Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:43, 18 October 2014 view sourceButter and Cream (talk | contribs)95 editsm Undid revision 630070035 by Ryulong (talk)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:19, 26 December 2024 view source Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,453 edits →top: External link(s) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Pp-semi-indef}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-move-indef}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
{{Skip to talk}}
|maxarchivesize = 500K
{{Talk header}}
|counter = 9
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|gg|1RR=yes|protection=ecp}}
|minthreadsleft = 9
{{trolling}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
{{tmbox|text=The purpose of this talk page is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the ] article itself. '''This page is not for discussing this talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the '']'' subpage for that.''' The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action. Info on changes to the reference list are here: '']''.}}
|algo = old(2d)
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|archive = Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive %(counter)d
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
}}
{{WikiProject Video games|class=c |importance=Mid}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid |Social movements=yes}}
}} }}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{Old moves
| from1 = Gamergate controversy
| destination1 = Gamergate movement
| result1 = Not moved
| link1 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 28#Requested move 14 February 2015
| date1 = February 14, 2014


| from2 = Gamergate controversy
{{Calm}}
| destination2 = Gamergate
{{Not a forum}}
| result2 = Not moved
{{blp}}
| link2 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 13#Requested moves
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
| date2 = November 12, 2014
{{WikiProject Video games|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class=C|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{faq|collapsed=no}}
{{Press
| author = ]
| title = Twitter and the poisoning of online debate
| org = ]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29642313
| date = 16 October 2014
| quote = "I am not going into the rights and wrongs of Gamergate here - there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity."
}}
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}}
{{round in circles}}
{{Archives}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=2|small=yes}}


| from3 = Gamergate controversy
{{Old AfD multi|page=GamerGate|date=6 September 2014|result='''keep'''}}
| destination3 = Gamergate harassment campaign
| result3 = Not moved
| link3 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 37#Requested move 15 May 2015
| date3 = May 15, 2015


| from4 = Gamergate controversy
== Why does the article only mention one guy Quinn allegedly had a relationship with ==
| destination4 = Gamergate
I'm sure the claim was there were five of them, maybe I missed it, but I think in that case it should be made more clear.] (]) 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
| result4 = Withdrawn
:Mentioning any of the other allegations would be a BLP violation - it is only the one with Grayson that has recieved attention as being proven false, that means that we have to include it to complete the others. Any of the other ex's allegations are unnecessary in the scope of GG and fail BLP as our RS's do not address these others. --] (]) 15:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
| link4 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 45#Requested move 30 August 2015
::Here are some sources: .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
| date4 = August 30, 2015
:::Not enough, really. They mention the allegations alongside the main one but do no attempt to discredit or the like. As such, that's gossip that flat out fails BLP. (The ''only'' thing that might be necessary, and I am very much against including it unless it needs to be, is the mention of the certain chain in association with the allegations as shorthand for the situation, but that's not really used alot around. --] (]) 17:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
: Wilipedia is not in charge of policing peoples sexual activity on behalf of creeps. ] (]) 16:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:More evidence that GamerGate isn't about Zoe Quinn except for all the GamerGate people who want us to republish all the details of Zoe Quinn's personal life. Thank you for helping demonstrate why reliable sources treat GamerGate as a fount of misogynistic harassment. ] (]) 18:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::From my perspective, the issue here is that we are misleading readers by characterizing it as though she simply was with another guy, with some editors even wanting to downplay the cheating aspect, and her boyfriend went on a tirade against her sparking off a wave of misogynistic harassment. According to Gjoni, the problem is that she cheated on him with multiple men. There is actually even more to it than that, but the reliable sources only talk about the cheating on him with multiple men part. You can guffaw about how this proves it is all totally about Quinn, but it is really about the narrative. It is well-recognized that Gjoni's post was a big part of what sparked this off and it is also well-recognized that many media are using their characterization of that post and Gjoni to perpetuate a certain narrative regarding GamerGate. Not suggesting we go on about all the dirty details, but I think simply noting the allegations concerned cheating and concerned more than one incidence of cheating is an important bit of context. It does give you a little insight into why Gjoni might have been a tad upset. Again there is more to it than just cheating, but that is what we have from reliable sources.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::We need to move off that fact, because it wasn't Gjoni's initial accusation, but the ones that extrapolated that to professional impropriety and that is the ''only'' accusation that is significant to GG. We are not here to even question Quinn's personal life choices at all, and it would be BLP to go into that further than the fact that the ex felt jaded enough to announce her relationship with Grayson. --] (]) 20:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Okay, so if nothing Gjoni said was relevant then I say we remove all of Marcotte's insinuations about him, the New York Times characterization of his blog post, and any other references to Quinn's "personal life" and focus only on what people inferred from his blog post with nary a mention of what he actually said. Editors cannot have it both ways and still be in accord with NPOV. We can't avoid mentioning the allegation of Quinn cheating on Gjoni with multiple guys on the basis of it being irrelevant despite getting mentioned in numerous reliable sources and simultaneously weaponize his blog post against GamerGate without being at odds with policy.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::I would agree with this - this should not be about anything about their past relation (outside they used to have one). To be clear, this is not for removal of the stuff about Depression Quest and the harassment she got for that beforehand (that establishes that she was a "target" before the accusation), but any other personal life stuff about Quinn that is extraneous from the issues of GG and her subsequent harassment should be removed. --] (]) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::TDA: Can I ask what parts of "Quinn's personal life" you are seeing in the article that shoudl be removed? I'm not sure what you mean (or if you are just saying we shouldn't care to have them even) --] (]) 20:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::So basically, the material in question would be the following:
:::::::{{quote|Amanda Marcotte in an article for The Daily Beast described the controversy as arising from the comments of a "vindictive ex-boyfriend", stated it was "pure misogyny to use online harassment troops" against Quinn . . .}}
:::::::{{quote|. . . noting that its origin was attacks on Zoe Quinn concerning her personal life.}}
:::::::{{quote|This post, which The New York Times described as a "strange, rambling attack," . . .}}
:::::::In fact, if Gjoni is so irrelevant to this subject that we cannot mention the allegation of Quinn cheating on him, let alone with multiple guys, then the only mention of him should be when mentioning him putting up the blog post, rather than referring to the controversy in terms of "Gjoni's accusations" or "Gjoni's blog entry" at other points in the article.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::So again you are stating that this whole gamergate thing is because allegations of Quinn's sex life being more interesting than all of the basement dwelling gamergaters could possible hope to ever experience? -- ] 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::That is just being childish. Come on man calm down. You're just being prejudiced. We're not here to argue about the merits, or lack there of, of GamerGate. We're here to make a good article covering the drama. ] (]) 00:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::When the gamergaters start showing actual adult interest in actual conflict of interest and not on childish prurient "drahmaz" over wild and meaningless allegations of other peoples sex lives as rationale for harassment and stop flooding this talk page with fixation of the same, then there may be reason to treat the comments here as anything other than childish lashing out by sexually repressed basement dwellers. -- ] 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Like most origin stories, it is important and it is only natural that it be discussed. As I told Masem, if we are not going to note what many reliable sources note about Gjoni's accusations, then we cannot be using other people's characterizations of him or the blog post and still remain in accord with NPOV.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::That is hardly what I am saying and it is definitely not my position. We cannot be right with NPOV if we are saying the blog post can be used against GamerGate without us being clear about what the post concerned. If the position here is that we have to ignore numerous reliable sources noting the allegations concerned cheating because his allegations are irrelevant, then what people think of Gjoni and the blog post is also irrelevant since their thoughts are premised on his allegations. My default position would be to keep the stuff about Gjoni and the blog post being evidence of "vindictive" behavior and misogyny, but note the blog post concerned Quinn allegedly cheating on Gjoni with multiple men. Both details are backed by numerous reliable sources, but if we are saying the latter detail cannot be included, then the former detail is no better for inclusion.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Actually, we don't have a lot of RS on what else was accused in that post so that's why per BLP reducing the "important" of the blog post should be done so that it is simply "he accused her, others jumped on that". --] (]) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry but mentioning other people is not a violation of anyone's personal lives as these people worked either with press and gaming community as well. --] (]) 22:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
:::It is a BLP violation to make a claim about the relationships, however, even if the names are recognized people. --] (]) 22:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Just because someone works in the "press and gaming community" does not make their personal lives a subject of Misplaced Pages interest, and it doesn't change our reliable sourcing requirements. ] (]) 22:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
::::At least the article should mention that the press does not comment on those other people. It would be hypocritical to only include Grayson. It would be like saying that the person is innocent when committing 4 crimes, being charged with 5 and finding 1 of the crimes baseless. --] (]) 09:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::No. There is zero public interest in any allegations made in an ex-boyfriend's "strange, rambling attack." ] (]) 10:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::There IS public interest. By the way, Kotaku, Destructoid and other sites are accused on harming journalistic integrity and therefore count as primary sources. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/09/09/GamerGate-Why-Gaming-Journalists-Keep-Dragging-Zoe-Quinns-Sex-Life-into-the-Spotlight --] (]) 11:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source, and your claim that sites "accused on harming journalistic integrity" (huh?) become primary sources is utterly nonsensical. No, they don't. ] (]) 11:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Excactly why aren't Breitbart, Nichegamer and Techraptor reliable sources and why is Cracked a preferred source to Forbes? --] (]) 12:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Cracked is not used on this article. It may be used at ] because it's a piece she wrote about herself, but nothing else from Cracked is being used anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Breitbart has an established history of blatantly lying, taking things out of context, and other instances of a complete lack of journalistic integrity to even be close to be considered a reliable source. The only reason the gaters have latched onto it is because Milo Yiannopoulos and Gamergate supporters have a lot in common. I don't know what Nichegamer or Techraptor have said on these matters, but the issue at hand here is that in the context of what Gamergate wants itself to be about, there is only one personal relationship out of all of Eric Gjoni's allegations that the latched onto and wanted to expose and that was the relationship with Grayson rather than anyone else Gjoni rambled on about.—] (]) 12:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::With that logic, we can say that Kotaku, Polygon, RockPaperShotgun and other alleged sites want the context of Gamergate to be about misogyny despite GamerGate not being about misogyny. --] (]) 16:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::That is not what people are saying here or on this article. Again, people acknowledge across the board that Gamergate wants to be about journalistic integrity, but they note that there is a misogynistic streak in the actions perpetrated under the name of Gamergate. This has been picked up outside of the gaming websites, where as the pro-gamergate rhetoric only comes from these fringe and completely unreliable sources.—] (]) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Show me a reliable source that is claiming Gamergate has misogynistic streaks and actually has proof tying those people back to Gamergate, most of the "reliable" sources I've seen say that Gamergate is misogynistic but have no proof to back up the statement. Now, if you are able to link me to an article saying as such, why is this movement being defined so heavily by its outliers? ] (]) 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::There are extensive sources that say that the Gamergate movement is misogynistic (, , , , , , , , I could go on, but these are all in the artcle) because of the unnecessary focus on the women involved rather than any equally as culpable men. And it's defined so heavily by its "outliers" in your definition because there is no centralized movement. There is no central voice for Gamergate. There are misogynist trolls within Gamergate just as much as there could theoretically be a black lesbian transwoman who wants there to be more transparency in video games media and who doesn't care about the cultural criticism of games and just wants to know how many arbitrary points out of 10 the game received. It doesn't matter what every singular person can claim the movement is. Because there's no representative of the whole, it can only be examined from afar, and people see three women forced from their homes due to their addresses being published online against their will, an unnecessary obsession with who slept with who and when, as well as spending all of their time and energy going after people selling their games for $20 on Steam and Humble Bundle rather than the AAA publishers who have the means to actually get people fired over advertising campaigns or any other several hundred dollar drop in the bucket for a company who makes $1 billion on release day on a single title.—] (]) 02:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


| from5 = Gamergate controversy
== GameJournoPros ==
| destination5 = Gamergate (sexist terrorism)
| result5 = POINT close
| link5 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 46#Requested move 19 September 2015
| date5 = September 19, 2015


| from6 = Gamergate controversy
Not a single mention of this on the page, despite all these sources.
| destination6 = Gamergate (harassment campaign)
| result6 = Moved
| link6 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021
| date6 = August 12, 2021


| from7 = Gamergate (harassment campaign)
, , , , , , , ,
| result7 = Not moved
| link7 = Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021
| date7 = August 20, 2021
}}
{{Old MfD |date=23 June 2017 |result='''redirect''' |page=Draft:Gamergate controversy |altpage=Draft:Gamergate controversy}}
{{Old AfD multi| date = 6 September 2014 | result = '''Keep''' | page = GamerGate | date2 = 23 November 2015 | result2 = '''speedy keep''' | page2 = Gamergate controversy}}
{{Copied
|from1 = Draft:Gamergate controversy
|from_oldid1 = 638615388
|to1 = Gamergate controversy
|to_diff1 = 638642070
|to_oldid1 = 638639983


|from2 = Draft:Gamergate controversy
NorthBySouthBaranof previously claimed Chinatopix got "basic facts" wrong and should be excluded on that basis, but the coverage is a valid interpretation of events, they just haven't been reported by other places. You can double-check for yourself. Just because a publication approaches a topic from another perspective, as most of the Asian sources do, doesn't mean it's disallowable, especially when used in conjunction with other sources to note only those things relevant to the topic.
|from_oldid2 = 644251654
|to2 = Gamergate controversy
|to_diff2 = 644253492
|to_oldid2 = 644248467


}}
Let's decide what should be included and what shouldn't. ] (]) 14:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
{{Press
|author=Alex Hern|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy|title=Misplaced Pages votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles|date=January 23, 2015|org=]
|author2=]|url2=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/14/if-we-took-gamergate-harassment-seriously-pizzagate-might-never-have-happened/|date2=December 14, 2016|title2=If we took 'Gamergate' harassment seriously, 'Pizzagate' might never have happened|org2=]
|author3=]|url3=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html|title3=The Misplaced Pages Ouroboros|org3=Slate|date3=February 5, 2015
|author4=Dabitch|url4=http://adland.tv/adnews/wikipedia-perpetual-native-ad-machine/255028968|title4=Misplaced Pages: the perpetual motion native ad machine|org4=Adland|date4=February 5, 2015
|author5=Lauren C. Williams|url5=https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-feminists-from-editing-gamergate-articles-updated-6624e8987048#.6imluhnjw|org5=ThinkProgress|title5=Misplaced Pages Wants To Ban Feminists From Editing GamerGate Articles (Updated)|date5=January 26, 2015|archiveurl5=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929000042/https://thinkprogress.org/wikipedia-wants-to-ban-feminists-from-editing-gamergate-articles-updated-6624e8987048/|archivedate5=September 29, 2018
|author6=Daniel Greenfield|url6=http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/263914/gawker-editor-gamergate-was-our-most-effective-daniel-greenfield|title6=Gawker Editor: Gamergate Was Our Most Effective Enemy|org6=]|date6=August 20, 2016|archiveurl6=https://archive.ph/1GbLp|archivedate6=21 August 2016


|author7 = Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv
:The problem with GameJournoPros is that this borders on BLP (it is an unfounded claim/inference about the actions of known living persons, something I checked on at BLP/N and was told better to leave this out). It's contribution to the overall GG story is very minor since I see little of the present proGG stuff pointing to that to say that is an ethics problem. --] (]) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|title7 = Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research

|date7 = October 17, 2024
::BLP problems can't be solved by phrasing it as perception? Diego below says there was no agreement on the issue of whether it should be omitted from the article. ] (]) 15:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|org7 = ]

|url7 = https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
::GameJournoPros is not a person. If it violates BLP to talk about it, then why doesn't it also violate BLP to accuse Gamergate of wide, sweeping claims of harassment and terrorism? Ridiculous. ] (]) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
|lang7 =
:::The specific people who contributed to the list are living people, and making unfounded, poorly-sourced accusations about them or their behavior ''does'' violate BLP. ] (]) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
|quote7 =
Considering that there's little attempt to keep this page neutral despite the token cries for neutrality, I sadly doubt that these multiple sources will amount to anything at all. This page is already infamous for its partiality, and is obviously one of the bigger battlegrounds of the whole thing. Especially considering pro-GG sources are constantly questioned where as long as the anti side doesn't link Gawker or something it is accepted readily.] (]) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|archiveurl7 =

|archivedate7 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
:The list was included at the article at one point, and was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then. Now that we have more independent reliable sources covering it, it should be included again. As for ], there was one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included, and other thinking that it could, so it doesn't set any precedent. ] (]) 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate7 = October 18, 2024
::]. -- ] (]) 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|collapsed=no
:::Not at all. You may want to read what I wrote instead of making personal attacks. ] (]) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
}}
::::You said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included.' I see a lot more than one editor in that section expressing concerns about including breitbart.com's accusations. Your statement that only one editor opposed its inclusion is patently false. The sourcing for is also still weak, just as it was then: we don't seem to have any independant investigation, only a few minor industry outlets reporting on the accusations published on a site that is best known for publishing outright lies. -- ] (]) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 19 2014 (19th)}}
:::::Yes, I said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included' ''in ]''. The only editor ''at that board'' against inclusion is User:John; meanwhile, User:Stuartyeates thought that it could be published if it's covered in independent reliable sources. Please consider asking for clarification when you don't understand why a comment has been made, before resorting to insulting fellow editors. ] (]) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
}}
::::::I see, I quoted the wrong section of your post: you said the information "was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then." That's not true, and saying so minimizes the past opposition to this information's inclusion. -- ] (]) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
{{page views}}
: As mandated by ], it deserves a place in the article. ] (]) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
{{section sizes}}

{{Refideas|state=collapsed
:No actual collusion actually took place, this is a thoroughly debunked meme. There's no need to repeat every scurrilous and half-baked cover story the "pro-GG" people have concocted to cover their misdeeds here. ] (]) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last=Beyer |first=Jessica L. |chapter=Trolls and Hacktivists: Political Mobilization from Online Communities |date=2021 |title=The Oxford Handbook of Digital Media Sociology |editor-last=Rohlinger |editor-first=Deana A. |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.013.47 |isbn=978-0-19-751063-6 |editor2-last=Sobieraj |editor2-first=Sarah |pages=417–442}}
::The collusion has never been fully debunked (but that's not saying it is true either), and for that reason, as simply a claim of it, we should really not include as per the BLPN discussion even if we could. If it was dunked, then inclusion should be apparent, just like the allegation against Quinn. --] (]) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last=Condis |first=Megan |title=Gaming Masculinity: Trolls, Fake Geeks, and the Gendered Battle for Online Culture |year=2018 |publisher=University of Iowa Press |isbn=978-1-6093-8566-8 |pages=95–106 |jstor=j.ctv3dnq9f.12 |chapter=From #GamerGate to Donald Trump: Toxic Masculinity and the Politics of the Alt-Right}}
:::There are various ways to cover this in a BLP-safe way. We have several reliable sources noting that the leak of mails happened, and that it led to several proGGs to consider it as an explanation of the early "media radio-silence", and to Kyle Orland to publish an explanation at ]. ] (]) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite news |last=Dewey |first=Caitlin |author-link=Caitlin Dewey |date=2016-02-17 |title=In the battle of Internet mobs vs. the law, the Internet mobs have won |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |url-status=live |work=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230710005803/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |archive-date=2023-07-10 |access-date=2024-01-22 |url-access=limited}}
:::Yes, it has been fully debunked. A wild accusation was made, a person quite rationally explained that, no, this is what the e-mail list is ''really'' for, and the accuser and associated unreliable sourced that initially mirrored it went silent. This is a dead-end issue. ] (]) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=Donovan |first1=Joan |last2=Dreyfuss |first2=Emily |last3=Friedberg |first3=Brian |title=Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America |date=2022 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |location=New York |isbn=978-1-63-557864-5}}

| {{cite book |last=Jones |first=Bethan |editor=Booth, Paul |title=A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies |year=2018 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Hoboken, N.J. |isbn=978-1-1192-3716-7 |pages=415–429 |doi=10.1002/9781119237211.ch26 |chapter=#AskELJames, Ghostbusters, and #Gamergate: Digital Dislike and Damage Control |chapter-url=https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781119237211.ch26 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
If there are multiple high quality reliable secondary sources which present the content, then it can be added according to due weight. It would certainly help if someone interested in adding the content would highlight which are the 2-3 highest quality sources, along with excerpts covering the issue. ] (]) 15:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last=Kidd |first=Dustin |title=Social Media Freaks: Digital Identity in the Network Society |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=978-0-4299-7691-9 |chapter=GamerGate: Gender Perspectives on Social Media}}
:The problem is there aren't. We have a few articles which are relatively low-quality sources, and they're all reporting on accusations which have gotten no real traction and which originate from a media outlet best known for making things up to attempt to discredit political opponents. We need much, much stronger sources which we can rely on to evaluate the situation properly and give it exactly the credit it deserves before we give Breitbart.com's accusations a place in Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=179–222 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_6 |chapter=Changes Following Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_6 |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
::So, you consider of ] and ] to be a low quality source? ] (]) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=63–107 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_3 |chapter=Gamers and Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_3 |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
:::I consider the sourcing we have here too weak to justify mentioning these accusations in the article, yes. You'll not that that is only a source for the fact that the accusations were made: it doesn't in any way indicate that they have any merit. I'm not doubting that Milo made unfounded accusations - I know he did - what I'm saying is that by including them here when they've been given only cursory attention by reliable sources we would be violating ] and ]. We have decent sources for the fact that Milo made an unfounded accusation, but we have very, very weak sources that support the notion that these accusations are noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. -- ] (]) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |editor1-last=Reyman |editor1-first=Jessica |editor2-last=Sparby |editor2-first=Erika |title=Digital Ethics: Rhetoric and Responsibility in Online Aggression |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |series=Routledge Studies in Rhetoric and Communication |isbn=978-0-367-21795-2 |edition=1st |doi=10.4324/9780429266140 |s2cid=189982687}}
::::Please inform us of something that is not clear from your interventions: what level of sourcing would make you accept that this incident has strong enough sources for including it? Because I definitely want to apply that very same criteria to the numerous opinions currently included in the article. ] (]) 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last=Ruffino |first=Paolo |title=Future Gaming: Creative Interventions in Video Game Culture |date=2018 |publisher=Goldsmiths Press |location=London |isbn=978-1-90-689755-0 |pages=104–119 |chapter=GamerGate: Becoming Parasites to Gaming}}
:::::High profile mainstream sourcing is going to garner the most support; Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, LA Times, New York Times, etc. Of the sources listed above, only the Forbes one seems likely to gather broad support. Again, it's not about something being clear or ], it's about gathering consensus for inclusion. If you use niche publications that editors have never heard of, then the likelihood they are going be widely supported it as a source is fairly low, especially for anything which approaches ] requirements. For better or worse, that's how wikipedia works. ] (]) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite journal |last=Salter |first=Michael |title=From Geek Masculinity to Gamergate: The Technological Rationality of Online Abuse |journal=Crime, Media, Culture |date=2018 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=247–264 |doi=10.1177/1741659017690893 |issn=1741-6604}}
::::::I should add that it is very rare for opinion pieces to be considered reliable for much beyond the authors own personal opinion (see ]). As such, they should almost always be avoided in controversial articles like this one. ] (]) 16:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=Veale |first1=Kevin |title=Gaming the Dynamics of Online Harassment |date=2020 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-030-60410-3 |pages=1–33 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-60410-3_1 |chapter=Introduction: The Breadth of Harassment Culture and Contextualising Gamergate |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-60410-3_1 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
::::::One last note, the above sourcing guidelines relate to ''inclusion'' of a topic as per ] weight. Once something has been deemed of sufficient weight for inclusion (based on high quality mainstream sourcing), then other less high profile sources can be used, guided by ] weight as determined by the high quality sources. Said another way, Kotaku can't be used to establish enough weight for inclusion, but if the New York Times makes reference to a Kotaku article, then it can be used as a citation. ] (]) 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=Wilson |first1=Katie |editor1-last=Booth |editor1-first=Paul |title=A Companion to Media Fandom and Fan Studies |date=2018 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |location=Hoboken, N.J. |isbn=978-1-119-23721-1 |pages=431–445 |doi=10.1002/9781119237211.ch27 |chapter=Red Pillers, Sad Puppies, and Gamergaters |chapter-url=https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781119237211.ch27 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}}
:::::::That leads me to conclude what other editors have already commented at this talk page, that the amount of personal opinions currently appearing in the article have been given undue weight and should be reduced.
| {{cite book |last1=Zuckerberg |first1=Donna |title=Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age |date=2018 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-6749-8982-5 |pages=}}
:::::::As of now, we're giving any op-ed by a particular journalist the same weight that we give to main events, which does not make for a balanced article. The article should give more emphasis to the events that have been reflected at several independent venues, and less to the commentary on those events by single journalists in their opinion columns; unless one particular opinion has been itself collected by other media and identified as significant by other independent sources, it should be taken elsewhere. ] (]) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
}}
::::::::You hit in on the nose. There are sections that are just "here's some opinions", and because opinions are going to be extensively available from one side and not from the other by the nature of this controversy, this simply is overkill on getting the point across. "GG is seen as a bad thing by numerous people" is necessary and unavoidable to state, but not to the degree that the point is hammered over and over. --] (]) 17:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
:::::::::As I'm an unrepentant inclusionist, I'm not fond of completely removing content that is sourced to reliable sources; I usually prefer to ] when it's deemed irrelevant to a particular topic. I was thinking that it's time to ] this already long article upon the axis of factual vs opinion, creating ]. I think there are enough sources describing the nature of those reactions to make that subtopic a notable one, where those single-person opinions would actually be on-topic and not too much detail, in the way they're too detailed for this main article now. The current article could be made into a timeline of sourced facts and highly influential reactions (like those by Alexander or maybe Hoff Sommers, which have ''other'' journalists commenting on them), which IMHO would be much more neutral. This would also leave place at the main article to grow from the more in-depth, long-term analysis of the significance of the whole incident that are likely to happen in the future, without requiring us to delete the current content. What do you think? ] (]) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
::::::::::We do not need to fork anything off like this just to "eliminate the bias" on this article.—] (]) 17:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 150K
::::::::::This is the beginning attempt at a ]. ] (]) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|counter = 62
:::::::::::In addition, "Reaciton to" articles are ]s, and not appropriate encyclopedic material. --] (]) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 4
::::::::::::Removing undue comments it is, then. ] (]) 22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|algo = old(30d)
:It's not a BLP issue to talk about a mailing list. We have multiple reliable sources discussing this and it only seems apt to include a mention of it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive %(counter)d
::As above, which are the 2-3 most reliable mainstream sources mentioning it? If none (or one) are, then it's difficult to see how it should be included. ] (]) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
:::I believe Pocketgamer, Re/code, and Forbes are the best sources in the mix.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
::::Of those, only the Forbes one appears to be a mainstream source, and even that is a "Games" column. As it only deals with the email list, it's hard to use it to establish due weight. Based on those sources, it's hard to see covering the topic in any sort of detail. ] (]) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
}}
:::::Re/code is also fairly mainstream, it's been founded by the main technology journalists of ] and ], financed by ], and quoted by , , , and many international outlets (, , , ... I quote major Spanish outlets because those appear at my Google News search, but I'm sure other languages will quote Re/code too). They don't come any better in terms of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ] (]) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
__TOC__
::"Some games journalists discussed, among other things, GamerGate, on a private mailing list." That's a mention. It doesn't say much, but that's about all there is to say about it. ] (]) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Then say just that. It's been given more weight in RSs than some of the opinions already in the article. ] (]) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::If we can get a consensus to add it, let's do it. The article's hard-protected right now or I would have done it myself. ] (]) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:Additional mentions in and , as well as a response from James Fudges at .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::: WhatCulture considers it the 5th biggest achievement of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/5 who are we kidding now that this isn't relevant? ] (]) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== #StopGamerGate2014 ==
becomes the first source to examine the backlash-hashtag #StopGamerGate2014 that was launched in the wake of the mass-murder threats against Sarkeesian and Utah State University. ] (]) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:I think it's blacklisted from Misplaced Pages, too. Funny how that commitment to reliable sources lapses from time to time.--] (]) 05:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::Uhhh, no, The Daily Dot isn't blacklisted. If it was blacklisted, the link wouldn't even show up here. We use other ] work as sources for this article already, actually. ] (]) 05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:::However, it is a weak source. Let's wait for a better one on this. --] (]) 05:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, it's not banned as of now. It might have been a year ago when I tried to add a link. It's still worth observing that the commitment to reliable sources espoused by the frequent editors to this page wanes in the face of tenuous criticism of the subject.--] (]) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::::We are at a point here where it is very valid to review earlier sources and consider if they are really necessary or appropriate in light of more recent, more mainstream sources (see my point about the latest WAPost above); later sources will have a better hindsight view to help balance the coverage appropriately. That's why I think going on we have to be very hesistant about using "weak" sources like Daily Dot (It's fine for less controversial topics, but not here). Note that I don't think within 48hr we'll lack a good quality source for this current hashtag... --] (]) 05:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Well .—] (]) 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::As I said, within 48hrs I figured we'd have some; that, and a new WAPost one (separate from the summary above), and a Metro.uk... --] (]) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::The hashtag's pretty much already dead. Gamergate deniers don't seem to have much commitment to their ideals. ] (]) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Is it? How can you tell? If it is dead then maybe we can add it in that there was another counter-hashtag that died. --] (]) 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::There are sites that map Twitter hashtags. It turns out I was wrong. It was dead as of a few hours ago. It's back at the moment, and centred on New York ... and the Philippines. I'll leave that to speculation. ] (]) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::read: the earth turns, there's timezones and now the western world is waking up to flood social media again. We'd have to wait days to determine its' "death". --] (]) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So... Check back in a week then? --] (]) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:Other sources for this: , , , . ] (]) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::I still want to wait 7 days, well, 6 days now, before I want to say that this thing is going to stay. I knew a fair few people who thought GamerGate was another small internet shitstorm that would blow over in two weeks, and it has lasted for over a month now. I think. Let's see whether it can keep up it's momentum for a couple of days before we add it. Is that okay with you? --] (]) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:That hashtag is already dying lol http://i.imgur.com/k8NNjkB.jpg they've tried this before, but oh well it gained the attention of the totally not colluding gaming media so I guess ] (]) 14:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::Give it a few more days, I want to see whether it will revive or not. --] (]) 20:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Wikileaks acknowledges GamerGate ==

I know this is primary source and twitter, but as a enourmous notable organization can this get a mention?

"Journalistic organisation ] recognized GamerGate 'found out media is corrupt'"
Or something like that? ] (]) 08:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:I wouldn't see a problem if it is posted as an opinion, it's a verified account. I'm just a n00b though. If you want a secondary source what about this? http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/09/wikileaks-wades-gamergate-says-nato-corrupt-video-games-journalism ] (]) 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Edit: It doesn't refer to that tweet in particular but does show the same sort of position.] (]) 09:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:Hasn't the results of the AMA been constantly thrown out because of the wispy washy nature of the question posed and the answer given? I don't see why we need to mention that the website backs them up in any fashion when it solely revolves around the claims of censorship happening when people are getting banned for violations the terms of services of the forums where they are claiming it is happening.—] (]) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

:I saw that, and read through the linked article, and found zero mention of GG. We're not going off one tweet to say there's support. --] (]) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::WhatCulture mentions that "Wikileaks commented on their twitter" about reddit "stiffling the discussion of the GamerGate scandal" in an article about the biggest victories of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/10 ] (]) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I'm hard pressed to see WhatCulture as a significant source. On the plus side, that was very funny. Well, the few pages I could see before the site seemed to die, anyway. - ] (]) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::WhatCulture is definitely not reliable, it's more a clickbait site. They might express points that could be discovered in other sources, but we can't use them directly. --] (]) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Better lead sentence ==
{{red|'''Gamergate''' (sometimes referred to as '''GamerGate''' or as a ] '''#gamergate''') is a controversy in ] which began in August 2014.}}
{{green|Gamergate is the name of a controversy that started in August 2014 primarily over ] as a ] between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism.}} Aimed to capture a few issues that have been id'd above, adding in the idea this is a culture war (more than enough sources), identifying but not pigeonholing key players, and avoiding the "inherent"/"ingrained" issue with the fact that these problems have been there. --] (]) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:: {{thumbs up}} I'd agree with that change. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:Could replace the laundry list with "a culture war in ] over pre-existing issues..." More concise and inclusive. ] (]) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
{{Agree}} with masem ] (]) 03:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:It has so many clauses that it seems like it should really be 2 sentences. Also the way two different meanings of the word "over" are used in the same sentence is a bit jarring. How about this: "{{green|Gamergate is the name of a controversy over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. The controversy first arose in August 2014 and was primarily propagated via ] as a ] between members of the video game press, developer community, and gamer community.}}" ? -] (]) 04:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::I prefer yours, Thibbs. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{2c}} {{green|'''Gamergate''' is a ] that began on ] in August 2014 involving the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of ], ], and ] in ].}} Cleaned up language, 51 words down to 36, better links. --] (]) 04:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::I like it better, but I still find there to be too many qualifiers splitting the subject. At its most simple core it's "a controversy/culture war over pre-existing issues... and journalistic ethics." That's what the article should lead with. Then further qualifiers could be added to the end of the sentence. How about this: {{green|'''Gamergate''' is a ] over pre-existing issues of ], ], and ] in ] that began on ] in August 2014 and involved the video game media, developer community, and gamer community.}} ? -] (]) 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd split it up to make sure to add "members of" since not all of those groups are involved. eg "...journalistic ethics in the video game culture. The controversy started in social media in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community." --] (]) 05:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:Gamergate was not a "culture war", it was a lynchmob that backfired. "War" implies that there were two belligerents involved. ] (]) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::That very article says "culture war". Also, a culture war is not always a war with two explicit sides, but can be a single group against a larger shifting tide. --] (]) 06:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Maybe you're right. Opposition withdrawn. ] (]) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I think of the versions suggested, Thibbs' is the most readable, although I prefer the existing wording of 'ingrained' over 'pre-existing'. ] (]) 07:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:{{Agree}}I think that's far better. ] (]) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::reliable sources dont present it as a "culture war" - they present it as " -- ] 12:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

::::Indeed. This is a disingenuous treatment of the subject, bordering on deceptive, and I'm ashamed that an admin is actually behind it. This is ingrained sexism and harassment, long-ingrained in the gamer community that came to a boil over false allegations of impropriety against a female game developer. This is not a "culture war", unless there's a "culture" that is pro-sexual harassment in play here. ] (]) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::'''We have to be neutral as Misplaced Pages editor.''' The neutral stance, with reporters not invested in this, is that this is a culture war that has included unfortunately nasty tactics. If you cannot take the middle ground stance (proGG or antiGG side) , you should not be touching this article. --] (]) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::What refs will be used for the use of "culture war"?—] (]) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::, , , (arguably ). I believe there's a few older ones but those are all in response to the Sarkeensian shooting threat news. --] (]) 14:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::We should really get something on the shooting threat into the article soon.—] (]) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

:I think this is helpful. Could we combine it with a solution to the issue 33/basic lack of explanation? It seems like both are aiming at parts of the same basic issue of providing context. ] (]) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:AND: in the interests of developing something that won't need nitpicky usage edits -- 'among' rather than 'between' probably, because more than two entities. ] (]) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:{{Disagree}} leave the misogyny bit off ] (]) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::You cannot remove something that everyone has been saying exists as part of it.—] (]) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::In addition to the fact that there's no specific party to blame for the misogyny (in fact it is clearly a standing issue through all three parties listed). But Ryulong's 100% correct that since every non-gaming mainstream source has called out ''something'' misogynic about the situation (whether anti- or pro-GG), it is part of it. --] (]) 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::When was misogyny called out on the anti-GG side though?—] (]) 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::As pointed out with the "ingrained" discussion, the industry has been dealing with internal misogyny; they may not have been called it after it started, but the statement does not belie that it was a problem. --] (]) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

:Revamp per opinions above: {{green|Gamergate is the name given to a ] within the video game industry over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism with the maturing industry. The controversy occurred primarily over ] starting in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community.}} --] (]) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

===arbitrary break===

Just started reading this and am troubled by the "ingrained" piece, solely because the source reports opinion just as much as fact. Is there a suitable replacement, preferably from a more standard RS? Otherwise that really should come out, especially since it is made in Voice.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 05:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:There are countless sources that use various other synonyms for "ingrained". "Ingrained" is a compromise over every other synonym out there that says that misogyny and sexism are part of the gamer DNA.—] (]) 05:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::If there are countless, can you suggest a few? Preferably from high quality sources like newspapers, or academic journals. I'm skeptical of making any bold claims in Voice from the gaming press.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::TKoP, please search the talk page archives. , , , , , , etc. etc. etc. Don't mean to seem short about it, but this was litigated extensively and "ingrained" was the agreed-upon consensus. We originally directly quoted The Washington Post, which stated that "Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem." ] (]) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::Uh, and what are "indie works"? Readers shouldn't have to click on the references to find out, and we shouldn't expect the reader to know what those are.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Read the talk page's archives.—] (]) 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::::The archive says that the consensus is that the article has problems in this way; it needs to be fixed. I know; I was there. Quit biting people. ] (]) 05:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::::This is an ''encyclopedia''. We don't expect the readers of this article to read the archives. Indie works needs to be explained or blue linked.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 05:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::We expect '''you''' to read the archives when we tell you to when these points have been raised time and time again.—] (]) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::First off, it is a violation of ]. Secondly, it isn't true; as RSs point out, it really isn't related to, particularly severe in, or specific to gamer culture at all. ] (]) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Ummmm, no. It's not a violation of BLP. Video game culture and the industry do not constitute an identifiable group. ''Some'' sources state that it's part of a broader issue, but also state that video gaming has a particular problem. ] (]) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::It is not a violation of BLP. No singular person is being singled out and accused of being a misogynist or sexist. A nebulous group is. A group is not protected by BLP. And in another section '''''I had linked to 8 sources used throughout the article that use the word "misogyny" or a variation to describe Gamergate'''''. We are not going through this every time some new Gamergater comes to have his say.—] (]) 05:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

== Harassment of trans and queer game developers ==

The cover story of this week's '']'' is about Gamergate. It's a pretty long and detailed piece. Interestingly, it includes discussion of a topic not mentioned in our current article: harassment of trans and queer game developers. It might be worth integrating some mention of this issue into our current article. ] (]) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

:{{cquote|Recently, Anthropy and a few other self-publishing game designers and writers have begun making their rent via a platform called Patreon.}}

:{{cquote|Gamers accused of being biased because she contributes to Quinn's Patreon account ... details that she had initially disclosed in a footnote in her piece but were taken out by Guardian editors}}

:{{cquote|a video game reporter named Patricia Hernandez was called out online for not fully disclosing that she was friends and former roommates with Anthropy despite having written about her work multiple times for the online video game publication Kotaku}}

:{{cquote|other accusations were being hurled at journalist Ben Kuchera claiming that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest when he reviewed Quinn's Depression Quest in March for the online publication Polygon because he contributes to her Patreon account.}}

:Let's finally talk about Patreon, shall we? . Also . Gamergate's discovering Patricia Hernandez's conduct seems noteworthy. ] (]) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

:I don't think that's been a major part of discourse. How briefly can we summarize it? ] (]) 09:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Willhesucceed}} the ''East Bay Express'' article downplays those quoted examples, though, even including this rebuttal:
::{{talkquote|Polygon editor Christopher Grant, meanwhile, published a blogpost reminding readers that "like Kickstarter, these contributions aren't investments. There is no equity to be gained, there is no market to capitalize on."}}
::And at the same time they are contrasted with the
::{{talkquote|common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles.}}
::So I'm not sure it's as damning as you would make it appear. Multiple editors above had also expressed concern with using ''Reason'' for BLP statements, which would include Patreon or any ethics claims about journalists. ] (]) 09:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Whether it's damning or not, it's noteworthy. ] (]) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree that it's noteworthy, but you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. The pull quotes you mentioned are given as examples of minor ethics violations, and they are contrasted with major ethics violations of the AAA title developers. We could say something like this: {{tq|Sarah Burke of '']'' mentioned often-cited concerns within the GamerGate movement, such as a reporter being "friends and former roommates" with a developer, or donations from reporters to developers via Patreon accounts. Burke contrasts this with the "common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles" in order to influence positive reviews, a concern which GamerGate has not expressed.}} Just a thought. ] (]) 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== I propose these changes to the second and third paragraph ==

I tried to make this less emotive, removed some redundancy, removed a couple parts that implied small pieces of unsourced information and tried to make it flow better.

The controversy came to wider attention due to the sustained harassment indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had "romantic relationship" with members of the gaming media which prompted concerns that the relationship led to positive media coverage for her game. Although the concerns of at least one of these proved unfounded, allegations about journalistic ethics continued to clash with allegations of harassment and misogyny. The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works. This shift has prompted opposition from more traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment. Other topics of debate have included perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing changes to the gaming industry.

Allegations of impropriety in gaming media have prompted policy changes at several outlets, and commentators generally agree that systemic problems in the gaming media need to be discussed; however, the harassment and misogyny associated with GamerGate is seen as having poisoned the well. Furthermore, the focus of the movement on a heretofore relatively obscure independent developer rather than AAA publishers has led to questions about its motivations.

] (]) 10:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:The allegations which have been widely reported in reliable sources (which are the only ones we care about) have been shown to be false, and we have no interest in any of the others. You've also removed extensive discussion of the threats against Quinn and others and how they are seen as being responsible for the fact that mainstream sources have focused on the movement's misogynistic, harassing and trolling elements. Those parts of your proposal are not acceptable.

:We can get rid of the word "allegations" before harassment, though — it's well-sourced in reliable sources that such harassment has happened. ] (]) 11:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::as per NorthBySouthBaranof. -- ] 12:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

::No. ] (]) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::Would discussion did I remove? It was just repetition. ] (]) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::The lead paragraph should be a succinct and thorough summary of the article. There's nothing in the first paragraph about the harassment campaign that counts as repetition.—] (]) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::What sourced facts have I missed out?] (]) 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::No, it's not "just repetition" and you didn't address the issue of raising unsourced and irrelevant claims about Zoe Quinn. You won't get any consensus for that version. ] (]) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::What sourced facts did I miss? ] (]) 07:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:Look If I've actually missed out sourced information say what I've actually missed out. ] (]) 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Proposing additing on Sarkeesian shooting threat ==

Only doing this to get local consensus first, then will tag w/ edit request to get someone to do that.

At the end of the para that starts "The harassment expanded to include renewed threats against Sarkeesian...", we should add the following:
:{{green|In mid-October, Sarkeesian cancelled a lecture she had planned to give at ] after the school received a shooting threat attributed to Gamergate supporters that referenced the ]; Sarkeesian stated she only cancelled the engagement after the school could not assure her safety at the event due to state laws, but will continue to speak elsewhere.<nowiki><ref name="nytimes asu"/></nowiki>}}
:<nowiki><ref name="nytimes asu">{{cite web | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html | title = Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign | first = Nick | last = Wingfield | date = October 15, 2014 | accessdate = October 15, 2014 | work = ] }}</ref></nowiki>

Note that I do not think we should even get into any issue on the state law gun laws (allowing for concealed carry that the school could not interfere with), just that they couldn't assure she would be safe. --] (]) 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:It's ], not Arizona. Also I think we can use all of the references provided when it first came out like the one from CNN and such.—] (]) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::Fixed. --] (]) 14:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::And as stated before
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats |last=Schreier|first=Jason|date=October 14, 2014|work=Kotaku|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/14/6979071/utah-state-university-anita-sarkeesian-threats|title=Utah State University threatened with school shooting over Sarkeesian appearance (updated)|first=Megan|last=Farokhmanesh|date=October 14, 2014|work=Polygon|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp|title=Feminist cancels USU talk after guns allowed despite death threat|last=Alberty|first=Erin|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Salt Lake Tribune|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/10/14/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-speech-after-school-shooting-threat-at-utah-state/|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech After School Shooting Threat At Utah State|first=Paul|last=Tassi|date=October 14, 2014|work=Forbes|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/death-threat-forces-cancellation-of-sarkeesian-university-speech/|title=Death threat forces cancellation of Sarkeesian university speech|first=Sam|last=Machkovech|date=October 14, 2014|work=Ars Technica|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/blogs/newmedia/2014/10/14/17424/feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-receiv/|title=Video: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian receives latest in series of death threats - 89.3 KPCC|last=Roe|first=Mike|date=October 14, 2014|work=Southern California Public Radio|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.hjnews.com/news/threat-of-deadliest-school-shooting-in-american-history-leads-feminist/article_0eb29ed0-5404-11e4-a274-3334768d75c3.html|title=Threat of 'deadliest school shooting in American history' leads feminist to cancel USU lecture|last=Cannon|first=Kelly|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Herald Journal|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/index.html|title=Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah State speech after threat - CNN.com|last1=Ahmed|first1=Saeed|last2=Marco|first2=Tony|date=October 15, 2014|work=CNN|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/|title=‘Gamergate’: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah lecture after threat|last=McDonald|first=Soraya Nadia|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Washington Post|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk|title=Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat|first=Alex|last=Hern|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Guardian|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::*<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31957809&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1|title=USU receives threatening email; feminist speaker cancels speech - KSL.com|first1=Natalie|last1=Crofts|first2=McKenzie|last2=Romero|date=October 14, 2014|publisher=]|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref></nowiki>
:::—] (]) 15:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::We only need one source to explain the cancellation, and the NYTimes is considered the best quality source for news like this. These other sources may be useful elsewhere but we don't need much on this. --] (]) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

#The NYT source cites the fact that the anon used the name of the killer in his e-mail, rather than mentioning École Polytechnique by name, not sure how crucial that difference is.
#The message being conveyed to Sarkeesian was; "I will kill people at that school because you are a woman", that is why the anon signed the threat "Marc Lépine". I don't know if the NYT is making that IMO critical point, don't have time to read top to bottom right now unfortunately. ] (]) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::The NYTimes and most of the other mainstream articles don't mention the Ecole Poly shooting by name, but they mention Lepine and the threat in reference to "a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989" (this in NYTimes), which is clearly the Ecole Poly shootings; there's no question what that reference is. That's not OR to connect that up for purposes of an encyclopedia. --] (]) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the sources directly mention GamerGate like our ] requires them to? Sure it was tragic, but is it related to Gamergate? ] (]) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:Did the fact that the NY Times story at the top of this section is titled "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign" escape your purview? ] (]) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:: I was kind of meaning how do they make it about GamerGate, and wasn't wanting to read through about 11 just to see or figure a consensus on how they all treat it; whether it's apart of the larger story, or something like, 'A pro GG person just threatened Anita' or related. ] (]) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::If they say it's about Gamergate then we can say its about Gamergate. Last I checked, several of the sources that are in the "Utah State shooting threat" section higher up on the page that I've formatted ito these references, several of them mention Gamergate as related to the shooting threat. And IIRC, there is also discussion here or in one of the sources that Sarkeesian said the email referenced Gamergate.—] (]) 02:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:To be fair to Tutelary's point, there is no clear indication this was specifically a GG related action, which is why the wording I chose said that the implication by officials and the press is that it is (as opposed to saying that GG issued the threat, which cannot be proven) --02:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::If these sources are linking the threat to Gamergate then we can say it's related to Gamergate. Stop being soft.—] (]) 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, they are linking the threat but they do not say with 100%, fact checked assurety that is was GG, so we take the same approach ''Huge'' difference in how this is written, and basic fundamental WP policy. --] (]) 03:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:Per , we might want to note that Sarkeesian has previously spoken after her harassment at events that had received potential bomb threats, only here where they could not affirm her or the audience's safety due to state law did she back down. --] (]) 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Perhaps a section on media polarization on the issues? ==

criticizing the recent NYtimes article for, all purposes, giving the GG the time of day. Opinions aside, there perhaps might be enough to talk about how the ''coverage'' of GG in mainstream has led to some issues (an extension of the "Death of games"-type of thing) in terms of swinging the matter. --] (]) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:lol the Guardian thinks media is biased towards GamerGate. At this point this article it's just impossible to get neutral. And I admire your efforts Masem. But it's like the Wikileaks/Snowden/Julian Assange page were 80% mentions of them being terrorists and traitors. A movement about journalism corruption is bound to be misrepresented by media ] (]) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::lol ahhh the conspiracy of the media. do you have enough tin foil for your hats? -- ] 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Why thank you I got my collection of tin foil hats ready sir, you're absolutely right, the media doesn't get defensive when a movement attacks them, they're just pure and neutral as it gets! ] (]) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::That is hardly a conspiracy theory. News media are not keen on reporting fairly about criticism of themselves. I think it is quite possible to keep this article neutral even with that being a factor, but it will only happen if both sides in this content dispute are willing to be reasonable. Unfortunately, only one side is showing a desire for neutrality.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Yeah it's not even a conspiracy it's just getting defensive. Yeah definitely add this, it's a decent source, and will help get this a bit more neutral] (]) 07:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== BBC article on Twitter, Gamergate and even a short comment on our article ==

I don't know if someone already linked this (if so, I missed it) but the BBC is running an article on the background issues complete with a link to our article which they describe as "what looks like a factual account". . ] (]) 21:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

:"looks like a factual account" ... *anguished Wookiee cry*
:This is the fourth? fifth? sixth? article to now focus on internet culture as it relates to the controversy. It deserves inclusion. ] (]) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:The article is better than I expected, it has a lot of flaws and some neutrality issues, but this is a very hard topic to cover. ] (]) 07:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== 2 Time Articles ==

http://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/ ] (]) 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

http://time.com/3512862/fixing-gamergate/

"The university deemed the presentation safe to proceed after consulting with local law enforcement" Noteworthy, I think. ] (]) 03:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
**uhhh noteworthy because ... Sarkeesian 's decision not to appear shows that shes a chicken shit girl, a real man would have showed up and brought his own gun? -- ] 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::It seems this harassment has gone on for three days now. Odd how few have noticed.--] (]) 06:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Is 'Gamergate controversy' the best title here? ==

OK, I realise this suggestion would be an uphill struggle. But I'm starting to wonder if 'GamerGate controversy' is the most appropriate title for this article. True, 'GamerGate' is probably the most common description of this kerfuffle, if only because it's short and pithy. But that doesn't mean we should use it ourselves. Using the hashtag catchphrase of an activist group for an article about a broader issue is implicitly endorsing that group's position on that issue. (That is to say: using the name 'GamerGate' for this article implicitly endorses the view of one side that it's really all about criticism of 'gamers' as a group.) Yes, some articles are titled after hashtags, but only when the article is actually ''about'' the hashtag campaign, whereas the subject of this one has grown into something broader.

By analogy to a previous case: there was another big Internet controversy a few years ago which one group of activists called 'Climategate'. But even if that may have been the most widely used nickname, our article on the subject is not called that, but rightly goes by the more neutral and descriptive title ]. I'm thinking we should do something similar here.

I don't know what the best alternative name would be; my personal preference would be for something like ], but I recognise that may also have neutrality issues. I'm open to better suggestions. ] (]) 22:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

:] - Gamergate is the right word on that alone; in contrast to "Climategate", which bore out as the issues expanded, it was GamerGate from the start for all practical purposes. And keep in mind that it is the proGG that promoted that term even though I would argue it is a negative connotation by just name alone towards them (in that "X-gate" implies a todo over X"). --] (]) 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

::Pretty much, I think the initial title was Quinnspiracy, and then it branched out and became GamerGate.] (]) 08:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:Your suggested title has couple of problems. Firstly it'd cover a whole lot that GamerGate does not, and it ignores the whole journalism side. Ignoring that, GamerGate is what people will look up, it's what it's called. The problem is GamerGate is very hard to define, it does include harassment, but also more sincere concerns. ] (]) 07:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
: Boy this made me laugh, please tell us you're joking ] (]) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Spiked "An un-PC rebellion" ==


I could basically quote the whole thing. It notes that what's going on is the result of a moral panic. ] (]) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:It's also an unreliable source, and the author is a consultant at a PR firm. ] (]) 22:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::How is it unreliable? Allum Bokhari is a political consultant. ] (]) 22:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Like the Tech Crunch piece he wrote, it's a blog: "spiked has an open door policy on contributors". When a reliable source hires him to write about video games or cultural issues, or when he is recognized as an expert in the area, then we can discuss it. ] (]) 23:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:Potentially usable as an opinion piece, but we already give this writer's opinions an entire paragraph and I don't think they particularly deserve more space than that. His declarations that this is a "moral panic" and that linking Gamergate to harassment is a "bizarre belief" are verging on ] territory anyway. ] (]) 23:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::And now that I'm looking into it, I wonder why we're using this source at all. The discussions about Tech Crunch at ] have been mixed because of concerns about it being a blog. Of course, blog posts written by staff members or experts can sometimes be reliable, but that doesn't appear to be the case here: it's a one-off post written by someone not on the Tech Crunch staff. I don't see a history of articles about video games or culture from the bio blurbs at Tech Crunch or Spiked, and searches for his name in the WPVG Google "reliable" search turn up 0 results (and 2 forum posts in the "situational" search). He works . I mean, I think his statement in the article is similar to other random opinions I've seen expressed online, but we don't include opinions just because someone has one. I hate to say this, but imagine the hate we would get if we sourced anti-GamerGate opinions to someone working at a PR firm, not to mention someone without a background in video games at all. ] (]) 05:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::You're right. We should also remove Ryan Smith, Lianna Kerzner, Erik Kain and Christina Hoff Sommers. It'll improve the article. ] (]) 06:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I know you're being facetious, but at least they have some kind of background relevant to the issue at hand. All I'm saying is that our bar for opinion sources shouldn't be as low as "do they have an opinion?". ] (]) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::I suggested earlier that we raise the bar for anybody's opinions to "has it been quoted by a separate reliable source"? IMO removing those opinions that a journalist has published in their column, and keeping only those that have had an impact on someone else, would have a large effect toward improving neutrality and proper weight to the article. ] (]) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::You're right, a political consultant has no business commenting on what's being described as a culture war. ] (]) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== PBS Brianna Wu interview Re: GamerGate ==
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gamergate-leads-death-threats-women-gaming-industry/

I just saw this on TV tonight. Maybe usable. Maybe just reiterative. You be the judge. -] (]) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== CinemaBlend - description of GamerGate positions ==

.

Selected quotes:

:{{cquote|Brad Wardell, the CEO of ] has openly come out in support of the #GamerGate movement: "The problem is that the gaming media gets more hits from demonizing game makers which makes their audience angry and causes them to lash out at the appointed villain. So contextless articles are written designed to make you hate someone, usually people that the article writer already has a problem with. "}}

:{{cquote|gamers felt as if the gaming community is losing the battle, and morale is dropping due to the larger media outlets not properly conveying what's really going on surrounding the #GamerGate controversy, painting the movement mostly as one designed to harass women. Many of the gamers are desperately pleading for developers to step forward and help them support #GamerGate in the open.}}

{{cquote|Additionally, a Riot Games employee also came forward to support #GamerGate: "I know you don't really need to hear this but please don't harass anyone” … “Having said that, I really appreciate that this whole thing exists and applaud the level headed and respectful ones among you. The thing I'm afraid of is that without a movement like this, another game like Fallout 2 might never see the light of day. For a game like that to get made everyone in the room has to be able to discuss what the experience of enslaving people and buying a prostitute for your mutant friend will be. I have a hard time imagining that conversation comfortably taking place today and that's really sad." The sentiment above about not being able to have those conversations has been reiterated twice before during the #GamerGate debacle by other developers}}

{{cquote|A developer from a post-Soviet Union country talked about this very thing, saying "Today we are on a crossroad. Direction A means w, as indie developers commit ourselves to censorship and Direction B means we keep our “artistic freedom."}}

{{cquote|Daniel Vavra, the writer and designer for Mafia and Mafia II currently working at Warhorse Studios on Kingdom Come: Deliverance, also spoke out on behalf of #GamerGate. "Assassin’s Creed had 5 different articles about its lack of a female character on the front page of an industry website in one day. Five! Next to each other. And we can continue: the Far Cry 4 cover “scandal,” Stanley Parable was accused of racism, Wildstar was accused of sexism, God of War, Hotline Miami, Bioshock, Divinity Original Sin, Witcher… Nobody ever dares to argue or protect his art, because it would mean instant accusation of misogyny/racism/homophobia/sexism… And then you realize that the people who are accusing others everyday have terrible conflicts of interests and very weird ethics. The pot calling the kettle black. And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. "}}

] (]) 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:So basically this is a few developers saying they don't like video game journalists criticizing their games for perceived issues of sexism, homophobia, etc., and they support GamerGate because they want video game journalists to stop criticizing their games.
:Such a commitment to journalism ethics I have never seen in my life. And by that I mean it's literally the opposite of a commitment to journalism ethics. ] (]) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::You know, that guy is sooo right . I have NEVER played a game that was any good at all that did not involve buying an alien prostitute for my friend. -- ] 06:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::This isn't a forum, we're not here to discuss the legitimacy or lack there of GamerGate, only how to best cover it. The questions are, are their opinions worth covering, and the reliability of that site (I'm not familiar with it). Just because you don't agree with some opinions doesn't mean you shouldn't cover it.] (]) 08:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:::You're making me uncomfortable.--] (]) 06:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::dont tell me the social justice warriors have gotten to you too? -- ] 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::Yes it is that, ''plus'' a RS quoting them and analyzing their words and placing them in context. I thought you said we cover what reliable sources write about, and it doesn't matter what we think of it? ] (]) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Sure, we can put in the article that some video game developers support Gamergate because they don't want video game journalists criticizing their games. If Gamergate wants to hoist itself on its own petard, who am I to stand in its way. ] (]) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:It looks like a decent source. I'm far from the best to judge that though. Here's job information http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Cinema-Blend-Jobs-328.html ] (]) 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Also on ] - and . ] (]) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::We can also note the response to this line of thinking, as expressed by :
:::{{cquote|"The demands for journalistic integrity coming from Gamergate have nothing at all to do with the systemic corruption of the gaming media. They've centered instead on journalists purportedly pursuing social-justice agendas and on ridiculous claims that the press sees gamers as vectors of social contagion. Some of the complaints, like the idea that outlets ought to reconsider their editorial positions if enough readers disagree with them, even stand in direct opposition to traditional journalistic ethics. ... The problem, in other words, isn't that journalists have agendas; it's that some of them have the wrong agendas.}}
:::{{cquote|What's funny about all this is that a true interrogation of the corruption of the gaming press would materially harm the status quo that Gamergate is fiercely trying to protect. If what you want is yet more games about space marines and orcs in which women serve as props and decoration, why go after the de facto marketing departments of the people who make them?}}
:::] (]) 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Isn't Deadspin a sports blog? ] (]) 06:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Isn't CinemaBlend a movie blog? ] (]) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Er, no. Despite its name, it describes itself as an "entertainment site. Reporting on movies, television, video games, and pop culture". ] (]) 08:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It appears to be mostly about movies, with perhaps one writer working on video games and republishing thinly-repackaged press releases. .
:::::::More to the point, it doesn't really matter what the blog is about; it's a valid opinion piece, just like the opinions expressed by video game developers. Kyle Wagner's opinion has been , which I'm pretty sure is more than you can say from anything from CinemaBlend. ] (]) 08:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::So, despite the shape of the arguments, this looks like an agreement to cover the opinions of pro-GG developers from the sources in this section, in the terms discussed. Let's see if we can write something down with them. ] (]) 11:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::They have two writers for video games, actually. ] (]) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Edit request on 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC) ==

{{edit requested}}

Change the photo of Zoe Quinn in the article from ] to ], as it is preferred by the subject and slightly more flattering than the candid photo where she's holding a bottle of beer.—] (]) 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As a sidebar, while these photographs have been uploaded with the express permission of the subject, is there some way we can request that she provide a simple portrait photograph of herself rather than these expressive and artistic selfies?—] (]) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:She posted the pictures + permissions on Twitter, so it might be possible to ask her via Twitter. ] (]) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::I had to make my Twitter private because the Gamergate hordes were angry at the shit I was writing here and as of they still are.—] (]) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== The Independant published an article on GamerGate ==

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/gamergate-personal-attacks-and-threats-have-to-stop-say-e3-organisers-9798264.html

I thinks E3 organizer's comments warrant mention. And some other opinions. ] (]) 11:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Breitbart / Yiannopoulos ==

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I think this makes a clear case for notability. Particularly, there seems to be a focus on how Breitbart / Yiannopoulous got involved early in the controversy and spread the tag, and on the leaked emails of the GameJournoPros list. Both of these topics should be in the article. ] (]) 14:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:Yiannopoulos and his role in GameJournoPros seems fair to mention but given how little impact that had on the resulting situation as well as still being an unfounded accusation (there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story as the claims have made) we can't give it a lot of weight. --] (]) 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:Hasn't it been established that the GamesJournoPros list doesn't mean jack squat in the long run and Yiannopoulos was acting just as he always does on Breitbart which is to say making shit up for publicity?—] (]) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::As some of the more mainstream summary reports of late have mentioned the discovery of this list which set some in motion some other aspects, a sentence or two mention is fine, but we don't need to dwell on it. (This arguably is also true now of TFCY issue too, it's a minor point in the larger narrative). --] (]) 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::It's noteworthy. ] (]) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::What they say about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos: "" and " and "” The mainstream response to B/Y is pretty much "yawn, nothing there", "hmmm, some presentation out of context -not exactly what you would expect from a journalist purportedly expounding on journalistic ethics" to "someone saw an opportunity to strike gold and get a rabidly tech savy audience by only reversing his opinion of them" to "yowsa! can you believe he is blaming the victims of the death threats????? " I am not really sure how you wan to fit that into the article. -- ] 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::It's like Kain wrote in Forbes in September: "". Mr. Y seems to fit this to a T.—] (]) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::And then there is this -- ] 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest at the top of "Role of journalists" we place:

{{Quotation|] is credited with early news coverage of the controversy, in which he criticized the politicization of video game culture,<ref name=CNN>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/living/gamergate-explainer/|title=Behind the furor over #Gamergate|last=Griggs|first=Brandon|work=CNN|date=2014-10-16|accessdate=2014-10-17}}</ref> <ref name=Metro>{{cite web|url=http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/15/gamergate-what-is-it-and-why-are-gamers-so-angry-4907102/|title=GamerGate – what is it, and why are gamers so angry?|work=Metro|date=2014-10-15|accessdate=2014-10-17}}</ref> and with leaking correspondence from GameJournoPros, an email list where members of the video game press discussed industry matters.<ref name=Recode>{{cite web|url=http://recode.net/2014/10/10/understanding-the-jargon-of-gamergate/|title=Understanding the Jargon of Gamergate|last=Johnson|first=Eric|work=Recode|date=2014-10-10|accessdate=2014-10-17}}</ref><ref name=ChinaTopix>{{cite web|url=http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/11272/20140919/scandal-gaming-community-secret-mailing-list-journalist-elites-revealed.htm|title=http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/11272/20140919/scandal-gaming-community-secret-mailing-list-journalist-elites-revealed.htm|last=Lirios|first=Dino|title=Scandal in the Gaming Community: Elite Gaming Journalists Collude to Censor Stories|work=ChinaTopix|date=2014-09-19|accessdate=2014-10-17}}</ref> Kyle Orland, the creator of the list, responded to the leak on ], admitting that he had acted unprofessionally in some correspondences.<ref name=ATGJP>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/|last=Orland|first=Kyle|title=Addressing allegations of “collusion” among gaming journalists|work=Ars Technica|date=2014-09-18|accessdate=2014-10-17}}</ref> Most members of the press saw the list as largely benign.<ref name=ForbesGJP>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/20/the-escapist-forums-brought-down-in-ddos-attack/|last=Kain|First=Erik|title=The Escapist #GamerGate Forums Brought Down In DDoS Attack|work=Forbes|date=2014-09-20|accessdate=2014-10-17}}</ref><ref name=WeekGJP>{{cite web|url=http://theweek.com/article/index/269377/intels-awful-capitulation-to-gamergates-sexist-thugs|last=Cooper|First=Ryan|title=Intel's awful capitulation to #gamergate's sexist thugs|work=The Week|date=2014-10-07|accessdate=2014-10-17}}</ref>}}

{{reflist-talk|close}}
] (]) 21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:kind of missing the major points of all the reliable sources coverage of his "work" , aren't you? -- ] 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:You are really cherrypicking the content that sheds the positive light on Yiannopoulos's writing when TRPoD has pointed out that everyone else doesn't think anything he's revealed is worth much in the long run and also how he previously referred to gamers as .—] (]) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::If you want to improve it, suggest changes. ] (]) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Again, like your whole proposed addition is just singing praises and casting the whole of the list in a bad light. Yiannopoulos may have inserted himself into the debate, but it does not seem like this proposed addition accurately depicts what has happened.—] (]) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:Your version is a bit POV there. It makes it sound like Orland copped to what Yiannopoulos was saying, when the truth is that he defended the list and said he felt it wasn't a big deal. Many commentators agreed on that front. We should note that Fudge weighed in as well, with Ryan Smith being more on the other side. We also have sources agreeing with the concerns about the list, so that should be mentioned as well.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::Orland did admit he acted improperly on the mailing list in some instances. I don't know quite how to phrase it. If somebody has a better way to write the paragraph, or things they want to add, I encourage them to do so. I changed it a bit. Is it better now? ] (]) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: seems to confirm that Milo has completely moved out of the role of "journalist" into the position of participant/advocate and toss any charade out the window. -- ] 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Just a head's up ==
{{hat|This is ]. ] <small>]</small> 22:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)}}
It seems like there is a furore growing over the announcement of a Postal-like game, which simply goes by the name "Hatred". Hopefully, it won't turn out to be another headache for you editors, but I would like to forewarn you of another possible sh*t-storm. {{unsignedip|‎203.106.158.198}}

:Sigh, how charming. It is already being tied to the larger Gamergate topic, too; "''An aspect of the current Gamergate argument is that core gamers are upset at critics for looking at video games as anything other than for fun. Now a video game pops up which identifies a game about sociopathy and mass shootings as a pure, gaming pleasure?''" - . ] (]) 15:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

::How has the left become so much like the right? ] (]) 15:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::We should not pay any mind to a video game expressly made by a Neo-Nazi/white supremacist group to bank on the Gamergate situation.—] (]) 16:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

::::Not sure if it's worth a mention ''yet'', but if it really is designed to simulate the killing of "social justice warriors", as the marketing implies, then down the road it may tie in to the larger hate screed of the gamergate crowd. ] (]) 16:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
{{hat|collapse per ]}}
:::::No, we should really never give a Neo-Nazi group the time of day.—] (]) 16:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::The Westboro Baptist Church and ISIS have wiki articles. ] (]) 16:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::The WBC and the Islamic State are not Neo-Nazi groups. The group behind ''Hatred'' is a Neo-Nazi group trying to cash in on Gamergate by going "we're not making a politically correct game, we're making a game where you get to kill brown people indiscriminately". If they do not gain notability, then they don't get mentioned.—] (]) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Your moral ranking of ISIS and WBC as better than neo-nazis is interesting. The group isn't known to be neo-nazi. One of their developers wore a Polish Defence League shirt. Perhaps they're simply more tolerant of differing opinions. Even if they are a neo-nazi group, so what? The solution to hateful expression is more freedom of expression. Anyway, this is not a forum. ] (]) 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I honestly don't know what the fuck you're trying to do here. People involved in the development of Hatred are espousing extreme right ideals in their video game and banking off of Gamergate's "we want games where you shoot people and not ones where there's a political message", not to mention the "Polish Defense League" . The Westboro Baptist Church's hatred of everyone and picketing funerals of people blaming the gays, Jews, blacks, etc. for all of the worlds' ills and the Islamic State's jihadist and genocidal actions across Syria and Iraq are terrible and '''you''' were the person to originally make a comparison here. The video game ''Hatred'' should not be given the time of day on this article unless it is actually tied into Gamergate and used as an example of the fact that the movement is a right wing hate group as well.—] (]) 17:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not trying to do anything. Oh, and clearly, this link Cathy Young provides in her Reason article points out that Gamergate is . Now let's stop. ] (]) 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::360 is not a suitable sample size. And there's so much else out there in the sources of this article and sources posted on this page during the protection that lead to the fact that it's a conservativistic reaction regardless of how many people with Guy Fawkes masks say they're libertarians.—] (]) 17:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:We should wait to see if the mainstream sources notice this and incorporate it into the narrative (I can see the potential for that happening but clearly not yet). --] (]) 16:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

: (which I note doesn't connect the game to GG), but would not include yet. --] (]) 17:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Did the guys who make this say that this was somehow tied into gg, or is that the newspapers? --] (]) 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Doesn't matter, all it takes is a few a freelancer to say it is, and you got it as fact on the Wiki article. ] (]) 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Edit request - delete Laurie Penny ==

Why is she in the article? . ] (]) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:Because she had something to say about it and she's a notable individual.—] (]) 16:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::Adam Baldwin is a notable individual and he's been covered much more than her, and he barely gets a mention. She shouldn't be in there. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::Penny is ] and ]. ] -- ] 17:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::In which case we should have no problem using ]' personal blog for information, too. ] (]) 19:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Yianopoulos's personal blog is full of things that Misplaced Pages cannot publish per ]. Laurie Penny's blog does not have that same stigma.—] (]) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::That doesn't mean it can't be sourced for non-BLP issues. ] (]) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Like what?—] (]) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other. Most other content about Adam Baldwin will probably violate BLP considering most people have to say about him in the media is that he's right wing.—] (]) 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::"Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other." And they clearly shouldn't. Penny is given undue weight. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Sign your fucking posts. And AFAIK, Adam Baldwin doesn't have anything to add to the discussion here that would not be violating BLP.—] (]) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::This is not about Adam Baldwin. This is about Laurie Penny. She doesn't deserve mention. ] (]) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::<small>if this is not about Baldwin, why did YOU bring him up? -- ] 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::::<small>I was contrasting her with him for notability. ] (]) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::::::<small>yes, he is more famous probably but famous actors are not where we go for content, other than maybe about acting. ] -- ] 20:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::::::Why doesn't she deserve mention though? mentions she had a bomb threat and vaguely references some other harassment she received, all long before Gamergate and in regards to her stances on feminism rather than video games. She's a mainstream journalist who had an opinion on this matter and not at all involved in video games. She's an external voice on the matter.—] (]) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::1. "long before Gamergate" This article is about Gamergate. 2. Again, only two articles. Look above at how many Yiannopoulos / Breitbart have and we're only going to be including a sentence or two.
::::::::She's just not noteworthy for this article. It doesn't make any sense to include her. ] (]) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::That's clearly your opinion and not held by the other editors of this article. Harassment she received before Gamergate does not mean that she cannot say anything about Gamergate.—] (]) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: If giving two sentences to a wide variety of sources is the norm, then by that norm, she'll be left out under due weight; if that's the type of numerical sourcing we require. It's also interesting to see Ryulong's thoughts on different people and due weight. ] (]) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::What do you mean by that?—] (]) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

== Mercedes Benz pulls advertising from Gawker ==

I really hope a media outlet mentions this, but this is as huge as the Intel thing.
It has just been confirmed a few minutes ago, obviously still no news, I'll just wait ] (]) 18:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also seen this, but i do not think its directly correlated to Gamergate as such. This was an, excuse my language, an idiotic statement from a senior official at Gawker, where he litteraly tweets that we wants to bully some nerds. This happened on bully awareness day(month?). I do not think it will be many people supporting this, gg or anti-gg as such.--] (]) 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:Eh, nah, it is definitely related to GamerGate. They were invoking it towards GamerGate and GamerGate supporters drew attention to this and bombarded advertisers with screen-caps of those tweets and those by other staff at Gawker Media.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::It's not directly related. Mercedes is pulling out because of the tweets promoting bullying. I'm fairly certain that even if those tweets didn't mention GamerGate at all, Mercedes still would have pulled out, provided it was brought to their attention. ] (]) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::If it gets attributed then it can be discussed in the article.—] (]) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::No mainstream note of yet, just Adland.tv: http://adland.tv/adnews/mercedes-pulls-advertising-gawker-network/1636503170 ] (]) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::: ] (]) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Also this Hope I did that right. ] (]) 23:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Probably not usable. And Milo is still questionable.—] (]) 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Something tells me Erik Kain will be among the few covering this soon, it's hilarious that the guy saying bring back bullying kept on mocking people yet when Mercedes pulled of he gave a half-apology ] (]) 23:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:What's not hilarious is that you feel the need to discuss living persons as if this is a forum. ] (]) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::No reliable sources have turned up to verify this, and Max Read, the current editor-in-chief of Gawker, seems to be pouring cold water on the issue, as he belives that Mercedes may not have been an active advertiser in the first place. Eventually we'll get independent confirmation one way or the other. - ] (]) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::A Jalopnik writer has stated on Twitter that Mercedes hasn't advertised on Gawker in four years. Either way, as Bilby noted, we can wait for reliable sources to comment. ] (]) 03:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Someone who handles some of their digital campaign states that Mercedes has ordered Gawker to be blacklisted. I wish it weren't the weekend. ] (]) 04:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be "pulling advertising" if such ads haven't existed in years. ] (]) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

== Adland ==
http://adland.tv/adnews/gamergate-moral-panic-resembles-90s-which-directly-affects-womens-career-choices/1629488701

Another person noting moral panic, like Allum Bokhari did, and reiterating that the controversy is hurting the industry, as Digitimes did. She ultimately puts the blame on the media. ] (]) 00:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

== More new articles ==

establishing that the issue of why GG started have been lingering in both VG and the general entertainment industry for a while.

speaking to a cyberthreat investor on how the tactics the GG side has used makes them difficult to prosecute.

.

. Note that I think I can pull from other sources that aren't just more from Wu to explain that one element that critics of GG point out is that these are people that do not appear to have an idea of the value of the human lives they are harming to make their opinion known.

that can be used to source out the games-as-art trend as part of the issue leading to GG, and the stuff around DQ.

on the ESA fully stating their opposition to the GG side (someone linked E3's organizers saying the same).

Just as a thought on my head, we are definitely going to refocus much of the structure of this - there are elements that were "important" early on but really no longer matter too much to the narrative representing by these newer sources. Also now that , there's talk other major sites will follow and this will likely lead to more media coverage towards that. --] (]) 01:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

:Apologies if this was covered already, but despite WaPo's title, the ESA never actually spoke out against GG, but rather condemned "threats of violence and harassment?" ] (]) 03:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::Your head has to be deeply buried somewhere if you are insisting that the threats of violence and harassment are not being attributed to Gamergate.—] (]) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::And even if we want to be that pedantic, we can clear state that the ESA spoke out about threats of violence and harassment shortly after the Sarkeenian shooting threat. --] (]) 03:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

in light of the GG demographic switch issue. We can't use those directly but we can easily recreate them as free images, and I think the one showing the male gamer as the minority now is a good one to include in conjunction with discussing this as a culture war. --] (]) 04:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

interviews Anita Sarkeesian in the wake of the Utah State University death threats.

on prominent voices speaking out against GamerGate (Seth Rogen, Patton Oswalt, Joss Whedon, etc.)

says "GamerGate has backfired spectacularly."

, Reuters' staff media critic, says Internet anonymity is partly to blame for the viciousness of GamerGate's trolls.


==Sanctions enforcement==
says that "more than anything else" GamerGate proves "the continuing prevalence of violent misogyny in popular culture."
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 12:00, 26 April 2035 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1840363256}}<!-- END PIN -->
All articles related to the ].


Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ].
No shortage of RSes on this now. ] (]) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) ] (UTC)</small>
== Restarting "Although these concerns proved unfounded" ==
{{hat|1=Despite whatever the movement wants to say, the allegations of corruption were indeed '''proven''' to be unounded.—] (]) 03:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)}}
'''Quoting archived section''':


== They/them pronoun confusion ==
:''Although these concerns proved unfounded
:How were the allegations proven wrong by what the accused journalist himself gave as his version of the story? What kind of proof is that? Is this the Bizarro World?
:All of the other papers simply quote the bit about Totilo having asked the man. Also, isn't the reputation of Totilo's website at stake? --Butter and Cream (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::Every single reliable source out there has recognized that Nathan Grayson never wrote anything about Depression Quest for Kotaku after he and Zoe Quinn began their intimate relationship. Gamergaters' concerns are over the fact that the two had a personal and platonic relationship when he wrote the GAME_JAM piece and this does not make a conflict of interest. The concerns about conflicts of interest were proven to be false. This has been addressed time and time, again, on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::They were friends long before they started their intimate relationship. You don't go from strangers to lovers in a second. Maybe the article is what got them together to begin with?
:::"I don't see any evidence of the concerns having been proven false. Even this knowledge you get from their own statements, don't you? --Butter and Cream (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Your unsourced speculation about a person's relationship status has no place in Misplaced Pages. Reliable sources have reported that the allegations of a conflict of interest are meritless and that's all we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)"
::::Here's what's been proven: Nathan Grayson never wrote any positive review for any video game ever worked on by Zoe Quinn before, during, or after their romantic relationship either in his position as a writer for Kotaku or any other website he has been involved with. The concerns that are contrary to this statement are what have been proved to be unfounded. Stop speculating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)''


As someone who is not familiar with gamergate, there are some parts of the article which are confusing because of how Quinn's they/them pronouns are used.
---
The lead currently contains the following sentence:


Gamergate began with an August 2014 blog entry called "The Zoe Post" by Quinn's ex-boyfriend, which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of <u>their</u> sexual relationship with a games journalist.
It's not speculation about relationships, but corruption. It's not a matter of giving a "good score", but getting the game out there to begin with. The game was made with a text-game making tool, and there are hundreds of games made with the system. Many of them are impressively large and well-made, thousandly more so than this text game we're talking about, yet they are mentioned absolutely nowhere.


The sentence gives the impression that it's about a sexual relationship between Quinn, Quinn's ex-boyfried, and a games journalist. I know it's because Quinn's pronouns are they/them but their pronouns haven't been mentioned yet in the text.
In addition, all you have repeated are their statements. Again, it's the defense's statements. There exist two sides, the prosecution and the defense. Both sides lie, why do you think only one does.


Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing:
The sentence "although these concerns proved unfounded" is unfounded. The truth is "although these concerns were claimed to be unfounded". --] (]) 03:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:There is no "prosecution" and this isn't a court of law. This is anonymous rumormongers on the Internet against verifiable statements of fact made by identifiable people and organizations. Your comparison is invalid and fails entirely. ] (]) 03:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Called "The Zoe Post", it was a lengthy, detailed account of <u>their</u> relationship and breakup that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages. The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for <u>their</u> sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a reporter for the gaming websites Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun.
{{hab}}
'''Quoting archived section:''' ]
:''Although these concerns proved unfounded''
:How were the allegations proven wrong by what the accused journalist himself gave as his version of the story? What kind of proof is that? Is this the Bizarro World?
:All of the other papers simply quote the bit about Totilo having asked the man. Also, isn't the reputation of Totilo's website at stake? --Butter and Cream (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::Every single reliable source out there has recognized that Nathan Grayson never wrote anything about Depression Quest for Kotaku after he and Zoe Quinn began their intimate relationship. Gamergaters' concerns are over the fact that the two had a personal and platonic relationship when he wrote the GAME_JAM piece and this does not make a conflict of interest. The concerns about conflicts of interest were proven to be false. This has been addressed time and time, again, on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:::They were friends long before they started their intimate relationship. You don't go from strangers to lovers in a second. Maybe the article is what got them together to begin with?
:::"I don't see any evidence of the concerns having been proven false. Even this knowledge you get from their own statements, don't you? --Butter and Cream (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Your unsourced speculation about a person's relationship status has no place in Misplaced Pages. Reliable sources have reported that the allegations of a conflict of interest are meritless and that's all we care about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)"
::::Here's what's been proven: Nathan Grayson never wrote any positive review for any video game ever worked on by Zoe Quinn before, during, or after their romantic relationship either in his position as a writer for Kotaku or any other website he has been involved with. The concerns that are contrary to this statement are what have been proved to be unfounded. Stop speculating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


I assume the first "their" is about the relationship between Quinn and Quinn's ex-boyfriend, and that the second "their" is about a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, but the second could still be interpreted as "Quinn's and Quinn's ex-boyfriends" sexual relationship.
---


I think these sentences should be written more clearly (by someone who knows what the sentences are supposed to mean). ] (]) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
'''Quoting section abusively closed:''' ]
:I agree. I've tried some very minor rewording - replaced the first "their" with "Quinn's" to read "which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of Quinn's sexual relationship with a games journalist", and removed the "their" from the second to give "The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for a sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson". Hopefully that reads better. - ] (]) 09:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


== Wired article concerning Gamergate and Kamala Harris ==
:It's not speculation about relationships, but corruption. It's not a matter of giving a "good score", but getting the game out there to begin with. The game was made with a text-game making tool, and there are hundreds of games made with the system. Many of them are impressively large and well-made, thousandly more so than this text game we're talking about, yet they are mentioned absolutely nowhere.
:In addition, all you have repeated are their statements. Again, it's the defense's statements. There exist two sides, the prosecution and the defense. Both sides lie, why do you think only one does.
:The sentence "although these concerns proved unfounded" is unfounded. The truth is "although these concerns were claimed to be unfounded". --80.220.107.202 (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::There is no "prosecution" and this isn't a court of law. This is anonymous rumormongers on the Internet against verifiable statements of fact made by identifiable people and organizations. Your comparison is invalid and fails entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


A discussion in ''Wired'' of the playbook that arose during the Gamergate campaign and how it has been used in other contexts '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 00:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
---


== Transphobia and attempted outting of Brianna Wu ==
This is a court of truth. The only statements you have are the statements from the accused and Totilo, the accused man's boss, whose credibility and employment is at stake.


Should it be added that several proponents of Gamergate attempted to out then stealth trans woman ] as part of the harassment campaign? ] (]) 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
It hasn't been proven one way or another. Claiming that it has, is falsification. I am not suggesting that we change it to the prosecution's version. I am suggesting we change it to the gray, middle ground version.


== Requested move 5 November 2024 ==
And Ryu, who closed the last one, are you really edit warring even on the talk page? --] (]) 04:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:''Every single mainstream reliable source'' has accepted the rebuttal that Kotaku, Grayson, and Quinn have said about the state of their relation to the claim that Quinn has a romantic relationship with Grayson to favor positive coverage of her game. There is zero evidence Grayson wrote anything close to a review anywhere during the time they were romantically involved (this is done by checking Kotaku and RPS archives and things like Wayback machine). As such, the only statement Misplaced Pages can make is the one mainstream press has made: the accusation was proven wrong. There is no middle ground here from reliable sources that you claim. --] (]) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::Mainstream sources have only reported what Totilo wrote. And there isn't need for "review score" to exist in the article. And I'm not here to prove whether it happened or not, I'm here to prove that no one proved that it absolutely didn't. There is a big difference. --] (]) 04:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::We aren't a court of law and we don't require "absolute" proof of anything. Reliable sources have repeatedly dismissed the allegations as unfounded if not outright falsified. Period. End of sentence.
:::By the way, what you're asking is for ], which is literally upside down and backward. The onus of proving the allegation is on the one who makes it. ] (]) 04:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::::You do need absolute proof for an absolute claim. There have been no reliable sources, as the reliable sources only quote a very unreliable source. That doesn't make it reliable. --] (]) 04:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::You can repeat this ad nauseaum but that doesn't make it any more true. It won't be removed. ] (]) 04:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Would you stop closing this? The admins ought to block you. --] (]) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:::It was proven not to have occured - there simply isn't any room to move. The accusation was that Grayson provided favourable coverage about Quinn while they were in a relationship, and that this was a breach of journalistic ethics. What was proven was that Grayson did not provide ''any'' coverage regarding Quinn while they were in a relationship. Accordingly there was no ethical breach. Even ''Brietbart'' has confirmed that there was no ethical breach , and they aren't exactly noted as being on Quinn's side. We need to drop this - unless something solid emerges that changes things, there is no value in discussing this, and I think we're getting to a point were airing further disproved accusations about Quinn and Grayson is a ] issue and should be treated accordingly. - ] (]) 04:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
::::But it was not proven not to have occurred and Totilo. All we have are statements from the accused. They knew each other for long before they formally declared a relationship. And how is that unrelated website, Breitbart, in any way related? --] (]) 04:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Stop using "accused".—] (]) 04:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::You ought to get blocked for close-warring. --] (]) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


I think this could be easily corrected by simply saying what Kotaku said - that they ''found no evidence'' that the relationship started before the article in question was written, because that's exactly what they said. ] (]) 05:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) The result of the move request was: '''Not moved'''. There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
----
:A synonym for an allegation with no evidence is "unfounded," and the words "unfounded," "false," "untrue" or "unsubstantiated" have been repeatedly used by reliable sources. ] (]) 05:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::'''.''' That's from '']'', one of the most respected news organizations on the planet. Are we done here yet? ] (]) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Now they resort to removing my additions. This is ridiculous. I wrote that I agreed with Titanium Dragon. Using the words the source used is the best approach. "Proven unfounded" is too much of an absolute. --] (]) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::And that is not a Guardian article. That is an interview. The title of the interview isn't even what you wrote it to be. --] (]) 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Gamergate}} – In ] (12 November 2014), there was no consensus to move to Gamergate due to recentism and whether it is the primary topic. In ], there was consensus to move the ant species to use its qualifier. It is now clear that there is no recentism issue, and the hatnote indicates this is the primary topic "GamerGate redirects here. For other uses, see Gamergate (disambiguation)." ] (]) 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
== Deadspin not reliable ==


*A nitpick on the "primary topic" bit: ]—that is, ] with 2 capital Gs—redirects here, as nobody writes "GamerGate" when discussing the ant. It doesn't mean that this article is the primary topic. ] is a disambiguation page. Also, there have been 6 move discussions since that 2014 discussion, so I wouldn't put too much stock into just "recentism". They're all under the "Other talk page banners" banner at the top of the page. ] (]) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/thanks-deadspin/ ] (]) 04:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I really don’t think anyone outside of biologists even knows “gamergate” is a type of ant. This isn’t like the infamous ] vs. ] debacle— one’s an obscure technical term and the other is an extremely infamous harassment campaign. ] (]) 00:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:As I've indicated above, save for Kotaku's statement about the Quinn/Grayson stuff, I am pretty confident we can avoid requiring any VG site sources, as well as avoiding Gawker sites (at least as sole sources), though ''not'' because of the above article, just that we can pretty much put this article on mainstream sources. --] (]) 04:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
*:agreed! ] (]) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm fine with leaving the Deadspin article out. We've got 80 million indisputable others that can say the same things. ] (]) 04:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom.--] (]) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as there is still data coming out about both topics and "obscure" is only of value as a term when used to demote the usage of something outside ones scope of knowledge. Gamergate as a caste of ant social structure is not going to go away at any point. The harassment campaign is over, and as the legacy section shows, each years coverage has moved more and more to basic level "compared to" analogies and a full lack of in-depth conversation. Recentism seems to clearly be applicable here.--]] ] 23:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Woodroar and Kevmin. This gets rehashed frequently, but there's still no policy-based reason to move the article from its current name. We should retain the disambiguation page at ] and keep this page as-is. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I suppose I'll add an official !vote here. The harassment campaign article currently gets more views than the ant article. And given the campaign's influence on the alt-right and later harassment and disinformation campaigns, I don't see that interest disappearing tomorrow or next year—but I also can't see it staying relevant forever. Every retrospective I've read puts it firmly in the past, not an ongoing event. The ant was named first and gamergate ants will almost certainly outlast the relevance of the harassment campaign, Misplaced Pages itself, and probably humans. I don't think it's a burden for searchers to land at a disambiguation page where they can see options for the harassment campaign and ant, or for the ''Adventure Time'' character or note about ]. I mean, to be fair, the camelcase ] redirect should probably go to the disambiguation page as well, just to help dispel that confusion. ] (]) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*:This won't stay relevant forever, but as long as culture war isn't over, this would be the primary topic in most people's head, and a contentious topic at that. I am hesitant to do a ] here, but I am quite sure culture war will continue for at least 20 years per ], it will be very useful to keep this as primary topic during that time. ] (]) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate. ]] 22:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate}}{{cn}} This seems to sit squarely in statements without data territory. You're saying nobody at all searches for the ant caste by its ''official name''??--]] ] 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Yeah, Not sure what sort of demographic group is searching for ant castes named Gamergate... unless they knew it was an ant and put (ant) at the end. ]] 05:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::The problem here is that "knowing to put (ant) at the end" is learned behavior for searching and editing on wikipedia, not innate search behavior taught in school or higher education. You are creating a ] that the ant is NOT a search topic ever and using that to endorse your position.--]] ] 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Gamergate was a decade ago already, periodically re-upped or mentioned in passing as a historic footnote to the alt-right. The ant is eternal. The "for other uses" at the top likely needs refining is all I would say. And, unrelated to this specifically, the article long ago needed a rewrite. ] (]) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' “the ant will always be relevant” is technically true, but dismissing Gamergate the harassment campaign as just something that will fade away in ''x'' years is ]. If we took this ''ad absurdum'', you could say the primary topic of ''Mario'' being ] is recentism, because ] has been around much longer, but that is obviously silly because there’s only one “Mario” most people are thinking of when they type it in. Similarly, who is seriously searching for information on a type of ant when they look up “gamergate”? None of the first-page hits on DuckDuckGo are for the ant besides its Misplaced Pages page. ] (]) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:It already has faded away and is referenced in the past tense. It was a thing that happened briefly a decade ago. The people searching Gamergate for ants (or writing thesis, or producing research content, or studying entomology) are the same ones doing it before 2016, and will continue to do so forever because it is, like, science. This does not mean Gamergate ceases to be mentioned, or doesn't generate hits or search results - and why prior consensus agreed on the disambiguation. This is also why the sentence {{tq|In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic}} exists. Mario meanwhile is covered later by the statement: {{tq|Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes; for example, ] is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article}} of WP:PRIMARY. ] (]) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*::“Happened in the past” is not a measure of relevance any more than happening in the present is. Is ] irrelevant because it only lasted a few days? Is Randy In Boise’s Junkyard Band relevant because they’re currently touring garages in the vicinity of ]? ] (]) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::It very specifically is a measure of long term relevance as referenced in the example of Apple Inc vs Apple. The significance of coverage of the event confers notability for the creation of an article. After the event, the significance is maintained through repeated coverage. Woodstock (as the given example) has persistent, repeated, significant and notable coverage and new significant material produced about it annually (along with insignificant and non-notable coverage where it is merely referenced). Gamergate as a harassment campaign isn't. Gamergate occasionally comes up in single instances of research, commonly referenced as a precursor to some element of the Alt Right - but the topic itself isn't discussed, rather it is used as a bellwether type event. There are typically articles written from time to time with titles such as "What we didn't learn from Gamergate" etc but there is little meaningful content (either about the victims, the actions, and certainly not the perpetrators beyond the speculative attribution of the thing to a group of people who may or may not be now a part of another thing). In contrast (per example previous) Apple Inc is likely the most searched topic, the most routinely covered and so on - but an Apple is an ], Valve is a ], just as a Gamergate should be a Gamergate. ] (]) 01:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Except nobody knows what a gamergate ''is'' besides an entomologist. It isn’t even considered a valid word by my spellcheck, i.e, it’s an obscure technical term almost nobody uses. ] (]) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Arguments from incredulity do not really give any traction to your point though (you not looking for the Caste =/= NO ONE searches for the caste). Policy is where changes come from, and as it stands now, there is a continually decreasing amount of novel coverage for the harassment campaign, while the ant caste isn't going to go anywhere an has the lasting persistence of science topics.--]] ] 18:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Bkonrad’s argument directly below is concrete evidence that almost nobody is looking for the ant. The opposes are many, but they’re all based on four main arguments: “]” “]” “]” and “]”; these are all vague and subjective in their importance. ] (]) 07:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Bkonrad’s argument missed all the points the {{yo|KoA}} provided regarding the nuance of flash in the pan events vrs established topics with lasting use in a field. A situation you also are ignoring,--]] ] 19:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Yes, there is a small population of individuals in a narrow field of study who might use the term with some frequency (some of whom are apparently thin-skinned enough to get bent out of shape that more people are interested in other things). This niche technical term in is dwarfed by the overwhelming disparity in what readers of this encyclopedia are looking for. Any comparison with Apple (fruit) vs Apple (company) is without merit. Nearly every speaker of English knows what the Apple fruit is, even if the company generates more traffic. For gamergate, it is likely less than .01% of English speakers who know about (or might ever think to look up) the ant-related topic. ] ≠ ] 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is a bit ridiculous. The and show pretty overwhelmingly what readers are looking for in this case and it is not ants. The ants can be added specifically to the hatnote in addition to the dab so readers looking for the ant are still only one click aways just as they would be with the current setup. ] ≠ ] 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', if we can make a compromise, why not rename the ant article to Gamergate (insect/or ant)? ] (]) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' Nothing that prior to this comment, the other affected page on the ants was never notified. That's an inappropriate ] in terms of notification when comments are being made about the ants while leaving out the audience that would be most knowledgeable about it when discussing ] and focusing instead on only this page's audience instead. I didn't notice this was going on until I stopped over at the disambig page's talk today. I'll put notifications up shortly. ] (]) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Idk what that means ] (]) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*::@]; Primary topic grabs typically require multi-page moves, but if they don't, it is still courtesy to notify the other pages listed on the disambiguation. ] (]) 07:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While this topic certainly still gets mentioned, coverage has declined sharply; it seems silly to suggest that it would be more appropriate as the main article than it was a decade ago when it was in full-swing. --] (]) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose.''' per ]. It's one thing to have the current disambiguation setup, but to call the harassment topic the primary topic would be a huge pardigm shift from previous discussions that isn't reflected here. I'll get into the substance below, but this does feel like a bludgeon for editors at the ant page not wanting to have to deal with a controversial topic. Over the last 10 years, this page has had a lot of controversy over its title and ambiguity on what to call itself to the point moratoriums have been put in place on RMs partially to give the ant topic a break. For the harassment topic to suddenly be the primary, there would have to be something huge that changed that wasn't covered ad nauseum in all the past RMs. Here's the history I had from the last RM below:
*#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1041117019#Requested_move_20_August_2021
*#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1039653835#Requested_move_12_August_2021
*#]
*#]
*#] (moratorium put in place on requested moves)
*#]
*#]
*#]
*#]
*#]
*:This initial proposal leaves out a lot of what actually happened in the , but the core issue here is that comments in support aren't really addressing the core issues found in the last move. It wasn't primarily a matter of recentism, but instead rangling with two aspects of PTOPIC:
*#{{tq|A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.}}
*#{{tq|A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.}}
*:For the time being, the harassment campaign has higher views in terms of PT1, but all of our guidance related to views, search hits, etc. have strong cautions against carte blanche use of those stats, especially in terms of ] and our internet audience where internet topics like the harassment topic are going to be more popular. For PT2 though, that's where the ant has a pretty clear case. Previous closes were clear too {{tq|it is apparent that a clear majority of the community would prefer a primary topic in favour of long-term significance}}. Personally I think that puts the ant squarely as the primary topic even when weighing all of that with an even hand. With that said, the harassment campaign over 10 years never had primary topic status, though in the 2021 RM, it was just split down the middle to have a disambiguation page instead of having the ant as the primary topic. That at least did stop the RMs for a time, but I'm not seeing anything here that would suggest that something has majorly changed on that side since 2021.
*:The other issue I'm seeing is the naming of the harassment campaign regardless of the ants. All the RMs I mentioned above show the history of how much the topic title has morphed and been contentious. Calling it the harassment campaign parenthetical seemed to finally settle that down, but undoing that is going to increase the ambiguity again. At the end of the day, the last RM at least made it so no one is astonished. You type Gamergate into the search and you're either going to see the two options you want already Gamergate (ant) or Gamergate (harassment campaign). If you click the first result, you get the disambiguation page which guides you even more. Unless there's a major resurgence of Gamergate-related harassment in coming years that truly adds to the event, it's pretty hard for it to leap-frog two levels up to the definitive primary topic. ] (]) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I thought I'd revive a bit I wrote at the last RM that actually focuses on the ant side of things.
*::A gamergate is a worker ant that is able to reproduce, which the article outlines as unique for most ant species. This currently impacts all individuals of species within at least five ] and 17 ] (as opposed to only a of subset of individuals within the species ] for the harassment event). For the ants (or really any biological trait this fixed in multiple species), there is not a ] this million-year+ old trait will just suddenly disappear and stop affecting all of these species. In fact, that CRYSTAL policy specifically calls out such arguments as a violation: {{tq|Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections.}} When scientists name these traits, they are generally also stable in usage ] is a similar example of these terminology being common in biology.
*::Much of this long-term impact is something inherent to ]/biology topics and is why PTOPIC also mentions long-term education aspects being of higher value. On that note, ant gamergates are something that’s likely to come up in biology textbooks when discussing ant colonies since ] animals are often a common example in varying degrees for both kids and college students. It might be a footnote in more basic biology books, but if you get into common intro-level courses at say college, this kind of thing can easily come up in sections dealing with insect diversity.
*::While common usage metrics have consistently been an issue for this discussion, looking at scholarly metrics helps. Google Scholar is well known, but generally not that reliable for things like citation metrics, etc. because they include a lot of non-scholarly sources. is usually a more conservative (scientifically, not political) search engine in that regard. Just typing in gamergate gave 189 articles (49 more than in 2021). Of these, 94 mostly focus on the gamergate ant, and 95 involved the harassment topic. That's giving the harassment topic a handicap since that includes mere mentions of Gamergate in that context in the search parameters. That paints a very different picture than those haphazardly using Google searches. At the least academic attention (or use) isn't any higher for the harassment topic, so you'd be hard pressed to call that the primary topic based on search hits. ] is what really anchors discussion here. ] (]) 21:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per KoA and others, the fact that people are finding the article they are interested in via the disambiguation and also learning about other uses supports retention of status quo. ] (]) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. While the harassment campaign is more notable in tv news and right-wing twitter/X/parler, it is not necessarily so world-wide, and most importantly, in the scholarly literature. See also: . Misplaced Pages is a scholarship-driven institution, and harassment of video game journalists is not any more important than entomology in the world of scholarship. Keep the disambiguation page, and keep these two pages (ant) and (harassment campaign) disambiguated. —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Pure pageviews and Google hits are not the sole criterion of primary topics. As per others, mentions of the ants and the harassers are pretty balanced in scholarship, if not having the ants come out on top. Can we put a permanent moratorium on move discussions now? The "harassment campaign" part of the title gives ] editors a good reason to keep attempting this move for the foreseeable future. ] (]) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Leave how the title is and don't change it, or change it to "GamerGate". I'm only speaking for the title, btw. ] • (]&#124;]). 05:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 05:19, 26 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The purpose of this talk page is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article itself. This page is not for discussing this talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Meta subpage for that. The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action. Info on changes to the reference list are here: Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Reference Info.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources.
In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconVideo games Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet culture High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
          Other talk page banners
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Miscellany for deletionDraft:Gamergate controversy was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2017. The result of the discussion was redirect.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Section sizes
Section size for Gamergate (harassment campaign) (30 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 7,541 7,541
History 12 24,309
Zoë Quinn and Depression Quest 8,673 8,673
Anita Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games 4,118 4,118
Brianna Wu 2,212 2,212
Other targets of harassment 4,785 4,785
Coordination of harassment 4,509 4,509
Demographics 1,742 1,742
Organization 6,299 14,975
Harassment and Twitter 2,598 2,598
Efforts to affect public perceptions 3,442 3,442
Targeting advertisers 1,100 1,100
Sad Puppies 1,536 1,536
Purpose and goals 8,966 8,966
Social, cultural, and political impact 3,100 20,723
Gamer identity 6,370 6,370
Misogyny and sexism 6,365 6,365
Law enforcement 4,888 4,888
Gaming industry response 6,868 6,868
Representation in media 3,227 3,227
Reducing online harassment 2,438 2,438
Legacy 10,955 34,354
2015–2018 5,223 5,223
2019 4,618 4,618
2020–2021 4,176 4,176
2022–present 9,382 9,382
See also 180 180
Notes 24 24
References 111,543 111,543
External links 1,105 1,105
Total 237,995 237,995
Reference ideas for Gamergate (harassment campaign)The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Sanctions enforcement

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

All articles related to the Gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

They/them pronoun confusion

As someone who is not familiar with gamergate, there are some parts of the article which are confusing because of how Quinn's they/them pronouns are used. The lead currently contains the following sentence: 

Gamergate began with an August 2014 blog entry called "The Zoe Post" by Quinn's ex-boyfriend, which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of their sexual relationship with a games journalist.

The sentence gives the impression that it's about a sexual relationship between Quinn, Quinn's ex-boyfried, and a games journalist. I know it's because Quinn's pronouns are they/them but their pronouns haven't been mentioned yet in the text.

Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing: 

Called "The Zoe Post", it was a lengthy, detailed account of their relationship and breakup that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages. The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for their sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a reporter for the gaming websites Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun.

I assume the first "their" is about the relationship between Quinn and Quinn's ex-boyfriend, and that the second "their" is about a relationship between Quinn and Grayson, but the second could still be interpreted as "Quinn's and Quinn's ex-boyfriends" sexual relationship.

I think these sentences should be written more clearly (by someone who knows what the sentences are supposed to mean). Paditor (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried some very minor rewording - replaced the first "their" with "Quinn's" to read "which falsely insinuated that Quinn had received a favorable review because of Quinn's sexual relationship with a games journalist", and removed the "their" from the second to give "The blog falsely implied that Quinn received a favorable review of Depression Quest in exchange for a sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson". Hopefully that reads better. - Bilby (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wired article concerning Gamergate and Kamala Harris

A discussion in Wired of the playbook that arose during the Gamergate campaign and how it has been used in other contexts Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia and attempted outting of Brianna Wu

Should it be added that several proponents of Gamergate attempted to out then stealth trans woman Brianna Wu as part of the harassment campaign? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a consensus here that the harassment campaign is not a primary topic  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate – In /Archive 13#Requested moves (12 November 2014), there was no consensus to move to Gamergate due to recentism and whether it is the primary topic. In Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021, there was consensus to move the ant species to use its qualifier. It is now clear that there is no recentism issue, and the hatnote indicates this is the primary topic "GamerGate redirects here. For other uses, see Gamergate (disambiguation)." Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  • A nitpick on the "primary topic" bit: GamerGate—that is, camel case with 2 capital Gs—redirects here, as nobody writes "GamerGate" when discussing the ant. It doesn't mean that this article is the primary topic. Gamergate is a disambiguation page. Also, there have been 6 move discussions since that 2014 discussion, so I wouldn't put too much stock into just "recentism". They're all under the "Other talk page banners" banner at the top of the page. Woodroar (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support I really don’t think anyone outside of biologists even knows “gamergate” is a type of ant. This isn’t like the infamous Bill O’Riley vs. Bill O’Riley debacle— one’s an obscure technical term and the other is an extremely infamous harassment campaign. Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    agreed! Laugoose (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there is still data coming out about both topics and "obscure" is only of value as a term when used to demote the usage of something outside ones scope of knowledge. Gamergate as a caste of ant social structure is not going to go away at any point. The harassment campaign is over, and as the legacy section shows, each years coverage has moved more and more to basic level "compared to" analogies and a full lack of in-depth conversation. Recentism seems to clearly be applicable here.--Kevmin § 23:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Woodroar and Kevmin. This gets rehashed frequently, but there's still no policy-based reason to move the article from its current name. We should retain the disambiguation page at Gamergate and keep this page as-is. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suppose I'll add an official !vote here. The harassment campaign article currently gets more views than the ant article. And given the campaign's influence on the alt-right and later harassment and disinformation campaigns, I don't see that interest disappearing tomorrow or next year—but I also can't see it staying relevant forever. Every retrospective I've read puts it firmly in the past, not an ongoing event. The ant was named first and gamergate ants will almost certainly outlast the relevance of the harassment campaign, Misplaced Pages itself, and probably humans. I don't think it's a burden for searchers to land at a disambiguation page where they can see options for the harassment campaign and ant, or for the Adventure Time character or note about GamersGate. I mean, to be fair, the camelcase GamerGate redirect should probably go to the disambiguation page as well, just to help dispel that confusion. Woodroar (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    This won't stay relevant forever, but as long as culture war isn't over, this would be the primary topic in most people's head, and a contentious topic at that. I am hesitant to do a WP:CRYSTAL here, but I am quite sure culture war will continue for at least 20 years per WP:RECENT#WP:20YEARTEST, it will be very useful to keep this as primary topic during that time. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate. Scuba 22:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate This seems to sit squarely in statements without data territory. You're saying nobody at all searches for the ant caste by its official name??--Kevmin § 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, Not sure what sort of demographic group is searching for ant castes named Gamergate... unless they knew it was an ant and put (ant) at the end. Scuba 05:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The problem here is that "knowing to put (ant) at the end" is learned behavior for searching and editing on wikipedia, not innate search behavior taught in school or higher education. You are creating a strawman argument that the ant is NOT a search topic ever and using that to endorse your position.--Kevmin § 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gamergate was a decade ago already, periodically re-upped or mentioned in passing as a historic footnote to the alt-right. The ant is eternal. The "for other uses" at the top likely needs refining is all I would say. And, unrelated to this specifically, the article long ago needed a rewrite. Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment “the ant will always be relevant” is technically true, but dismissing Gamergate the harassment campaign as just something that will fade away in x years is WP:CRYSTAL. If we took this ad absurdum, you could say the primary topic of Mario being the video game character is recentism, because the name itself has been around much longer, but that is obviously silly because there’s only one “Mario” most people are thinking of when they type it in. Similarly, who is seriously searching for information on a type of ant when they look up “gamergate”? None of the first-page hits on DuckDuckGo are for the ant besides its Misplaced Pages page. Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    It already has faded away and is referenced in the past tense. It was a thing that happened briefly a decade ago. The people searching Gamergate for ants (or writing thesis, or producing research content, or studying entomology) are the same ones doing it before 2016, and will continue to do so forever because it is, like, science. This does not mean Gamergate ceases to be mentioned, or doesn't generate hits or search results - and why prior consensus agreed on the disambiguation. This is also why the sentence In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic exists. Mario meanwhile is covered later by the statement: Non-encyclopedic uses of a term are irrelevant for primary topic purposes; for example, Twice is about a Korean pop band, despite the existence of the common English word "twice", as the latter is not a topic suitable for an encyclopedic article of WP:PRIMARY. Koncorde (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    “Happened in the past” is not a measure of relevance any more than happening in the present is. Is Woodstock irrelevant because it only lasted a few days? Is Randy In Boise’s Junkyard Band relevant because they’re currently touring garages in the vicinity of Ada County? Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    It very specifically is a measure of long term relevance as referenced in the example of Apple Inc vs Apple. The significance of coverage of the event confers notability for the creation of an article. After the event, the significance is maintained through repeated coverage. Woodstock (as the given example) has persistent, repeated, significant and notable coverage and new significant material produced about it annually (along with insignificant and non-notable coverage where it is merely referenced). Gamergate as a harassment campaign isn't. Gamergate occasionally comes up in single instances of research, commonly referenced as a precursor to some element of the Alt Right - but the topic itself isn't discussed, rather it is used as a bellwether type event. There are typically articles written from time to time with titles such as "What we didn't learn from Gamergate" etc but there is little meaningful content (either about the victims, the actions, and certainly not the perpetrators beyond the speculative attribution of the thing to a group of people who may or may not be now a part of another thing). In contrast (per example previous) Apple Inc is likely the most searched topic, the most routinely covered and so on - but an Apple is an Apple, Valve is a Valve, just as a Gamergate should be a Gamergate. Koncorde (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Except nobody knows what a gamergate is besides an entomologist. It isn’t even considered a valid word by my spellcheck, i.e, it’s an obscure technical term almost nobody uses. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Arguments from incredulity do not really give any traction to your point though (you not looking for the Caste =/= NO ONE searches for the caste). Policy is where changes come from, and as it stands now, there is a continually decreasing amount of novel coverage for the harassment campaign, while the ant caste isn't going to go anywhere an has the lasting persistence of science topics.--Kevmin § 18:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Bkonrad’s argument directly below is concrete evidence that almost nobody is looking for the ant. The opposes are many, but they’re all based on four main arguments: “it’s too old” “it’s too new” “it’s the status quo” and “the ant is just more worthy”; these are all vague and subjective in their importance. Dronebogus (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Bkonrad’s argument missed all the points the @KoA: provided regarding the nuance of flash in the pan events vrs established topics with lasting use in a field. A situation you also are ignoring,--Kevmin § 19:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, there is a small population of individuals in a narrow field of study who might use the term with some frequency (some of whom are apparently thin-skinned enough to get bent out of shape that more people are interested in other things). This niche technical term in is dwarfed by the overwhelming disparity in what readers of this encyclopedia are looking for. Any comparison with Apple (fruit) vs Apple (company) is without merit. Nearly every speaker of English knows what the Apple fruit is, even if the company generates more traffic. For gamergate, it is likely less than .01% of English speakers who know about (or might ever think to look up) the ant-related topic. older ≠ wiser 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a bit ridiculous. The page views and wikinav show pretty overwhelmingly what readers are looking for in this case and it is not ants. The ants can be added specifically to the hatnote in addition to the dab so readers looking for the ant are still only one click aways just as they would be with the current setup. older ≠ wiser 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, if we can make a compromise, why not rename the ant article to Gamergate (insect/or ant)? Cburt777 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nothing that prior to this comment, the other affected page on the ants was never notified. That's an inappropriate WP:VOTESTACK in terms of notification when comments are being made about the ants while leaving out the audience that would be most knowledgeable about it when discussing WP:PTOPIC and focusing instead on only this page's audience instead. I didn't notice this was going on until I stopped over at the disambig page's talk today. I'll put notifications up shortly. KoA (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Idk what that means Cburt777 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Cburt777; Primary topic grabs typically require multi-page moves, but if they don't, it is still courtesy to notify the other pages listed on the disambiguation. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While this topic certainly still gets mentioned, coverage has declined sharply; it seems silly to suggest that it would be more appropriate as the main article than it was a decade ago when it was in full-swing. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. per WP:PTOPIC. It's one thing to have the current disambiguation setup, but to call the harassment topic the primary topic would be a huge pardigm shift from previous discussions that isn't reflected here. I'll get into the substance below, but this does feel like a bludgeon for editors at the ant page not wanting to have to deal with a controversial topic. Over the last 10 years, this page has had a lot of controversy over its title and ambiguity on what to call itself to the point moratoriums have been put in place on RMs partially to give the ant topic a break. For the harassment topic to suddenly be the primary, there would have to be something huge that changed that wasn't covered ad nauseum in all the past RMs. Here's the history I had from the last RM below:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1041117019#Requested_move_20_August_2021
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1039653835#Requested_move_12_August_2021
    3. Talk:Gamergate_(ant)/Archive_1#Requested_move_28_December_2015
    4. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_45#Requested_move_30_August_2015
    5. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_46#Requested_move_20_September_2015 (moratorium put in place on requested moves)
    6. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_32#How_about_calling_this_article_.22GamerGate.22
    7. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_30#.22Movement.22_or_.22Controversy.22
    8. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_28#Requested_move_14_February_2015
    9. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_13#Requested_moves
    10. Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_37#Requested_move_15_May_2015
    This initial proposal leaves out a lot of what actually happened in the last RM, but the core issue here is that comments in support aren't really addressing the core issues found in the last move. It wasn't primarily a matter of recentism, but instead rangling with two aspects of PTOPIC:
    1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
    2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
    For the time being, the harassment campaign has higher views in terms of PT1, but all of our guidance related to views, search hits, etc. have strong cautions against carte blanche use of those stats, especially in terms of WP:NWFCTM and our internet audience where internet topics like the harassment topic are going to be more popular. For PT2 though, that's where the ant has a pretty clear case. Previous closes were clear too it is apparent that a clear majority of the community would prefer a primary topic in favour of long-term significance. Personally I think that puts the ant squarely as the primary topic even when weighing all of that with an even hand. With that said, the harassment campaign over 10 years never had primary topic status, though in the 2021 RM, it was just split down the middle to have a disambiguation page instead of having the ant as the primary topic. That at least did stop the RMs for a time, but I'm not seeing anything here that would suggest that something has majorly changed on that side since 2021.
    The other issue I'm seeing is the naming of the harassment campaign regardless of the ants. All the RMs I mentioned above show the history of how much the topic title has morphed and been contentious. Calling it the harassment campaign parenthetical seemed to finally settle that down, but undoing that is going to increase the ambiguity again. At the end of the day, the last RM at least made it so no one is astonished. You type Gamergate into the search and you're either going to see the two options you want already Gamergate (ant) or Gamergate (harassment campaign). If you click the first result, you get the disambiguation page which guides you even more. Unless there's a major resurgence of Gamergate-related harassment in coming years that truly adds to the event, it's pretty hard for it to leap-frog two levels up to the definitive primary topic. KoA (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I thought I'd revive a bit I wrote at the last RM that actually focuses on the ant side of things.
    A gamergate is a worker ant that is able to reproduce, which the article outlines as unique for most ant species. This currently impacts all individuals of species within at least five subfamilies and 17 genera (as opposed to only a of subset of individuals within the species Homo sapiens for the harassment event). For the ants (or really any biological trait this fixed in multiple species), there is not a reasonable doubt this million-year+ old trait will just suddenly disappear and stop affecting all of these species. In fact, that CRYSTAL policy specifically calls out such arguments as a violation: Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections. When scientists name these traits, they are generally also stable in usage Mermithergate is a similar example of these terminology being common in biology.
    Much of this long-term impact is something inherent to WP:SCHOLARSHIP/biology topics and is why PTOPIC also mentions long-term education aspects being of higher value. On that note, ant gamergates are something that’s likely to come up in biology textbooks when discussing ant colonies since eusocial animals are often a common example in varying degrees for both kids and college students. It might be a footnote in more basic biology books, but if you get into common intro-level courses at say college, this kind of thing can easily come up in sections dealing with insect diversity.
    While common usage metrics have consistently been an issue for this discussion, looking at scholarly metrics helps. Google Scholar is well known, but generally not that reliable for things like citation metrics, etc. because they include a lot of non-scholarly sources. Web of Science is usually a more conservative (scientifically, not political) search engine in that regard. Just typing in gamergate gave 189 articles (49 more than in 2021). Of these, 94 mostly focus on the gamergate ant, and 95 involved the harassment topic. That's giving the harassment topic a handicap since that includes mere mentions of Gamergate in that context in the search parameters. That paints a very different picture than those haphazardly using Google searches. At the least academic attention (or use) isn't any higher for the harassment topic, so you'd be hard pressed to call that the primary topic based on search hits. WP:PT2 is what really anchors discussion here. KoA (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per KoA and others, the fact that people are finding the article they are interested in via the disambiguation and also learning about other uses supports retention of status quo. Shyamal (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PTOPIC. While the harassment campaign is more notable in tv news and right-wing twitter/X/parler, it is not necessarily so world-wide, and most importantly, in the scholarly literature. See also: Ngrams for GamerGate vs Gamergate vs gamergate. Misplaced Pages is a scholarship-driven institution, and harassment of video game journalists is not any more important than entomology in the world of scholarship. Keep the disambiguation page, and keep these two pages (ant) and (harassment campaign) disambiguated. — Shibbolethink 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pure pageviews and Google hits are not the sole criterion of primary topics. As per others, mentions of the ants and the harassers are pretty balanced in scholarship, if not having the ants come out on top. Can we put a permanent moratorium on move discussions now? The "harassment campaign" part of the title gives WP:SPA editors a good reason to keep attempting this move for the foreseeable future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Leave how the title is and don't change it, or change it to "GamerGate". I'm only speaking for the title, btw. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 05:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: