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 19:43, 4 November 2014 view sourceMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,436 edits →Nature of the controversy← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:19, 26 December 2024 view source Sangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,463 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 = 12
{{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(1d)
{{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."
| author2 = David Jenkins
| title2 = 2014: Video gaming’s worst year ever
| org2 = ]
| url2 = http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/20/2014-video-gamings-worst-year-ever-4912543/
| date2 = 20 October 2014
| quote2 = "The Misplaced Pages entry is as good as any at explaining the basics, and shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer’s ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you’d find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day." }}
{{Gamergate sanctions|brief=yes}}
{{round in circles}}
{{Archives}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=1|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
== RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy) ==
| destination4 = Gamergate
{{notavote}}
| result4 = Withdrawn
{{rfc|media|rfcid=4B22F03}}
| link4 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 45#Requested move 30 August 2015
Is it possible that in an article about a two-sided issue where one side has received the majority of the positive coverage to be too biased in favor of that larger coverage? --] (]) 05:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) <small>For the bot. --] (]) 23:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
| date4 = August 30, 2015


| from5 = Gamergate controversy
===Statement===
| destination5 = Gamergate (sexist terrorism)
Gamergate itself is highly controversial, and one of the issues with covering it is that one side (pro- Gamergate, or proGG) is from numerous anonymous users without any clear leadership, has had some members engage in harassment attacks against women (which the media frowns on), and has argued the media itself is biased. The limited sourcing that supports proGG typically are at the weak end, and/or fail our normal reliable sources policies. As such, the near unanimity of reliable sources paint the story in favor of the anti Gamergate/antiGG side and do not give a lot of equal coverage to the proGG side. This is not in doubt, and we are very clear that this article can never be 50/50 unbiased between the two sides. It is also very clear that the article is going to have to talk about the media's highly critical response to the harassment (eg. calling proGG as sexism and misogynistic) as this is part of the actual narrative as opposed to analysis (as proGG's responded to these charges with various actions). So we are, for some parts, going to have statements that we attribute to the mainstream media that are critical of that side.
| result5 = POINT close
| link5 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 46#Requested move 19 September 2015
| date5 = September 19, 2015


| from6 = Gamergate controversy
This of course has brought in a number of SPAs and IP editors, influenced by offsite posts, to try to point out the bias in this article and to try to make it more proGG friendly. We have extensively pointed out we cannot flip the narrative that far around because the mainstream media has not treated the story like that. The proGG has had some favorable or detailed coverage, as to avoid it being a FRINGE viewpoint, but again, having 50/50 in this article is completely impossible by our sourcing and core content policies.
| 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)
That said, I have argued that while we cannot give proGG any more coverage, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. Technically this all fits within our sourcing and content policies, but there's something wrong when it can be argued "well, there's no proGG sources, but there's plenty of antiGG sources, so lets keep adding those". This has cleared been a fact resonated in the main proGG offsite forums that are extremely disappointed with this article in how it paints them. (Please note: one has to take care in considering these offsite opinions as they range all over the spectrum, but there are people that are very coherent that have expressed very valid concerns on how bad the bias seems on this article). I have tried to point out that we should be clinically/detached neutral, which means we should not be repeating the praising that the antiGG side and berating the proGG side. The counterargument that has been used here by those that think there is no bias is that UNDUE/WEIGHT supports this approach, since the near-majority of sources are in that direction.
| 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
The question I pose here is two fold:
|from_oldid2 = 644251654
1) Even considering ]/], when one side of a debate is overwhelming positively covered by sources and the other side is not, is it possible to push the widely-covered side too much to create bias in the opposite direction?
|to2 = Gamergate controversy
2) Does this article on GamerGate demonstrate this type of bias?
|to_diff2 = 644253492
Note that previous DR attempts have been made but rejected, and while the next step might be ArbCom, this feels more a content dispute and we have not tried a more global RFC. This will be posted to CENT and VPP, and will be posted to ], but any other projects that are related should be notified too.
|to_oldid2 = 644248467


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


|author7 = Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv
=== Q1: Can an article become too biased in the favor of the side with the plurality of sources? ===
|title7 = Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research
''(Was "near-majority" but clearly meant plurality or near-unanimity --] (]) 21:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC))''
|date7 = October 17, 2024
''(Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)''
|org7 = ]
*'''Yes'''. No matter how overwhelming the preponderance of a viewpoint expressed in reliable sources, Misplaced Pages can become biased in favor of it - because Misplaced Pages doesn't take viewpoints, only summarizes them. Some games have received near-unanimous critical acclaim, and whether I agree with this (e.g. ''BioShock Infinite'', ''Final Fantasy VII'') or not (e.g. ''EarthBound'', ''Majora's Mask''), Misplaced Pages is not allowed to state "The game was good". In my eyes, the only situation in which it's appropriate simply to phrase the majority of sources' statements as objective truths is one that wouldn't normally generate controversy by doing so: when they're factual and uncontroversial in nature. The very existence of these sources damns this possibility, because they illustrate that not only does an opposition to their views (i.e. pro-Gamergate) exist; it's worth writing about. '''TL;DR:''' Yes, if the content in question is opinions, because Misplaced Pages doesn't espouse opinions. ] (]) 05:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|url7 = https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
* Not sure the term "bias" is useful here, because bias relative to what? If anything, this bias argument implies an institutionalized unfairness, that WP is leaving something out, or that WP is unfair for only using "reliable sources" since the perspectives needed are not reiterated in such sources. Regardless of what we lose as a culture for omitting minority perspectives for want of sourcing, WP is successful by its own standards if it successfully emulates the character of the breadth of sources on a topic. What we're really discussing is weight, and if you use that term, this question becomes tautological: an article cannot be unduly weighted if it is giving the perspectives on a topic due weight (proportional to their coverage). *** From everything I've read on GG, I think the idea of two equal "sides" is mistaken—on WP, there is the corpus of every reliable article written on a topic, and from that set we can choose a subset to highlight in an article. If WP deliberately suppressed representation for a commonly held idea within that subset, sure, that would count as slant. If the coverage does not take pains to present this other "side", by our own weight and notability definitions, those unvetted perspectives are not some counterweighted equal, but a minority report with respect to the overall topic. Given the body of work published on GG, the sources used in the article should reflect the overall magnitude of coverage given to each claim/idea and not artificially enhanced ]. The idea of presenting any "controversy" article as equally weighted sides makes no sense—if sources cover some perspectives more than others, the article should reflect that proportionality such that its "bias" is identical to the corpus of source material (though "bias" is the wrong term). The premise of this question is flawed <span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909;color:#909'>czar&nbsp;]</span> 06:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|lang7 =

|quote7 =
*'''Yes''' - Misplaced Pages should only summarize existing sources, but even if the preponderance of existing source swing towards a specific majority viewpoint, there's a lot of editorial discretion that goes into how the actual article is worded. You can take 5 glowing video game reviews and use them to write a section that talks about how reviewers said a lot of positive things about a game, or use them to talk about how the game is the best thing since sliced bread- it's all in how you write it. Also, please note that Tezero's opinion is completely invalid, since he thinks EarthBound isn't as good as everyone else says it is. --''']]''' 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|archiveurl7 =
*'''Yes''' it obviously can as NPOV concerns questions of weight and tone that are not negated by having the majority of sources backing your position. Generally, we would want the best and most neutral sources to be given high priority. Those sources that avoid overly opinionated language or make contentious claims that are not clearly provable should be given a low priority.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|archivedate7 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
*'''Yes''' An opinion being so widely shared doesn't make it a fact. ] (]) 10:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate7 = October 18, 2024
*I'm really lost on how you can asnwer this question with yes or no. Are we being asked if artcles are ''permitted'' to become biased if the sources are one-sided, or are we being asked if articles can ''be'' too biased if the sources only follow one side? I'm inclined to say yes to the former and and no to the latter, but the wording is a bit too ambiguous for a clear response. Looking above, Halfhat and TDA seems to be responding to the second interpretation of the question, while Tezero and PresN seem to be responding to the first interpretation. What was the intent? - ] (]) 10:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
|collapsed=no
*This is a ridiculous question, and I cannot even understand why this is being entertained as a serious discussion. If you want to discuss wikipedia policy take it somewhere relevant to wikipedia policy, as it stands the article will reflect the weight of sources. Anything else is irrelevant. As per Bilby. ] (]) 10:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
}}
*'''Yes''' ]. If DUE policy conflicts with NOTADVOCATE, then the article should be rewritten in a more neutral and dispassionate form. ] (]) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 19 2014 (19th)}}
*This question is '''Pointless and off topic.''' There's no use in hypotheticals when there's a concrete issue to discuss, and asking a softball like this is inappropriate. -- ] (]) 13:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
}}
* I agree this is not a proper RFC question, it's basically "should ] exist?" only with loaded phrasing. ] (]) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
{{page views}}
*'''Er, no''', and I'm having a hard time believing that this was actually a serious question. Editors do not get to second-guess reliable sources...especially venerable ones with a history of editorial discretion and control. "The sources all say X, but we can't got get about Y just because not as many are talking about Y". Well guess what? YES WE DAMN WELL CAN. The predominant, mainstream point-of-view of;
{{section sizes}}
**] == the birth certificate is real, the non-believers are fringe conspirators
{{Refideas|state=collapsed
**] == it does exist, human activity has caused it to increase over time
| {{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}}
**] == they landed on the moon
| {{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}}
**] == 19 hijackers crashes 4 planes at the behest of bin Laden. Not Jews, not George W. Bush.
| {{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}}
*Once the hea dies down, ] will follow suit, where the primary narrative will be the misogynist harassment of women, and "but ethics" will be the conter-claim, though not given even remotely the same weight as the primary. ] (]) 15:11, 26 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}}
*'''No''' per ]: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, '''in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources''' (emphasis mine). At the end of the day, Misplaced Pages can only summarize the existing reliable sources. Attempting to present "both sides" of a controversy where nearly all of the reliable sources support one side would be detrimental to Misplaced Pages (just imagine what the articles listed by Tarc would look like if we attempted this). ] (]) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{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=]}}
*'''No'''. Misplaced Pages articles reflect what the reliable sources say. If the majority of reliable sources say X, then the article says X. Anything else is ]. In other words, Misplaced Pages articles must give each viewpoint the same prominence, words, and weight that it receives in reliable sources - that is what it means for an article to be neutral. In fact, giving one side more weight than it's given in reliable sources would make the article biased. ] (]) 17:32, 26 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}}
*Non starter. Per policy, '''No.''' ] -- ] 19:17, 26 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=]}}
*'''Yes'''. ] works both ways. If the minority viewpoint is dismissed or misrepresented then bias will result per a ] violation. ] (]) 19:50, 26 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=]}}
*For me, this question largely comes down to ]. Perhaps the sources we have available to work with are skewed against some higher truth, but it isn't Misplaced Pages's proper role to get ahead of the reliable source material, because that leaves us depending upon editor opinions if we want to base content on poorly sourced material in order to provide "balance". Secondary sources count much more than anonymous postings in this case. --] (]) 23:03, 26 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}}
*'''Yes'''. Isn't this simple logic? Multiple users who argue 'No' above me base their opinion on Misplaced Pages's stance on reliable sources, yet Masem's statement is not about reliable sources. Masem's statement is about the writing of the article itself. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect what the reliable sources say, but it is the editors who actually put this into the words that form the article. And in doing so, editors might, consciously or unconsciously, introduce bias into an article. ] (]) 23:13, 26 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}}
*'''No''' This is an argument that has been seen repeatedly at topics such as Evolution, Climate change, Scientology, AltMed etc. where it has been consistently and often forcefully (including at ArbCom) rejected. The question is misleading anwyay because we're not talking about a ''near-majority'' (that would be a minority, surely?) of sources in this or any of those other cases; we're talking about an ''overwhelming preponderence'' of sources. ] (]) 13:51, 27 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}}
*'''No'''. When all viewpoints receive appropriate weight according to their weight in the reliable sources, there's no neutrality issue.--] ]/] 14:15, 27 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=]}}
*I don't really see the point of the question. A Misplaced Pages article ''can'' become almost everything, including the approximation of a thousand monkeys banging on typewriters if nobody watchlists it and reverts vandalism. But to the extent that the submitter asks whether it is ''problematic'' that if all reliable sources support one side of a controversy, our article does too, then the answer is no: that's what's supposed to happen per ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:18, 27 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=]}}
*'''Yes'''. I've brought it up before, but just because something is cast in a universally negative light doesn't mean an article isn't biased when the article makes an effort to cast that thing in a bad light. Numerous articles about controversial subjects or figures describe their subjects in a passive tone, without using wording that implies a moral judgement. An article can become biased when it seeks to express the moral judgements of a topic as the primary goal of the article. ] (]) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
| {{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=}}
*'''Yes''', it can. This is what ] does: the article takes the direction of the majority of reliable sources (whether clickbait news stories from major networks are reliable is a whole other discussion altogether). This is the definition bias, but it's generally deemed to be benign enough to pass as neutral. On highly controversial and divisive topics, however—which I'd say the ones mentioned by Tarc aren't—, this can be a problem. ]'']'' 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
}}
*See this quote from 2012
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{cquote|The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. ] doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone ''of significance'' gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen. |4=] (]) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)}}
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
:--] &#124; ] 17:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 150K
*'''No''' It's not our responsibility as editors to portray something as more of a balanced issue than it is according to the sources. It would be a false move to manipulate a counterbalance on the article just because it would be in the interests of PR for the movement. WP articles are not intended to be soapboxes or pro/con debate sessions. If the movement is portrayed in an unflattering light in the media and by all or nearly-all RS, then perhaps the movement should be working at shifting people's perspectives elsewhere, not using this page in order to engage in whitewashing. ] (]) 20:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
|counter = 62
* '''No'''? I'm not sure what this section is attempting to do. ] (]) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 4
* '''Dubious.''' You're basically saying there's a problem with Reliable Source coverage. Even assuming that's true, that's not something we can fix. Misplaced Pages is not the place to ]. We need to follow the sources. ] (]) 05:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
|algo = old(30d)
* '''Comment''' - What the heck is a "near majority of sources"??? Forty-nine percent? ] (]) 11:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive %(counter)d
* '''Unequivocal yes''' Misplaced Pages is to document disputes, not engage in them. The very first bullet point under ] is "Avoid Stating Opinions as Facts". There is a tendency that when an opinion gets large enough to assert the opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice as fact. In such circumstances it is important to remember that ] is also a facet of ]. --] (]) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
*'''No''' As someone before said. If the reliable sources are pointing one way that is the way we follow. If the tone is too preachy while the sources are not preachy then change it. If the sources are preachy then that is what we follow. Mention of the points is more then ample coverage, just like for example in the evolution article there is a mention of creationism and that is about it. Hundreds, thousands,or millions of people can come to this page and argue. This does not mean we have to placate them anymore here as we do at the evolution article. We follow reliable sources end of story. Then again in the end I am all for waiting a few more weeks or maybe 2 more months when all of this has died down and then to see where the coverage should be. ] (]) 10:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
* '''Yes''', although it would seem that the reference to a "near-majority" should be to a "large majority" or "near-unanimity". ] (]) 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
}}
*'''Yes''', as theoretically it is always possible for an article to become too biased. This is a suggestive hypothetical. ] (]) 21:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
__TOC__
*'''Yes''' In this instance, the neutrality of gaming journalists is at issue: as they make up a significant portion of the "reliable sources", their point of view will tend to be overrepresented. If Misplaced Pages fails to take this into account, it does a disservice to readers of the article who want to learn about the issue rather than be propogandized to. ] (]) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. It is akin to censorship if the media refuses to show one side of the argument. Misplaced Pages is not censored. ''']''' 16:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Q2: Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner? ===
''(Leave and sign replies, perhaps "Yes", "No", or other clarification.)''
*'''No''' — As per ], we must give due weight to the preponderant viewpoint in reliable sources. This means that if we are going to even *slightly* mention the various claims made by GamerGate, we must make clear that they are rejected by the weight of reliable sources and those rejections will necessarily be given more weight than the claims themselves. This is particularly important given that a large number of GamerGate's claims make negative statements or inferences about living people that have been discredited or flatly disproven. We have to write the article based upon the reliable sources we have, not the article that GamerGate supporters want to have. The fact of the matter is that effectively all of GamerGate's notoriety or "notability" comes from the harassment campaigns that some of its supporters have carried on. We wouldn't even have an article about GamerGate if it wasn't for the fact that media outlets ranging from MSNBC to The New York Times, The Telegraph to The Pacific Standard have weighed in on the misogynistic harassment which is, at this point, inextricably tied to GamerGate no matter how well-meaning some of its supporters are. ] (]) 06:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
* Genuinely perplexed how WP editors can claim to know the true scope (and therefore true appropriate weight) of GG when the ] themselves have no idea. This article has no hope for stability until the retrospective articles are written. Best plan for now is to maintain core WP policies (BLP, V, neutrality, etc.) and to remove bloat by relying nearly exclusively on mainstream media accounts. Leave the sifting and winnowing for professionals. Our job is to present the reliable sources proportionally, . '''No'''. ]&nbsp;<span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909;color:#909'>czar&nbsp;]</span> 07:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' as you have, for one example, the woefully undue focus on the Felicia Day incident. This is not simply a question of due weight, though, but also phrasing and structure. It was never very good in this department, but it has only worsened in recent days with a variety of changes such as the removal of the "legitimacy of concerns" section. Many more examples exist, but these are just a couple.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' The amount of quotes on top of adding bias is just flat out poor writing. It's okay to paraphase and leave out unimportant opinions. ] (]) 10:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Reading the lede makes me sick, "the movement's unwillingness or inability to control the attacks carried out in its name is generally seen as preventing constructive engagement" The whole page is spouting opinions from anti-GG ] (]) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*Gibberish article has been gibberish since it was first created. This has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with the fact it's an unencyclopedic mess of opinions and self importance now being flooded with more crap. It should always have been an article related to video game culture or journalism, instead it's 90% opinions of harassment. Not bias, just terrible. ] (]) 10:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' For an article with over 2000 edits with several hundred per day, there is still opinionated sourceless statements made in the wiki-voice. At times like this, editors should be conservative with the use of sources and make sure each statement is fully supported and written in a disinterested and dispassionate form. ] (]) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' If anything the article gives too much weight to ] opinions as it stands. ] (]) 13:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No'''. I note that you haven't actually specified in the question a particular 'direction' for the bias, and in fact I'd argue that we are giving too much weight to gamergate's claims that it's about ethics when the sources are at best mentioning that fact in passing and are increasingly taking time to actually debunk that claim, but it's clear you're seeking consensus for your vague claims that the article has anti-gamergate bias so I'll ignore that for the moment. Your argument is, again, uselessly vague. So far as I can tell you have still yet to suggest ''any changes at all'' that will rectify this 'bias' you claim exists, even in this RFC: it seems you'd rather just keep using your claim of 'bias' to drag every discussion off course with vague and unactionable arguments. The heavy use of quotes in the article, as has been pointed out again and again, is the result of this article's many POV pushers nitpicking over every blessed word that they think might possibly paint gamergate negatively until we're forced to attribute what should be uncontroversial information to individual sources rather than stating it in Misplaced Pages's voice. It's a symptom of bias, but it's bias in ''favor'' of gamergate. -- ] (]) 13:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Only answering this question as it's the only relevant one. I haven't contributed much to this article but have been following its development. I think it's now in a pretty good state that gives the different opinions about as much weight as is merited by the sources. I don't think it's biased by giving greater representation to the view which is overwhelmingly taken by the reliable sources. If anything, it's arguable (as TarainDC just argued above) that it gives too much representation to the fringe view, although I personally think it's just about alright. There are several other articles on similar controversies to this one, where one 'side' is the mainstream media view, and the other 'side' is a group of largely non-notable Internet commenters and amateurs. We can and should try to give the latter view a fair share of representation, but it's inevitable that our articles will always present a 'bias' in favour of the view taken by the reliable sources. ] (]) 14:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Seems by and large like an adequate reflection of what's in the types of sources Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be based on. ] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>]</small> 14:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' - As with all articles, this one reflects what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Much as birthers were bitterly disappointed that our birth certificate article did not adequately address the nuances of their colorful argument, the "but ethics" crowd here is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that the outside world does not see the issue in the way that they'd prefer. ] (]) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' The article is a decently fair and accurate summarization of what the reliable sources have to say. ] does not require that we cover both sides of a controversy when the overwhelming majority of sources support one side. To the contrary, it states multiple time that we should not give undue weight in articles. ] (]) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No'''. In describing different sides, the article reflects what reliable sources say and gives each side the weight given by those reliable sources. ] (]) 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Perhaps''' we may be giving too much weight to the "ostensible" concerns claimed by the gamergaters when all the recent reliable sources are clearly indicating the "ostensible" claims have no validity or basis or meaningful part in the actual controversy. -- ] 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*I'm surprised to see myself saying this, but it's a tentative '''no''' from me. The page has seen improvement in qualitative allegations against Gamergaters being presented as opinions rather than uncontestable facts, and I think the representation of the pro-Gamergate side, while not ideal, is sufficient given the paucity of reliable sources agreeing with it. I'm inclined to think the severest remaining problem is a possible unnecessarily severe presentation of the incidents of harassment of celebrities themselves, but even that I don't feel strongly about. I do wish there were more weight afforded to Gamergate's currents of anti-censorship and anti-politics-in-gaming unrelated to Zoe Quinn - as Polygon's Chris Grant said, it's difficult to tease a single, coherent message out of the movement, and this ''is'' a strong part of it - but if that isn't covered by enough reliable sources, I don't see where we're going to find the requisite coverage. ] (]) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' - The current article devotes too much attention to the pro-GG point of view. The content about 'journalistic ethics' is not reflected in mainstream reliable sources and should be removed or reduced substantially. ] (]) 22:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' A movement targeting journalism is destined to be misrepresented by the media and Misplaced Pages should be careful of these cases. ] (]) 22:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*:You may want to look at who is actually being targeted: ] (]) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*:: You may want to look above at when we were talking about that article. The amount of tweets they gathered between all 6 of the people were less than 5%, and out of the 5%, 90+% were neutral, with the last 10% being positive or negative. So Logan is right. ] (]) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*:: Lol that actually just further proves my point, that is the worst use of statistics if it can be called that I've seen. ] (]) 13:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' The article is simply not constructed nor worded in a neutral manner. Note that I am talking about the wording and the structuring, not the sources. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to have an ]. This article does not have that. ] (]) 23:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' because we're too often attributing the opinions of sources as fact. Take Sam Biddle's "bully" tweets for example. When the sources claim the tweets were in jest, that's the opinion of the author, yet it was presented as fact in the article. We can only document that the tweets were made, any intention behind why they were made needs to be attributed as someone's opinion. ] (]) 02:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' In fact, this article currently inadequately represents the extent of the negative commentary that exists within the top-tier sources. We are over-using second-rate sources to add fringe perspectives in inappropriate juxtaposition to the best sourced material. ] (]) 14:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' And let me just say that Masem's comment opening this RfC is a huge disappointment to me and my viewpoint of him as an editor, since it's about catering to the fringe rather than being a proper representation of sources and a summary of them, as what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about. We do not write creationism or other fringe topics with any sort of catering of the fringe. Period and done. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 14:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No'''. If anything, we give too much weight to the claims by gamergaters that the movement is about journalism ethics, considering that the stronger sources typically only even mention them to dismiss them.--] ]/] 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
** Actually, most of the video game journalists fully recognize there are ethics issues within their ranks and aren't shy about there being problems. It's just that the specific aspects that proGG has been arguing about that can be determined by reliable sourcing is not any of the major issues that the journalists see as a problem. --14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC){{unsigned|Masem}}
:::So far, the discussing this topic (including those outside the small sphere of video game writing) mainly bring up the "but ethics" argument as something Gamergaters say as a cover for the real story, if they bring it up at all.--] ]/] 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*I haven't edited ], but related articles. At first glance, the article is not obviously biased, but perhaps overlong and difficult to read. The only neutrality concern I have is that the lead paragraph makes prominent mention of the campaign's alleged concerns about journalistic ethics, whereas all media articles I've read about the topic (e.g. ) are pretty clear that these concerns are merely a facade for the campaign's main focus of misogynist activism and harassment. If this impression of consensus in reliable sources is correct, the article lead should also reflect it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*:Regarding the lead paragraph {{u|Sandstein}}, it has been edit warred over since there were multiple attempts to edit it to make it more in line with the present weighting of the controversy. My major expansion and to give the gamergate side more credence that resulted in and then that .—] (]) 15:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*:That's because mainstream media, for lack of a better term, is ]. There's actually three sides here: 1) immature misogynist trolls who nobody likes; 2) feminists (for lack of a better term) and the media, both gaming and mainstream; and 3) the rest of the gamer community, who have been thrown into the ditch alongside group 1 by group 2. (You can guess my affiliation, look at my user page if you need more confirmation; also, I've restrained from commenting on this as much as I can). Much as we wouldn't let an administrator close a discussion in which they have a vested interest, the media shouldn't be reporting on these matters in the way they have - they're ]. And, even if they aren't, they're trying to stir up a storm for more clicks, and people are falling for it, ]. But, such is the corporate world, and such is life. ]'']'' 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. This article has not taken a passive tone while describing the controversy. Much of the wording and even the article's structure is designed to cast a moral judgement over the movement being described, based solely on the fact that many secondary sources describe a moral judgement. It is not Misplaced Pages's perogative to decide right from wrong - Misplaced Pages should only describe things in the most neutral, direct terms and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions about the motives and intentions of still-living people. ] (]) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', per the last two sentences of my comment above. But, I don't think there's any way to fix the problem, so whatever. Cynicism at its finest, right here. ]'']'' 03:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
* '''No''', for the most part. A lot of this nonsense makes more sense if you replace "gamergate" with "people who think the moon landing was faked" when talking about whether or not an article's reliance on reliable sources causes one "side" of a debate to feel under-represented. ] (]) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
* '''No.''' We need to follow our core policies. It may be reasonable to search the sources to find and explain important background, but by and large the article must follow the sources. And we certainly can't invent anything that doesn't exist in the sources. Reliable Sources have decided that harassment and threats are a more notable story than potential conflicts of interest by video game journalists. It is what it is, and Misplaced Pages isn't a place to try to "fix" how it's being covered. BTW, the article long and rambling. Does this seriously need 21 screenfulls of text and 135 references??? ] (]) 06:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
* '''No.''' Misplaced Pages must describe events as they are described by reputable news sources. Only if academic articles find that the truth is different should this article deviate from the news media's portrayal. ] (]) 14:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' as we report what reliable sources say. If people say these sources are not reliable. They should bring that up and show through reliable sources that these sources are not reliable. As that probably will not be the case I will stick with me no. If any of you think that giving due weight to reliable sources is not correct. I suggest you head over to evolution and try to argue there that creationism needs more coverage and the evolution page is to bias. ] (]) 10:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No'''. As ''e''.''g''. ] has written above, and as Q4 of the ] has it, the article is neutral just insofar as it reflects the RS consensus on the issue, which I believe it presently does. ''']''' <sup>'''] / ]'''</sup> 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''No''' - An article can, as noted, be supported by a large majority of sources but still be biased, but that implies that there is something wrong with the sources (in this case, the mainstream media and gaming media). However, that argument (journalistic bias) hasn't been shown. A more likely explanation is that the reliable sources are reliable and that there are misogynistic elements in gaming culture. ] (]) 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Right there in the lede, stating that the controversy is about X when X includes only one side's definition is POV. ] (]) 22:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' In the first paragraph of the article, it states "Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture." However it's not until the third paragraph is states "The social movement behind the Gamergate hashtag has stated that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and identified themselves as participating in what they call a consumer revolt..." By putting the connection to misogyny and harassment in the first paragraph, it effectively sets an opinion. Perhaps an edit moving things around would help, perhaps saying "GamerGate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate), is the name given to what paints itself as a social movement concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and a consumer revolt; while at the same time is marred by accusations of misogyny and harassment." ] (]) 01:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
*:The second sentence in the article is presently "Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism." It just seems you want to make the ethics angle first, which is not how things are to be done on Misplaced Pages per ].—] (]) 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
*::The way it's ''supposed'' to work is that each side of the controversy have their points of view ] to the side that hold that view. Of course we aren't doing that because every time we change to wording to properly attribute points of view, somebody changes it on the basis that "everyone agrees one side of the controversy is in the wrong". Then somebody points out that the ] article properly attributes points of view, and then some chucklehead says, "Oh this is different, because this time the moral issue has to do with a potential bigotry I feel ''really strongly about'', which makes it factual and good to state as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice". Really, the article wouldn't be biased if it would state objective facts as they are and attribute points of view in an ] manner like Wiki policy insists we are meant to do. ] (]) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', but just because there are sources doesn't mean we have to use them. Consider this. If one side has 1000 sources, and the other has 200, we shouldn't add all of them. That would make it biased per q1. Rather, take an arbitrary amount that fits in both amounts, 100, say, of each side, and use them. ''']''' 16:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The thing is, I don't think it's solvable. At least not for months and months yet. As long as this is an ongoing event, and as long as there are so many GG supporters who are insistent on creating an article that reflects their views rather than reflects an objective, RS-based take on the issue, then the status quo is going to remain, even if that status quo isn't as good as it could/should be. --''']]''' 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:This. The article should be pretty much two paragraphs - one describing it, second summarising it, and then lots of blank space until something actually happens where we can define "Gamergate" outside of the harassment as currently that is pretty much all it is. ] (]) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Widely accepted opinion '''is still not fact''' we need to not present it as such. ] (]) 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:Widely accepted reliable sources are as close to "Fact" as you get for wikipedia. This is why there are other "wiki" out there that have lower thresholds for inclusion. ] (]) 10:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::With some thought you can normally differentiate between opinion and fact. For example if there's no way they could possibly know that "GG is a front for misogyny" it can't be fact so it's opinion. ] (]) 10:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::"With some thought" suggests Original Research or Synthesis. All sources are opinions at the moment, either pro, anti, or comment. You either have them (and the current article in its heinous form) or you don't have them and accept that the article should be very much condensed. One is an aggregate of news, the other is an encyclopedic article. ] (]) 10:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::::No all it requires is some comprehension of what the sources are saying. By your logic everything is synthesis other than just saying what others say. It's not coming up with anything new only looking to see if what is stated is opinion or fact. ] (]) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::If we are not saying what they say, then we are synthesising an argument or position, or performing original research. If we are going to present opinion in an article then what they say is the only factual matter we can go by. So the question is - should we be relying on opinion in order to frame an article? ] (]) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To addres Tarc's point in Q1 (And I think a few others have said). Yes, one side of GG is clearly a minority , but not FRINGE source; they have influenced large companies. And while the purported purpose of GG is to state that there claimed issues with COI in video game journalism (and to note that some journalists have acknowledged that is true), the larger story from the purposes of Misplaced Pages are the events that surround this: that there was harassment, that there was press calling them out as misogynistic attacks, and subsequent actions that are still going on. So this is not like saying "oh, the viewpoint of the proGG is FRINGY, we can ignore it", the point here is that in covering the response and actual event, this article in its present state, relying on the clear majority sourcing that is antiGG, is too biased preachy in calling out the antiGG actions and responses (not their view on the ethics question) as "right" and proGG as "wrong", in this case, using excessive quotes and troubling words to point out every "bad" thing that the proGG is doing over and over. We can cover the issue a lot more fairly without giving undue weight to the proGG fringe view without making that side look like villains, simply by paring down the amount of preachy antiGG quotes and viewpoints, as so that WP does not appear to take a side in the issue. --] (]) 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:The fact that some companies have responded to gamergate's email campaigns (and generally backtracked when they realized what they'd stepped in) does not prove that the 'but ethics!' angle is not a fringe view. It does not prove that the motivation for those emails was 'ethics' rather than 'punishing people who call us on our misogyny,' and it does not address the problem that our reliable sources are still not treating this as a campaign for ethics in journalism. We base our weighting of the article on what the sources are saying, not on our own evaluation of real world events surrounding the article's subject. -- ] (]) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::You missed the point. There's the debate over ethics; this would be like the Obama birthers or the 9/11 conspiracies theory aspects, an issue of ideologies. But ''here'' we actually have events and responses to those events due to issues with those ideologies that have been extremely confrontational, none which happened in Tarc's list of fringe theories. We're covering an article that involves ''both'' an ongoing event and a minority viewpoint on ideologies. If it were possible to eliminate the ideologies and talk only on the events, that's where we have to make sure that us covering the events is as unbiased as possible, and that means we cannot prejudge the intention of the minority side even if the other side already has (we have to work "innocent until proven guilty" for all purposes. And that's not what this article does right now. --] (]) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::: TBH I'm not sure abandoning ] or loosening it to allow what you call the "ProGG" side to be represented would have the effect you are hoping for anyway - it would open the way to people adding their direct impressions of GamerGate and quoting 8chan and the like, which is only going to make them look worse. ] (]) 15:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::: Again, that's not what I'm asking for; we can't add more about the proGG side, but we ''can'' take away from the antiGG side that is more opinion than fact based. A major point to consider - we have no hard evidence that the proGG side - those arguing for ethics - have been the ones that have engaged in harassment/etc., and certainly even less that every proGG user has participated. It's an Occum's Razor argument that some calling themselves as proGG are involved, which is what the press is doing, but that is still their opinion and not a proven fact. As such, we cannot take the side that proGG are "guilty" (in this case, the constant reuse of pointing out the campaign is misogynistic) even if this is the popular opinion of the press. We don't write articles on suspects before their trial if they are guilty even if the press is convinced the person is, we cannot do the same here. --] (]) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::::: By treating sources differently depending on whether you see them as supporting a particular POV you're actually arguing for introducing bias into the article, not removing it. ] (]) 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::: No, we're moving a bias that an encyclopedia cannot support. This might be a bias in terms of how the larger story is presented, but as an encyclopedia we are to cover a story as neutrally as possible and that means we might have to skew the coverage when we recognize that coverage is skewed one was (]). Again, if there was a major crime and its suspect was called as guilty by the whole of the press before any official trial, our article that deals with that suspect would not work on the basis they was guilty though we'd certainly mention the press calling them out as such because we need to be neutral. --] (]) 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::: You are ignoring vast swathes of Misplaced Pages policy in favour of your personal theory that the coverage is skewed and needs balancing in some way. ] (]) 17:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Masem, as an encyclopedia we are not beholden to cover any story. When a story is covered then it is based upon the reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not represent "balance" then that is all we can do, or in fact should do. However it is important that we are neutral about the actual reliable sources in presenting the relevant information. At the moment the article fails there because of its reliance upon opinion to try and define something that cannot define itself. ] (]) 18:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::That is not the point. We can't cover the proGG in any great detail, that's clear. We however cannot praise one side over the other because the opinion of reliable sources. That's systematic bias. We are supported to be neutral, meaning that we cannot take the position of either side in the argument, and limit our coverage to the facts. --] (]) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::again with your false dichotomy. There cannot be a "pro-gamergate" "side" when there is no widely accepted defined definition of what "gamergate " is or means. There are lots of accounts using the term, each in their own personal way. The reliable sources have covered the uses they have determined to be noteworthy - the most noteworthy as an ostensible cover for harassing women . Other uses are vaguely covered, mostly as how they are attempting to excuse or divert attention from the harassment. -- ] 21:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Why do dismiss Masem's reply by saying that there cannot be a pro-gamergate side represented in the article when Masem, in the very post you are replying to, states the exact same thing? Masem said that we can't cover the proGG in any great detail, and your counter-argument is that we cannot represent the pro-gamergate side? Thats exactly the same thing. ] (]) 23:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Masem was admitting that, not emphasizing it. His point was that, regardless of the proliferation of anti-GamerGate coverage in the reliable media, we should not "praise one side over the other", and that's what TRPoD was disputing. ] (]) 23:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

:Masem, I realize that oyu want to be fair to both sides, but loife doesn't always work like that. If anything, we have to work to pare down the "pro-GG" prose, since during as in the week-ish full protection we saw a lot of reliable sources come down firmly against the "but ethics" side of this debate. It is a minority point-of-view, and our article needs to reflect that. ] (]) 23:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
::No, that's not the point. Look at every quote that includes the word "misogynistic" (or derivatives), and ask, "are they necessary to understand the fundamentals of the Gamergate controversy?" Some will be, yes, but this would only apply to less than half of the quotes (last I checked). The rest of the times they appear, it is all anti-GG "preachy" side stuff - which is unnecessary. That's what we can trim out and start to fix the tone of the article. --] (]) 00:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
:::If there's editorial reasons be be less word-repetitive, that's fine, although care should be take not to dilute too much of the content. ] (]) 01:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
::::It is not the repetition of the word, it is the repetition of the '''same basic opinion''' (that the proGG side is misogynistic, in this case) when that repetition does not further the factual summary of this article; the additional quote is simply there to bolster the antiGG side's stance as the right one. We are going to have to mention misogyny in a few places in the factual discussion of the case - that the press saw it that way, and the proGG responded with both #NotYourShield and with OperationDisrespectful nod. But that's it. More than half the other uses of the word appears in quotes that are simply attack quotes that, were the proGG a singular named person, would edge on BLP issues. Obviously that doesn't fall under BLP, but then there is also common sense that there are still real people behind the proGG side that aren't part of the harassment but that because of how we've structured this article assigns the blame on them. We should be handling this as clinically as possible. Someone above (can't find immediately) made the good point that at this stage of the development of Gamergate we should not be attempting to apply analysis to it this soon, and instead wait for distant-enough sources that can look back, evaluate all the events as they happen, and then make more rational, less emotional decisions. Instead, and I've had friends that are proGG tell me this as well as checking through the usual proGG forums that they are insulted by the tone this article takes. They don't deny that their cause is called misgynistic - they know that stigma exists and there are actually efforts to try to present a better front that clearly denounces any harassment (which they are trying to oust and identify who did it when it happens, and have claimed to track down many of the more recent cases to pure trolling groups that are simply there to stir the shit), but our article is written in a tone that prosecutes them for just being tied to the proGG side, when there has been no solid conviction of the responsible parties. We cannot take the side the press is taking here, though we can present the press's viewpoint as clearly the most predominate. --] (]) 07:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think people should read ] and ] And ] as well ] (]) 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what this article '''really''' needs. More discussion on bias. We've come so far, just a few more thousand fucking words and we'll have cracked the case! ] (]) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for this. I did get a good laugh ] (]) 16:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

