Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 54

Need to improve the lede
I know/knew nothing about gamergate (and frankly still have little interest in it). I came here as it was brought up in an otherwise unrelated discussion. I was hoping for a succinct, unbiased lede that would allow me to gain a quick understanding of the key issues. Instead, in place of a lede there is a 500 word ramble that has clearly been cobbled together by using soundbites from opposing sides of the argument.

The first paragraph (which should neatly summarise the topic) currently says; "The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it, and the loosely organized movement that emerged from the hashtag."

This is ambiguous (sexism and progressivism stemmed from a harassment campaign or the gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign?) and confusing (is gamergate really all those things?)

After some further reading, as near as I can figure, gamergate refers either to a dispute or to a movement/group. The dispute seems to have arisen between those that claim that videogames encourage or promote sexism or sexually themed violence and those who oppose that view. The movement (or group) seems to be made up of those that refute the allegations of sexism. (ie the "gamergate community" is made of of gamers that either refute allegations of sexism in games or claim that the sexism depicted in games is harmless).

The problem is compounded within the article where the meaning of the term gamergate must be gleaned from context and often this is tricky.

I don't have the solution to this and don't know enough about the topic, so I won't be making any changes, but I would like to encourage those that are more interested to make an effort to reduce the length and complexity of the lede. --Thepm (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is pretty terrible, isn't it? There was a time, not too long ago, where the only response you would have received to your question would have been WP:STICK. Heck, I'm sure someone's going to post it here ironically, because that's what passes for reasonable discourse on this talk page for some of the more entrenched editors. It's much easier to post a pithy, useless response than to actually acknowledge the problems that you have created.
 * What you're seeing is the incomprehensible fruit of nearly 2 years, 53 archived pages, 2 ARBCOM cases, and dozens of topic/site bans-worth of conflict. That first sentence, in all of its impotent and useless glory, is the entire struggle boiled down into one goofy little bite-sized mess. The problem is, in order to define Gamergate, you have to acknowledge that a thing called "Gamergate" actually exists (I know this is crazy, but stick with me). This is why the article is titled "Gamergate controversy" rather than "Gamergate movement." It's an ongoing attempt to push the narrative that there is no Gamergate movement, and it really just a hashtag used by awful, hateful white men whose primary goal is to harass women. Any deviation from that narrative, no matter how reasonable, is met with obstinate snark and/or administrative action. And luckily for the narrative, there are copious reliable sources that confirm that angle, so any attempt to strike a neutral balance in the article is immediately hammered with something along the lines of "We follow the sources" to shut down discussion.
 * The thing is, Gamergate does exist, and it's defined clearly in the high quality reliable sources. Gamergate is a loosely-associated online movement whose members claim to have problems with increasingly progressive voices in video game journalism. The movement has been associated with harassment, death threats, doxing, and hacking attacks primarily targeted at women. The vast majority of commentators see the stated motivations of the movement as little more than an excuse to harass women out of the video game industry, while Gamergate adherents see rampant cronyism, corruption, and laziness in the mainstream and video game press.
 * That's really the whole conflict, so far as I understand it. The problem is that there are far more article castigating Gamergate than there are articles attempting to define Gamergate, so the response from the entrenched editors here has always been, "Well, we have to make sure the world knows that Gamergate is terrible because the sources say Gamergate is terrible!" The goal of this article has always been advocacy, not information. And since journalists are one of the stated targets of the movement (along with progressivism, which most journalists consider themselves to be), it's no surprise that there are so few neutral articles about the Gamergate movement.
 * I'd sincerely love it if you could propose something more elegant as a lead, but speaking as someone who is fed up with trying to affect positive change in this space I would recommend, for your own sanity, that you just walk away now. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the difficulties we face is that Gamergate doesn't lend itself to a clear definition. In the early days it described a scandal of sorts - mostly related to the sexist targeting of female game developers and commentators. A hashtag, not a movement. It then morphed to include a mix of poorly understood ethics in journalism arguments melded with a push to limit the sorts of criticism which reviewers were allowed to make. At that point it was a bit closer to a movement, if "we want reviewers to make only Gamergate-approved criticism" can be seen as a movement. Later it morphed again as it came under the influence of conservative commentators, and is now more of an anti-feminism, anti-political correctness group with a loose gaming focus, but as such is more of an extension of the alt-right than anything on its own.
 * Any definition might encompass one part of that, but it is difficult to encompass all, especially given that the media mostly focused on only the hashtag phase. Rewriting would be nice, but it has been a difficult task. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

UTC) This conversation is straying extremely close to WP:NOTFORUM. I'm not going to hat it at this point, but please try to stay on the topic of the lede and not on your opinions on what Gamergate is and is not. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wordsmith, the question was why the lede does not seem to be clear on what Gamergate is - accordingly, an explanation as to what it is and why it is difficult to define seems warranted. - Bilby (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2016
 * Have there been any similar, if perhaps less widely discussed, articles about hashtag-based "movements", and how they describe their subjects? John Carter (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter --M ASEM (t) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking Black Lives Matter as well. I suppose we could add in YesAllWomen as well. - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The trick here is, that I think we all agree on, the movement itself is not notable if you dismiss the harassment around the situation (unlike, say with Black Lives Matter in that the movement is clearly notable though their actions have been met with criticism), so while these are examples of movements before on WP, the situation is different with GG, and it's not just simple to use these others as a template here. --M ASEM (t) 02:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The other concern, I think, is that those hashtags started as activist movements, rather than becoming a movement later. - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the lede needs drastically shortening - probably it should be two or three paragraphs and then everything else in it should be in the body. Currently we have everything but the kitchen sink in there in an attempt to please everybody. WP:UNDUE would of course have to be rigorously applied to this shortened lede. Artw (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The primary role of the lede isn't to be short, but to be an accurate summary. I have no problem with shortening if it can remain an accurate summary, but I would be opposed to shortening the lede for the sake of making it shorter. - Bilby (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The more random stuff we have in there the harder it is to follow. Right now there is a lot of fat to cut. Artw (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is a fair summary of the article. It is a hundred times better than the article itself, which is a mess. It is perhaps possible for it to be shortened, though it would probably require a fair bit of work. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go with something like this:
 * ''The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 with a coordinated harassment campaign targeting women in the video game industry, particularly game developer Zoe Quinn, after a former boyfriend of Quinn wrote a lengthy disparaging blog post about her.. Those endorsing the blog post and spreading such accusations against Quinn organized themselves under the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate, as well as on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels and websites such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan.  Harassment included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are actually campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry.
 * “Gamergate” is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it, and the loosely organized movement that emerged from the hashtag. The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture. As a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism.
 * And then everything else could go in history or reactions, where room to breath would mean we don't have to cram everything into telegraphese. Artw (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is definitely shorter and reads better, but it leaves out half the article. In particular the sections 4, 5, 6 and 7. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a third paragraph of later reactions and developments would probably be okay, but real care would have to be taken to prevent it getting bloated and diffuse. Leaving the bulk of the article in the body is rather the point. Artw (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This still skews the viewpoint away from what the reliable sources objectively say about the situation.
 * There are two groups of people when it comes to those involved with the GG hashtag, and to understand what the problem is we need to use set theory. Call group "H" those that have used the GG hashtag to harass/threaten others. Call group "E" those that have used the GG hashtag to question the ethics angle.
 * There is very likely an overlap of H and E, very few people doubt that. But what the above is presently saying (via "Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are actually campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry.") is that All E are H, which is not supported by the objective sources (those that Rhoark has analyzed in detail before). These sources have asserted that there are people in E that are not in H, and that the number of people in both E and H is a small fraction of those in E. (eg, " The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women."). There is certainly "guilt by association" that the press have routinely stated that those in E but not in H are responsible for the actions of those in H, but that doesn't mean they've actually done the act of harassment, but that's what this article and this proposed lead actually claims. In WP's words we are accusing all E that are not in H as being in H, and that's not a neutral stance at all when we have objective sources that say otherwise, even if that's the majority view of the mainstream press.
 * The lede to this article to explain all the ways the term "gamergate" applies and the other details is already going to be complex, but the first step to improvement needs to be to understand that the viewpoint this article is presently written in, purposely skewing the view to condemn anything associated with GG, will never get us to a neutral and useful lede, much less a neutral and useful article. We must get away from reflecting the mainstream viewpoint without question, and get to summarizing it neutrally, and that requires participating editors to ignore their personal feelings on GG, per WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAP. --M ASEM (t) 15:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmm. No, I don't agree with your interpretation of the sources or that we need to do that in the lede. Artw (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What interpretation? This is what the objective sources say directly such as the NYTimes article linked. --M ASEM (t) 17:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that the lead you wrote does not summarize sections 4, 5, 6 and 7. The lead is supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the article, not a hook to make people read the article. See WP:LEAD. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if this has already been cited: Newsweek did a little bit of analysis on this and found that people using the GamerGate hashtag were far more likely to tweet at game developers and cultural critics (like Sarkeesian) than toward journalists: "Combined, [Sarkeesian and Wu] have gotten more tweets on the #GamerGate hashtag than all the games journalists Newsweek looked at combined."

All that aside: we don't have polls of Gamergate membership, AFAIK, but we do know that the harassment is the aspect of GG that tends to get wider coverage. I suspect this would be true even if most of their affiliates were engaged in totally innocuous activism related to journalism. In addition to terrorism and brutality, ISIS coordinates trash pickup around Damascus. It would be silly, though, to discuss that in the lead paragraph for ISIS, because it's really not the part anyone cares about. This is an extreme example, of course, but the point is that the focus should be consistent with the focus of the reliable sources. Nblund (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The difference here, however, is that we have several objective RSes that point out that harassment is likely not connected with the bulk of those in GG, and that those that state they are part of the ethics aspects of GG condone the use of harassment and try to weed it out when they learn of it. (In contrast, ISIS has made their goals and methods very clear, and do not deny otherwise) The problem in the coverage is that the bulk of the press have pretty much completely ignored what the ethics movement has said about itself or scorn those people altogether because of the vitriol towards the harassment and threats, and generalize the GG movement as an harassment campaign. Whether they are right or not, no one knows nor will likely ever know, but this article presents treats it as if the press are right, and thus is making strong accusations of potentially criminal activity against any members of GG that are not engaged in any harassment. It's not a situation covered in BLP due to GG's anonymity, but it seems completely obvious that per NPOV that we can't engage in this type of POV-pushing even if the press is doing it all over the place. There does need to be a heavy focus on the harassment that has been documented being performed by some agency under the GG hashtag, and the critical and condemning nature that the press has expressed to the GG movement for not dealing with harassment better and/or moving away from the tainted GG hashtag, as well as the movement's otherwise aggressive, bullying tactics they take on social media; that's the WEIGHT of the coverage of GG we need to have in this article, but that's less a problem with this article as it currently stands, compared to the tone and stance that parts like the lede take. --M ASEM (t) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You repeating the same arguments that you've been saying for months. I would call it beating a dead horse. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that the dead horse be left alone? If you are unhappy with a new lead, propose a new one instead of engaging in "meta" arguments which are likely to convince nobody. Artw did propose one, and is perhaps open to expanding it slightly. Here is a suggestion: if Artw (or anyone else) is up to it, let them write a new lead and get some preliminary comments on it to fine tune it. Then open an RfC to ask people whether it should replace the current lead. It will cut through all the BS. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the "dead horse" is the overall tone and approach of this article which many have stated violates NPOV but that is impossible to enact any type of reasonable discussion to get change because the view the article takes reflects generally the view that of the RSes reporting on it take, which is clearly not objective. How to deal with this fact is not a simple rewrite or a change of a few words but requires consensus to try to figure out how to make this work within the framework of established WP policies. Every time this discussion comes up, either its claimed that consensus has said this was fine when in fact there have been demonstrated ownership problems in the past, or suddenly aspirations on editors' motivations crop up (see, for example, the hatted section below), and the topic of the debate is lost. The lede is only one part of the overall issue, and trying to address that overall issue in any type of calm manner to reach consensus never seems to happen with behavior on this talk page. And because in general the rest of WP is sick of hearing about GG as well as the reputation of what happens to those that have gotten involved on the GG page from external entities, this page becomes an isolated community that is difficult to solicit additional voices to. --M ASEM (t) 16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, it is often harder to pinpoint a problem than to agree to fix it in a particular way. As for soliciting outside voices, I would say an RfC is pretty much the only mechanism which allows voice to the people outside of the set of people watching this page like a hawk to thwart the supposed machinations by other people who are also watching the page like a hawk. It is perfectly obvious that some people will not agree, no matter however much you argue. Better to cut the Gordian knot and simply vote. One does not need to confine oneself to the lead, of course. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That Newsweek "analysis" is well known around here. To say it suffers sample selection bias is putting it mildly. If you pay attention to the numbers, they use about 1.5% of Gamergate tweets in their time window to reach their conclusions. Some still defend it to the hilt as a reliable source, but it's plainly worthless as an aide to editorial decisions. Rhoark (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article says they sampled 25% of the Tweets, and I think you're confusing "sampling bias" with just plain "sampling". It sounds like they took a random subset of the tweets, and that sample is about 250 times the size of an average presidential tracking poll. It's not something I would rely on without question, but it's a reliable source saying that the "journalism ethics" part was probably not that most significant. Nblund (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The initial 75% reduction was just the start, and probably innocuous. The sampling bias is introduced by only looking at mentions of seven selected accounts. The best conclusion to draw from the data would have been that Gamergate is not particularly about tweeting at any of the chosen seven. Rhoark (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems a little excessive, and frankly unhelpful and disruptive. I would also remind you that since you are involved you do not speak as an admin on this page. Artw (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not involved, so I do act in a purely administrative capacity here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're involved, and I'm not the only one. Sometimes the appearance of bias is worse than actual bias, or so I am told.--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This talkpage really isn't the best place for this particular conversation (not related to this article's content), so after my comment I'd like to move this to my user talk page. I think I meet the letter and spirit of WP:INVOLVED, but I'm open to counterarguments. If you want to challenge my involvedness, I'm actually not sure what the right venue for that would be. Since WP:ARBGG authorised it, I'm leaning towards ARCA being the right place. I'll have to do a little research and try to find precedent, but hopefully we can resolve this between the three of us (and anyone else who wants to join). The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but how exactly is The Wordsmith involved? They've made a few administrative type comments on this talk page, the last of which (before these) was from two months ago. And I don't see any edits at all to the article itself. The Wordsmith has made determinations in AE cases related to GG, but that's administrative work, not content work, and there's no indication they have a particularly strong viewpoint on any of this. —Torchiest talkedits 17:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They base the assertion on the fact that I've been "chummy" with people in the WikiInAction subreddit when my Enforcement actions were being discussed, and over a year ago I did the same in pro-GG subreddit KotakuInAction and anti-GG subreddit GamerGhazi when my statements about Ryulong's involvement were being questioned. Also on the fact that I believe there is a pro-GG faction and an anti-GG faction. For context, see here The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also you encouraging another user to edit the user as your proxy whilst you give admin support.. I am sorry, you simply cannot be seen as an uninvolved admin here. You should probably stay away from any arbitration too. Artw (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wordsmith, after seeing that diff from Artw, can you really claim you are uninvolved? Dumuzid (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. I clearly haven't been paying enough attention; until now, I thought Wordsmith was just doing the best he could with what information he had. That's shocking. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was doing the best I could on the information I had. If you check the date against my contribs, that edit was just 3 days after I waded in to this topic area. Obviously since then I've watched and learned more about the landscape here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. has passed a whopping 45 articles to GA or Featured status, probably putting him into the top ten content creators active on the Project. What's more, nearly all of them are within the video game area. I don't see anything wrong with asking if the content creator with unquestionably the strongest credentials in this area would be willing to take the initiative in improving the article. That's not anything remotely similar to asking Masem to proxy for me; I haven't even taken a position on any specific editorial matters other than saying the article is a mess, which I think we can all agree is true. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That brings up something I find to be interesting. Why is it that everytime someone says that this article is a mess (and it absolutely is), something like being called unfit to be admin the page happens to them? You cannot tell me with a straight face that a six-paragraph lead for a Wikipedia article makes for a good choice. Show me a quality article that has that many paragraph and still holds up. Because that six-paragraph wall of text does not have me interested in reading the article in any way. Wikipedia is supposed to be about making quality articles. Not whatever we have right now. GamerPro64  04:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing, . PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Sorry that I messaged Masem, who I have been on friendly terms all these years. If anything, I would defend many members of the Video Game Project. That would include Masem. I'd do it for Torchiest as well. And you cannot say that TRPoD's comment was in any way constructive. Reminder that he got topic-banned from GamerGate articles for comments like that. Can't be as bad as the time you left a veiled threat against me last August. GamerPro64  05:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Some may recall I began the project of writing a draft precisely because it was impossible to fix the lede otherwise. A lede is meant to summarize the article below it, and a good lede can't summarize a bad article. I wanted to write the lede absolutely last of all, but given this discussion is taking place, and the shape of the draft is mostly set at this point, I decided to provide a preview of a potential lede.

The draft as a whole continues to progress and can be found at User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy Rhoark (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The harassment element must come first. It is the only thing that Gamergate is really known for.  If the first sentence is "The Gamergate controversy is part of an ongoing culture war, most notable for its targeted harassment of women in the video game industry," I'll start paying attention. Otherwise, you're just doing another whitewash apologist job.--Jorm (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there's zero requirement in policy to put what a topic is notable for as the first thing in the lede or in the article body. Otherwise, we'd need to fix both Scientology or the Westboro Baptist Church articles to reflect the strong criticism associated with both that both bodies are more known for than what they actually purport to be. Forcing the harassment as first and foremost is creating a bias on the article, as it immediately sets a negative tone for the article. Harassment absolutely must be mentioned in the lede as it is why the controversy is notable, but it affects the tone when the article is written to push that angle. --M ASEM  (t) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of Westboro Baptist Church is: "Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a Baptist church (unaffiliated with any Baptist organization) which is known for its hate speech..."
 * I do agree that the intro sentence is confusing, what about something more like: "Gamergate refers to a Twitter hashtag, a loosely organized movement, and a campaign of harassment that primarily targeted female game developers, critics, and journalists."? Nblund (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject of a Wikipedia article is a topic, not a word. In this case, it's the Gamergate controversy, which includes at least two sides and encompasses many ideas and events. I begin by simply and directly explaining what the subject of the article is. The hashtag, movement, and harassment are all introduced prominently and in context within the lead, but none of them are themselves the article topic so should not be given equal billing as such, as though this were a Wiktionary entry or disambiguation page. Rhoark (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think it would be helpful to the reader to begin, "The thing which has not yet been defined or described is mostly known for harassment." I have given the issue of harassment extreme prominence in the proposed lede, figuring in the second sentence and in every paragraph. It's unfortunate if you find that inadequate, but it is not consistent with the reliable sources or the purposes of an encyclopedia to do more than that. Rhoark (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and say that I really doubt you're going to be able to simply change out this article for a different one, and incremental change is more feasible. That said: I sort of get your point, but i'm not sure who the other "side" of this debate would be, exactly, and the article focuses overwhelmingly on GamerGate, it's history, and the harassment and its fallout. Topic sentences usually summarize subsequent paragraphs, so, if you have given adequate weight to the harassment, it should be mirrored in the first sentence.
 * More generally: rightly or wrongly, GamerGate is primarily seen as an anti-feminist backlash, and so that shouldn't be downplayed. Phrases like "the status of women in gaming", for instance, seem like euphemisms. The controversy was about misogyny, whether real or perceived. There are also lots of references to people's feelings or perceptions in lieu of discussing what they actually did or said, and these are very unlikely to hold up to scrutiny, and give off the impression that the concrete details about harassment or sexism are being downplayed in favor of a contested narrative about journalistic ethics. Nblund (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gamergate controversy is a contested narrative about journalistic ethics and a contested narrative about misogyny. Those are the two sides. I don't want to downplay any factual aspect of the controversy. Where there are solid facts about harassment, I've endeavored to include them in the draft, but most of the substance of the topic does consist of feelings and perceptions. It would be misleading and undue weight not to convey that most news coverage and public opinion emphasizes the harassment aspect, but likewise it would be factually inaccurate and contrary to the higher quality RS's to give the impression that harassment was a large part of the actual activity within the controversy on a per-capita or per-tweet basis. Nor does giving due weight to harassment entail burying or obfuscating all the other aspects of the controversy that reliable sources have commented on. Rhoark (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have yet to find any significant higher quality RS's which give any real weight to the ethics issues, and which don't give the impression that harassment was a large part of the activity. Perhaps I'm missing something, but while the ethics debate is given some mention, almost all of the coverage is on the harassment. - Bilby (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think much more can be said in general terms that would be useful. You can read the specifics in the draft and check the citations if you like. Rhoark (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bilby -- behold, a significant higher quality RS which gives real weight to the ethics issues. We have to acknowledge that this facet of Gamergate exists if we have any hope of fixing the lead. I agree that the overwhelming majority of sources focus on the harassment, but for the sake of clarity and neutrality we have to identify the group responsible for the harassment before we can discuss their actions. To use the example from the WBC lead (not a featured article so a poor example, but it's the best we have), the WBC is identified as an unaffiliated "Baptist Church" before any mention of harassment. Most would claim that the WBC is a simply hate group and not a real church...and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources focus on their protests...and yet, in Wikipedia, "church" comes first in the lead. Why do you think that is? Right now we are putting the cart before the severely beaten horse, and there's a crowd standing around talking about how everyone is beating the goddamn horse when all we need to do is put the goddamn horse in front of the cart where he belongs and he'll stop being beaten. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The CJR article talks about someone who believes that SPJ should engage the ethics discussion as a form of outreach to empower "moderate elements". It (pointedly) does not say that Koretzy or others believe GGers are sincerely interested in ethics, he says that they should engage this discussion even if it isn't actually sincere.
 * WBC is defined as a church, but that's a mostly uncontroversial statement about it's structure, akin to calling GG "A loosely organized movement". What you're proposing is that the lead should adopt GGs contested self-description of it's goals and activities. The WBC entry does exactly the opposite: it mentions that they describe themselves as Baptist, but it immediately says they have no actual affiliation with any Baptist church.
 * I think the ordering of the first two sentences is not terribly important. I'm more concerned with that self-description being stated in Wikipedia's voice. What about: "GG references a loosely organized movement, a hashtag, and a controversy....[something]. Its supporters describe it as a movement concerned with either ethics in game journalism, or as a movement against perceived political correctness in games. It is primarily known for a campaign harassment that primarily targeted female game developers, journalists, and critics, and is described in most sources as a campaign of anti-feminist backlash." Nblund (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree! I actually love your version of the lead. Identifying Gamergate as a "loosely organized movement" would be a vast improvement to the current opening sentence! I'd actually swap the order of the 2nd and the 3rd sentences (since Gamergate is mainly known for harassment, as has been brought up many times before) but to actually define Gamergate with the first sentence in the neutral way you've done is perfect. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First, there should be no problem with using self-assertion of what GG claim they are. But a key issue that is core to the arguments on this page is how to deal with the gross generalizations that the press have stated that the movement is responsible for the harassment. Rhoark's past review of the objective sources show that the bulk of the movement say they too scorn the use of harassment, and these sources agree that its likely the result of vocal minority or third-party trolls that are using the GG hashtag to engage in harassment. So we cannot say in WP's voice that the movement is known for engaging or perpetuating a campaign of harassment, despite the fact that this stance is taken by a majority of more subjective press sources. (Note, however, that in association with the hashtag there is some perceived campaign of harassment, just that we don't know who is actually doing it, the nature of anonymous social media.) It is why self-asserted statements become important when there are accusations of potentially legal crimes being thrown around but no authority has made a statement on guilt or not. We're not at BLP where such allegations would be removed without evidence, but we need to use the same caution until evidence proves otherwise. This makes it difficult in the lede to determine what are the most salient points and what order to put them in, because it is a complex situation and nearly any order I have thought of biases it one way or another. --M ASEM  (t) 14:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While it might not be the case that the movement is responsible for the harassment as a whole, it is clear that it is known for harassment. That's a consistent message in the sources. - Bilby (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's a POV statement. This controversy is known for the harassment, that's fine (and its likely the only reason that this is a notable topic to begin with). But we have to be careful with a statement that "the movement is known for harassment", because that is implying that they did the harassment, taking up the gross generalization that subjective press sources have done. On the other hand, a statement is "The movement is often associated by the press with the harassment..." is a fair, neutral statement that represents the situation without factually stating the movement is responsible for the harassment. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that GamerGate has been described, consistently, as involved in harassment in the press. Therefore it seems correct to say that it is known for harassment, because that reflects the sources. It might be the case that this depiction is incorrect, (although I'd tend to disagree), but it is what GG is known for. - Bilby (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The press in this case meaning the sources. "The movement is often associated by the sources with the harassment" is, in Wikipedia terms, synonymous with "The movement is associated with harassment". Trying to get away from that is POV-pushing. Artw (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we'd not allow that wording to sit, as it is weasel wording (this is why we have the whom template for such vague claims). Adding "associated by the sources" or "associated by the media" avoids the weasel and avoids the POV pushing that is taking the press's word as truth. --M ASEM (t) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To add, I am very considered that we are taking too many absolutes here, and stress the need to take the middle ground, conservative view that neither accepts nor denies any claims made. We have to start with the fact that exactly who is harassing, who are in the movement, and what overlap there is are completely unknown, for all purposes.
 * If we state "the movement is associated with harassment" as fact, taking the media's word and later the media are proven wrong by some authority (that no one in the movement is involved with harassment), then we've have slighted an entire group of people. It's not a BLP violation since they are anonymous, but that's still a major problem for use. Instead, by stating "the moviement is associated by the media with harassment", we wipe our hands of any problems if the media are actually wrong.
 * In the same vein if we state "the movement is about ethics" and it turns out that it was a big dupe and everyone involved were harassing left and right as determined by some authority, then our statement is absolutely wrong and we been publishing a falsehood. Hence why the language of "the movement purports to be about ethics" or other self-statement again absolves us of any misleading statements said by the group since we attribute it to them.
 * The actual reality is likely somewhere in the middle, but it appropriately covered as well by making sure all potential claims are properly attributed to whom holds that view. That's the neutral POV that WP:YESPOV requires us to take, and regardless of any possibly of what the truth actually is, covers all of our basis to make sure that WP itself is not introducing an incorrect statement. Later, should that authority (like the FBI for example) make a statement that affirms one side or the other, then we can update with more firm, factual statements from that. But we simply can't do that now. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I understand you to be saying, we agree that the media describes GamerGate as being involved with harassment, but you want a more reliable source before you want to make an unqualified claim. Given that the FBI aren't going to comment, I presume the intent is to look to higher-quality sources than the media for this claim. I presume then that the academic peer-reviewed sources would suffice? - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt an academic source will make a blanket statement such as "Gamergate is made of harassers" as the article's conclusion. But if a peer-reviewed article would a similar claim, the point of using papers is because it will be accompanied by a detailed description of how that conclusion was reached, rather than merely being stated as the writer's opinion as is the case with newspapers and game reviewers. In that case, we would be able to include as statements of fact those qualified details that support the conclusion, providing a more precise characterization of the people making the harassment. Meanwhile, we must follow YESPOV and write the article in a style that such claims are attributed to the parties who make them. Diego (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A consistent message across the academic works is that GamerGate as a movement is founded in harassment. They certainly acknowledge other aspects, but harassment is at the core. I fully agree with YESPOV, but when the view is consistent across independent academic and media sources, we get to a point of having to acknowledge it as more than an opinion. The point here is that GamerGate is associated with harassment. We're not saying that everyone in GamerGate is a harasser, or that harassment is the only definable characteristic, but the statement that "GamerGate is associated with harassment" is more than just the opinion of a few columnists, and should be uncontested rather than needing to be qualified. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Three things: 1) First, on being "founded in harassment", there is a reasonable claim that a small number of people were ready to jump on something to engage in harassment of Quinn and/or Sarkseeian at the drop of a hat per IRC logs that Quinn presented and published by Ars Tech; there is little question the harassment was waiting to happen and just needed a spark (that being the Gjoni post). However, today we have no idea if that the movement is doing any of the harassment, as many many more people are involved than that sliver of IRC logs, and with everything all anonymous/pseudonyms, its impossible to determine if any of the originators are still with this. I would also point out that it was reported (I can't find the reliable sources published at the end of August 2014 right at the moment but they do exist, as well as how I remember the events) that it was clear in the first few days that the ethics side responding to Gjoni's post and questioning Kotaku were a separate group from those that saw Gjoni's post as a sign to start harassing Quinn; the gaming press decided to lump both into the same bucket, giving the appearance they were one and the same. With time and the lack of any identity of the people involved, we don't know if those two groups stayed separated, or merged to become one, or the like; the fundamental makeup of those in both the movement and the harassment is unknown, so while "founded in harassment" has a ring of truth to it, to say that harassment is what the movement is about today factually is a POV statement that is popularized by the press.
 * 2) We have a group of people, while anonymous, known to have stated several times, quoted by RSes and verifiable in going to the stated forums that these RSes state are where the movement congregates, that they are not involved in harassment and try to weed and fight it themselves when they see it. Until that is proven as an outright lie, it is POV to ignore their word and instead take as fact that the movement is associated with harassment as the press want. That the movement has nothign to do with harassment is still a claim, we are not required to state as a fact either. Much of everything about GG is contested by one or both sides, so as WP only documents the controversies and does not take sides, we must avoid writing in the absolutes.
 * 3) Even if academic papers come to a conclusion, they are not the people in a position of authority to make the factual statement. Harassment and death threats are crimes. There is a legal definition of what constitutes harassment and threats in the US that can then be prosecuted and punished by law. As such, it's not going to be academics that make that call but law enforcement, and if/when that call is made, then we can reflect it here as fact, just as when a person is found guilty of a crime. --00:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Responding to just the last sliver of that post, there is an awful lot of behavior that people would generally characterize as "harassment" that does not rise to the level of a crime; and there are also times that it is indisputable that a crime has been committed, though the specific person who perpetrated it is not identified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are subjective measures of what harassment can be, though there are also legal, punishable forms too. Outside of the GG topic area in the Internet and world at large (heck, on en.wiki) I have seen people consider critical, dissenting but non-aggressive or threatening replies to a statement they make as harassment. (That starts getting into the whole safe space idea that's growing in this larger culture war, and I'll leave it at that.) That said, because what is harassment is subjective, that is even more a driver to avoid stating something like "the movement is associated with harassment" as a fact in WP's voice, but apply attribution to that, since exactly what is "harassment" is a big grey area. There is some social norm as what constitutes harassment that most everyone in certain sociopolitical groups could agree on, and there is no question that what Quinn, Sarkseeian, and Wu have received some type of harassment that meets this social norm in addition to the legal definition, but again, these specific events have not been connected with any proof positive to those involved with the movement (and again, its because no know knows who is who in GG, so they could very well be). And when in discussing the messages and actions of the movement that can be tracked to such people, there are plenty of subjective aspects stated about the movement that we should attribute, including "bullying" and "aggressive", but nothing that readily meets what the social norm of harassment would be. --M ASEM (t) 16:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we may be confusing two separate issues. One is the claim that "GamerGate is about harassment". I certainly agree that there are those who say that it is not, and that the harassment may have come from a subset of supporters. The second is "GamerGate is associated with harassment". The second claim does not presume that this association is correct, but it seems uncontentious to say that it is made. It is agreed by both those within GamerGate and without that GamerGate is associated with harassment - it is just that most supporters will tell you that it is a false association, in part because No True GamerGater would be involved in harassment. Masem above was saying that we need to qualify "the movement is associated with harassment" - this is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's remember that WP:Lead says it serves as a summary of its most important contents. It does NOT say summarizes every section of the article. As illustration, check out the five paragraph lead of World War II. The lead does not mention the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, or the Spanish Civil War, or even the attack on Pearl Harbor (my bad, missed it first couple readings), despite non-trivial coverage in the article. I'm not criticizing WWII, I'm pointing out that the guideline doesn't require the ability to find some mention in the lead of every section in the article. Now, it may be that some of the omitted sections deserve inclusion, but do so because they represent the most important contents; don't shoe-horn them in based upon a misreading of the guideline.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby, I'm afraid you didn't graps the gist of my comment. If we have academic papers supporting the association, it is not enough to just assert "GamerGate is associated with harassment"; we can and should describe the nature of such association, such as "GamerGate is associated with harassment by their usage of the tag #gamergate", or "GamerGate is associated with harassment since the press lumped together the movement and the harassers", or whatever it is that the academic sources are saying. The unqualified "GamerGate is associated with harassment" is WP:WEASEL words: " Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed", and "is associated" is a claim about what people think, so it should be either attributed to the people who asserts it as a belief, or we should describe more precisely what the association is as a matter of fact. Diego (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll wait until there's an actual proposal for how to word this before it is really worth chasing this down. I don't think, from what you and Masem are saying, that there is a consistent concept here that is being expressed. Masem's description of the issue is fundamentally different from yours. When there's a proposal on the table we might have a point of commonality with which to discuss this.- Bilby (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Diego, with all due respect, I understand the word "attributed" in WP:WEASEL slightly different than you do. Certainly said belief could be attributed to actual speakers who have voiced such opinions (e.g., "Dumuzid says all widgets are worthless").  But attribution would be just as good, for Wikipedia purposes, if anchored in a reliable source (e.g. "All widgets are worthless, {cite to the impeccably reliable Dumuzid Times}).  Even better, obviously, when multiple reliable sources say the same thing.  So if, for example, the great bulk of reliable sources said "Gamergate is about harassment," that would seem to me to be perfectly fine attribution without either any people asserting it or more precise language (more precision might even be a problem if it is not reflected in the sources).  Just my tuppence.  Dumuzid (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that such assertion would not have enough precision, and thus be insufficient as well as likely to hamper neutrality. If the reader tries to verify the claim by checking the references, there must exist a path from our article to the particular parts of the sources where their authors explain what exactly they mean by "being about" or "associated with" harassment. The sources must provide such detail of explanation to be considered reliable, otherwise they would be the author's mere opinions; so we should make it ease to find it.
 * I don't have access to many of the academic references listed in the article, but it would be a fine exercise to extract the different ways that those papers describe how the movement is associated with the harassment, and make those part of our definition.
 * For example, in a quick check of those I can read like Internet Monitor 2014 and Women Action Media, the way they make the connection is by associating the harassment to the "gamergate controversy" (the phenomenon), not to the "movement" (the people participating):
 * "The Gamergate controversy, ostensibly intended to address ethical issues in video game journalism, quickly spiraled into a bitter debate about feminism, misogyny, online harassment, and media conspiracy that was both intensely polarized and highly politicized."
 * "The GamerGate controversy over tensions linked to growing gender and cultural diversity in videogames saw numerous cases of online harassment. Harassment on Twitter associated with the controversy ..." and "To check the influence of GamerGate on these findings, the authors investigated the proportion of WAM! reports that could be linked to GamerGate. Reports to WAM! constitute a much wider range of harassment than the GamerGate controversy alone: 88% of allegedly harassing accounts (n=538) were not linked with GamerGate".
 * I think such nuances are highly relevant to the way the topic is introduced and defined, as they produce a different impression than just the general "Gamergate is associated with harassment". So, WP:STICKTOSOURCES and all that. Diego (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Diego, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that the "GamerGate controversy" seems to obscure who the harassment targeted. This is verbose, but something closer to Rhoark's wording does a better job:
 * Nblund (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's focusing on particular women that obscures who was targeted. There's a fine line to walk between reporting the facts and reflecting the due weight given by sources, because the two are at odds. The framing you've suggested here "gained widespread press coverage for [...]" seems like a good avenue to walk that line. Rhoark (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that "gained widespread press coverage for ..." is very accurate and spot-on language that implicitly includes that this is what the press claimed, but not necessarily what is true. --M ASEM (t)
 * In this case, though, the claim is objectively true. "Gained widespread coverage for" is not a qualification, and for this statement there should be none. - Bilby (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does the article read like a lip service to anti-#Gamergate movement?
Wikipedia is supposed to cover all aspects and I have a really hard time finding information here that says much against anti-#Gamergate movement? Am I missing something? Shouldn't there be a "Criticism" section too? Nergaal (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We cover all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources. Do you have anything specific from a reliable source that you want to add? Strongjam (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are implying that there are no reliable sources criticizing the anti-#Gamergate movement? It is unanimous? Nergaal (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would like to add something to the article, find reliable sources, and add the information with those sources. It's that simple. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This article...
Afternoon all (who remain), now that the significant volume of noise has gone, can we now work on making this article encyclopedic? Koncorde (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where would you recommend starting? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the article has been written at the time events happened, so it's a piecemeal of sources and has an inconsistent writing style reflecting the fact that there have been strong or weak paragraphs written by person A, then strong or weak sentences by person B, then attempts to reconcile the two into some level of cohesion. Subsequent arguments about content inclusion has led to overbearing amounts of detail to justify specific sources, repeating of content or addition of superfluous context. The lede in particular has ballooned into something that reads out of order, with an extremely shaky first sentence which is contradicted (or at least given a different context) by later paragraphs (which are often themselves given additional context by subsequent paragraphs until it kind of rolls up into a big mess of convoluted nonsense).
 * Within the article proper the actual body of events, when looking at them, appear to provide a paragraphs worth of verbiage for what could be summarised in a single sentence in each case. The "Debate over ethics" section in particular is just quotations being set against each other. It reads like a narrative argument of editorial weight is being implied, with some synthesis of opinions within some paragraphs where there is no indication that the two opinions intended to be compared / contrasted by the actual source (i.e. the editor of wikipedia is creating the debate / discussion). Instead the opinion should be framed and then supported by the sources, rather than just opinions collated from sources then linked by common phrases.
 * I'd like to see its blow by blow, month by month, account of events actually reduced to what is notable (rather than its current melange of soundbites). This is not Operation Barbarossa but we have almost as many references to key dates/ events, immediately followed by the opinions of third parties (in most cases the habit has been to do Event > Complaint > quote from victim > quote from secondary source > quote from law enforcement etc. ad nauseum) regardless of what it adds in a regular and repeating format. Do we really need to know everything about Sarkeesians cancelled talks in October 2014 for instance (her own article has summarised these events far more concisely)?
 * Larger restructuring is definitely required "History" is one thing, but it really isn't "History" it's the origin story of the "Gamergate" phrase so is pretty much integral ("History" would indicate that it is something that predates the controversy but that would only be stuff up to August 2014, but the "background hum" phrase definitely suggests that it's all one and the same thing in any case). Article as a whole needs proper editing from start to end rather than ad hoc. Koncorde (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably want to start smaller and bing up some specifics, since any attempt at a large-scale change of that kind is pretty much doomed. I would point out that even the most uncontroversial of general statements - recognizing Gamergates misogynistic tendencies, for instance - is hotly contested and so we tend to settle on details over that, I'm not seeing that changing. The article is heavily cited for similar reasons, so a reduction in the number of cites seems doubly unlikely. Artw (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, fuck it. I'll come back in another year or so. Koncorde (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I'm not sure what sort of preemptive promises or guarantees you want here. All I can say is, I agree entirely with what you describe!  So make up a mock draft.  Or suggest some changes that head us in that direction.  If you feel like it will be easier in 2017, so be it.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is evident any attempt to make bold changes will be reverted (or pass through something similar to the below; which is a travesty of an editing process) - and I have no interest in arguing over a patently crap article. Either people accept it is shit and want to improve it, or it continues to be shit, and protected by proxy ownership (or wilful inaction in favor of status quo, I know not which). Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the lead
The article has 250+ unique citations on the whole. The lead however has none. Can someone do something about it? The information about libels and threats really needs such editorial attention. Nxavar (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ledes do not require citations (all content is cited within the more than 250+ unique citations). Koncorde (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This does not give any reasons why the lead of this particular article does not have citations, or why adding citations would not be an improvement. In my opinion, no controversial article should be self-restrictive on citations. It does not make sense with the spirit of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Nxavar (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the idea here is that the lead is cumbersome as is, and adding citations would just make it worse from a readability standpoint. I happen to agree with this (while also thinking the lead could be dramatically improved).  I don't think there's any offense to the spirit of WP:VERIFIABILITY since all of the claims are ultimately backed by citations in the article.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is on a controversial issue as the header of this talk page clearly states. More is lost by not including citations, namely the assurance to the reader that this is a balanced, non-biased account of the controversy. Nxavar (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reasonable minds may differ! In my opinion, anyone who is sedulous enough to visit citations in the lead will do so in the body of the article.  Count me as opposed to this particular idea.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While the article may be called a "controversy" none of the content is actually controversial, almost all content is entirely a statement of fact, or of the weight of sources (of which there are 250+). If you can identify any uncited controversial subject matter or unverified claims, please identify them. Koncorde (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD. It is perfectly valid to have no citations in the lead. In this particular instance, the lead has been cobbled together based on WP:SUMMARY style, so citations would be quite unwieldy. I prefer no citations. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed new lede for Gamergate controversy
The current lede to the Gamergate controversy article is frequently criticised as being rambling and overly long. I therefore propose that we replace it with the following in the interest of clarity. Artw (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Lede
-

Proposal 2b

-

Survey

 * Favor #2 as proposer. The first proposal does not provide an adequate overview of the article, subject matter, or views of independent reliable sources. Rhoark (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favour #2. Proposal 1 misrepresents sources facts & sources; and fails to cover large sections of the article. It fails to adhere to WP:NPOV, particularly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV & WP:UNDUE; sourcing for "coordinated harassment campaign" in particular is poor, reliant on opinion pieces including discussion papers, and should, by policy, be an attributed POV; does not reflect the predominance of the term "movement" in sources. While at least some of these issues exist with the current lead section, they preclude endorsement of Proposal 1 above. Proposal 2 is less prone to these issues, and, while I share some of the concerns raised by below, it provides an overall better coverage of the subject matter; attributing POV where required, and is, overall, an improvement on the current lead section. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC) amended Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Two is better, but both suffer from trying to recycle too much. 2 in particular fails to succinctly deal with the naming of the article (instead setting itself up about "Gamergate"). There's also a tone of editorialising, and continued abundance of minutae. I also rally hate this sentence "No violent threats have been carried out" - this is a genuinely terrible almost throwaway comment. There's a habit to continue to refer to "during" "because" "largely" "generally". Look at binning those terms and having a paragraph starting with "Outcomes off the harassment campaign have included..." would rid of the need to keep saying those terms. Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor #1, but favor the current version over #2. #2 is a mess.  The first sentence severely distorts the WP:WEIGHT and WP:TONE of the reliable sources, which don't give the description of the controversy as a movement or a hashtag anywhere near the same degree of prominence that they give to harassment; we have to cover everything the sources say, but we also have to reflect the weight and tone they use when saying it, which the second proposal manifestly fails to do.  The first proposal uses those terms (as the sources do), but it gets it right by using them the way most sources do, with a tone and focus more appropriate to the way they normally present things.  The whole first paragraph is a mess, with heavy use of the passive voice ("the inciting incident of the controversy") in a way that doesn't reflect the article or the sources at all.  The second paragraph seems to have been nearly invented whole-cloth; it doesn't reflect most sources or the article at all.  The third paragraph delves deeply into editorializing ("media attention has said X, and this is why people think Y"), which, again, isn't reflected in the sources or the article.  Also, the "no threats were carried out" in particular is, as Koncorde pointed out, pure synthesis. Remember that reading our article here should be comparable to the overall impression people would get from a survey of the most reliable sources on the subject; this lead reads more like an opinion-piece by an editor, presenting their personal feelings and views about the controversy rather than a summary of what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favour #1 - #2 is clearly untenable, as is anything that suggests gamergate is about 'inclusion of women in video gaming'. Near anything would be better than the embarassment that is #2, and if there're only two options, it's clear which to pick. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor #1 or current. Oppose #2. #2 has numerous problems:
 * Never start a Wikipedia article with "The term X...". Wikipedia is about concepts, not words. Wiktionary is for describing words.
 * The opening sentence lists everything under the sun and gives no clear picture of what Gamergate actually was.
 * It gives undue weight to Gamergate apologists, which are not the views reflected in the majority of reliable sources about Gamergate.
 * It whitewashes the actual views expressed by Gamergate supporters: "People identifying with the Gamergate movement express varied and conflicting viewpoints, but generally felt that members of the press were using their platforms to advance careers of friends and associates in the game industry." An analysis by Newsweek suggests that GamerGaters care less about ethics and more about harassing women.
 * It makes it sound like the harassment had nothing to do with people's political stances: "Various men and women across the spectrum of debate have been subjected to online harassment after presenting opinions on Gamergate." We all know who suffered the lion's share of harassment and it wasn't men or Gamergate supporters.
 * Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , On review of the Newsweek article, it clearly provides no detail or categorisation of the majority of Gamergate posts (tweets), other than around 93.8% of them (during the period of the study) were not directed at any one of seven named Twitter accounts. Appreciate if you could rephrase or strike that point in your !vote. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wording clarified. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Favor #1 as proposer. Option 2, which contrary to the text of the RFC I was not proposing, is utterly unusable as it is as it is taken from a draft article quite different than this one, and so does not represent the article or sources. That draft is itself is also unusable due to POV and WEIGHT issues. Artw (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor current lede - #1 is tolerable, but #2 is just another attempt to hijack the article, and fails NPOV tests. (Full disclosure, I'm a gamer of decades standing, have been a gaming journalist, and am a feminist.) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor #2 - Has no one here read WP:LEAD? Can we try actually quoting from the applicable guideline rather than "general discussions about the subject of the article" or random essays or misquoted policies? #1 fails to describe the Gamergate controversy in the first sentence. Per WP:LEAD, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." We must know what the Gamergate controversy is before we can go into the actions of the perpetrators. The Gamergate controversy is far more than a "harassment campaign targeting women in the video game industry." The initial harassment campaign is a small fraction of the content of the article. You've all read the article, right? Sure you have. Anyway, #2, while flawed, does a much better job summarizing the breadth of the controversy beyond what happened in the first few months in a passably neutral tone. This is one of the many reasons I believe #2 is far superior to #1. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither In both cases they fail to adequately summarise the article. The first option only focuses on a very small part of teh controversy, at the cost of leaving out aspects which are rcovered in mch more detail in teh article. The second is longer, but again doesn't align with the article. A summaries of Gamergate they are both interesting, but as summaries of the article as written they don't really work. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor #2b. I fail to see why a 57kb article needs a lead section longer than 4 paragraphs. Option 1 does not define what Gamergate is to a layman reader, and is unable to summarize the article accurately and neutrally. Issues with Option 2 raised by Option 1 voters above have been addressed by Rhoark. SST  flyer  06:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favour 2b It's the only option so far that starts by defining the topic. I think it could do with some rewording to improve it but it is definitely the best structure out of the two proposals and current lede. I Actually think language from 1 and structure from 2 could b blended to become a great lede that summarises the dual nature of this beast for the uninformed reader.SPACKlick (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor #2b, in special the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE which clearly introduces and defines the topic in a way that neither #1 nor the current lede achieve. If nothing else changes, at least that sentence should be used, and preferably the whole first paragraph of #2. Diego (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor #1 or current for all the reasons similar voters have listed. Have a nice day, all! Dumuzid (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * #1 or current. As noted above, #2b doesn't accurately and neutrally reflect the reliable sources and the rest of the article. In particular, as Kaldari pointed out, the sentence "Various men and women across the spectrum of debate have been subjected to online harassment after presenting opinions on Gamergate" gives the impression that harassment has been relatively evenly distributed across all involved, but it is clear from reliable sources and the body of the article that this is not the case. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This RfC is ill-formed and should be ruled void, since the options are not clearly presented. In particular, the current version of the lead isn't present as an option - so the binary choice is seriously misleading. I prefer the current version over both the proposed options. Neither of the options summarizes the whole article which is a requirement for a lead. See WP:LEAD. I prefer #2 over #1 on the criteria of being more complete, but neither of them comes close, in my opinion. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither and I also think the RFC a bit malformed because it's phrased as a vote for a or b rather than a request for inputs about a topic to speak freely on a concern, and also I do not see TALK about this before it went to RFC. As to the options shown -- the first alternative shown seems partisan, the second seems rambling.  I'd suggest better to go with the existing lede and if one wants to avoid rambling then cut it down to just the existing first para ... the reader can get the rest in the article. Markbassett (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Favor current lead or #1 as the lesser of many evils. While far from perfect, the current lede actually summarizes the sourced article text. Woodroar (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Favor current lead over both proposals. I may be damned to some kind of editorial hell for favoring such a long current lead. Nevertheless I think this is a complicated topic, and that the current lead is required to fully summarize it. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
My thinking is that though the current everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach attempts to please everybody by including everything it in effect pleases nobody and needs to be drastically cut down, addressing only major aspects of the controversy. All aspects of the controversy not being addressed in that lede would then be expanded on below, where they will have room to breathe and not be condensed into telegraphese. Artw (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It might be good to remove the 'actually' bit from 'actually campaigning'. There's also a little bit of copyediting to do ('as has been' in the penultimate sentence, double full stop after first sentence). PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have made a minor minor copy edit, I should probably avoid any more as the RFC progresses. Artw (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)I

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the grasp of the last sentence. Is it trying to describe how those who self-identify as 'pro-gamergate' downplay the harassment and big up the actually games journalism stuff, or is there another aim for that sentence? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much the aim of that sentence. Artw (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Brevity is a desideratum but that is not a guarantee against a topic having a certain level of irreducible complexity. If it takes two or three sentences to ensure the reader is not misled, so be it. We cannot simply wish that away as an aesthetic inconvenience. Rhoark (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way do you feel the proposed lede is misleading? Artw (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It participates rather than describes the controversy, in particular by stating in Wikipedia's voice that Gamergate supporters are generally and unilaterally responsible for the harassment taking place in the controversy. That is contrary to the facts and the sources. I see these problems have slipped into article space lede, so the proposed edit is actually perhaps less egregious, but that does not make it a good lede. Rhoark (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's something I can help you with, since both versions of the lede reflect the article and the sources. Artw (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A lede like this one has been proposed by Artw before and gained no traction. I do not think the re-posing of the suggestion as an RfC at this time was appropriately neutral. As such I have included an another formulation of the lede, based on my own proposal in the same prior thread with further refinements suggested at that time by and . Rhoark (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it to the one proposal for now, since that is what the RFP started with. Consider editing that block equivalent to editing my comments. Artw (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding an alternative statement is a suggested response to an RfC one believes to be non-neutral. Rhoark (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I consider this deliberately obstructive behavior from yourself and user:The Wordsmith and would appreciate if one or both of you self reverted. Artw (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't be reverting myself. Obstructive behavior is deleting a perfectly legitimate alternative proposal from a public RFC. You don't WP:OWN a discussion and deleting or refactoring others' talk page comments is directly contrary to behavioral guidelines. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Several people apparently look askance at the claim that no violent threats have been enacted physically. This is sourcable to the New York Observer. Moreover, I know of no contrary source describing in any general or specific terms how someone has been harmed. If there is a source, even a marginally reliable one, I would readily assent to excluding the statement from the lede, as a matter of editorial discretion. As it is, it stands as one of the most salient facts about the most salient aspect of the controversy. Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A source from about 10 months ago? Seems fairly legit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More importantly, to me...  we have to remember that a lead has to represent the article as a whole, and that when structuring the article as a whole, we have to follow the WP:TONE and WP:WEIGHT of the sources; it's not sufficient to simply say "here, a source says this, let's put it in the lead."  In context, this is clearly synthesis, in that you're taking a single sentence from one source and putting it in the lead in a way that encourages the reader to draw a conclusion about the seriousness of the threats and their place in the controversy.  I would have no objection to putting that sentence further down in an appropriate place, but placing it in the lead gives it a prominence that isn't reflected in the sources (it implies that it is highly relevant, when most sources don't treat it as central.)  By my reading, "there were threats, but nobody got hurt" is very different from the tone most sources take on the controversy.  This is a problem that the entire second proposal has; it takes things that are marginal in the sources and devotes nearly two paragraphs of the lead to them in a way that differs drastically from the tone of most mainstream coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Statements that articles should reflect the tone of sources have been made multiple times on this Talk page, and have been demonstrated multiple times to be contrary to policy WP:NPOV@WP:IMPARTIAL, which states (in part) Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Editors are encouraged to WP:DROPTHESTICK and cease in pushing this line of reasoning; continuation is becoming tendentious. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The key part of WP:IMPARTIAL is that "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." (Emphasis mine.)  I believe that the first proposal is a proportionate, unbiased, and impartial summary of what the mainstream sources on the subject say; and that the second proposal introduces severe bias through disproportionate focus on views that are marginal in the sources and an organization that pushes a particular take on the controversy that is not particularly prominent in those sources.  Simply saying "I feel that the weighting and focus of mainstream coverage is biased, and therefore we need to fix it" is the exact opposite of what WP:IMPARTIAL. WP:DUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:FALSEBALANCE say.  If you feel there are more neutral ways of phrasing what the sources say, go ahead and suggest them; but suggesting that we should weight things the way the second proposal does is contrary to policy and would amount to imposing editor's personal views on the subject over the voice of the sources.  WP:IMPARTIAL is not about "go with whatever weighting feels most impartial to you, personally"; it's about impartially reflecting what the sources say, with the weight and prominence appropriate to those sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then editors should argue based on WP:DUE (which can be determined by an evaluation of sources), but should also accept that the tone needs to be WP:IMPARTIAL, and not argue that it should reflect the tone of sources (selected or otherwise). I am not aware of any editors who have stated "I feel that the weighting and focus of mainstream coverage is biased, and therefore we need to fix it", and would appreciate diffs, or a strikethrough. I am aware that editors have said that the current article's tone is not impartial, and that the current article does not reflect the proportion of reliable sources; and, for certain aspects, have demonstrated such misalignments in proportionality. (See ) That is a very different position from "go with whatever weighting feels most impartial to you, personally". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

With reluctance (as I feel it is a strong lede and because the RfC is active), I have edited Proposal 2 to address stated concerns. If anyone who formerly endorsed 2 can no longer support it we can address that, but it seems unlikely given they have specifically requested at least a subset of these changes. Changes are as follows.
 * Removed the claim that no violence has been enacted, so that question can be treated separately.
 * Rearranged the first sentence to allow the recommended style of naming and bolding the article title.
 * Removed any words that seemed extraneous. Any remaining qualifying adjectives would render a statement untrue if removed.
 * Rhoark (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Forgive the presumption, but I haven't seen you before in these discussions so hope to fill you in on a few key points.
 * First, the Newsweek article is far from the last word on the subject, being severely flawed in its methodology. The claim that most tweets were negative is something it was not actually able to assess, but more importantly the analysis by Andy Baio shows that tens of thousands of accounts tweeted about Gamergate to each other, not involving any of Newsweek's chosen seven accounts at all.
 * I agree with your comments on the proper way to start an article's opening sentence. Consensus had gone against me on that the last time we discussed the lede, and I am happy to reverse it.
 * The views presented are indeed consistent with the reliable sources, as considered to be the New York Times, CNN, Columbia Journalism Review, USA Today, and several academic papers on the topic. Suffice to say that harassment is complex and multipolar with respect to the gender and politics of who harasses as whom they harass. The present article is somewhat over-reliant on the likes of Daily Dot and Deadspin in these matters. I'm working on a draft to correct these issues. You can peruse its claims and check their sourcing at User:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy
 * Rhoark (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Option #3 and any additional options
That's very funny, but would you mind taking those down? The original subversion of the RFC into multiple choice was disruptive enough without adding to the confusion. Cheers. Artw (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the addition being from PeterTheFourth is patently unserious and contrary to his actual views. This is pointy and tendentious. Rhoark (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'll move it elsewhere. I hope can appreciate how silly his initial actions were now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding appropriate RfC procedure, first of all its best that an RfC follow and reflect some prior discussion. That discussion was had, so far so good. The thing is, consensus did not at all support or tend towards Artw's suggestion. My suggestion followed, which also did not find support per se, but petered out in wrangling over wording. Now to resurrect the matter and insist it be a choice between Artw's proposal or the status quo is clearly unreasonable. I think it would have been better had no RfC been raised following a discussion so far from any kind of consensus, but I don't begrudge Artw for not including a version of my proposal. They are not writing from a perspective that would be able to do that. It is necessary though for something reflecting the trend of the prior discussion to be present in order for this to be a neutral and legitimate RfC.

In the interest of fairness and consistency, I'll point out that the draft I am currently writing may very well generate an RfC at some point. Should it be the only such effort in progress, it would be entirely appropriate to call an RfC to judge between the draft and status quo only. Anyone who doesn't find that an appealing prospect should generate an alternative post-haste. Rhoark (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I entirely follow - you've disrupted this RFC by getting an admin to rules-lawyer in a second proposal but now you want the right to have a do-over if it doesn't go your way? Artw (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stow the aspersions. I added the second proposal on my own initiative, in accordance with policy and common sense. The Wordsmith defended it, presumably recognizing it was in accordance with policy and common sense. Above I explain why it's appropriate. Finally, I preemptively address a parallel objection one might have to an RfC in the future. That RfC is not contingent on this one. Rhoark (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say and do not wish to waste time untangling it. If you want to have your own RFC then have your own RFC, but don't pretend hijacking this one is anything other than an attempt to create drama, and don't be suprised if it is shot down as a double. Artw (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Topics in the lead
I tend to think that we are doing this backwards - coming up with a new lead before working out what the lead should contain. As things stand, the article discusses:


 * 1) Zoe Quinn, the harassment she received, and how that morphed into GG.
 * 2) The extension of that harassment to others in the industry, including Sarkeesian and Wu, while mentioning harassment received by GG supporters.
 * 3) How the harassment was coordinated, and responses from inside GG
 * 4) Social implications - gamer identity, misogyny, law enforcement
 * 5) Ethics in game journalism - mostly "there were some valid complaints, but they were lost in the harassment"
 * 6) Activities by GG supporters: supporting charities, targeting advertisers
 * 7) Industry response
 * 8) General response

Of those, most of the article is focused on the harassment issues, which makes the biggest single section, followed by the social implications (sexism, etc).

In the current lead, we cover 1 & 2 in some depth (harassment to Quinn and others), 3 (coordination), 4 (social implications), 7 & 8 (industry and general response). We mostly skip ethics (5) and don't tackle 6 (GG activities).

The first proposed lead covers 1 (Quinn), 3 (coordination), 4 (social implications), 7 & 8 (industry and general response - although not much on either). It skips the harassment outside of what happened to Quinn (2), make a passing reference to ethics concerns (5), and doesn't tackle 6 (GG activities, which the current lead skips as well).

The second proposed lead covers 1 (Quinn), 2 (other harassment), 5 (ethics - in comparative depth), and a bit on 4 (social implications) & 8 (general response). Missing is 3 (coordination), 6 (GG activities), and 7 (industry response).

I guess I could make a neat little table, but my issue is that each lead emphasises different aspects of the article, and none cover all. So I guess the question is what the lead should emphasise. Working on the assumption that it can't cover the whole article, what does the lead need to say to properly summarise the article as a whole? - Bilby (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The notion of coordination does not deserve attention in the lede. It rests on chat logs implicating at best fifty people where:
 * The total movement comprises more than 50,000 and is invested in the concept of being leaderless.
 * At least some of the logs were collected and excerpted by a hostile and involved party.
 * There is reasonable suspicion, backed by reliable sources, that some participants are deliberately aiming to discredit the movement.
 * There is significant doubt that any of them, even those who are not outright plants, are serious about what they're saying or acted on it.
 * A spokesman disavows the things they are purported to have said.
 * There is no corroboration that they actually influenced anyone outside the chats, especially in proportion to Adam Baldwin.
 * Logs show the most lurid suggestions did not even sway the other people in the chat.
 * The logs cover a period of less than two months, since when almost two years have passed in which Gamergate has hardly been dormant.
 * There's enough certainly to document that there were people using the hashtag in bad faith, but that's it. As an overarching theory of how Gamergate, or even the harassment that came before the tag operated, it doesn't carry water. Rhoark (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. The 'gamergate movement' is both invested in the concept of being leaderless and has a spokesman who we can rely on to speak for 'the movement'? This doesn't mesh very well. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The IRC users quoted in logs obtained by The Escapist and Ars Technica had a spokesman. I don't recall the users quoted by Heron, Belford & Goker were reached out to for comment but I'll look over that again if I find the time. Rhoark (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said before... if you don't feel that the chat logs deserve the coverage they got, the appropriate thing to do is to send letters to the sources that covered them asking for retractions.  Our job isn't to evaluate what we feel the sources should have said based on arguments like the above; our job is to reflect what they actually say with weight appropriate to that coverage.  Getting into arguments over why you don't personally feel the chatlogs are worthy of attention isn't going to go anywhere, since we can't structure the article based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Determining due weight is a component of editorial discretion. If a source makes claims that contradict itself, other sources, or later developments its up to us to put that into an appropriate context. That's not railing against mainstream coverage as a whole. Ars Technica doesn't need to retract anything, and mainstream coverage is fine as far as the total cohort of facts and opinions that have been presented. The IRC logs are just not a big enough part of that to warrant attention in the lede. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Determining due weight is done by looking at weight in the sources. The coordination section has, by my reading, at least seven sources for coordination specifically, including three academic papers, and including both papers and articles in high-profile publications focusing on that aspect near-exclusively, detailing the structure and nature of their coordination.  Your personal opinion that you feel there are contradictory aspects to it doesn't give us sufficient reason to ignore or downplay that heavy coverage.  (As an aside, I disagree with most of your opinion on that, of course - but I also think it's irrelevant.  Our responsibility is to go with the sources say, rather than our own personal analysis.  If you your objections are serious and worth considering when writing the article, then it should be easy to find a source that includes them, and mention that as a counterpoint - indeed, I think at least a few of them are mentioned.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Responses to Aquillion re: tone
Comments below were made in response to Aquillion's survey response. I've refactored them to the threaded discussion section. Rhoark (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not following the tone of the reliable sources is an asset, not a liability. The essay you linked to says that tone should be kept formal, and to follow the style of RSs up to a point. We definitely must not follow the tone of the sources with respect to how they indulge in the dispute; WP:NPOV have strict requirements on the tone that Wikipedia articles should follow, which must remain WP:IMPARTIAL. Diego (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The tone of most mainstream media outlets has been, to my eyes, largely impartial; obviously everyone has their own take on the situation and is going to see takes they disagree with as being biased, but the requirement set by WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:DUE (which helps us resolve such disputes) is that we reflect their views proportionately. You can adjust the language used if you feel that the exact words or language result in a biased tone, and can paraphrase instead of quoting directly, but WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:DUE and so on do not allow is to adjust the weights we give to sources the way you're suggesting.  We can dispute over which sources take the most impartial tone (it's sort of the main locus of dispute on this subject), but saying "I dislike the tone of mainstream coverage; I feel that it is biased and therefore we must give all mainstream reliable coverage less weight" (as both versions of the second proposal here clearly do) clearly violates WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:DUE regardless.  That is to say...  the bulk of the article, and the bulk of the lead, must reflect mainstream coverage.  You can adjust the exact tone we use to present that coverage, but demanding that we weight things differently violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop straw manning other editors. No editor has said "I dislike the tone of mainstream coverage; I feel that it is biased and therefore we must give all mainstream reliable coverage less weight". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the section directly above this one has someone (for instance) arguing that we should ignore the weight that the sources give to chatlogs detailing the coordination of harassment based on arguments that, by my reading, are arguing that mainstream coverage of them is wrong - that is to say, that they don't deserve that coverage because X and Y and Z, and therefore the coverage they got is biased or disproportionate and should be disregarded. Beyond that, I feel that the sources have manifestly placed vastly more emphasis on harassment directed at a few particular figures in terms of the core definition of what Gamergate is as a topic; and nobody, that I can see, has answered this objection beyond saying that they feel that the versions that give that aspect proportionately less coverage is more "balanced" in the sense of covering all aspects comparatively equally.  This is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE, as has been pointed out many times before, and obviously goes against WP:BALASPS.  So the only way I can parse your arguments that the second version is more 'balanced' is to read it as criticizing the way most of the media coverage has been weighted and attempting to correct it.  (To be clear, though, so we at least have a starting point - do you agree with the basic assertion that we should reflect the weight of focus found in the best reliable sources, with each aspect and view of the controversy reflected to the extent and with the weight found in the most reliable mainstream sources?  That is to say, aspects that, in most articles, only get a mention of a sentence or two, or a paragraph at most, should only get correspondingly minimal coverage in our article; while aspects that have had the bulk of multiple high-profile mainstream articles directed to them directly should make up the majority of our focus.  If we agree on that, then there's at least room for me to put together a survey of how the current sources weight their coverage, which we could use to inform future disagreements.  There's really a bunch of smaller disagreements bundled up in this lead - which is part of the reason why the RFC is going nowhere - so it might be best to break them up and go over them one by one, with an exhaustive examination of not just what the sources say but how much weight they give to each aspect.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors have attempted to equivocate between weight and truth. Since reliable sources say Gamergate is not (just) a harassment campaign, the article must not give a different impression. It doesn't matter if there's enough text about harassment to stretch to the moon and back. No aspect can be treated as de minimis if excluding it causes the reader to be fundamentally misled. The first duty of NPOV is ensuring all significant viewpoints are represented. When that is done, if some editors are concerned about proportional quantity of text they can add more claims about harassment if they see fit. Rhoark (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No one, I think, is suggesting that it be excluded entirely. But the first duty of WP:NPOV, as it says, is to ensure that all significant viewpoints are represented proportionately, which is elaborated in WP:DUE.  Our duty is to reflect the truth as it appears in a broad survey of reliable sources, not to reflect the truth according to our own personal assessment of what is important and what is not.  When you take aspects of a controversy that are little-noted in the sources and try to put them up in the lead as equivalent to aspects that have clearly defined most mainstream coverage, you are not writing an article that takes a deceptive and misleading tone on the subject matter, not one that accurately reflects the truth as covered by our best sources.  If you feel you need to get what you see as the balanced truth out there, even though reliable sources have paid minimal attention to it, then the appropriate place to do so is on a blog or other personal platform, not in an encyclopedia article - our duty is to report the truth as reported in the sources, which includes reporting it proportionally and, yes, includes an absolute and unescapable requirement to treat aspects as de minimis if they are treated so in the sources.  Neglecting that requirement means that you are not writing the truth in an encyclopedic sense, since you are weighting topics according to your own personal perception of what is important rather than according to the way the sources have covered them. --Aquillion (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again the strawmanning. I am representing the views of reliable sources, not decrying them. Because there is an irreducible complexity in the ideas in play, a small word budget in the lede, and a large imbalance in the quantity of text in the sources, it is not possible to represent them well in a way that is strictly numerically proportionate in word count. That's not what due weight means, anyway. Proportionate weight means not representing something unimportant as if it were important or a minority view as a majority. That is the rule of thumb that I follow. I don't believe WP:DUE was ever intended to stonewall attempts to make an article complete and correct anytime a topic has one particularly sensationalist facet. Rhoark (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It just so happens that I believe weighting concerns were intended to stonewall attempts to make an article complete and correct anytime a topic has one particularly sensationalist facet! Oh, wait, no I don't.  In fact, it's sort of like you invented that position.  If only there were a term for the logical fallacy of falsely imputing a weak argument to your opponent...but I digress. Dumuzid (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course they haven't proposed it as a policy that could be generalized across the wiki; that would make its absurdity too palpable. Rhoark (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

An analogy
We're talking past each other some, and an analogy occurred to me today that should help. I think you will all agree I am very clever. The analogy is this: High-dynamic-range imaging. In a typical camera, the aperture and exposure time determines an overall level of brightness of the image. If it is very bright, details may get washed out in a field of uniform whiteness. Conversely in a dark image details may be lost to uniform blackness. High dynamic range images superimpose different images to recapture all the detail. The thing is, it may capture the most detail to the human eye by scaling the brightness logarithmically rather than linearly, so something that might be ten times as bright in reality appears only twice as bright in the image. That's a distortion in the strictest sense, but one that can serve the audience. Losing detail in the dark patches doesn't necessarily make the light patches any clearer. Connecting this back to Wikipedia, consider brightness analogous to the quantity of text in the reliable sources about different aspects of the topic. There may be ten times as much about one aspect as another, so the aspect with more coverage probably deserves more weight - but that doesn't mean the numerical ratio needs to be preserved. Contextualizing all that content and making it more concise is part of the function of a tertiary source, and is not necessarily giving undue weight. Undue weight would be given in this analogy when the ratio of light and dark is inverted, making a negative image. Rhoark (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Somehow I still don't believe gamergate is about ethics in games journalism. Funny that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Rhoark (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Press F to Revolt
Peer reviewed paper by Katherine Cross about online activism and gamergate- should be a fairly good source. Even our more tendentious editors will love this, as it refers to gamergate as a(n antifeminist) movement. Read through it here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with calling it an "Antifeminist movement". It's certainly not a movement about ethics or journalism.--Jorm (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very useful, as the move to a predominately anti-feminist movement has been fairly recent, and hasn't been reflected in the older sources. - Bilby (talk)
 * It's always been openly anti-feminist, inasmuch as anti-feminism means opposition to some of critical theory's latest inventions like manspreading or retroactive consent. Several early sources throw out the phrase "anti-feminist" but sadly don't interrogate the details of it. Rhoark (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you then describe yourself as antifeminist, ? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As a habit, I don't describe myself as anything that would enable others to put words in my mouth. Rhoark (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, the "I'm not racist, but" line of thinking. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be an example of putting words in my mouth. Rhoark (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So nice of you, Rhoark, to grace us with the official opinions (at least where critical feminist theory is concerned) of the loosely-affiliated aggregate known as "gamergate." Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further reading Rhoark (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not at all what I expected, considering Cross was an employee of Feminist Frequency and an involved participant in the controversy on Twitter. Even though it seems a bit forced to fit it all in the lens of gamification, I don't think any source has attempted to understand Gamergate's point of view with a similar level of nuance. Rhoark (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Curiously one of the main themes of the rest of the book seems to be criticizing the media for paying attention to Zoe Quinn instead of black women. Rhoark (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get that from, given that Quinn is barely mentioned outside of the Cross chapter. But I'll read the book and see. - Bilby (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The book seems to be a series of essays discussed at a workshop. I have no idea whether it was peer-reviewed or not and the publishing model is somewhat unusual. Still, it is an imprint affiliated to CMU, so it is a decent source. There are lots of different essays on Gamergate, by the way. Here is the pdf of the full book. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Peer reviewed?
On review of the source, it is as described by, above; and is clearly not peer reviewed. As this is not the first occurrence, it would be preferable, as a practice, for editors to only describe papers as "peer reviewed" if there is documented evidence that this is the case. As with news and opinion pieces, we need to determine whether we are dealing with studies (using recognised methods of analysis), discussion papers, book chapters or something else; this assists in determining whether each piece of the content should be treated as fact or opinion, and if & how it should be attributed. Misrepresenting the nature of sources, however inadvertently, confounds this process. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If on the nature of the source, then an invitation is extended to provide evidence that the source is peer reviewed ... If on the reasoning provided for the importance of accurately representing the nature of sources, then "Ok." ... If on the importance itself of not representing sources as something that they are not, then ... *shrug* "Good luck finding consensus for that". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Burgess
An edit by Strongjam says "a weeks worth of posts tagged with the hashtag found that its users were not primarily concerned about ethics in gaming journalism" based on the source which says "Our findings show that, even when initially approached from as partial a perspective as the ‘gamergate’ keyword and hashtag represents, GamerGate’s issue publics are absolutely not concerned only or even primarily with ‘ethics in games journalism’". An astute reader should notice the shift from being a claim about "issues" to a claim about "users". The users could 100% down to a person care about ethics, and it would still be correct to say it was not the only or primary issue. As a point of fact, the article does not name anything as the primary issue, but ethics in journalism is one of the main topic clusters it identifies on Twitter. Another cluster was anti-feminism (fun fact: top hashtag in that cluster was #WomenAgainstFeminism). Ethics is also the subject of the most central videos in their network analysis of YouTube links. Overall this particular claim is synthesis, cherrypicked from the source, and juxtaposed with other claims in a way that reinforces its false implication. Not to put the spotlight entirely on Strongjam, but this is quite typical of the equivocations and prevarications that riddle the article. Rhoark (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So change "users" to "issues"? The authors conclusion is very clear, "ethics in gaming journalism" was not the primary issue. — Strongjam (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That corrects the most serious problem, though its now just unclear what purpose is being served by noting somewhere in the middle of the ethics section that there are other issues in the controversy. A truly good use of the source would be taking its main points on the structure of how people use different social media tools to communicate about different issues, and to put that in context with other similar information. The article, however, does not offer good affordances for that. Rhoark (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhoark, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of an "issue public." Suffice it to say that for me, your argument here is less than compelling.  Thanks.  Dumuzid (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was not familiar with that term and jumped to the conclusion it was an idiosyncratic word ordering due to an author's first language being a romance language. In light of the definition, the sentence could be taken to mean <50% of tweeters considered ethics to be the #1 issue. It's still a little murky though, since its tangential to what the paper is about, as Ryk72 has elaborated. Rhoark (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Questions of whether issue publics are issues or publics aside, there are additional problems with both the source and its use in the article. For the source itself, the primary problem is that it not a paper which studies Gamergate (either controversy or movement) using known, academically accepted methods; it is a paper which provides a demonstration of a novel method of analysis, using Gamergate as a worked example. The conclusions of the paper relate entirely to the demonstration of the method; findings about Gamergate are of the order of additional commentary or opinions. For our use of the source, the problems are various (and partly highlighted by, above); they include: a) That our description and use of the source does not reflect that it is a study of a novel method, as described above; b) That the quote is WP:CHERRYPICKED, and does not represent the whole of the source, which elaborates on what the authors believe to be the other concerns of the issue publics; c) That the juxtaposition of the quote with other quotes discussing an "ethics/harassment" dichotomy leads the reader to the belief that this source suggests that the issue publics' primary concern was harassment; that is a WP:SYNTHesis not supported by the source. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So then, if we can agree that "Communication, Research & Practice" is a reliable source, you are challenging it with the RS "Ryk72." Got it.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That the quote is WP:CHERRYPICKED, and does not represent the whole of the source Well the do also say that they "identified actors within the GamerGate movement that use the hashtag only to denigrate or harrass women" and "identified key media objects (from hashtags, to videos and tumblr posts) encoding antifeminist perspectives. Pro-GG media objects are used to mock women and/or critique feminism across a range of digital media platforms, from YouTube videos to Tumblr and Reddit posts." I suppose we could note all that context as well. — Strongjam (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)