Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:28, 19 October 2014

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gamergate (harassment campaign) at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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 view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor (3 participants) RealFlight (1 participant) Gameplay of Dragon Quest (4 participants) Rainbow Computing (1 participant) Nebulae (video game) (2 participants) Star Wars Republic Commando (series) (1 participant) Clare Siobhan (0 participants) Super Penguins (4 participants) Double Fine Comics (1 participant) WiiLink (4 participants) Westballz (2 participants; relisted) List of Pokémon volumes (3 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) Bejeweled (video game) (nom) Chris Redfield (nom) List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Good article nominations River Raid (start) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Schim (nom) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Shiny Pokémon (start) Cry of Fear (start) Moida Mansion (start) Aperture Desk Job (nom) A Space for the Unbound (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Articles that need... assessment (1) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (248) screenshots (9,013) photos (72) translation from japan (187) creation merging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

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 has been mentioned by a media organization: Rory Cellan-Jones (16 October 2014). "Twitter and the poisoning of online debate". BBC News. 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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 2 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

Consider Basics on Structuring a Neutral Article

Hey guys, I tend to dabble in less formal sites than Misplaced Pages - smaller wikis with far less stringent rules on citing sources and with less structure in regards to how editing is done. Apologies if I violate a standard for formatting on the talk page.

However, I felt like I should weigh in just to point out that the article can fix some of its concerns with bias by adjusting the connotation and structure of the article to be more neutral. Right now, the article opens up and the first sentence says, "GamerGate is about ingrained misogyny in gaming culture". And while this is technically accurate because a lot of the controversy revolves around that debate, it's a way of opening the article that leads with the stance of one side. It's like making an article about the abortion debate and leading with a sentence that reads, "the abortion debate is a controversy concerning the death of unborn children". Again, technically true to write that, but by leading this way you make it appear as though the controversy is that kids are dying and the fight is over how to stop it. Likewise, this article makes it sound as though the gaming community is sexist and the argument is about how to deal with it.

The article then goes on to list "legitimate grievances of the Gamer Gate movement" at the very end of the article, and with no bullets within, making it appear as something of an afterthought to the article despite being at least as equally large as the fantastically detailed account of Zoe Quinn's harassment. Meanwhile, you have a section entitled "Role of misogyny and anti-feminism", and within that section you include criticism from a self-proclaimed feminist who believes gaming isn't sexist. While I understand that you're trying to make the readers informed that the commentator in that section does not agree with some Feminists, it seems a bit unfair to declare her an "anti-feminist" or include her under that header when apparently she doesn't identify as such.

Given the way you're doing this, an outside observer might be persuaded to think that the weight being added to one side of this controversy goes above and beyond the availability of reliable sourcing. Going forward, you ought to consider completely restructuring the article to have more neutral headers like "Media Response", "Twitter Activity", "Crticism", "Online Threats", and so on. That's a much more responsible approach than having headers in an abortion article that say things like "Ongoing Disputes Over Murdered Children".

All that said, I've cleaned up biased articles on smaller websites, so I know how it gets when you honestly feel that something you care about is being infringed upon. However, if you're extremely passionate about this article - or maybe if you're a very ardent feminist or Gamer Gate supporter - you should back up for a little bit and let some other people take over for a while, because you're on a side and you're being a lot more biased than you realize. YellowSandals (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

GameJournoPros

The following discussion 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.

Not a single mention of this on the page, despite all these sources.

Pocketgamer, China Topix, tportal, Bright Side, Ars Technica, Forbes, bitgamer, recode, Erik Kain and other industry members

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

Let's decide what should be included and what shouldn't. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with GameJournoPros is that this borders on BLP (it is an unfounded claim/inference about the actions of known living persons, something I checked on at BLP/N and was told better to leave this out). It's contribution to the overall GG story is very minor since I see little of the present proGG stuff pointing to that to say that is an ethics problem. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

GameJournoPros is not a person. If it violates BLP to talk about it, then why doesn't it also violate BLP to accuse Gamergate of wide, sweeping claims of harassment and terrorism? Ridiculous. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The specific people who contributed to the list are living people, and making unfounded, poorly-sourced accusations about them or their behavior does violate BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that there's little attempt to keep this page neutral despite the token cries for neutrality, I sadly doubt that these multiple sources will amount to anything at all. This page is already infamous for its partiality, and is obviously one of the bigger battlegrounds of the whole thing. Especially considering pro-GG sources are constantly questioned where as long as the anti side doesn't link Gawker or something it is accepted readily.Tupin (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The list was included at the article at one point, and was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then. Now that we have more independent reliable sources covering it, it should be included again. As for Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard, there was one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included, and other thinking that it could, so it doesn't set any precedent. Diego (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your memory is faulty. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. You may want to read what I wrote instead of making personal attacks. Diego (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included.' I see a lot more than one editor in that section expressing concerns about including breitbart.com's accusations. Your statement that only one editor opposed its inclusion is patently false. The sourcing for is also still weak, just as it was then: we don't seem to have any independant investigation, only a few minor industry outlets reporting on the accusations published on a site that is best known for publishing outright lies. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included' in Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard. The only editor at that board against inclusion is User:John; meanwhile, User:Stuartyeates thought that it could be published if it's covered in independent reliable sources. Please consider asking for clarification when you don't understand why a comment has been made, before resorting to insulting fellow editors. Diego (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, I quoted the wrong section of your post: you said the information "was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then." That's not true, and saying so minimizes the past opposition to this information's inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As mandated by WP:DUE, it deserves a place in the article. Tutelary (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No actual collusion actually took place, this is a thoroughly debunked meme. There's no need to repeat every scurrilous and half-baked cover story the "pro-GG" people have concocted to cover their misdeeds here. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The collusion has never been fully debunked (but that's not saying it is true either), and for that reason, as simply a claim of it, we should really not include as per the BLPN discussion even if we could. If it was dunked, then inclusion should be apparent, just like the allegation against Quinn. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There are various ways to cover this in a BLP-safe way. We have several reliable sources noting that the leak of mails happened, and that it led to several proGGs to consider it as an explanation of the early "media radio-silence", and to Kyle Orland to publish an explanation at Ars Technica. Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been fully debunked. A wild accusation was made, a person quite rationally explained that, no, this is what the e-mail list is really for, and the accuser and associated unreliable sourced that initially mirrored it went silent. This is a dead-end issue. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are multiple high quality reliable secondary sources which present the content, then it can be added according to due weight. It would certainly help if someone interested in adding the content would highlight which are the 2-3 highest quality sources, along with excerpts covering the issue. aprock (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is there aren't. We have a few articles which are relatively low-quality sources, and they're all reporting on accusations which have gotten no real traction and which originate from a media outlet best known for making things up to attempt to discredit political opponents. We need much, much stronger sources which we can rely on to evaluate the situation properly and give it exactly the credit it deserves before we give Breitbart.com's accusations a place in Misplaced Pages. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So, you consider an article published under the auspices of Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher to be a low quality source? Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I consider the sourcing we have here too weak to justify mentioning these accusations in the article, yes. You'll not that that is only a source for the fact that the accusations were made: it doesn't in any way indicate that they have any merit. I'm not doubting that Milo made unfounded accusations - I know he did - what I'm saying is that by including them here when they've been given only cursory attention by reliable sources we would be violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. We have decent sources for the fact that Milo made an unfounded accusation, but we have very, very weak sources that support the notion that these accusations are noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please inform us of something that is not clear from your interventions: what level of sourcing would make you accept that this incident has strong enough sources for including it? Because I definitely want to apply that very same criteria to the numerous opinions currently included in the article. Diego (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

High profile mainstream sourcing is going to garner the most support; Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, LA Times, New York Times, etc. Of the sources listed above, only the Forbes one seems likely to gather broad support. Again, it's not about something being clear or WP:TRUE, it's about gathering consensus for inclusion. If you use niche publications that editors have never heard of, then the likelihood they are going be widely supported it as a source is fairly low, especially for anything which approaches WP:BLP requirements. For better or worse, that's how wikipedia works. aprock (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it is very rare for opinion pieces to be considered reliable for much beyond the authors own personal opinion (see WP:OPINION). As such, they should almost always be avoided in controversial articles like this one. aprock (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One last note, the above sourcing guidelines relate to inclusion of a topic as per WP:DUE weight. Once something has been deemed of sufficient weight for inclusion (based on high quality mainstream sourcing), then other less high profile sources can be used, guided by WP:DUE weight as determined by the high quality sources. Said another way, Kotaku can't be used to establish enough weight for inclusion, but if the New York Times makes reference to a Kotaku article, then it can be used as a citation. aprock (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That leads me to conclude what other editors have already commented at this talk page, that the amount of personal opinions currently appearing in the article have been given undue weight and should be reduced.

As of now, we're giving any op-ed by a particular journalist the same weight that we give to main events, which does not make for a balanced article. The article should give more emphasis to the events that have been reflected at several independent venues, and less to the commentary on those events by single journalists in their opinion columns; unless one particular opinion has been itself collected by other media and identified as significant by other independent sources, it should be taken elsewhere. Diego (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You hit in on the nose. There are sections that are just "here's some opinions", and because opinions are going to be extensively available from one side and not from the other by the nature of this controversy, this simply is overkill on getting the point across. "GG is seen as a bad thing by numerous people" is necessary and unavoidable to state, but not to the degree that the point is hammered over and over. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I'm an unrepentant inclusionist, I'm not fond of completely removing content that is sourced to reliable sources; I usually prefer to find it a better place when it's deemed irrelevant to a particular topic. I was thinking that it's time to WP:SPLIT this already long article upon the axis of factual vs opinion, creating Reactions to GamerGate. I think there are enough sources describing the nature of those reactions to make that subtopic a notable one, where those single-person opinions would actually be on-topic and not too much detail, in the way they're too detailed for this main article now. The current article could be made into a timeline of sourced facts and highly influential reactions (like those by Alexander or maybe Hoff Sommers, which have other journalists commenting on them), which IMHO would be much more neutral. This would also leave place at the main article to grow from the more in-depth, long-term analysis of the significance of the whole incident that are likely to happen in the future, without requiring us to delete the current content. What do you think? Diego (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to fork anything off like this just to "eliminate the bias" on this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the beginning attempt at a WP:POVFORK. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition, "Reaciton to" articles are WP:QUOTEFARMs, and not appropriate encyclopedic material. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing undue comments it is, then. Diego (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a BLP issue to talk about a mailing list. We have multiple reliable sources discussing this and it only seems apt to include a mention of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As above, which are the 2-3 most reliable mainstream sources mentioning it? If none (or one) are, then it's difficult to see how it should be included. aprock (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Pocketgamer, Re/code, and Forbes are the best sources in the mix.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Of those, only the Forbes one appears to be a mainstream source, and even that is a "Games" column. As it only deals with the email list, it's hard to use it to establish due weight. Based on those sources, it's hard to see covering the topic in any sort of detail. aprock (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Re/code is also fairly mainstream, it's been founded by the main technology journalists of The Wall Street Journal and All Things Digital, financed by NBCUniversal, and quoted by Reuters, Time, MacWorld, NBCNews and many international outlets (El Pais, CNET, Europa Press, TeleCinco... I quote major Spanish outlets because those appear at my Google News search, but I'm sure other languages will quote Re/code too). They don't come any better in terms of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Diego (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some games journalists discussed, among other things, GamerGate, on a private mailing list." That's a mention. It doesn't say much, but that's about all there is to say about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Then say just that. It's been given more weight in RSs than some of the opinions already in the article. Diego (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can get a consensus to add it, let's do it. The article's hard-protected right now or I would have done it myself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional mentions in Mother Jones and Vox, as well as a response from James Fudges at GamePolitics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture considers it the 5th biggest achievement of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/5 who are we kidding now that this isn't relevant? Loganmac (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

#StopGamerGate2014

The Daily Dot becomes the first source to examine the backlash-hashtag #StopGamerGate2014 that was launched in the wake of the mass-murder threats against Sarkeesian and Utah State University. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's blacklisted from Misplaced Pages, too. Funny how that commitment to reliable sources lapses from time to time.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh, no, The Daily Dot isn't blacklisted. If it was blacklisted, the link wouldn't even show up here. We use other The Daily Dot work as sources for this article already, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

However, it is a weak source. Let's wait for a better one on this. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not banned as of now. It might have been a year ago when I tried to add a link. It's still worth observing that the commitment to reliable sources espoused by the frequent editors to this page wanes in the face of tenuous criticism of the subject.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We are at a point here where it is very valid to review earlier sources and consider if they are really necessary or appropriate in light of more recent, more mainstream sources (see my point about the latest WAPost above); later sources will have a better hindsight view to help balance the coverage appropriately. That's why I think going on we have to be very hesistant about using "weak" sources like Daily Dot (It's fine for less controversial topics, but not here). Note that I don't think within 48hr we'll lack a good quality source for this current hashtag... --MASEM (t) 05:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I bet this counts as a "good quality source".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, within 48hrs I figured we'd have some; that, and a new WAPost one (separate from the summary above), and a Metro.uk... --MASEM (t) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The hashtag's pretty much already dead. Gamergate deniers don't seem to have much commitment to their ideals. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it? How can you tell? If it is dead then maybe we can add it in that there was another counter-hashtag that died. --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are sites that map Twitter hashtags. It turns out I was wrong. It was dead as of a few hours ago. It's back at the moment, and centred on New York ... and the Philippines. I'll leave that to speculation. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

read: the earth turns, there's timezones and now the western world is waking up to flood social media again. We'd have to wait days to determine its' "death". --MASEM (t) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So... Check back in a week then? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Other sources for this: Kotaku, Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, Forbes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I still want to wait 7 days, well, 6 days now, before I want to say that this thing is going to stay. I knew a fair few people who thought GamerGate was another small internet shitstorm that would blow over in two weeks, and it has lasted for over a month now. I think. Let's see whether it can keep up it's momentum for a couple of days before we add it. Is that okay with you? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That hashtag is already dying lol http://i.imgur.com/k8NNjkB.jpg they've tried this before, but oh well it gained the attention of the totally not colluding gaming media so I guess Loganmac (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is the colluding media that is the bane of gamergate- not their lack of a coherent message, their focus on minor trivialities and non-existent conspiracies or their unwillingness to distance themselves from and condemn vile harassment and death threats or their insistence that death and rape threats are not important but their incoherent claims are important. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Give it a few more days, I want to see whether it will revive or not. --86.156.85.208 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks acknowledges GamerGate

The following discussion 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.

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

"Journalistic organisation WikiLeaks recognized GamerGate 'found out media is corrupt'" Or something like that? Loganmac (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't see a problem if it is posted as an opinion, it's a verified account. I'm just a n00b though. If you want a secondary source what about this? http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/09/wikileaks-wades-gamergate-says-nato-corrupt-video-games-journalism Halfhat (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Edit: It doesn't refer to that tweet in particular but does show the same sort of position.Halfhat (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't the results of the AMA been constantly thrown out because of the wispy washy nature of the question posed and the answer given? I don't see why we need to mention that the website backs them up in any fashion when it solely revolves around the claims of censorship happening when people are getting banned for violations the terms of services of the forums where they are claiming it is happening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, and read through the linked article, and found zero mention of GG. We're not going off one tweet to say there's support. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture mentions that "Wikileaks commented on their twitter" about reddit "stiffling the discussion of the GamerGate scandal" in an article about the biggest victories of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/10 Loganmac (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to see WhatCulture as a significant source. On the plus side, that was very funny. Well, the few pages I could see before the site seemed to die, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatCulture is definitely not reliable, it's more a clickbait site. They might express points that could be discovered in other sources, but we can't use them directly. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Better lead sentence