== What Is the Ethics Issue? ==

It is my understanding that so-called Gamergate supporters say that there is an issue about journalistic ethics. What is the ethics issue? My understanding is that so-called Gamergate supporters are defenders of the video game culture which they see as under attack by the mainstream media. The only ethical issue that is obvious to me is harassment and death threats against feminist critics, but that is on the other "side" of the controversy. What is the ethics issue? What do the so-called Gamergate supporters say is unethical about coverage of the video game culture by the mainstream media? I understand that there are issues about bias in reporting. However, it seems to me that claims of unethical reporting are stronger than claims of biased reporting. What is the ethical issue? ] (]) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:This is not a forum to discuss GamerGate. ] (]) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
: Per ] the "ethics issue" is a cover story for the harrassment of women. Primary it consists of conspiracy theories revolving around Zoe Quinn. We should not be discussing GamerGate in terms of actually being about ethics per ]. ] (]) 16:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::'''100% wrong''' per NPOV. It is claimed the ethics issue is a front, but there is no fundamental statement (like a scientific report or a legal document) that supports this. As such we will continue to treat that claim as a popular opinion in the press, but absolutely not as fact. --] (]) 17:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::: " , , , , " , , " again, we have ] -- ] 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Quoting directly from the policy you cite:
:::::"When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. Thus we might write: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.". We do not write: "John Doe is the best baseball player". The inclusion of opinions is subject to weight policy, and they should be backed up with an inline citation to a reliable source that verifies both the opinion and who holds it." ] (]) 17:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::where exactly is there ANY, let alone SERIOUS discussion/distension? -- ] 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, what. ] Gamergate involves some controversy? You've been here all this time. ] (]) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Why, yes, yes it does. Misogynist harassment is controversial. Claiming that harassment is "about ethics" is controversial. -- ] 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Every source you name frames it as an opinionated claim, not fact. Claims we will obviously include, but will not restate the context of the claim in WP's voice. --] (]) 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Kaciemonster asked about this earlier and you didn't respond, but what realistic source would you accept for this? There's not going to be a scientific paper on the subject because this isn't a scientific question and you're not going to have a legal dispute that results in a judge saying "yeah, it's really all about ethics in game journalism". So what ''realistic'' end game is there for this? ] (]) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::The realistic end game is to impartially state points of view, following the policy of due weight, of course, and then to attribute those points of view to the groups or people that hold them. Exactly as Wiki policy stipulates. ] (]) 17:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::The analysis of who makes up GG to make an objective assessment of whether they are misogynistic or not is likely going to come from researchers in the social studies area. It has been said that GG is an ideal petri dish for those type of researchers and there are bound to be papers for years trying to analyze the motivation and drive. They will perform their surveys, use statistics and other tests to make conclusions, and present it via a peer-reviewed journal, at which point if those papers claim the majority of GG supporters are misogynistic, then we can start thinking of it as fact. Another possible avenue for such a study would be something that is more proficient at public polling like the Pew Researcher Center, who can do a similar type of analysis. But key is that they are looking at the membership and not the actions. --] (]) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:(e/c)The most repeated claim is that developers are too close to the games publication journalists and are getting good coverage because of the relationships. The reliable sources note that the actions under the gamergate tag focus almost entirely upon small''' indie developers''' (most often only the female developers) and completely ignore the industry giants who lavish games journalists with gifts and parties and consoles and their publications with massive promotional ad campaigns or the actual '''journalists''' who have allegedly committed these ethics breaches.
:Some of the complaints also involved crowdfunding sites where journalists would make nominal contributions/investments to get on mailing lists about developments and access to early release /pre-release versions to review. -- ] 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::there has also been some effort to frame as an "ethics" issue coverage and reviews of games that include social commentary aspects such as the portrayal of women. the position apparently was " ethical coverage" of games would apparently be limited to "objective" things such as graphics capabilities and ease of controls and not "subjective" commentary. that line has also been roundly dismissed by the sources. -- ] 16:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:This is a great question that a lot of people have been asking. GamerGate hasn't really been able to articulate any serious ethical issue that anyone outside the movement considers valid. As per TRPoD, most common has been the argument that video game reviews should be "objective," which is a contradiction in terms. ] (]) 20:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::It's not that nobody outside the movement has acknowledged Gamergate's reported concerns. It's that certain editors here dismiss those concerns and have been pruning them from the article. Even though a few periodicals have gone on record for changing their policies in response to the ethics concerns. This article has gotten so bad, I'm not even sure how accurate most of the actually factual info is anymore. If a single source reported that Gamergate was sacrificing pigs to summon the devil, we'd have a whole paragraph devoted to it and a novel's worth of debating on the talk page to keep it in.
::Also, "lots" of people have been commenting on the biased nature of this article, but I see those are "legions of SPAs and sock puppets". Somebody who agrees with your point of view, however, is "lots of people" that have a legitimate concern. ] (]) 20:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::That is not the case. Editors here have recognized the level and type of coverage the GamerGate movement's concerns for ethics has gotten and realize that no one in the media takes them seriously (except for the many conservative-leaning sites out there that have jumped on the anti-feminism bandwagon).—] (]) 20:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, two months ago a couple sites modified ethics policies to make clear that Patreon contributions should be disclosed, etc. That wasn't particularly controversial. But now what? If this is really about ethics, there has to be something more than that, otherwise the movement would have declared victory and moved on months ago. So what are the *other* "ethics" concerns? ] (]) 20:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Except now, some of the writers have made their Patreons private. And, its not just about the indie games or whatever. From what I've gathered from the pro-gg IRC, the "warpath" has IGN as a later target, with the AAA publishers as well. However, their reasoning is that they want to start small, and climb up the ladder of corruption, so to speak. --] (]) 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Erm, to clarify, the IRC serves as somewhat of an "abstraction layer" of sorts to 8chan's /gg/ board, where, *le gasp*, people can post anything, but ultimately other people can weigh in on the threads. The IRC channel(s) look at the threads, decide stuff, and then (attempt) to get it up on twitter or somesuch, or organize "Operations" and somesuch. --] (]) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::One last thing. There is a lot of (very overlooked) evidence of third party trolls ] harassment and such. That is an angle that, afaik, has not been covered in the page. Is it really that absurd that there can't be third parties who are getting themselves involved in this? Does it have to be an "us vs them" thing? People are people, all different, you can't just boil them down to the lowest denominator. (sorry for the tangent) --] (]) 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure what relevance a Patreon being private is, and "starting small" presumes that they've found any "corruption" to begin with, which is a fact not in evidence. What they might want to do in the future aside, the movement is being judged in the court of public opinion by what it's doing *right now*. ] (]) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Oh, okay. You got me. So why not write about the controversy in past tense now that it's over and everybody agrees that Gamergate was more amoral than Hitler? And yes, as DungeonSiege points out, if you guys really think nobody worth caring about at is paying any attention to Gamergate outside of harassed feminists, you're likely going to get blind-sided as this conflict keeps going. You guys asked, "Why aren't they attacking the journals if they aren't misogynist?"
::::Well, Gawker is bleeding money now, so you got your wish. Now you're saying, "Oh, why don't they go fight the big boys, then, instead of this little periodicals if they're not misogynist?"
::::There's no saying they won't and some are saying they will. Can we be frank? These personal smear articles that were inserted earlier - are you trying to add these to hang on to this thing as a clear-cut moral battle with obvious good guys and bad guy? A bunch of political entities have gotten involved in this thing and it even hit the Colbert Report. Yet we've still got yutzes here trying to frame Gamergate as some petty, inconsequential nothingness that's just about ready to collapse in on itself once we all realize the issue has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with ethics - or excuse me, I mean misogyny. By focusing so much on this moral crap, you really squander an opportunity to get an objective, ongoing, comprehensive look at this whole thing as it develops. ] (]) 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::"Gawker is bleeding money" ] (]) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::They did post an article where they said they were losing millions due to some of these advertisers pulling support for their site. Gawker has been doing everything they can to get it under control. Are you really so far down the rabbit hole that you can't believe Gamergate has had ''any'' real impact at all on anything? ] (]) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::No. They said, , that they were losing "thousands" of dollars... and that was in an article that defiantly said they would not doing anything different, because they would refuse to bow to pressure based on advertising dollars. No one else has since pulled any ads, to anyone's knowledge. Trying to get advertisers to pull ads from websites that say things you don't like is an interesting example of a boycott, but it has nothing to do with "ethics in video game journalism." For example, nothing Gamasutra published was unethical.
:::::::You are bouncing around the edges of this, complaining about what everyone else is saying about you... while you still haven't been able to articulate what the movement really wants. If you can't define what you're after, it's hard to argue that it's unfair for others to define you. So again, as the thread starter said — what are the ethical issues in video game journalism that GamerGate wants to see changed? ] (]) 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::About me? I am not Gamergate. I'm not the patriarchy. I'm not the devil. I am a random person on the internet, and I've been keeping up with this debate, and as far as I can tell, there are sides to this thing and Gamergate is having an impact. You want to write this Wiki article to imply Gamergate basically isn't happening, but it is doing things and there are rational people in it. A common complaint from people who are neutral on this thing and don't care that much about it, however, is that it's hard to even talk about Gamergate without choosing a side because there's too many radical elements. I question the incredible bias and moral attacks in this article, and surely enough you associate me with a group that you've described as "factually evil". So how am I supposed to work with you or anyone in this mindset? It's like one of the ways you identify a misogynist is if you accuse them of misogyny and they deny it, they're a misogynist. Seriously, it's like old inquisition stuff, and when there's a collection of editors on a witch hunt, you'll find plenty of witches as long as you're flexible with the definition of "witch". ] (]) 21:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::So instead of answering the simple question of '''what the movement's goals are''', you deflect, turn it around on me and fabricate a "quote" that I've never said. Quite. That aptly demonstrates why the movement isn't taken seriously. ] (]) 21:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Your personal perception as to whether or not Gamergate is a serious thing shouldn't be playing so much into how you write this article. I'm not here to debate with you about whether not Gamergate is morally wrong or if they're winning or losing their fight. I'm here to debate with you about how you write this article, and my stance is that you're too biased. You need to lay off the attacks and just focus on stuff that can be objectively described. Neither of us knows what's going through the heads of people involved in this thing, save ourselves - and even then that depends on how firm a logical grasp we have on our feelings. ] (]) 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::We can objectively describe that gamergate has achieved its notability for the death threats issued under its name and that is really all that it has been noted for. -- ] 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Correction: We can objectively describe that gamergate has achieved its notability for the death threats '''that the media has associated with it.''' ] (]) 06:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{ping|Willhesucceed}} you are joking here right? you are not actually submitting that gamergate is only connected to harassment by some type of gigantic media conspiracy?? -- ] 02:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If the media has associated them with GamerGate, then we cannot say that they aren't related to GamerGate on Misplaced Pages. Your ] deflection is not how Misplaced Pages works.—] (]) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::: To answer the question of goals, I believe this pastebin would work. http://pastebin.com/tTDeG7Zg It's one of many, and while the goals do vary some from supporter to supporter, it covers the main points pretty well. The main points are: 1.) Being treated with respect by gaming journalistic sites, 2.) Disclosure of previous involvement or relationship with review subjects, 3.) No collusion between journalistic entities. (Mailing lists, etc) 4.) Censorship is not acceptable. 5.) news articles concerning persons should have more than a single source, and all sources must be verifiable, 6.) Personal opinion, or political ideologies should not sway game coverage 7.) No blacklisting of developers 8.) Refusal to be defined by race, creed, religion, or gender. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::::::We are aware of the goals. We can't use anything you've written in that 2 month old pastebin anyway because content on Misplaced Pages must be supported by reliable sources.—] (]) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Straw poll - update lead ==
Should the lead paragraph be updated to read:

*{{green|The '''Gamergate controversy''' concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. In August 2014, media began covering actions on the internet which appeared under the umbrella term gamergate (sometimes GamerGate or the hashtag #gamergate) wherein a mostly anonymous or pseudonymous group of individuals without an identified leadership or organization made claims ostensibly about topics such as ethics in games journalism but which included a number of high profile incidents of harassment against women in the industry.}}

Since the previous offer of a new lead to address problems by focusing our article lead on what the sources actually cover, as most of the sections on this page wandered off into pointless discussion not about the article, a am going to offer it again. Please place your !vote and comment / sources about how / why it could more accurately represent the sources coverage of the subject.
===!vote===
*'''support''' it focuses the article on what has been covered - the '''controversy''' - and focuses on what the sources have found notable about the '''controversy''' - the harassment - while framing as the reliable sources have for months the "ostensible" claims that the gamergaters are theoretically about. -- ] 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''strongest possible oppose''' as this is a full on violation of neutrality. --] (]) 21:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::Which portions are NPOV? and please provide sources that support your claim. -- ] 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' Aside from the issue of having a partisan slant, the wording is loopy and poorly structured. Like always, the wording is poor to try to disguise a biased statement as though it were a neutral one. No points of view are attributed... it's the same biased, hacky thing you guys keep writing. What's different about it this time? ] (]) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' Sorry I don't have time to explain now, it's similar to the above 2. ] (]) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' but only because I prefer the version that came about prior to the full protection.—] (]) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' per yellow sandals ] (]) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' violates WP:NPOV by condemning pro-GG without hedging -> "ostensibly" ]] ''']''' 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::ahhh, the journalist ethic of "hedging". so it we added "There may be some truth to their harassment" it would pass your muster? -- ] 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' Not biased enough, should throw in there some mentions like "GamerGate is literally ISIS", like I've seen floating around ] (]) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*:Drop the snark.—] (]) 23:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Really? I thought not long ago we were out to prove that Gamergate supporters have embarrassing sexual fetishes. Are you sure we can't tie this issue to any terrorist groups? Maybe we can insinuate that they killed Mister Rogers. There's got to be ''somebody'' saying that. ] (]) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::<s>There were some accounts that looked like ISIS accounts (on twitter) that used both ISIS hashtags and the gamer-gate hashtag. Obviously not bots because only gamergate does bad things ] (]) 01:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)</s>
:::::My mistake, isis spambots picked up #stopgamergate2014 by accident ] (]) 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' At Uncyclopedia, we have an oppose template. Anyways, blatant NPOV violation, does not acknowledge 3'd party trolling. --] ] 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::"third party trolling" is fringe minimal part of the coverage. the "movement" started by hitching its wagons to trolling. has embraced anonymity to attempt to avoid culpability. but that can and is covered later in the article. -- ] 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As mentioned by other users, This clearly violates ]. I don't think I have to explain why. ] (]) 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::actually, at least one person would need to. -- ] 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

===the inevitable rambling discussion===
Try to write a neutral lead and follow Wiki policy. That means don't write in the voice of one side of controversy. ] (]) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:This "one side" is the only one adequately represented in reliable sources so per ] and ] your concerns are moot.—] (]) 21:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::My point is not moot. You still aren't supposed to write in the voice of a side in the controversy. We've been over this. ] (]) 21:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::It's the only voice out there that meets ], ], ], and ] when the other side's voice impinges on accusing someone of sleeping with five men.—] (]) 22:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::You aren't supposed to write with Gamergate's voice either. ] (]) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Then we write with the voice of the media that says it's not inherently about ethics in journalism.—] (]) 22:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::You write in Misplaced Pages's voice, you donk. ] (]) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::And Misplaced Pages's voice represents what the majority of reliable sources has to say about it.—] (]) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Misplaced Pages doesn't know anything about morals. It's an encyclopedia. It just regurgitates facts and tells people who said what things. It is not a guide to figure out who life's bad guys are. Misplaced Pages's voice is passive, impartial, and encyclopedic. ] (]) 22:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::This is the usual argument that "misogyny and harassment" is implying a morality isn't it?—] (]) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. It is me. The same argument we keep having. That morals are subjective. Harassment happened. Immoral intent? Eh. I have no idea. I'm not the type of person who would personally threaten someone over the internet and I don't know why or what anyone was trying to accomplish. ] (]) 22:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::The same argument would be just as valid in arguing to make the article on Hitler say "Hitler was evil."Think about why that would be wrong, then apply that to this. ] (]) 22:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Would you guys stop going "HITLER'S TREATED BETTER THAN GAMERGATE IS" for once?—] (]) 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Could you actually address my point? ] (]) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::We keep saying it because one of history's greatest villains gets more respect than Gamergate does on this website. It would be comical if people weren't actively trying to destroy each other over this controversy right now. Like, if this were a Star Wars Vs Star Trek debate, this article would be hilarious. ] (]) 22:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Misplaced Pages has the liberty of 70 years of historians talking about Adolf Hitler to present information as it is in that article. GamerGate is still happening.—] (]) 22:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::Well we've had seventy years of people saying Hitler is one of history's greatest villains. ] (]) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::But why would you want to compare yourself with Hitler in the first place? Why constantly bring up this comparison?—] (]) 22:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I am not Gamergate. But no matter how evil something gets in anyone's eyes, if we can write a neutral article about Hitler without directly calling him evil, in theory we should be able to write a neutral article about anything! ] (]) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::This is why it is even '''more''' important to write in a neutral voice to avoid recentism. As suggested at the arbcom case, we should be sticking to facts and not trying to judge which side is right even if the press has come to their own conclusion. --] (]) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::Ryulong, poorer quality of information does not mean we can assume the press's opinion is correct, that argument makes zero sense. ] (]) 09:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Multiple press agencies possess this same "opinion" which in any other context constitutes an accepted idea or fact. Any form of denying this commonality is tantamount to conspiracy theory.—] (]) 09:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::No, because they have no way of knowing it other than based off their personal opinions and assumptions, they can't conform this stuff so it's opinion. Misplaced Pages shouldn't share their spidey senses. ] (]) 11:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it./it becomes the truth" -Vladimir Lenin ] (]) 11:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::You cannot keep denying that the statements from news media from the New York Times to the BBC to CNN to The Washington Post are personal opinions and assumptions, nor keep quoting people who are so far right to make your points. If multiple news agencies see misogyny and sexism and harassment and say that the ethics in journalism claims are only a front then that is how Misplaced Pages will present this information. You cannot keep mitigating the statements from extremely reputable and reliable sources as opinions and assumptions just because GamerGate says its against corruption in (video game) journalism so that makes all media automatically against them and unusable.—] (]) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::You seem to misunderstand what a fact is and what an opinion is. '''FACT''': People have been harassed. '''Opinion''': It was misogynistic in intent/(it was done by GG/it was done by trolls/it was a false flag (These are assumptions)). '''Fact''': Little has been achieved. '''Opinion''': this is because of the cable/gamergaters only want to harass woman because they are evil man-babies. '''Fact''': Hitler was anti-semitic and allowed/ordered jews to die. '''Opinion''': Hitler was pure evil. Learn the difference between facts and opinions ] (]) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes. This is the crux here. That "misogyny" or "misogynistic" is an opinion. But seriously, why do you guys keep going to that Hitler comparison?—] (]) 04:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::The point is that we do not write WP articles prejudging a person/group that is otherwise universally considered "bad" or "evil" (a purely subjective quality) in a degrading manner but instead give that group appropriate coverage with regards to the sources (separating out any opinion towards that until later), and when it comes to actually explaining when it comes to what the opinion is, it is clearly not made in WP's voice. --] (]) 04:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"Misogyny" is not an opinion here though.—] (]) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes it is. There is a pattern of harassment that easily looks like misogyny, and so the press (and myself, and very much yourself and a few others) can all say that the attacks appear to be a misogynistic because of their focus on woman. But until the people that actually did it are identified, and their personalities determines and all sorts of other studies to make a firm assessment if they did what they did in a misogynistic manner, it remains a significant opinion, not fact, that the attacks were misgoynistic. Consider the Ecole Polytech shooting, where the ''appearance'' of the attack was misogynistic: here is what the featured article intro says "Since the attack, Canadians have debated various interpretations of the events, their significance, and Lépine's motives. Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women.... Other interpretations emphasize Lépine's abuse as a child or suggest that the massacre was simply the isolated act of a madman, unrelated to larger social issues....Still other commentators have blamed violence in the media and increasing poverty, isolation, and alienation in society, particularly in immigrant communities." That was in '89, and the cause remains ''an opinion''. We are only 2-3 months out, and there is no way that it can be determined as a fact that the people are doing this for misogynistic manners - even if Occum's Razor says we should assume that. --] (]) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Ugh. It is not an opinion. Multiple news sources possess this same "opinion" of how GamerGate has done nothing but focus its attention on a bunch of women so that makes it misogynistic acts. You are making an impossible restriction here because it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to be discovered as the perpetrators. Misogyny is not an opinion and all you've done here is shown your new true colors.—] (]) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Apparently, one of the prominent harassers was some Brazillian journo or something. Some pro-gg people tracked them down. --] ] 04:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::It is opinion. It might be repeated in 99% of the press, but that doesn't make it fact (See: "Global warming doesn't exist" ala 2000). This doesn't discount that their opinions are the predominate aspect of this debate so will get significant attention, but they remain, as about 90% of all the content of the RS, opinions. There are actually very few facts of note here: we know there was harassment and threats against at least 3 woman + others; we know those doing it used the #GG banner, and .. that's pretty much it. Everything else is the court of public opinion. --] (]) 04:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: If the RS rules were relaxed, then articles (regardless of source, so long as they themselves have good sourcing/evidence), then this article could become much more neutral. That's just my opinion. --] ] 04:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent|17}} The identity of Sarkeesian's attacker has never been corroborated by reliable sources. There is a vast difference between climate change deniers and GamerGate denial. And Misplaced Pages's rules should not be made lax in any regard just so a positive spin can be made on the GamerGate movement.—] (]) 05:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:Masem, There is an ''objective'' difference between an opinion source and a news source which some editors feel contains opinions. The term 'opinion source' a specific meaning and it tends to be over-applied here. So long as what we are actually ''saying'' in this article matches what our reliable, non-opinion sources say, we're fine, and informing us over and over that what our mainstream sources are saying about gamergate is 'just their opinion' is not going to change Misplaced Pages policy. We should not be reporting opinion from an editorial as fact, but we absolutely can treat what the vast majority of our news sources are reporting as fact. Can you point to specific places where you believe we are using editorial sources to cite information that is presented as fact? -- ] (]) 05:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::{{Yo|Ryulong}} the hitler comparison is used because he is a figure that 99.9% of people agree he was evil to some degree, and most historical sources agree that he was to some degree evil. But His wikipedia article doesn't say that he was absolutely evil at all in the lede, it doesn't even say he was evil, it says naism had been '''described''' as evil ONCE in the whole page. ] (]) 05:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::There has been no evidence presented beyond the pattern of attacks that the harassment is specifically driven by misogyny, particularly no apparent attempt to survey and understand the population of GG to see if it a potential issue with these people. (To contrast, the Newsweek/Brandwatch does explain it's methods as to make it clear that they can say X got more tweets than Y to be able to state that as facts, and then separate out their opinion - we would expect that for proper journalism here) However, it is very obvious when you step back and consider the quality of the sources, and who is saying what, that the use of this claim only occurs in the weaker RS and those closer to the event, making it a clear bias issue that we have to be aware exists and be careful in handling the sources. (The stronger reliable sources like NYTimes that are clearly not op-ed pieces stay very neutral though point out the criticism of the situation, when they do, making it clear it is an opinion or observation without 100% affirmation that it is a fact) Add that because we don't take sides, and the GG have denied saying it is about misogyny (which can be sourced), and that's even more reason that we cannot state the claims that might be popular in the press as fact. As to where we have a fact-presentation problem: the first sentence in the lede. The controversy is not about misogyny - that is an ''effect'' of the initial problems. As has been pointed out by others, the proper way to frame this is to state that while supports say it is about ethics, the persistent harassment attributed to GG has a pattern of sexism and misogyny, which has tainted any attempt to discuss any possible ethics issues. That is a very neutral statement true to both sides, but reflects the predominate opinion of the press here. (Really, think about it: everyone's pointed out there's misogyny involved, but it's a symptom not a cause that anyone is trying to figure out how to deal with to defuse GG - that's why the controversy can't be about that). Much of this is the right wording choices in the existing narrative simply to make statements that are too concrete as fact in WP's voice to be attributed to the press or specific source, simply so that we are clearly avoiding taking sides. --] (]) 07:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::So we're allowed to say it's an attack on women and women's voices in gaming but we cannot continue referring to it as misogyny because GamerGaters say their movement isn't inherently misogynistic?—] (]) 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Pretty much yes, that's what "not taking sides" ''means'', and it's the essence of our NPOV core content policy. Though you can say that the press has called it misogynistic in as many ways and shapes as you like, per ]. ] (]) 12:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::At the absolute best there are two camps of gamergaters: the 'but ethics!' crowd (who by most accounts spend a lot of time talking about how they're about ethics and not much actually ''talking'' about it) and the ones doing the harassing. (And you can spare me the 'they don't represent gamergate' because we all know what the sources say.) We can't give 'but ethics' pride of place when they're the minority perspective. They're getting the extreme minority of mainstream press coverage, and that's because their ''actions'' are less interesting, less notable and less significant - because their ethics campaign, again, appears to be largely limited to saying 'gamergate is about ethics.' We can not claim that there is one coherent position that is ''the'' gamergate position. We have people saying gamergate is against harassment, and then we have gamergate's extremely well-documented harassment. So at the worst, this article is 'biased' against one ''faction'' of gamergate by not presenting it as the majority view at the expense of the much larger, more active and better referenced 'side' that's vocally attacking too-vocal women, "SJWs" and other undesirables in the gaming community. -- ] (]) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Keep in mind that WEIGHT/UNDUE applies to the entire article, not a single area. The lede is supposed to concisely present the broad overview of the situation. When one is talking anything about a controversy or the like, the common form used in nearly every reputable source (and on WP pages) is to start with those seeking change to address their points, and then to address the opposition and their points, so that there's the counterlogic argument that follows. This might, in the microcasm of the lede, seem to violation WEIGHT/UNDUE for GG, but again, those apply to the article at large - the intense dislike the press has for GG is not going to go under (and in fact with the rest of the lede, it should be plainly obvious that this is the case). But to be neutral and concise, and to avoid presenting opinion as fact, calling the GG controversy as one about misogyny and harassment in the very first sentence is wrong; the controversy was over ethics (by the initiating side, regardless of how flimsy that reasoning is considered by the press), but the resulting harassment has led the press to broadly condemn the movement as misogynistic. This is why it is best to remove any attempt to qualify what the controversy is about in the first sentence, letting the 2nd and 3rd (about pro and antiGG respective) speak for themselves; this is more true to the sources as well that cannot determine what GG is really about. Putting the proGG side in sentence order over the antiGG side is not pushing their side as the majority view particularly when we follow up on the antiGG side as the broad condemnation of the movement, which makes it clear that's the majority view. --] (]) 14:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::The question of what ''gamergate'' is about is split, even within the movement - there is 'but ethics!' and then there is lots of vicious harassment. This is not 'the movement says X and other people say Y.' It's 'the movement says X and ''does'' Y.' We're not going to treat those as two equal sides, 'pro-' and 'anti-' because that's not reality. There's no coherent pro-GG side, and no 'anti-GG' counter movement, and what the movement ''does'' can speak for it just as much as the 'but ethics!' protests do. So the question of what the controversy is about is very clear. There is no 'controversy' over whether or not gamergate is ''really'' about ethics. If it were, the sources would be more split. There would be sources for the 'but ethics' side other than trivial mentions in articles on harassment that mention that some people claim gamergate is about ethics. There would be an actual ''discussion.'' There isn't. Our sources either acknowledge the 'but ethics' claims or actively discredit them. That's not a controversy. -- ] (]) 14:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

==Article neutrality==
I am appalled by the absolute lack of neutrality demonstrated in this article. The introduction alone is clearly taking a side and simple edits would suffice to fix it:

::Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture.

::The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. This led to harassment of Quinn, including accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. This in turn led to the birth of the Gamergate movement whose stated aim was to denounce a climate of corruption in gaming journalism. The conflict escalated when a number of gaming industry employees supportive of Quinn were subjected to harassment, threats of violence, and doxxing, leading some to flee their homes.The targets of the harassment included Quinn, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, and indie game developer Brianna Wu. The harassment came from social media users, particularly those from 4chan and Reddit using the #gamergate hashtag. It was condemned by media sources as anti-feminist, and heightened discussion of sexism and misogyny as well of journalistic integrity in the gaming community.

::The social movement behind the Gamergate hashtag has stated that they are concerned with ethics in video game journalism, and identified themselves as participating in what they call a consumer revolt, with members requesting that ad providers pull support from sites critical of Gamergate. This decision and others have been widely criticized in the media as evidence that the ethics concerns are only a front for a culture war against people working to diversify the video game demographic. The Gamergate group's origins in the accusations and harassment of Quinn, its failure to identify significant ethical issues in games media, and its frequent criticism of game critics who discuss issues of gender, class, and politics in their reviews have also been cited as evidence for this position.

::The events of Gamergate are attributed by its proponents to perceived conflicts of interest, dishonesty and a lack of professionalism in the gaming journalism industry. They cite examples such as the firing of Jeff Gerstmann over his review of the game "Kane and Lynch", the shutting down of "The Fine Young Capitalists'" web fundraiser and conflicts of interests at IndieCade and the Independent Games Festival. Such issues in gaming journalism in turn leads to reduced consumer awareness and greater difficulty to break through for independent game developers. Meanwhile, detractors attribute them to perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing diversification and maturation of the gaming industry. As video games have become recognized as a popular art form, they have been subjected to social criticism and treated directly as a vehicle for such commentary. This move to recognize games as art is thought to have prompted opposition from traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games primarily as a form of entertainment.

There we go, simple as that. I haven't read the entire article but if the introduction sets the tone for it, then the entirety of it needs to be rewritten in such a way. Such a lack of neutrality threatens Misplaced Pages's integrity and should be dealt with swiftly. ] (]) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:There is literally a discussion on this right above this, not to mention this version spins it into solely a pro-Gamergate point of view that is about the movement and not the controversy and is therefore not "neutral" per ].—] (]) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Sigh, I actually would support this text that is a pipe dream--although a few sentences would need to be cut or whatever, I'll keep hoping. ] (]) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::This is basically just the polar opposite of the lede from the GamerGater point of view. I don't see how it's any more neutral, not to mention there's no source to support the vast rewriting when the opposite is true for the present version.—] (]) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::The original wording automatically implies that the group opposing Gamergate is right and overwhelmingly presents their side of the issue, unchallenged. Meanwhile, the "Pro-Gamergate" side is crudely summarized in one sentence whose only purpose is to introduce yet more "anti-Gamergate" arguments. I reworded it to include both sides and remove any suggestion that either side is right, so please state how you feel this version would be "less neutral". ] (]) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Because this version is just a GamerGate spin on everything. You remove the mention of misogyny and harassment from the first paragraph, which is how ''everyone'' other than GamerGate itself sees things from the outside in, and gives undue weight to the GamerGate POV which for the past several months of discussing this subject is not found in the preponderance of reliable sources. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to serve as a spin doctor for the movement as you and everyone else who has not been on Misplaced Pages for months or years at a time coming here from KotakuInAction to use your old Misplaced Pages accounts to try to sway the article in your favor.—] (]) 22:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Who are these "everyone" you speak of Ryulong? Or are you saying that everyone that all of a sudden agrees with GG are suddenly a part of GG and therefor the "everyone" would not include them?--] (]) 16:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::The sentence "Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture." is still in the first paragraph. All I did was remove ", concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture." because that part is not neutral but rather the side of the "anti-Gamergate" crowd, which is mentioned alongside the "pro-Gamergate" side, without supporting either side. Please read what is written before actually commenting on it. ] (]) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::As per the reliable sources, the controversy is about misogyny and harassment. ] (]) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:It gets fixed sometimes, but it only lasts for a day or less usually. Somebody barges in saying, "No way, that's now how it happened! Nobody believes this!" and pretty soon the article is absurd again. The issue is that some editors feel there's a clinical, factual way to gauge when something is misogynistic, and Gamergate has fulfilled that, so we need to spend as much time as possible telling everyone how misogynistic it is. Consequently, we occasionally have people coming in to ask what Gamergate is even about, because the article has come to be written as 90% misogyny accusations and 10% half-hearted acceptance that stuff is happening.
:I appreciate the re-write! I skimmed over it and see what you're going for, and I think it's a bit bulky - plus we need to make sure everything can be linked to a source. In any case, you'll need to hang around over an extended period if you'd like to have it and keep it, though. ] (]) 22:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::I unfortunately have neither the time or inclination to debate this much further and edit the entire article. Rather, my intervention was aimed at expressing my concerns over neutrality and demonstrating that it would be easy to rewrite it without taking sides on the issue.] (]) 22:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::These "fixes" are attempts by those in the GamerGate movement and not actual attempts at arguing for neutrality because "neutrality" in their mind, as is evident by this rewrite proposal, is one that is effectively and entirely biased in their favor, as Erik Kain pointed out months ago.—] (]) 22:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Presenting both sides equally is not biased in anyone's favor. ] (]) 22:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yes it is, actually. ]. ] (]) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Thank you for trying! The article needs a lot of work in a lot of ways, but the controversy is highly ideological and Misplaced Pages has unfortunately been a battleground for the issue. ] (]) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:The claims about Quinn have been proven false repeatedly. The claims re: IGF and IndieCade are entirely unsourced. TFYC has nothing in particular to do with journalism ethics. Gerstmann got fired '''seven years ago''' at the behest of a '''major publisher''', which GamerGate has been conspicuously unwilling to criticize thus far. In short, your rewrite proposal is not acceptable. ] (]) 22:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:: I'm sure somebody would start commenting on it if it wasn't for the fact that it happened SEVEN years ago. I wasn't even aware that this had happened until you brought it up.--] (]) 16:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

{{hat|Quit talking about other editors on this talk page or you risk being Sanctioned under ]. ] <small>]</small> 02:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)}}
:There is nothing to be gained by entertaining single-purpose account after single-purpose account in thread after thread when all they do is post "this article sucks!" screeds. It just raises tempers, which as noted earlier is exactly what external forces are doing here intentionally. Hat these discussions or ignore them outright, we'll all be better off. ] (]) 23:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::Hear hear! Let us shun outside perspectives! For we do not need them. They are all fools. This article is nearly perfect. All we need now is an escalator and Time Machine and we can prove once and forever that Gamergate is wrong!
::In case you missed it, I'm joking. I know you guys like to write off the "legions of SPAs and sock puppets" as a bunch of conspiratorially connected evil-doers who want an evil, impartial article, but the sheer volatility of your reactions to these people does seem to drive most of them away. I think anyone who sticks around this thing must be a glutton for punishment. ] (]) 23:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::It's a general lack of enthusiasm at people with ten edits on their account coming here to make the same claims as everyone that came before them.—] (]) 23:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::: ], it does not matter whether someone has made 10 edits or 100 edits. They have just as much right as you do to come here and state their opinion. You are definitely ] ] here. ] (]) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

{{hab}}
::::Good grief. How about I chime in here. I have more than 10 edits. I do not play video games and I do not belong to GamerGate or anti-GamerGate (and all editors here should not be leveling these kind of accusations at each other). I agree with Akesgeroth that the current lede is not sufficiently neutral and his/her proposed lede is better. Do we need an RfC or can we work through this? ] (]) 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Akesgeroth's proposed lead is not supported by the sources used throughout the article and very little sources out there to even support several of the statements made. This effectively gives undue weight to the minority opinion in these matters. Neutrality isn't "both sides get equal treatment". ] contains the following tenets: "Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", "Avoid stating facts as opinions", "Prefer nonjudgmental language", "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". In all, this comes down to the fact that the media at large have decried GamerGate as an anti-feminist and misogynistic backlash at a maturing industry that they've been insular about for years, and the cries from GamerGate supporters that say calling the movement and controversy misogynistic and anti-feminist as is stated by the majority of reliable sources somehow contravenes these tenets of Misplaced Pages which no one bothers to read because in their mind "neutral" means "50/50" and not "present it as it's presented elsewhere" because they automatically assume the media is 100% against them.—] (]) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::: The problem here isn't that the wikipedia article reports that the majority of the media make the claim that GG is about misogyny; the problem is that the wikipedia article is written in a way that leads the reader to believe that the truth is being reported. As for "equal representation", that is a misconception. What people are asking for is that wikipedia directly reports on what has actually been said. I.E if it can be proven by linking to actual evidence -- that GG is about journalist corruption, then this should be mentioned in the article or at least that GG supporters make this claim. This however isn't what Misplaced Pages is doing, Misplaced Pages is just reporting what news outlets have written. Since this article is actually about GG's claims that there is media corruption, only using "established" news media as a "reliable source" (lol) is bogus. Why would established media write articles about how they themselves are corrupt? See how that works? As such, if Misplaced Pages is only going to be based on these types of "reliable" sources, then it would be better if the whole Misplaced Pages article was purged as a whole since it does not actually report actual information.--] (]) 16:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::No. The problem here is that POV pushers advocating for the GamerGate movement are insistent in denying that multiple news sources, that are not the video game websites that the GamerGate movement is fighting against, all have come to the same conclusion and that conclusion must not, according to the POV pushing editors, be attributed as a fact. You cannot go conspiracy theory and claim that all media is against GamerGate and therefore only the sources that the GamerGate editors put forward, namely anything put out by the extreme right wing or conservative leaning news media that are going "GAMERGATE IS ABOUT FEMINISTS BULLYING POOR MALE GAMERS" as has been consistently the case, are allowed here is not how Misplaced Pages works. We are not mitigating the fact that misogyny and sexism and harassment and death threats have been intertwined with GamerGate more than anything about its claims of corruption in ''video game'' journalism just because the GamerGate movement wants to insist that these statements on misogyny are merely the opinions of the authors at multiple different news media, such as the BBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, etc. rather than just the Gawker windmills being tilted at.—] (]) 20:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: Wait, are you making the claim that if a news outlet reprots something, then this magically becomes facts? Is that what you are saying Ryulong? You see, what many in GG argue is that established media has a vested interest in this. For instance the gaming Journalistic sites could be said to be extreme far left in their views. And what "old media" outlets report on this if not the far left ones? This of course suggest that these media outlets have a vested interest in supporting their journalist "friends" on the Internet. Also, if you actually watch any of these reports you will notice a distinct lack of actual representation of both sides. These media outlets only invite people that claim they have been harassed or in some other way are already famous. In an post (that was deleted) I mentioned this briefly, but I wont go into details this time... but you can check yourself. These reports are all about the "victim" getting a free reign to tell their story, the interviewer never asking any tough questions and basically presenting the idea that what these people claim are facts, this despite no evidence of this actually being presented in the show itself. So, no -- based on their actions these media outlets can not be trusted to be objective.
::::::::Also, it is funny how you mention that "extreme right" media articles wont be allowed on here as source, then you seemingly champion extreme left media articles?--] (]) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm making the claim that if fifty news outlets come to the same independent conclusion that it's probably a fact. The BBC, New York Times, Guardian, and CNN should have no vested interest in what a bunch of video game news websites have to say about anything. You are seriously going "IT'S A MEDIA CONSPIRACY AGAINST GAMERS" here, as well as denying the fact that the people being discussed in this article have even been affected by gross attacks because of GamerGate, leaving me with no real way of refuting anything you say. I'm not going to be responding to you any further.—] (]) 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: What you call independent I call collusion. Non of these articles ever present any real evidence of their claims and they all are written in pretty much the same way, even using the same jargon. Journalists are friends, they add each other on facebook and twitter. How can you call them independent when they are fraternizing on social media? The BBC, New York Times, Guardian, and CNN are all far left leaning media outlets with a great invested interest in supporting other left leaning media stay in power. So it isn't as much of a media conspiracy against gamers as it is just "business as usual" as far as media is concerned. Its all about the money and staying in control of the narrative. That is what I am saying. Again none of these media outlets have provided any evidence that these people that were harassed were so because of GamerGate. Wuu posted on Twitter. Check her interviews yourself where she admits harassing GG supporters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1cT72JBc&t=2m57s She thought it was funny. Yes, posting things that can be considered harassment is indeed funny? Or: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAss&t=2m4s Making the claim that she was harassed due to Gamergate is silly, since if she was harassed, it was because she was harassing people right?--] (]) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::And as far as I'm aware nothing you've written has been deleted. It might be in one of the dozen archives this page has but it does not look like anything was deleted.—] (]) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: I made a claim about Brianna Wu, while able to prove this linking to youtube interviews he has done, I did not actually link to it in my post. So it was deleted and I was given "Final warning" for violating Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy. Which also made me wonder, how can a first warning be a final warning?--] (]) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== New BBC article ==

. Look at how they wrote the introduction: {{tq|Games publishers and industry figures must "stand-up and condemn" the movement referred to as "GamerGate", developer Zoe Quinn has told the BBC. Ms Quinn has been at the centre of a furore which some argue is about ethics in journalism, but others consider to be a largely misogynist hate campaign.}} See how they frame it? This is how we should frame our lead too. Hedging with the word "consider" and correct order, IMO. Other quotes: {{tq|While the relationship happened, the review did not ... Analysis of discussion about GamerGate has indicated that misogynist abuse - and vitriolic messages in general - is not limited to either "side" of the argument. Journalist Allum Bokhari, a writer for TechCrunch, has said there was credible evidence that at least one well-known trolling group was "working to provoke both sides against each other".}} ]] ''']''' 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:"It's actually about ethics in video game journalism" isn't the majority viewpoint on this so Misplaced Pages should not frame it as such either. Also Allum Bokhari is already cited so maybe we just need to take more from his piece.—] (]) 23:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
: {{tq|Ostensibly about ethics in video-game journalism, the movement quickly targeted "social justice warriors," most of them women, who questioned the portrayal of women in video games as well as the treatment of women in the community.}} {{tq|Ostensibly about ethics in video game journalism, that cause was quickly overshadowed when some gamers took to social media sites and comment sections to attack women who suggested that video games, and the culture surrounding them, was profoundly misogynistic.}} {{tq|Ostensibly, Gamergate is the response to an indigenous movement among people who play and make video games to protest what they allege is a lack of objectivity and professional ethics in the small world of game industry journalism. The brutal truth, though, is that it Gamergate has its origins in a relationship gone bad.}} {{tq|What ostensibly began as hashtag activism with a stated goal of more ethical conduct in gaming journalism was co-opted into something much more serious and much more troubling.}} {{tq| The movement, which is ostensibly about upholding ethics in video game journalism, is actually more about harassing women, according to a Newsweek analysis of Twitter data released this weekend.}} {{tq| This latest “-gate” is ostensibly a movement dedicated to improving the ethical standards of gaming journalism. But its highest-profile accomplishment has been large-scale harassment aimed at women who work in game development or who write about gaming.}} {{tq|...for many inside and outside the gaming community the ostensible 'aims' of #GamerGate have long been overrun by the actions of a hateful and reactionary mob.}} I think this is enough. For now.
] (]) 23:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::This article Isn't about Gamergate at all. The writer only says that people have been harassed online before gamergate. She then seems to draw some odd conclusions that since people have been harassed online before GG, that GG might be about harassment even though GG condemns harassment? Brilliant.--] (]) 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

::Yep, pretty clear we need to describe the ethics angle first so that we can explain the doubt the press has, instead of putting the cart before the horse. --] (]) 23:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::So "ostensibly about ethics in video games journalism, but..."?—] (]) 23:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::... ] (]) 23:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Right, with "ostensibly" being defined as "Seemingly", though with a somewhat negative bent. They put it first as to be able to concise explain that people thing this is a front for harassment instead. To explain it in reverse makes it very hard to write about the press's opinion. This is how every other controversy or controversial group is treated, to present the side seeking change first, and then rebuttals to that. --] (]) 23:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Why should we privilege the "seeming" over the actual? -- ] 23:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Because Misplaced Pages does not take sides in debates. We cover both side in a fair, and in this case, balanced to the degree that the sources will allow (read: very little discussion of the proGG side, but still some) tone as to neither praise nor blame either side. --] (]) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::well yes, but to put the "seeming" forward of the "actual" doesnt "not take sides" , in fact that's doing the opposite. -- ] 02:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::There's two separate issues here. When we describe the ''movement'', I'm fine with "GamerGate is a movement which is ostensibly about ethics in video games journalism, but has become notable for large-scale misogynistic harassment of women in gaming." I can agree to that.
:::But the ''controversy'' is not about "ethics in video games journalism' because, as is demonstrable, reliable mainstream sources give little or no space to the ostensible "ethics" claims (in large part because the movement has no coherent platform of what its claims are, beyond the long-discredited ones about Zoe Quinn). Rather, they focus almost entirely on the issues surrounding the movement's misogynistic harassment of notable female figures in video gaming. The mainstream public debate about GamerGate has nothing to do with journalism ethics and everything to do with harassment of women. So when we say "Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture," that is true and NPOV. ] (]) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Heck, I would be fine with the sentence you use above that nearly repeats the sources. And no, the press is not all about the harassment, the better sources give some time (nowhere as much but more than just FRINGE) to the proGG side, which is being ignored here. The proGG has a seat at this table if we are writing neutrally regardless of the press opinion (which remember, that's what it is , just opinion; they ''factually'' acknowledge there is a movement but question its goals), and the current attempts at writing this article is denying them that. --] (]) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::You are cherry-picking what is very often ''the only'' mention of 'ethics' in these articles and ignoring their overall content. An article that briefly mentions that gamergate claims to be about ethics in journalism and then goes on to discuss yet another instance of a woman being hounded out of her career or her home is simply giving context for the controversy before discussing it. As this article is about the controversy, rather than about gamergate - due to the off-cited difficulties of writing about a decentralized, leaderless group that insists on being defined by what it says rather than what it does - we do not need to open the article with what the movement that started the controversy claims to be about. We need to open with what the ''controversy'' is about. -- ] (]) 00:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::: But if Gamergate as you claim is a "decentralized leaderless group", one that has no actual membership regisrtation... Why can any claim about misogyny even be possible to prove? Thing is though; gGAmergate is NOT a group -- Gamergate is a movement. See the difference? The movement is defined by those part of the movement, it is defined by the criteria and goals that people part of it has defined is. I.E iy is about Journalistic ethics. If people do other things, then those things re not part of GG, even if it was possible to tie that person to GG. And that is why all these wild claims of misogyny are so utterly stupid. Women and transexuals claim they have been harassed (and they might have), but to later jump to conclusions and say that they have been harassed by GG is strange wouldn't you say? Where have tyhey ever presented any proof that GG is responsible? For sure established media reports that it is GG, but where are they ever presenting any real evidence?--] (]) 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Referring to Ryulong, I think we need to stop with "ostensibly". It is not neutral enough and essentially an opinion by the press. From the source "'''some argue''' is about ethics in journalism, but '''others consider to be a largely''' misogynist hate campaign" is neutral enough IMO. I hope you get the difference between "it is about ethics" and "some argue that it is about ethics". ]] ''']''' 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry but no. It can't possible be neutral if the "reliable sources" this article is based on, themselves aren't neutral since they are themselves the object of the controversy.--] (]) 16:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Are you saying that the New York Times, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc., are all part of a global media conspiracy to kill the concept of what is a gamer?—] (]) 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::: No, I'm saying that established media protects its own to one degree or another. You don't throw rocks in a glass house ect. Media has a vested interest in protecting itself right?--] (]) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, the article currently says that Gamergate supporters argue that it's about ethics. ] (]) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::I'm referring to a restructuring of the first paragraph. ]] ''']''' 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::: I know, and I have argued for this as well in the past. Since established media is actually at least half of the controversy, then their articles can't be treated as anything other than just opinion pieces. At least not in the cases where they provide no actual evidence -- and I has as of yet never seen these blog... I mean journalist articles provide any real proof of their claims.--] (]) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in video game culture which started in August 2014. Supporters of the self-described Gamergate movement state that they are opposing corruption in video game journalism. Detractors state that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women and the diversification of gaming culture. Various media outlets have described the movement as a front for misogyny and harassment.
:::Once again, no. The public controversy is entirely about harassment and misogyny. This is because the movement has failed to raise any legitimate issues of unethical behavior in gaming journalism, so there's nothing anyone can really discuss. ("SJWs are ruining game reviews, stop talking about sexism and only write about frame rates and numbers of polygons" are not ethical issues.) Nobody's buying the "journalism ethics" line except for GG supporters, sorry. ] (]) 01:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) I didn't change ''a single thing'' about journalism ethics in that paragraph. Likewise, there is no denial that this controversy is about harassment or misogyny. I don't know what you're objecting to. ]] ''']''' 01:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Except this is ignoring that the journalistic side ''has'' responded to these claims by changing policies (disclaimers, etc.) in response to the GG's claims of conflicts of interest, and that they have identified there are other ethics issues that they want to talk about, beyond those claimed from the GG. So it factually wrong to say there's no ethics involved in a WP voice. --] (]) 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Good point, thank you. ]] ''']''' 01:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::The fact is that "ostensibly" or "apparently" or some expression of doubt is used in conjunction with the various statements regarding the ethics angle. Several websites did address crowdfunding in their guidelines but that's all that's happened. Everything that followed has been a hate boner for the articles like the one Leigh Alexander made on Gamasutra and the seesawing of advertisers when they bother to react to the deluge of form emails they're receiving from the people that read KIA or /gg/ or whatever other place they congregate now.—] (]) 02:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Masem, those changes happened two months ago, before this became a significant public controversy. The movement has not been able to promulgate any further meaningful claims and rather than declare victory and move on, it has devolved into the widespread harassment, death threats and other violent outbursts directed at Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu that have been widely publicized.
:::::Take the BBC article cited approvingly here. Beyond noting that GamerGate supporters claim they're about journalism ethics and stating that the allegations against Quinn have been proven false, '''it doesn't mention anything about "ethics in gaming journalism"''' and focuses entirely on the harassment issues. That is because, at this point, '''the movement has not made any meaningful claims about ethics in gaming journalism.''' To have a debate about something, you have to make meaningful assertions and the movement has been unable to do so. (Again, "SJWs are ruining everything about games journalism, fire them all" is profoundly unserious.) ] (]) 02:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{green|Ms Quinn herself suggested that the gaming ethics argument could progress - but only if it distanced itself fully from GamerGate tag. "If you have any care for this industry, if you have any care for the future of games, you need to leave. "If you have actual concerns, start over without . If your concerns can't exist on their own, if they have to be supported off the backs of ruining lives, then how legitimate are your concerns?"}} So even the person targetted agreed there's ethics issues in the BBC article. So it is justified. --] (]) 02:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::She said ''if.'' -- ] (]) 02:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Not about the existing of ethics issues. The "if" argument is applies to being discussed in the future. --] (]) 02:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, Quinn has repeatedly said that there could be reasonable, good-faith conversations about ethics in gaming journalism. That is not the same as agreeing that GamerGate has anything to do with substantive ethics issues. In fact, she has repeatedly said that GamerGate was launched as a slut-shaming harassment campaign against her. You fundamentally misrepresent her position. ] (]) 02:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry, that is bullshit logic; her position is clear that there are ethics issues to discuss (she has spoken on this point earlier too); she just wants people that are using the GG tag but want ethics changes to get away from that tag and start anew. She's not accusing everyone under GG as being part of the harassment against here. She's taking a far more neutral stance than this article is. It clearly shows that ''some'' part of the press see that there are ethics to be discussed. We cannot refuse to use what is being said about the ethics side, even if in the same breath the press say they doubt that is really what is happening. That's combining the '''fact''' that GG has said it is about ethics, and the '''opinion''' that it is not. We are required in being neutral (not balanced) to report it that way. --] (]) 02:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::You are intentionally misrepresenting the person who was viciously attacked to launch this sordid affair and '''that is the bullshit logic here.''' That's right, there are ethics issues to discuss. '''GamerGate is not discussing those ethics issues, it is harassing and threatening women in video games.''' Nobody in the movement is articulating what actual, substantive, meaningful, non-total-bullshit ethics issues GamerGate believes exist in games journalism. That is not the media's fault, that is the movement's inability or unwillingness to figure out what it stands for beyond demanding that people stop talking about sexism in video games, which, in case you hadn't noticed, has '''not the slightest fucking thing to do with journalism ethics'''. ] (]) 02:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::WP does not edit with any sympathy to victims, so making it a personaable issues about the attacks against Quinn is not helping. Remember the fact is "GG has claimed it about ethics." That a verified fact. It is an opinion they are not talking about those ethics, and further an opinion that because they aren't talking about ethics, it is really a front for harassment. All that should be in the article, but you '''cannot dismiss''' the fact that GG claims it is about ethics without creating a non-neutral article. All the other stuff that are opinions about the movement have to be in this and will outweigh any reasonable claims the proGG has made, but it is completely disingenious to outright ignore their stated claims even if the press thinks they are lying. (It would be the same if a suspect claims not guilty but everyone in the press and their brother think otherwise - WP would still report neutrally on the issue). --] (]) 03:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::'''Actually, yes, we do edit with sympathy to victims.''' You apparently are unfamiliar with ]. Let me refresh your memory. ]. ... ]. ] (]) 03:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::There is a great difference between respecting privacy and the like, and what is being done here by sensationalizing the issue by aggressively repeating the words "harassment" and "misogyny" to drive home that "GG is evil". We clearly give the harassment victims their due say, but we cannot edit with any added sympathy for them, otherwise that makes us a soapbox, per ]. The article right now does do exactly what AVOIDVICTIM says not to do. --] (]) 03:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I would think that continually stressing too much on misogyny is sensationalist. ]] ''']''' 03:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::If that's how the multitude of sources stress it, then what's the issue?—] (]) 03:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Wrong. She said ''if'' there are people in gamergate who care about ethics they need to distance themselves. That is not the same thing as saying that gamergate is actually ''about'' ethics, even a little bit. -- ] (]) 02:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::How the hell are you reading it like that? She is addressing the people in the gamergate side and telling they can only be productive '''if''' they move away from GG. You cannot twist the sources to your desired narrative. --] (]) 02:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Let's take this real slow. "If you have actual concerns, abandon GamerGate because GamerGate isn't about ethics in journalism. If you aren't willing to do that, then your concerns aren't legitimate." ] (]) 03:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::That reads: "I know you have concerns, I want to talk about them, but as long as you edit under GG, no one will take those concerns seriously." Not that they do not have concerns. Huge difference in that interpretation. --] (]) 03:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, it doesn't. It reads "'''if''' you have actual concerns, talk about them somewhere else." I know that because she actually said the words "If you have actual concerns." -- ] (]) 03:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Hi, I think we can resolve this by quoting what . {{tq|The simple fact of the matter is that GamerGate is *not* about games journalism, and even if it was, their targets are disproportionately powerless in the industry, disproportionately female or feminist, and disproportionately *not games journalists*.}} I don't think we need to further debate what Zoe Quinn believes GamerGate is about. ] (]) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Nope, that counters the sources that says there are concerns even by Quinn (even if she said something else before).--] (]) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That doesn't negate that there are concerns on the GG side, though tells the GG side to make sure that these are legit concerns. I'm totally on board the fact the press does not believe any concerns are actionable or legit atop the fact it is tied with GG, but '''there are proGG concerns''' that can be documented, no matter how flimsy or silly they might come as they are in the press. Because of that, we won't give them a heck of a lot of space, but they cannot omitted from the narrative. --] (]) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(ec) reply to North: Well, Quinn's entitled to her opinion. But she obviously acknowledges that '''some people believe that it is''' about games journalism, even if she herself doesn't. Otherwise, she wouldn't say {{green|and even if it was ...}} reply to Tara: Now, she also acknowledges that '''some people''' have actual concerns. {{green|If you have actual concerns.}} -> "you" - she's talking to somebody with actual concerns, or is she talking to nobody at all? ]] ''']''' 03:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{{tq|Now, she also acknowledges that '''some people''' have actual concerns. If you have actual concerns. -> "you" - she's talking to somebody with actual concerns, or is she talking to nobody at all?}} What very black and white thinking. The answer is 'neither.' She's addressing any hypothetical person who might possibly have any ethical concerns: that does not imply that she thinks the movement has genuine, legitimate ethical concerns. If I say "if anyone has any apples left over, put them in the pantry" am I asserting that there ''are'' apples left over? Or only that I acknowledge it's possible somebody might have some? She is not saying that there ''are'' any people who care about ethics in gamergate, only that anyone who ''does'' is wasting their time and should change their tactics. -- ] (]) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::That's correct, some GG supporters believe their movement is about games journalism. The broader public controversy has centered on the misogynistic harassment and death threats committed by some GG supporters. ] (]) 03:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: (From the GG irc (paraphrased, naturally)) "We cannot take a new name, that will divide us and make us easier to silence" The logic behind staying "GamerGate" is to avoid divide and conquer tactics from the opposition. Its being treated as a war of sorts by pro-gg. Also this (again, edited to be "family friendly"), "...if we can't separate ourselves from the third party false flaggers, because of some random fallacy, how can we defend ourselves from the MSM slandering us?" --] ] 03:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}} that's nice, but also irrelevant until IRC becomes a reliable, non-primary source. ] (]) 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:Well, yeah, DSA510. The movement ''needs to divide'' because until and unless the harassment and death threats go away, the movement will continue to have effectively zero mainstream credibility. If the crazy trolling/MRA/"stop SJWs" group isn't abandoned, GamerGate will continue not to have any sort of seat at the adult discussion table. It's not "divide and conquer," it's "divide or continue to be a punchline."
:Such are the travails of a "movement" with no leadership, no organization and no ability to control its message. Hiding behind complete anonymity on IRC and chanboards might be great for making lulz, but it's not so great for effecting meaningful change. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here. ] (]) 03:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Many people on the pro-gg side see the harassment as serious, but are questioning the source. It isn't all lulz you know. I could for example, assume that all wikipedians are "no fun allowed" boring and bland people, but wikipedians (for now) are people, and people are diverse and different. Using the lowest denominator to judge a group is not very fair. --] ] 03:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::AND, even if we did split, whats to stop false flaggers from hopping on? --] ] 03:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::That's why you'd need to create an actual non-profit organization with defined leadership, an elected board of directors, etc. "Gamers' Coalition for Better Journalism" or something, I dunno. Establish a defined set of goals, perhaps propose a Model Code of Ethics for Gaming Journalism like the SPJ code, etc. Basically, what . Then the organization can formally endorse specific arguments, reject the bullshit ones, disavow harassment, kick people out who are doing stupid stuff, speak with a single unified voice, etc. That's what actual movements for change have done throughout history — see ] and ] for examples.
::::The issue, DSA510, is that right now you cannot meaningfully say "GamerGate is not about harassment." As umpteen squillion people have pointed out, that is literally the ] fallacy. There is no ability to distinguish what one person says "GamerGate" is from what another person says it isn't.
::::Misplaced Pages is a great example. It's operated by the ], a non-profit group with an elected board of directors, that works to manage and oversee what goes on. ] (]) 03:5
:::::North. You have a very crucial misunderstanding of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I think somebody explained this to you one before: the fallacy you're referring to is when somebody says, "No true Scotsman would harass a lady, so therefore anyone who did such a thing is not a Scotsman!"
:::::What you're saying is that all Scotsmen are evil misogynists who want to harass women. One version is a logical fallacy. The other is just a stupid stereotype of a group you dislike. ] (]) 06:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)0, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::Yeah I've said this before, and maybe some others, people are accusing others of this fallacy without understanding what it is, honestly you shouldn't trust anyone whose argument consists of merely naming a fallacy and accusing you of it, without explaining why it's fallacious. Sadly a lot of people online have an understanding of logic that begins and ends with naming fallacies and never learn more from there. People seem to be using thus fallacy here because they can't be bothered to do the work of using evidence to show what GG is about. The fallacy isn't merely saying "that's not what we're about" or "they don't represent up", it refers to the use of questionable definitions and tautology to reach a misleading conclusion. ] (]) 13:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, that's actually ''exactly'' what the Scotsman fallacy is. I don't see anybody saying 'all gamergaters are misogynists.' But some people ''are'' saying "That harassment didn't come from gamergate! Gamergate is against harassment!" That's the fallacy: some people are attempting to improve gamergate's PR not by doing something about it's problems, but by defining 'gamergate' as 'people who care about ethics in journalism' and insisting that this proves that anyone who's harassing women for having opinions they don't like is by definition not part of gamergate. That's not logic that's going to pass muster anywhere outside of the gamergate echo chambers. They don't get to say who does and does not represent them: everything that is going on within their movement is going to be pinned on the movement itself, and when by far the most visible, most notable, most talked about aspect of the movement is the harrassment of women, saying 'they don't represent us!' is not going to make people ignore the harrassment and accept gamergate's claims that it's really just about ethics in journalism. -- ] (]) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Since you are all have such a blast debating the nuances of the BBC article, you might be interested in The Independent's short piece on said BBC article. Most of it is just regurgitation of some Quinn's remarks to the BBC, though; such interpretation as exists simply reflects the now dominant narrative. ] (]) 03:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{green|'''Some have tenuously argued''' that the debate surrounds journalistic standards, while '''others have said''' it stems from misogyny in gaming and men feeling threatened by powerful women working in the industry.}} An apt summary because of hedging. Note that {{green|it has nothing to do with preserving journalistic integrity and has everything to do with her angry ex-boyfriend}} is Quinn's opinion, instead of fact. ]] ''']''' 03:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Since this is becoming about the ideologies and such behind GamerGate itself, rather than about the article, and I don't want some esoteric WP rule being pulled, I propose some other place to do as such (as much as I'd like to discuss it here). Perhaps someone's talkpage? IRC? --] ] 03:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::Happy to continue this on my talk page. ] (]) 03:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Fair, however I'll do it some later time. But I do appreciate the offer. Expect me later though. --] ] 04:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:Considering it's part of about every even vaguely balanced article, and many biased ones, and that GamerGate makes no sense unless you understand about the ethics angle, calling it fringe, and saying it shouldn't be included is just lies. Here's some articles that mention that viewpoint in the intro.
:http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/31/the-deanbeat-like-it-or-hate-it-gamergate-isnt-losing-steam/
:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/zoe-quinn-on-gamergate-its-not-about-ethical-journalism-its-glorified-revenge-porn-by-my-angry-ex-9829176.html
:http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/10/ultimate-weapon-against-gamergate-time-wasters-1960s-chat-bot-wastes-their-time
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29821050
:http://www.salon.com/2014/10/28/gamergates_fickle_hero_the_dark_opportunism_of_breitbarts_milo_yiannopoulos/
:] (]) 09:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::I believe you are misintepreting what has been said. NorthBySouthBaranof is arguing that the concept that "it's actually about ethics in video game journalism" is fringe. While people representing themselves as part of GamerGate say they are all about ethics, there is very little evidence of anything they have done regarding ethics since all of these game websites went "Oh, okay, we'll acknowledge Patreon, Indiegogo, Kickstarter, etc., in our rules for our writers". They do not care about the Kane & Lynch fiasco (Gerstmann has effectively disowned the movement in some statement he made that was linked here at one point), nor do they care about whatshisface and those bottles of Mountain Dew and bags of Doritos, nor do they care about any AAA publishers doing anything. While we can discuss ethics in video game journalism as part of the background of GamerGate, it cannot really be given that much coverage in the whole of the text because there's nothing else out there that talks about it. How many times can we possibly be expected to write "ethics in video game journalism" throughout the article when there's no evidence of anyone in GamerGate doing anything about it since late August/early September? There was no (as far as reliable sources are aware) outrage at the Shadow of Mordor debacle. There was no (as far as reliable sources are aware) effort made to boycott Monolith or Warner Bros. Instead, all GamerGate has feasibly done is harassed several non-video game companies into pulling their advertising (temporarily) from websites they presently hate. Intel and Gamasutra or Adobe, Mercedes Benz, and whoever else it was from Gawker Media because of Leigh Alexander's op/ed and Sam Biddle being himself on Twitter and then Gawker's own reaction to it. This isn't "ethics in journalism". Ethical journalists shouldn't give a shit about their advertisers. That's the whole reason Gerstmann was fired, because there was a lapse in ethics regarding the advertiser and Eurogamer. So I hope this clarifies things. Ethics in journalism is a fringe issue because there's been no accomplishments in it, despite it being GamerGate's expressly stated goal which nearly all media outlets see as a thinly veiled front for their continued hatred of everyone that they see as opposed to them.—] (]) 09:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah, these sources do not back up "the ethics angle" at all. The closest we get is the ''BBC'' quoting "one prominent figure who backed GamerGate, but wished to remain anonymous in this article" and ''Venturebeat'' effectively saying "GamerGate says it's about ethics, but the evidence says it's not, and if it was once about ethics it's not now". ] (]) 09:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::They don't back up the viewpoint, my point is they still mention it because it is key information to understand the controversy. ] (]) 11:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::and again "mention" "background". -- ] 11:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::But it isn't background, it's a key part of the controversy. ] (]) 11:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::no, its not key to any third party observation. if it were "key" someone would have done "problems with ethics in journalism" story without a focus on harassment. they havent and they wont. "but ethics" is background to what third parties care about and therefore what we cover. -- ] 11:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::That does not follow. ] (]) 11:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, from Misplaced Pages policies, it does. ]. We follow the reliable sources. " , , , , " , , " when the reliable sources are framing the topic as "Gamergate is misogynistic trollfest under figleaf of "but ethics" thats how we frame it. -- ] 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::But it's been covered just not agreed with in many articles as I have said, also it needs to be covered to make the article comprehensible, and even if that did go against policy ]. You just seem to be attempting to divert. ] (]) 12:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::I dont see anyone saying that we dont cover the "but ethics". we just cover it in the proper proportion and aspect that the reliable sources are covering it - the smokescreen "ostensible" - ap per ]. -- ] 13:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::You seem to be ignoring that people are finding the article incomprehensible. ] (]) 13:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Whoa - non-sequitur. While readers would find "Gamergate is about ethics in journalism" ''comprehensible'', it does not follow any of the content policies. And it is certainly possible to write an article that is ''comprehensible'' where we cover the issues in the proportion they are covered by the sources, treating the "ostensibles" as "ostensibles".-- ] 13:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That's a strawman. I'm not saying the article should endorse the GG opinion, but that without explaining what it is, early on, the article is incomprehensible. Currently the article is basically useless ] (]) 13:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::We ''do'' explain what 'the GG opinion' is. We do it in the ''second sentance.'' Explaining it any 'earlier on' than that would be a serious undue weight issue. Saying 'gamergate is a controversy about ethics in journalism' and then going on to explain the actual ''events'' of the controversy, which are almost entirely about harassing women into silence, is not going to make this article any less confusing. We can say that gamergaters ''claims'' to be concerned about ethics in journalism - which we do - but our evidence shows that this is nothing but a claim, so we can't portray it as anything more -- ] (]) 14:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

== Swedish media outlet "NyheterIdag" reports on Gamergate and journalism corruption ==

Speaking of reliable sources, recently Swedish meida have been writing about Gamergate and about how media is trying to push and spin a false narrative. The articles can be found here: http://nyheteridag.se/svenska-dagbladet-jamfor-gamergate-med-breivik/ And here: http://nyheteridag.se/nu-har-gamergate-har-natt-sverige-visar-sig-att-svensk-press-ar-en-del-av-korruptionen/
Misplaced Pages wanted some reliable sources and there you have it.--] (]) 11:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:Can you show this has a reputation for reliable information in Sweeden? ] (]) 11:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:So I've only taken a brief look at this and Google Translate isn't always the most reliable, but... the alleged issue "discovered" is that a Swedish journalist is '''Facebook friends''' with two people they interviewed. ''Really? Seriously? That's'' what the movement is going to hang its hat on? Because that's not meaningful evidence of anything. Facebook is widely used for personal and professional networking and being Facebook friends is not even evidence, much less proof, of anything unethical or improper.
:I'm not particularly familiar with Swedish media, but this outlet's Twitter account has fewer than 700 followers, while the major newspapers in Sweden have 70,000. Suggests to me that, at best, it's a marginal source, and the claims made seem rather outlandish. ] (]) 11:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

::: per ] please refrain from posting your personal opinion. If the source should be included at all then it should only mention that fact. ] (]) 11:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Discussing a source's reliability and the credibility of a claim in the context of whether material is suitable for inclusion is precisely what an article talk page is for. ] (]) 12:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:The site has been referenced before on a small page, I couldn't find much on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/Czon#External_links and it's meant to be linked on ], but no clue where ] (]) 12:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:Also, these are both unsigned editorial opinions. If we decide Nyheter Idag's opinion on GamerGate is notable, I would not object to using as an example of the opposition to the mainstream POV. I would strenuously object to including any reference of the absurd claim that there is any meaningful ethical issue with being Facebook friends with someone. ] (]) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:: The claim is absurd? Naturally one can add people on facebook without truly being friends with them, but does that mean the point isn't a valid one? If a person is friends with another person then they are immaterially compromised right? The same reasoning need to be applied in this as in court cases. You can't have friends of a suspect do the actual investigation of the suspect right? So when a journalist writes an article concerning his friends and he paints them up as heroes... then that article could no longer be considered a reliable source right? "NyheterIdag" also mention that Swedish media (much like how other media have compared GG to ISIS) have compared GG to "Breivik". Breivik is a convicted bomber and massmurderer in Norway for those of you that aren't familiar with his work. So NyheterIdag" was pointing out the absurd way media was handling the GG issue.--] (]) 13:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, the claim is absurd. No, journalists do not become "materially compromised" by being connected with someone on a social network commonly used for professional and personal networking. Journalism has nothing to do with legal proceedings. What next, "a journalist had a drink in a bar with two developers during PAX, so s/he is biased"? Journalists are not monks, robots or jurors and there has never been any ethical, moral or legal prohibition against having professional social relationships with your peers, colleagues, etc. In fact, a significant amount of reporting would never take place if not for the development of such relationships. How do you think reporters gain the trust of sources, develop deeper insights into the issues of what they're covering or make the contacts that aren't listed on someone's website? They, yes, talk to people in social gatherings. Real reporting doesn't take place at staged press conferences — it takes place after hours when your source has had a couple beers. ] (]) 13:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Either way it really doesn't matter, so please stop this. ] (]) 13:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::: A journalists job is to report information and news, not propaganda and opinions. If said journalists is actually part of the news themselves or friends with the object of the article, then they can no longer be considered objective which should in turn disqualify them as a reliable source in the case of the news subject. If a journalist had a drink with somebody then no, that would not disqualify them, if said journalist had a drink with a person and then sex or something, then THAT would immediately disqualify them as a reliable source. Interviews that are given to friends can not be seen as anything other than just advertising. So to answer your unasked question -- no, I would rather these interviews go away. If they go away then these people that give these interviews would be forced to talk to actually unbiased journalists if they wanted to inform people of something. Journalists are not robots, but they should only deliver facts, not propaganda. Andy journalists that express personal opinions should be fired!--] (]) 14:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:: per Nyheter_Idag on metapedia (spam backlisted) it seems to be a very small fringe newspaper, therefore it isn't reliable. However I do not find the claims absurd its just dosn't have enough evidence and can therefore not be inserted. ] (]) 12:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::: The article mentions the newspaper "Aftonbladet". Aftonbladet is far left newspaper. Of course pretty much all the major newspapers in Sweden are far left, so I guess you can't call them "fringe". Only reason why "nyheteridag" would be considered fringe, is because it isn't far left.--] (]) 13:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::: even if the news paper isn't "fringe" it is still not a reliable source, we have to wait until this "connection" is repeated by other outlets. ] (]) 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::: But in this case it is pretty much an impossibility. All the major newspapers in Sweden are faaaar left leaning, some like "Expressen" have even been reported to... well, just do a search for "Swedish Expressen" and you'll know what I'm talking about. That said, In Sweden all the major newspapers are pretty much one and the same. They are all "facebook friends" so to speak. So expecting some other news outlet in Sweden report on this is pretty much impossible since in doing so they would report on their friends right? As with everything else though, I feel this should be included in the article at least as a "A Swedish outlet media reports on Journalist corruption in other Swedish outlet media regarding GG" Because we don't actually need another outlet to report the same thing for us to include in the article that a Swedish media has reported this.--] (]) 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::: though luck then since ] we have to just wait till the "impossible" happens. ] (]) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Well, how about this article written on the minor Swedish Internet news outlet "motpol"? http://www.motpol.nu/oskorei/2014/10/01/gamergate/ I feel it gives a pretty balanced view on things as it also points out the far left agenda that dominates the Swedish media. Or how about this article also from NyheterIdag: http://nyheteridag.se/gamergate-nu-reser-sig-spelnordarna-upp-mot-eliten/--] (]) 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

== Post by someone claiming to be significant to GG ==

http://gamergate.me/2014/10/notyourshield-uprising/
He says he created the "NotYourSheild" hastag, which I think would make his opinion significant, I can't find anyway to verify it though. ] (]) 13:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
: Logically it should be. But that isn't how wikipedia works. Misplaced Pages will only allow "reliable sources" even if said reliable sources are third party propaganda machines with as much reliability as and evil regime trying to spin the truth in order to stay in power. Meanwhile even if there is evidence of the opposite, wikipedia rules do not allow such sources unless these sources can be confirmed by some "reliable thirdparty source". The rational for this is so that only things that can be "confirmed" will be hosted on Misplaced Pages, but as I just pointed out -- this only plays into the hand of established media and why wikipedia rules fail at actually being factual or even a reliable source of information. I mean, have you never wondered why people scoff at people that link to wikipedia as proof that they are right? It's because wikipedia is itself not a reliable source... even wikipedia roundabout admits this as per their own definition, you can't use a wikipedia article as reference and source when writing another wikipedia article. So to answer your question -- no, unless some "reliable source" (lol) can confirm that this man is who he says he is and that he is actually the person that wrote the article, then per WB rules and stuff, it wont be allowed here or something. As such, this is why I think the whole GG conspiracy article should be voted for deletion and being purged. As it is right now there is maybe 10% truth to it and the rest just propaganda.--] (]) 13:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

== How can we go about deciding what opinions to remove ==

So I do think we need a process to remove a lot of the opinions, but how exactly? We have to be careful to represent opinions fairly, and I think we may need a tactic. One idea is to clone the page with remove all opinions, then start adding them back in, but we can't do this on a case by case basis, or we will just end up at square one. This isn't as simple as you'd think. ] (]) 14:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
* Hey {{u|Halfhat}}. Can you <s>remove or </s>refactor the straw poll sections below? I don't think any of those needs a structured "poll/discussion" format (and in some cases it might be more trouble than it's worth). In most cases you could just leave each as a proposal and if they appear to have consensus make a protected edit request to remove them. ] (]) 16:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Well they include removing signifcant sections, I also had no idea how the community here would react. It seems not at all. ] (]) 22:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I should've been more clear. You don't need to remove them, but I don't think preloading a "straw poll" format is necessary or valuable. That's all. ] (]) 22:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of a tough question because no matter how we do it, it's going to end up time consuming. We could remove any opinion that's only mentioned in one source, but even that ends up with us having to reevaluate the 100-something articles we have referenced now. Maybe we could start by looking at one section at a time and figuring it out that way.
Semi-related to the section topic: I think that we should, as a group, decide on exactly what criteria we want a source to meet to be used in the article. That way, we don't need have to have a long, draining discussion on whether or not an article can be used every time a new one is presented. I realize that Misplaced Pages has guidelines and standards for this, but I think we should take steps to try to avoid a situation like what happened with the last Buzzfeed article that was proposed. What do you think? ] (]) 16:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:I think you're on the right track with the "more than one source" idea. A lot of the article is "A said X, B said Y, C said Z," and so on. If we can at least condense those down to an umbrella statement with those articles as citation it would help quite a bit. For example that "Social Criticism" part can have a broad statement, then quotes from (for example - not a proposed change) just Kain and Moody as representative of a couple divergent views of it. Even if we end up leaving most of the quotes in, adding a summary statement beings some focus. In terms of re-researching all the sources, if we assume that the most pertinent bits are the ones already quoted it cuts down on the work. If re-reading everything ends up having to be done, doing it an article paragraph at a time at least makes the job more bite-sized. This suggestion hasn't gotten traction before, but maybe we're at a point where it's more useful.] (]) 17:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::I guess the next step is... to figure out the next step? I feel like this is the kind of discussion that would benefit from input from more people. I think if we remove a bunch of opinions from the article, they'll just be put back in again after a few hours. That's ignoring the fact that the article is fully protected right now anyway. ] (]) 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::As you pointed out, it's protected for a couple days. Pick a paragraph, write a replacement, suggest it on the talk page (normally, not as request for edit on protected page). Most of the broad discussions have degenerated, but hopefully having some specific wording to discuss will keep things on-point and inspire constructive input. ] (]) 21:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

== Straw Poll- Remove the political views sections within GamerGate activism ==

I don't see how it adds any value, just a lot of bloat and unneeded opinion. We don't need every thought on it ever to have it's own section. ] (]) 15:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
===Vote===
*it doesnt make sense as "political views" under "gamergate activism" (but "gamergate activism" doesnt make much sense itself) - the content is probably appropriate for a "reception and analysis" types section. -- ] 00:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
===Discussion===
No.—] (]) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:If you have nothing to add then there's no point saying anything. ] (]) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

] Have you seen how long that section is, what does it really add, the article is unusably long. ] (]) 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Straw Poll- Merge the Diversity and inclusivity section in GamerGate activism ==

Merge the section into the older Presence of misogyny and inclusiveness in Role of misogyny and antifeminism. It could do with being trimmed too. ] (]) 15:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
===Vote===

===Discussion===

== Straw Poll- Remove the Wikileaks section from GamerGate activism ==

We really don't need a sections for one persons unclear, disinterested opinions on this. They really haven't been refered to much anyway ] (]) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

===!Vote===

*No.—] (]) 20:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*As a stand alone section, no. but as a major figures opinions, the content is probably valuable. -- ] 00:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
===Discussion===

== GG Branding ==

. Supports inclusion of Vivian James image and more importantly the adapted GG logo that should be used in the header. --] (]) 16:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:And to add that that article does note there was a problem with the color scheme as fuller explained in but that they've look past. --] (]) 16:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::I wouldn't say the looked past it. Most of the article is about the color scheme. — ] (]) 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::The article is literally titled "The Secret Meaning Behind Gamergate's Branding", I don't think that's looking past it at all. ] (]) 16:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry, when I meant "they", I meant the GGers unaware of the color scheme attachment. --] (]) 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::The significance of the colour scheme is a myth. My observations are the GGers are aware of the existence of this myth. ] (]) 12:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:I don't really get this thing with the colors. If you know any color theory, purple and green are complementary colors and complementary colors are commonly used together. Picolo is a green character with a purple outfit because of color theory, not because of any lewd sexual reasons. The article could be used to establish that Vivian James is often used as a Gamergate mascot, but the assertion that purple and green are secretly representative of rape should probably be attributed as an opinion if it's to be mentioned at all. ] (]) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Read the article: it does a pretty good job of making the case that at least some of the people designing the character were in on the joke. -- ] (]) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::It doesn't make a strong case of anything. There's of .gif of Picolo having anal sex with Vegeta, which they mention is seven years old, and based on the fact that Picolo uses complementary colors, Vivian James is a secret rape joke because ''she also'' uses complementary colors. I joked earlier that we should try to link Gamergate to the death of Mister Rogers, but I was mocking how ridiculously biased all this nonsense has been. I wasn't seriously implying that we should seek any tenuous evidence to tie Gamergate to the pettiest and most insubstantial claims of evil. ] (]) 16:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::No, that's not an accurate description of what the article is saying. It describes the history of the meme and the use of the color scheme to reference it on 4chan. It then outlines the threads where the color scheme was proposed and points to instances of references to the meme being made in response to that color choice. The 'complementary colors' line is a red herring: purple and green are not the only colors that complement each other, and this was not a random choice made in a vacuum. It's not as simple as 'purple+green=rape.' This color choice was made on a forum with a history of using that color scheme to reference that joke, and by people making direct text references to said joke. -- ] (]) 17:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::This is conspiracy theory level stuff, Tara. Once McIntosh started telling everyone that "purple and green refer to an old rape joke" then yes, people started seeing it that way. However, that doesn't mean that having good color coordination is a red herring to distract from an evil, subconscious message. I used to have a friend who wore a purple T-shirt with a green sweathshirt. ] (]) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::From the article: "Yet, in the initial forum discussion that led to the Vivian James design, a draft of the Vivian character with her distinctive color palette got plenty of “thanks, doc” replies, as did an anonymous illustrator who a few days later posted a first draft of the now standard GamerGate logo, showing a stylized video game controller with purple and green G’s." ] (]) 17:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::So you like that the reliable source can be used to discuss Vivian James, except for the part where basically the whole thing is pointing out that the colors reference a rape meme. Quite. ] (]) 19:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::I have heard that green was chosen because of the green clover of 4chan and purple because of color theory. ] (]) 16:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Here is a link to a color palette (even the orange can be explained by this): http://paletton.com/#uid=30H0X0kYp++++XE+++BVy++SO+Z ] (]) 17:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:FWIW, based on how the sources write this, it should be described that the green/purple is a color scheme commonly adopted by 4chan (an origin of GG), that scheme itself ''in part'' based on the Picolo meme, but that's lore of 4chan that not every 4chan user knows (due to its high revolving door aspect). As such, the creators of Vivian (and subsequent the GG controller logo) used the 4chan color scheme, and that sources have noted they may have been unaware of the color scheme's origins and unintentionally introduced the Picolo meme colors into the GG logo. (They might have been fully aware too, but at least these articles give the benefit of doubt it was an possible mixup) --] (]) 17:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Luckily the internet keeps records of its own insanity. Apparently it is an old meme, but thanks to spreading the idea that Vivian James is based on it, it's gone from relatively unknown to trending. Galleries show the "thanks, doc" thing has been applied to a lot of characters sharing these colors, including but not limited to Barney the dinosaur. ] (]) 17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::That 'mitigating' information does not appear in the source from what I can see. We don't have to prove that every 4channer would know the meaning of the color scheme for it to be relevant, as it's clear from the article that many who contributed to the character's creation ''did.'' -- ] (]) 18:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::4chan is an anonymous image board. How would you prove the individual intent of anyone there? ] (]) 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Anonymity doesn't enter into it: the evidence that the article presents shows that multiple references to the rape joke were made during the discussion of the character's design. This is a reliable source for the subject of this type of design, and the conclusions it presents are sound. -- ] (]) 18:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::You can't pick and choose like that, Masem. Almost this entire story is describing how the logo references a rape joke and how that damages the movement's public credibility when it claims to not be about misogyny. ] (]) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I never said we can't talk about how sources see it as reference to the Picolo meme; that's clearly there (with the source required to otherwise avoid the original research of your claim). But per the FC article, the GG people including TFYC group pushes the fact that this was not intentional - the FC and BB authors see this differently as that is their opinions that we can include. --] (]) 21:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I think it's probably fine to include a reference to TFYC's response to the FC claim here. ] (]) 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:Questionably color scheme aside; how would this work with ]? — ] (]) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Under non-free, besides this source, there's other sources that describe the connection of the Vivian character to be representative of the GG movement; add that the coloring scheme presents some interesting issues, and the NFCC#8 (contextual significance) barrier is clearly passed. If the only thing we could say about Vivian was "she is GG's mascot", that woudl be insufficient, but there's plenty of discussion now of the character itself to qualify for an image here. --] (]) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::So did you actually find a source that proclaims that Vivian James' color scheme is that of the daily dose?—] (]) 20:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Also, I don't think that there's any particular need to have any non-free images representing the movemetn on the page about a controversy, Masem.—] (]) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::The comment from the RS Fast Company pointing out the scheme bears a close resemblance to the meme is right there. Also, this is a page about the controversy ''and'' the movement - it makes no sense to treat the topics separately as they are far too intertwined here. --] (]) 21:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::There's no need to have non-free images of the movement's iconography on this page.—] (]) 22:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:I am curious about why it is claimed to be a rape joke. The author seems to be relying on the description given by KnowYourMeme, but there is no clear reference to rape anywhere it is mentioned except KYM and people citing KYM as a source. When it is brought up on 4chan or other meme sites there is no mention of rape that I can tell, just sex. We can't really know what the motivations were of the person who posted the version with purple and green, let alone if anyone there really saw it as a rape joke in the first place. This seems to be more of an opinion, rather than a factual statement and should be considered as such.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Perhaps we should just describe it as "an animated gif of the ''Dragon Ball Z'' character Piccolo sodomizing the character Vegeta". Or we go with what the sources say which is their definition of it being a rape joke instead of hemming and hawwing over the specifics as usual.—] (]) 22:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::We have one source that really talks about it and another that basically just quotes it. I think the most we could justify is like a sentence, maybe two, stating that some believe it is a reference to a rape joke. The author of the piece makes a circumstantial case for it being a reference to daily dose, but one that is still subject to interpretation and only establishes it as a rape joke by linking to KYM, which is not a reliable source. We cannot treat this as fact given the level of uncertainty surrounding it. For what it is worth, TFYC to this allegation a while back.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::It to me looks like a quick turnaround from praising KYM for having "balanced" coverage of GamerGate when now something salacious is being linked to it. He makes enough of a case that the author can be quoted, but I don't think that there's much of an argument to include the non-free images of barely known provenance on this page when we can just describe the colors.—] (]) 23:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate (pun intended), perhaps the "thanks doc" comments occurred to the posters by coincedence? The internet has a strange memory. I myself, when I looked at the daily dose swf first, didn't think of anything, I just saw... well you know. It was only after it was highlighted that, piccolo has purple and green colors, and vivian's hoodie has purple and green colors, that it kinda made a weak connection, emphasis on weak. Its that thing where you don't notice stuff until its pointed out to you. Now, concerning this to the article, the connection is too weak to actually be included. --] ] 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)(For all its worth, her hoodie could have been another set of colors and someone would have whined)
:"Playing Devil's Advocate" actually has absolutely no place in WP: we work by doing research using reliable sources, not by concocting theories about scenarios where those sources could be wrong. -- ] (]) 05:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::The source for the "rape" thing is basically trying to disguise theory as fact. Its one theory against another. Also ] is now rape I guess. --] ] 06:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::No and no. Contrary to what the bad examples on this page may have taught you, you can't actually dismiss a source you don't like by saying 'it's all just opinion.' -- ] (]) 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Legalities of online threats and the issues with law enforcement dealing with the harassment ==

This is from ] so its a decent RS (not great, but for the fact they point out, they are fine) - pointing out that online rape and murder threats are federal crimes (but not general harassment), but that due to lack of reporting the federal gov't cannot do much about these. --] (]) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:"So, why have there been no prosecutions? A big part of the answer, I suspect, is that no victims have reported the crimes they have experienced." Looks like uninformed speculation: we have sources for high profile victims reporting their harassment to the FBI. -- ] (]) 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Clearly Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu have, but they're talking about the others that have been harassed here, with the implication that others have not spoken up about what they've gotten. --] (]) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::And that's nothing but speculation based on the author's opinion. Can you show evidence that the author is qualified to draw the conclusion that 'no' victims are reporting these crimes? Because this is actually a question that is independantly verifiable, and we have direct evidence that the author's 'suspicion' isn't the case. If we'd like to include speculation on what the lack of prosecutions means, has a far better article on this, based on information from a former FBI cybercrime agent rather than the author's guesswork. What information would you like to see added to the article based on your source? -- ] (]) 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Both of them, but using other statements from the Urban Institution one, to point out the basic fact that the FBI cannot act if there's no crime being reported, and some of the victims may not be reporting due to fear of the "wolf pack" mentality of GG. The Slate article I've pointed out before and that's great to describe that the FBI is usually out of its ability and resources to track down those doing the harassing. --] (]) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Well, of course they can't act on crimes that aren't reported. But I don't think that this source is a good one to show that fact is particularly relevant or significant to this issue, as it seems to suggest that the lack of arrests is the victims' fault when there are other sources that demonstrate the difficulty of prosecuting these crimes which are far more likely to be the real reason for the lack of arrests. The conclusions this article draws are flawed, and we have sources that say so. It's very clearly an opinion article, and given that its information is flawed, I don't think it can be used as anything ''but'' the author's opinion. So we need to establish that the author's opinion on cybercrime is particularly notable for the opinions to be useful. -- ] (]) 17:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:I wouldn't be so harsh on it, Tara. I don't read it the same way; I think it's acknowledging the difficulty in reporting such crimes because of the fear of reprisal and because local law enforcement generally ignores them. I don't think we need to take him literally when he says "no victims have reported the crimes they've experienced" — it is likely that relatively few of the massive volume of such threats have been reported and it notes that underreporting of crimes is a common thing. For example, ''I'' received death threats on my personal talk page over this nonsense... I didn't bother reporting it anywhere, but perhaps I should have.
:It's also another source which notes that no matter what individual GGers might say, the movement as a whole is viewed as a fount of violent threats and harassment. ] (]) 20:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Even with my stance on the nature of this article, the qualification of targets being scared by a "wolf pack" mentality is an important pull quote that describes the unavoidable behavior of this. (There's other sources that have likened/claims GG is a hate mob, this fits in line with that in showing the impression GG has made to the press). --] (]) 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Following on legal issues: . --] (]) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
: What I find amusing about that piece (aside from the boutny hunter part) is that the article calls what Wu did as "speaking out" but call people responding in kind "harassment".--] (]) 18:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Top priority for removal of this article ==
This article can be cleaned/improved by the removal of all "Eric Kain" quotes, which are erroneously listed in the article as coming from Forbes, but actually come from a personal blog that Forbes does not oversee. These sorts of deceptive "contributor" (read, personal) blog entries have been ruled as a no-go as sources across the entire site. ] (]) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:Do you have proof of this?—] (]) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Sure - if you click the external link, you will find in the body text of the blog post the description
::'''''Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.'''''
::The "Contributor" status is also very clearly explained in the Terms of Service for the site. "Contributor" blogs are
::* personal blogs maintained by a Forbes user who is ''not'' hired to write for the company,
::* not subject to Forbes editorial oversight or even examination,
::* subject to oversight by Forbes staff only to resolve complaints or address violations of the ToS.
::The best way to address this issue would almost certainly be by removal of the information until a notable or reliable secondary source could be found. If there's a case to be made that the article itself has become notable, it still isn't Forbes, and at the very least it must be made clear that this is a personal blog for the individual quoted. ] (]) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:I was wondering if there had ever been a consensus discussion about whether those blogs are reliable sources. ] (]) 21:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, at WT:VG - we have identified these are not normally reviewed pieces for Forbes (I'm sure someone reads to make sure they aren't overall derogatory or the like, but not for fact-checking), so only a few of the people that have posted there have been deemed reliable based on their past performance/other jobs, like Paul Tassi and Kain (which is a metric allowed for SPS type sources). That said, I would consider these weak RS that should be removed unless they are expressing a key statement or opinion that cannot be expressed otherwise. If there is a large consensus about Forbes otherwise, I'm not aware of. --] (]) 21:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, Kain's opinions are minimal, AFAIK, and his first piece was simply used to support several statements on the facts of GamerGate rather than his own opinions on it.—] (]) 21:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::: Could I get some clarification on this Ryulong? The way you word it sounds to me as if you are saying that Kain's statements (see unreliable source) were being used to support a narrative as if it was a fact. So, could you elaborate on this a bit? I would appreciate this very much. Thank you.--] (]) 00:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::The way you're wording your response sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. Erik Kain's piece, before it was suddenly decried as a terrible OP/ED in this thread, was being used to cite various general statements on the events of GamerGate and not any "narrative".—] (]) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm just trying to get to the bottom with what you are actually suggesting. AS for general statements, if Kain was the only "reliable source" for these statements, even if they did occur... if we don't have any reliable source to actually cite them, then these statements can't be included in the article per WB rules right?--] (]) 17:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Glad we're in agreement. As the article unfortunately contains a lot of pull quotes from this article and information erroneously claiming Forbes as the source, we will have to do some work to remove and improve. Do we have any other sources for this information beyond the sentence topic's personal blog? ] (]) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::On the Kain pieces on this page, is cited 7 times, 3 of which are his opinions and the other 4 accompany other subsequent citations. is supporting content on the Shadow of Mordor controversy and does not contain his opinions. , and is accompanying another source. . is accompanying content on GameJournoPros.—] (]) 21:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::The shadow of mordor bit is actually sort of wrong on the page right now. It reads as though ] is talking about the mordor game (which he is), but it's cited to Kain. The whole paragraph is cited to Jilani, so the Kain bit is mostly redundant. ] (]) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It was at the time the only source I picked explaining the game controversy in the context of Jilani's statement.—] (]) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing ''most'' of the Kain references on this basis. ] (]) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should remove all opinion pieces from the article. Let's stick to the pure facts. That's the only way we'll get anywhere. ] (]) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:That can't happen, even at a more conservative level. The opinions of some (both sides) are central to the controversy (eg Alexander's piece setting off the groundwork of Operation Disrespectful Nod). --] (]) 21:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::We also cannot remove all opinion pieces from here because they give real world context to the happenings, and also because it seems that POV pushers here cannot differentiate between opinion and media consensus, considering that multiple people are arguing that "misogyny" is an opinion by the media.—] (]) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Actually, that's a very valid suggestion made at the Arbcom case page to remove non-narrative opinions ''for now'' until we are far outside of the reactionary period, so we are only treating this as a fact recap until we have more far-removed sources instead of at-the-moment responses. --] (]) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
::::There is never not going to be a reactionary period the way the GamerGate movement keeps targetting new things that go against them.—] (]) 02:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:There is no getting around the fact that a large number of media sources are opinionated, not just Kain. As far as I am concerned, there is no good reason for removing these pieces, but I do believe certain sections should be summarized.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Erik Kain is OK, ''in this instance.''''' Forbes is magazine, it's also a content farm, Kain writes for the latter so his opinion does not get a instant greenlight. In March, I started a discussion at ] to explicitly list Forbes as a . Generally, I discourage the use of Forbes contributor posts, but in this case, third party reliable sources have valued Kain's thoughts on the subject so I'd give it a pass. - ]]] 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
*:Kain seems to have more or less stopped writing about Gamergate - for a while there he was cranking out multiple pieces per day. We have a history of over-reliance on him as a source, but I don't think that necessarily means he needs to be removed altogether. But is there a more accurate way to describe his relationship with Forbes? The phrasing does seem to imply he's a staff writer. --
*:Sounds good, Hahnchen. How about we use this phrasing to address the above concern — "Erik Kain, a contributor at Forbes.com." ] (]) 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
*::I made in September to state that Kain was writing on the website and not in the magazine, so I'm fine with this. - ]]] 14:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== @OpGamerGate ==

There doesn't seem to be a section on the little bit with @OpGamerGate, where "Anonymous" wanted to take down GamerGate, and after another "Anonymous" started looking into it, they vanished from the face of the earth? --] ] 04:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:No reports on it. The OpGamerGate twitter account was managed by people not really considered "Anonymous", in that they're pretty hated by most of them ] (]) 04:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::I've heard that AnonOps was furious about this. There is the eternal question of who is considered "Anonymous", though. Also this video, again, made by "Anonymous": (There's another one which was bait, took the anti-gg side and then turned out to be a joke, just search "gamergate anon" on youtube)--] ] 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:But on the point of this and the article, I don't think its notable yet, since it was shut down so fast. However again, this does not rule out third party trolling/harassment. --] ] 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:Do we have any reliable sources on it, other than the oblique references to trolls from ''The Washington Post''{{'}}s interviews? ] (]) 06:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::It happened but it hasn't been reported in the media - no reliable source. ] (]) 12:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
HEADLINE: '''Today nothing happened.''' I am confused at why someone would think we should/would cover something that didn't happen? -- ] 12:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::: If there was messages then something did happen. Messages were sent right? How can we cover "threats" sent on twitter if we don't cover threats posted on youtube? Or do we only cover treats if the one being threatened cries on media?--] (]) 17:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Just a small formating advise ==


==Sanctions enforcement==
I suggest you put the Christina Sommers image under the Social Criticism title. Currently the "Presence of misogyny and inclusiveness" section is way too short and screws up the formatting leaving a giant white space under it ] (]) 05:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 12:00, 26 April 2035 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1840363256}}<!-- END PIN -->
:Her photo is next to where she is discussed like everyone else.—] (]) 05:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
All articles related to the ].
::I know, her opinion should be moved to the Social criticism section, personally I don't get what "presence of misogyny and inclusiveness" is supposed to be about, given that the title is already "Role of misogyny and antifeminism". And both Sommers and Berlatsky's opinions fall within what Social criticism is. Also devoting a whole section to two sources seems kinda weird ] (]) 05:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ].
== JournoList ==


<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) ] (UTC)</small>
Would an admin kindly remove the claim "who based the group off ]"? It's ]—the neither states nor implies what (if anything) he based GameJournoPros on—plus from Talk page discussions it's clear the connection is meant to ] by ] like that ascribed to JournoList. ] (]) 05:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


== They/them pronoun confusion ==
Another request would be to unlink ].—] (]) 07:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:It seems this was not stated in Orland's piece, but in .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::Imgur is not a reliable source. (Of course, not saying ''you'' were saying it was, TDA.) We should let a reliable source backup that claim. ] (]) 17:45, 4 November 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.
==Source needed to support false accusations==
The lead currently contains the following sentence:
Seems some things have improved here since I last checked. A more neutral 'concerning misogyny' without any of that longstanding/ingrained nonsense. The first paragraph seems so wonderfully neutral I felt comfortable moving on to read the 2nd.


:The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku. This led to harassment of Quinn, including '''false''' accusations that the relationship had led to positive coverage of Quinn's game. 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.


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.
I think unless we can properly source this claim that we ought to remove the 'false' and simply say:
:''including accusations''


Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing:
Is there any actual evidence that the accusations are false?


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.
We should certainly present any criticism of the accusations (counter-arguments) as well as the evidence people claim support the accusation, and let people come to their own conclusions by weighing it. I don't think Misplaced Pages should declare 'false' unless it's INCREDIBLY overwhelming.


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.
It would be one thing to say that the proposed evidence of the accusation is not conclusive or convincing to whatever Misplaced Pages's standards are, but there is a difference between an unproven or unsupported accusation and a false one.


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)
Calling an accusation false is like saying there is absolute proof that it must be false. If this is the case, I would like it if when the article becomes opening to editing (or if a moderator could do it now) if a reference could be linked next to the word 'false' which explains the evidence that exists proving that Quinn could not have possibly had a romantic relationship with a Kotaku journalist.
: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 ==
I haven't seen any proof for or against this claim, but I think if we are going to call it false there must be overwhelming evidence existing to disprove it. Otherwise I think we should just neutrally convey the claim and call it 'unproven' until presented with evidence of it being true, but should not call it false unless very strong evidence exists falsifying it.


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)
Falsifying something like this sounds incredibly hard since it's possible to have secret relationships, so I'm wondering how this could possibly be done. ] (]) 15:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:]. Try reading the talkpage: this is a settled issue. Pushing to treat the accusations against Quinn as anything other than false appears to be just about the only way to get topic banned from this article. -- ] (]) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:As TaraInDC said. This is a settled issue. Also, the false accusation is the positive news coverage by Grayson, which is non-existent. Hence 'false'. — ] (]) 15:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:Sources? Off the top of my head: The LA Times, Time Magazine, Washington Post, The New Yorker. And that's using only first-rate sources. I'm sure you could find many more if you go through the references currently in the article. ] (]) 15:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


== Transphobia and attempted outting of Brianna Wu ==
::To be exact, the allegations about getting positive coverage is not fully proven wrong. Getting a review, yes, and absolutely is the only one that we know didn't happen (there's no review), but there is the issue of, for example, Grayson's piece about GAME JAM that has been argued by the proGG that it remains a valid issue and wasn't proven 100% false - though it is clear the press does not think this particular article was "positive press" in the same manner a review would be. That said, "refuted" is a much more accurate word than "false" here. --] (]) 15:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::False is fine. This specific instance of 'false' is used to refer to a positive review that does not exist. The other press mentions were confirmed to be before the relationship began, so false is fine there as well. — ] (]) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::If the sentence was saying "for a review" instead of "for positive coverage" , "false" is absolutely right - no one has been able to demonstrate one exists. But it is technically wrong to say that "positive coverage" claim is false because there does exist known examples of Grayson's writing about DQ, though well before it was established their romantic relationship stated. I'm fully on board that the press is going "that's being really petty on the details" and generally considering any of those allegations no longer worth discussing, but the technically right term here is "refuted" - Kotaku, Quinn, Grayson, and even Gjoni have all said there was nothing like this they were aware of and the press has readily accepted that claim. --] (]) 16:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Many sources that comment on the matter simply say that the allegation of a favorable review was false and do not address the other allegation(s). Where the allegations in the plural are remarked upon, it is dismissively (The New York Times, for example, has ''Some of the crusaders against Ms. Quinn justified their actions by constructing flimsy conspiracies'') or outright call them false. Here are some example links for you:
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::*
:::::] (]) 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


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)
== Nature of the controversy ==


== Requested move 5 November 2024 ==
It seems to me that these two sentences are contradictory:
<blockquote>Gamergate (sometimes referred to as the hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy which started in August 2014, concerning misogyny and harassment in video game culture.</blockquote>
<blockquote>The controversy began when indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku.</blockquote>
If the controversy is about misogyny and harassment, it can't have began with the blog post, since the blog post wasn't about those things. Either the controversy began with the harassment, or the controversy is also about ethics or something else directly related to the initial blog post.


<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 -->
Thoughts? <b>]]]</b> 15:21, 4 November 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.''
:The blog post caused extraordinarily vicious and widespread harassment of Quinn, and that is generally regarded as the start of the controversy. Would you prefer "it began ''after'' indie game devleoper..."? -- ] (]) 15:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


::Misogyny and harassment issue came up after the allegations at Quinn, so logically the controversy cannot solely be about misogyny and harassment. --] (]) 15:50, 4 November 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)
----
:::The controversy as described in RS centres on misogyny and harassment. The article doesn't even say it's solely about that. Not sure what is being argued here. Does anyone have specific content changes they want? — ] (]) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, the 'people calling the things gamergate does misogynistic' part came after the 'gamergate doing the things people called misogynistic' part. That's how cause and effect works. That doesn't mean that the controversy isn't about misogyny and harassment. -- ] (]) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Accusing someone of a conflict of interest is not inherently misogynistic. Yes, the pattern of behavior extrapolated back would suggest it is part of the same, but again, when you have a debate between two sides, one arguing against the statue quo, it is the norm to talk about their side first even if it is the minority view. Denying that ethics are involved even if the proGG claims are not thoroughly documented, and weighing heavily on the press's opinion of the matter considers that claim false, is not how one writes a neutral article. --] (]) 16:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Of course accusing somebody of a conflict of interest is not inherently misogynistic, but that doesn't prove a thing any more than the first question in your RFC does. This isn't as simple as 'they accused a woman of doing a bad thing - that's misogyny!' no matter how much the gaters in their echo chambers are telling themselves that's the case. The problem is who they accused, and how, and on what evidence, and what happened after the accusations - the death threats, the rape threats, the midnight calls to parents screaming 'you're daughter's a whore!' To an outside observer it's clear that the 'ethics' angle is a thin justification for the harassment of a woman. This is how social commentary works: people making reasoned observations. Those are the concerns that the sources talking about this issue are expressing. That's the reasoning being given for describing this in the way the vast majority of our sources do. A single source noting this harassment and discussing its effects and implications would not prove anything, but in aggregate, the large body of sources all discussing the same issues and doing no more than name-checking the 'but ethics!' counter argument do demonstrate that this is not a controversy about ethics.
:::::The gleeful dissection of Quinn's sex life was ''never'' about ethics. That claim is not merely 'not thoroughly documented,' it's not 'documented' at all. As I've said before, there's no room on WP for playing devil's advocate. You need to use sources and policy to back up your claim. A personal theory for how the absurd drama gamergaters created about Zoe Quinn's sex life ''might'' not be misogynistic isn't going to cut it. If you'd like to use the fact that the harassment came before the backlash as evidence that gamergate is not about harassment, provide ''sources'' that show that there was good reason to be 'concerned' about Quinn's 'conflict of interest.' We're not interested in your opinions, only what you can prove. -- ] (]) 16:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::NPOV is all about playing Devil's Advocate - trying to present all sides of an argument in balance to the coverage in the sources. And it is very much against NPOV to shoo away any proGG discussion given the fact that mainstream sources have attempted to provide clear rational discussion on their side. As such, we cannot pretend their ethics argument doesn't exist and favor the popular opinion of misogyny over that. --] (]) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::No, it absolutely is not. Playing devils advocate involves constructing a case to defend someone or something. As you did it above it constitutes original research, not a proper application of ]. Presenting the sources we have, weighted appropriately and avoiding fringe views, is ''not'' the same thing as 'playing devil's advocate.' So your explanation for how a mass harassment campaign against an indie dev (and, importantly, ''not'' against the journalist who supposedly gave her preferential coverage) 'might' not be misogynistic isn't helpful. You need to make your case with sources, and not merely by 'playing devil's advocate.' We're not pretending the ethics argument doesn't exist, we're just not pretending that it's what the controversy is about, because per our sources it is not. -- ] (]) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
What kind of harassment excactly? Criticism is not harassment. General negativity is also not harassment. Remember, when stating harassment, it has to be specified. Also what needs to be specified is the percentage of people committing harassment. --] (]) 15:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:What WP policy are you talking about that requires all of that? — ] (]) 15:55, 4 November 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)
:Threatening to rape and murder a person is harassment, as well as criminal. Threats directed towards a woman because of her gender makes it misogyny. The nature of the "controversy", i.e. the title of this article, is centralized on those misogynist threats directed at Ms. Quinn, the initial target, and subsequent threats made to media and other types who condemned the harassment. ] (]) 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::{{green|Threats directed towards a woman because of her gender makes it misogyny.}} That the threats were made towards Quinn et al ''because'' they were women is not proven. It's a pattern of threats against primarily women, so it is likely misogyny, but you cannot state that factually just based on a pattern. --] (]) 16:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::I can and will state such a thing, as will our article. If reliable sources call it misogyny, then that is sufficient for our standards. The opposition by a handful here to this point is long past the pedantic stage. ] (]) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Then you are willingly going to violate NPOV. The court of public opinion does not make it fact for Misplaced Pages's purposes. --] (]) 16:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::It does not violate NPOV, it ''preserves'' it and protects it from attempts to give ] to a minor point of view. I find it baffling how you can so mis-apply basic Misplaced Pages policy here. We write articles based on what the sources say; if a preponderance of reliable sources say that Gamergate is about harassment of women and not about ethics, then that is what we say. We're not declaring it is ''true'', we're just reflecting what the prevailing consensus of sources is saying about he topic. Remember the old ] canard. ] (]) 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::The "verified, not truth" creed readily applies to much of the proGG side - I can tell you want they want, ala "the truth", but I cannot verify it because of the lack of sources, hence why we can't cover it. And we can more than certainly verify that the press considers much of GG misogynistic and the like, easily verified. But one has to recognize that the press are speaking their opinion on the matter, and have the most volume here as the court of public opinion which does not make it true, which "verified, not truth" does not apply to, that's where the core of NPOV comes in. The press have all jumped on their opinion based on the pattern, but there's nothing to back it up. Take the ] again - the public opinion on that is decidedly that it was a misogynistic-driven attack, but our article reflects the fact that the reason he did what he did is not clear with strong assurity. That's the same situation here - no one has looked at the actual people involved (or in fact identified them), so we should be writing that in the same clinically neutral manner described all views with a balance dictated by the predominance of the press side from the sourcing. --] (]) 16:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::That's the polar opposite of what "verifiability, not truth" means. No one cares what you think is true here, nor what I think is true. All we can do is reflect how reliable sources report on the matter. It doesn't matter if the anonymous crowd are truly misogynistic in their intent, all that matters is that the vast majority of reliable sources characterize the GG movement as such, and that characterization is verifiable. ] (]) 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::However there is a systematic bias in play as the sourcing that is against the proGG is nearly all opinionated against it, a case outlined in ]. If the press reported a suspected criminal of being guilty before the legal case was complete, we on WP would ''not'' report the criminal as guilty but note the press has. That's the same we should be (and for the most part are) doing, per Strongjam's comment below), but it is getting very close to falling past that point. --] (]) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::What nonsense. The only ] is that a bunch of geeky western internet trolls caused enough harassment and enough sources blabbering on ABOUT FUCKING VIDEO GAMES that they have a more complete article about the trouble they have caused than most leaders of countries in Africa, Asia, or South America. -- ] 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::If calling the actions misogynistic is a ] issue, then of all the uses of misogyny in the article there are only two that I think might fail:
:::* {{green|Because these discussions often featured verbal attacks, misogynistic harassment of Quinn and others}}
:::* {{green|Upon additional threats towards Sarkeesian, Wu, and Day, the international media focused on GamerGate's predilection for violent, misogynistic threats and its inability to present any coherent message for positive change.}}
:::The rest all are either attributed to people, or clearly summarizing what a number of commentators say. I don't think this is a huge POV issue and could be easily fixed if this is what the issue is. — ] (]) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Yeah, right now the article does a decent job avoiding stating it as fact (outside of the above, and the first lede sentence), but we're at the cliff edge and need to be careful and aware it's very easy to fall from that. --] (]) 17:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Cut it out, all of you. Can you not see that just warring over neutrality has made this article a bloated unusable mess? The article isn't even readable. Neutrality matters, but other things matter too.<font color="green">H</font><font color="red">a</font><font color="green">l</font><font color="red">f</font><font color="blue">Hat</font> 16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:If this article were really well written, you know what it would do? It would open with a lead that quickly summarizes the controversy in a chronological order, ] and ] ] - that means without directly accusing any one side of ethical or moral wrongdoing. The lead wouldn't say journalism is bent, and it wouldn't say Gamergate is misogynist; it would say "these people hold these stances".
:Afterward, the article would be organized in a logical fashion with neutral headers that let the reader know what they're about to read. We would not place Gamergate supporters under their own special header labelled "Role of misogyny" with a picture of a Gamergate supporter under there - we would just have articles that read "Harassment", "Media response", "Political commentary", and the like. Headers that could go any direction and that could be used to sort out any opinion or important development regardless of how vague or specific.
:For example, under a "Harassment" header, we might start by explaining what happened with Zoe, drop in some details, if any, about revenge harassment against Gamergate (because no side has been immaculate, thank you), carry on with the additional harassment issues the press have brought up since the initial ones, then make a sub-header explaining police response to these threats and how they've been handled - if possible, how it may affect handling online threats in the future. LOGICAL INFORMATION A READER WILL WANT TO KNOW FOLLOWING THIS INFO. You see how having sane, neutral headers could allow us to actually organize the page!
:A bigger thing is, not everyone coming to this page is a Gamergate enemy or supporter. A lot of people coming here just want to know what Gamergate is and how it impacts THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. They don't care whether or not certain Wiki editors think that Gamergate is a bunch of misogynistic hobgoblins, because whether or not the movement was forged in the fires of Mount Doom is kind of irrelevant if the article doesn't explain why any of this is even important to anyone in the first place! And presently it does a terrible job of explaining how it's relevant to anyone! Because it focuses so exclusively on establishing Gamergate as evil hobgoblins!
:I would really love if it we could just agree to establish a straightforward article. However, we can't seem to get over the ideological hurdle that there is evil at work and that it must be exposed. As if some of us don't realize that people are just clever chimps and that, if anything, there's a great deal more knee-jerk emotional reactions than nefarious plans - at least as far as anyone knows, until we can otherwise reveal Dr. Claw is behind all of it. ] (]) 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:I really feel like I need to place particular emphasis on this: '''Whether or not you think Gamergate is misogynist is useless information to anyone who does not care to be part of the conflict. It is a moral judgement that provides NO factual information to a reader and it doesn't explain anything to anyone who doesn't instantly believe how "factual" that moral accusation is'''. By focusing so much on the moral particulars - that's what's made this article completely useless to any readers. The average person does not come to a Wiki page to see, "Oh, the KKK are immoral bigots! Great! That's all I needed!" They come to learn about how and why the KKK was formed and other factual details they won't hear from a frothing idiot who knows nothing more than that "the KKK is bigots 'cause they done bigot things". ] (]) 18:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Misogynist thing is misogynist. Your moral judgement of that is your own. ] (]) 19:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Whether or not something is misogynist is determined entirely by context! Such is the nature of moral opinion! It is not something you can measure like heat or the distance to the sun. It is something an individual person comes to an emotional decision about based on the information their limited personal perspective allows them to have. This logic DOES NOT WORK. '''It doesn't make a good, informational article'''. You could argue that "stupid things are stupid", but you wouldn't write Misplaced Pages leads by saying "This article's subject is stupid", even if you had a large number of sources that agreed with you.
:::I am so sick of hearing this. What madness drives you to think that you can objectively understand the rationale of people ''you have not even met''. Even if you knew these people personally, you still couldn't read their minds! Who qualified you and the journalists to be the undisputed arbiters of misogyny? ] (]) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::: "How can anyone know anything, man? What if we are all brains in tanks!" seems a bit beyond the scope of this conversation. Here we just go by ]. ] (]) 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::This is not metaphysics, and it boggles my mind that you would think of it as such. That you'd have such a hardcore, religious belief in misogyny that you think you can just ''feel it'' like God's light or something, and questioning its presence in some people is akin to questioning the entire universe. And then you go and influence the article with this thinking.
:::::You know, as far as I can tell, this conflict mainly revolves around vicious mobs. One side is angry because they're constantly getting thumped on by a bunch of twenty-something moral extremists, and the other side is angry because the reaction to that constant thumping was so terrifyingly volatile. There's extreme elements mixed in there making prominent news, but that's because it's an angry mob! And who do we find on the Misplaced Pages talk page but a collection of editors still trying to give these people a moral thumping! And you wonder why this hasn't wound down at all over several months! For goodness sake, you could diffuse this by just being neutral and letting people feel like they aren't trapped in defensive corners! ] (]) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


*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)
::::::WE are not giving anyone a "moral thumping", the majority of reliable sources are doing that. We are writing an article based on that. ] (]) 19:40, 4 November 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)
:::::::And thus that is an immediately failure of NPOV. We can describe the "moral thumping" that the press has given with numerous sources, but we are absolutely not allowed to take their side. --] (]) 19:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
*:agreed! ] (]) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (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: