harassment occurred over Twitter, they do not state that it was so coordinated. If editors have sources supporting either of these, I invite them to provide those sources. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Another try:
 * —Torchiest talkedits 03:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. The RFC's closure supported the fact that Gamergate can sometimes be referred to as a movement, not that that's the primary way to describe or define it; I feel your revised lead (which makes that the first sentence) doesn't reflect the weight various aspects of the controversy have been covered in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The question raised by the RFC was to determine what catchall term to call the group of people that support GG, and the closure say "yes we can use "movement", keeping in mind not to change the intent of sources when their statements are made". Thus when writing in Wikipedia's voice as we have to do in the lede, the consensus is to call the group a "movement", but obviously we also have to mention that much of the press sees them as a group of harassers because the clear majority of opinions out there. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking no position on the lede content due to my enforcement role, but I would just like to take a second to note that I've been watching these pages carefully and would like to express my happiness that there is once again productive discussion taking place on article content. This is very encouraging, thank you all. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

So things seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent but...
We're all generally ok with the change I made right? Brustopher (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC) The Washington Post thinks it's a blog. Dare I mention that it still doesn't contain anything which supports a categorisation of the non-harassment Gamergate activities as having been performed by "those perpetrating the harassment". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with your removal of "actions by those perpetrating the harassment." from the lede, or the assertion that including this text violates BLP somehow. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am a little confused. Other than harassment, which is covered by the harassment campaign, what exactly does actions by those perpetrating the harassment mean? Would it be possible to provide some example "actions"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. People refer to 'Gamergate' not only when referring to the harassment campaigns but also the broad 4chan-esque culture of those perpetrating the campaigns, and the actions those affliating themselves with this culture may undertake that are tangential to the harassment campaigns (such as trying to make people think 'Notyourshield' was something.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Truly intriguing. Would it be possible to provide a couple of sources which categorize these "actions" as having been performed by "those perpetrating the harassment", so that we might evaluate how those sources phrase things? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position. I don't think the phrase being there is a BLP issue by itself. It's more that I feel it is when no other mention of people referred to as Gamergate is made in the lede sentence. With my addition I don't think it's a BLP violation, just redundant. I see you're arguing there's something to be distinguished between actions and people but I'm just don't get the point your making. Brustopher (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you asking me to provide links to sources which name gamergate members, or which discuss actions by gamergate members that are only tangential to the harassment campaign, or some combination? Please be specific. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources which categorise non-harassment Gamergate actions as having been performed by "those perpetrating the harassment"; but now that it's mentioned, sources which describe those actions as "only tangential" as well. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First: A gentle reminder that we don't seek to quote sources word for word. Paraphrasing is encouraged. Secondly: There are many sources that discuss the culture around gamergate, as well as commonalities in action that aren't specifically oriented around the harassment campaign that solidified the culture. Try this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/13/this-is-what-happens-when-you-create-an-online-community-without-any-rules/ PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An excellent piece by WAPost's Caitlyn Dewey, whose opinions I always find interesting. What I do not find, either in the source, or elsewhere in our article, is anything which supports the inclusion of the text categorising non-harassment actions as having been performed by "those perpetrating the harassment" in the lead section. Nor is that phrasing a general, neutral & reliably sourced description of the culture around gamergate. Paraphrasing is indeed encouraged; invention is not. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That... wasn't an opinion piece, or an op-ed. Colour me confused? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, WP:NEWSORG and long standing consensus at WP:RSN, granularity of opinion vs fact is at the level of the statement, not the source document. That is, a source may contain both opinion and fact; the label on the can does not determine how we treat the contents. Not that that particular source contains anything germane to the statement in the lead section being discussed here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it your assertion that the linked source is opinion because you say so? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is my assertion that WAPost's Caitlyn Dewey is clearly a columnist, and that her columns contain a mixture of fact and opinion. Perhaps more apropos is my assertion that this source, which discusses 8chan, contains nothing which supports the inclusion, in the lead, in Wikipedia's voice, of a categorisation of the non-harassment Gamergate activities as having been performed by "those perpetrating the harassment". If editors opinions differ on this, would they be able to quote the sections which they feel are supportive of such an inclusion? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see zero reason to suppose that posts in the 'news' section of the Washington Post written in a factual term are, in fact, opinion pieces purely because you assert that Caitlyn Dewey does not write factual pieces. I trust the Washington Post's judgement of the writer more than I trust your judgement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds great. The Intersect - At the corner of Internet and interesting; Caitlin Dewey helms this look at Internet culture and how it's changing us. Caitlin is the Post’s digital culture critic and creator of The Intersect blog.
 * WP:NEWSBLOG still exists. "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.". Caitlyn Dewey is a professional. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Many blogs in reliable newspaper websites are written by professional journalists, who may also write stories that are also under a clear "news" banner. For example, Dewey contributed to this news report. But most of Dewey's works appear as her own opinionated writing as a critic for the Post, taking a first-person tone or personalizing the issue. Which is fine for opinion, but begs questions as to what is stated is factual. --M ASEM (t) 22:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, and for the fifth time of asking, what part of this blog, in the WAPost's Lifestyle section, which focuses on 8chan and Fredrick Brennan, supports a inclusion, in the lead, in Wikipedia's voice, of a categorisation of the non-harassment Gamergate activities as having been performed by "those perpetrating the harassment". Alternately, which part of the Gamergate controversy article or which part of other, as yet unspecified, sources support such an inclusion. If we're not able to substantiate this assertion with reliable sources, then it is original research and should be removed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked me for examples of reliable sources which discuss the actions of those who perpetrate the harassment campaign that is gamergate that are not primarily harassment campaign-oriented. This article, which discusses those who orchestrate the harassment moving en-masse from one site to another, qualifies. You then diverged on some tangent about how of course it's not a reliable source. It clearly is, and that's been proved. Now you're trying to assert that I've only provided a reliable source (the goalpost you initially provided), and that this is the only reliable source discussing the actions of those perpetrating the harassment outside the harassment itself? - I get the feeling you're moving the goalposts so rapidly as to make it impossible for any actual progress to be made. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The source provided clearly does not support a categorisation, in Wikipedia's voice, of non-harassment Gamergate activities as having been performed by "those perpetrating the harassment" or make any assertion which could reasonably be paraphrased into such a statement. If you or any other editor disagrees, then please quote the section of the source which you believe does support the statement. The source provided is also at best reliable for uncontroversial statements of simple fact, or attributed opinions. If you or any other editor disagrees, then please ping me in your posting at WP:RSN. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I confess this argument has largely lost me, but perhaps we could switch from "actions of those participating in it" to "actions surrounding the harassment" or some such? While I understand this desire to draw a distinction between "good Gamergate" and "bad Gamergate," it strikes me as more of an artifact of argument here than anything represented in the sources, and as such unhelpful.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not speculate on editors' motives. The desire here is to include information which meets our core content policies - in this case, WP:NOR, which requires that we have reliable sources for any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No speculation here! I was commenting on the general thrust of the argument to this point as I understood it.  In the future I'll try to eschew the word "desire" or similar terms.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also note that the predominance of sources which we are currently referencing, and the consensus of editors, per this RfC, describe those activities as a movement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to reflect the body, so will never be good while the body has so many problems. Every question about the lede will naturally lead to "where's the evidence?" and the evidence is not in order. I will say it is not at all hard to find RS calling things "Gamergate" where the referent is not harassment, harassers, or driving women out of gaming - even if the former comprise the thrust of the article. Rhoark (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I regard your change as a definite improvement; though feel that there are still issues with the alignment of the lead to the sources. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the change too. At the very least, the compromise version should be restored as a starting point, and we can work on merging the redundancies in the other two phrases. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 12:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your assertion as a factual matter, it seems to me that the majority of the RS speak about Gamergate in those sorts of terms and also that the wider-world notability largely revolves around those factors. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The core issue that is at the center of nearly every discussion on this page is based around how much we are required as a neutral work to take what the reliable sources have stated as facts. It should be very clear, just from the nature of this controversy, the press in general are not neutral in this, they are actually one side of the controversy. Further of course is that any casual analysis of these major sources show an abundance of opinionated writing that is not the hallmark that we would use to justify factual statements (per WP:NEWSORG). So just because we would normally take them as reliable sources for nearly any other topic that they aren't involved in, here on the GG that's a step we can't take and stay as a neutral work. Otherwise, we are reflecting the tone of the press, which a neutral work cannot do. GG, at the core, is a battle of accusations from both sides with only a handful of facts that can actually be validated (eg such as knowing that harassment often used the #gamergate hashtag, something that was clearly public). "Verifyability, not truth" does not mean that something that can be verified by a reliable source is necessary truth. WP:NPOV, particularly WP:YESPOV, is the guidance we need to mediate the tone of the plurality of sources that hate upon GG to meet the neutrality we need as an encyclopedia, as to incorporate the wide resentment and accusations towards GG, which must be a significant part of the article since that's how this situation is notable, but avoid taking that same tone in WP's voice by making sure these accusations are not just taken as fact but as the majority opinion from the press. The above RFC for example shows that consensus recognizes that many sources call the GG as an harassment campaign but neutrally in WP's voice we should call them a movement. --M ASEM (t) 15:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we need a comprehensive review of the sources we are currently using to look for a few things:
 * We need to get an idea of how many are news reports vs opinion pieces.
 * We need to count the relative frequency of mentions of harassment campaign vs movement.
 * We need to consider replacing highly opinionated pieces from video gaming sites in favor of more factual accounts from higher quality sources like the Washington Post and New York Times.
 * Right now we're stuck with disagreements that are probably based on general impressions about what the sources say, rather than a strict accounting. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 15:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that these are not bad steps to take, but what has been at odds here for the longest time involves what we as WPian editors can evaluate from the sources. Specifically, are we as WPians able to look at a news piece from an otherwise (non-gaming) RS source, which lacks any byline or direct indication that it is meant as opinion piece or op-ed, and come out and say it is opinionated reporting and should be careful to attribute any facts to it? If we cannot accept that WPians can do this, we're back at square one again.  Personally, I am fully confident that our policies and practices as a neutral work enable us make consensus-based judgement calls on these sources to keep a neutral tone; if the source is pushing on an angle and using loaded language without any attribution to a third-party, it's the writer's opinion, and that our NPOV policy enables us as editors to make this assessment as long as when we include the writer's opinion we do not misrepresent it. (This is the same type of "original research" we use to judge a source as reliable to start with) But this has been a point fought over on this page, on if we should be taking the sources as an absolute truth or if we should treat them as claims. And if we can't come to a conclusion on that, we'll continue to be at odds, no matter how many ways we inspect and sort the sources. --M ASEM  (t) 16:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should be following the regular, well understood rules on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT and not be using some weird set of house rules to cherry-pick. Artw (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no weird house rule here. WP:RS, under WP:NEWSORG, states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The problem is that RS itself does not have any advice either way on how to determine or deal with unlabeled opinionated reporting as for when to classify a work into "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". --M ASEM (t) 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we have the ability to write, "sources such as x, y, and z have called Gamergate this, that, and the other", and then also document specific events that are widely reported. I'd say just about anything labeling Gamergate as one thing or another is an opinion, and anything recounting events is factual. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 17:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is what WP:YESPOV encourages, if you know something should be treated as opinion. The long-standing issue that, for many articles from the highest RSes, are not labeled as opinion or op-ed, but read as opinion if one steps back to evaluate it neutrally. Treating these as opinion pieces and citing and attributing their statements as claims would be the proper steps, but it has been rejected in the past that we can call these opinionated pieces because they are not labelled as such and so that we should treat them as factual works, and because there's near universal acceptance of these facts, to claim otherwise is often called a fringe theory. Central to all of the issues on GG's coverage is that our polices and guidelines do not describe how to cover a situation like this in any sense and we have to build the cart as we go. --M ASEM (t) 18:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Actions by those perpetrating the harassment"
This wording isn't the best! Most people think it's clunky. I think it isn't, but my opinion doesn't trump consensus. I'd like it if we could talk about alternates to phrasing it, rather than talking about removing it. The reason I think it's important to include is that reliable sources discussing the harassers of Gamergate often also discuss and lump in with them actions that are common amonst them but not explicitly harassment related, such as the Fine Young Capitalists stuff. I think 's suggestion to changing the wording to "actions surrounding the harassment" is a good one. What does everybody else think? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Err... This isn't a vote. It's a discussion. Your non-sequitur is a bit out of place. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Movement" - per the RfC. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

[redacted by Dumuzid]
 * Per the RfC, of course... PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem extends from trying to push the harassment aspect before the movement, because you haven't introduced the people involved first. Currently the sentence reads If you flip it around, you get rid of clunky language without loosing the critical aspect of the harassment:  --M ASEM  (t) 14:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redundant. The harassment campaign and the "movement" are the same thing. Unless you're intending "movement" to mean the public facing bits that accreted around the harassment campaign? If so then that came afterwards and should go afterwards. Artw (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, we just had an RfC which determined that it is appropriate to refer to the group of persons collectivising under the #Gamergate hashtag as a "movement"; which is also the term used in the predominance of sources which we are currently referencing and which discuss that group of persons. The reliable sources which we are using do not support a statement, in Wikipedia's voice, that that movement and the group of persons engaging in a "harassment campaign" are congruent. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The RFC allows for the word mandate to be used occasionally on the page, which it already was, and does not mandate anything else. Artw (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I requested a clarification of the close, which was kindly provided by, below. I believe that the clarification supports the use of "movement", where referencing sources which use the term. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But Masem, doesn't the harassment antedate the movement according to the RS? I understand that your preferred phrasing doesn't necessarily indicate temporal order, but it seems to me to imply a sort of evolution that is the reverse of what actually happened.  Whatever one thinks of the developed "gamergate," I believe it is generally agreed that its original wellspring was the harassment and morass that grew out of the accusations against Ms. Quinn.  Again, I know your stylistic preference doesn't mean you disagree with me here (though you may), but it seems to me it gives a distinct impression which is contrary to the (for lack of a better term!) facts.  Just my thought on why we should keep something approximating the current wording.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Harassment of Quinn & Sarkessian, per statements by both of those persons, certainly antedates not only the Gamergate movement, but the whole of the Gamergate controversy itself; by any meaning of Gamergate controversy. But then I think we're a bit down in the weeds - The Gamergate controversy really isn't an independent thing without the Gamergate movement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources say otherwise. Artw (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, which sources? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources which have what we now know as GamerGate starting with the harrasment of Zoe Quinn, which is to say all most all of them. Artw (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So then Ryk72, would you say that the so-called "ZoePost" cannot be part of the 'Gamergate controversy' because it predates the 'Gamergate movement?' By my lights, it is perfectly coherent to say the 'Gamergate movement' is a result of the 'Gamergate controversy,' and therefore you can talk about the latter without the former.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that eggs are part of this delicious cake which I am currently consuming, but, even though they clearly existed as eggs prior to the formation of the cake, they did not become cake parts until such formation. Also, would it be possible to provide a "25 words or less" definition of Gamergate controversy as meant in the previous statement? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have to keep in mind that the harassment towards Quinn in the wake of Gjoni's post (the harassment appearing to have been something planned out before Gnoji's post per the IRC logs), and the accusations regarding the ethics of Grayson Game Jam piece that included Quinn's game in a positive light are two separate tracks of action, unfortunately merged into a common behavior in the gaming media's coverage of the situation with the "Death of Gamers" posts that followed. (For example this Ars Tech article from late Aug 2014 points out the conspiracy theories regarding the media aspect as a separate but primary facet alongside the harassment towards Quinn and Fish and others). As a result, the movement bore out from that hostility that the gaming media showed to gamers in the wake of those articles, but at this point, there's nothing to support the idea that the movement was geared to campaign harassment towards others. Harassment continued, no question, but there's nothing to link it as a goal of the movement, only as being tied to the #GG hashtag. Certainly now, using RSes that have spoken to people that say they are part of the movement, its clear harassment is not their intent since they actively try to stop people from using harassment. That said, there's still people - whether actually aligned with the movement or as third-party trolls - harassing and the like using the GG hashtag, so there's still a campaign of harassment.
 * I'm fully aware that if you select the right sources, what I've said above could be disproven, but that's being very selective. Take what I consider to be an objectively-reported piece from the NYtimes . That supports the fact that harassment may be the most visible and outspoken part about the movement but by far it does not reflect the majority of people within the movement so we should not be presuming that, today, that harassment is the purpose of the movement. --M ASEM  (t) 15:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Masem, you seem to be responding to a point I don't see anyone making. I am not saying everyone ever associated with the term "Gamergate" is a harasser.  I am saying the movement grew out of a context which was inexorably intertwined with harassment--whether it still is or not is beside the point.  Even your New York Times quote seems to imply this -- the "instigators of the campaign" seem to have been active before the hashtag-rallying in the piece.  Perhaps everyone who posts on KotakuInAction these days is saintly beyond reproach.  That does not retroactively change where this business all started, and I had thought that both in the reliable sources and around here there was broad agreement on that.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem exists here because there is no demonstrated factual linkage between the rumblings in the IRC logs about targeting Quinn pre-Gjoni post, and the growth of the movement after the "Gamers are dead" sequence of articles. There's no clear source we can use that says those involved in the movement were also those in the IRC logs. This is not to dismiss that this could be the case, but we have to recognize that this connection is presently only made by a product of the opinions of video gaming reporters at the time, as well as readily fitting an Occum's Razor explanation of why things were happening. This is where the issue of recognizing how many of the sources at that time were factual or opinion pieces is important, and that there's a lot of muddying of the waters due to the emotional aspects of the issues then. For purposes here, we can't deny the claims raised that the movement was started to be an harassment campaign, but we should recognize these as claims and should avoid stating them as fact or insinuating anything in the structure of this article by assuming these as facts. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who needs a demonstrated factual linkage? Masem, you act as though there is an objective referent to which "Gamergate" refers.  There is not.  At best it is a loose collection of those who share certain ideological beliefs about video games, and possibly other matters.  Your demand for a link is rather akin to saying "unless you can show me a link between Martin Luther King Jr. and the Weather Underground, we can't possibly refer to both as parts of the antiwar movement."  If you have some set of identifiers for "Gamergate" members, then I'd like to see it!  Until then, we should use the term as it is used in the wild, by those who claim to be part, but also as a product of video gaming reporters at the time.  There is no doubt in my mind that "Gamergate," as commonly used, includes within its ambit both harassers and completely innocent people.  I honestly don't even understand your complaint; it is entirely possible to say there was no overlap between those who initially engaged in harassment and those who later went to the SPJ event.  It simply does not matter.  Saying "both MLK and the Weathermen were part of the antiwar movement" in no way implicates the good reverend in any bombings.  The usage of "Gamergate" here, in the reliable sources, and (heaven help me) in the world at large includes both the good people and the knaves.  We should reflect that usage.  That's all.  Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is a strong push on this article to focus on the harassment, including painting the movement as an harassment campaign, which means if we are grouping those that came into it because of their concerns about "ethics" alongside the subset that are doing harassing (which alone is well-supported factually), we are automatically labeling those "ethics" people of something they have not done, and we absolutely cannot do that as a neutral work, per WP:LABEL. --M ASEM (t) 21:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a strong push towards reality and the sources rather than daydreams and bullshit. I'm sorry, but the beast you seek - a GamerGate movement isolated from any contact with the harrasment campaign, simply does not exist. Even the article you quote gives the harrasment of Zoe Quinn as the starting point for what we now know as GamerGate and any "Movement" that might go with it. Artw (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, having reviewed both the Ars Technica & NYT sources linked by, I am unable to find anything which supports the assertion that either gives the harrasment of Zoe Quinn as the starting point for what we now know as GamerGate and any "Movement" that might go with it. Would it be possible to identify & quote the sections of those sources which are considered to support this assertion? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the Ars Technica article is from August 28, 2014. While I suppose "Gamergate" technically existed at that point, if we take the Adam Baldwin tweet as its "birth," it was on the order of 24 hours old, so we can perhaps forgive the author for not addressing it.  The New York Times, article, on the other hand, identifies the Quinn harassment as a turning point: "While harassment of Ms. Sarkeesian and other women in the video game business has been an issue for years, it intensified in August when the former boyfriend of an independent game developer, Zoe Quinn, wrote a rambling online essay, accusing her of having a relationship with a video game journalist."  In context, this is clearly meant as some sort of major point for gamergate.  Other reliable sources are more direct, like the Washington Post.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if we ignore the fact that the WashPost article is clearly an example of opinionated journalism (it uses "we" and frames it as a first-person piece, in addition to impassioned language), that WashPost does not say what you think it says, as it even distinguishes the "ethics" from harassment aspects, and actually does a fair job to say that "ethics" side bore out not for a reason to harass Quinn but as a result of alleged connection. Rhoark's previous analysis of the sources show that it is very easy to presume what some of these articles say if one wants to push the point of how evil GG is, but they actually don't say that - they give a fair amount of doubt in favor of the movement that, while they may be barking up a tree about the ethics allegations, the bulk are not engaged in harassment. --M ASEM (t) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "movement" is inseparable tied to the harassment campaign, something mentioned in every article that separates it out into something different. This is pretty much undeniable and you are wasting our time in doing so. Artw (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between saying that "the movement is tied to the harassment campaign" (which is pretty much true), and "the movement is the harassment campaign" (which is where we have no RSes that affirm this and RSes that counter this statement). The first statement is completely fine, the second statement is a serious violation of sourcing and neutrality policies. --M ASEM (t) 22:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem, again, you seem to be arguing against a tape recording rather than anything I am saying. I am not saying Gamergate is evil.  I am not saying there are not people concerned with ethics within.  I am not saying they are all harassers.  I'm saying that we have no rule of recognition for gamergaters, and thus it is entirely possible to coherently say "Most gamergaters are not harassers, but the most notable thing about gamergate is harassment."  You want to draw some sort of distinction between subsets of gamergate, this is all well and good so far as supported by the reliable sources.  But to say we cannot attribute the acts of nebulous subgroup A to gamergate is to get the burden of proof precisely backwards.  If you want to say "A did this and not B," you must be able to at least limn for me groups A and B, which, as near as I can tell, is impossible within gamergate.  If the reliable sources say "a small number of people within Gamergate did X," you can certainly qualify it that way, but you cannot say "Gamergate did not do X because they did not all do X."  Gamergate, to the outsider, is an opaque black box which one cannot see inside.  You're asking me to trust you as to exactly what is inside.  This I will not do. Dumuzid (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , Whether or not it is a position that you personally are advocating, the discussion above clearly involves editors supporting a conflation of "harassment campaign" and "movement" through an attribution of activities, which have been associated by sources with the movement, to the persons involved in a harassment campaign. The example activities provided thus far include "#NotYourShield", the exodus from 4chan; neither of which are clearly isolated to "persons perpetrating an harassment campaign". I also note that editors above have clearly stated The harassment campaign and the "movement" are the same thing. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * -- I am doing nothing more or less than advocating my own position. Dumuzid (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you quoting me? If so then reading the rest of the paragraph may be enlightening. And yes, sometimes "GamerGate movement" is used to discuss GamerGate as a whole, without any separate non-harassing portion. 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Enlightenment, like beauty, may need to be in the eye of the beholder. I would suggets that there is less issue with describing the whole as "Gamergate movement", where supported by sources, than there is describing it as "harassment campaign". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly neither reality or the sources have provided a GamerGate that has nothing to do with harrasment so... tough? I have honestly no idea what you are trying to "prove" now, you just seem to be going in circles wasting people's time. Artw (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that "The movement is an harassment campaign" is something that we cannot state in a factual voice does not mean that instead we should state "The movement has nothing to do with harassment". There is a better middle ground that keeps the center fact that harassment has happened as part of this controversy and perhaps the only reason this is a topic, but how much of that harassment can solely be attributed to the movement, or what the movement's motives in regards to harassment is questionable or even unknowable. But the movement and harassment are tied together, at minimum soiling the reputation of the movement in the eyes of the press. --M ASEM (t) 00:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, Masem, you would say that the statement "Martin Luther King Jr. and the Weather Underground were both part of the antiwar movement" is, in essence, libeling Dr. King with the violent crimes of the Weather Underground? Dumuzid (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, that creates no implication by saying that. But if I were do go on from that statement and say the overly broad statement: "The antiwar movement was responsible for bombings" (actions factually taken by the Weather Underground), I've now implicated that MLK did bombings too, which of course is false. We can say "there are 'ethics' and harassers in the movement", that causes no issues, but its when we add "the movement is an harassment campaign", you're placing blame on people that haven't done it. --M ASEM (t) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with fact and opinion, as a philosophical matter, has to be addressed before parsing exactly how to word this section. There is no simple rubric as to what is fact or opinion - either could appear in a column marked as opinion. Either could occur in a news story not marked as opinion. Either could occur in The New York Times or in Polygon. An opinion column can deploy facts in support of its argument, and even a respected paper can present an opinion as fact when it conforms to their biases. For example, if a story says "The import tariff on marshmallow peeps is 12%; this is too high." the first clause is necessarily a statement of fact and the second is necessarily a statement of opinion, regardless of the stature of the publication or the styling of the piece.

Now, as to whether the people performing "other actions" are the same people as "those responsible for harassment": this could in principle be a statement of fact if reported by trustworthy and unbiased sources. In practice, sources say the opposite. Off the top of my head, NYT, CJR, The Guardian, and Heron,Belford,&Goker identify these as distinct groups of people. There is a quite separate question of whether the "other actions" group bears some moral culpability due to a shared ideology with those doing harassment, but that is the kind of statement that is opinion by necessity, regardless of how it is presented. It is an opinion that has to get some due weight, but less weight than the fact the groups are separate. Rhoark (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced and OR content
I have removed a sentence: "Gaming-related conventions in 2015, such as a Canadian Games Studies Association meeting and the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2015, have seen ongoing harassment from Gamergate hashtag users." This sentence is original research. The Mary Sue source simply states that CGSA attendees we told not to use the Gamergate hashtag, and that after one person did, "there were thousands and thousands of tweets in the tag". There's no clear statement saying CGSA attendees were harassed. There's possibly something to say about Walschots, but not the entire meeting. And that point is discussed in a more general sense in the Gamergate activities, in the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Reporting on Gamergate has also been made difficult by the intense harassment that some researchers have gotten when using the Gamergate hashtag, with some organizations advising people to not use the term online to avoid this." The Polgon source simply describes the placement of a bunch of flyers at E3 2015. The article never uses the word harassment, and the flyers are not characterized as anything other than anti-Feminist Frequency. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Who or what is "award-winning"?
We should probably be discussing this here. <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">

Initially, I restored the material because I feel the distinction is trivial. Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is Anita Sarkeesian's series, she received an award for it, therefore the show is "award-winning". User:Starke Hathaway made the point that the sources fall short of saying that, which is an excellent point, even though I still feel the distinction is silly. So, do we have sources that clearly state Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is "award-winning"? Or should we rephrase it as "in part due to her award-winning work on the YouTube video series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games"? Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So, perhaps "award-winning critic" Anita Sarkeesian instead of "award winning series?" Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think all of these work, including the version that's currently on the page. Late correction: was on the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * From the sources "Damsels in Distress" is what won an award. Sarkheesian was nominated, but did not win a different award. "Tropes vs. Women" didn't seem to win or be nominated for anything. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "Damsels in Distress" is a specific episode of "Tropes vs. Women". It seems sensible to just call Sarkeesian an award winning critic if that's really an issue.. Nblund (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could consider whether the presence or absence of any awards Sarkeesian might have won have much relevance to the article topic. It seems to me that they don't, really. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It establishes the notability and significance of the target chosen by the harassment campaign. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to say that awards won by Ms. Sarkeesian (and/or her works) definitely seem relevant to me as to her standing in the wider video game world. Dumuzid (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would concur. Artw (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it is important to mention that she did get an award for the TvW series via Damsels in Distress (which this attention to it is part of why she was harassed pre-GG), it does only appear to be a single award prior to 2014 (that I can tell), so "award-winning" is just a tad WP:PEACOCK-y ("award-winning" is even one of those words to avoid). I think this is where we need to explain a bit more; that her series (pre-GG) had been positively received by the gaming press and won the (specific award name) in 2013, but was criticized by some gamers that led to her already being a target of harassment. Note that she subsequently won more awards after GG started, but in context, we should focus on what the state was when things took this turn when she became involved in the GG controversy. --M ASEM (t) 05:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we can accurately source 'some gamers'. Notable gamergate supporters (e.g. Young, Yiannapoulus, Baldwin) do not play video games and are not figures in the video game community. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are talking pre-2014 criticism which lead to pre-GG harassment, we're generally talking about gamers and other Internet users (eg per, . As best as I can tell, prior to GG, Young, Yiannapoulos, and other names associated with GG never spoke of TvW. After GG, however, at least Young and Sommers  speak specifically critically towards TvW. (I'm sure there's something from Yiannapoulus too just can't locate it immediately).  But key is that this is all after August 2014. No connections that I can find with a date-based search for these people before August 2014; the criticism of TvW was primarily gamers and other Internet users, and that culture led to the pre-GG harassment towards her particularly after the gaming press spoke highly of it and awarded it a prize. --M ASEM  (t) 05:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem, you're quite right that the "Damsels in Distress" video won an award, but Ms. Sarkeesian was also given the Game Developers Conference Ambassador Award in 2014, but prior to this hullabaloo. I agree that in the best of all possible words, we would avoid "award-winning" and go in to detail.  But as some guy once said, brevity is the soul of wit.  Or, as Strunk and White so tautologically put it, "omit needless words."  As such, I think using that descriptor is preferable here to avoid delving in to things that really belong in the article on Ms. Sarkeesian.  Moreover, "award-winning" does not in any way imply (at least to me!) that something or someone is universally beloved or without criticism.  Therefore I believe the current wording (or something akin to it) does a better job of giving an accurate summation within a reasonable length of text.  Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while "award-winning" is accurate, it is peacocky due to the nature of this controversy, as it creates (for the purposes of writing neutrally) a presumption that Sarkeesian's position is elevated. Key as I noted is that the fact that her series of videos (prior to GG) were critically praised in the industry, including said awards, is what led to some gamers and others to criticize her and the videos and subsequently to harassment. As such, while being brief to say "award-winning" may be one step, it changes the POV of the statement, which is why that phrase is a peacock term. Instead of  we should say  It still captures that she won awards, but avoids the very subtle bias of the "award-winning" phrase. --M ASEM  (t) 14:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very longwinded and hard to follow chunk of text in an already long article and hard to follow article to address a concern that barely exists. Artw (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * However, it complies better with our core neutrality policy. Do you have an alternative leaner wording that would avoid the peacock term? Diego (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is only a WP:PEACOCK term if it "neither impart[s] nor plainly summariz[es] verifiable information." As mentioned above, this is a summation of verifiable information.  Masem, I think your wording is a net negative for the article both in terms of tone and writing style.  "Award-winning" does not mean "universally acclaimed."  If I say "Justin Bieber is an award winning artist," this is true, but it doesn't mean I (or anyone else, for that matter) like his work.  As I have said, I think the phrase gets the point across--that this is not merely a YouTube channel with 70 followers--and does so expediently and with syntactical efficiency.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of the PEACOCK guideline is that we should replace the term with the actual prize that was won, in order to provide the concrete information that the summarized form would miss. The people who included "award-winning" in the list of terms to avoid agreed that it constitutes loaded language and is therefore not neutral, nor an adequate summary. " Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." Diego (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WIth all due respect, Diego Moya, that would be a compelling argument to me if we were over at Anita Sarkeesian. To quote the same Manual of Style entry: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors."  Given that definition, this instance of "award-winning" cannot be a peacock term since it is not about the subject of the article.  Summarizing information is usually a good idea when it is tangential to the subject of an article.  I think here the best bet is to simply make a nod with "award-winning" and let the references do the work.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When the guideline says Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem it doesn't restrict it to "articles where the described topic is the main subject". The point where . But all this is just Wikilawyering; the spirit of the guideline is that we should avoid loaded terms and use the most accurate facts available instead. We could simply say . Or we could go with Woodroar's version and say, which at least is more precise in the placement of the "award-winning" adjective to the video series. Diego (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the antecedent of "such language" must necessarily refer back to the first paragraph, and thus is restricted in that way. But reasonable minds can differ.  I've said my piece, consider me in the "award-winning" camp and keep working towards consensus, I suppose!  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to analyze the guideline down to the letter, the part of the guideline that you quote ("it is often used as...") doesn't actually restrict its application to articles where the described subject is the main topic of the article, it just mentions them as one place where it may appear.
 * Would you then accept Woodroar's suggestion as an acceptable compromise? I don't like it much as it still uses the peacock term, but at least it uses it in a less controversial way. Diego (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with calling Sarkeesian "award-winning" without any other context on this article is that it implicitly elevates her position and importance, making her seem "right" in the overall controversy, and painting her more positively which makes the criticism and harassment towards her seem even worse. That's a tone problem, as it makes us appear to take a side in this. It is necessary to establish she and her series won praise and awards, but it was in light of those awards that gamers and others took to strong criticism of her series and subsequently the harassment. Including the fact she won awards is for a purpose, not simply to put her on a pedestal as just "award-winning" without context does. --M ASEM (t) 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty of, say, historians win awards for their work but we do not mention those awards outside of the historians' biographical articles. The treatment of Sarkeesian should be no different - it lays undue emphasis that might subliminally sway a reader. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're afraid this might sway people to do...what, exactly? See Sarkeesian as a person whose work is well regarded? Artw (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just sway, in any direction you choose to think of it. I'm not getting caught up in the ridiculous mind-games of the regulars here. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this general point (that awards shouldn't generally be mentioned without purpose outside a bio page), but reading the sources of pre-GG and Sarkeesian, it seems to me that the favorable coverage and awards that TvW got prompted the harassment towards her; it wasn't simply that the TvW videos existed but that they were praised widely that prompted the harassment, making the awards necessary to include as part of the timeline. But I would have to review the sources more closely to make sure of that. --M ASEM  (t) 18:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, and we have a reliable source that explicitly say so, then of course it is ok to say something like, "Sarkeesian won an award that led to ..." (you get the idea). - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking closer to the timeline, no, it was not the awards that triggered the harassment, it was the start of her Kickstarter in 2012, pointing out a 4chan effect there. So following your advice, there is no reason to mention these awards here, since they aren't integral to the story, that I can tell. --M ASEM  (t) 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, mention is superfluous. Her bio can get into all the details. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

, I don't see how establishing her notability in the video game industry has any effect other than giving context. What 'side' are you worried that people might be biased against in the event that people think (correctly) that Sarkeesian has won awards? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We establish her notability by noting her TvW series specific to video games, which as I checked, was what ticked off gamers to criticize her and leading to her harassment pre-GG. By referencing her awards only to elevate her position when they are not essential details to the controversy, it makes her appear more "right" than others, which in an article about a controversy is something we should avoid doing. --M ASEM (t) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More "right" than who? What are you worried is getting the short end of the stick here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much anyone else involved regardless of which side of GG they are on (eg we don't give Leigh Alexander or Phil Fish similar extra attribution even though, for example, we could talk about Fish's highly praised Fez). --M ASEM (t) 22:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the relative privation fallacy. If you think we should mention that Fish is an award winning game developer, go ahead. He's not as primary a person in the article, but I won't stop you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, I'll also note that the idea that Sarkeesian and Fish are different 'sides' of the controversy is laughable, and that it's my opinion that your response is a complete non sequitur that dodges the question of what you were initially saying. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said they were on different sides, at all. I said we shouldn't artificially elevate any singular person's role in this controversy, regardless of what side they take in this. I used Fish as example because that is a case where we could talk about the awards he got for Fez, but would be inappropriate to do so just as we shouldn't do for Sarkeesian. It's not just about short-sticking one side but also not posturing too much for one side either to stay neutral. --M ASEM  (t) 23:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; is it your contention that facts are biased? I see no falsity to the fact. It's certainly relevant to the article. It aids in our description of Sarkeesian, establishing her significance in the video game community and significance of the target chosen by the harassment campaign. Why then, is this fact biased? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, you return to talking about sides- you say that you miswrote earlier, and that Fish and Sarkeesian are not the sides you're referring to. What side is being given the short end of the stick here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Facts, like Sarkeesian winning awards for TvW, are not contentious, but including certain facts that are tangential to a contentious topic as to bolster a position is a problem - that's WP:COATRACK effectively. Sarkeesian's role in GG is set by that she created the TvW series, which made her a target for harassment from the start, and not because she won awards for it. It's not about short-sticking one side or another, but giving undue attention to any single agent from any side of a controversial subject. Obviously, Sarkeesian's significance to GG is much more in depth than Fish's, for example, but including Sarkeesian's pre-GG awards, which otherwise have no context to GG, while failing to mention Fish's awards (which also have no content to GG) is a problem even given they are on the same side of the controversy. --M ASEM  (t) 23:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So you believe the article gives undue attention to Sarkeesian? Is this a case where people should be responding with 'literally who?' when asked about her? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, obviously not. Sarkeesian, along with Quinn and Wu, will get a large amount of coverage in this article compared to any other named person as they were the central targets for harassment. But we should not go past that point in covering them and avoid adding details that are not directly relevant to the controversy and subsequent results; there is no added understanding relative to GG in stating that Sarkeesian won awards for TvW prior to GG, except to put Sarkeesian on a pedestal. That's POV and biased writing. Note that this does not apply to the recognition that Quinn and Sarkeesian got following GG for being leaders in combating harassment as a result of what they did during GG; that's directly related to the GG controversy so completely appropriate to include. --M ASEM (t) 00:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The additional context is just posturing. Like I said, loads of people have won awards but we do not usually use them to bolster their opinion on any given topic. It is often the case also that awards are themselves disputed events, which can make it a double-edged sword. Put simply, it isn't relevant and looks like peacocking/weaseling (depending on your stance). It's time people who regularly frequent this and related articles got took their eyes away from their navels and began to see the bigger picture, ie: what the purpose of this project actually is and how we go about it in the 99.9% of articles that are not Gamergate-related. Far, far too much wikilawyering, pedantry and other nonsense. - Sitush (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused here - you've contributed to this page multiple times in the past, and but it appears you're pulling the "objective outsider" new contributor routine? Are you getting some accounts mixed up? Anyway, feel free to try and make constructive contributions, same as everyone else. Artw (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't help it if you are easily confused by the word "regular", sorry. My contributions here have been sporadic - is that a less confusing word? - Sitush (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The is the GamerGate article, not the "what happened before gamergate" article. The award is unnecessary and confusing as it conveys the idea that it was for her GamerGate work.  It was not.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I notice the article doesn't describe Adam Baldwin as "award winning." Surely under the reasoning advanced above he ought to be. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is he a central figure to the controversy? Is the work he has been awarded for relevant to Gamergate or the video game industry? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We do describe him as an actor, so clearly we are not completely against context. Artw (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Baldwin's awards may not be relevant to the video game industry, but they're certainly relevant to the Gamergate. Had he not been a famous personality, his opinions would have not heard to the point of giving it its current name. If we're going to adopt the term "award-winning" to show the relevance of the people included in the article, let's make it consistently. Diego (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is no more deserving than the Sarkeesian case. Please revert until we have consensus. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I took out "award-winning" before Sarkeesian, Baldwin, and Fish. I replaced it with "prominent" in Sarkeesian's case, because I believe it is still important to a reader's understanding that Ms. Sarkeesian already had a profile in the video games industry before this brouhaha.  Feel free to revert me one and all!  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that your edit is an improvement. I would suggest per WP:BURDEN that, from now on, those wishing to include the term "award-winning" for any of the people in the article will bring here a RS that directly supports this term, and discuss it here so that we can agree on how well it justifies its inclusion and in what context. Diego (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edit as well. The very long discussion over one phrase is a bit surreal, but nothing surprises me on this page now. May I also suggest, in the future, a simple poll (RfC) to settle the matter? Fewer dead electrons etc. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems valid. Means I don't get to put "SyFy People&s Choice Award Winner" in front of Baldwin though, which is a shame. Artw (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede sentence
The very first sentence in the lede is phrased somewhat...awkwardly.
 * The Gamergate controversy centers on the harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, revolving around issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture.

The subject of revolving around is confusing at first, though it can largely be pieced together from context. It can both be taken to mean "the controversy itself involves issues of sexism and progressivism" or "the harassment campaign raises issues of sexism and progressivism", which are basically the same claim, since the controversy is largely the response to the harassment campaign. Unfortunately, neither implies the linkage between the harassment campaign and the controversy that the rest of the article goes on to discuss. Centers on makes the sentence further unclear, because Gamergate's peripheral aspects have not substantially diverged from the larger controversy. The vagaries of what the Gamergate controversy does or does not concern are largely addressed in later lede paragraphs, so it makes more sense to go for definitive wording when summarizing the the crux of the controversy. My immediate interpretation of issues of progressivism is that seems to somewhat anachronistically address the "backlash against political correctness and censorship" mentality of GamerGate (progressivism is one of the issues), although it could just mean progressive issues.

While it doesn't address that last point, my attempt at a better opening would be The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. My apologies in advance if I'm unknowingly opening up an old can of worms—I've found nothing in the talk page archives, and the modern form of the sentence appears a fairly recent concoction. —0xF8E8 (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me! PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too! IIRC the current awkward wording was a compromise to keep "harassment" introduced before "issues of sexism and progressivism", but if Peter is OK with reversing the order I don't think the change will be a problem. Diego (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Count me as on board. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't really too relevant to the changes (which I support), but was harassment done primarily through twitter? There were other mediums used (8chan etc.) so how can we know which was the primary one, and what designates it as primary? Brustopher (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "primarily" can be replaced by "most notably". It is called Gamergate because of the hashtag on Twitter. Whether the primary venue of harassment was Twitter is not really important. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but to me, in order to qualify as "harassment," it must actually be communicated to a person. Thus conversations on 8chan, while likely ugly and evil, do not count as harassment in and of themselves.  Coordination, sure.  But since they are not "thrust upon" the victims in the manner of Twitter mentions, or email, or phone calls, it's a different category, as I see it.  Then again, that's me firing from the hip, so maybe I'm wrong.  Dumuzid (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone and implemented the changes, since there seems to be fairly broad consensus. As to the primacy of Twitter in harassment, I'd agree it's the center of where harassment took place, but it might be worth it to qualify the campaign spread elsewhere, e.g. harassment campaign originating from the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. —0xF8E8 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only noting that I readded "in video game culture" to the lede sentence as the above change appears to have inadvertently lost it. --M ASEM  (t) 18:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A CJR article that identifies the problem with this article's tone
Following a brief discussion on my talk page about the recent NYTimes source I added, I came across this Nov 2015 article from the Columbia Journalism Review by one of its staff writers. Why some SPJ leaders are engaging Gamergate.

Of itself, discussing about SPJ and Airplay, this has some points we could add, but I would like to stress what is discussed in the latter half of the article, specifically on CJR's observations on the reporting of GG (to explain why SPJ is involved). Specifically, this section:

What this says aligns with what many of the right-wing political sources have said as well as the concerns several editors like myself have raised before: that mainstream coverage of GG is not neutral for our purposes of writing an article under NPOV. This stresses the need that much of what the mainstream press has had to say are claims, rather than facts. The media wants GG to go away and give them no credibility, so as CJR reports, they have no interest in neutral coverage, but we do, or more specifically we are required to do so to be a neutral work.

Now, this doesn't mean we bury the actual harassment that has happened, nor ignore the various other ways the GG movement has been criticized and condemned ("bullying tactics" and "aggressive" are completely fair terms to describe their actions), nor give extra time and weight to some of the GG claims particularly those that venture into BLP territory. But what we have to be aware of, going off Rhoark's previous source analysis, is that when you dig into the most reliable sources, we cannot take the mainstream press's claim that the movement is a harassment campaign, and recognize that the only evidenced and factual association between the movement and the harassment is the common #GG hashtag. There is very likely a vocal minority of the GG movement that likely engaged in harassment as well as third parties trolling everyone, these hypotheses we can source to RSes. But repeating as fact the press's desire to paint the entire movement as an harassment campaign does not work given the above CRJ comment and our NPOV policy. We at en.wiki need to play the middle ground, where we can attribute the claim that GG is a harassment campaign to the mainstream press but we cannot write the article with that tone that they the movement is guilty of harassment as a whole.

And to keep this in mind, citing the press's claim that GG is a harassment claim and citing the movement (and other sources) that they are not does not tie us to any factual stance on the matter; we are only documenting "He said, she said" parts of the controversy without committing to who is right or wrong.

To take up a more neutral tone across this entire article does require redrafting a lot of the article, so at the present time I can't propose any single change, only that we must recognize that this article is not an appropriate encyclopedic neutral article in light of what we know the press has treated this issue. It is important to identify the central nature that harassment has played in GG, but we have to be fully aware that the agencies that have engaged in that is very much unclear and certainly should not be attributed to the movement in WP's voice and tone as the press has done. --M ASEM (t) 16:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be a reflection of what the reliable sources say on a given issue. You say "[w]e at en.wiki need to play the middle ground."  That is, in and of itself, advocacy.  We should play the ground given us, and keep on reflecting the reliable sources.  Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we don't repeat advocacy nor tone when we know that's an issue; striving to keep a topic's coverage neutral is not advocacy. If I were arguing "We should present GG as completely innocent of any wrongdoing", that would be inappropriate advocacy.
 * Nowhere in policy does it say "reflection of sources". We summarize sources in a neutral manner, meaning that we have to adjust the tone if it does not present the topic in an encyclopedic manner, hence all the advice in NPOV about how to handle contested statements. Now per WEIGHT/UNDUE, the mainstream's opinion of GG will receive the most coverage but we have to make sure that's asserted as opinion. --M ASEM (t) 16:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Best of luck with your advocacy, Masem. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to document what reliable sources say. This is a very different thing from reflecting what reliable sources say. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies. My understanding is that we are supposed to carefully and critically analyze a variety of reliable sources and then attempt to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.  "Reflect" is a decent shorthand for that in my idiolect, but I will be more careful with my terminology. Dumuzid (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither the quoted section nor the full article say that mainstream coverage isn't neutral or fact-based. It does say "[a] number of top journalists" made some statements about GamerGate that, as far as we know, are based on fact-based research and reporting. Or, you know, mere opinion. We don't know because the source doesn't say. And since these "top journalists" aren't even named, their work may or may not be used as references in this article. Again, we don't know because the source doesn't say. Woodroar (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothibg here of note, "opportunist latches on to GamerGate as means of self promotion" being half the history of GamerGate. As for the notion that it's grounds for a rewrite along the exact same lines that Masem always suggests: No, Masem, just no. We are simply never, ever, ever going to decide to suspend Wikipedias policies for this one article, and you really need to drop that WP:STICK. Artw (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no suggestion above that policies be suspended. There is a suggestion that WP:NPOV as it relates to tone be followed; this policy requires that we not reflect the tone of sources, but present information in a neutral manner. Editors suggesting that we should suspend this core policy are invited to drop their own WP:STICK. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The mainstream media's bias has been often overstated. High quality mainstream sources don't dance around the harassment, but they are cautious about connecting it with people who self-identify as Gamergate. A very neutral and balanced encyclopedia article can be written without the slightest bending of reliable sourcing or due weight policy. If anything, the average stature of sources used could stand to be higher. I'm continuing to work on doing just that. If there's any problem in the mainstream, its that they fail to understand chan/gaming/meme culture so can't for example distinguish a legitimate threat from navy seal copypasta. That's why a lot of key facts have to be mined out of more specialized publications like Polygon or Game Politics. Rhoark (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would further note that a lot of the mainstream media coverage has been focused on the harassment aspects, ignoring to a large extent any other aspects. This does not however, mean that we must do the same (see WP:NNC), it also does not mean that this lack of focus on one aspect is a refutation of it or that we should not document those aspects (these are not competing or contradictory viewpoints, so WP:UNDUE is not pertinent); rather it is simply a reflection of what sells papers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made this suggestion elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here. There is a fair bit of evidence, theoretical, practical and anecdotal (see for instance this), that NPOV on Wikipedia is usually achieved by forking, not within-article revisions. Most articles change little from their initial slant. This article was initially based on press reports, and they were overwhelmingly negative, for good reasons. If you wish to change things, I suggest forking off stuff to concentrate on and hopefully expand on some aspects. The readable prose size for this page is 57kb, which is rather large (the recommended size for readability is 30-50kb). I am sure, if people are interested, some of the aspects can be expanded in a more nuanced way. However, my feeling is that changing this article itself would be a rather uphill task, if not impossible. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article, even with the best intentions, is going to come across as a POVFORK, as well as dissection topics that really must be covered together to avoid excess repetition. If one were to suggest a split, the obvious line would be on the GG movement and separating it from the history of harassment and other events, but its easy to see its impossible to talk about one without referencing the other. Instead, if we affected the tone of the article to remove the slant the media have been pushing, we can trim down a lot of the excessive comments that are simply pile-on disgust towards GG; it'll still likely be a 50kb readable prose article since there's a lot to discussion in terms of the response and reaction to GG, but it would be appropriately toned to an encyclopedia standard. --M ASEM (t) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no Gamergate article without the harassment, it would just be people with opinions on the internet. Those opinions would be of no notability because nobody would reapond to them to any extent in reliable sources. While I believe this article is a mess, it's also not possible to parse someone's opinions of why the sources don't agree with Gamergate as a reason to claim npov. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have to know why the press has opted to write in a biased manner, only that it is clear that either they state they have (per CRJ), and/or that there is significant opinion that they have (per many others on the right-wing, including Cathy Young and Milo), as to make statements made by the media as contested that should be treated as claims under NPOV. The media is never going to state in their own words why they have written with a bias, that's how the media works, but its clear that many feel they have, and both CRJ and SPJ state that this exists. It may be 100% possible that the media are not writing with a bias and they are 100% right, but then this wouldn't be a controversy. No one knows what the right answer is, but the way this article presents itself assumes the media is right, and that stance is contested in sources. It is a failure of NPOV to not take a middle ground position (which is simply documenting the situation without trying to apply judgement in WP's voice) when this situation exists. --M ASEM (t) 17:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The notion that the press responded in a "biased" manner is a paranoid conspiracy theory and we do not need to waste time here discussing it as if it is real. I propose hatting it immediately the next time it is brought up. Artw (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not. If only one person was reported saying this, sure, that's probably bordering on a fringe conspiracy theory. But there's plenty of different voices of people not necessarily connected to GG that have identified problems with the press's treatment of the subject (including members of the press itself like Auerbach and the "top journalists" pointed to by CRJ) that to avoid the issue is burying one's head in the sand. The claims the press are biased may be wrong, but that's why they are claims. What it means to us at en.wiki, that means that we have to consider what the press said with the appropriate amount of doubt, avoiding the tone and using WP:YESPOV appropriately to document the press's assertions, just as we have to do the same for assertions from GG and those that align with GG.
 * At the end of the day, this GG controversy has become an issue dealing with the media in general. As such, the media by and large are no longer independent sources. They are still reliable for when they report facts, but because they are no longer independent, we have the need to question if they are stating incontestable facts in an objective voice or if they are making contested claims in a subjective one per YESPOV. --M ASEM (t) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects the coverage from reliable sources. A few paragraphs cherrypicked from a puff peice for the guy who organises GamerGate panels should not sway us from this. Artw (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated before "reflect" is not a word used in any policy; we summarize sources, but we do not adopt the tone they take - that's a key point of NPOV. And as best I know, the CRJ writer has nothing to do with the Airplay panels, so to call it a puff piece is ignoring its status as a reliable source about the state of journalism. --M ASEM (t) 21:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does this source say that published mainstream coverage is biased or not fact-based? Which specific references used in Gamergate controversy does it challenge? Woodroar (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See the green quote I pointed out for where CRJ reports top journalists not wanting to give GG legitimacy. That's a bias. And from that, its basically any source that calls to a negative claim about GG that we should be wary of restating as fact in GG's voice (claims, yes, per YESPOV). Moreso, because we know that journalists don't want to cover GG in a positive light, we should not be adopting their tone in this article. The drive to blame the harassment on the movement in the press cannot be something we do here and should seek the middle, conservative ground that acknowledges the claims on both sides, while still factually stating that harassment has occurred via the #GG hashtag, one of the few uncontested facts in this situation. --M ASEM (t) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're stretching here. Two anonymous journalists don't make up all of the media. — Strongjam (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. In considering sources that review the media in broad terms, CRJ is pretty much one if not the top one, and this is a writer (not a "contributor") for it. Additionally, you have Aeurbach's statement in that, and those from the SPJ, all whom are not anonymous. --M ASEM (t) 17:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No where in that article just the CRJ take the stance that the media is biased against GG. The only stance it really takes is that "mainstream observers have little inclination to revisit the issue". Frankly this is getting tired. We aren't going to start treating all media reporting about this as primary sources and attribute everything. And even if we accept the premise that the media is biased, and must be treated as a primary source, then the only things that would be sourced into the article would be from academic work. — Strongjam (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But CRJ is reporting that mainstream sources know they are not giving the GG situation fair coverage, which is the key point. Do you think any media source is going to willing report that they are biased on a topic? Only when push-comes-to-shove does this happen (eg like the Rolling Stone fake rape accusation situation).
 * And I never said anything about the mainstream becoming primary sources because of this; most of the news sources remain secondary since they are reporting in a transformative manner, adding commentary atop the situation, and clearly making this notable. They would become dependent sources, which means that we should not treat every word they say as fact and instead consider the contested statements as claims. That's the nature of a controversy, there is no right answer, and so we should not be writing this article assuming one side is correct, simply that each side of the situation has had made numerous claims about the other. That's the most neutral point that we should be starting from when there are an otherwise lack of assured facts and true independent sources in such a controversy. (Arguably, I don't think we'll ever get any true independent source here for years if not decades simply due to the nature of the situation). --M ASEM  (t) 21:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And I never said anything about the mainstream becoming primary sources because of this Apologies, I mistook your argument that they were no longer independent to mean that they are now primary sources. CRJ is reporting that mainstream sources know they are not giving the GG situation fair coverage, No there not. They're quoting Auerbach and saying that media isn't interested in revisiting the issue. Based on the anonymous quotes it seems because they feel it would be unethical reporting to do so. Is there any specific change you thing this should drive to the article? — Strongjam (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * : Yes, splitting can be a WP:POVFORK, but anything can be done badly. There is no reason why certain aspects of the issue can't be discussed in a NPOV fashion. One does not need to split the article, but can simply start from scratch on a specific topic, and link to that article here. One possible place to expand would be "4chan culture" or something like that. A couple of sources discussing this are here and here. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While we could use articles on 4chan culture or the like as larger topics, that doesn't affect this article that much - when these separate concepts have been introduced here, they have been on focus on how GG intersects with it, and does not spend time talking about unrelated aspects of GG beyond a sentence or so to establish what it is, which would still be needed even if a separate article existed. So creating articles on topics that intersect with GG but are not wholly centered in GG wouldn't help on size or tone. --M ASEM (t) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * CJR should be included. Criticism of journalism has always been an underlying theme and source of tension and we currently have little coverage of it.  CJR is a reliable source for that and fills in the void.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, at best, a footnote, however. It is def. not enough to "change the tone" to the preferred version of Gamergate.--Jorm (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the preferred tone of GG? That would be labeling the press as complicate in unethical behavior left and right and asserting various BLP claims as fact, and I'm absolutely against going that direction too. No one has (since 500/30 protection at least) suggested going there. Instead, the CRJ article points out that there is no desire to give any credibility to GG by the press, meaning that they have chosen a tone to approach the subject (specifically one where everything associated with GG pretty much should be condemned). Wikipedia cannot adopt that tone in its voice and stay neutral knowing that the press are engaging in one-sided reporting. --M ASEM (t) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia doesn't know that. One source saying "media r complicit!" does not mean that Wikipedia knows anything along those lines.  One source says "well, journalists have affected this tone, let's trot out some anonymous people to agree with us!" That's total crap and if there was a different article with similarly backed quotes that said the opposite I'm certain there'd be a ton of discussion as to why we can't use it.  Wikipedia knows that the primary reason that anyone would know or care about Gamergate is because of the significant, ruinous amount of harassment associated with it.  Anything else is dross and scrabbling, and I wonder why people are so hard-determined to make any impression otherwise. --Jorm (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet strangely there are plenty of reliable sources that take an interest in what the non-harassing parts of GG are saying. That's part of the consensus of reliable sources. I can see where people are coming from when they get a little hot under the collar when Masem starts to talk in circles, but on the other side the continual failure to acknowledge WP:NNC is orders of magnitude more DEADHORSEish. Rhoark (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . I strongly disagree with this point. As editors trying to summarize a topic, particularly a controversy, we must be well aware of what is happening at the edges and outside the bounds of what is otherwise set by reliable sources, so that we can meet NPOV. NPOV is how we mitigate issues with coverage of a topic to write a neutral article on a controversial subject, something that rarely is considered in the body of sources. We already use such common sense in determining when a reliable source is actually a reliable source, to avoid introducing BLP even when reiterated by an RS, when a source in a particular matter may be dependent instead of an independent source, how much weight to give certain parts of a topic, and when to use editorial judgment to know if a given stance on a topic is possibly fringe or not. These are all aspects that aren't covered in sources, requiring us as summarizers and editors to use common sense and consensus to recognize the situation and write neutrally towards that. I've argued before that it should be clear just reading the material on GG that there's a problem with the coverage, but that point was baulked at and argued that there was no source to support it. The fact that we now have several articles that present opinions and claims of media bias in the coverage of GG (even if at the end of the day they aren't true) should be sufficient for us to recognize that we cannot simply act like there is only one right side (that being the press's side here) to this controversy while still meeting NPOV policy. A neutral take on GG cannot readily accept the press's side as the preferred side, but just only as one side of a heated controversy.--M ASEM (t) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't rely on some abstract notion of "fairness" or "objectivity". We report what reliable sources are saying in proportion to their prominence. This reliable source says that many journalists and academics view GG as a fringe organization composed of trolls and harassers. So this source provides evidence that the more negative interpretation of GG is the majority view, and should receive greater coverage to comply with DUE WEIGHT, not less.
 * It would certainly be a misuse to use this CJR article to argue that the press is biased: it says nothing of the sort. It just says that most knowledgeable people view GG as a fringe group. Nblund (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why does NPOV say "Articles... should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias"' and "This helps us to describe differing views fairly" "...and not to promote one particular point of view over another? The key point of NPOV is that we don't adopt one particular viewpoint, not even if it's the majority one, but instead we present it as the viewpoint of the reliable sources we are using - and we describe that with a neutral, nonjudgmental tone.
 * Given that WP:YESPOV explicitly says that "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight", we should include the reports from RSs about the bias in mainstream coverage, with a weight proportional to the amount of sources we have. Diego (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I basically agree on that definition, but nothing in this article describes a "differing view". It describes a near-consensus among knowledgeable sources. It sounds like you want to were talking about using this evidence of a near consensus as a reason to lend additional credence to a minority viewpoint, which seems like a backward interpretation. Nblund (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Diego Moya -- I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but I am not opposed to including a mention of the belief that there is widespread press bias. That's certainly a view out there, but a very small one among the reliable sources, as far as I can tell.  I don't see that view as a reason for overhauling the entire tone of the article.  With all due respect to Masem (which I really mean, and my apologies to him if I've been a bit snarky as of late), when he says "[a] neutral take on GG cannot readily accept the press's side as the preferred side," it strikes me as a complete inversion of what Wikipedia is about.  WP:NPOV explicitly does not say that we approach subjects with a neutral point of view; it says we approach coverage of subjects in the reliable sources with a neutral point of view.  To say that we must tinker with Wikipedia policies or deliberately downplay certain reliable sources in the name of overall fairness strikes me as the very definition of righting great wrongs.  Just the way I see things.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to mention press bias if there are other sources that discuss it, but I really don't think the CJR source is describing a bias. It's describing journalists making a news judgement about whether GG is worthy of coverage. Making a deciscion about newsworthiness is not bias, it's the basic task of journalism.


 * We wouldn't conclude that this was evidence of bias, and we certainly wouldn't argue that we should use the statement as a reason to entertain the possibility that the Jersey Devil actually exists. Nblund (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that interpretation of the statement in the CJR article given everything else said in the article in context. It's not about whether GG has newsworthiness (as they've clearly covered the topic when it comes to harassment), it's about trying to give any credibility to GG beyond harassment, which is clearly taking a POV stance on the matter instead of being objective, the definition of bias.
 * Further to a point above, UNDUE/WEIGHT and tone are mutually exclusive concepts. It is possible to write this same article to respect the weight of negative criticism and condemnation that the majority of sources put to GG but to set a tone and approach that simply sets these as assertions rather than how this article is currently written in assuming the majority stance is correct. --M ASEM (t) 14:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

IMHO this is the most telling quote from Koretzky, the primary subject of the article:

''“I want to go where the journalism is or should be,” Koretzky tells CJR. “Gamergate, like it or hate it, whether they were making an excuse for their misogyny or being legit, said they care about ethics. I don’t care if they believe that or not. I care if someone says ‘journalism ethics.’ You know how hard it is to get journalists to give a shit about ethics?”''

It's an opportunity to talk about a pet subject to him, it lends no weight to GamerGate or their persecution complex at all. Artw (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would actually agree that of the content related to SPJ and AirPlay, there's little there to go (beyond affirming the SPJ's interest in looking at the GG). But it is the added content that the CRJ writer adds to place SPJ's stance in context to the larger situation regarding GG that is of interest here, such as the quotes from Auerbach and the solicited replies he got back from top journalists. This resonates with several several opinion pieces from right-leaning social/political magazines and key figures that support GG like Cathy Young, making it far from a fringe viewpoint to consider the potential of media bias and how that reflects in how we as editors handle the topic. --M ASEM (t) 15:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article will not be adopting Cathy Young's tone. Artw (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this section. I do not think it is fruitful to discuss stuff without a concrete alternative. Rhoark has been doing some work in that direction, but it's not finished yet, I gather. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not finished, but advancing quickly now. It's easier to write with the end in sight. I want to reiterate that the reason for starting the draft was not because of a widespread media bias, but because of a widespread media objectivity that was not being reflected on Wikipedia. There are certainly many low-quality sources that are very slanted, but take stock of this complaint in the Guardian. Looks like it wins points for the anti POV - but wait - it's complaining that The New York Times, VICE, and Vox are treating Gamergate talking points as worthy of consideration? What does that really say about the landscape of opinion? The complaint from Hern will go on my section on meta-criticism of Gamergate media coverage, alongside contrasting points from Auerbach and Cathy Young. The main throughline though comes from the objective, impartial coverage that is not all that hard to find. The CJR piece being discussed here is used in several other ways than commenting on media bias. Rhoark (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)