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as GamerGate or as a hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in video game culture which began in August 2014. Gamergate is the name of a controversy that started in August 2014 primarily over social media as a culture war between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. Aimed to capture a few issues that have been id'd above, adding in the idea this is a culture war (more than enough sources), identifying but not pigeonholing key players, and avoiding the "inherent"/"ingrained" issue with the fact that these problems have been there. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with that change. Q 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Could replace the laundry list with "a culture war in video game culture over pre-existing issues..." More concise and inclusive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with masem Retartist (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It has so many clauses that it seems like it should really be 2 sentences. Also the way two different meanings of the word "over" are used in the same sentence is a bit jarring. How about this: "Gamergate is the name of a controversy over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. The controversy first arose in August 2014 and was primarily propagated via social media as a culture war between members of the video game press, developer community, and gamer community." ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer yours, Thibbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:2c Gamergate is a culture war that began on social media in August 2014 involving the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture. Cleaned up language, 51 words down to 36, better links. --beefyt (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it better, but I still find there to be too many qualifiers splitting the subject. At its most simple core it's "a controversy/culture war over pre-existing issues... and journalistic ethics." That's what the article should lead with. Then further qualifiers could be added to the end of the sentence. How about this: Gamergate is a culture war over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture that began on social media in August 2014 and involved the video game media, developer community, and gamer community. ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd split it up to make sure to add "members of" since not all of those groups are involved. eg "...journalistic ethics in the video game culture. The controversy started in social media in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community." --MASEM (t) 05:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate was not a "culture war", it was a lynchmob that backfired. "War" implies that there were two belligerents involved. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That very article says "culture war". Also, a culture war is not always a war with two explicit sides, but can be a single group against a larger shifting tide. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. Opposition withdrawn. Kaldari (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think of the versions suggested, Thibbs' is the most readable, although I prefer the existing wording of 'ingrained' over 'pre-existing'. Kaldari (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

AgreeI think that's far better. Halfhat (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources dont present it as a "culture war" - they present it as "Ostensibly a campaign against corruption in journalism but in practice a grassroots attack on feminist critics in gaming" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a disingenuous treatment of the subject, bordering on deceptive, and I'm ashamed that an admin is actually behind it. This is ingrained sexism and harassment, long-ingrained in the gamer community that came to a boil over false allegations of impropriety against a female game developer. This is not a "culture war", unless there's a "culture" that is pro-sexual harassment in play here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We have to be neutral as Misplaced Pages editor. The neutral stance, with reporters not invested in this, is that this is a culture war that has included unfortunately nasty tactics. If you cannot take the middle ground stance (proGG or antiGG side) , you should not be touching this article. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What refs will be used for the use of "culture war"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WAPost, Stuff.co.nz Metro UK, CBS News, (arguably CNN though there it is a quote from a game journalist). I believe there's a few older ones but those are all in response to the Sarkeensian shooting threat news. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We should really get something on the shooting threat into the article soon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is helpful. Could we combine it with a solution to the issue 33/basic lack of explanation? It seems like both are aiming at parts of the same basic issue of providing context. valereee (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

AND: in the interests of developing something that won't need nitpicky usage edits -- 'among' rather than 'between' probably, because more than two entities. valereee (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Disagree leave the misogyny bit off Ginnygog (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot remove something that everyone has been saying exists as part of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that there's no specific party to blame for the misogyny (in fact it is clearly a standing issue through all three parties listed). But Ryulong's 100% correct that since every non-gaming mainstream source has called out something misogynic about the situation (whether anti- or pro-GG), it is part of it. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

When was misogyny called out on the anti-GG side though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out with the "ingrained" discussion, the industry has been dealing with internal misogyny; they may not have been called it after it started, but the statement does not belie that it was a problem. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

arbitrary break

Just started reading this and am troubled by the "ingrained" piece, solely because the source reports opinion just as much as fact. Is there a suitable replacement, preferably from a more standard RS? Otherwise that really should come out, especially since it is made in Voice.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 05:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are countless sources that use various other synonyms for "ingrained". "Ingrained" is a compromise over every other synonym out there that says that misogyny and sexism are part of the gamer DNA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are countless, can you suggest a few? Preferably from high quality sources like newspapers, or academic journals. I'm skeptical of making any bold claims in Voice from the gaming press.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

TKoP, please search the talk page archives. NPR, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Salon, Time, CBC, etc. etc. etc. Don't mean to seem short about it, but this was litigated extensively and "ingrained" was the agreed-upon consensus. We originally directly quoted The Washington Post, which stated that "Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, and what are "indie works"? Readers shouldn't have to click on the references to find out, and we shouldn't expect the reader to know what those are.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the talk page's archives.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The archive says that the consensus is that the article has problems in this way; it needs to be fixed. I know; I was there. Quit biting people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We don't expect the readers of this article to read the archives. Indie works needs to be explained or blue linked.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 05:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We expect you to read the archives when we tell you to when these points have been raised time and time again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Secondly, it isn't true; as RSs point out, it really isn't related to, particularly severe in, or specific to gamer culture at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ummmm, no. It's not a violation of BLP. Video game culture and the industry do not constitute an identifiable group. Some sources state that it's part of a broader issue, but also state that video gaming has a particular problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Video game culture and the industry do not constitute an identifiable group", but the members of GameJournoPros do, even when RSes don't identify them by name? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. GameJournoPros is a small, identifiable group with, per sources, no more than 120 or so members, whereas "GamerGate" and "Video game culture" are large, amorphous and unidentifiable masses. They are not even groups, really — they are "things." GamerGate's issue with this has been repeatedly discussed in reliable sources; since there's no way to actually control who uses a hashtag, you don't have an organized group so much as an anonymous mob. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation of BLP. No singular person is being singled out and accused of being a misogynist or sexist. A nebulous group is. A group is not protected by BLP. And in another section I had linked to 8 sources used throughout the article that use the word "misogyny" or a variation to describe Gamergate. We are not going through this every time some new Gamergater comes to have his say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, I could post flat-out racism on Misplaced Pages and it would be "not a violation of BLP". 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And it might not be. It might be removable for other reasons, such as WP:NOTHERE, but it might not be a violation of BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of trans and queer game developers

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

Let's finally talk about Patreon, shall we? Link to other sources in the archive. Also Reason. Gamergate's discovering Patricia Hernandez's conduct seems noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's been a major part of discourse. How briefly can we summarize it? Halfhat (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: the East Bay Express article downplays those quoted examples, though, even including this rebuttal:

Polygon editor Christopher Grant, meanwhile, published a blogpost reminding readers that "like Kickstarter, these contributions aren't investments. There is no equity to be gained, there is no market to capitalize on."

And at the same time they are contrasted with the

common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles.

So I'm not sure it's as damning as you would make it appear. Multiple editors above had also expressed concern with using Reason for BLP statements, which would include Patreon or any ethics claims about journalists. Woodroar (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's damning or not, it's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's noteworthy, but you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. The pull quotes you mentioned are given as examples of minor ethics violations, and they are contrasted with major ethics violations of the AAA title developers. We could say something like this: Sarah Burke of East Bay Express mentioned often-cited concerns within the GamerGate movement, such as a reporter being "friends and former roommates" with a developer, or donations from reporters to developers via Patreon accounts. Burke contrasts this with the "common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles" in order to influence positive reviews, a concern which GamerGate has not expressed. Just a thought. Woodroar (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose these changes to the second and third paragraph

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

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

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

Halfhat (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

as per NorthBySouthBaranof. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Would discussion did I remove? It was just repetition. Halfhat (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead paragraph should be a succinct and thorough summary of the article. There's nothing in the first paragraph about the harassment campaign that counts as repetition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What sourced facts have I missed out?Halfhat (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not "just repetition" and you didn't address the issue of raising unsourced and irrelevant claims about Zoe Quinn. You won't get any consensus for that version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What sourced facts did I miss? Halfhat (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Look If I've actually missed out sourced information say what I've actually missed out. Halfhat (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposing additing on Sarkeesian shooting threat

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

At the end of the para that starts "The harassment expanded to include renewed threats against Sarkeesian...", we should add the following:

In mid-October, Sarkeesian cancelled a lecture she had planned to give at Utah State University after the school received a shooting threat attributed to Gamergate supporters that referenced the École Polytechnique massacre; Sarkeesian stated she only cancelled the engagement after the school could not assure her safety at the event due to state laws, but will continue to speak elsewhere.<ref name="nytimes asu"/>

<ref name="nytimes asu">{{cite web | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html | title = Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign | first = Nick | last = Wingfield | date = October 15, 2014 | accessdate = October 15, 2014 | work = ] }}</ref>

Note that I do not think we should even get into any issue on the state law gun laws (allowing for concealed carry that the school could not interfere with), just that they couldn't assure she would be safe. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Utah State University, not Arizona. Also I think we can use all of the references provided when it first came out like the one from CNN and such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And as stated before

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats |last=Schreier|first=Jason|date=October 14, 2014|work=Kotaku|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/14/6979071/utah-state-university-anita-sarkeesian-threats|title=Utah State University threatened with school shooting over Sarkeesian appearance (updated)|first=Megan|last=Farokhmanesh|date=October 14, 2014|work=Polygon|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp|title=Feminist cancels USU talk after guns allowed despite death threat|last=Alberty|first=Erin|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Salt Lake Tribune|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/10/14/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-speech-after-school-shooting-threat-at-utah-state/|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech After School Shooting Threat At Utah State|first=Paul|last=Tassi|date=October 14, 2014|work=Forbes|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/death-threat-forces-cancellation-of-sarkeesian-university-speech/|title=Death threat forces cancellation of Sarkeesian university speech|first=Sam|last=Machkovech|date=October 14, 2014|work=Ars Technica|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/blogs/newmedia/2014/10/14/17424/feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-receiv/|title=Video: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian receives latest in series of death threats - 89.3 KPCC|last=Roe|first=Mike|date=October 14, 2014|work=Southern California Public Radio|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.hjnews.com/news/threat-of-deadliest-school-shooting-in-american-history-leads-feminist/article_0eb29ed0-5404-11e4-a274-3334768d75c3.html|title=Threat of 'deadliest school shooting in American history' leads feminist to cancel USU lecture|last=Cannon|first=Kelly|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Herald Journal|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/index.html|title=Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah State speech after threat - CNN.com|last1=Ahmed|first1=Saeed|last2=Marco|first2=Tony|date=October 15, 2014|work=CNN|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/|title=‘Gamergate’: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah lecture after threat|last=McDonald|first=Soraya Nadia|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Washington Post|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk|title=Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat|first=Alex|last=Hern|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Guardian|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31957809&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1|title=USU receives threatening email; feminist speaker cancels speech - KSL.com|first1=Natalie|last1=Crofts|first2=McKenzie|last2=Romero|date=October 14, 2014|publisher=]|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We only need one source to explain the cancellation, and the NYTimes is considered the best quality source for news like this. These other sources may be useful elsewhere but we don't need much on this. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

1. The NYT source cites the fact that the anon used the name of the killer in his e-mail, rather than mentioning École Polytechnique by name, not sure how crucial that difference is.
2. The message being conveyed to Sarkeesian was; "I will kill people at that school because you are a woman", that is why the anon signed the threat "Marc Lépine". I don't know if the NYT is making that IMO critical point, don't have time to read top to bottom right now unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The NYTimes and most of the other mainstream articles don't mention the Ecole Poly shooting by name, but they mention Lepine and the threat in reference to "a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989" (this in NYTimes), which is clearly the Ecole Poly shootings; there's no question what that reference is. That's not OR to connect that up for purposes of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the sources directly mention GamerGate like our WP:NOR requires them to? Sure it was tragic, but is it related to Gamergate? Tutelary (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Did the fact that the NY Times story at the top of this section is titled "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign" escape your purview? Tarc (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was kind of meaning how do they make it about GamerGate, and wasn't wanting to read through about 11 just to see or figure a consensus on how they all treat it; whether it's apart of the larger story, or something like, 'A pro GG person just threatened Anita' or related. Tutelary (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If they say it's about Gamergate then we can say its about Gamergate. Last I checked, several of the sources that are in the "Utah State shooting threat" section higher up on the page that I've formatted ito these references, several of them mention Gamergate as related to the shooting threat. And IIRC, there is also discussion here or in one of the sources that Sarkeesian said the email referenced Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to Tutelary's point, there is no clear indication this was specifically a GG related action, which is why the wording I chose said that the implication by officials and the press is that it is (as opposed to saying that GG issued the threat, which cannot be proven) --02:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If these sources are linking the threat to Gamergate then we can say it's related to Gamergate. Stop being soft.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are linking the threat but they do not say with 100%, fact checked assurety that is was GG, so we take the same approach Huge difference in how this is written, and basic fundamental WP policy. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Per this interview with RS, we might want to note that Sarkeesian has previously spoken after her harassment at events that had received potential bomb threats, only here where they could not affirm her or the audience's safety due to state law did she back down. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on media polarization on the issues?

from the Guardian criticizing the recent NYtimes article for, all purposes, giving the GG the time of day. Opinions aside, there perhaps might be enough to talk about how the coverage of GG in mainstream has led to some issues (an extension of the "Death of games"-type of thing) in terms of swinging the matter. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

lol the Guardian thinks media is biased towards GamerGate. At this point this article it's just impossible to get neutral. And I admire your efforts Masem. But it's like the Wikileaks/Snowden/Julian Assange page were 80% mentions of them being terrorists and traitors. A movement about journalism corruption is bound to be misrepresented by media Loganmac (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

lol ahhh the conspiracy of the media. do you have enough tin foil for your hats? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you I got my collection of tin foil hats ready sir, you're absolutely right, the media doesn't get defensive when a movement attacks them, they're just pure and neutral as it gets! Loganmac (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That is hardly a conspiracy theory. News media are not keen on reporting fairly about criticism of themselves. I think it is quite possible to keep this article neutral even with that being a factor, but it will only happen if both sides in this content dispute are willing to be reasonable. Unfortunately, only one side is showing a desire for neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's not even a conspiracy it's just getting defensive. Yeah definitely add this, it's a decent source, and will help get this a bit more neutralHalfhat (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

"looks like a factual account" ... *anguished Wookiee cry*

This is the fourth? fifth? sixth? article to now focus on internet culture as it relates to the controversy. It deserves inclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is better than I expected, it has a lot of flaws and some neutrality issues, but this is a very hard topic to cover. Halfhat (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

2 Time Articles

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

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

"The university deemed the presentation safe to proceed after consulting with local law enforcement" Noteworthy, I think. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• • uhhh noteworthy because ... Sarkeesian 's decision not to appear shows that shes a chicken shit girl, a real man would have showed up and brought his own gun? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems this harassment has gone on for three days now. Odd how few have noticed.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is 'Gamergate controversy' the best title here?

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

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

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

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

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

Your suggested title has couple of problems. Firstly it'd cover a whole lot that GamerGate does not, and it ignores the whole journalism side. Ignoring that, GamerGate is what people will look up, it's what it's called. The problem is GamerGate is very hard to define, it does include harassment, but also more sincere concerns. Halfhat (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Boy this made me laugh, please tell us you're joking Loganmac (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiked "An un-PC rebellion"

link

I could basically quote the whole thing. It notes that what's going on is the result of a moral panic. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also an unreliable source, and the author is a consultant at a PR firm. Woodroar (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it unreliable? About Allum Bokhari is a political consultant. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Like the Tech Crunch piece he wrote, it's a blog: "spiked has an open door policy on contributors". When a reliable source hires him to write about video games or cultural issues, or when he is recognized as an expert in the area, then we can discuss it. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How does a "political consultant" not count as "a recognized expert in the area"? 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Potentially usable as an opinion piece, but we already give this writer's opinions an entire paragraph and I don't think they particularly deserve more space than that. His declarations that this is a "moral panic" and that linking Gamergate to harassment is a "bizarre belief" are verging on WP:FRINGE territory anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And now that I'm looking into it, I wonder why we're using this source at all. The discussions about Tech Crunch at WP:VG/RS have been mixed because of concerns about it being a blog. Of course, blog posts written by staff members or experts can sometimes be reliable, but that doesn't appear to be the case here: it's a one-off post written by someone not on the Tech Crunch staff. I don't see a history of articles about video games or culture from the bio blurbs at Tech Crunch or Spiked, and searches for his name in the WPVG Google "reliable" search turn up 0 results (and 2 forum posts in the "situational" search). He works at a PR firm. I mean, I think his statement in the article is similar to other random opinions I've seen expressed online, but we don't include opinions just because someone has one. I hate to say this, but imagine the hate we would get if we sourced anti-GamerGate opinions to someone working at a PR firm, not to mention someone without a background in video games at all. Woodroar (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. We should also remove Ryan Smith, Lianna Kerzner, Erik Kain and Christina Hoff Sommers. It'll improve the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you're being facetious, but at least they have some kind of background relevant to the issue at hand. All I'm saying is that our bar for opinion sources shouldn't be as low as "do they have an opinion?". Woodroar (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggested earlier that we raise the bar for anybody's opinions to "has it been quoted by a separate reliable source"? IMO removing those opinions that a journalist has published in their column, and keeping only those that have had an impact on someone else, would have a large effect toward improving neutrality and proper weight to the article. Diego (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, a political consultant has no business commenting on what's being described as a culture war. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS Brianna Wu interview Re: GamerGate

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gamergate-leads-death-threats-women-gaming-industry/

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

CinemaBlend - description of GamerGate positions

Stardock CEO, League of Legends Devs, Others Support #GamerGate.

Selected quotes:

Diego (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So basically this is a few developers saying they don't like video game journalists criticizing their games for perceived issues of sexism, homophobia, etc., and they support GamerGate because they want video game journalists to stop criticizing their games.

Such a commitment to journalism ethics I have never seen in my life. And by that I mean it's literally the opposite of a commitment to journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, that guy is sooo right . I have NEVER played a game that was any good at all that did not involve buying an alien prostitute for my friend. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, we're not here to discuss the legitimacy or lack there of GamerGate, only how to best cover it. The questions are, are their opinions worth covering, and the reliability of that site (I'm not familiar with it). Just because you don't agree with some opinions doesn't mean you shouldn't cover it.Halfhat (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making me uncomfortable.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

dont tell me the social justice warriors have gotten to you too? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is that, plus a RS quoting them and analyzing their words and placing them in context. I thought you said we cover what reliable sources write about, and it doesn't matter what we think of it? Diego (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we can put in the article that some video game developers support Gamergate because they don't want video game journalists criticizing their games. If Gamergate wants to hoist itself on its own petard, who am I to stand in its way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a decent source. I'm far from the best to judge that though. Here's job information http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Cinema-Blend-Jobs-328.html Halfhat (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also on The Escapist - here and here. Diego (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We can also note the response to this line of thinking, as expressed by Kyle Wagner:

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Deadspin a sports blog? Diego (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't CinemaBlend a movie blog? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. Despite its name, it describes itself as an "entertainment site. Reporting on movies, television, video games, and pop culture". Diego (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be mostly about movies, with perhaps one writer working on video games and republishing thinly-repackaged press releases. Deadspin also has some video games coverage.

More to the point, it doesn't really matter what the blog is about; it's a valid opinion piece, just like the opinions expressed by video game developers. Kyle Wagner's opinion has been referenced approvingly in a wide variety of reliable sources, which I'm pretty sure is more than you can say from anything from CinemaBlend. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So, despite the shape of the arguments, this looks like an agreement to cover the opinions of pro-GG developers from the sources in this section, in the terms discussed. Let's see if we can write something down with them. Diego (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They have two writers for video games, actually. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Gamergate (harassment campaign). (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

As a sidebar, while these photographs have been uploaded with the express permission of the subject, is there some way we can request that she provide a simple portrait photograph of herself rather than these expressive and artistic selfies?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

She posted the pictures + permissions on Twitter, so it might be possible to ask her via Twitter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I had to make my Twitter private because the Gamergate hordes were angry at the shit I was writing here and as of 12 hours ago they still are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"As a sidebar", I'm entertained by the blatant admission of partisan bias from both of you here. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Independant published an article on GamerGate

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

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

Breitbart / Yiannopoulos

Spectator, New Statesman, Week, Times, Metro, Spiked, Verge, RealClearPolitics and Reason, Vulture, Stuff, Inquisitr, Washington Post, Metaleater, Forbes, CNN, Recode, Chinatopix, Ars Technica, Forbes again, pocketgamer, tportal, Totalbiscuit and video games publications EICs Janelle Bonanno and Greg Tito

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

Yiannopoulos and his role in GameJournoPros seems fair to mention but given how little impact that had on the resulting situation as well as still being an unfounded accusation (there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story as the claims have made) we can't give it a lot of weight. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story" - which is covered by actual analysis of the actual discussion. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is something Yiannopoulos invented in his coverage of the group. Every other person who examined the list did not identify any wrongdoing by anyone. Yiannopoulos is someone who professionally stirs figurative shit for a living and the website he writes for has consistently warped the facts in various cases to make stories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Erik Kain had some concerns, as did ChinaTopix. Orland himself admitted some of his behaviour was unprofessional. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't it been established that the GamesJournoPros list doesn't mean jack squat in the long run and Yiannopoulos was acting just as he always does on Breitbart which is to say making shit up for publicity?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As some of the more mainstream summary reports of late have mentioned the discovery of this list which set some in motion some other aspects, a sentence or two mention is fine, but we don't need to dwell on it. (This arguably is also true now of TFCY issue too, it's a minor point in the larger narrative). --MASEM (t) 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What they say about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos: "Yiannopoulos of Breitbart London published an article containing emails ...(in which he) suggested collusion between these journalists ... (He later) also published the full exchange of emails, which provided a more nuanced look at the situation ... All told, (the full collection of e-mails) appears to be a largely civil conversation between professionals." and "he leaked a trove of basically anodyne emails between game journalists -ironically, Yiannopoulos had little but sneering contempt for gamers before he spied a chance to make some right-wing converts.)" and "Truly odd, fascinating headline there: “Feminist bullies tearing the video game industry apart.” The mainstream response to B/Y is pretty much "yawn, nothing there", "hmmm, some presentation out of context -not exactly what you would expect from a journalist purportedly expounding on journalistic ethics" to "someone saw an opportunity to strike gold and get a rabidly tech savy audience by only reversing his opinion of them" to "yowsa! can you believe he is blaming the victims of the death threats????? " I am not really sure how you wan to fit that into the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's like Kain wrote in Forbes in September: "Some are crying for more ethical journalism while embracing completely biased and one-sided coverage of the event so long as it conforms to their own biases". Mr. Y seems to fit this to a T.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And then there is this It is also worth pointing out that Delingpole tells his readers to search for a number of - abysmal and hateful - pieces on GamerGate by a man he employs as a columnist at Breitbart, without disclosing their relationship. The irony is noted.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Milo Yiannopoulos was the first to cover the controversy early news coverage of the controversy, in which he criticized the politicization of video game culture, and with leaking correspondence from GameJournoPros, an email list where members of the video game press discussed industry matters. Kyle Orland, the creator of the list, responded to the leak on Ars Technica, admitting that he had acted unprofessionally in some correspondences. Most members of the press saw the list as largely benign.

References

1. Griggs, Brandon (2014-10-16). "Behind the furor over #Gamergate". CNN. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
2. "GamerGate – what is it, and why are gamers so angry?". Metro. 2014-10-15. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
3. Johnson, Eric (2014-10-10). "Understanding the Jargon of Gamergate". Recode. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
4. Lirios, Dino (2014-09-19). "Scandal in the Gaming Community: Elite Gaming Journalists Collude to Censor Stories". ChinaTopix. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
5. Orland, Kyle (2014-09-18). "Addressing allegations of "collusion" among gaming journalists". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
6. Kain, Erik (2014-09-20). "The Escapist #GamerGate Forums Brought Down In DDoS Attack". Forbes. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
7. Cooper, Ryan (2014-10-07). "Intel's awful capitulation to #gamergate's sexist thugs". The Week. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
8. Kain, Erik. (September 4, 2014). "The Escapist #GamerGate Forums Brought Down In DDoS Attack", Forbes. Retrieved October 18, 2014.
9. Kerzner, Liana (September 29, 2014). "The Darker Side of GamerGate". MetalEater.com. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
10. Dotson, carter (2014-09-26). "Escaping the echo chamber: GamerGaters and journalists have more in common than they think". Retrieved 2014-10-09.

Willhesucceed (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

kind of missing the major points of all the reliable sources coverage of his "work" , aren't you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are really cherrypicking the content that sheds the positive light on Yiannopoulos's writing when TRPoD has pointed out that everyone else doesn't think anything he's revealed is worth much in the long run and also how he previously referred to gamers as "nerd rapists" and "dorky weirdos".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to improve it, suggest changes. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, like your whole proposed addition is just singing praises and casting the whole of the list in a bad light. Yiannopoulos may have inserted himself into the debate, but it does not seem like this proposed addition accurately depicts what has happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your version is a bit POV there. It makes it sound like Orland copped to what Yiannopoulos was saying, when the truth is that he defended the list and said he felt it wasn't a big deal. Many commentators agreed on that front. We should note that Fudge weighed in as well, with Ryan Smith being more on the other side. We also have sources agreeing with the concerns about the list, so that should be mentioned as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Orland did admit he acted improperly on the mailing list in some instances. I don't know quite how to phrase it. If somebody has a better way to write the paragraph, or things they want to add, I encourage them to do so. I changed it a bit. Is it better now? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

seems to confirm that Milo has completely moved out of the role of "journalist" into the position of participant/advocate and toss any charade out the window. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Since no one's commented on my suggested paragraph further, I'm going to assume it's acceptable. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still not acceptable in any way. Silence does not mean consensus. Also I apologize for all the edit conflicts I just went through.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please help me to improve it then. I believe this is my third request now. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added at all in the first place because it makes statements that are not supported by the whole of every other source out there that criticizes Milo's actions in making a mountain out of a molehill.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What would you put into the article about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos instead? Willhesucceed (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Something minimal that says he leaked the list, the Ars Technica guy's response, and plenty of sources that say that the list is benign.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I added another two sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this Willhesucceed, GJP not being on the article is just a clear example of controlling the narrative Loganmac (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "controlling the narrative". No one other than Milo and the Gamergaters think that it's important.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've loaded up on the disagreeing sources. Good enough? Willhesucceed (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Far too much detail about a point that is clearly a minor footnote in the larger narrative, looking back at what we know now. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone else post an example of what they'd want? I keep making changes to it and everyone keeps saying, "Mm, nah" without actually helping me improve it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a head's up

Edit request - delete Laurie Penny

Why is she in the article? She's mentioned in all of two pieces. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Because she had something to say about it and she's a notable individual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin is a notable individual and he's been covered much more than her, and he barely gets a mention. She shouldn't be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Penny is an award winning, third party analyst and Baldwin is an involved party who is an actor. Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In which case we should have no problem using Milo Yiannopoulos' personal blog for information, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yianopoulos's personal blog is full of things that Misplaced Pages cannot publish per WP:BLP. Laurie Penny's blog does not have that same stigma.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it can't be sourced for non-BLP issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Like what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other. Most other content about Adam Baldwin will probably violate BLP considering most people have to say about him in the media is that he's right wing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other." And they clearly shouldn't. Penny is given undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sign your fucking posts. And AFAIK, Adam Baldwin doesn't have anything to add to the discussion here that would not be violating BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about Adam Baldwin. This is about Laurie Penny. She doesn't deserve mention. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

if this is not about Baldwin, why did YOU bring him up? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was contrasting her with him for notability. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, he is more famous probably but famous actors are not where we go for content, other than maybe about acting. Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't she deserve mention though? This mentions she had a bomb threat and this vaguely references some other harassment she received, all long before Gamergate and in regards to her stances on feminism rather than video games. She's a mainstream journalist who had an opinion on this matter and not at all involved in video games. She's an external voice on the matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

1. "long before Gamergate" This article is about Gamergate. 2. Again, only two articles. Look above at how many Yiannopoulos / Breitbart have and we're only going to be including a sentence or two.

She's just not noteworthy for this article. It doesn't make any sense to include her. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly your opinion and not held by the other editors of this article. Harassment she received before Gamergate does not mean that she cannot say anything about Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If giving two sentences to a wide variety of sources is the norm, then by that norm, she'll be left out under due weight; if that's the type of numerical sourcing we require. It's also interesting to see Ryulong's thoughts on different people and due weight. Tutelary (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz pulls advertising from Gawker

I really hope a media outlet mentions this, but this is as huge as the Intel thing.

It has just been confirmed a few minutes ago, obviously still no news, I'll just wait Loganmac (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also seen this, but i do not think its directly correlated to Gamergate as such. This was an, excuse my language, an idiotic statement from a senior official at Gawker, where he litteraly tweets that we wants to bully some nerds. This happened on bully awareness day(month?). I do not think it will be many people supporting this, gg or anti-gg as such.--Torga (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, nah, it is definitely related to GamerGate. They were invoking it towards GamerGate and GamerGate supporters drew attention to this and bombarded advertisers with screen-caps of those tweets and those by other staff at Gawker Media.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not directly related. Mercedes is pulling out because of the tweets promoting bullying. I'm fairly certain that even if those tweets didn't mention GamerGate at all, Mercedes still would have pulled out, provided it was brought to their attention. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If it gets attributed then it can be discussed in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No mainstream note of yet, just Adland.tv: http://adland.tv/adnews/mercedes-pulls-advertising-gawker-network/1636503170 2601:B:3100:5E9:5134:24FA:9465:A107 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yiannopoulus seems to have confirmation. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also this but I'm not sure if it's admissible. Hope I did that right. AnyyVen (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably not usable. And Milo is still questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Something tells me Erik Kain will be among the few covering this soon, it's hilarious that the guy saying bring back bullying kept on mocking people yet when Mercedes pulled of he gave a half-apology Loganmac (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What's not hilarious is that you feel the need to discuss living persons as if this is a forum. Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No reliable sources have turned up to verify this, and Max Read, the current editor-in-chief of Gawker, seems to be pouring cold water on the issue, as he belives that Mercedes may not have been an active advertiser in the first place. Eventually we'll get independent confirmation one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A Jalopnik writer has stated on Twitter that Mercedes hasn't advertised on Gawker in four years. Either way, as Bilby noted, we can wait for reliable sources to comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone who handles some of their digital campaign states that Mercedes has ordered Gawker to be blacklisted. I wish it weren't the weekend. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be "pulling advertising" if such ads haven't existed in years. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The EIC didn't say they weren't advertising, he said he "thinks" they weren't. Their sponsors list stated otherwise. They have now taken down their sponsors list.

This is from GamerHeadlines probably not RS "This has caused Mercedes Benz to pull out all advertising from the network, and many GG celebs such including the recently declared cancer free John Bain (aka Totalbiscuit) to set up fundraisers for anti-bullying organisations." John Bain donated more than $3000 to PARCER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerHeadlines is not a reliable source. This may be worth mentioning when there is independent confirmation, which I'm sure will come soon one way or the other./ It is all moot, of course, given that the article is protected, so there's no rush. - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Still no news on the Mercedes stuff, but Gawker's certainly sweating. Jim Romenesko, journalist: link. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Adland

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

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

More new articles

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

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

Another New Yorker piece.

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

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

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

Just as a thought on my head, we are definitely going to refocus much of the structure of this - there are elements that were "important" early on but really no longer matter too much to the narrative representing by these newer sources. Also now that Polygon has offered its statement on GG, there's talk other major sites will follow and this will likely lead to more media coverage towards that. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if this was covered already, but despite WaPo's title, the ESA never actually spoke out against GG, but rather condemned "threats of violence and harassment?" AnyyVen (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your head has to be deeply buried somewhere if you are insisting that the threats of violence and harassment are not being attributed to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And even if we want to be that pedantic, we can clear state that the ESA spoke out about threats of violence and harassment shortly after the Sarkeenian shooting threat. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The author of the article has confirmed that "I asked for a statement on GG, and that's the full statement that came into my inbox, after a pretty lengthy convo." and "At the risk of repeating myself: I asked for a statement on GamerGate, by name, for that story.". 94.194.199.197 (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The graphs are a bit of a tangent that I think would be more appropriate for the gender representation in video games article. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The Week says "GamerGate has backfired spectacularly."

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

The Irish Times says that "more than anything else" GamerGate proves "the continuing prevalence of violent misogyny in popular culture."

No shortage of RSes on this now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deadspin not reliable

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/thanks-deadspin/ Willhesucceed (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've indicated above, save for Kotaku's statement about the Quinn/Grayson stuff, I am pretty confident we can avoid requiring any VG site sources, as well as avoiding Gawker sites (at least as sole sources), though not because of the above article, just that we can pretty much put this article on mainstream sources. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with leaving the Deadspin article out. We've got 80 million indisputable others that can say the same things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Some neutral/nuanced/pro-GG sources

The New Show is an official MSN show.

• Can you give me more details on The New Show? Are there outside sources which talk about it much? MSN is a legit network. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently The New Show is part of SourceFed, which is a Discovery Channel digital network, and MSN has decided to run it. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reddit

• Reddit may be useful for finding information, but it is worthless as a source itself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

According to one of the admins, verified AMAs are RS. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If they're verified, but a mod slapping a verified tag doesn't make it so. You'll need to find the actual tweet or whatever from a validated twitter account where they say that the AMA is done by them. Given that that AMA doesn't even have her name, I doubt that it will work for anything. --PresN 17:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Totalbiscuit

• Totalbiscuit is a games journalist and is pretty well-regarded from what I can tell. What factual information would you suggest we cite from him? Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to have another listen. I've been awake all night and can't remember what he said. Something about Gamergate not being a group of bigots. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a new source, but it's fine for personal opinion

• What was said here which is valuable for the article? Honestly I think the article already has too much opinion as-is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already gone through RS concerns over here. I won't fight it for RS status if people don't want to allow it, but it's at least allowable for opinion. I do wish people would watch it and decide on merit whether it deserves inclusion as an RS, rather than knee-jerking. The article will be poorer for not including it.

In the video, there's consensus that the media made things worse, that instead of enabling discussion they inflamed tensions. I'm sure there were some other things, but again, I haven't slept all night. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

HuffPost Live

• -

And in light of the fact that nobody in the press is actually talking to GG, I'd like to include these, especially the second and third, because they're an angle that hasn't been examined anywhere else. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Now tell me why none of these should be included.

Willhesucceed (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reddit AMAs and all this other stuff doesn't really cut it for WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read elsewhere that if it's verified it's usable. What is "all this other stuff"? Willhesucceed (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand what verified means on Misplaced Pages. Basically, nothing you have linked can be used at all on this article or any other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS is the relevant policy here. This means that things need to be found in what are known as "reliable sources". A reliable source is a source which engages in fact checking, has a good reputation for honesty and integrity, does not suffer from a conflict of interest, ect. The fact that it is on the internet is not enough; we need to have a good source for it. Thus, just because, say, Zoe Quinn says something, doesn't mean we can put it on Misplaced Pages - and this is especially true if it is about a living person, as we aren't supposed to use primary sources (that is to say, stuff like interviews, self-published material, ect.) about living persons at all, unless the person is a recognized expert, or under some other narrow circumstances (i.e. it is notable that they said something or something similar). There are a lot of potential signs of being a reliable source; I would recommend you go through the WP:RS article.

More or less, we're looking for sources which are reliable. Something like Reddit is not going to qualify because anyone can post anything there with no fact checking or any real sense of accountability - we may not even know the name of the person who posted the material. On the other hand, something like CERN, NASA, or a similar source would pretty much be the polar opposite - highly recognized experts with a very good reptutation for fact checking and excellent credentials. Most sources fall somewhere in between these two points.

Note that reliability is both general and specific; that is to say, while something may be a credible source in general, it may not be in specific circumstances if it makes factual errors or suffers from a conflict of interest in a specific case. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As a subject of the article, statements from Zoe Quinn can in fact be used under the WP:PRIMARYSOURCES rule, so long as we are only using what she has said about herself and attributing it as something she has said.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Also so long as it isn't about other living persons, isn't unduly self-serving, ect. <redacted per BLP> Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All of these sources are fine for tracking how content percolates through the median, but none of them are of sufficient quality to add content to a controversial article. aprock (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of credibility of death threats

Jeff Gerstmann says "no thanks" to pro-Gamergaters

So when "GamerGate" rose up to cover over a campaign of harassment with a veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism, it more or less set off every single disgust alarm I have. Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy. - Jeff Gerstmann

Even though he never weighed in on any of this until now, the Gameragte folk, e.g. Brietbart, cited his 2007 firing as the kind of "journalistic ethics" transgressions they were rallying around. That bubble just got popped, it seems. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so much on Gerstmann's point, but that this is the second major VG review site (that I'm aware, haven't checked others) for the site's EIC or primary contributor to put an official word on the site's stance on the matter (Polygon yesterday), and I expect to see this trend continue, and importantly to this article, be the subject of mainstream sources that outline the stance that VG sites are taking wrt to GG. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and the mainstream sources will ignore all the sites that support GG, all the people who support GG, and won't even bother to interview or engage them. Masem, you're not even trying anymore. This article's going to go to shit. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am speaking of rebalancing the substance on the narrative as more details come in, putting less emphasis on initial parts of the events and focusing on the larger picture, and still taking out excessive opinion - in this case, I would not include any specific statement from Poly or GB or the like, but if the mainstream press notes that most of the VG sites have spoken out in an official statement against GG, that we should include as outright factual information. We cannot do anything to give more time to proGG if no mainstream press site is going to give them fair balance to this. (And also keep in mind, this article is still locked down, no one has made any changes for it for about a week I think now). --MASEM (t) 17:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources, Mr. Will; no more, no less. Some have been saying this since day 1, the regarding the "veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism". This is reality that mainstream sources are recognizing. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And while I will continue to try to fight to provide a reasonable balance on this article to both sides within the scope/ratio that the media (mainstream) reports on, I have to be brutally honest that the trend in the mainstream media (not VG media) is going towards a point where I can't even argue for inclusion of proGG points, due to how the press is taking the recent threats and harassment to reflect on the entire group. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules pretty much allow editors to do anything they need to do to make a proper article, so we can go outside mainstream sources.

Has Misplaced Pages never addressed the problem of media bias? We just report only what they report, facts be damned? Willhesucceed (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We're supposed to mirror what high quality reliable sources say, not interpret that , meaning that unless there's a well-demonstrated media bias, we can't address that. That said, what is happening now is not a media bias; the VG press reporting on all this - since the harassment continues against those developers and other similar tactics, are going to have a general bias that we should avoid their sources when we can, but the mainstream media, like New York Times, etc. are reporting as they seen it with a common consideration of what is appropriate human decency - which harassment of people (particularly women) does not fall under. And as reported by other sources, this stigma of the actions that a few are doing are hurting any chance of proGG getting a fair deal by the press due to that. We can recognize that, but our hands are tied from a sourcing aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is like not discussing Muslims because ISIS. Might as well delete the entire article for the worth it has now. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If you were expecting this article to promote the proGG side, that's not happening. And your anology is false as in that situation, there are Muslins that have clearly separated themselves from any claimed cause ISIS has and have openly asked for discussions for peaceful solutions; several media commentators have said the same about those in the proGG side that want media ethics concerns to do a similar separation and condemnation of the harassment but there's no sign of that happening, so the media's going to group them all together. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I expected the article to be accurate, or at least for editors to know what they're editing. Gamergate are the first to report harassment to Twitter and the FBI. They even tracked down the guy who was sending death threats to Sarkeesian. They gave $70000 to get women into game development, $5000 for depression, $15000 for bullying, and are currently raising money for feeding programs. Gamergate's detractors are doing what? Meanwhile, Daniel Vavra, Jennifer Dawes, and every other indie developer who's come out in support of Gamergate have been blacklisted from the industry. The article is one thing, but let's drop the pretense on the talk page. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please list mainstream sources that document these pieces. Mind you, I know these are said to exist but this is from sources that are questionable even without considering the GG events, much less usable here. We're not following policy if we have to balance mainstream coverage of the antiGG side (which is plentiful at this point) with blog posts, reddit threads, and twitter replies - that's the very definition of FRINGE problems. (Again, I will stress the point that others in the media have fully recognized that other media organizations do not see any of these attempts to clear the GG name/cause as positive or newsworthy as long as they have not fully distanced themselves from the few doing the harassment and death threats; we @ WP have our hands tied if they choose to ignore those for that reason) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Eurogamer to the "official statement about GG" pile . --MASEM (t) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect this article

In the 7 days before this article was fully protected, the article saw this evolution, in the 7 days since, it has only seen this. This is despite Gamergate having made the front page of the New York Times. In the last week, there has been more coverage of the issue in a wider variety of sources.

With the talk pages archiving every 2 days, the entire subject of Brianna Wu's harassment has been moved almost entirely to the archives without ever having been addressed in the article.

Yes, there is going to be trolling/abuse/BLP violations/reverts - but there's already a bunch of admins watching this and there's discretionary sanctions in place. Reduce the protection level, and just get block happy. This article is the top ranked Gamergate search term, but it's out of date, it's time to let Misplaced Pages do its work. - hahnchen 19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Before unprotection, there needs to be a serious (and binding) discussion about the POV tag, seeing how it was the source of the last...or if not the last then one of the recent...protections. It cannot remain like a Scarlet Letter for as long as a handful of actual editors (i.e. non-SPAs) simply disagree with the status quo but are unable to gain consensus for their changes. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That was probably a slight at me, but I say remove the tag 'cause fuck it. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would rather see us figure out what the approach needs to be, and that's going to be tied to the mediation request that is currently open. The tone of what GG is has changed, and much what is written now really is minor details, in addition to overweighing the antiGG side. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That Mediation request is not going to happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all parties have to agree to mediation for the mediation committee to accept it. I would not assume automatically it won't be accepted (doesn't mean it will, either). --MASEM (t) 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm kept completely quiet waiting for one person to actually tell me what GamerGate is so that we can actually write an article. Currently this is a manifest mess of commentaries and opinions. It is very far from encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate is a misogynistic movement of exclusively straight white cissexual male neckbearded virgin right-wing extremist Aryans that is using the $100 000 it donated to charity and concerns over journalistic integrity as a ploy to attack women." ~ Misplaced Pages article 2014 Willhesucceed (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to take a break from this article, clearly. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, what drew me into any of this was the fact that I came here first looking for a definition of Gamergate, and failed to get one, let alone a coherent one. And it does, for the record, fail to cover the myraid claims of Gamergate ("all" sides), be they legitimate or not. It is, in my opinion and now experience, fairly one-sided. I could care less about "pro" or "anti" gamergate, but there seems to be a pretty obvious and ironic bias that prevents this article from being as informative as it should be. Bad attitudes also pollute the atmosphere in several cases. People who disagree with antiGG sources seem to very quickly get branded as not only part of the movement but with several other distasteful features as well. AnyyVen (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been saying since the beginning that all this article needed was what its proponents says, and what its critics say in separated paragraphs Loganmac (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no real "anti" or "pro" Gamergate. That is just something the Gamergate movement wants there to be so they can make themselves victims. There are people who support the movement and those that are critical of aspects of it. There is no "bias" that can ever be solved because any negative coverage Gamergate receives for the vocal minority within its ranks it will automatically assume that there is an inherent bias against them because their preferred coverage cannot exist so long as there is no centralized movement and instead just several hundred people on Twitter saying the same thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, not per se. However, there are definitely groups for, against, and neutral to Gamergate, and those against have used a number of different tags and names including, it seems primarily, the Gamergate tag itself. So I've merely adopted that convention for ease of communication.AnyyVen (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's hit the problem. What GG is is unknown; those that support it have not made any clear indication of what their actual goals are beyond "journalistic ethics". And because there is a minority that continue to harass women, it taints any attempt to actually define it. See all recent mainstream articles that fail to give any definition of it that is brief and to the point. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that *all* of the "journalistic ethics" issues that GamerGate raises end up boiling down to "SJW journalists are ruining games by talking about sexism" and "indie developers have Patreons to support themselves" rather than "multi-billion-dollar AAA publishers with multi-million-dollar marketing budgets are buying positive press" has not helped the movement in its quest to define itself as something other than a retrograde backlash against those seeking to diversify the video games conversation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Running risk of being a forum, I would concede that the end goal of Gamergate is vague. "Ethics in journalism" is very indistinct and there's no real concerted framework for what they want to achieve. As such, seems to leave it very open to interpretation, making any "vocal minority" of harassers the most obvious target. AnyyVen (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The protection of this article is not the issue. there are many articles under protection that evolve and grow under protection. all it takes is users instead of ineffectual slapping of yet another section and yet another link, making an actual concrete content proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Hahnchen that the article is embarrassingly out of date at this point. Let's lift the full protection and go to semi-protection. Keep the PoV tag on until we get things sorted, but in the meantime we can get back to editing. I'm confident that all the established editors here can proceed with restraint, taking disputed issues to the talkpage as-needed. --Elonka 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet culture

'The "Twitter death/rape threat" is so common, it's a media meme.' - Business Insider

'If #Gamergate teaches us anything — beyond, of course, vastly obvious observations about the toxicity of certain Internet demographics (which is hardly new news)' - TechCrunch

Slate

Business Matters Engadget guy specifically attributes what's happened to internet culture.

Forbes

NPR

I believe there are enough sources discussing the internet culture aspect of this that it deserves mentioning. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of that is that this vg culture war is part of a larger culture war as more ideas are given predominance in mainstream creative works despite the past prevailing demographic, a few sources we have for that. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Operation Disrespectful Nod

I've been thinking that there should be a mention of why the operation is called the way it is. I vaguely remember the reason as to why it was called that. But for anyone who reads it they might question the thought process as to giving the operation that title. Though if there's no sources to help explain the reason that's understandable. GamerPro64 04:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no sources (reliable enough) for it. But the intent of the name is clear from the purpose of it. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment of Gamergate supporters

Inquistr

Kotaku

Reason, which Business Insider recommends as "sober" reading.

Slate

Forbes

HuffPost Live interviews with Gamergate supporters and with members of the video games press

TotalXbox

Computer Base

Willhesucceed (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No longer really matters, given the continuing shift away from the "but ethics" sham. Defending oneself and others from harassment is not in itself a harassing act. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep swimming against the tide there, you'll only end up tired. The overwhelming majority of the rape, murder, and such type of threats have come from the advocates of gamergate. That some of those types got a smidgen of blowback is at best a footnote. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Just last night I deleted a youtube comment from a user who posted my home address and said he’d kill my wife and leave me to mourn" seems hardly like "defense" and quite a lot like "harassment." This is kind of what I was getting at - this Misplaced Pages article makes the whole debacle seem very cut and dry: one side is perpetuating a campaign of misogynistic hatred and the other is comprised of women and their supporters being harassed. I can understand if no reliable secondary sources are available, and that just because there are, for instance, two sides in a controversy doesn't mean they get equal weighting, but this feels like purposeful evasion. I could understand this reasoning if participating in a debate on the topic, but not objectively documenting it. AnyyVen (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

An issue to consider is that the harassment of Quinn and others can be easily seen on Twitter, and though various means, readily shown to be coming from a small number of ppl that claim their actions under the name of GG. The harassment of proGG people, on the other hand, is far less visible, and tracking those that do it is near impossible to affirm that antiGG people are doing it. As such, while the proGG people are being harassed, we cannot say it is one side harassing the other, and that's why there's almost no sources that cover it. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood - that's why I mentioned reliable secondary sources, because unless Inquistr suddenly supercedes Al Jazeera in terms of credibility, there really aren't any that address that Gamergate supporters are receiving similar threats, let alone who they may or may not be coming from. AnyyVen (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I can understand doubting the reliability of HuffPost Live, Kotaku, Forbes, and Inquisitr, but Slate, Reason, and Business Insider? Really? The others are weak to middling sources, but Slate and Business Insider strengthen their case. Harassment is happening. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear - my intention wasn't to discredit the sources so much as it was a reflection on the general lack of credible sources, mostly based on previous discussion, debate and outcomes. AnyyVen (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those two really point out any particular harassment towards supporters of the movement as much as they point out harassment towards the movement's detractors in detail.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Consequently, harassment has also been directed in return at GamerGate supporters themselves, who at this point endure constant doxing and torment of their own members; hashtag searches makes finding harassment targets easy" is the direct statement, and some examples of statements/tweets/etc are given and inferred by the article to be negative or exemplary. It's not exactly a front-page article on the NYT but is one of the few examples I've seen of a media outlet even paying mention to it. AnyyVen (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What harassment has been shown to be coming from people under the name of GamerGate? Most of the stuff that is getting publicity has not been shown to come from either side.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained compromise

@Masem: and other parties, seems someone changed 7 days back to 2 and the conversation got prematurely archived again... picking up where we left of, as I understand you view the term ingrained to differ enough from inherent so as not to contradict it, I propose we add a parenthesis directly after saying it is not inherent, and linking to Yang's article. Like so:

It concerns ingrained (but not inherent) issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community

If it is notable to call an issue ingrained based on a venturebeat article then it should also be notable to say the issue is not inherent. Or alternatively we can declare neither adjective notable and just drop both and say "concerns issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community". Ranze (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see section above about a better lead where I have suggested using " pre existing" instead in the lead. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We've also had this discussion before. At the latter end I proposed a few sources to replace those we have now for "inherent". I'd rather not do that, as we really don't need to clutter 3 more sources on for every dispute, but if it can help us refocus on making the article coherent by putting this to bed I'll do it. I've now seen like 2-3 comments from experienced editors who are new to GG say that this article is either hard to follow or poorly structured. Part of that comes from fighting these piecemeal battles over a word here and a quote there and not being able to improve the article as a whole without offending 6 different constituencies. We need to either hammer this sort of stuff out and keep it in an FAQ (e.g. "this is why we use this description of the movement" or "this is how we treat certain terms") not for readers but for us, really. Or we need to dial it back and focus on editing what we have now to get the point across a little more clearly. Protonk (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

TotalBiscuit did an audioblog on this topic

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/weaponised-charity As far as I'm aware he hasn't posted a transcript. Halfhat (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class video game articles
• Mid-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Mid-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests