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 13:05, 9 January 2015 view sourceTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →Wingfield's opinion on Gjoni's blogpost: above the sig← 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}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Controversial}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|gg|1RR=yes|protection=ecp}}
{{Blp}}
{{trolling}}
{{Tmbox
{{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: '']''.}}
|image = none
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|text =
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=
<div style='font-size:medium; text-align:center;'>'''Draft Article'''</div><p><div style='text-align:center;'>While this article is fully protected until editing disputes are resolved, there is a draft article which can be used to develop the content at ]. This talk page can be used to make suggestions to the draft article. Please note that the draft article falls within the scope of ] and that edits made to the draft article are subject to sanctions. Please see {{template|Gamergate sanctions}} for more info.</div>
{{WikiProject Video games|class=c |importance=Mid}}
|style = background:#AADBE0; border: 1px solid #00477B<!--; border-radius: 15px-->;
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}}
}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Video games|class=b|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=b|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid |Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=b|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class=b|importance=High}}}}
{{Faq|collapsed=no}}
{{Press
| author = Jan Rothenberger
| title = Der Gesinnungskrieg der Gamer
| org = '']'' (in German)
| url = http://www.derbund.ch/digital/social-media/Der-Gesinnungskrieg-der-Gamer-/story/31132860
| date = 10 October 2014
| quote = "Dass sich Gegner und Befürworter auch auf Misplaced Pages bekriegten, rief mit Jimmy Wales auch den Chef der Webenzyklopädie auf den Plan. Er mahnte beide Seiten zur Ruhe."
| author2 = ]
| title2 = Twitter and the poisoning of online debate
| org2 = ]
| url2 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29642313
| date2 = 16 October 2014
| quote2 = "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."
| author3 = David Jenkins
| title3 = 2014: Video gaming’s worst year ever
| org3 = '']''
| url3 = http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/20/2014-video-gamings-worst-year-ever-4912543/
| date3 = 20 October 2014
| quote3 = "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}}
{{Copied |from=Draft:Gamergate controversy|from_oldid=638615388 |to=Gamergate controversy |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=638642070&oldid=638639983}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{Archives|auto=short}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=2|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 18
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=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
==Sanctions enforcement ==
| destination2 = Gamergate
All articles related to the ]
| result2 = Not moved
| link2 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 13#Requested moves
| date2 = November 12, 2014


| from3 = Gamergate controversy
Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ]
| 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
<!--Purposefully not signed to eliminate the auto archiving. TheRedPenOfDoom.-->
| destination4 = Gamergate
== From Doxxing to Swatting ==
| result4 = Withdrawn
| link4 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 45#Requested move 30 August 2015
| date4 = August 30, 2015


| from5 = Gamergate controversy
I've just added the below to https://en.wikipedia.org/Swatting. The escalation from doxxing to swatting is definitely noteworthy:
| destination5 = Gamergate (sexist terrorism)
| result5 = POINT close
| link5 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 46#Requested move 19 September 2015
| date5 = September 19, 2015


| from6 = Gamergate controversy
On January 3, 2015, twenty Portland, Oregon police officers were sent to the former home of ] and former ] Grace Lynn following four months of on-line harassment. <ref></ref> Her ] deescalated the situation, inasmuch as she proactively checks for on-line harassment daily. <ref></ref> <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
| destination6 = Gamergate (harassment campaign)
:Not saying this isn't something serious, but there's no evidence in the sources of this being tied to Gamergate. One of the sources cites an anonymous 8chan /baphomet/ (?) sub board post which appears to be about satanic goat worshippers who like to raid people. I know quite a lot of people were upset with this person when she didn't deliver on a kickstarter project. No qualms with its inclusion on the swatting article, though I think the language could use some clean-up. Concerns about how this would be included in this article as it would seem circumstantial. ] (]) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
| result6 = Moved
::The oregonlive ref connects it directly to GamerGate; since they're a reliable source, that's sufficient to include it here. --] (]) 03:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
| link6 = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021
:::{{tq| Earlier this month, she began proactively searching for her name. On Friday, she found an 8chan thread showing that users were planning to send a police SWAT team to her house. They said they weren't members of Gamergate, but Lynn said they are supporters of the movement. }} The source is reporting on her opinions, so if it's included it should be stated as that. ] (]) 03:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
| date6 = August 12, 2021
::::Correct, and given that the source took those opinions seriously enough to include them, and to headline the article "Gamergate," we can similarly report that Lynn stated her belief that the attackers were linked to Gamergate. Also, please don't insert unreliably-sourced claims into the encyclopedia. TechRaptor and Misplaced Pages are obviously not reliable sources, and I'm not sure there's any consensus about CrowdfundInsider — at any rate, the fact that it cites RooshV's "Reaxxion" brings the article into serious question. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Would you object to a direct citation of the kickstarter stating it failed, and me merely mentioning that? That seems to be good enough for Misplaced Pages's article on it. I agree techraptor is not a reliable source, there's no consensus on crowdfundinsider but it has been used on other articles here. ] (]) 03:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Stating here that the Kickstarter failed is fine, but relating it to the swatting issue anywhere in articlespace would be ] unless there's a reliable source which has done so. ] (]) 03:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I have stated it as such, and since ] does not apply to talk pages, I am not arguing for the mention of such in articlespace just stating it here. ] (]) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:A single local news source about something concerning someone from the area hardly warrants inclusion on this article.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::Sure it does. It's published in ], the largest newspaper in the state of Oregon. That's hardly a minor source. ] (]) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::No it does not. This story is just "something happened here possibly connected to something else that has gotten national media attention!" A very weak connection made by an "in our area" story just does not cut it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:Made the ] as well.<ref name="NYDaily">{{cite news |last=Silverstein |first=Jason |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gamergate-prank-sends-20-officers-woman-home-article-1.2065545 |title='I am afraid for my safety': California woman has 20 police sent to former home in Portland as part of Gamergate harassment campaign |work=] |location=New York |date=January 4, 2015 }}</ref> — ] (]) 23:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:Also now in ]: and ]: . The reliable sources reporting on this are multiplying. ] (]) 00:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::''The Verge'' states "It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out." While the Daily News garbles it a bit, they basically say this is Lynn's claim that it has anything to do with GamerGate. It should be understood that 8chan had posters well before GamerGate and people have recently flocked to 8chan for reasons only loosely connected with GamerGate such as the recent /pol/ shenanigans. Lynn, while being against GamerGate had also been campaigning against 8chan in general that had some success with removal of the site from Patreon. Another thing to keep in mind is that the old GamerGate board on 8chan is under the control of a GNAA troll who openly admits to inciting threats against prominent opponents of GamerGate to make GamerGate look bad. If we use two reports in non-local news as a basis for including this then it should be in the context of sources strongly pointing to it being unrelated trolls.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::*{{green|But the actual swatting took place on a separate board for general anti-social mayhem, and users joked about Gamergate supporters "taking the fall" for the attack. It's obviously not hard to lie on the internet, but there's every reason to believe that this is an unaffiliated troll lashing out.}} I do think that this is notable for inclusion though, as the victim is a former GG supporter turned critic.]] ''']''' 04:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*When it gets some significant national coverage in reliable sources, it might be worth revisiting. ] (]) 12:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


| from7 = Gamergate (harassment campaign)
This story now has several references in reliable sources including The Oregonian and the New York Daily News, as we can see. --] 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
| 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
: More recent source: --] 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|from_oldid2 = 644251654
<!-- Comments go above this line -->
|to2 = Gamergate controversy
{{reflist talk}}
|to_diff2 = 644253492
|to_oldid2 = 644248467


}}
==Why are we citing First Things so much?==
{{Press
I get impression that ] has inherited the mantle of Erik Kain in the draft article. According to the ref list is now up to five citations. Is it because of the novelty of a conservative view being expressed in a reliable source? --] 03:49, 6 January 2015 (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=]
*If it's a reliable source, then what's the problem? The New Yorker is cited at least six times, The Washington Post at least eight, New York at least five, Vox at least seven, Columbia Journalism Review at least eight. ]] ''']''' 04:03, 6 January 2015 (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=]
:The article is a first-person opinion column, not a news story, and must be cited as such. {{tq|I write not because I am a Gamergate partisan—the movement was largely over by the time I had thoroughly investigated it—but because Mary Eberstadt is right: silence emboldens the practitioners of the New Intolerance. Gamergate was not a perfect movement, and neither was the loose coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and contrarians who opposed the social justice incursions into science fiction. But someone ought to speak out. If we wait for a perfect victim to emerge, we will be waiting forever.}} It's an interesting and useful source for a contrary opinion to the predominant one, but must be presented as such. ] (]) 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
|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've no problem with it being cited, but I worry that we often fall for a kind of recentism, picking up a novel article and giving it rather more weight than it can bear. The article suffers in such circumstances because one voice is being repeatedly juxtaposed to many others, in a way that gives it presentation false balance. It's a bit like altering our article on global warning to insert at length, and repeatedly, the views of the tiny minority of scientists who reject the well established greenhouse effect. --] 04:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
|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
::*The greenhouse effect is a scientific phenomenon. GamerGate is a huge mess. Now, on your "tiny minority" argument, if you'd look at the '''Misogyny and antifeminism''' section, we quote over ten sources (including The Washington Post / The Week / Iowa Public Radio / Macleans / Develop / GamesIndustry.biz / On the Media / The Daily Beast / Mother Jones / The New Yorker) who express an anti-GG POV, and you're protesting against one source (perhaps the only one) which provides a dissenting POV? You'd rather have 10-0 versus 10-1, that's balance to you? ]] ''']''' 05:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
|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
::::When talking about weight in articles, we don't just talk about how many sources are used, but how frequently these sources are cited and to what extent Misplaced Pages uses these to display information. I believe Tony Sidaway is talking about how frequently the source is cited, not just it being cited (which he seems to not mind.) ] (]) 06:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
|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
:::::As I have pointed out above in my first comment, there are at least four more sources which have been cited more than First Things. Upon further reading, the New York Times has been cited seven times in the article, the Verge eight... get my point? ]] ''']''' 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Those sources ''should'' be cited more, as they have each written multiple articles discussing the issue which represent the ] on the issue. ] (]) 07:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::But this is a social issue, not a scientific one. There are multiple ways of interpreting a social issue; there is no need to double down on a single standpoint, especially when one of your principal sources is ''The Verge'', which is a tech blog, not a journal of American society. ] ] 12:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::''The Verge'' is far more widely read and more respected journalistically than ''First Things'', an explicitly-religious, socially and politically conservative journal. Moreover, there aren't multiple ways of interpreting false allegations about living people. ] (]) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{fact}} ] ] 16:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Our article on '']'' helpfully describes them. {{tq| The journal is inter-denominational and inter-religious, representing a broad intellectual tradition of Christian and Jewish critique of contemporary society.}} {{tq|With a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers, First Things is considered to be influential in its articulation of a broadly ecumenical and erudite social and political conservatism.}} Meanwhile, '']'' nets at least 20 million unique visitors per month, as of last March, and is almost certainly higher today.
::::::::::I happen to think ''First Things'' is well-written and generally well-argued. But there can be no argument that it's anything but a platform for primarily conservative religious and social views. ] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Is there something bad about expressing conservative religious views, that makes them not notable or relevant to American social upheaval? In the lead to that same article, we have a ''Newsweek'' quote calling ''First Things'' "the most important vehicle for exploring the tangled web of religion and society in the English-speaking world." I would argue that a religious outlook on social issues is ''more'' relevant than ''The Verge'' which is basically an industry and product review blog. How exactly do we determine who the most relevant voices are in American society? ] ] 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::The entire article reeks of recentism, and from one side of the discussion as well. There are more sources like First Things out there, we'd be smarter to find more like it than complain about reliable sources that are more accurate than the ones we currently use. ] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::It does not "reek" of one side of the discussion. The "discussion", such as it is, is the general public looking at gamergate and being rightfully thoroughly appalled at the vicious sexist harassment and essentially ignoring idiotic claims of "but ethical journalism will be just presenting 'objective' reviews of games - ie whether or not they are fun" -- ] 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I've said. It reeks of one side of the discussion. ] (]) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::There is only one side, I'm afraid. The minor, dissenting "but ethics" point-of-view is not equatable, and is given the coverage that it is ], per policy. That is all we can do, is go by the reliable sources. ] (]) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::As noted before, there are multiple sides and facets to this issue, of which only one gets a hearing here, and it's not due to the lack of coverage. This will be dealt with soon, I'm sure. No established editor wants to go outside of the reliable sources, but many of us do want the reliable sources used appropriately. ] (]) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The best way to make it better is to suggest changes, complete with appropriate sources. If the coverage is there (which I dispute but if it is there) then you should be able to do that.] (]) 15:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Unfortunately, the well is so poisoned it's better to wait and see if the worst parties are removed from the topic area first. Even questions get you labeled a troll, so right now it's more an awareness thing in hopes some change their tune. ] (]) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::That's been the 8chan/reddit playbook all along; agitate the real Misplaced Pages editors, run to Arbcom for relief, then hopefully return the atricle to all its Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu-bashing early days It remains to bee seen whether this was an effective strategy or not, hopefully Arbcom was up to the task of drilling down to what really happened here. ] (]) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::What any outside group wants is not my concern. I'm interested in a neutral article on a controversial topic, and we do not currently have that. ] (]) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Actually we do have that now, just needs a little quotefarm and bloat cleanup. The focu of the article as the Draft version stands is essentially correct. ] (]) 15:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The draft article has a very skewed focus that does not reflect the accuracy of the situation, which is a problem that will need resolution eventually. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Actually, it does reflect the accuracy of the situation, as per all the reliable sources. Even the movement's supporters (c.f. ''First Things'') admit that Gamergate is effectively dead at this point. The movement has devolved into random swatting, doxing and invective targeting its opponents, and isn't even pretending to be about "journalism ethics" at this point. ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::This is what our article says, yes. The concern is what is actually occurring. ] (]) 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You and others have been repeatedly invited to present the reliable sources which say something else is occurring. That you and others have been unable or unwilling to do so suggests the accuracy of the situation is, indeed, well-reflected by our article. ] (]) 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Many have and continue to do so. That the process has largely been driven by bad acting than fundamental encyclopedia building is why many of us, myself included, are taking a more wait-and-see approach. ] (]) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Yes, we have all seen the attempts to present anonymous blogs and Breitbart as acceptable sources for salacious and highly defamatory claims about living people. They continue to not count as reliable sources. ] (]) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:And I'll join you in continuing to not want to include those sources in there, while continuing to criticize the skew of this article and the behavior that has created the failed article we currently have. ] (]) 17:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


|author7 = Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv
Two of the five times First Things is cited its just a footnote that's been tacked on to something already cited in another source. So it's not really that overrepresented. ] (]) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
|title7 = Go ahead and use Misplaced Pages for research

|date7 = October 17, 2024
* I'd say that it should just be stripped out. The purpose of the article is not to enumerate every comment anyone has made; the purpose is to give an overarching description of coverage. One blog post by a media commentator does not change that, and it is giving it ] weight to include it without further support that the opinion expressed is significant (eg. similar commentators stating similar things.) Additionally, after looking over it, it was frequently quoted in areas where the quote or opinion it was cited for was tangential to the topic of the paragraph; remember, quotes and cites shouldn't be added simply as a way of indirectly repeating your own opinions in the article, but because they genuinely illuminate noteworthy swaths of the public reaction. I'm not seeing that here. (Remember, we just managed to trim the article down from the QUOTEFARM warning; if people start citing random blogs to argue point / counterpoint against each other by proxy, it'll explode back to there in no time.) --] (]) 08:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|org7 = ]
:*Oh come on. Any pro-GG POV is obviously the minority, so you're raising the bar to "noteworthy swaths", as well as dismissing the source as a "random blog". This plainly increases the partial slant of the article. ]] ''']''' 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|url7 = https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/17/opinion/use-wikipedia-reliable-source/
:::] You have stated it directly above, ] Since the mainstream views of the subject are near unanimous in their reception/view, per POLICY, our article will reflect such a view, and ONLY by doing so will the article be/retain its encyclopedic Neutral Point of View. -- ] 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|lang7 =
::::That's not what the policy says; we don't pick the predominate opinion and only present that. It will get the most details in the article, yes, but we don't simply omit other opinions. We cannot take any view even if it a near unaminous view taken by reliable sources, and we should be looking for reliable sources that cover the other side of the issue or give counterpoints, as long as those sources are strong reliable sources. I don't think this source qualifies as such, but the point is that to be neutral, we should be trying to find ways to be able to cover counter points if they are minority views; if more than singular sources express these points, we should be discussing them here. --] (]) 19:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|quote7 =
:::::''']''' The overwhelming majority of significant viewpoints in reliable sources are quite clear and unanimous and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise. -- ] 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|archiveurl7 =
::::::Unanimous in saying what? I feel like we have constructed an imaginary "consensus" here without explaining exactly what sort of views it ought to be able to silence. Is independent analysis that appears in a reliable source somehow "wrong" in its entirety, or is it merely inconvenient because it forces us to engage in critical thought? What specific views are supposed to be "overwhelming", and in which specific sources do they appear? ] ] 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|archivedate7 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
::::::::Unanimous that gamergate is nothing more than a clusterfuck of online, vicious harassment directed mostly at women that signifies nothing more than the culture wars have reached into gaming. -- ] 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|accessdate7 = October 18, 2024
:::::::::The ''First Things'' article is basically on board with that, so you shouldn't have any objection to it. ] ] 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|collapsed=no
::::::::::Then we return to Tony's question of Why are we including First Post when we have better levels of sourcing for those claims? -- ] 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
}}
:::::::::::As I said many times, because it is an outside source providing an independent viewpoint on ''what'' the cultural war is and why it is being fought. ] ] 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 19 2014 (19th)}}
::::::NPOV is more than just UNDUE. There are several facets of being neutral, and one is impartiality. We should not be approaching this article with the mindset "There is only one major view, everything else is fringe", we instead, to be impartial, need to approach this recognizing that there are many other viewpoints on the situation and we should be trying to find sufficient (in terms of quantity and quality) of sourcing to include those other views to be impartial. Yes, the predominate viewpoint will still be the major fraction of this article, but to take the attitude that because the bulk of the sourcing have settled on one view that we should exclude all other views is not an acceptable way to write a neutral article. --] (]) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
}}
:::::::] -- ] 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{page views}}
::::::::So I take it you want to keep the First Things discussion since it is, after all, impartial. ] ] 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{section sizes}}
::::::::The attitude above is exactly the case of not being impartial - we cannot treat the predominate view as the only view , if there are reliable sources that also describe the other views (Which they do). Refusal to acknowledge that there are other views that have the possibility of being sources is a serious problem for editing neutrality. --] (]) 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Refideas|state=collapsed
:::::::::We DO cover the "but ethics", probably in ]. And claims of "impartiality" happening on the talk page are irrelevant to the NPOV policy which covers article content. -- ] 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last=Beyer |first=Jessica L. |chapter=Trolls and Hacktivists: Political Mobilization from Online Communities |date=2021 |title=The Oxford Handbook of Digital Media Sociology |editor-last=Rohlinger |editor-first=Deana A. |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.013.47 |isbn=978-0-19-751063-6 |editor2-last=Sobieraj |editor2-first=Sarah |pages=417–442}}
::::::::::That's one angle. This source is a different point of view (coming from what appears someone uninvolved in GG). Trying to shut down discussion of these points when there are no immediately bogus issues (likely grossly-insulting BLP or a far-from-reliable source) because you claim that it is a point that won't fit into the article due to UNDUE is a problem; we have to be open to discussing all issues that are completely fair to discuss, unless it is clear that they have been discussed to death in the past. As this is a "new" source, that claim can't be made, and instead it is fair to see what other points align with this source and see if it is worthy of inclusion , as to be impartial to the matter. NPOV may not apply to talk page, but talk page behavior that attempts to bypass discussion as to what aspects of NPOV or other policies apply is not appropriate for talk pages. --] (]) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last=Condis |first=Megan |title=Gaming Masculinity: Trolls, Fake Geeks, and the Gendered Battle for Online Culture |year=2018 |publisher=University of Iowa Press |isbn=978-1-6093-8566-8 |pages=95–106 |jstor=j.ctv3dnq9f.12 |chapter=From #GamerGate to Donald Trump: Toxic Masculinity and the Politics of the Alt-Right}}
:::::::::::then we are back to UNDUE- if the analysis/interpretation is only coming from this one guy, it is probably not a voice /interpretation that we should cover in any level of depth if at all. -- ] 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
| {{cite news |last=Dewey |first=Caitlin |author-link=Caitlin Dewey |date=2016-02-17 |title=In the battle of Internet mobs vs. the law, the Internet mobs have won |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |url-status=live |work=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230710005803/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/17/in-the-battle-of-internet-mobs-vs-the-law-the-internet-mobs-have-won/ |archive-date=2023-07-10 |access-date=2024-01-22 |url-access=limited}}
::::::::::::Or we find better sources. ] (]) 13:46, 8 January 2015 (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}}
:::::::::::::We have New York Times, Guardian, PBS, Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, Australian Broadcast Company, BBC, On The Media, New York Magazine , Inside Higher Ed... not really sure what "better sources" you might be wishing for. -- ] 14:19, 8 January 2015 (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=]}}
::::::::::::::You can't have it both ways. Many of the opinions featured in the present article that are strongly against GG are just that of "one guy" (the writer), though when you take their points overall, they'll all in the same broad direction; that is, we right to discuss the broad opinions but we're still overly quoting singular voices representing different facets of that broad opinion. There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources, and if we're going to feature singular voices from the broad antiGG side then there's no reason to have as much call-to to a singular voice from the proGG side; otherwise, we remove the singular voices - at least those that are ''not'' major players in the overall controversy (eg we can including Quinn, or Intel, etc.) - least we admit being not partial and hypocritical. Note that the sources still have to be high quality, and this is not saying that the same amount of ink has to be devoted to the other side because that's against UNDUE, but it is UNDUE and impartial to allow detailed analysis of one side and refuse to allow similar from the other side when the quality of the sourcing is just as good. --] (]) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (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}}
::::::::::::::(To add, I'd much rather prefer to keep the more detailed points from the higher quality sources on both sides - avoiding quotefarming but touching on core points that only secondary sources on the whole situation can make. But this means allowing those same from the proGG side when they come from a similar high quality source). --] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2015 (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=]}}
:::::::::::::::''"There's just as equal a valid broad opinion favoring GG from reliable sources"'' - ] -- ] 19:01, 8 January 2015 (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=]}}
:: Aquillion's comment here goes to the heart of my concerns. The viewpoint expressed in that essay is an extreme outlier, so all bt most cursory references risk unbalancing our article. Indeed we're using it in several places to gainsay the overwhelming weight of informed opinion. --] 19:25, 7 January 2015 (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}}
:::The fact that the viewpoint is different does not ''change'' the fact that ''First Things'' is one of the most reliable and notable sources when it comes to analysis of American civic life, and is far more noteworthy than the likes of ''Vox'' and ''The Verge''. ] ] 21:11, 7 January 2015 (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}}
::::I note that ] has now removed the content twice despite the fact that he has neither justified his characterization nor indeed participated in this discussion at all. ] ] 21:15, 7 January 2015 (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}}
::::Most reliable and notable according to whom? It's a religious magazine with a small readership as far as I can tell. Let's not over weight it. — ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (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=]}}
:::::FYI, you can find '']'' in any American library that carries political journals, alongside similar publications like ''The Atlantic'', ''Foreign Affairs'', and the ''New York Review of Books''. If you ever read a book about religion in America after 1990 you will probably see it mentioned. It's not my fault that you haven't heard of it; you only have to read the first two paragraphs of its Misplaced Pages article to see that it is far more relevant to encyclopedic summaries of cultural commentary than tech blogs. ] ] 21:24, 7 January 2015 (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=]}}
::::::I disagree, a religious journals take on a controversy founded in the technology world is not as relevant as a major technology news site take on it. It's useful, but it shouldn't be so heavily weighted. — ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2015 (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=}}
:::::::Just to clarify, I don't think that the tech blogs have too much weight in the draft article or that they are biased (after all, we have the NYT and New Yorker in agreement), but they are very ''close'' to the controversy and deserve a bit of balance with an uninvolved attempt to frame the controversy in light of culture wars more generally. ''First Things'' should be considered more notable than, for example, ]'s academic analysis which he posted on his blog, and which we currently devote a full paragraph to. ] ] 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
}}
::::Geez, hysterics much? I have been following the discussion throughout, and saw little need to post a "I agree" post. But if it will make you feel better, I agree with the sentiments of Aquillion and TS. Happy? ] (]) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
:::::Please explain to me in what way I am being hysterical. ] ] 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
::::::Your ]-esque "my goodness, the dear chap protests without communication!" above. This is a fringe, minor point-of-view being giving more prominence that it deserves, now being edit-warred over by single-purpose accounts. This is what we're trying to get ''out'' of this topic area. ] (]) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 150K
*Whether the First Things article was religious or not (having read it, I don't see the religion stuff), First Things Is a journal which critiques society and GamerGate is part of that. The relevance of the source shouldn't mbe questioned .Likewise the claim that it's a random blog should be nullified, lest we trim all "random blogs" from the article. I'd say First Things should have a lot more say on "social justice" than Vox. ]] ''']''' 01:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
|counter = 62
**But it is one blog post in a journal only tangentially related to videogames or journalism. The reason we cite such commentators is to explain noteworthy coverage, responses, and analysis about the subject; when the overwhelming majority of commentary agrees on something, it is naturally noteworthy, and we need large numbers of citations to establish that. On the other hand, when one person writes a blog post disagreeing (even if it ''were'' a noteworthy blog), giving them this sort of extensive focus amounts to ] weight; our article is not meant to be a catalog of every blogger's opinions on the topic, nor a place where people can fire off quotes from various blogs as a form of point-counterpoint; rather, it is meant to summarize the noteworthy views. Nothing about First Things gives me any impression that their views on this controversy are ''intrinsically'' noteworthy simply because this blog is saying them; nor, thus far, has anyone made a particularly compelling argument that the personal opinions this blogpost expresses are noteworthy in their own way the way (eg.) the large-scale reactions summarized elsewhere in the article are. Therefore it is mostly non-notable in the context of the article. --] (]) 05:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(30d)
== The Bund ==
|archive = Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive %(counter)d
I found a new source from a liberal swiss ] that offers a non partisan view of Gamergate including these interesting tidbits
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
#Misplaced Pages Vandalism
}}
#How Gamergate members see every negative press mention in the mainstream media as a conspiracy against them (thus justifying the conspiracy category)
__TOC__
#How involved Journalists and Critics see gamersgate as a loud minority.
#Jimmy Wales telling both sides to calm down.
# A Big Group of gamers distancing themselves from the organised Harassment. A small number of members feeling that the gamergate hashtag is compromised who therefore want to start a new hashtag.

its a start to the recentism issue. ] (]) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

: It's from October (not necessarily a problem) and the article consistently misspells Gamergate (also not necessarily a problem, given it's a German language newspaper). What does it add to the topic, in your opinion? --] 03:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::There is no such misspelling, it's probably your translator. I'd say the five points Avono above are what he thinks it adds? ]] ''']''' 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::*2. {{green|Die Aktivisten und Unterstützer von Gamergate wähnen sich im Krieg gegen eine mediale Grossverschwörung, die «Gamer» als Sexisten brandmarken wolle und Vorwürfe um Interessenkonflikte der Spielepresse ignoriere.}}
::*3. {{green|Betroffene Journalisten und Kritiker sehen dagegen eine lautstarke Minderheit von Verschwörungstheoretikern am Werk}} and {{green|Der eigentliche Streit entzündete sich aber an einer Reihe von Artikeln über den Begriff «Gamer»: Verschiedene Onlinemagazine konstatierten, die Gameridentität werde von einer kleinen Gruppe vereinnahmt, die sich durch pubertäres und reaktionäres Männlichkeitsgehabe auszeichne.}}
::*5. {{green|Ein Grossteil der Spieler distanziert sich allerdings von den organisierten Hassaktionen. Einzelne Vertreter sind sogar der Meinung, man müsse den durch die Hasskampagne kompromittierten Begriff «Gamergate» aufgeben und ein neues, einendes Banner finden.}}

: Yes, it was my translator. Don't we already cover these points in much greater depth, and with due weight, in the article? Some of the major mainstream press commentaries came after that Swiss article was written. --] 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Tony Sidaway}} - I believe (2) is not covered in too much detail in the Draft. <s>Given the mess of the article I'm not sure where (5) is covered. I see (5) is covered but I'm not sure whether it's in the correct place.</s> I covered (5) for the misogyny section. ]] ''']''' 02:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

:: I think the culture war stuff from the point if view of Gamergate supporters could be expanded from Jesse Singal's piece in New York magazine. He pays some attention to the conspiracy theories. I thought we used him as a source. If we don't use him for (2) we ought to be, because he really did a good job of investigative journalism. --] 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::: Article is there (refname NYMag,) we source it mostly to talk about how hard it is for journalists to nail down what GG is. Could be used more for the conspiracy bit though and as well anti-feminism section. — ] (]) 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

== Clarification request - Gamergate hastag ==

In the draft, under "Gamergate hashtag", we have this line:

"As of October 2014, it was estimated that there were at least 10,000 internet users supporting Gamergate"

This is rather vague - I really don't know what it's referencing. 10,000 people supporting which side? Or 10,000 people talking about it in general? What does "supporting" mean in this context? Can someone clarify?

Thanks. ] (]) 02:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

: Our article cites CJR on this. CJR is referring to an article in Deadspin which says "By most metrics, Gamergate comprises an insignificant fraction of video game fans. On Reddit, for example, the main staging ground for Gamergate has reached 10,000 readers, representing .17 percent of the more than six million readers on the general gaming subreddit." --] 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::That's a pretty terrible way to word it, then. It assumes both that the supporters are only centralized on a subscribed reddit or Twitter, and that those who subscribe or use a hashtag are supporters. There must be a better way to word it. ] (]) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Intel pledging $300M to support diversity following GG ==

This would be part of a section on the "result" of GG's actions of the industry seeing and trying to fix the problems it has with its own treatment of women as brought out by GG, per some of the above sections. --] (]) 02:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:That's big news. Just added NY Times as a source for this, I'm sure more will come. — ] (]) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:: If you are still looking. -- ] 19:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


==Sanctions enforcement==
== Edit request ==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message|}}<!-- ] 12:00, 26 April 2035 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1840363256}}<!-- END PIN -->
All articles related to the ].


Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: ].
Do I reopen an edit request if it went unanswered and archived?--] (]) 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{yo|DoctorWho42}} Yes you do --] (]) 05:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) ] (UTC)</small>
::Thanks!--] (]) 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


== They/them pronoun confusion ==
== Protected edit request on 7 January 2015 ==


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.
<!-- {{edit protected|Gamergate controversy|answered=y}} -->
The lead currently contains the following sentence:
<!-- Begin request -->
wiki-link to ]
<!-- End request -->
--] (]) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Probably best to wait until the completion of the ] process. — ] (]) 13:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::That's fair.--] (]) 17:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


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.
== Alleged ==


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.
''"The controversy began after indie game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that Quinn had a romantic relationship with Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game news site Kotaku."''
How is the relationship alleged when both have admitted to it? ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:The word allegation is correct in this context. It does not reflect on whether it is true or not, just that the ex-boyfriend made the claim. — ] (]) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Then their pronouns are mentioned in a footnote, but it's still pretty confusing:
: Some people misinterpret the term to signify a dubious claim. Perhaps we should use the plain word "claim" here, because "alleged" seems to be a frequently misunderstood word.


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.
: The current draft version at ] has the following phrasing:


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.
:: ''Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson. This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of the game.''


: The word "claim" would fit equally well instead of "allege" in the above, I think. It would be less prone to misinterpretation. --] 14:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC) 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)
: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)
::I'm fine with that, as long as we don't lose that the follow on allegations by others about the positive review were false. — ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


== Wired article concerning Gamergate and Kamala Harris ==
:::Both should be made very clear.
:::Making it seem as if the basis of the conflict were allegations in the 'unproven' sense is as dishonest as saying there was a positive review. ] (]) 18:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::The "allegations" about consenting adults having a relationship is of non-encyclopedic value, whether the "allegations" are true or not. The only matter of any potential public interest would have been if the relationship impacted what was printed in the press. It did not. -- ] 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::"Kotaku's editor-in-chief Stephen Totilo affirmed the existence of a relationship, but clarified that Grayson had not written anything about Quinn after the relationship had commenced and had never reviewed her games, though he did acknowledge a piece written before the two began their relationship." It's already in there, because of its impact on what was printed in the press. ] (]) 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I think the issue is the actual importance of whether a particular allegation is true or not. I've wrestled with this idea personally, but frankly, it would be inappropriate to say X is a true claim even if technically it is. Even if objectively true, if X is at best tertiary to the issue at hand, it would be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to say, in the voice of an encyclopedia, that X is true. Thus, the fact that X is true is important ''only'' so far as it cannot be separated from other allegations that are in fact false. When it cannot be, it would be inappropriate to label all allegations included as false because all allegations include X. When X can be appropriately separated from the actually false allegations, though, it is both appropriate and frankly the responsibility of a good editor to label such allegations as false. It is a very tight line, and it surely does require some... finesse... with the english language, but it is a requirement for good editing to walk that line and not fall on either side, while hedging on the side of "do no harm."
:::::: Frankly, whether you ascribe that this topic is about "harassment" or "ethics," the truth of X is at best tertiary, and not central to either topic and should be kept that way, save for my note above, of when such allegation cannot be appropriately separated. (Note, as I wrote the above before RedPen's comment: While I in general agree with RedPen here, I reserve the right to disagree if such reasoning is taken to an extreme. There are some times when X may have encyclopedic value, but I agree that for at least 95% of the cases, here, X is inappropriate.) ] (]) 19:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::: For instance, I agree with labeling X as false as far as it leads to it did not impact whether a ''review'' was published following X. Whether X impacted ''anything'' that was printed is a bit grayer. Regardless, it is inappropriate for WP to explore that, it is more appropriate for another medium to discuss those possibilities, should they exist. ] (]) 19:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::This was discussed before, about a month ago. There's a difference between multiple sets of allegations that the article (and draft) fails to properly separate, making the whole thing factually inaccurate and confusing and still hasn't been resolved and probably won't be due to the entrenchment on the issue, encyclopedic value aside. ] (]) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::There are only two allegations which are relevant to this issue: the allegation by Gjoni that Quinn had a relationship with Grayson (true, but we can't present their relationship as "wrong" in any sense, given the fact that the breakup drama amounts to a lovers' quarrel and is of no public interest, as demonstrated by the way the reliable sources treat it) and the allegation by others than this relationship led to positive reviews or coverage (wholly and entirely false, as per the reliable sources). Whatever other allegations Gjoni may have made are irrelevant, as demonstrated by the fact that reliable secondary sources have wholly ignored them. ] (]) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: I (mostly) agree with NBSB here. I would probably completely agree if he just said "Did it lead to a positive review". That is patently false, if for no other reason that said review does not and never existed because Mr. Grayson did not write it. Whether it lead to "positive coverage" is a bit more sticky because there is some dispute over the timelines and I personally would have more difficulty labeling that definitively false in Misplaced Pages's voice. '''With that being said''' that dispute does not belong in the WP article, and without a proper, reliable source that challenges said allegation, it would be inappropriate to focus on that distinction here. ] (]) 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: Note, my above comment was made toward NBSB's original comment, not his slightly edited version that exists now. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::It is a precision of wording issue. The only 100% "false" accusation is that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to get positive reviews of her game - no reviews exist, so this obviously can't be the case. On the accusation that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to garner general positive press has not been proved false, but it has been readily dismissed or not considered as having much truth, since the only piece about DQ involving Grayson was the that game dev bit that DQ was written up in, with Kotaku'e claim the relationship started after this event. There are those proGG that do not trust the Kotaku timeline in this matter, thinking the January article was too close to the April data claimed as the start of the relationship (with their claimed evidence that Quinn and Grayson were at least friends in social manner prior), and no one has actually providing any clear demonstratable evidence that this Game jam article was or was not influenced one way or another. Of course, most reliable sources don't take this position, but it is fair that in terms of language precision, that allegation was not proven false, but simply debunked, refuted, or any other wording that says "it really didn't happen as suggested by the allegation", but not 100% with absolutely surety as "false". There is a singular false allegation, but the "allegations" GG has made as a whole (which GG also include the other claims Gjoni made in his post) have generally been either refuted/debunked or treated as non-nonessential or petty in regards to the larger GG matter - but not all "false" (we have no information either way to affirm or deny these issues). The goal should be to make sure it is clear we attach "false" to the plurality of accusations, but be clear that the popular press opinion is that they are all for the most part refuted or the like. --] (]) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::The reliable sources unanimously dismiss the idea that there were any ethical issues created by Quinn and Grayson's relationship, and treat any such allegations against them as false and malicious. The end. A sampling of those sources, as entered into evidence at the arbitration proceeding, is here: . Our article must and will treat this as a settled matter. Whether "proGG" people "trust the Kotaku timeline" is a matter of no consequence whatsoever. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, not what some people might believe because they're ideologically committed to a particular point of view. ] (]) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Really NBSB? This fight again?
:::::::::::: "{{tq|sleeping with a journalist for positive reviews. The claim, though false,}}" NYTimes - Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned
:::::::::::: "{{tq|hurled false accusations that Quinn exchanged sex for reviews}}" Telegraph, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned
:::::::::::: "{{tq|prompting accusations from others she had done so in an attempt to get positive reviews for her game, Depression Quest. While the relationship happened, the review did not.}}" BBC, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned
:::::::::::: "{{tq|how she had seduced him for favorable coverage (the wench!). In reality, though, the writer in question had mentioned Quinn in an article once, before their involvement, and had never reviewed anything of hers.}} Boston Globe, Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: ... Semi-Confirmed?
:::::::::::: "{{tq|It’s a movement based in false accusations against Quinn — that she traded sexual favors to advance her career — and mushroomed from there.}}" Washington Post, Positive Reviews: False, Sexual Favors to Advance her Career: False, Positive Coverage: You can probably say this leans toward them saying that was false, but it is not explicitly stated that way.
:::::::::::: "{{tq|during which false accusations about indie game developer Zoe Quinn led to personal harassment and death threats against her and those who offered public support}}" CBS Chicago Local, States "false allegations" but does not say which false allegations it is talking about. As there are false allegations (and true allegations) it would be hard to definitively state it is refering to the non-false allegations and only the confirmed false allegations without more.
:::::::::::: "{{tq|angry boyfriend’s post led to accusations that Quinn had a romantic relationship with a video game critic for the gaming website Kotaku.}}" Bloomburg, doesn't even label them false, just says 'accusations' of a romantic relationship.
:::::::::::: "{{tq|Zoe Quinn was accused by an angry ex-boyfriend of sleeping with someone in order to get good reviews for her game. And despite the fact that she was able to refute these allegations, it kind of stirred up quite an online backlash towards her.}}" ABC, Refuted allegations of "good reviews".
:::::::::::: "{{tq|was accused by her ex-boyfriend of trading sexual favors for receiving positive game reviews. Those false charges}}" Positive Reviews: False, Positive Coverage: not mentioned
:::::::::::: Am I splitting hairs? Maybe, but every single one of those references ONLY refers to positive reviews. Only one can possibly be read to possibly include false coverage. And at least one semi-confirms that positive coverage ''may'' have resulted from the relationship. What those references do not do is what you say they do, which is label all allegations of positive coverage as false. ] (]) 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::''Yes, you're splitting hairs''. The upshot is that reliable sources unanimously reject the allegations against Quinn and Grayson and repeatedly note that their relationship did not create any ethics violations. As those allegations are the only ones mentioned in reliable sources, they're the only ones we consider meaningful and the only ones we will mention. That's all there is to it. The end. ] (]) 21:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: They repeatedly make that point in one way, using very specific language. There were no "positive reviews". They didn't make it in "every way possible". The fact is, there is a very specific wording that is common in many of those articles. We should use a very similar, very specific wording. "False allegations that the relationship lead to positive ''reviews''" There isn't any argument over that type of wording. When we try to extend that to "positive reviews" AND "positive coverage" we are saying something that the reliable sources are specifically not saying. What they do not say is just as important as what they do say. ] (]) 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::They are synonymous to everyone except you, and the unquestionable point made by the reliable sources — that Quinn and Grayson's relationship created no violations of journalism ethics — is obvious to everyone who is not a committed die-hard Gamergate supporter who just cannot stop clinging desperately to the idea that something they believe in is true, when it is absolutely 100% false. Gamergate's founding mythology was exploded months ago by literally every major news media outlet on the planet, and I'm sorry, but that's just the end of the story. The rest of the world has long since moved on and we are not going to rehash long-discredited attacks on living people just because some people can't deal with the fact that their ideology is built on a foundation of sand. ] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Synonymous, but not identical. Different words, although similar, can have different meanings and connotations. While in everyday parlance the distinction may be minor, as editors of an '''encyclopedia''' it is important to use the most correct word when using a similar, but not necessarily correct, synonym may lead to a misrepresentation.
:::::::::::::::: To your edit(s): Please leave your bad faith accusations somewhere else. Show me the source, and if the source doesn't support your allegations, don't instead start using ad hom accusations at me. Show me where a source supports YOUR wording, and we're done. ] (]) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::It's not Misplaced Pages's fault that Gamergate supporters hitched their wagons to a false narrative, launching their "campaign" based on unverified attacks, an ex-boyfriend's ranting blog, false assumptions and thinly-disguised slut-shaming and misogyny. We're done here because the reliable sources are done with Gamergate. All of the movement's efforts have succeeded in nothing more than convincing Intel to invest a small country's GDP in supporting diversity in gaming, including Anita Sarkeesian. I know that must be hard to deal with, but the solution is not to yet again bring up long-discredited attacks on Zoe Quinn. We're just not going to go there. ] (]) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: What are you talking about? How does that have anything to do with this issue? ] (]) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Your single-minded obsession with negatively portraying Zoe Quinn suggests that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to further some sort of off-wiki dispute or obsession with her. You have precisely one contribution in your entire editorial history not related to Gamergate. That's what it has to do with this issue. ] (]) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::: That is a bold allegation. Also a complete fabrication. The dispute here is simple, is there a difference between "positive reviews" and "positive coverage". One, there is CLEAR support for. I have completely agreed to that multiple times. The other the support is very dubious at best, and it would be a misrepresentation to say otherwise. Your inability, or unwillingness, to see that only says things about you.
:::::::::::::::::::: To your EDIT: Everyone starts somewhere. In fact, I have not made a single edit to an article related to Gamergate. If you want to get technical, 100% of my article editing history is completely non-Gamergate related. I have participated in discussions only. ] (]) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
: Are we arguing about the draft article? Because at the moment I don't think we even touch the positive coverage aspect of it. Which is probably how it should be as it doesn't get much weighting in our sources. — ] (]) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Amen. But apparently, according to NBSB you're a ProGG zealot if you believe that. ] (]) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::: One of the most bizarre things about this talk page is the amount of times massive arguments have broke out between editors on issues where they completely agree about article content. ] (]) 22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: The obsession with the details of Zoe Quinn's sex life are not relevant to the subject of corruption in videogame journalism. I'm sure that most (if not all) journalists have relationships with game developers and representatives of game companies. Why people have obsessed about one woman's sexual history instead of looking at the larger picture of collusion between journalists and game companies is baffling to me and, at best, seems voyeuristic and more than a little disturbing. If this kind of relationship is so central to this narrative, why are people not investigating the sex lives of journalists to see if they HAVE positively reviewed the games of other companies or developers? No, it is only Quinn whose life goes under the microscope.
:::: Unless such behavior has crossed the line into criminal behavior, I don't see the relevance of presenting details about the sex life of someone whose participation in the controversy has been as a victim of harassment. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: I don't think anyone on this page (for the most part) disagrees with you. I would state that some details are relevant simply for the fact that many reliable sources place the origins of this "controversy" at the point where the "zoepost" was released. The zoepost then lead to the ethics allegations and harassment of Quinn and others. I think you could make the case that perhaps there have been other investigations into the "ethics" side of this whole controversy, but those investigations have largely not been notable or covered by reliable sources, if they exist. As such, there isn't too much about them that could be put into this article. ] (]) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


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


== Transphobia and attempted outting of Brianna Wu ==
{{green|Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "strange, rambling attack", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson}}


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)
Currently we are using a New York Times quote to comment on Gjoni's blogpost as a "strange, rambling attack". The quote comes from a from Oct 2:


== Requested move 5 November 2024 ==
{{green|In a phone interview, Ms. Alexander, who also consults for independent game makers, said that “Intel was fleeced by a hate mob.” She said she wrote her opinion piece because of the online treatment of Zoe Quinn, an independent game maker who was the subject of a strange, rambling attack written by a former boyfriend in August.}}


<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 -->
In context it's not clear whether the quote reflects Wingfield's own or Leigh Alexander's opinion.
:''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 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)
Two weeks later is published in the more prominent Technology section of New York Times. This article also appears in the print version. Here Wingfield uses a milder wording as before and describes Gjoni's blogpost as a "rambling online essay". We should prefer the wording of the second article over the first, because it's less ambiguous, more recent and was published more prominently. - <small>preceding unsigned comment by ] at 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
----
*'''Support''' - thanks for bringing this up. Yeah, the Bits Blog is less reliable than the later Technology article. Wingfield's opinion also has more "distance" from the controversy. Leigh Alexander is already 'proven' to be partisan against gamers, as per the Gamasutra piece she wrote which this GamerGate article depicts. ]] ''']''' 01:44, 9 January 2015 (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)
: "rambling online essay" is okay, as long as we don't lose the fact that it was fundamentally a character assassination. That it was effective in its context is undeniable. The victim of the attack is still suffering and may blamelessly suffer throughout her life. We should be careful to avoid understating the savagery of the attack on Zoe Quinn, and the extent to which the attacker was complicit in the ramifications for months beyond the original malicious attack. We don't rely on that particular article to support the fact of the savagery or it ramifications. --] 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:Then we might also add Eric Johnson's on ], {{tq|Her accuser comes off more as an angry, unbalanced ex than a responsible watchdog.}} Or ''The Verge''{{'}}s of it as a {{tq|screed}}. Or '']'''s : {{tq|It's such a wretched, sleazy business that there's little surprise this latest septic eruption of Internet misogyny escalated from a jilted boyfriend, a programmer by the name of Eron Gjoni. He had been dating a game developer called Zoe Quinn and then in the way of these things, Eron and Zoe were dating no more. We've all been there, and like many of us Eron did not cope well. He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things.}} Or '']'': {{tq|Eron Gjoni, who had dated Quinn, posted a revenge blog accusing her of cheating on him with Nathan Grayson.}} The point is that Gjoni's post was not a dispassionate note but a highly personal diatribe by a deeply involved person — reliable sources view it not as some sort of altruistic whistle-blowing but as an act of spiteful drama-dumping revenge. If you'd prefer that we paraphrase that clearly-expressed sense of the reliable sources, I'm not opposed to doing so. ] (]) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:*I'm looking for opinions with has more "distance" from the controversy ... also known as ... mainstream media. Of which, I believe only the Age qualifies above, but does the Age say anything specific? I went to check, so {{blue|He said a lot of spiteful, nasty things}} is not necessarily referring to that exact blog post. The exact wording to describe the blog post is {{blue| he unloaded his grief online, alleging that his ex-girlfriend had sex with a critic who then wrote a friendly review of her game. (Note, this didn't happen).}} ]] ''']''' 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
::The Age's summary is most on the mark. I don't think either "strange, rambling attack" or "online essay" is a decent summary. Neither one gets to the point of how personal the blog post is. It (1) accuses ZQ of serial infidelity and (2) publicizes a large number of private break-up related conversations, (3) under the flimsy pretense of "alerting the community" -- an ingenuity that became typical of GG itself. I agree with NBSB that it's an incisive drama dump that ''poses'' as "altruistic whistle-blowing." ] ] 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
* How much discussion on this blog post do we want to have exactly? More than one comment may be WP:UNDUE or else we may be making it more that what it is. Whats next, dueling quotations on what everyone feels about it? Its unimportant to the big picture and it would be irresponsible to give thezoepost more than that, for fear of BLP issues related to Ms. Quinn or Mr Gjoni. '''Support''' the updated NYTimes wording, but '''Oppose''' adding anything more beyond that. I may support an different wording if it is proposed in alternative to the NYTimes wording, but I don't quite see that above. ] (]) 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
** Most of the coverage of GamerGate in reliable sources indicates that the controversy fundamentally grew out out of harassment against Quinn in particular in response to that blog post; it eventually expanded to other targets, especially Wu and Sarkeesian, but the blog post is still at the heart of the subject's coverage in reliable sources today. Obviously, we have to be careful not to become part of the attacks against Quinn (or any other living person), which means that we have to be very careful to use the most reliable sources in that section and remove anything defamatory; but I don't feel it is possible to cover GamerGate coherently without going into extensive detail on how Quinn was attacked. --] (]) 05:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
other options:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"Rant" seems to be the descriptor of choice. -- ] 13:04, 9 January 2015 (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)
{{hat|reason=]}}
*'''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)
**There are several sources that "credit" the tone and tenor of everything that followed as being set up by the "zoepost". -- ] 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*:agreed! ] (]) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
**Yes, precisely as per TRPoD. Gamergate would be a ''much'' different thing if it had been launched by something other than false allegations against an obscure indie developer which were, as per the sources, spawned and egged on by an angry, spiteful revenge blog from that indie developer's ex-boyfriend. It is precisely why the "ethics in gaming journalism" claims and issues were fatally tainted and overshadowed from the very beginning by misogynistic trolling and harassment. Gamergate's inability or unwillingness to repudiate, disavow, apologize for and move beyond these and other false accusations — and, in fact, its continuing insistence that they aren't false — has, as per the reliable sources, been largely responsible for dooming it to the movement's current status of an irrelevant, incoherent fringe. ] (]) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom.--] (]) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
***See there the biggest issue with the way this is being handled.
*'''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)
:::The false allegations are the existence of a review, which the sources you deem reliable say are the basis of the controversy.
*'''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)
:::The true allegations are the existence of a relationship between a developer and a journalist, which Gamergate itself says is the basis of the controversy.
*'''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)
:::Yet you feel this one word that makes all the difference, should be determined solely by one side of the story, hiding behind cherry-picked reliable sources.
*: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)
:::What you're doing with this article is up to you, but for the love of god, stop trying to justify it with these fallacies. It's embarrassing. ] (]) 10:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' nobody is looking for a niche ant when they're searching for gamergate. ]] 22:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
****The fact that a developer and a journalist were in a relationship is not a matter of public interest, as there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about it. Journalists are not now and never have been ethically prohibited from forming personal relationships, intimate or otherwise, with other people. No code of journalism ethics demands that journalists behave as monks, nor does any code of journalism ethics require that journalists publicize their private personal relationships. It is true that the relationship created the ''potential'' for a conflict of interest, but the fact that Grayson did not write about Quinn's work after engaging in the relationship is self-evident proof that no such conflict of interest existed. The mere existence of the relationship is a non-issue. Furthermore, even if there ''had been'' an ethical violation, it would have been ''Grayson'' who would be guilty of misconduct, not Quinn — who is not a journalist and is not subject to codes of journalism ethics. Targeting Quinn rather than Grayson clearly exposed for the world to see that the attacks were not based on any legitimate issues of journalism ethics, but on salacious gossip and the desire to slut-shame a woman and carry out an ex-lover's revenge. ] (]) 10:16, 9 January 2015 (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)
*****"if it had been launched by something other than false allegations"
:::::If you were equally troubled by it if the allegations were true, why even mention that they (the allegations attributed to Gamergate by others) were false? ] (]) 10:14, 9 January 2015 (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)
::::::I'm not sure what you're asking here, but yes, I'm stating that if Gamergate had actually been about investigating ethics in gaming journalism rather than using false pretences to attack outspoken women in gaming and further a revenge campaign by an ex-boyfriend, it would have been something different entirely. Sadly, that's not what we got. ] (]) 10:19, 9 January 2015 (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)
:::::::You seem hellbent on the use of the term 'false allegations'. If you have a problem with any allegations regarding relations between journalists and the subjects of their writing, I don't see why feel the need to use the word false every other post.
*'''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)
:::::::The allegations that there existed a relationship between a journalist and the subject of his writing are true.
*: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)
:::::::No honest attempt at an objective recollection of the events would completely and utterly overwrite and marginalize a group's own objectives in favor of a premise solely based on cherry-picked reliable sources whose coverage has such enormous plotholes you could fit a comet through it.
:::::::If like the CBC, you were at least honest enough to admit you're not trying to be objective and just push an agenda, I could respect that. But this justification of the editors' behavior here is a joke and goes a long way into reaffirming the believe that Misplaced Pages is unreliable. ] (]) 10:40, 9 January 2015 (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)
::::::::Yes, I'm "hellbent" on clearly stating, as the reliable sources do, that neither Zoe Quinn nor Nathan Grayson have done anything which would contravene journalism ethics. That someone writes about someone journalistically ''and then, later, engages in a relationship with them'', that is not an issue of journalism ethics. It is not even an "allegation," it is merely a true statement of no particular public interest to anyone. ] (]) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Why do you keep juggling words like that? Is it so hard for you to admit that you have an obsession over the use of the word 'false allegation' as opposed to the true allegations there are? ] (]) 10:54, 9 January 2015 (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)
::::::::::The dictionary definition of ] is {{tq|a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong}}. There is factually nothing illegal or wrong about Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson engaging in a romantic relationship. Ergo, to state such is not an "allegation" at all. It's merely a statement of fact, and not a fact of any particular public interest. ] (]) 10:59, 9 January 2015 (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)
::::::::::*If GamerGate is indeed about {{blue|desire to slut-shame a woman and carry out an ex-lover's revenge}} - then certainly, Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson engaging in a romantic relationship '''has been of public interest''', because Zoe Quinn has been harassed for it. ]] ''']''' 11:40, 9 January 2015 (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)
{{hab}}
*::::::::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: