Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/RFC1


 * Note: This page was created by cut and paste at 09:08, 6 November 2014‎, any history prior to that, and hence also attribution, can be found in the history of the parent page from here backwards.

RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)
Is it possible that in an article about a two-sided issue where one side has received the majority of the positive coverage to be too biased in favor of that larger coverage? --M ASEM (t) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) For the bot. --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement
Gamergate itself is highly controversial, and one of the issues with covering it is that one side (pro- Gamergate, or proGG) is from numerous anonymous users without any clear leadership, has had some members engage in harassment attacks against women (which the media frowns on), and has argued the media itself is biased. The limited sourcing that supports proGG typically are at the weak end, and/or fail our normal reliable sources policies. As such, the near unanimity of reliable sources paint the story in favor of the anti Gamergate/antiGG side and do not give a lot of equal coverage to the proGG side. This is not in doubt, and we are very clear that this article can never be 50/50 unbiased between the two sides. It is also very clear that the article is going to have to talk about the media's highly critical response to the harassment (eg. calling proGG as sexism and misogynistic) as this is part of the actual narrative as opposed to analysis (as proGG's responded to these charges with various actions). So we are, for some parts, going to have statements that we attribute to the mainstream media that are critical of that side.

This of course has brought in a number of SPAs and IP editors, influenced by offsite posts, to try to point out the bias in this article and to try to make it more proGG friendly. We have extensively pointed out we cannot flip the narrative that far around because the mainstream media has not treated the story like that. The proGG has had some favorable or detailed coverage, as to avoid it being a FRINGE viewpoint, but again, having 50/50 in this article is completely impossible by our sourcing and core content policies.

That said, I have argued that while we cannot give proGG any more coverage, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. Technically this all fits within our sourcing and content policies, but there's something wrong when it can be argued "well, there's no proGG sources, but there's plenty of antiGG sources, so lets keep adding those". This has cleared been a fact resonated in the main proGG offsite forums that are extremely disappointed with this article in how it paints them. (Please note: one has to take care in considering these offsite opinions as they range all over the spectrum, but there are people that are very coherent that have expressed very valid concerns on how bad the bias seems on this article). I have tried to point out that we should be clinically/detached neutral, which means we should not be repeating the praising that the antiGG side and berating the proGG side. The counterargument that has been used here by those that think there is no bias is that UNDUE/WEIGHT supports this approach, since the near-majority of sources are in that direction.

The question I pose here is two fold: 1) Even considering WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE, when one side of a debate is overwhelming positively covered by sources and the other side is not, is it possible to push the widely-covered side too much to create bias in the opposite direction? 2) Does this article on GamerGate demonstrate this type of bias? Note that previous DR attempts have been made but rejected, and while the next step might be ArbCom, this feels more a content dispute and we have not tried a more global RFC. This will be posted to CENT and VPP, and will be posted to WT:VG, but any other projects that are related should be notified too.

(A note to any SPA/IP that might find their way here, please be aware this is not a vote but a discussion towards consensus, and input from relatively new users will typically be ignored if they don't offer policy-based reasons) --M ASEM (t) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a false presentation. There are NOT "two sides". There are thousands of anonymous, pseudo - anonymous, non-notable and/or astroturf accounts using the term "gamergate" in about a bajillion different ways to refer to their own personal interpretation and grievances.  You cannot have "two sides" about an issue when everyone is using their own definition of the issue. Reliable sources in the media have covered the uses and applications of the term that they have found note worthy - essentially the use of the term as a cover for harassment of women.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what exactly your claim is. If there is not a proGG side, then why are there thousands of people identifying themselves as such? The matter of what proGG stands for is irrelevant to whether it actually exists. What else would you call this group of people who, while (according to your claim) having no consensus over what they stand for, nonetheless define themselves as proGG or an equivalent term. What would you call them? And as you yourself say, if thousands of people identify themselves with a proGG side, then that would, tautologically, make them 'supporters of Gamersgate'. Yet, according to you, they should not be referred to this way? Why? Omegastar (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am proZIGGER and I am for X
 * I am proZIGGER and I am for Y
 * I am proZIGGER and I am for Y but not X
 * I am proZIGGER and I am for Z but not X and not Y
 * I am antiZIGGER and I am against Y
 * I am proZIGGER and I am for W but not Z
 * I am proZIGGER and I we dont believe in W
 * Now tell me what a proZigger is? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A proZIGGER. Also, you did not answer my question. Omegastar (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Use common sense. There is definitely two sides here, that's clear by the sources, but the scope of the "proGG" side is vague, but they do exist, it's not a non-entity. --M ASEM (t) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you insist, yes, there is a progameragate "side", the one covered by reliable sources is the side that sends death threats to women. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not exclusively how the proGG side is described in the majority of sources, and it is because the way some editors want this article to take that attitude and ignore the other facets of the proGG argument is why this RFC exists. --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No true gamergater is going to be a wuss and talk about "ethics" when we can drive women from their homes. In an amorphous and chaotic movement with no defined leaders, goals, or even principles, you cannot simply choose a particular subset of the voices that you wish and claim that they are the representatives of some sort of "pro" "side". The media has reviewed and rejected, multiple times, the vague, wide-ranging, contradictory and false content of gamergate tweets and what is left as a coherent "side" is misogynistic terrorism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself. Is GamersGate 'amorphous and chaotic'? Or 'coherent'. You make both claims. If GamersGate is amorphous and chaotic, how can it be defined as predominantly misogynistic or terrorist? And if GamersGate is misogynistic and terrorist, why are there so many people, who identify themselves as supporters of GamerGate, disputing the claims of misoginy and terrorism?Omegastar (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont contradict myself, I said after you take away the fluff that "what is left as a coherent "side" is misogynistic terrorism." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These comparisons to terrorism are interesting. It may be instructive to look at Wikipedia's articles on various modern groups that have been labeled by overwhelming media consensus as terrorists. Specifically we might pay attention to how the term "terrorist" is used in Wikipedia articles in situations where the overwhelming majority of RSes describe the group as "terrorist" and where only the minority-viewpoint terrorists view themselves as freedom fighters. -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Such comments venture off the topic of discussion and strays into editorializing, and in an inflammatory fashion at that. You have cited Wikipedia policies to support your positions elsewhere, so you are likely aware that this is not the place for diatribes. SteveG700 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Q1: Can an article become too biased in the favor of the side with the plurality of sources?
(Was "near-majority" but clearly meant plurality or near-unanimity --M ASEM (t) 21:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)) (Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)


 * Yes. No matter how overwhelming the preponderance of a viewpoint expressed in reliable sources, Wikipedia can become biased in favor of it - because Wikipedia doesn't take viewpoints, only summarizes them. Some games have received near-unanimous critical acclaim, and whether I agree with this (e.g. BioShock Infinite, Final Fantasy VII) or not (e.g. EarthBound, Majora's Mask), Wikipedia is not allowed to state "The game was good". In my eyes, the only situation in which it's appropriate simply to phrase the majority of sources' statements as objective truths is one that wouldn't normally generate controversy by doing so: when they're factual and uncontroversial in nature. The very existence of these sources damns this possibility, because they illustrate that not only does an opposition to their views (i.e. pro-Gamergate) exist; it's worth writing about. TL;DR: Yes, if the content in question is opinions, because Wikipedia doesn't espouse opinions. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure the term "bias" is useful here, because bias relative to what? If anything, this bias argument implies an institutionalized unfairness, that WP is leaving something out, or that WP is unfair for only using "reliable sources" since the perspectives needed are not reiterated in such sources. Regardless of what we lose as a culture for omitting minority perspectives for want of sourcing, WP is successful by its own standards if it successfully emulates the character of the breadth of sources on a topic. What we're really discussing is weight, and if you use that term, this question becomes tautological: an article cannot be unduly weighted if it is giving the perspectives on a topic due weight (proportional to their coverage). *** From everything I've read on GG, I think the idea of two equal "sides" is mistaken—on WP, there is the corpus of every reliable article written on a topic, and from that set we can choose a subset to highlight in an article. If WP deliberately suppressed representation for a commonly held idea within that subset, sure, that would count as slant. If the coverage does not take pains to present this other "side", by our own weight and notability definitions, those unvetted perspectives are not some counterweighted equal, but a minority report with respect to the overall topic. Given the body of work published on GG, the sources used in the article should reflect the overall magnitude of coverage given to each claim/idea and not artificially enhanced in the name of truth. The idea of presenting any "controversy" article as equally weighted sides makes no sense—if sources cover some perspectives more than others, the article should reflect that proportionality such that its "bias" is identical to the corpus of source material (though "bias" is the wrong term). The premise of this question is flawed czar ♔   06:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen.
 * Yes - Wikipedia should only summarize existing sources, but even if the preponderance of existing source swing towards a specific majority viewpoint, there's a lot of editorial discretion that goes into how the actual article is worded. You can take 5 glowing video game reviews and use them to write a section that talks about how reviewers said a lot of positive things about a game, or use them to talk about how the game is the best thing since sliced bread- it's all in how you write it. Also, please note that Tezero's opinion is completely invalid, since he thinks EarthBound isn't as good as everyone else says it is. -- Pres N  06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it obviously can as NPOV concerns questions of weight and tone that are not negated by having the majority of sources backing your position. Generally, we would want the best and most neutral sources to be given high priority. Those sources that avoid overly opinionated language or make contentious claims that are not clearly provable should be given a low priority.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes An opinion being so widely shared doesn't make it a fact. Halfhat (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really lost on how you can asnwer this question with yes or no. Are we being asked if artcles are permitted to become biased if the sources are one-sided, or are we being asked if articles can be too biased if the sources only follow one side? I'm inclined to say yes to the former and and no to the latter, but the wording is a bit too ambiguous for a clear response. Looking above, Halfhat and TDA seems to be responding to the second interpretation of the question, while Tezero and PresN seem to be responding to the first interpretation. What was the intent? - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous question, and I cannot even understand why this is being entertained as a serious discussion. If you want to discuss wikipedia policy take it somewhere relevant to wikipedia policy, as it stands the article will reflect the weight of sources. Anything else is irrelevant. As per Bilby. Koncorde (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If DUE policy conflicts with NOTADVOCATE, then the article should be rewritten in a more neutral and dispassionate form. Belorn (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This question is Pointless and off topic. There's no use in hypotheticals when there's a concrete issue to discuss, and asking a softball like this is inappropriate.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this is not a proper RFC question, it's basically "should WP:UNDUE exist?" only with loaded phrasing. Artw (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no, and I'm having a hard time believing that this was actually a serious question. Editors do not get to second-guess reliable sources...especially venerable ones with a history of editorial discretion and control.  "The sources all say X, but we can't got get about Y just because not as many are talking about Y".  Well guess what?  YES WE DAMN WELL CAN.  The predominant, mainstream point-of-view of;
 * Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories == the birth certificate is real, the non-believers are fringe conspirators
 * Global warming == it does exist, human activity has caused it to increase over time
 * Apollo 11 == they landed on the moon
 * September 11 attacks == 19 hijackers crashes 4 planes at the behest of bin Laden. Not Jews, not George W. Bush.
 * Once the hea dies down, Gamergate controversy will follow suit, where the primary narrative will be the misogynist harassment of women, and "but ethics" will be the conter-claim, though not given even remotely the same weight as the primary. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No per WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (emphasis mine). At the end of the day, Wikipedia can only summarize the existing reliable sources. Attempting to present "both sides" of a controversy where nearly all of the reliable sources support one side would be detrimental to Wikipedia (just imagine what the articles listed by Tarc would look like if we attempted this). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia articles reflect what the reliable sources say. If the majority of reliable sources say X, then the article says X. Anything else is WP:UNDUE. In other words, Wikipedia articles must give each viewpoint the same prominence, words, and weight that it receives in reliable sources - that is what it means for an article to be neutral. In fact, giving one side more weight than it's given in reliable sources would make the article biased. Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Non starter. Per policy, No. WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:UNDUE works both ways.  If the minority viewpoint is dismissed or misrepresented then bias will result per a WP:NPOV violation.   Muscat Hoe (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, this question largely comes down to WP:RGW. Perhaps the sources we have available to work with are skewed against some higher truth, but it isn't Wikipedia's proper role to get ahead of the reliable source material, because that leaves us depending upon editor opinions if we want to base content on poorly sourced material in order to provide "balance". Secondary sources count much more than anonymous postings in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Isn't this simple logic? Multiple users who argue 'No' above me base their opinion on Wikipedia's stance on reliable sources, yet Masem's statement is not about reliable sources. Masem's statement is about the writing of the article itself. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say, but it is the editors who actually put this into the words that form the article. And in doing so, editors might, consciously or unconsciously, introduce bias into an article. Omegastar (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No This is an argument that has been seen repeatedly at topics such as Evolution, Climate change, Scientology, AltMed etc. where it has been consistently and often forcefully (including at ArbCom) rejected. The question is misleading anwyay because we're not talking about a near-majority (that would be a minority, surely?) of sources in this or any of those other cases; we're talking about an overwhelming preponderence of sources. CIreland (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. When all viewpoints receive appropriate weight according to their weight in the reliable sources, there's no neutrality issue.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point of the question. A Wikipedia article can become almost everything, including the approximation of a thousand monkeys banging on typewriters if nobody watchlists it and reverts vandalism. But to the extent that the submitter asks whether it is problematic that if all reliable sources support one side of a controversy, our article does too, then the answer is no: that's what's supposed to happen per WP:NPOV.  Sandstein   15:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've brought it up before, but just because something is cast in a universally negative light doesn't mean an article isn't biased when the article makes an effort to cast that thing in a bad light. Numerous articles about controversial subjects or figures describe their subjects in a passive tone, without using wording that implies a moral judgement. An article can become biased when it seeks to express the moral judgements of a topic as the primary goal of the article. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can. This is what WP:UNDUE does: the article takes the direction of the majority of reliable sources (whether clickbait news stories from major networks are reliable is a whole other discussion altogether). This is the definition bias, but it's generally deemed to be benign enough to pass as neutral. On highly controversial and divisive topics, however—which I'd say the ones mentioned by Tarc aren't—, this can be a problem. ansh666 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See this quote from 2012
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No It's not our responsibility as editors to portray something as more of a balanced issue than it is according to the sources. It would be a false move to manipulate a counterbalance on the article just because it would be in the interests of PR for the movement. WP articles are not intended to be soapboxes or pro/con debate sessions. If the movement is portrayed in an unflattering light in the media and by all or nearly-all RS, then perhaps the movement should be working at shifting people's perspectives elsewhere, not using this page in order to engage in whitewashing. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No? I'm not sure what this section is attempting to do. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dubious. You're basically saying there's a problem with Reliable Source coverage. Even assuming that's true, that's not something we can fix. Wikipedia is not the place to Right_Great_Wrongs. We need to follow the sources. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - What the heck is a "near majority of sources"??? Forty-nine percent? Carrite (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unequivocal yes Wikipedia is to document disputes, not engage in them. The very first bullet point under WP: YESPOV is "Avoid Stating Opinions as Facts".  There is a tendency that when an opinion gets large enough to assert the opinion in Wikipedia's voice as fact.  In such circumstances it is important to remember that WP:IMPARTIAL is also a facet of WP: NPOV.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No As someone before said. If the reliable sources are pointing one way that is the way we follow. If the tone is too preachy while the sources are not preachy then change it. If the sources are preachy then that is what we follow. Mention of the points is more then ample coverage, just like for example in the evolution article there is a mention of creationism and that is about it. Hundreds, thousands,or millions of people can come to this page and argue. This does not mean we have to placate them anymore here as we do at the evolution article. We follow reliable sources end of story. Then again in the end I am all for waiting a few more weeks or maybe 2 more months when all of this has died down and then to see where the coverage should be. NathanWubs (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, although it would seem that the reference to a "near-majority" should be to a "large majority" or "near-unanimity". Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as theoretically it is always possible for an article to become too biased. This is a suggestive hypothetical. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes  In this instance, the neutrality of gaming journalists is at issue: as they make up a significant portion of the "reliable sources", their point of view will tend to be overrepresented.  If Wikipedia fails to take this into account, it does a disservice to readers of the article who want to learn about the issue rather than be propogandized to.  Skyraider (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is akin to censorship if the media refuses to show one side of the argument. Wikipedia is not censored.  Konveyor   Belt   16:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes' of course. POV editing can make any article ridiculous.  This is somewhat of a dumb question, but I guess this debate is so insane that sometimes we have to re-state obvious things like "the sky is blue". Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if many sources state something is true, that doesn't imply it is true for Wikipedia's purposes. Some things, such as scientific fact, can be accepted as completely uncontroversial truth. For nearly everything else is subjective, and Wikipedia must reflect that. For example, the Earth is round. This has been proven, beyond a doubt. There is no subjective way of looking at it. However, in every other subject, things ARE subjective. In the article on Adolf Hitler, there is only one mention of the word "evil", and that is in the sentence, "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime." The insanely large majority of sources, quite literally almost every single reliable source, agrees that Hitler was a terrible person. But we do not say that Hitler is evil. That is because calling him evil is subjective. We can say that he committed genocide, that he ordered killed millions of people, because those are facts. Gamergate supporters may be considered evil by many sources, doesn't make it not subjective. We can say that gamergate supporters have been accused of sending death threats, we can say many things that they have done, but we cannot call them "evil", "misogynistic", or "hateful", when much of their movement does not openly claim to be misogynistic. We can only say that they have been widely condemned as being "misogynistic", not that they are misogynistic. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the NPOV FAQ it mentions writing for the opponent, in which it directly states: "Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's point of view." Score_Under - [talk] 01:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Please stop pretending that the "reliable sources" actually care enough about the topic of gamers and videogames to do the required reading and research to make sure their articles are factually true. Isn't it quite common for newspapers to rightout copy articles from companies like "Reuters" etc.? Just because the BBC did a report on the issues doesn't mean that they looked further than what the gaming media has written. 70000$ were collected by gamergate to get more women into the gaming industry. Nobody, including the "reliable sources", reported about it. Does any of the "reliable sources" report about gamergate being compared to "ISIL"??? NO! What kind of "reliable source" ignores everything one side does and only reports what the other side does? "Audi Alterem Partem" is clearly violated by this article and by the mainstream press. 87.162.222.186 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that you are advocating that we must throw out our WP:V policy and WP:RS guideline so that we can ignore the WP:NPOV policy to institute content that would still be in violation WP:OR ? As far as positions go, that's right up there with "but ethics". --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes absolutely. It almost seems like a flaw in the system to allow so many sources with essentially identical opinions to weigh in, inevitably causing bias in an article. This is after taking into account wiki's rules for weight, definitions of sources, and even WP:VNT. The problem this has been said to create is pitting a publication's reputation vs. another's, which is sometimes unfair, or even pitting a reputation vs fact, which is wholly counterproductive. This is more of a general statement about wikipedia, but there have been many cases already where these types of concerns are swept under the rug, prolonging and creating more frustration in an effort to keep the article neutral. That being said, GamerGate has created a unique scenario that has worked to deny RSes in favor of it, seemingly by design. The movement is one that is calling out journalists for unethical and questionable practices. Their response has been mostly defensive, with little to no reflection on points raised. What results from this are one hit piece after another, and a contrived narrative of opposition. Naturally, if Wikipedia is to only repeat their words, then the article will unavoidably contain the same bias that the journalists accused of unethical behavior by GamerGate supporters possess. Camarouge (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * huh, we shouldnt take the reputation of the sources into account.... huh, the most reliable are overwhelmingly consistent in their perspective... huh, there is a giant conspiracy.... huh, sounds like WP:FRINGE--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When all their is to go off of is reputation, it is highly suspect. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the "mainstream" view is, oh I don't know... wrong? Do a bunch of people rephrasing the same opinion in public space while censoring any disagreement and not checking facts sound reasonable to you? Or does it sound like an echo chamber? Camarouge (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * huh, that is stated directly in the policies and guidelines and what WE DO go on. WP:V / WP:RS. If you wish to change that, for example adding an "echo chamber" exemption clause, this is not the place nor forum. (but good luck with that). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are aware that pretending those guidelines can accurately represent GamerGate is why this page was even made in the first place, correct? It appears that an overly stringent adherence to them is causing this problem of bias. So in other words, WP:V and WP:RS effectively break WP:NPOV in GamerGate's case, and here we are. That is my original point. Camarouge (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see any "GG Exemption" clause in either of the policies or guidelines either. Our guidelines and policies prevent us from appropriately representing some topics, but not this one. We are NOT here to "fix" the PR issues that GG has created for themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But not this one? Then why is there a POV tag, and why was this page even created? Furthermore, please address this scenario: claims against publications are made; these publications give a self-fulfilling opinion on these accusations, silencing criticism in defense of their reputation; wikipedia cites these publications as reliable sources; when sources are questioned, a publication's reputation -- which so far relies on censorship to maintain -- is acknowledged, but not the censorship, nor the claims, because that would be against the publications, or the sources, interests. The frustration of a medium heavily presenting only one side while simultaneously espousing neutrality(the concept, not the letter of the law on WP) continues. This is a problem in logic, and wikipedia's rules cannot fix it. Essentially, the rules in gamergate's situation are saying "Wikipedia MUST only present this one viewpoint on a controversial issue, because, uh, reliable sources and stuff." -- oh, and don't pay any attention to the fact that these same sources are being accused of corruption and unethical behavior. That doesn't influence the article, according to wikipedia. Camarouge (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV says that Wikipedia is to avoid giving undue weight to minority opinions. Gamergate is a movement that meets WP:FRINGE. There is no level of complaints or conspiracy theories that will get Wikipedia to throw out the conclusions made by writers at the New York Times, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, etc. just because Gamergate has a bone to pick with Gawker, Polygon, etc. There is no reason to give Gamergate's point of view any more of the time of day than the article already presents. Nor will any complaints of censorship or calls to the first amendment (which has no bearing on any Internet discussion) be used to sway anything.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes It happens when we have an overload of coverage on one side because the media covers points of view it thinks will sell. AlbinoFerret  14:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * RFCs are not the place to tilt at media conspiracy windmills.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require a conspiracy theorist to suggest that people within the media establishment are likely to be instinctively hostile to a movement that claims to be about ethical standards in journalism. Indeed, it would seem a peculiar lack of intellectual curiosity or grounding in psychology to refuse to explore this theory... Theduinoelegy (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The article in question features statements that are purely a matter of speculation and opinion, in particular about proGG motivations. Such speculation is subjective and unverifiable, and do not qualify as objective research simply by virtue of populism. SteveG700 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandstein's comment. The question is sFo broadly-worded as to be useless. Interpreted literally the answer is yes - for instance, the prevalence of reliable sources favouring one side would not justify including stuff favouring that side that isn't in the sources, nor would a narrow plurality in the reliable sources justify a massive imbalance in the article's coverage - but I don't think that's what the question is getting at, since these scenarios have nothing to do with the dispute about this article. I assume what the question is really getting at is something like what Sandstein says in the last sentence of his comment, and I agree that in that case the answer is no. The examples given by Tarc about the Moon Landing, 9/11, Obama's birth certificate, etc illustrate the point well. NPOV does not require us to stay neutral where the reliable sources have reached a clear verdict. We are not required to simply summarise the sources, rather than stating things as fact, in such cases. That is why our article says that 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, rather than saying "most sources say that the attack was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, but some fringe sources blame the American government" or something like that. Neljack (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. The presence of a controversy necessarily implies the existence of two notable sides, at least at some point during history (and Wikipedia takes a long view, not recentism).  For example, spontaneous generation cites a variety of primary sources that favor the idea, not to "showcase fringe views" but because it would be irresponsible to write an article that repudiates an idea without showing what it is that is being repudiated.  The notion of picking a winner and then saying only they have a right to be cited, with the other dismissed as "fringe", is inherently repulsive to a serious evaluation of any question, no matter how well established the answer may be. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the incredibly weak plurality requirement. For example, if opinion on a subject were split 90/10 with a 90% block in broad agreement but not completely monolithic.  The 10% could in principle devise a set of criteria which split the 90% majority into ten equal sized subsets of 9% each.  It would be inappropriate for the 10% to then declare a plurality over the 11 total 'different opinions' to justify a push for their agenda.  I'm a bit confused as to why the verbiage here was watered down from the previous majority wording to the much weaker plurality requirement; it appears to have even less to do with the situation actually at hand than it did with the stronger majority wording. --Noren (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked 3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material. The sites linked in the article are borderline tabloids and are not neutral at all. "Reliable sites" use twitter as a source, and the author of a series of blog posts to newspapers are non biased themselves. There's allegations of harassment and doxxing (like the Felicia Day case) without any proof.Zakkarum (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Q2: Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner?
(Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)
 * No — As per the due weight policy, we must give due weight to the preponderant viewpoint in reliable sources. This means that if we are going to even *slightly* mention the various claims made by GamerGate, we must make clear that they are rejected by the weight of reliable sources and those rejections will necessarily be given more weight than the claims themselves. This is particularly important given that a large number of GamerGate's claims make negative statements or inferences about living people that have been discredited or flatly disproven. We have to write the article based upon the reliable sources we have, not the article that GamerGate supporters want to have. The fact of the matter is that effectively all of GamerGate's notoriety or "notability" comes from the harassment campaigns that some of its supporters have carried on. We wouldn't even have an article about GamerGate if it wasn't for the fact that media outlets ranging from MSNBC to The New York Times, The Telegraph to The Pacific Standard have weighed in on the misogynistic harassment which is, at this point, inextricably tied to GamerGate no matter how well-meaning some of its supporters are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Genuinely perplexed how WP editors can claim to know the true scope (and therefore true appropriate weight) of GG when the RS themselves have no idea. This article has no hope for stability until the retrospective articles are written. Best plan for now is to maintain core WP policies (BLP, V, neutrality, etc.) and to remove bloat by relying nearly exclusively on mainstream media accounts. Leave the sifting and winnowing for professionals. Our job is to present the reliable sources proportionally, not to find the truth. No. Eye close font awesome.svg czar ♔   07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes as you have, for one example, the woefully undue focus on the Felicia Day incident. This is not simply a question of due weight, though, but also phrasing and structure. It was never very good in this department, but it has only worsened in recent days with a variety of changes such as the removal of the "legitimacy of concerns" section. Many more examples exist, but these are just a couple.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes The amount of quotes on top of adding bias is just flat out poor writing. It's okay to paraphase and leave out unimportant opinions. Halfhat (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Reading the lede makes me sick, "the movement's unwillingness or inability to control the attacks carried out in its name is generally seen as preventing constructive engagement" The whole page is spouting opinions from anti-GG Retartist (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gibberish article has been gibberish since it was first created. This has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with the fact it's an unencyclopedic mess of opinions and self importance now being flooded with more crap. It should always have been an article related to video game culture or journalism, instead it's 90% opinions of harassment. Not bias, just terrible. Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes For an article with over 2000 edits with several hundred per day, there is still opinionated sourceless statements made in the wiki-voice. At times like this, editors should be conservative with the use of sources and make sure each statement is fully supported and written in a disinterested and dispassionate form. Belorn (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No If anything the article gives too much weight to WP:FRINGE opinions as it stands. Artw (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I note that you haven't actually specified in the question a particular 'direction' for the bias, and in fact I'd argue that we are giving too much weight to gamergate's claims that it's about ethics when the sources are at best mentioning that fact in passing and are increasingly taking time to actually debunk that claim, but it's clear you're seeking consensus for your vague claims that the article has anti-gamergate bias so I'll ignore that for the moment.  Your argument is, again, uselessly vague. So far as I can tell you have still yet to suggest any changes at all that will rectify this 'bias' you claim exists, even in this RFC: it seems you'd rather just keep using your claim of 'bias' to drag every discussion off course with vague and unactionable arguments.  The heavy use of quotes in the article, as has been pointed out again and again, is the result of this article's many POV pushers nitpicking over every blessed word that they think might possibly paint gamergate negatively until we're forced to attribute what should be uncontroversial information to individual sources rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice.  It's a symptom of bias, but it's bias in favor of gamergate.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Only answering this question as it's the only relevant one. I haven't contributed much to this article but have been following its development. I think it's now in a pretty good state that gives the different opinions about as much weight as is merited by the sources. I don't think it's biased by giving greater representation to the view which is overwhelmingly taken by the reliable sources. If anything, it's arguable (as TarainDC just argued above) that it gives too much representation to the fringe view, although I personally think it's just about alright. There are several other articles on similar controversies to this one, where one 'side' is the mainstream media view, and the other 'side' is a group of largely non-notable Internet commenters and amateurs. We can and should try to give the latter view a fair share of representation, but it's inevitable that our articles will always present a 'bias' in favour of the view taken by the reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Seems by and large like an adequate reflection of what's in the types of sources Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on. Andreas JN 466 14:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No - As with all articles, this one reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Much as birthers were bitterly disappointed that our birth certificate article did not adequately address the nuances of their colorful argument, the "but ethics" crowd here is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that the outside world does not see the issue in the way that they'd prefer. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No The article is a decently fair and accurate summarization of what the reliable sources have to say. WP:NPOV does not require that we cover both sides of a controversy when the overwhelming majority of sources support one side. To the contrary, it states multiple time that we should not give undue weight in articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. In describing different sides, the article reflects what reliable sources say and gives each side the weight given by those reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we may be giving too much weight to the "ostensible" concerns claimed by the gamergaters when all the recent reliable sources are clearly indicating the "ostensible" claims have no validity or basis or meaningful part in the actual controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see myself saying this, but it's a tentative no from me. The page has seen improvement in qualitative allegations against Gamergaters being presented as opinions rather than uncontestable facts, and I think the representation of the pro-Gamergate side, while not ideal, is sufficient given the paucity of reliable sources agreeing with it. I'm inclined to think the severest remaining problem is a possible unnecessarily severe presentation of the incidents of harassment of celebrities themselves, but even that I don't feel strongly about. I do wish there were more weight afforded to Gamergate's currents of anti-censorship and anti-politics-in-gaming unrelated to Zoe Quinn - as Polygon's Chris Grant said, it's difficult to tease a single, coherent message out of the movement, and this is a strong part of it - but if that isn't covered by enough reliable sources, I don't see where we're going to find the requisite coverage. Tezero (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No - The current article devotes too much attention to the pro-GG point of view. The content about 'journalistic ethics' is not reflected in mainstream reliable sources and should be removed or reduced substantially. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes A movement targeting journalism is destined to be misrepresented by the media and Wikipedia should be careful of these cases. Loganmac (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at who is actually being targeted: Data analysis of #GG tweets Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to look above at when we were talking about that article. The amount of tweets they gathered between all 6 of the people were less than 5%, and out of the 5%, 90+% were neutral, with the last 10% being positive or negative. So Logan is right. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol that actually just further proves my point, that is the worst use of statistics if it can be called that I've seen. Loganmac (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes The article is simply not constructed nor worded in a neutral manner. Note that I am talking about the wording and the structuring, not the sources. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have an Impartial tone. This article does not have that. Omegastar (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes because we're too often attributing the opinions of sources as fact. Take Sam Biddle's "bully" tweets for example.  When the sources claim the tweets were in jest, that's the opinion of the author, yet it was presented as fact in the article.  We can only document that the tweets were made, any intention behind why they were made needs to be attributed as someone's opinion.  Muscat Hoe (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No In fact, this article currently inadequately represents the extent of the negative commentary that exists within the top-tier sources. We are over-using second-rate sources to add fringe perspectives in inappropriate juxtaposition to the best sourced material. CIreland (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No And let me just say that Masem's comment opening this RfC is a huge disappointment to me and my viewpoint of him as an editor, since it's about catering to the fringe rather than being a proper representation of sources and a summary of them, as what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. We do not write creationism or other fringe topics with any sort of catering of the fringe. Period and done. Silver  seren C 14:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. If anything, we give too much weight to the claims by gamergaters that the movement is about journalism ethics, considering that the stronger sources typically only even mention them to dismiss them.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the video game journalists fully recognize there are ethics issues within their ranks and aren't shy about there being problems. It's just that the specific aspects that proGG has been arguing about that can be determined by reliable sourcing is not any of the major issues that the journalists see as a problem. --14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
 * So far, the strongest sources discussing this topic (including those outside the small sphere of video game writing) mainly bring up the "but ethics" argument as something Gamergaters say as a cover for the real story, if they bring it up at all.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited Gamergate controversy, but related articles. At first glance, the article is not obviously biased, but perhaps overlong and difficult to read. The only neutrality concern I have is that the lead paragraph makes prominent mention of the campaign's alleged concerns about journalistic ethics, whereas all media articles I've read about the topic (e.g. NYT Oct. 25) are pretty clear that these concerns are merely a facade for the campaign's main focus of misogynist activism and harassment. If this impression of consensus in reliable sources is correct, the article lead should also reflect it.   Sandstein   15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the lead paragraph, it has been edit warred over since there were multiple attempts to edit it to make it more in line with the present weighting of the controversy. My major expansion was reverted earlier this morning and constant attempts to give the gamergate side more credence that resulted in this early attempt at compromise and then these expansions that were not met without conflict.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because mainstream media, for lack of a better term, is BS. There's actually three sides here: 1) immature misogynist trolls who nobody likes; 2) feminists (for lack of a better term) and the media, both gaming and mainstream; and 3) the rest of the gamer community, who have been thrown into the ditch alongside group 1 by group 2. (You can guess my affiliation, look at my user page if you need more confirmation; also, I've restrained from commenting on this as much as I can). Much as we wouldn't let an administrator close a discussion in which they have a vested interest, the media shouldn't be reporting on these matters in the way they have - they're WP:INVOLVED. And, even if they aren't, they're trying to stir up a storm for more clicks, and people are falling for it, hook, line, and sinker. But, such is the corporate world, and such is life. ansh666 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. This article has not taken a passive tone while describing the controversy. Much of the wording and even the article's structure is designed to cast a moral judgement over the movement being described, based solely on the fact that many secondary sources describe a moral judgement. It is not Wikipedia's perogative to decide right from wrong - Wikipedia should only describe things in the most neutral, direct terms and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions about the motives and intentions of still-living people. YellowSandals (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, per the last two sentences of my comment above. But, I don't think there's any way to fix the problem, so whatever. Cynicism at its finest, right here. ansh666 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, for the most part. A lot of this nonsense makes more sense if you replace "gamergate" with "people who think the moon landing was faked" when talking about whether or not an article's reliance on reliable sources causes one "side" of a debate to feel under-represented. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. We need to follow our core policies. It may be reasonable to search the sources to find and explain important background, but by and large the article must follow the sources. And we certainly can't invent anything that doesn't exist in the sources. Reliable Sources have decided that harassment and threats are a more notable story than potential conflicts of interest by video game journalists. It is what it is, and Wikipedia isn't a place to try to "fix" how it's being covered. BTW, the article long and rambling. Does this seriously need 21 screenfulls of text and 135 references??? Alsee (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia must describe events as they are described by reputable news sources. Only if academic articles find that the truth is different should this article deviate from the news media's portrayal. Darth Viller (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No as we report what reliable sources say. If people say these sources are not reliable. They should bring that up and show through reliable sources that these sources are not reliable. As that probably will not be the case I will stick with me no. If any of you think that giving due weight to reliable sources is not correct. I suggest you head over to evolution and try to argue there that creationism needs more coverage and the evolution page is to bias. NathanWubs (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. As e.g. User:Tarc has written above, and as Q4 of the FAQ has it, the article is neutral just insofar as it reflects the RS consensus on the issue, which I believe it presently does.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No - An article can, as noted, be supported by a large majority of sources but still be biased, but that implies that there is something wrong with the sources (in this case, the mainstream media and gaming media). However, that argument (journalistic bias) hasn't been shown.  A more likely explanation is that the reliable sources are reliable and that there are misogynistic elements in gaming culture.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Right there in the lede, stating that the controversy is about X when X includes only one side's definition is POV.  Skyraider (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes In the first paragraph of the article, it states "Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture."  However it's not until the third paragraph is states "The social movement behind the Gamergate hashtag has stated that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and identified themselves as participating in what they call a consumer revolt..."  By putting the connection to misogyny and harassment in the first paragraph, it effectively sets an opinion.  Perhaps an edit moving things around would help, perhaps saying "GamerGate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate), is the name given to what paints itself as a social movement concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and a consumer revolt; while at the same time is marred by accusations of misogyny and harassment." Kitsunedawn (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The second sentence in the article is presently "Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism." It just seems you want to make the ethics angle first, which is not how things are to be done on Wikipedia per WP:UNDUE.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The way it's supposed to work is that each side of the controversy have their points of view attributed to the side that hold that view. Of course we aren't doing that because every time we change to wording to properly attribute points of view, somebody changes it on the basis that "everyone agrees one side of the controversy is in the wrong". Then somebody points out that the KKK article properly attributes points of view, and then some chucklehead says, "Oh this is different, because this time the moral issue has to do with a potential bigotry I feel really strongly about, which makes it factual and good to state as a fact in Wikipedia's voice". Really, the article wouldn't be biased if it would state objective facts as they are and attribute points of view in an impartial manner like Wiki policy insists we are meant to do. YellowSandals (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but just because there are sources doesn't mean we have to use them. Consider this. If one side has 1000 sources, and the other has 200, we shouldn't add all of them. That would make it biased per q1. Rather, take an arbitrary amount that fits in both amounts, 100, say, of each side, and use them.  Konveyor   Belt   16:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the article completely accepts claims by one side, that were unchallenged by the "reliable sources" (which only copy/pasted their assessment of the controversy from involved parties, what we call gaming journalism). Just because someone who was harassed thinks that the people who attacked her and claimed to be #gamergate, ate actually #gamergate, doesn't make it true. Overall, it appears as if the pro-#gamergate sources get dismissed as not being reliable, while not one thought is given to how reliable the "reliable sources" are, if their information solely comes from a party who has a vested interest to dismiss #gamergate as nothing but a bunch of misogynists.Die-yng (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No Just read the article and it seems like a reasonable representation of the issues, as described in reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Take this as both a "yes" and a "no" opinion.  I believe it is possible for one side of an argument to be under-represented in Wikipedia due to scarcity of sources - in this case, the argument that "Gamergate is an ethics issue" has very little support in official documents that I can find.  As such, I do not believe that they should be given the same amount of "weight" in the article.  However, having said that, I do not believe in coloring the article to the exact same PoV as the source documents.  The idea of WP:NPOV has been with us since one of the very beginning of Wikipedia, with the knowledge that we will remain unbiased in the coverage of an article even if the sources are biased.  It is okay to say that "while some claim that GamerGate is an issue about ethics, most official sources believe the center issue here is misogyny."  It is not okay to constantly slam on one of the groups in the article, try to discredit every prominent supporter of one side without doing the same for the other, or establish blatant PoV bias in the matter with the excuse of "the source has this tone of voice so we must as well."
 * - The reason I feel so strongly about this specific issue is also because of its broader implications in wikipedia. Turning away from WP:NPOV and going "lol bias stop that argument it's old" is precedent for doing this in a number of other, currently excellent topics within religion and politics.  Imagine if I can insert "but Dawkins said..." next to every single expression of opinion in Catholic Church, for instance.  That could definitely be sourced (and it's not at all hard to find something that Dawkins wrote that could be inserted into pretty much anything religion-related), but it would be a huge blow to the encyclopedic integrity of this site if that was ever allowed by precedent.
 * - It's easy to cover the anti-GG point of view as the heaviest-weighted point of the article without having to resort to colorful language or hidden implications about pro-GG or any of the notable people supporting it. This is my stance on the issue, and I think it's a fairly reasonable middle ground between the two sides.  No fringe views, no biased language.  Everyone (and Wikipedia as a whole) wins.  &#8610; Remor A  &#8611; 01:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, reliable sources state subjective viewpoints, and the article does not make it clear enough that the viewpoints on the article are subjective. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as the article pretends that the "reliable sources" actually cared enough about the topic of gamers and videogames to do the required reading and research to make sure their articles are factually true. 87.162.222.186 (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it presents the consensus of reliable sources. In a controversial topic like this, it's even more important to go to the most reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. My response in the previous question addresses this. The real question is do editors really want this ongoing edit war to stop? Considering the sheer magnitude of it by now, it must be acknowledged that maintaining a position and praying the movement dies is not a good solution. It hasn't worked for other networks and spaces, it won't work for Wikipedia. Compromise and cooperation are what is going to end this. Camarouge (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So your argument is to just let them have their way and let them introduce shoddy sources?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Mostly because the article already has enough shoddy sources. But what it could use more of are sources that at the very least make an attempt to say something different, or better yet, prove a statement or two with facts. Actually, more fact-based sources would be great. I honestly think less opinion pieces and more research/investigative sources should be added. How about that? Camarouge (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read what TheRedPenOfDoom is saying to you above. The English Wikipedia does not exist to give Gamergate a better spin when the mainstream media does not. News sources that are not Gawker, Polygon, or any video game website that avoided talking about Gamergate all come to the same conclusion that Gamergate is a culture war against the diversification of video games as a genre that is using its claims of ethics in video games journalism as a front to complain about criticism of the video games' plots rather than "objective" numerical scores.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The reverse of that could just as easily be said: that a front for "increasing diversification of video games" is a reason to hide one's corrupt and unethical behavior. But we won't really know without facts, will we? Opinions aren't going to answer those questions definitively. And I've read RedPen's reply and rebutted, because there is much more to it. You both seem to be implying that I want wikipedia to act as gamergate propoganda, when I really just want the article to sound neutral. I find that POV tag rather annoying, don't you? Camarouge (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, WP:NPOV's "neutral" is not "give both sides a fair shake". "Neutral" is "present the information about the subject in a way that accurately depicts how the topic is considered at large". And the POV tag is gone for days now.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Its bias is clear to see.  AlbinoFerret  15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, albeit a very tentative one. There has been an attempt to project a neutral voice, but some specific excerpts walk a fine line. In general, the opening section of the article is too long and its last paragraph seems to be less about conveying information so much as it is about issuing a final verdict. SteveG700 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a "conclusion" even though Wikipedia articles aren't set up as such.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 02:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No The state of the reliable sources means it is inevitable that the article will be like this, just as it is inevitable that the articles on 9/11, creationism, climate change, the moon landings, etc will overwhelmingly reflect the consensus position of the reliable sources. Neljack (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Unreliable sources are being used, bias is not being pointed, there's no source in the lede and the lede already starts with the bias. The article reflects the mentality that all muslims are terrorists because that's what the media makes them look like. --Zakkarum (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional discussion
If it's the "near-majority of reliable sources" then it's not really a bias is it?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our articles on specific religions and faith are going to use a near-majority of sources that favor of that religion, but these articles do not stoop to preaching that religion but talking about it in a clinical, hands off manner. That's the same issue here. --M ASEM (t) 05:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are enough reliable sources on religions that are separate from the religion that allow us to present it clinically. There is near universal coverage of Gamergate that says the misogynistic attacks and death threats belie any minimal attempts they have made to present themselves as a consumer movement wanting to root out corruption in games journalism, as they've accomplished nothing concrete and intentionally focused their attention on indie games and female journalists and their advertisers.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which we cannot present as fact (that is, that proGG is misogynistic), just as we cannot say, in the case of Christianity, that the Earth was created in 7 days. We can say that the faith presents the Genesis theory that the Earth was created in 7 days, and we can say the media believes the proGG is misogynistic, but we have to recongize the line between fact and opinion, and we are relying on far too much opinion here. --M ASEM (t) 05:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the utilitarian approach is needed here. I can't see how there'd be more benefit to purporting Gamergate being misogynistic as an objective fact than there would be cost. SJWs reading the page would simply say "yes, that's true" and move on, while Gamergaters would, if not resorting to vandalism or good-faith disruption, be extremely (and rightfully) miffed. Tezero (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you actually saying we should solely refer to everything as opinions and not objective facts to avoid pro-Gamergate vandalism and edit warring?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's one good reason. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a terrible idea.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Tezero (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there is no reason to not address something ust because it might result in vandalism or disruption. Omitting established information or treating it in another voice because a minority viewpoint on the matters disagree with it makes no sense. Doing so is effectively self-censorship, which goes against one of the pillars of Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So you have evidence that everyone that harassed those people were misogynistic? The answer is clearly no. But we do know that sources felt the attacks were misogynistic, so we can state that in their voice, but not in WP's voice. That's a big different here. --M ASEM (t) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what I've said here. Omitting information or treating a preponderance of similar information as an opinion of multiple sources is not how things work on all other articles on Wikipedia. It is only because of the highly vocal nature of the Gamergate supporters that this article is being treated as different.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the attacks were carried out with a misogynistic intent is something that cannot be determined by observation alone, so while a majority of sources have claimed the attacks were misogynistic does not make it a fact, simply the popular opinion. --M ASEM (t) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it humorous when editors care about an anonymous movement being labelled as "misogynistic" yet have no problem calling others "SJWs". "Why do those cream-faced loons keep calling me a flap-eared knave?" Do you see why some editors may question your own good faith when you use terms like that? Woodroar (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support calling them "SJWs" in the body text, even if this were supported by the majority of sources, because it too could be considered a loaded term. I happen to think it's obvious that most of them are, so I willingly do so here, but there's a difference between talk pages and mainspace. Tezero (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care if the MRWIs use the term "SJW" because it makes them easier to see for what they are. Carrite (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When you have dozens of publications, and not solely video game websites, saying that the actions taken under the umbrella of GamerGate to Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Jenn Frank, Leigh Alexander, and Felicia Day are misogynistic, then we can say that such acts are misogynistic. When multiple sources say that the initial allegations against Quinn were false (in all the myriad ways they explain that there was no initial breach of ethics), we can say that they were false allegations. Nearly everything else in the article is a quote and labeled as an opinion because the supporters of Gamergate do not want it in Wikipedia's voice.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Misogynistic" is one of the most charged adjectives of the twenty-first century, though. We can't say (though I've definitely seen well-established users here who disagree with this policy) that child pornography is wrong, even though I can guarantee without checking that the extreme majority of reliable sources would not only say it is, but let this bias cripple the entirety of their writings. In other words, it doesn't matter how many sources say Gamergate is misogynistic; that's not a sterile, objective enough fact for us to put in our own voice. Tezero (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We are reporting that multiple news agencies, including the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, etc., have called the acts misogynistic. The article as far as I am aware is not equating this with morally reprehensible, as one would describe child abuse. However we are equating death threats with moral reprehensibility. Just because those death threats constitute misogyny does not mean we are presenting misogyny as morally reprehensible. That's all I can truly say to your analogy here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should we paint death threats as morally reprehensible? Tezero (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In what context is a death threat sent to someone having an innocuous opinion on the Internet about video games ever not morally reprehensible?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because that's not a fact. You can not objectively state anything is morally reprehensible, only that others say it is. That's his point. And that's part of being neutral. Halfhat (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there's not a single reliable source that doesn't treat them as morally reprehensible, and the idea that a death threat isn't morally reprehensible is so fringe as to be effectively nonexistent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ours is not to state whether something is morally reprehensible, only to state citeable facts in the context of the sources. In that same breath we shouldn't assume unless outright emphasized that misogyny is the reason behind such threats, as that's synthesizing information from what was given us.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When multiple reliable sources say that the threats are misogynistic then we can report on that determination. We should not temper how Wikipedia reports on these things simply because of the pro-Gamergate cries of bias.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't we make that distinction that they're making the determination clear, and not treat it outright as fact?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On every other topic, when multiple sources make the same distinction, generally that indicates it as a fact.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is the article doesn't read neutral in many sections, primarily in tone and to an extent information. It states Felicia Day was harassed, yet there appears to be no ongoing evidence of that outside of someone posting her personal information. Also her commentary was sincere, calling it 'scathing' makes me really wonder what we should call some of the articles Kotaku has posted as of late. The New York Times article lists the threats against Sarkessian as being from GamerGate, yet no mention of the movement was even made in those threats. Then again I don't recall them being mentioned in the threats made against Wu either, and that can be cited from the reports on the tweets themselves.
 * Unfortunately I'm going to abstain from going on this further; I have personal involvement with this and feel strongly about it, so I'd rather not let my opinion cloud my judgement. But I do feel it's important that we separate opinion from media outlets from fact.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No true Scotsman.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. It's not no true sctotsman to say it's not fact because it's opinion. You don't seem to know what that phrase means. Halfhat (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the logical fallacy that Gamergate makes to distance itself from the harassment that happens in its midst.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a logical fallacy. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you clearly have no understanding of logic, you're just going "You committed a fallacy", with no real understanding. That would only apply if they went "We never harass people because we define ourselves so that if you harass you aren't one of us" it's a sort of combination of questionable definition and tautology. Halfhat (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ...I'm pointing out problems I have with the article in a reasonable manner. How is that a 'logical fallacy' when we use statements to imply a steady stream of harassment against Ms. Day, when there's no evidence of such?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are raising the issues that the attacks and harassment did not explicitly state that Gamergate was the reason or their actions. Also, Day's commentary is not being described as "scathing". Kluwe's is. The one where he refers to Gamergaters as "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistols". And the posting of her address is being treated as harassment by the various sources that are reporting on it.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not pro-gamergate; I think what little attention most of its supporters spend on actual ethical issues is wiped out by how much more time they spend arguing with and gossiping about specific online personalities that disagree with them, even aside from the undercurrent of harassment that certain supporters continue to use without being really excised from the movement, or from the very clear way the movement is shaped by people using it to complain about feminism and liberalism in video game culture. That said, like I say in the section above, you can go a long way in any direction with how you word an article, even with the same sources. I think this article gets preachy. I think that's because it's so exhausting to block gamergate SPAs and well-intentioned ignorant new editors from wrecking the article that the only voices that manage to really get into the article are those that are vociferously against gamergate. To be a bit specific, I'm really glad that Ryulong and NorthbySouthwhatever are here to keep this article from floundering into nonsense and crud, but it has resulted in an article that pulls away from objectivity into a heavily negative piece that still relies on the same sources that a really clear, clean article would.

The thing is, I don't think it's solvable. At least not for months and months yet. As long as this is an ongoing event, and as long as there are so many GG supporters who are insistent on creating an article that reflects their views rather than reflects an objective, RS-based take on the issue, then the status quo is going to remain, even if that status quo isn't as good as it could/should be. -- Pres N  06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This. The article should be pretty much two paragraphs - one describing it, second summarising it, and then lots of blank space until something actually happens where we can define "Gamergate" outside of the harassment as currently that is pretty much all it is. Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to echo this. The article isn't lacking objectivity because it weighs "GG is about misogyny" over "GG is about ethics" - it is lacking objectivity because of how the article is written.  I don't have any confidence in a proper resolution to all this, though, at least not in a foreseeable amount of time.  &#8610; Remor A  &#8611; 01:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Widely accepted opinion is still not fact we need to not present it as such. Halfhat (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Widely accepted reliable sources are as close to "Fact" as you get for wikipedia. This is why there are other "wiki" out there that have lower thresholds for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With some thought you can normally differentiate between opinion and fact. For example if there's no way they could possibly know that "GG is a front for misogyny" it can't be fact so it's opinion. Halfhat (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "With some thought" suggests Original Research or Synthesis. All sources are opinions at the moment, either pro, anti, or comment. You either have them (and the current article in its heinous form) or you don't have them and accept that the article should be very much condensed. One is an aggregate of news, the other is an encyclopedic article. Koncorde (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No all it requires is some comprehension of what the sources are saying. By your logic everything is synthesis other than just saying what others say. It's not coming up with anything new only looking to see if what is stated is opinion or fact. Halfhat (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are not saying what they say, then we are synthesising an argument or position, or performing original research. If we are going to present opinion in an article then what they say is the only factual matter we can go by. So the question is - should we be relying on opinion in order to frame an article? Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To addres Tarc's point in Q1 (And I think a few others have said). Yes, one side of GG is clearly a minority, but not FRINGE source; they have influenced large companies. And while the purported purpose of GG is to state that there claimed issues with COI in video game journalism (and to note that some journalists have acknowledged that is true), the larger story from the purposes of Wikipedia are the events that surround this: that there was harassment, that there was press calling them out as misogynistic attacks, and subsequent actions that are still going on. So this is not like saying "oh, the viewpoint of the proGG is FRINGY, we can ignore it", the point here is that in covering the response and actual event, this article in its present state, relying on the clear majority sourcing that is antiGG, is too biased preachy in calling out the antiGG actions and responses (not their view on the ethics question) as "right" and proGG as "wrong", in this case, using excessive quotes and troubling words to point out every "bad" thing that the proGG is doing over and over. We can cover the issue a lot more fairly without giving undue weight to the proGG fringe view without making that side look like villains, simply by paring down the amount of preachy antiGG quotes and viewpoints, as so that WP does not appear to take a side in the issue. --M ASEM (t) 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that some companies have responded to gamergate's email campaigns (and generally backtracked when they realized what they'd stepped in) does not prove that the 'but ethics!' angle is not a fringe view. It does not prove that the motivation for those emails was 'ethics' rather than 'punishing people who call us on our misogyny,' and it does not address the problem that our reliable sources are still not treating this as a campaign for ethics in journalism. We base our weighting of the article on what the sources are saying, not on our own evaluation of real world events surrounding the article's subject.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. There's the debate over ethics; this would be like the Obama birthers or the 9/11 conspiracies theory aspects, an issue of ideologies. But here we actually have events and responses to those events due to issues with those ideologies that have been extremely confrontational, none which happened in Tarc's list of fringe theories. We're covering an article that involves both an ongoing event and a minority viewpoint on ideologies. If it were possible to eliminate the ideologies and talk only on the events, that's where we have to make sure that us covering the events is as unbiased as possible, and that means we cannot prejudge the intention of the minority side even if the other side already has (we have to work "innocent until proven guilty" for all purposes. And that's not what this article does right now. --M ASEM (t) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TBH I'm not sure abandoning WP:RS or loosening it to allow what you call the "ProGG" side to be represented would have the effect you are hoping for anyway - it would open the way to people adding their direct impressions of GamerGate and quoting 8chan and the like, which is only going to make them look worse. Artw (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not what I'm asking for; we can't add more about the proGG side, but we can take away from the antiGG side that is more opinion than fact based. A major point to consider - we have no hard evidence that the proGG side - those arguing for ethics - have been the ones that have engaged in harassment/etc., and certainly even less that every proGG user has participated. It's an Occum's Razor argument that some calling themselves as proGG are involved, which is what the press is doing, but that is still their opinion and not a proven fact. As such, we cannot take the side that proGG are "guilty" (in this case, the constant reuse of pointing out the campaign is misogynistic) even if this is the popular opinion of the press. We don't write articles on suspects before their trial if they are guilty even if the press is convinced the person is, we cannot do the same here. --M ASEM (t) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By treating sources differently depending on whether you see them as supporting a particular POV you're actually arguing for introducing bias into the article, not removing it. Artw (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we're moving a bias that an encyclopedia cannot support. This might be a bias in terms of how the larger story is presented, but as an encyclopedia we are to cover a story as neutrally as possible and that means we might have to skew the coverage when we recognize that coverage is skewed one was (WP:BIAS). Again, if there was a major crime and its suspect was called as guilty by the whole of the press before any official trial, our article that deals with that suspect would not work on the basis they was guilty though we'd certainly mention the press calling them out as such because we need to be neutral. --M ASEM  (t) 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring vast swathes of Wikipedia policy in favour of your personal theory that the coverage is skewed and needs balancing in some way. Artw (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, as an encyclopedia we are not beholden to cover any story. When a story is covered then it is based upon the reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not represent "balance" then that is all we can do, or in fact should do. However it is important that we are neutral about the actual reliable sources in presenting the relevant information. At the moment the article fails there because of its reliance upon opinion to try and define something that cannot define itself. Koncorde (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the point. We can't cover the proGG in any great detail, that's clear. We however cannot praise one side over the other because the opinion of reliable sources.  That's systematic bias. We are supported to be neutral, meaning that we cannot take the position of either side in the argument, and limit our coverage to the facts. --M ASEM  (t) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * again with your false dichotomy. There cannot be a "pro-gamergate" "side" when there is no widely accepted defined definition of what "gamergate " is or means. There are lots of accounts using the term, each in their own personal way. The reliable sources have covered the uses they have determined to be noteworthy - the most noteworthy as an ostensible cover for harassing women . Other uses are vaguely covered, mostly as how they are attempting to excuse or divert attention from the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do dismiss Masem's reply by saying that there cannot be a pro-gamergate side represented in the article when Masem, in the very post you are replying to, states the exact same thing? Masem said that we can't cover the proGG in any great detail, and your counter-argument is that we cannot represent the pro-gamergate side? Thats exactly the same thing. Omegastar (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem was admitting that, not emphasizing it. His point was that, regardless of the proliferation of anti-GamerGate coverage in the reliable media, we should not "praise one side over the other", and that's what TRPoD was disputing. Tezero (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Masem, I realize that oyu want to be fair to both sides, but loife doesn't always work like that. If anything, we have to work to pare down the "pro-GG" prose, since during as in the week-ish full protection we saw a lot of reliable sources come down firmly against the "but ethics" side of this debate.  It is a minority point-of-view, and our article needs to reflect that. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the point. Look at every quote that includes the word "misogynistic" (or derivatives), and ask, "are they necessary to understand the fundamentals of the Gamergate controversy?" Some will be, yes, but this would only apply to less than half of the quotes (last I checked). The rest of the times they appear, it is all anti-GG "preachy" side stuff - which is unnecessary. That's what we can trim out and start to fix the tone of the article. --M ASEM (t) 00:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's editorial reasons be be less word-repetitive, that's fine, although care should be take not to dilute too much of the content. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not the repetition of the word, it is the repetition of the same basic opinion (that the proGG side is misogynistic, in this case) when that repetition does not further the factual summary of this article; the additional quote is simply there to bolster the antiGG side's stance as the right one. We are going to have to mention misogyny in a few places in the factual discussion of the case - that the press saw it that way, and the proGG responded with both #NotYourShield and with OperationDisrespectful nod. But that's it. More than half the other uses of the word appears in quotes that are simply attack quotes that, were the proGG a singular named person, would edge on BLP issues. Obviously that doesn't fall under BLP, but then there is also common sense that there are still real people behind the proGG side that aren't part of the harassment but that because of how we've structured this article assigns the blame on them. We should be handling this as clinically as possible. Someone above (can't find immediately) made the good point that at this stage of the development of Gamergate we should not be attempting to apply analysis to it this soon, and instead wait for distant-enough sources that can look back, evaluate all the events as they happen, and then make more rational, less emotional decisions.  Instead, and I've had friends that are proGG tell me this as well as checking through the usual proGG forums that they are insulted by the tone this article takes. They don't deny that their cause is called misgynistic - they know that stigma exists and there are actually efforts to try to present a better front that clearly denounces any harassment (which they are trying to oust and identify who did it when it happens, and have claimed to track down many of the more recent cases to pure trolling groups that are simply there to stir the shit), but our article is written in a tone that prosecutes them for just being tied to the proGG side, when there has been no solid conviction of the responsible parties. We cannot take the side the press is taking here, though we can present the press's viewpoint as clearly the most predominate. --M ASEM  (t) 07:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it can still be bias. It is simply popular bias. SteveG700 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think people should read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:YESPOV And WP:STRUCTURE as well Retartist (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) This is what this article really needs. More discussion on bias. We've come so far, just a few more thousand fucking words and we'll have cracked the case! Protonk (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I did get a good laugh Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the article indicates absolutely no mention, whatsoever, of many of the people instrumental in simultaneously arguing the pro-GG stance, condemning violence and threats of violence, and providing valid criticism of those who opposed GG. These include YouTubers such as "Sargon of Akkad", and "Thunderf00t". It lies by omission about the existence of GamerGate's intellectual wing. There's absolutely no question it's biased, nobody in possession of all of the facts could possibly conclude otherwise. The site: "gamergate.me" is also not mentioned or referenced, which is odd, considering it contains, what has to be, the closest to exhaustive archive of ALL primary sources concerning ALL incidents of the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.90.186 (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)