Jump to content

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

NPOV tag

EDIT: There is a dispute noticeboard resolution topic about this already, and was even before I added the NPOV tag. It should have been there already. Original post follows. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I added this tag because it is necessary. Given the number of disputes on this, it needs to go up. It is time to deal with this.

The issues are:

  • Right now, the page is pushing very heavily for Zoe Quinn and her supporters (including several members of the press) point of view.
  • Zoe Quinn and her supporters are not properly discussed; they have a history of harasssment of others, and engaged in harassment of others during the course of this.
  • WP:UNDUE is given to Zoe Quinn and harassment issues centering on her; there are a great number of sources which note censorship of the GamerGate folks, harassment of GamerGate supporters, harassment of people by Zoe Quinn, collusion amongst journalists to suppress the story, ect. and this is not really covered properly at all.
  • The intro, as noted above, is problematic; we've been discussing this, but the problem is that fundamentally it is about a wide variety of things, and instead it is noted as being primarily about misogyny, despite the fact that numerous sources claim otherwise and that the primary person who does is Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, and people who have interviewed those two. It hardly focuses at all on the accusations of the gamergaters despite this, ostensibly, being something that they brought up.
  • We are citing sources as factual which are probably not reliable sources in this case due to WP:RS and WP:BIASED and conflict of interest issues.

Additionally, we've had issues with people biting newbies, trying to intimidate people, deleting discussions from the talk page, improperly archiving discussions, and of course all the fun breaches of WP:CIVIL.

A very large number of folks have come by to note that the article is biased and suffers from NPOV problems and have been shouted down by a small number of users. This behavior needs to cease and desist immediately.

The consensus of a large number of folks has been that this page is biased and has NPOV problems. We need to fix it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop making new threads about this. Stop claiming that the page isn't neutral. You just keep repeating the same fucking arguments over and over, claiming that it's not neutral because it focuses on one aspect of the topic. This is all there is in the media to discuss this subject. No reliable sources out there suggest that the aspects you want to downplay or frankly whitewash are not the major aspect and this page should instead focus on something else. You need to be topic banned from this article, as does Torga, PseudoSomething, Honestyislebestpolicy, and IAmJohnny5 or whatever. This has been going on for far too long. You can't keep stymying this page to get your way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A large number consisting of you, and...who? Sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and single-purpose accounts? Between you and all the redlink-named accounts, the Oversight Team has had to erase dozens of edits in the past 2 weeks or so. Your opinions are without merit and your (all of you) presence here is a collective and complete net negative to this project. Tarc (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the overwhelming consensus is against you - there have been well over a dozen users who have noted that this page has POV issues. I'm sorry, but your repeated attempts to claim that there are no problems with the article are disruptive. I have, repeatedly, linked to the sources on this page; they are there for you to see. I have asked you to read them before; you, apparently, have chosen not to do so. The sources do not agree with you; there are some sources which do, but unfortunately they are all WP:BIASED and, well, that's the issue; the folks who look at it from a further distance have noted that it is not about misogyny, and indeed, we've had folks as far away as Taiwan say as much. Forbes has noted the issue repeatedly, and the Telegraph also discusses that the GamerGaters completely contradict the story Zoe Quinn has tried to propagate. There are a great number of sources, from Bright Side of News to The Escapist, which have noted the controversy as being about integrity in journalism, and several websites have changed their codes of ethics as a result of the controversy. I understand you have a point of view, but this is not the appropriate place to advocate for it. Our job here is to write a neutral article.
I count only four folks who agree with you. This ends now. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Legitmate, unresolved NPOV dispute. The lead, events and a number of other things unfairly represent living people. Listen, instead of shouting down and hatting will fix it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: There is a dispute resolution noticeboard topic about this very issue, which I only found because I've been going through some folks' user pages. All of the people above have already commented on it, previous to this point, so they were aware of this issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not been assigned/opened yet. No point in commenting until them. There is a legitimate NPOV dispute involving living though and that should not be removed. The amount of discussion is evidence of that. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@DHeyward: I see. I really have no understanding of these formal Wiki processes; I've been here for ages, but have mostly managed to avoid anything really nasty until very recently (when I got doxxed for editing this article). I'm sad that I can't say that anymore, because it hasn't been one ounce of fun. I'm sorry if I did something wrong by adding a comment there, but I felt like it was a bit odd that I wasn't named/involved, seeing as I've been involved in this since it became notable. :/ Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no unresolved NPOV dispute. Just two people who keep crying "IT'S NOT NEUTRAL" over and over again because they think the article pays too much attention to the only point of view that can ever be reliably sourced or that they want to entirely downplay and/or whitewash a major aspect of the event because it portrays one side in a negative light. That negative light being the fact that a vocal portion of the video gaming community spent days sending threatening messages to semi-prominent women because of an ex-boyfriend's laying out of dirty laundry.
The majority of people on this page are fucking sick and tired of listening to Titanium Dragon and other editors constantly whinge that mentioning that people have been severely harassed and threatened over what was proved to be nothing makes the page biased because it doesn't focus on what the minority voice in the debate wants to have this subject be known for, and that is an investigation into conflicts of interest between game developers and the online gaming press. Just because the article discusses the fact that two women were driven out of their homes, multiple people quit their life's works, and several websites had been hacked on both sides of the debate makes this article biased according to Titanium Dragon, et al.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Forbes, Telegraph, Bright Side of News, Digitimes, even Slate, among numerous other sources, note that the controversy is about the games journalism industry and integrity in the gaming industry (as well as bullying of gamers by the media, the presentation of social issues in games media, and other things – it is very multifaceted).
The Escapist, Destructoid, Polygon, and Kotaku all updated their ethics policies in light of the controversy.
This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Not to mention you yourself have noted how many folks have come here to complain about the POV problems, and how you were archiving things daily to eliminate said threads.
Only four of you claim it is okay. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
But they don't say it is the only reason, and it is the second reason they list after speaking about the misogymy. They clearly put it as a secondary reason for this. (Also, we are never going to use brightsideofnews as a source, nowhere close to reliable, so stick to the other ones). --MASEM (t) 13:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I can quote an even longer list of indisputably-reliable mainstream sources that focus on the harassment. Time, the Los Angeles Times, The Week, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph ("Misogyny, death threats and a mob of angry trolls" is the article headline), The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The Washington Post again, Vox, The Indian Express, The Verge, The Independent, TechCrunch, Asian Age, Recode, The Herald Sun, and now The Boston Globe and The New York Times. And this is without even mentioning less-mainstream sources like Paste, The Mary Sue, The Raw Story, etc. Do you want me to stop, because I can find more?
It is literally indisputable that the overwhelming majority of mainstream reliable sources focus their coverage on the harassment issue. You cannot dismiss every single mainstream reliable source as somehow "biased" or part of some vast media conspiracy. You cling to CinemaBlend and Forbes because they're literally the only thing remotely close to mainstream that supports your position. It is simply not credible and not supported by policy to argue that those two sources can override the literal dozens of mainstream published sources which hold a differing POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: You have repeatedly falsely claim that there is no coverage on this, despite multiple people linking to or talking about this stuff, and that there is a consensus that it is all about misogyny.

As well as getting angry when Newsweek noted Assange's reaction to Gamergate.

According to my count, we have @EvilConker:, @Torga:, @62.243.82.158:, @70.24.5.2040:, @91.74.219.237:, @Pretendus:, @PseudoSomething:, @MyMoloboaccount:, @The Devil's Advocate:, @76.27.230.7:, @2601:7:A80:3E:588A:4C92:F7AF:E8A1:, @78.27.93.124:, @Willhesucceed:, @Hanchen:, @Diego Moya:, @Honestyislebestpolicy:, @71.178.64.248:, @67.165.142.226:, @Tutelary:, and @Ilovetopaint:, at least, have noted that the article has NPOV issues and is slanted towards Zoe Quinn and uses questionable sources and makes questionable statements.

You've got @Kaldari:, @Tarc:, yourself, @NorthBySouthBaranof:, and @TheRedPenOfDoom: who claim that it is totally fine. And who have repeatedly yelled at people about how this has all already been decided and it is totally in the RSs, really.

The majority of users who come through here express dismay at the state of the article or statements made in it. That's bad, yo. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As most of those are new or IP users, they don't likely have a good understanding of what we are bound by. There's a neutral article, one that would cover both sides equally (read both positive and negative) but that would require use of unusable sources (eg blogs, 4chan boards, twitter posts), and there's a WP-neutral article that covers the event as fairly as possible using the reliable sources. The latter will never be as neutral as the former because media (non-video game related solely) are going to have a hard time justifying any sympathy for a side that has engaged in harassment tactics, and where there is difficulty in knowing exactly what is there due to a lack of a single or solidified voice. So we're not going to get as much positive coverage on that side as we'd like. But at the same time, we can avoid excessive "praise" of the journalist/dev side that there is a bit of in the same media reports, to avoid imbalancing the article further. (This is why I don't think we need to have any further reaction from Quinn in this because it villainizes the harassment even more , which that's already apparent and goes without saying).
So until the media change the story about Gamergate and focus it on a movement (not just in a few sources but pretty much across the board), our hands our tied with how this article can be written to WP's policies. It is somewhat unfair to the gamer side, I understand but at the same time, it speaks volumes that the way to create discussion that the media will cover is not by random actions but a unified message that has been lacking on the GG side; the press will take that side more seriously if they get their act together to present their aims in a calm, rational manner. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
All in that list save molobo, TDA, and diego are SPAs, who are summarily ignored. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose whitewashing the article to downplay the harassment campaign. GamerGate, as the reliable sources make clear, was essentially a manufactured controversy allowing people to target game developers the community already had a beef with. It's pretty transparent who the POV-pushers are in this debate. If we wanted to make the article accurately reflect the majority of reliable sources, it wouldn't even mention the "ethics" issues in the lead. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats actually incorrect. We have a large amount of sources that talks about Ethics and Corruption in gaming Journalism. What you would be doing is pushing a POV. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
uhh, no. we have a few sources that say "harassment harassment harassment and oh, yeah, there is also this" but absolutely no reliable sources that say "here is the gamergate manifesto (and oh there is this harassment thing that got tagged on) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes we do, and as you continuously say when you try to shut down conversation, go look at the past discussions. Those sources have been provided over and over and over. It is obvious what you are trying to do here, and it is getting annoying. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
no one has ever provided mainstream reliable sources that are not "harassment harassment harassment and oh, yeah, there is also this" no one has provided any reliable mainstream sources that are ""here is the gamergate manifesto (and oh there is this harassment thing that got tagged on)". no one has even been able to provide "here is the gamergater's manifesto" period. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we have the archive bot lay off?

The archive bot is archiving stuff after only 1 day. That's hardly any time at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on how active this page has been, 1 day was needed because every Redditor and /v/irgin with a grudge came here and you kept making new threads on the exact same shit in the same day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, given that people keep claiming that changing the article is "against consensus", and yet we have tons of people noting that the page is biased and has NPOV issues, well, I think that the consensus is very clear. However, the fact that people post here frequently does not mean we need to archive so quickly; you've archived my sources section twice already because it doesn't get updated every day within 24 hours. Also, please be WP:CIVIL and don't WP:BITE the newbies. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The only people that keep coming here claiming that there's a bias and it's not neutral are those who don't know our policies. And frankly you're wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there are dozens of sources which say otherwise. Please look at the source list. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That is your opinion, which as we have seen, falls into a loud yet distinct minority here. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What does it matter? You wanted sources, you've got sources. Or somehow your sources are better because they agree with you?
I thought abusive and offensive participants will be censored. So is written in the top of the article. Or is it OK if they support the white knight army of people who ignore evidence?Capilleary (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this source reliable

#GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian and Video Game Journalism: It’s Time For Change ? Tries to present a somewhat neutral stance on both sides of the controversy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

see above, nope. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple disputes on talk page, NPOV template is necessary

I have added NPOV template due to multiple disputes on this page. The current version is completely one-sided and presents as facts statements of one side and tries to present feminist interpretation of the events as objective fact. Both sides should be presented and attributed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is much better than it was before, and seems pretty fair to me, considering the sources available. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors here may wish to enter an opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MyMoloboaccount/GamerGate. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What is my sandbox page got to do with this? I work on my edits outside the mainspace and when some of them are ready I move them to mainspace. If you wish to discuss something ask me on my main user page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

New interview with Adam Baldwin on his views about GamerGate.

http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/21/7462/sides-screen-adam-baldwin-talks-integrity-journalism-transparency-gamergate

"This is what we see in the GameJournoPro list of e-mails. That’s who they are; they are the vanguard elite. They consider themselves the masterminds, and they want to tell you basically how to think. So I’m opposed to that."

There are bunch of things that can be taken from this article.

I do the actor/games voice actor/site is citeable. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What precisely do you wish to add to the article? "http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/21/7462/sides-screen-adam-baldwin-talks-integrity-journalism-transparency-gamergate Adam Baldwin thinks journalists are corrupt" (ADAM BALDWIN: "interesting to me, which is journalistic ethics. And also the corruption that was going on, which has now come to light)"? "Adam Baldwin is against social justice" (ADAM BALDWIN: "the term social justice jumped out at me. Whenever I see the term social justice, I think injustice, because it’s not justice. ")? "Adam Baldwin has secret connections with journalist Milo Yiannopoulos" (APGNation: Recently, you started a radio show with tech Milo Yiannopoulos. ) "As a male, Adam Baldwins only blowback has been twits and not rape threats and harassment of his family" (ADAM BALDWIN: "I’ve received a lot of blowback on Twitter, but that is the extent of it.") ?- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay last one, I'll refrain from talking anymore, but whoever said following this talk page is slower but funnier then twitter was right. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what I came to the article (and now the talk page) to find out about. What are the GameJournoPro emails? What is/was their impact? It sounds more significant a lot if the material on GamerGate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

Take with your usual breitbart grain of salt http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite the discussion about GG is extra hilarious with people still trying to call it a harassment campaign, anyway, anonymous coward away 46.197.97.107 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
From what I have been able to tell, the contents differ depending on which side you listen to. Pro-GGers say that this shows how corrupt gaming journalism has become with an example being made of how Ben Kuchera (someone from Kotaku) tried to tell Greg Tito (A guy from Escapist) to shut down a discussion on GamerGate anyway he could. Anti-GGers say that this is just smoke out of the pro-GGers ass, and is nothing more than friendly banter, an example being how they (the reporters who made up GameJournoPro) discussing whether they should support Zoe Quinn in light of her harassment and deciding not to since it might taint their objectivity.
Sorry for no sources. Most of it is off of twitters that I haven't saved. --86.140.193.228 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary. I wonder if much of this "#GamerGate" is really stuff we should not be writing about yet. It seems very confused, and we risk both misinforming and making BLP violations - there is a lot of matter that should be subject to police investigations. I certainly do not have much more time to look into it. Possibly WP:NOTNEWS needs invoking. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC).
This is why the specific events of this - outside of the initial accusation and the various harassments that came out from that - get so much into the weeds that it does not make sense to try to document all those specifics, as it gets us to a level of a lot of finger-pointing or the like. The analysis of why we're here or how to go forward is reasonable to find more on and expand, for certain, but like in this case, how much of this GameJounroPro stuff will prove "significant" is hard to tell. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As with the other apgnation interview, this is usable for sourcing Adam Baldwin's own general beliefs and ideas, but may not be used to source any claims about other identifiable people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We should add this somewhere to quote Adam's views Loganmac (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing the article to conform with Wikipedia's Neutral POV and Encyclopedic style

For some reason, there are constant reverts who just try to make this article fall within wikipedia policy. I don't even mean content, but tone. For example, the unencyclopedic use of words or scare quotes like '"tirade"' is just outrageous. The positive and (unsourced) assertion of there being a sexist conspiracy is outrageous for an encyclopedia. The use of gaming media outlets that are themselves under scrutiny for ethical violations as authoritative sources is outrageous for an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a soap box. A lot of people want it to be favorable to some point of view or cause, and the article currently reflects that. 38.104.236.242 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

its not "scare quotes" its "actual quotes" - we are directly quoting the source and acknowledge it as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:SUBJECTIVE judgments don't become objective simply because RSes report them. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
one as a "tirade", one as "spiteful blog post, one as the invasion of a developer's privacy by her ex-boyfriend or maybe " a dirty-laundry double load of drama" or a " spiteful attack " . Please choose which one you prefer as representative of the general opinion of the tirade. my !vote is " a dirty-laundry double load of drama" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It should not be used in the introduction to the article. The article should also not start off with political commentary on the movement. Please read NPOV policy Pretendus (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
au contraire. did you actually read WP:NPOV in particular the WP:UNDUE section? we present content as the reliable sources present it. they present it as a "tirade". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
So the reliable sources are the the ones that got their information from the sources that are being questioned by the movement discussed in this article? Has ANY such articles originate from someone without a vested interest? No. All the articles cite the same arguments that have been used by the conspired media in the 2 days of "Gamers are dead" hate speech. Which is why this article is not based on reliable sources, and is extremely biased. Capilleary (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
why not edit the first line to read "ALLEGED long-standing issues..."? It's still an ongoing matter, and I'd like a source pointing that there's actual sexism and misogyny in video games, rather than an outright assertion from a Wikipedia article. The word "alleged" would make a lot of the article become more neutral in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Because that would imply that there was no basis for it but the claims of some individuals. That's not the case: our sources don't say 'some people think there is misogyny in gaming culture,' they say 'there is misogyny in gaming culture. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what's known as a subjective judgment. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SUBJECTIVE 71.178.64.248 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No, 'misogynistic' actually has an objective meaning and can be applied objectively, and we are required to report what the sources report. When major publications are calling this 'misogynistic,' we have to as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
But the sources aren't unbiased scientific papers or show clearly proven cases of misogyny. They are news articles, coming from news outlets, that are reporting on what goes on. And a journalist isn't always unbiased about something like this. I repeat, this is an ongoing matter. It's like saying: Person A is currently in trial because they murdered Person B. But the trial hasn't ended yet, so Person A is not necessarily the one who killed Person B. A more correct way to phrase the above statement then would be, "Person A is currently in trial because they allegedly murdered Person B". And that's exactly how the case will be worded in court as well. The word "alleged" doesn't imply that an argument is wrong. It implies that someone suggested there's something wrong. Which is exactly the state of the argument at this point in time. >— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2014
No, we generally use "alleged" in cases where formal allegations are laid before some sort of governing body which will rule on those allegations; particularly in relation to criminal charges or specifications of wrongdoing. There is no "neutral" governing body or court which determines what is and is not misogynistic. It has an objective dictionary definition, but the application of that word to any given thing is debatable and undoubtedly people disagree on many of its applications.
"particularly in relation to criminal charges or specifications of wrongdoing" well guess what. The allegations are based on claims that there were threats directed at women from gamers just because they were women. It was taken as literal proof. The police is investigating it. It might have been a false flag <redact per BLP>, because the contact information was false, among other proof from multiple independent sources), or it might have not been gamers at all, or no threats at all. The neutral party - the authorities, have to determine whether that is true or not. Right now it stands as an accusation against an entire group of people, along with pretty much baseless insults. Which is why this can't be accepted at this point into this article. Capilleary (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please do not insert claims about living people that are unsupported or poorly supported; a link to KnowYourMeme does not constitute acceptable support. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not prohibited from adopting statements of fact when those statements represent the dominant point of view among reliable sources. It is indisputable that the predominant POV among reliable sources is that there is misogyny in the gaming community and that this controversy involves misogyny in the gaming community. Therefore, Wikipedia is required to give that POV prominence in its articles. We are prohibited from representing minority or fringe points of view as if they are equivalent to, or as credible as, majority points of view. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality does not mean our articles must be voiceless and judgment-free. We are not required to adopt some sort of impossible neutrality in which articles say nothing and draw no conclusions. Rather, we must draw the same conclusions as those drawn by reliable sources.
There are a great many things that cannot be determined by "unbiased scientific papers," assuming scientific papers are even unbiased, which is a fact not in evidence; all things human are, in some way, biased. Perfect objectivity is a myth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that in this case misogyny in video games can be determined by scientific papers, but herein lies the rump. The paragraph above you is unsigned, so I don't know if it comes from you or not, but in any case: most of the sources provided have been shown to not be unbiased on this issue. Ergo, if the article expresses the so-called "dominant POV", which is mainly provided from these sources, it does not express an unbiased view. It becomes a stand from which these views are being preached even further, and especially to people who have no idea about the issue and just arrive here to be informed on the assumption that a Wikipedia article is more or less unbiased and neutral. The article's first paragraph's wording makes it so that when a neutral uninformed audience reads it they will most likely take it in as fact. This is a violation of Wikipedia's rules that articles should not become soapboxes for preachers. Furthermore, the "dominant POV" is not dominant at all. If it was, there would be no "Gamergate". For example, most videos, tweets, blogs etc that support that there is misogyny in video games meets with at best 50-60% approval rating (check ratings of Anita's videos or other affiliated videos on youtube for evidence of this). Hence, this is a matter that has two views, and all I see on the first paragraph is that preference is given to one view over the other. (EDIT: Furthermore, the aim of the article isn't to determine if there is indeed misogyny or not in video games, the aim of the article is to inform the reader on what exactly is the issue commonly called GamerGate. As such, it should not state the arguments of people who argue that there is misogyny as a matter of fact, no more than it should not state the arguments of the other side as facts. It should emphasize that these are merely arguments) >— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2014
Our articles are based on the mainstream viewpoint in reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. YouTube ratings are not a reliable source for any sort of approval.
I recognize that you and others believe all the mainstream reliable sources are biased. You are welcome to hold that belief. But you fundamentally misunderstand what we are if you expect us to ignore the mainstream reliable sources because of your belief. Our articles are required to be based on what mainstream reliable sources say about an issue. Wikipedia is not an alternative media outlet to disseminate or promote viewpoints that are not accepted by mainstream reliable sources. If the mainstream reliable sources are biased, then the Wikipedia article will have a similar bias.
The due weight section of the NPOV policy: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
It is trivial to demonstrate that the predominant viewpoint in published, reliable sources is that GamerGate has demonstrated misogynistic harassment in the gamer community. Therefore, that is what Wikipedia's focus will be, until and unless that changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This is more of the same mistakes of what is and is not considered neutral for this page. There is a dominant point of view that misogyny and sexist harassment is the crux of what "GamerGate" entails. Then there's the minority point of view that GamerGate is only ever about investigating cronyism in the video game press. Both of these points are addressed on the article. You and every other editor who has been beating this "misogyny isn't the focus" horse with a stick need to realize that there is neer going to be a point that this is not going to be the case, particularly when the events are still fresh in everyone's mind.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Neither source presents any proof that shows real members of GamerGate engaged in any behavior that can be considered misogynist. Which is why the sources are not reliable, or relevant, for this article. Capilleary (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's important to identify "who" if you are going to use broad brush characterizations. Who is misogynistic? We incorrectly identify the gaming community. Zoe's ex is lumped in the article as well though there is no evidence of that or sources that state his acts were misogynistic or that he is a misogynist. Indeed the articles about cite a "mob of angry trolls" which excludes most of the gamer community. Please read up or watch what a "straw feminist trope" is and that is how our article reads and appears to interpret sources from that perspective. All gamers are not misogynist. The gamer community as a whole, which includes Zoe though not her ex, is not misogynist. It's a strong word and using it broadly sounds like it is made by tropes about tropes. Reread the sources and there are subtle distinctions. Lost on the mob here, though. --DHeyward (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
"Who is misogynistic? We incorrectly identify the gaming community." Until you provide reliable sources that say otherwise, this is the statement of the press that the misogyny is from the gaming community. They are not saying all gamers are, but the use of harassment and the like enforces that there is a portion of that community that still are misogynic. We cannot change that until the media change their tune. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the sources identify particle sub-groups of the gamer community expressly on specific boards and even specific areas of those boards. The article has lost that distinction. This is the same type of distinction that would not be lost if the article was balanced. In writing about the peaceful Ferguson protests for example, the "African-American community" would not be used to describe the looters and rioters regardless of whether they participated in the peaceful marches, regardless of whether they belonged to the African-American community. The WP article extrapolates it to the entire community. It is complete WP:SYNTH to not restrict it to who the actual misogynist are and we shouldn't say it at all if we can't. It's a very small subset of the gaming community. We would not lose that aspect if we were discussing, say crime in African-American neighborhoods. --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph mentioning TFYC reads very biased and is inserting/missing a couple pieces of information. There is nothing in any of the articles that states that TFYC is a supporter of #GamerGate, and saying so puts them on a side when they only had a conflict with Quinn. (Redacted) Also saying that 4chan did something "allegedely out of spite" should be cited if it's going to be in there.

There is no mention (from the same articles cited) that Quinn tried to bribe TFYC with a mention at PAX, which is an important piece of information to keep an even article. I think that there should also be a quote from TFYC since quotes tend to add a little bit stronger opinion rather than just stating the fact here, and there is one against /v/. I suggest this: The group also states "One business partner, not wanting the rest of his work to be referred to as transphobic, left the project", costing them US$10,000. This comes from the same article referenced and is less confusing than before. IAmJohnny5 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They've inherently become entrenched in GamerGate whether they like it or not, and because one side is supporting them it puts them on that side. The description of their rules is found in their interview. The PAX mention is a BLP issue. Nothing else is confusing, really.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Just because they are entrenched in the situation does not mean they have chosen a side. Leaving it how it is written shows that Wikipedia has chosen their side and that could be damaging to their company. Support is not always a two way street, GamerGate supporting someone does not mean they support GamerGate. (Redacted) I read that sentence wrong. IAmJohnny5 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
While you are right that /v/ has only backed them, and there is nothing in the article about the rules being confusing. There are sources that say that Quinn disagreed with their rules. A sponsor backed out over the allegations over their rules. They felt the need to clarify the rules in an interview and that's being cited. None of your other concerns are of note.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Article deletion

Feel free to submit this article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

This article should be deleted due to the unavailability of unbiased information. All the media sources are by default biased against the GamerGate controversy since they are the ones being targeted by the GamerGate controversy. Furthermore, its a current issue, and not of any historical importance as of yet (it will be when its over, but for the time being, it is not.) Then you have the fact that the article is clearly biased due to some of the editors involved in this page are actively participating in the anti-gamergate movement, and are as such biased against anything positive about it (Such as the fact that it isnt about misogyny but about the "journalists" having sexual relationships with "developers" (neither can be put without quotes, sadly) and the fact that there is a group of people cooperating to give games an overall reception, instead of the individual journalists unique opinion. Zoe Quinn is something on the sidelines now, only being a catalyst to what is now a much larger scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.190.167 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure that these are deletion grounds according to Wikipedia policy. 67.138.164.67 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole thing has too much WP:COI in it. It's practically waist deep in it. This article needs to be rewritten A.S.A.P. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 00:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is misogny mentioned first?

Can we phrase the first line in the article to mention both misogny and journalism ethics then just misogny and harrasment?--Torga (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources focus on the misogyny and harassment primarily, and whatever message there may be about ethics as a footnote. Unfortunately we at Wikipedia cannot write about things that have not already been written or give undue weight to a minority opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Misogyny is just an excuse that the accused are pulling out in order to try to deflect on their own faults. If the issue was sexism, The Fine Young Capitalists would have never been funded fully. Just as well, if misogyny is the issue, then why isn't #notyourshield mentioned? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, it is the first thing nearly all external RSes relate as an issue here. It is the issue of why the larger press is talking about it. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If anyone bothered to look at this twitter tag, you'd see that there are lots of females outraged by the lack of journalistic integrity. Which means there is no trace of sexism. But that is not a good source to base a wiki article about a twitter tag, right? It's best to quote the journalists without journalistic integrity that the scandal is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capilleary (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
If this movement were primarily about journalistic integrity, this article wouldn't exist because there would not be enough sources to support it. It's the harassment and the misogyny that's getting the coverage, because that's what's notable about the movement. And if you think that the mainstream publications are going to compromise their integrity by covering up a scandal about video games, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Full disclosure, I am part of the GamerGate movement. I will not personally modify the article, even if I could, because I realize my bias could shape the narrative in an unfair way. I would like to get my opinion in. The issue if you follow twitter, the primary source for the movement is the "unethical" press are deflecting from being called out on their ethics. They write the narrative because they own the voice of the media. I strongly feel the article is being used to bias peoples opinions against the movement in favour of the journalist, that are being called out because of their ethics. As others have stated it's unfair to use certain media sources, or sources that cite those sources, because the people the movemnet is against is the mouth piece. Members of the movement can't get coverage of reputable news sites BECAUSE they oppose the people writing for those sites who are portraying us as a bunch of cis-white-male misogynist. It would be horribly politically incorrect for any reputable source to touch that with a 10 ft pole. From what I've seen when someone does write something in favour of GamerGate it's dismissed as not a reputable source. Honestly this shouldn't be being covered by Wikipedia at all while the event is still happening. I'm of the concern this article is being directly used to influence public opinion so media outlets and social justice warriors can sweep the movement under the rug. I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and all the editors who do a great job here. Please don't let Wikipedia be used as a social engineering tool to persuade public opinion with bias articles... Now where's the button to sign this thing... 71.7.173.24 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Last thing I'm going to add today. I think before editing anything else in this article you should have a look at this video 12 minutes, explaining the GamerGate side, I'm sure you'll see how this article comes off as bias against the movement and how a lot of the facts and events appear to be being left out. Won't bother you again, thanks.71.7.173.24 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So we do not write about ethics and corruption in the press because the press have not written about it? --Torga (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in there (see Analysis section), but it's not the first issue that's associated with this. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
So the press gets accused of something, associates it with a completely unrelated issue, Wikipedia uses it as a primary source, and then Wikipedia itself becomes a source of falsified history. This is exactly why Wikipedia absolutely shouldn't cover ongoing issues, as it is now has the capability to alter the history itself.  Grue  18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Published news articles are secondary sources, and reliable media outlets can still be considered reliable even when they're reporting on a manufactured controversy involving crackpot conspiracy theories about the media. Diaries, chat logs and personal blogs are primary sources: we use those sparingly if at all. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"and personal blogs are primary sources: we use those sparingly if at all." ... Yet you use Kotaku? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Did anyone bother to check if "Gamergate" as such even existed at the time Zoe Quinn's harassment happened? Was Adam Baldwin who created the hashtag ever involved in Zoe Quinn's harassment? Why is all the Zoe Quinn's stuff, that happened before #gamergate was established, in this article and not in hers? These are some basic questions that come to my mind when reading this article. It's like if I was reading an article about hamburgers with a long lead-in about civil war in Somalia.  Grue  18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Adam Baldwin used the hashtag while linking to two defamatory youtube videos detailing the ridiculous allegations against Quinn that were being used to justify her harrassment. GamerGate is and always was fundamentally about punishing a woman. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
So, is it the stated goal of the movement, or something derived from (possibly biased) secondary sources? It seems that this is something that could be moved into "Criticism" section, while actual stated goals of the movement, sourced from notable supporters of the movement should be used to lead into the article. This way seems less biased to me and more in line with how other controversial topics are usually treated.  Grue  18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no central voice for the GG movement (ignoring Quinn's claims this was organzied on 4chan), and as such no one can state what the goals of the movement are. All reliable sources are trying to figure out the shape of that, but without a single, reliable voice, GG is going to be treated by the media about how it is perceived, not by how it wants to be perceived. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If the movement's goals aren't what the media is framing them as... what are they, actually? What is the desired outcome of the movement? We've yet to see anyone actually articulate anything beyond "we don't like people writing cultural critiques of video games." If that's the desired outcome, well, yeah, it's not like the movement can somehow stop people from writing cultural critiques of video games. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, this has been answered many times, but every time people ignore it. But I will say, this article from Forbes gets it right. "There were so many points raised about so many issues, it was hard to keep track of a list of actual demands." So many things were brought up. It started with journalism ethics, pushed into the demonetization of people by the cliques of writers (I.e. TFYC), the constant spewing of vitrol that is mirrored in this article currently ("Oh, you disagree with a woman and have valid criticism? MISOGYNY! (which, im not saying harassment should be overlooked here, because dicks were dicks, but it wasnt the movement)). There is also the point that people in the pro gamergate wanted the so called 'SJW' (which, BTW, is the term for extremist activist, that is why #notyourshield was created, to take their platform out from under them. This techcrunch article, who earlier, BTW even pushed a 'Misogyny' related article, said "Gamergate may want mechanical purity free of the sullying of media, but personally I feel that that is the wrong answer.". So they KNOW what it is about. Hell, some developers are coming out and trying to support GG, like the CEO of stardock. Hell, the freaking policy changes, which were praised highly from Kotaku and the Escapist, only get one sentence at the bottom of the article. Two major achievements from the movement are glossed over to push a POV. Cmon. Anyway, probably won't reply again for a while, trying to stay away from most stuff right now cus of anxiety. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Misogyny was not part of the movement but it became entrenched within it due to how things started and there's no way you can change that at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The hatred of women never became entrenched in GamerGate. You seem to be pushing for your point constantly though, so there isn't much to say to you, since were going to go back to tired arguments that people have gone through before. What caused Kotaku and The Escapist to change their policies? The hatred of women? The only reason it seems 'entrenched' is because of the POV pushing by games outlets, and even writers (such as the time article who wrote on gamasutra and insulted the gamer base near the end with plenty of insults, and the New Yorker guy who funded someone in the deep of Gamergate, then immediatly hid his Patreon as soon as the article was published) who push it. It seems though that the actual story is coming out now, even people trying to slander gamergate have admitted it (i.e. look at the techcrunch article). So no, it isn't, but we can't prove it until more moderate sources publish something about it. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Until those moderate sources publish something about it you are wasting your time here trying to frame the article about events that you think might happen. Come back back when you have actual usable sources and not merely your own opinion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Except that we're not talking about "disagreeing with a woman," we're talking about an extensive campaigns of vitriol, organized harassment and torrents of abuse. You can't just brush all that off with the throwaway phrase "it wasn't the movement" and pretend like that's a satisfactory answer, because it's not.
If it's not part of the movement, where are those within the movement vocally denouncing it, calling it out and rejecting it? If it's not part of the movement, why was the 4chan IRC channel called "burgersandfries" in a 3rd-grade-level reference to a woman's sex life? If it's not part of the movement, how did Anita Sarkeesian become a target of the argument when she has nothing to do with games journalism? If it's not part of the movement, for God's sake, why was the movement focused on the personal life of an obscure indie developer rather than the squillions of dollars spent to advertise AAA games by EA, Activision, Blizzard and the other big-name developers? Which is a more significant threat to the independence and ethics of games journalism? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't have anything to do with who a woman sleeps with.
Again, as has been discussed in reliable sources, there were most undoubtedly a lot of people with genuine concerns wrapped into it. But the hashtag was taken over by "an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women," and there was apparently no one with either the power or the courage to try and take back control of it and redirect the conversation in a meaningful and productive direction. So here we are, with unintended consequences aplenty. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok then North, since it seems were at a peaceful discussion now (as in hopefully no anxiety), I honestly have a question. Why is the introduction not framed that way then? I am not the best writer, but something such as, "Gamergate started as a movement against current journalism ethics and POV pushing in the current gaming media, but was co-opted by "an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women." I don't think that is 100% correct, but the actual movement of what Gamegate was should be important, even if it was co-opted. Instead, the introduction only makes it seem that gamergate is a movement for harassment(which as you said, it had genuine concerns from it), and then writing off the positives. Hell, again, even the Escapist and Kotaku policy changes only get one sentence, even though those were major breakthroughs in the movement. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Because the reliable sources focus on the fact that sexism and misogyny took center stage from the very beginning, right down to someone's incredibly-questionable decision to frame the entire movement around tabloid-level allegations about an obscure indie developer's personal life.
The best summation of this mess comes from an actual games developer, who we partially quote through Vox:
Right now, publishers are buying reviews. Right now, publishers are giving large amounts of money and other perks to journalists in order to skew the public perception and influence, both positively and negatively, game sales. Right now, Metacritic is being used to determine whether or not designers get to keep their jobs. Right now, AAA executives are cutting women and LGBT characters out of games in development, because of "the core demographic". These are huge problems. These are problems we want to talk about. These are problems we want to fix. We aren't going to smile and nod while hundreds of people dogpile a couple of people's sex lives. We're not going to cheer you on while muckrakers are hounding people for answers to stupid, invasive questions they shouldn't be asking. We want a better industry. But we feel that what we're seeing, or at least the bulk of what we're seeing is making a worse industry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
BY THE WAY, that was a self posted blog right? We can't trust their words. But we can trust when developers and a CEO come out in support of gamergate, http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Stardock-CEO-League-Legends-Devs-Others-Support-GamerGate-67327.html/ right? PseudoSomething (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't use it as a source for the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Then we can call them on their fact checking right? (Of course your going to say they are right, don't answer that). Why did Kotaku and the Escapist change their policies? Why did TFYC get fully funded to HELP WOMEN DEVELOPERS. Why did '#literatelywho' happen? (that hashtag was trying to show everyone outside the controversy that it wasn't about Zoe, since she did everything she could to make it about her). Why did certain game bloggers release about 12? articles that 'gamers are dead' in 48 hours? Why was there major censorship about the issue from Reddit and 4chan and most blog sites about the issue? (which I am amazingly surprised here, since that is the major issue that caused this, being censored from the start). Why did wikileaks just tweet in support of the movement? What was #notyourshield? None of these questions are getting answered in this article, and they all point to a major push from Gamergate to change the way game bloggers write. These are all things that happened BECAUSE of gamergate, yet aren't given any significance because of POV pushing in this article. If it is about Zoe, since you are pushing that, why aren't the issues about indiecade brought up? Why is the issue of her DMCA'ing a video criticizing her get flagged BY HER, and then reinstated BY YOUTUBE because it was a bad flag? Why is the demonetization of TFYC not being brought up, since that is the reason they got funded? To add to that, that she immediatly created a Game jam that all proceeds went to her PayPal. You don't get to have it one way if you aren't POV pushing. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Please present reliable sources to support these statements, and we can start discussing potential additions.
You see, the thing is, every single time we present sources, they're deemed "unreliable" for whatever invisible reasons they may be. Be-it "Not an RS feed", "Needs to be reported by another source to be reliable", or "Site does not meet standards for (insert invisible Wikipedia source site standard rule #367) and is thus unreliable". Honestly, even when we present a plethora of information that can even be proven, you guys always point to this "Special List" of "reliable sources" that they must be reported by. Even when we first requested for the article to include the TFYC charity and linked it directly to their site, you still dismissed it as "unreliable". I honestly don't understand this insistent hypocrisy either. We give a single source of information from what you would call a "reliable site", and would always say "let's not be hasty. This needs to be reported by others sites" and if not that case, but if more sites you call "reliable" post about the same issue on the Pro-GamerGate side, it's called "parroting", and yet here we are with this article, using single-sourced material for some parts, and using multiple sources reporting essentially the same story ("parroting"), some with extremely similar titles, strangely. I can still safely say this article is still not thoroughly researching from both sides.Derpen (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It began because a jilted ex-lover of one woman who made a video game that no one liked to begin with accused her of sleeping around with someone who wrote for a video game website that didn't even review her game to begin with, and then had thousands of harassing messages come her way simply because a vocal group of gamers are petulant self-entitled fucks who think anything that doesn't go their way deserves death threats, regardless if it's a man or woman. Everything that caused the uproar was falsified and entrenched in a group that doesn't give a shit about the changes but felt threatened, but that did not stop companies from ringing the death knell for the gamer identity or addressing the new indie dev scene in their conflict of interest policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"jilted ex-lover of one woman" So someone who has proof that his girlfriend cheated on him? That didn't accuse her of anything but brought situation to light? How the issue with her sleeping with someone on the panel of Indiecade who gave an award to her? Sorry, I know exactly where the conversation will end up talking to you, Ryulong. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You literally couldn't be doing a better job making my point if I tried. How many ways are you going to try to justify the movement's focus on tawdry allegations about the sex life of an obscure indie developer? If this is about journalism ethics, what does the fact that someone "cheated on" someone else have to do with anything? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
[reacted] 2601:E:9F80:D74:1440:9475:2F6B:7F48 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you have a reliable source to support this wild accusation, right? Otherwise it'll have to be redacted per BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Redaction taken care of. And we have no proof of any of the things that Gjoni said are accurate. It's all hearsay that was intentionally posted to bring her down out of revenge and y'all are eating it up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We're not framing the issue using the sources that have been called into question on the matter (eg, we're not using gaming sites for the main points, we're using national newspapers and magazines). And if those sources are framing it that way, we sorta have to follow. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And some of the editors wont even let both the issue be mentioned in the first sentence. So i think its best to put both issues on the first line. --Torga (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We cover it as the reliable sources cover it. you would need to show that reliable sources are generally covering them equally and not focusing on the harassment and covering the reporter-developer issue as a footnote. Given that everything i have seen published to date is "harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment journalistic ethics harassment harassment" you will need to be coming up with A LOT of sources that focus solely on the journalistic ethics to have a basis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with Torga on this issue. The larger publications have worded it the way they have because the corrupt gaming publications reporting on it first focused on the harassment of key members guilty of collusion and refused to acknowledge their own guilt. In the mainstream media's mind the harassment is the main focus. To people who actually care about what's going on here, the collusion and corruption in the games journalism industry is the real issue, so they both are deserving of a first line focus. It's a bit difficult to cite sources when all the usual sources you'd cite are controlling the information that gets covered. Since Wikipedia's sources don't readily accept blogs, etc. even readily available evidence can't be cited. --JoeyEbidoku (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased. The sources it uses are all accused of being corrupt. The information in this article is leading many people on the internet to assume wrong things about GamerGate and to keep spreading lies about what is actually happening. Either fix the bias, or delete this article. Inuyasha8888 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The focus of the article will remain as-is, as those accusing reliable sources of "corruption" are themselves non-reliable. This article is about misogyny in the gaming industry, and the fallout of a person being attacked and harassed by others on the internet. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no reliable sources that says those sources are not reliable, they are not until provided evidence. As such, those sources that say they are corrupted are thus not reliable anymore then sources trying to instill or imply that Iraq had weapon capabilities.

As such, since the sources are unreliable due to corruption. This article is about anti-male misandry in the gaming industry, that includes gaming "journalists" and the fallout of people being attacked and harassed by others on the internet. 109.225.100.76 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

109.225.100.76, sources don't need confirmation from RSes to not be reliable; if this were the case, nearly every YouTube channel, forum account, or GoDaddy site on the Internet would be presumed reliable - and we'd be able to create our own RSes to confirm our other RSes as reliable. I think Zoe Quinn is clearly and unequivocally the New York Yankees of positive reviews and Anita Sarkeesian is contributing to the discussion no more helpfully than the average <10-post Stormfront user does to serious discussion of politics and history, but we can only cover what reliable sources do for a controversial issue like this, even if in reality journalism integrity is much more of important and widely discussed issue here. Remember, per WP:V, Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. The fact that this isn't enough for a real person to actually get an understanding of the situation is one reason you shouldn't use Wikipedia as your only news source. Tezero (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Right. That's why I think the entire article should be deleted, to be honest. Because otherwise this page is just more misinformation contributing to the problem. If the actual topic the subject is covering (games journalism corruption) can't be verified and covered in full, in my opinion, the topic in general shouldn't be covered at all and made to seem as if it's actually about something completely different. Because right now the only "verifiable" sources are all misinformed or corrupt, so they're focusing on what is really only a small part of the issue at hand here. I'd say most of us would agree sexism in the culture is an issue, but that's not what this scandal is actual about at all. That's a spin from corrupt media sources to detract from the actual argument at hand that happened to get picked up by outside media sources as if it was an actual story. There's proof to back that up as well, so I don't know why that isn't noted anywhere... So I feel that no information is better than misinformation. Or at the very least we should include the few verifiable sources that ARE available instead of simply leaving them out and acting as if they don't exist (I can post the actual links if need be, but they're the articles about the Gaming Journalism Emails by Milo Yiannopoulos on Breitbart.com). But I guess I do appreciate the fact the first-line was slightly changed. JoeyEbidoku (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Only females? What about all the males?

"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 traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment. This opposition, however, has often been expressed in the form of personal harassment of female figures in the industry rather than constructive cultural conversations." The above mentions that female figures in the industry has been harassed as a reaction to a rise of social criticism withing the media. I.E the 'harassment' was done towards 'PEOPLE' whom in turn was campaigning against games and trying to kill it with political correctness. I.E it wasn't against females, bit against people that did these kind of things... and there was/is a LOT of 'sjw' out there. Read the comment section of any male media writer and you will notice that the comments there are not much different than those under the female writers articles. You see it isn't an issue of gender, but one of opinion. So I'd like to ask that the above section is changed to include males as well. I.E it should read: " harassment of female and male figures".Thronedrei (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

While men in the industry have been attacked, the whole point of what happened in GamerGate is that gamers attacked the women involved rather than the men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's quite inaccurate, if not a full-on strawman. There is no evidence to support that GamerGate is purposefully "attacked" women.Derpen (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Read what Tarc has to say below. The women who were harassed were specifically harassed concerning their gender while the men involved were only harassed because they spoke out against the harassment against women. Zoe Quinn received death threats and threats that she should be raped. Phil Fish's company files were hacked and that's all that happened to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Would that automatically mean the the entire movement condones such things as threats or harassment? Cherry-picking if you ask me.Derpen (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That is not what the article is about and not what I am discussing. These things happened. Whether or not the gamergate movment condones or condemns the acts is not discussed in the article or represented in reliable sources as far as I am aware. The people involved with Gamergate may want to bring to light issues of conflicts of interest in gaming media (discussed in the article), but that does not change the fact that two women were forced from their homes after they were sent messages threatening their lives.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not really accurate. Female figures in the industry were subject to harassment specifically targeting their gender; males that were harassed as a part of this was due to their support of those females, e.g. Phil Fish and others. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In my epic Leeroy Jenkins edit, this was actually phrased more neutrally to state that opposition to these changes in the gaming industry has included instances of harassment towards female voices on the subject. The Baronof put a more POV spin of saying this criticism "has often been expressed in the form of personal harassment of female figures" with an easter egg link to cyberstalking. Do you know how many reliable sources mention cyberstalking in relation to GamerGate? *dramatic pause for effect* None.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In this day and age, that clip should have a 9gag watermark on it too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you be happier with "cyberbullying"? Cyberbullying is the use of information technology to harm or harass other people in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner. I will go ahead and change it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah! That term actually got a hit! Good work! You found one!--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Complete restructuring

So, finding countless problems with this article in addition to the POV issues that have dogged it since its inception on one side or the other, I have made an exceedingly bold edit to the article in the interests of actually sparking an effort at meaningfully addressing the issue. The Analysis section, first off, contained a whole lot of original research with whole paragraphs based on sources completely unrelated to the controversy and all of it was simply unnecessary. Existing sources that actually discuss the controversy addressed the issues at play well enough. At any rate, I felt most of these details belong more in a background section and have thus put them and the stuff regarding the initial incident in December in that section. I also sectioned off the events to more clearly delineate the sequence in which they occurred. Additionally, I added a paragraph concerning the widespread reporting about the "death of the gamer identity" that sprung up since the omission of this is one of the criticisms we are getting for our coverage of the subject. I also rejigged the lede to be more neutral and accurate, as well as expanding it to be more of a summary of the article.

Granted, it certainly still needs work and I recognize that my efforts may just be reverted instantly by one asshole or another who is more intent on keeping a crap article than letting someone do anything to radically alter the status-quo, but at the very least it can give people an idea at how an actual attempt at a NPOV article on this matter compliant with our policy on reliable sources would look. That is at least something. At any rate, discuss it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got some issues with it and I'll keep tweaking it, but I agree that it's a significantly improved and simplified structure on the whole, and is much more readable. I appreciate the effort and I don't think it should be reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks a lot better thanks Loganmac (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This was a really decent rewrite. Thank you for your efforts. One note (so far): the section describing Quinn's reaction to #notyourshield (Quinn claimed "those posting under #NotYourShield were not of the claimed minority groups) should also note Cinemablend's articles (1, 2) about the hashtag, which show that minorities are posting in the tag. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That wording was based on a misreading of the sources, though; neither source says that Quinn claimed everyone posting under #NotYourShield was not of the claimed groups. Rather, the sources state "sockpuppet accounts appear to have figured heavily in getting the #GamerGate and #notyourshield campaigns going" (Ars Technica) and "Quinn revealed that members of the 4chan harassment campaigns were apparently behind the creation of #notyourshield" (The Daily Dot). I have reworded the section accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Now it reads like a propaganda piece. It preaches to a certain choir. Great job. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
My #notyourshield concern seems to have been addressed. Thanks.
Another thing: does #gameethics deserve a mention? It's in all of one Telegraph article. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
it might be wrapped into the first paragraph of the "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" -as part of the analysis "if those of you with potentially real concerns want them to be taken seriously and addressed, you need to separate yourself from the trolls" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the chronology of the /v/ hacking indiegogo and donating to indiegogo. The way the article reads currently it looks like /v/ first donated to and then later hacked and shut down the project. I would have imagined from the order of events shown in the Forbes article that the hacking actually happened first and then the donation happened afterward as "/v/ rallied". The date that is given for the hacking in our article here (Aug 24) is presented devoid of context (and is missing a source - it doesn't seem to appear in the cited Forbes piece anyway). I tried to fixed this up last night but now I see the donating-then-hacking order has been restored so I thought I'd drop a note here before touching it again. If the hacking really happened after the donation then some explanation is required because that's particularly unexpected behavior (not that I would put it past 4chan). -Thibbs (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I know it's unsourced but the entire 4chan /v/ board has archives, and neither here nor on the IRC it shows NO planning for the hacking, so it was either an obvious false flag, or an individual acting on its own, just so you know https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 Loganmac (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • It is supposed to read that someone hacked the project as a counter-protest to /v/'s donations and called out /v/ in the process.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not satisfied with that section, either. Currently it reads:
    TFYC reported on August 24, that the account for their charity game jam on Indiegogo had been hacked. The 4chan video games board /v/ is explicitly mentioned in the message put up by the perpetrator.
    But 1) it wasn't technically hacked, simply compromised, and 2) "/v/ is explicitly mentioned" doesn't convey the meaning behind the message. "Called out" is too informal. How about "reprimanded"? "/v/ is explicitly reprimanded".
    Another, more general concern, is that TFYC is not technically a charity, even though it's been described as such. Profits go to charity, but the initial money that has been donated so far is intended to fund development. TFYC do not consider themselves a charity but an investment, with "dividends" going to charity simply because there is no avenue for reimbursement of investors, currently. At the crux of their project is their wanting to prove that women are good business investments. This has all been stated in interviews. Edit: could we refer to it as a "video game project"? I apologise for bringing up such a fringe issue but it seems to me we should strive for accuracy. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    No one objected so I went ahead and made the edits. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    No objection from me. Looks good, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am a bit concerned on rearranging the order, because while the industry has known some of the issues prior, it really only was the events against Quinn and others that had them going "how did we get here?" and trying to understand what the gamers' (valid) concerns are. Also, I am not really likely the massive regrouping of references in those sections. There are several different thoughts that need separate sourcing. Eg second para of the intro section, about art /indie games, etc. The statement "Gamers are concerned these games push political agendas and are critically praised on how they present social issues as opposed to the nature of the game mechanics." is a rather new thought in that narrative flow, and thus references need to be on the statement before it, and then on this statement. (Not saying one per sentence, but there's a lot of logical steps here that we shouldn't require readers to figure out from a list of ref what applies to what). Also concerned that the pre-GG Quinn stuff should be with that allegations, because what that does is show how she was already a target of harassment. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Concern: " emphasis on games as a art form has led to a focus on social criticism "

I dont see a source for this claim either in the lead or in the body and it rings really false. Social critiques of video games and their tropes and babes in chainmail bikinis and recurring damsel in distress plotlines and "solve problems by shooting things" violence and "promotion of thug/gangster culture" have been longstanding even before the "art game" and before Sarkeesian. Is it that the critiques have moved from academia and mainstream news into traditional "gamerland" in game review sites and vlogs? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Social criticism is not critique of games, but games critique issues about life and society at large - eg addressing social issues (DQ about Depression, Gone Home on LGBT). This was definitely sourced before the rewrite, with those two examples. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
But TRPoD is right that it's nothing new, there's been analysis of video games from cultural perspectives for years in academic journals/monographs; I think his wording is better - that traditional games journalism is picking up on things that previously were only considered in academic sources. That is to say, it is definitely true that the analyses and resulting issues have become increasingly visible in the mainstream. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not the direction I'm talking about (though I agree that social criticism of video games has been there for a long time); we are talking games specifically created to explore and critique on today's social issues - eg how DQ is designed to show how Quinn had to deal with depression which is often overlooked in society, or in Papo and Yo, a game that attempts to put the dev's own problems to deal with his abusive father. There then might be social criticism on these games for the reason they include social criticism, but it's the first part that is what some gamers are upset about, that people are making "message" games that don't have any "game" to them. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, then, the sentence should read "emphasis on games as an art form has led to their focusing on social criticism". Willhesucceed (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"For the first time since"

Can somebody please explain how counting the number of times Sarkeesian has talked to the public is relevant to the article? Including the personal opinions of everyone involved is already a bit of a stretch, but keeping track of their public appearances is just ridiculous. Diego (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is part of the whole spate fo harassment that she announced that she had left her home out of threats to her life. The XOXO or whatever it was is the first point that she spoke out in public after this and it's relevant to mention.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Then it belongs where those threats are documented, currently section "Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment". Unnecessarily repeating those threats draws undue attention to them, that is uncalled for in the "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" section. Working on it. Diego (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the repetition. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

There is an archived source list here, because the bot is going crazy.

Cinemablend had an article noting support for GamerGate amongst game developers, as well as noting a past case of demonization of a game developer by the gaming press because of allegations made against him which were later found to be unfounded in court. It also made note of the opinion that anti-GamerGate people engaging in harassment and being okay with harassment, so long as it was themselves doing it. It also noted Ben Kuchera declining to interview someone who he had set up an interview with because of the GamerGate thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek noted Asssange spoke out against censorship while on Reddit, but the article, while it mentions #GamerGate, is somewhat unclear about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Urban Fifth wrote an article some time ago (back in August) noting some of the allegations made by InternetAristocrat. The article is not very kind to her. I've never heard of them; I dunno how reliable they are. They seem to be some sort of random news site, but they also seem... sparse. And possibly dead, as their latest article was on August 28th. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

DDOS Attack on The Escapist GamerGate Discussion Thread

Bright Side of News reported on the attack on the Escapist.

Forbes talks about both the DDOS attack on the Escapist as well as mentioning the leaked journalist emails, as well as general censorship on the topic.

Gamer Headlines also talked about the DDOS attack on The Escapist.

Game Politics notes the DDOS attack on The Escapist, in addition to other sites which also were DDOSed today. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Random DDOS attacks are not the subject of the article, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you read it? It is specifically a DDOS targeting the GamerGate thread on The Escapist. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it is directly related to GamerGate. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The articles link it directly to GamerGate and censorship thereof, as usual. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The target itself, unpredictably, surmises. The others parrot the surmising. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
They do no such thing. Rather, the two sources that make accusations use a bucketload of weasel words to suggest a connection, for which they cannot provide a single scrap of evidence.
You want to talk about journalism ethics, there's a bunch of journalistic ethics violations — speculative suggestive rumormongering of the classic passive voice refusal-to-take-responsibility-for-your-writing "well, gee, someone speculated this... I'm not saying who did it, I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong, just throwing it out there..." form.
  • Bright Side of News: There has been speculation that the DDoS may have been caused by anti-GamerGate activists, and that this attack may be a retaliation to the recently unearthed evidence of collusion within the games journalism scene. E-mail messages taken from Games Journo Pros, a private Google Group used by big-name games writers, further supports this theory. — They're not saying who is doing the speculation and they're disclaiming doing the speculation themselves... and the linked e-mails literally do not support the theory because they say nothing about any DDoS attack.
  • Forbes: At this point there is no information of the perpetrator of the attack though The Escapist is working to find out. The timing of the attack, following the revelations in the GameJournoPros emails, does raise questions. — That is literally the dictionary definition of a weasel-worded accusation.
  • Game Politics and Gamer Headlines do the responsible thing and don't make any accusations or attempts to link anything to anyone without evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, its better than Zoe Quinn and her supporters claiming it is all misogyny. Definitely no conflict of interest there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been reading this convo and I'm very slightly confused as to what is going on. Are people saying that if this DDoS is included in this article, no accusations should be made regarding who's behind it [i agree with this], or that the DDoS shouldnt be reported on at all? Regardless of who did the DDoS, the fact that it's the DDoS of a Gamergate discussion board, that's been covered by multiple reliable sources, surely warrants it a place in this article. Just as the hacking of the TFYC indiegogo [with of course no accusations regarding who is behind it], has been given a place in this article, the DDoS of Escapist magazine is warranted a mention. But is anyone actually arguing for zero mention of the Escapist DDoS or have I just been arguing against my own personal strawman? Bosstopher (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So now the owners of the article say this has nothing to do with GamerGate when the founder of the site himself, quoted by Forbes, states it was targeted at the #GamerGate forum, and The Escapist being the only site left who let people discuss about it. The freaking title of the Forbes article is "The Escapist #GamerGate Forums Brought Down In DDoS Attack" and all of the sources relate the matters. I'm surprised every day at what you guys get away with, Titanium Dragon is all up by himself to make the article NEUTRAL, no, we don't want to delete all mentions of misygony and harassment, but reading this seems like one day people were bored and decided to harass a random woman when no source says that Loganmac (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just becuase the GG forum was the target of the DDOS doesn't mean it is related to GG. Likely? Yes, but to assume so is original research and speculation. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Surely it's related to GG insofar as the topic being covered is a GG forum? Who is doing the DDoS is irrelevant. See the comparison I made above to the mention of TFYC's indiegogo being compromised. Bosstopher (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thats like saying "We are doing a story about Toyota Breaks recall - here's a story of a toyota that was stolen and crashed. surely its related." particularly when there is only one reliable mainstream source that mentions it. WP:UNDUE coverage of conspiracy theories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that is a fair comparison. A fair equivalent would be "We are doing a story about Toyota Breaks recall - here's a story of a Toyota that crashed due to the breaks not functioning" This is a case of specifically the GamerGate page of a website being targeted, the site owner detailing (as mentioned in the source you yourself call reliable and mainstream) how that page specifically was sent thousands of refresh requests per second. This targeted page is detailed as one of the most popular locations for GamerGate discussion in the sources. The sources argue the importance of the escapist forum as an aspect of GamerGate. And the page targeted was specifically GamerGate related as I have already mentioned. In my edit I did not attribute blame for the DDoS on anyone, I merely noted that it had happened. No conspiracy theory was in my edit. I believe that even if this DDoS was done by someone who used a random number generator to pick a random webpage on the internet to DDoS, it would still be relevant as it fits into the topic of social media campaign. This is of course unless the conspiracy theory you are talking about is the occurence of the DDoS itself (something other editors seem to have hinted at in edit comments), and you are implying the owner of the Escapist made the whole thing up. This is a very serious allegation to make (one backed up by no reliable sources), especially given that similar allegations when made against other people involved in GamerGate are usually deleted even from the change log. While I am for the most part confident that, that is not what you're saying, I still think it a point worth making given the fact that other editors have been implying at it. If you are still strongly opposed to including this in the article due to not thinking the DDoS relevant(and no other editor takes my side on this) I will drop the issue for the consensus seems to be strongly against me. However I strongly condemn the actions of anyone implying that this DDoS has been made up by the Escapist itself, as such an accusation seems to teeter on violation of WP:BLP Bosstopher (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ethics policy changes

The Escapist, Destructoid, Destructoid on themselves, Polygon, and Kotaku all changed their ethics policies as a result of the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hepler unsourced

As far as I can tell, this sentence

Further incidents, such as those concerning Jennifer Hepler raised concerns about sexual harassment in video gaming.

appears to be unsourced. Someone point to a relevant source or it must be deleted. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Agree Loganmac (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sourced and replaced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hepler was not sexually harassed. This article was posted on my Talk page a few hours ago. The reason I didn't include it is because it opens up a whole other can of worms that's beyond the scope of this article: what about male developers? Let's stick to the current subjects, Quinn, Frank, and Sarkeesian, please. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not "beyond the scope of this article" to mention relevant previous issues of harassment. See Macleans and Forbes. As for the exact wording of the issue — that came from The Devil's Advocate when he did his WP:BOLD rewrite. If you want to suggest different wording for it, sure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
A number of the sources mention sexual harassment in gaming as part of the concerns, but it does seem the sources that mention Hepler refer to harassment in general. The Polygon source mentions numerous instances of harassment aimed at men and women in the game industry. Feel free to remove her name from it and add something about general harassment of people in the games industry, but the mention of sexual harassment is important in this context.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I was over-thinking this. I'll see if I can finesse it. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable or questionable sources

  • The Time magazine article by Leigh Alexander is problematic due to conflict of interest reasons; it fails WP:RS because Alexander is an employee of Kotaku, one of the primary targets of the controversy, and she works in both PR for video game developers and as a games journalist, which is precisely the sort of thing that the controversy is about - the conflict of interest that comes when people are working both as part of a PR machine and doing reporting. It is usable for what Leigh Alexander had to say, but it is not usable for talking about facts, and even then, I'm leery of using it.
  • The New Yorker article by Simon Parker is problematic. While there are peripheral conflict of interest concerns (and he hid his patreon after folks online noted that he was donating to someone who was very anti GamerGate), the real problem with this article is that it doesn't really show a whole lot of signs of fact checking; it seems to rely very heavily on Zoe Quinn's opinion about everything, and makes the declarative judgement:
    • In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible.
As well as the factually inaccurate statement that the debate dissipated (it hasn't). It also quotes Quinn as saying that she feels sympathy for her attackers, which, well, isn't really in accord with her behavior elsewhere (which apparently they didn't bother to check), but that is neither here nor there.
  • The article cited about Zoe Quinn's original late 2013 harassment by The Escapist has since had the note that it was not fact checked and was just repeating what Zoe Quinn claimed. In light of evidence that she was not harassed by Wizardchan as she claimed, The Escapist changed their policy about not fact-checking claims of harassment and added the disclaimer to the article that it had never been verified. This is really problematic as it is the source of all these claims, and they're now noting that the only source on it was Quinn herself.
  • The Daily Beast's "Gaming Misogyny Gets Infinite Lives" article is problematic for fairly obvious reasons of bias. The problem is, again, they have an agenda (gamers are misogynistic!) and, well, the article is written to support that idea. I'm not fond of using this to source factual statements.
  • This ars technica article is used to source that Adam Baldwin was the originator of the #GamerGate tag, but A) does not in fact say that and B) thusly, isn't accurate (as it claims that he picked up on it, when in fact he was the originator). We need to use another source for Adam Baldwin, and I'd recommend cutting it out entirely.
  • I think this is an opinion article and it is pretty nasty. I'm not sure that this is the best source to cite a description of Vivian James, which is what it is being used for currently.

Problematic sources

Once someone starts trying to say that Time Magazine, a 90+ year-old institution, is unreliable, they have lost the argument. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Once someone says a single article is not reliable because of the author, they have a brain and realize that occasionally Time Magazine can be pretty biased. --DHeyward (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Alleged bias isn't a concern; whether or not a source has editorial control and is reputed for fact-checking and accuracy is. That is what separates the angry bloggers form legitimate journalism. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Alleged bias is absolutely a concern for BLPs. That's why the Time Magazines picture of OJ Simpson isn't used. They had full editorial control. We don't and wouldn't use it because it's biased. Same with single articles that are biased. Our BLP policy doesn't allow biased content regardless of sourcing - that is pretty much Jimbo's quote. If anything it should not be covered rather than covered with bias because our sourcing policy doesn't allow other voices. We have brains and discretion to read all sources and decide if content belongs regardless of whether it was written about or who wrote it. The ex-BF that triggered all of this is not a gamer, a misogynist, a sexist nor a journalist. The article shouldn't read as if he is. The vast majority of gamers are not sexist or misogynist either. We are allowed to make decisions on content inclusion based on the full set of data available, including primary sources, and if that means we skip certain views because of bias or conflict with primary sources, so be it. It's better to have nothing, than to have one side and claim the other side can't be stated because of sourcing policy. It stands WP:BLP on it's head to do this. --DHeyward (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we do use Time's picture, to illustrate People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson. There doesn't appear to be any discussion on that article's talk page objecting to their use.
Good Catch. I was able to correct the caption to show the alteration per the copyright exception which only allows that observation. Time Magazine was thrashed for that biased editorial decision. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
We do not state that the ex-boyfriend is any of those above things. Instead, we state that what the ex-boyfriend released ignited a firestorm of misogynistic and sexist harassment directed at Zoe Quinn. This is an indisputable fact supported by an overwhelming abundance of reliable sources, which have been repeatedly listed here and just as repeatedly ignored by those who wish to pretend otherwise. Claiming that every single one of those sources, from The Washington Post to the Pacific Standard to Asian Age to the PBS NewsHour is unusably biased is quite simply one of the most ludicrously-unsupportable arguments I have ever seen on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories not covered in reliable sources is clear, as are Jimbo's words, for whatever they're worth. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
The answer to your question, then, is not that we do not cover an issue with only one side represented in reliable sources - it is that we cover the issue as it is represented in reliable sources, period. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, biased coverage is not acceptable nor is synthesized coverage. We don't cover sides that when it would be better, based on observation that it would be biased. The Diary of Anne Frank by your standard would mean nothing compared to a German newspaper with an editor. Sorry but that doesn't fly among thinking people. It would be better to have nothing than accusations that are not supported in any kind of collegial discussion where one side is ignored because "Ann Frank" is self-published. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no bias in the coverage. "Bias" is only being thrown around by people who are trying to push a point of view that does not exist in reliable sources. Or rather they want to sweep under the rug a fact that is mentioned in all of the sources that they claim are biased.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? This whole page is dedicated to defending "reliable" sources that are tied to the controversy while excluding the original manuscript. Which is more reliable: Diary of Anne Frank or Signal (magazine). One was a self-published account, the other the most widespread magazine in non-belligerent nations in WWII. Your argument that we should ignore one view because of a sourcing policy rather than using our brain and not publishing either is shallow. I realize the robotic response that Signal (magazine) is the widespread, edited and reliable version vs Anne Frank's self-published account, but are you really going to put your brain to rest and publish the the Signal's version with no thought whatsoever that Anne frank has a point? No one is even arguing that Anne Frank's sel-published version is definitive, just that Signal's version is not accurate. Surely you can see that Zoe's B/Fs first person account doesn't fit any of the labels of misogynist, sexist or anything related to anything other than Zoe and her relationship with journalists and game developers. Surely you can see that the journalists related to the controversy might not be more reliable than a first-person account. Again Ann Franke or Signal. Please don't turn your brain off. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering when Godwin's Law would come up.
What makes The Diary of Anne Frank an acceptable, valuable and reliable source is the fact that its account has verified through a significant series of vetting processes. As our article notes, its authenticity has been challenged but it has stood the tests of those challenges through extensive study by experts in the field who have concluded that it is a true and accurate accounting of what happened. We describe in significant detail the scientific and literary analyses undertaken to verify that the manuscript is legitimate (right down to literally testing the composition of the paper and ink), that the editing of the primary source diary was not unduly weighted and that there were no misrepresentations of fact. This, along with other evidence of events described in the diary that are consistent with other known accounts, leads virtually everyone to conclude that the diary is a valuable and reliable accounting of horrific events from a first-person perspective.
"A <redacted> blogpost made by a <redacted> ex-boyfriend" (The Daily Dot) or "an ex-boyfriend posted a tirade on a blog" (The New Yorker) or "sparked an anti-feminist shitstorm with a blogpost about his ex-girlfriend" (Vice) or "Quinn was dating someone, they broke up, and he wrote an extremely long, personal series of blog posts about her in which he laid out a long series of grievances and listed, by name, several people she had allegedly slept with while they were together" (The Boston Globe) none of those things at all - it has not been verified and the majority of the accusations made were not seen as matters of public interest, as evidenced by the fact that none of them except the Grayson issue have been raised in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. The diary was accepted long before any analyses and certainly as more reliable than the editors and reporters from Signal. In fact, major components of the diary were redacted in the original release yet we still accepted it because the factual credibility of the person subjected to the conditions. There are definitely accounts in the blog that were originally not checked but we now know are true through self-admission. Zoe's ex is not misogynist, not a gamer, not sexist, not against social justice. No source claims it. The article shouldn't read as if he were. Nor should it dismiss his accounts as false as I don't think anything he said has been found to be false. --DHeyward (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what article you're reading, but I don't see anywhere or anything that so much as suggests Gjoni was any of the above. We mention him once, as the person who made the blogpost. We do not dismiss his account as false, because he did not make allegations of a conflict of interest - others did. We dismiss as false those allegations because the reliable sources say that it is false. We don't discuss any of his other allegations because, as evidenced by the reliable sources, none of them are matters of public interest. Only the issue which led to allegations of a journalistic conflict of interest has been viewed as notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
TitaniumDragonPlease re-read WP:COI to understand conflict of interest better. Also saying sources are bias because they talk about something you do not like does not make them bias in the way you want or think. NathanWubs (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
So basically, every source you disagree with is unreliable because you don't like what it says or you claim it's inaccurate. Quite.
Moreover, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. They are merely required to be reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before, age has nothing to do with reliability. When a person directly involved in GamerGate, who has shown a clear anti-gamer agenda, is the one to write for Time, of course it should be considered an unreliable source. Leigh Alexander has an overwhelming vested interest in pushing an anti-GamerGate view. If a climate change denialist wrote for Time about global warming, the article's reliability would most certainly be called into question. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
your conspiracy theories are quite amusing. where however do you see "anti-gamergate"? there is "anti-harassment" but you claim that the harassment is not gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
All the big gaming outlets are framing it as an issue of harassment. Because of course they would. This is par for the course: every time there's a big enough kerfuffle about ethics and professionalism, they tell their audience they're in the wrong. See Doritogate. Then bigger, actual news, outlets pick up on the ruckus, go to the big gaming websites, and run with that story. There've been a few who've done independent research, but not many. As I've written above, there needs to be a discussion soon about the incompetence of typically reliable media when it comes to fringe, subculture topics like this. Forbes' Erik Kain has done a generally good job of canvassing the issues, even if I disagree with him on some things. I suggest the article more closely reflect his understanding of the issues, since it's generally backed by all the smaller outlets who've actually put effort into researching this topic.Willhesucceed (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You are not helping yourself. the gamergaters are trying to frame it as "not harassment" because, of course they would. If everyone is framing it differently than the "gamergaters", than that is the way we frame it, WP:UNDUE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
now if the gamergaters could point to a significant portion of their work to be denouncing the harassment , their claims of it not being harassment might be taken more seriously. but instead their loudest voices, as expressed here on this talk page by some people that I will not name, are "Ignore the harassment, Thats not important. listen to what I want to talk about" which merely plays into the meta-narrative that gamergate is 1) harassment and 2) a symbol of the sexist attitudes in the elevation of "honest game reviews" as a more important issue that should wipe out coverage of the harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"everyone is framing it differently" That's not the case. There's been talk about the corruption concerns, but it's pushed to the sideline. That said, as I noted above, there are some reliable sources that give it as much weight as the harassment concerns. It also happens to be the focus in conveniently "unreliable" sources. That aside, it's not like gaming has a history of being treated fairly by mainstream press. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course thats the case. Every mainstream reliable source is framing it as harassment. only fringe and non reliable sources are framing it as anything else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought we were supposed to be respectful of each other. Apparently that rule only applies to me. Thanks. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be respectful of other editors to read WP:UNDUE when it has been pointed out to them dozens of times and not open another whinge on "this isnt neutral because it doesnt focus on what the gamergaters want". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You continue to misunderstand the concern. The concern is that there's not enough focus on the issues that pro-"GamerGaters" have with the video game industry. Talk about misogyny and harassment all you want, but the other issues should be addressed, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly why editors have asked you to read WP:UNDUE. I'll break it down. You understand that we base our articles only on reliable sources, correct? And when there is a disagreement or balancing to be done, we write in proportion to those reliable sources, correct? So if side A has 10 sources and side B has 10 sources, we write equally, say 1 paragraph to 1 paragraph. And if it's 10 sources to 5 sources, we write 2 paragraphs to 1 paragraph. But we have a situation where it's numerous reliable sources to an unknown number of unreliable sources (which equals 0 reliable sources), so we portray only the side with reliable sources. In other words, we don't attempt to give the impression of a false balance, simply because there isn't one. Even if we grant that a few reliable sources are discussing the corruption angle, they're still in the extreme minority proportionally, so extreme that it's debatable that we should discuss them at all. This is exactly what we do with, for example, denial of climate change: there absolutely are a few reliable sources that deny climate change, but they're in such a tiny minority that we shouldn't even feel obligated to discuss it. I really hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"This is exactly why editors have asked you to read WP:UNDUE." I have, and the article still seemed skewed to me. The revamped one that Devil's Advocate published seems to do a much better job of addressing all aspects, with due weight given--hey, misogyny and harassment even get entire subsections!--so I no longer (but probably will again as soon as protection is lifted and people undo all the good work done by him/her) have a problem with it. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How many of these sources are problematic?

OK TitaniumDragon, let us know how each and every one of these sources is unreliable and problematic.

All of these are mainstream, reliable sources with significant publishing histories; none of them are from video-game-specific media outlets. I look forward to finding out how each and every one of those sources is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Vox owns both The Verge and Polygon. Polygon is part of the controversy, and Vox has published articles in their defense. While they aren't a gaming-specific outlet, The Verge has published similar articles, mostly regarding Anita Sarkeesian. Many Vox outlets share writers and swap employees around. Articles by members of GameJournalPros or other group forums for members of the gaming press, members of DiGRA, and other groups, are likewise unreliable. Ultimately, the controversy is about established gaming media displaying only a single narrative and not airing opinions from the other side. So it's really not shocking, then, that several companies whose employees are involved in the controversy are allowing them to continue and in fact reinforcing their claims. The article should purge dubious sources from otherwise established websites. You can't write an article about how some people think media is corrupt and then only post opinions from the media being accused of those actions. It's imbalanced. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
All of that is just a matter of your own personal opinion, much the same as conservatives who bellyache over the "liberal media". The criteria; "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is what we go by. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Uhh, what? The GameJournalPros list has several of these authors as members. They're literally involved in the controversy. A controversy about journalists cooperating to agree on a narrative. Including any of them is, frankly, insulting. They have a conflict of interest and their articles cannot be consider reliable for the purposes of this article. If this article is just going to be a continuation of their platform, since they're the only ones you seem to hold notable, then this article is worse than useless. It's clearly biased. Sorry, but ad hominem attacks like "this is conservative bellyaching" are irrelevant to the core issue, and you're just deflecting the very real criticism that most of the biased sources are what are propping up the anti-gamer narrative portrayed in the article. 173.51.120.127 (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"All of that is just a matter of your own personal opinion" The part about several companies being owned by the same parent company is an opinion? Vox own The Verge and Polygon. Jenn Frank is supported through Patreon by Quinn's PR. Lots of people writing about this topic on gaming sites support each other on Patreon. There's a clear financial stake in presenting this issue as anything other than corruption and incompetence in the gaming press, and that speaks directly to reliability. And if GamerGate isn't about ethics and professionalism concerns, then what the hell did The Escapist, Kotaku and Polygon change their policies for? Why did Kyle Orlund release an apology about the GameJournoPros list? Why did Liana Kerzner apologise on behalf of all gaming journalists? Why are former gaming press and game developers both past and present using the #GamerGate tag? Have all of these things happened in an alternate dimension? Willhesucceed (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If all of the media is bias tainted and unreliable, then the subject fails WP:GNG and needs to be deleted since coverage by reliable sources is required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you bother posting on this page if you're not willing to engage in good faith. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It is "your opinion" that what company is owned by another affects how we use reliable sources in this project, yes. (protip; it does not). Tarc (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you're bringing up Jenn Frank, Willhesucceed — there aren't any articles written by her in the above list of sources. What does she have to do with anything in this discussion? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There can be no support found in any Wikipedia policy for the argument that "I think these sources are biased against my POV, therefore they cannot be used." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you people suggesting people who personally took "sides" in the argument can possibly be reliable sources? Because it is hilarious. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: Quoting WP:RS: "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Read the policies. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Obiviously, but this is not the case when it comes to the other side of the argument. This whole thing is plain silly. 46.197.97.107 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ps. I am not Titanium Dragon46.197.97.107 (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI, it appears that, going forward, Titanium Dragon will be unable to participate in this topic. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
he certainly better not claim he wasnt warned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sommers and Sarkeesian

There are two separate issues here: the criticism of gamers, which is what Sommers primarily addresses, and the critique of games, which is what Sarkeesian primarily addresses. Articles responding to Sommers' video have addressed her criticism as if it were leveled at Sarkeesian's critique of games, but it's not. For that reason, those articles are sources on the Tropes vs Women videos, not the issue of harassment and misogyny. If there are no objections, they should be re/moved. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong preference. 'Tropes vs Women' is not directly related to GamerGate, but it's indirectly part of the larger analysis of gamers culture that the topic is about, so having those replies to Summers could have some justification. Diego (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that they have nothing to do with the subsection they're under, "Role of misogyny and anti-feminism (in reality)". Willhesucceed (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
...maybe we could change "anti-feminism" to "sexism" in the title, to make it more encompassing. "Attacking masculine video game culture" would also qualify as sexism if taken at face value. Not convinced, just an idea. Diego (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I read through the articles again. I really don't see justification for including the Polygon one. Sommers is talking about the criticism leveled at gamers, but it uses Anita's videos about games to criticise Sommers. Moving it to Tropes vs Women or Anita's own page would be better. I can't believe I'm writing this but: Kotaku has the better article. I'll see what there is to include from it. Edit: okay, I've quoted the one paragraph that's worthy of inclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The more I reread that section, the more apparent it becomes that the response articles aren't appropriate to this topic. The only actual criticism in the Kotaku article, which I've included, still focuses on the content of the games, not on gamers. I'd really rather remove it entirely. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, someone put Polygon back in. Whoever it was, could you explain your reasoning? Explain why either/both of the response articles are worth including in relation to GamerGate. Otherwise I'm just taking them out tomorrow. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion from me Neutral parties

Been there done that, see the multiple sections above. We represent the mainstream view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC) - - - (Hatting this, WP:NOTFORUM. Dreadstar ☥ 03:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article simply disgusting, using COI sources such as Kotaku and Vice (since when journalist write about themselves at news sites? is this some kind of blogging?), Censoring opinion of of many people, tolerating COI opinion, and many more, no wonder Wikipedia is such a bad place now compared to old wikipedia, when Wikipedian can trace the author of article who wrote on the news sites. But don't worry I will try saving id.wikipedia, and probably many more other wikipedia so they can be a better place compared to English wikipedia, good thing I can speak many languages and use it for good purposes. I'm out.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 00:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Style proposal

I have a proposal for making the article shorter and easier to read. Most sections are based on quotes from different commentators. Many of these quotes are shown in full in the article body. I think these full quotations could be summarized inline, and the full text moved to the reference. I've done one such edit here with Hoff Sommers quotation, that was quite large. There are several others that could receive the same treatment.

Quotations are important for this article, so it's better not remove the whole sentences completely, but they don't need to be within the main text; I think keeping those separate would improve the reading flow, without impacting due weight or structure. We could even have a dedicated "notes" section separate from references, in the same way that it's done with current reference 'a'. Diego (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be a bit worried about WP:UNDUE, since some articles are heavily quoted, while others are summarised. "Hiding" the quoted articles will give the summarised articles undue weight. However, if we can manage to balance that, I have no objection. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That would give us a chance to review how many content should we include for each. I don't think current size of each quotation is directly related to WEIGHT of the references, it seems more like each editor added what they deemed relevant, based on how juicy or sassy is its content. Though I'll wait to hear more opinions. Diego (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I realize that millennials have short attention spans, but the article length is not at all long. There's no need to tuck away critical commentary behind inline citations. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sure we can get it to 140 characters. Anything longer cannot be important or worth reading.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of total length, but density. Every time a new opinion is presented, you need to read it in excruciating detail with all the 't's and the 'i's. I don't see the need to learn their opinions using the whole list of exact words they used, at least not in the main article body. Having each comment summarized would make it easier to read each section as a quick succession of ideas from varied people. Diego (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference order issues

Someone needs to go through the article to make sure that the references are all in the proper numerical order, because with every major revision, their thrown out of order. I did a bit earlier but I can't get it done that well without a full computer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not something to worry about until the article is stabilized. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but it's something I kept trying to fix.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Video games journalist's opinion

Ryan Smith, writer for the Chicago tribune and the AV Club, and member of the GameJournoPros list, criticises contemporary journalism and more specifically the video games press in a self-published article. Link. There's probably stuff we can use from here. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A tricky problem (another concern)

Gamergate claims to be a movement started essentially as a loose-knit advocacy group against a number of journalists alleged to have engaged in dishonest behavior and collusion. Regardless if one thinks the points are valid, it seems a bit asinine that the very same journalists being criticized by this movement AS dishonest essentially get to be the sources used to write the wikipedia article. Imagine if there was a scandal in the mainstream press where some random blogger got a whole bunch of (alleged) dirt on corruption at the WaPo, and the the article was written using the WaPo as the primary source. "There is no evidence of corruption at the WaPo!" Lasati (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see the literally dozens of previous threads on this issue. In short, no, you don't get to throw out literally every mainstream reliable source because you believe they are "biased."
Making your movement center around a conspiracy theory that The Washington Post, The Week, The Boston Globe, NPR Marketplace, The Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, The Indian Express, The Independent, On the Media, Vox Media, Asian Age, The Herald Sun, Pacific Standard, etc. are all colluding and corrupt is not helping your quest for credibility. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"Hey! You guys are too "unreliable" to tell me what your movement is about, so let me show you these articles from bigger news sites, which you have no connects to, that tell me what you guys really are about!". Yes, perfect logic. Derpen (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I read them. The problem is that some freelancer involved in this thing can actively seek out, and write an article for Time, Guardian, etc... which explicitly defends their position. That doesn't really mean "according to Time..." It just means according to that person. In fact, that is the heart of the matter -- the allegations that journalists using their megaphone inappropriately and with explicit bias, and the claim from normal people who feel they have been libeled having no recourse. I would suggest if we want to genuinely be unbiased, we not cite articles written by people directly involved, regardless of the venue. Like anything Eric Kain writes is fine, because he's not involved in this. But a lot of journalists are, as are a number of gaming sites. I think in general we do need to be picky about sourcing articles when the topic is corruption in journalism. Wikipedia should not be a forum for taking sides, even implicitly. I hope you agree with that. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Also note that when you say "YOUR SIDE" you are admitting to your own bias. Also, it's a strawman that you are attributing to me some conspiracy theory that I never talked about. Also, again with the ad hominem "your quest for credibility." Please leave personal attacks out of these things. Lasati (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Your question has been answered. We're not going to remove every reliable source because you think they're biased. Time to move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
See, this is another strawman. I never said "remove every reliable source." I said don't source articles written by people who are personally involved. That's it. Or at least, move them to a different section. I don't know why you find that such a dangerous statement. I suspect on the OWS page you wouldn't agree to sourcing an article written by an investment banker in the WSJ and using his or her definition of what OWS stands for (regardless of which side you were sympathetic towards). This is essentially the same. Lasati (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, then list the sources used in the article that you believe to be biased. Please note that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, and we do not remove sources merely because someone thinks they're biased. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll jump in and raise two articles: Leigh Alexander's Time article, and Jenn Frank's Guardian article. Leigh writes for many of the sites that are under fire, Vice, Kotaku and RockPaperShotgun among them, and is the editor of Gamasutra. <redacted per BLP> I've questioned their inclusion before, and no one seems to be able to defend it.
Frank's article will have to be included since she's now become a story all her own, but it really shouldn't be included as a reliable source in this article. Also, she hasn't really retired, since she did write a new piece for the Guardian recently. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
We've literally been over those same two sources dozens of times now and the answer is the same every time. We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian. The fact that someone writes for websites that are criticized is not remotely sufficient grounds to reject that person's writing as a reliable source. This can be hatted now.
I have redacted an entirely-unsourced and unfounded allegation about living people from your post. Do not make allegations about living people you cannot support with reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
After a third edit conflict ... "We aren't going to second-guess the editorial judgment of Time or The Guardian." That's an unwise attitude to have. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It's also our policy. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and Time and The Guardian are both indisputable reliable sources. Your personal opinion that they are biased has no impact on whether or not they are reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
With the Jenn Frank thing, didn't a Guardian editor make some statement apologizing for not including the conflict of interest? It's not my personal opinion there was a conflict of interest, it's actually a fact. But like, clearly this is the problem with using an article written by a freelancer (who is personally involved in the issue!) in the online arm of a respectable publication, as tho it represents the publication as a whole. Lasati (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No, actually, that's not a fact. What is a fact is that Frank included a disclosure in her column, but it was removed by Guardian editors who believed it was unnecessary. We discuss the issue in the article, and it does not render that source unusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a compromise: how about we note that Alexander is the EIC of Gamasutra, and that she's written for RockPaperShotun, Kotaku, and Polygon? The beginning of the paragraph would read:

Leigh Alexander, Editor-at-Large of Gamasutra and writer for Kotaku, Polygon, and RockPaperShotgun, described the campaign in Time as ...

That gives better context. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem noting her specific current title at Gamasutra, but laundry-listing every media outlet they've written for is basically without precedent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Alright. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamasutra blog

Someone posted this to my talk page. I don't know if it's worth including. Thoughts? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community. The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

So, no. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamers' concerns

http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/

There's a lot to unpack here. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The end of the article is probably a good summary of what to take away. Quote:

I’ve attempted to dispel some of the myths that one side has been able to successfully promote in the media, and outline some of the more moderate complaints of GamerGate. To briefly summarize, they are:
  • The rise of moral crusaders, with little to no opposition from the gaming media.
  • Accusations that gamers are “anti-inclusive,” despite ample evidence that this is not the case.
  • Demonization, mischaracterization, and abuse from members of the press.
  • An inability to discuss any of the above issues on many popular online communities.
  • A press that fails to report on both sides of a contentious story.

At this point I think there are enough sources for each of these points that they each deserve to be addressed. Perhaps we need another heading, "Gamers' concerns" or something, as a prelude to "Legitimacy of concerns". Willhesucceed (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. I think the history and origins of GamerGate need to come before that in the article though. Since many of the criticisms relate to GamerGates origins and activities a fair amount of critisism is probably going to come before the second section you propose. Artw (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think an article from a tech blog that claims to 'dispel myths' published by high quality, mainstream sources is enough to merit a whole new 'pro-gamergate' section. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you guys want to believe that the "bigger, better, reliable" news sites accurately portray this entire movement because of their titles of "bigger" and "better", makes me believe you guys are quite biased to this entire issue. It isn't like we, the activists of this movement, have any PRs, leaders, or main public speakers to officially say what we are for. We are just simply a faceless movement. But to simply dismiss other smaller sources as "farce" for the much larger news sites because they're opinion speaks the loudest just shows how, again, biased you guys are with this entire subject. We are just regular people. We don't pour our money and lives into a movement of anonymity. So, again, I don't understand this refusal to leave this "safe bubble" of the bigger news sources, who, of course, cannot be simply claimed without sin of bias because of their status.Derpen (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand Wikipedia, then. Our mission isn't to dispel some perceived "bias" in mainstream sources. Our policy, in fact, dictates that our content reflect the positions taken by the majority of mainstream sources. We are not an alternative media outlet designed to promote or disseminate ideas or positions that are out of the mainstream. Our reliance primarily on reliable, secondary sources is fundamental to the concept of Wikipedia as encyclopedia, not as alt-media.
tl;dr: It is not "biased" to believe that Wikipedia must adhere to its core content policies in discussing the Gamergate controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
...as well as the views taken by those opposing mainstream sources, if those positions are identified by reliable sources as is the case here. Never forget that neutrality does require us to cover *all* significant viewpoints, even if they don't need to be given the same weight, they still have to be given *some* weight. That's policy too. Diego (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say they shouldn't be covered and I think this source has a place in the article. I simply noted the fundamental conflict between what Derpen believes and what our policy demands. We can't "leave the safe bubble" because 1. we are required to use reliable sources and 2. in articles relating to claims about living people, we are doubly required to use reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition, as lone voices, we must be careful not to give their personal perspectives excessive coverage and weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
They aren't lone, so much as minority, voices. That'll be shown when the section's written. I'll try to cobble something together. Edit: I'd also like to note that this tech blog has been referenced elsewhere, and without objection, in the article already. TaraInDC is doing that thing again where she tries to block sources she doesn't like. That's not very sporting of her. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Where have I tried to 'block' this source? I don't think that this source is enough to make the perspective you're advocating anything other than a minority position, and I don't think it's enough to base a new section on. We can't treat the information sourced to mainstream press outlets as 'myths' as this author does. You're benefiting very much from other editors' assumptions of good faith considering that you are a blatant SPA: please at least try do give others the same courtesy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to codify what the concerns are, since specific points appear over and over, and readers should understand what's being refuted (or, more accurately, being ignored in favour of the topic of sexism). Of course this is going to be the minority position. The sources dictate it's so. But you're right. I should offer you the same courtesy I'm being given. I apologise, again. I just notice you're often at hand to note why article X isn't that great, article X always (?) being an article that focuses on more than the sexism. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ello blocking "hoax"

[1]. I don't think this is significant to include as prose since it was proven a hoax, but I do think it might be good as a footnote on the part about where censorship on some sites were brought up, to note that the Ello social network was changed with blocking GG posts, but affirmed by its creators that they don't have the capacity to do so yet, just in case someone came looking for that here. Opinions? --MASEM (t) 15:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't help feeling this puts us on the road to including ComicGate, which is literally about butts. Artw (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been putting together the "Gamers' concerns" subsection and there are enough sources that note censorship that this article isn't needed. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Escapist developer series

The Escapist is posting over the next week or so a series of interviews with developers. I'll update this list as more are published:

Willhesucceed (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason you need to keep maing new threads on each bunk source that you find that will assist your case into changing the topic of this article to not include the issues of sexism and misogyny?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You didn't even read the article, did you? It bolsters the case for sexism and misogyny. Again, thanks for the good faith, folks. Edit: as to your question: I'm posting each source under a new heading 1) because I don't find the sources at the same time; and 2) in order to be discussed. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It runs into the same problem of being opinion, though. In a sense most pieces are opinion, but that one especially - where the authors are all anonymous developers - is going to be difficult to use. - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's useful as evidence of some developers' opinions? We don't seem to need it at the moment, but who knows where this article/event's going to end up. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Spectator article

Link. The main thrust is that gamers want games to remain apolitical, and that a cabal of cultural Marxists has taken over the video games press. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that any article referring to those with legitimate concerns about the depiction of women in video games as "femnazis" and "cultural marxists", and recommends Milo Yiannopoulos as a good account of the subject, can be discounted as a reliable source on anything other than the author's opinion. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The Spectator is a long- and well-established, and respected, magazine. If we're going to use as sources pieces that refer to gamers as bigots, we can use this, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It is an opinion piece, by someone with a highly biased opinion. It can potentially be used as such, but not as anything more. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that the Spectator article is used, this rebuttal in the New Statesman may be relevant. - Desine (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That actually doubles our reasons for including it. Diego (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for including that. I came across it last night but got the impression it was some random blog. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Incredible bias

See several sections and archives; issues of bias of this nature haven been addressed numerous times before. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

This article is poorly written and incredibly biased, with gems such as "That said, the harassment and misogyny associated with GamerGate is seen as having poisoned the well,[8][9][12] and the choice to focus the campaign on a heretofore relatively obscure independent developer rather than AAA publishers has led to questions about its motivations.[11]" and its focus on Quinn who seems to be barely related to the subject anymore. Im just wondering if some of the editors here have an agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEEEEE1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimmy Wales on GamerGate

Unproductive squabbling. Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

Jimmy Wales are going to clean this mess up, and i agree with him. This whole thing has been a full-blown war where four-five people have had the direction of this article and bombarded any opponent. I also need to back down and will not engange anymore in this topic, but other users like Ryulong, Tarc, NorthBySouthBaranof and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom needs to step down now. I hope you people realise this also and step down with dignity and not fight this to the end. As long as especially Tarc and Ryulong are here, this article will never be neutral. https://storify.com/nathanblack/jimmy-wales-on-how-wikipedia-will-handle-gamergate --Torga (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Realize that while his opinion is important, that unless it is an WMF action, all he can offer is advice that then WP administrators can decide to act on. Jimmy has no special power as an editor otherwise. Mind you, his opinion and suggestions will be important to hear and potentially provide ways to go forward. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop bitching about neutrality because things aren't going the way of the gater. Jimbo's statements are vague as hell and only seem to have been made to quell the amount of abuse being sent to OTRS over this page because of people like you who think that "neutral" means "stop talking about the harassment campaign". Not to mention I've limited most of my actions on this article to the talk page and addressing the people who should rightly be banned from this article due to their constant expousing of a single point of view that Wikipedia cannot cover because it is not addressed by reliable sources. The most I've done on the article itself is the TFYC section (which has gone through countless revisions) and minor text markup. The only thing I'm guilty of is being sick and tired of seeing the same points be brought up constantly by people who have either just made an account to complain or have been pushing for their contribution to be made to the article day after day despite the fact that there is no one that agrees with them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You need a break from this, so do i and so do Tarc and many others. Please do not try to justify your behaviour here. I hope that there will be a purge here, because some of you have been fanatical pushing your views.--Torga (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't pushed shit on this page. The only thing that's being pushed here is everyone's buttons because every day there's someone else coming along to say "this page is biased because it has the word 'misogyny' in the lead and it's not solely about the fact we think that Zoe Quinn fucked someone to get a good review", like you attempted to do last week. I contribute to dozens of other articles on this project. You, Torga, have done nothing here other than contribute to this page because when the shit hit the fan and there was a thread on Reddit calling out for people with existing accounts on Wikipedia to get the Gamergate page skewed in their favor, you answered that clarion call (you had one edit way back in 2008, then on September 7 you made 9 more edits to be autoconfirmed and then you stepped into this quagmire). You haven't been involved in some of the worse aspects on this page that have forced it to be constantly expunged of material that could get Wikipedia sued by the living subjects of this debacle, but you are only here because you are, as defined by Luke McKinney for Cracked, a gater.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop trying to doxx me. It does not help your cause. --Torga (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
How the fuck is anything I've said about you doxxing? It's just me saying that you are what we call on Wikipedia a WP:Single purpose account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you just up and exposed your self Ryūlóng. I doubt it's even allowed to outright slander a user because you disagree with them.Derpen (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What "slander"? I'm pointing out the clear facts about his account and yours frankly, too. I can see several of your edits to this page have been expunged for violating WP:BLP—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, its not like a have a different account on a non-english wikipedia with several hundred edits, from before the time with joint accounts between the different national sites. And its not like it is the first time you have worked hard to throw out people from the page that you do not agree with. F.ex Theplatiniumdragon. --Torga (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I had zero involvement in Titanium Dragon's ban from this page. He was banned because he kept making allegations about a living person without having anything to back up those allegations. And which project did you contribute to because I can only see 4 edits by a User:Torga at the Norwegian Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop doxxing me. I am not gonna give you my account name. --Torga (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not doxxing you. Anyone can see what you've done. So put up or shut up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Argumentum_ad_Jimbonem : is this relevant in this case, or am I just confused? Bosstopher (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith on a side note this also seems to be relevant because both of you are making accusations about eachother that you have no definitive proof for. [On a side-side note am I assuming bad faith by assuming that you are both assuming bad faith?] Bosstopher (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You can only assume so much good faith in someone when there's all the evidence mounting up against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which...Derpen (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree..... --Torga (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You two should get off of your high horse that defecates in real time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
'"What "slander"?"' Yup, no slander here. Definitely no abuse of a user whatsoever.Derpen (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The account "Derpen" has made zero edits to Wikipedia outside of this talk page so that qualifies as being a single purpose account. That is not "slander".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think you should step back from this page, Torga, you are free to do so. But it seems that you are calling for several longtime, active Wikipedians who are attempting to keep this article free of BLP violations to 'step down' while ignoring many obvious single purpose accounts who have been very actively pushing their POV here. If Jimbo or some other uninvolved party decides to ask specific editors to step back, so be it, but please don't presume to do so yourself. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A call for [Wiki]love? [Please feel free to revert this if you think it counts as an unnecessary continuation of the previous conversation]

Reading the talk page and edit comments for this article make it seem like everyone's one revert away from beating the crap out of each other. Can't we all just learn to love each other and get along? I like to think that the reason everyone on this article is so angry is because they automatically assume that the other side is part of a conspiracy and they are protecting what is right. For instance Torga and co. are assuming Ryulong and Tarc are reverting their edits out of malice and a desire to hide the truth, when it's just because they have a better knowledge of BLP Policy. While Ryulong has automatically assumed in a few cases that everything the "other camp" have been doing is for the purpose of glorifying GamerGate, the conversation about the Escapist article above being a good example. (Can anyone who feels they've been misrepresented here, please correct me) As a great poet once said "Everybody makes mistakes, Everybody has those days". None of you are going to convince the people you're arguing with by raising accusations against them. Love and understanding is what will save us all [from needless rage induced stress]! Bosstopher (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss what he actually said instead of rehashing existing grievances. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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 agree, but I do say we may need to possibly assign new moderators to replace others who have shown *ahem* their true colors.Derpen (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Enough of this bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you remark a call to full neutrality "bullshit"?Derpen (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You can't say your agree, and then contradict yourself in the second clause of the same sentence. Please don't raise my hopes up then quickly bring them crashing down like that. Also correct me if I'm wrong but "assigning new moderators" isn't an actual thing. Also is there anyway to put forward a proposal or at least a gentleman's agreement to stop swearing on this talk page. It just seems to raise the tension levels a lot. Sorry if I'm being too much of a Puritan Bosstopher (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm calling your (Derpen) comment bullshit because it's an unnecessary dig at me because I've spent the past few hours saying how you're not here to contribute to the project constructively but instead push a POV on this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's be civil here. I've noted that much of you activity can be considered anything but saint-like, nor up to what neutral would be considered, but that is quite beside the point. The problem is the constant fighting going on in this talk page between user and moderator over what is what and why it is, which will never get anybody anywhere with this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpen (talk • contribs)
While I am an avid gamer, I have hardly edited anywhere in the gaming topic area in all the years I have been here. My interest in this article and related ones is seeing that WP:BLP policy is upheld. We're not a tabloid, not a blog, not a youtube channel. There are lots of people out there with lots of opinions in "gamergate"; very few of them actually matter in terms of trying to write an encyclopedic entry about the subject. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe this applies to both sides. As I've seen, many articles cited here automatically jump to conclusions that all GamerGate is about is a harassing movement against women, but when going to it's "front-lines" (twitter) you can see it is quite the opposite. So either one side is pulling a ruse, or there's a serious problem here.Derpen (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Read the FAQ Bosstopher (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I must have forgotten the constraints withing the rules. Though I do see that even the "most reliable" of sources cannot be sparred from the sin of bias. Now assuming GamerGate was never covered by any "reliable source", I don't know if this article would even exist under the current dictations presented. But I believe the rules are the rules.Derpen (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to be reminded that the article is about the harassment of women done under the guise of Gamergate, which gained more press, as well as the fact that those under the #gamergate umbrella want better coverage. You just want no mention of the harassment. As does every Tom, Dick, and Jack (not Jane though afaik) who has come here to say the exact same thing that there's a bias because the page does not exactly say what you want it to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, let us first look at how things are being handled between moderator and user.Derpen (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no 'mods' on Wikipedia. Admins do not fill the same role here that mods do on discussion forums. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. This isn't Reddit or 4chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is the Administration and the people who suggests sources and additions to the articles. There appears tobe a gap between them in terms of agreement.Derpen (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
No there isn't. There are people who keep suggesting bad sources because they don't fit the requirements set out by years of standing decision on this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Role of misogyny and antifeminism : Forbes/Kain

I see Kain's article is summarised as so under the subsection:

According to Erik Kain, writing at Forbes.com, the #GamerGate movement is driven by an anti-feminist backlash against the increasing diversity of voices involved in cultural criticism of video games. He explains, "What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant."

However, Kain concludes in his article:

GamerGate [...] isn’t about feminists or misogynists. It isn’t about any of these things, and it’s about all of them all at once.
In the end, it’s about gamers upset with the status quo and demanding something better. It’s about a group of consumers and enthusiasts not simply feeling that their identity is threatened, but believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year. And it’s about the ad hoc, messy series of uncoordinated events that got us here.

? Willhesucceed (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources practicing a bit of revisionist history in the face of the many sources that highlight the misogyny and harassment of the affair do not matter. You've been trying to ram this narrative into the article for weeks now, and it just ain't gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What does any of what you wrote have to do with the above? Kain's piece would appear to maybe be mischaracterised in the Wikipedia article. I'm bringing it up so we can discuss it. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"GamerGate [...] isn’t about feminists or misogynists" is simply untrue. Tarc (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright, somebody else discuss this with me, because Tarc's off in his own world. Is the summary that's attributed to Kain accurate or should it be reworded/clarified somehow, or removed entirely, or what? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As Tarc has pointed out, several weeks of "discussion" with you have shown that your only interest is to misrepresent gamergate as not primarily about sexism and harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Kain also said that GamerGate isn't about conspiracies or ethics, didn't he? He very clearly stated that he believes that Gamergate is driven by anti-feminism. His closing comments don't disagree with that assessment: he states that gamergaters feel their 'identity is being threatened' and that they are not well represented by the industry. Given that he's already made the argument that GamerGate is a backlash against progressive voices in the gaming industry, I think the summary is perfectly apt. And re: your comments about what 'world' Tarc is in, you really should stop attempting to discredit people who disagree with you like this: focus on the discussion, not the participants, please. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"I think the summary is perfectly apt." Then that's that. Thanks, Tara.
P.S. I posed this question as a result of a query on my Talk page. Thanks for the good faith, folks. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am previously uninvolved in gaming matters and I think Willhesucceed does have some legitimate concerns which I think Tarc and TheRedPenofDoom could have better addressed instead of focusing on whatever narrative Willhesucceed could be trying to ram into the article. Reading Kain's article conclusion, Kain does say that GamerGate isn't about (conspiracies, scandal and corruption, feminists or misogynists) but rather it’s about all of them all at once. My interpretation is that Kain wishes to convey that it's not just about one of these issues, but a combination. Does the current quote used reflect this combination or just anti-feminism? I believe that the most important point in Kain's conclusion is actually [gamers] believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year. This should be reflected somehow too. TaraInDC would you be willing to comment again? starship.paint ~ regal 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sooooo, yeah, Kain is really being misrepresented. I am not sure why people above are getting hung up over whether what Kain says is true or not, since the real issue seems to be that we are twisting his words.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
So does anyone have anything to add? I'd like to get this resolved before the bot archives this thread. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Willhesucceed and The Devil's Advocate, I have edited the article. While I now believe that Kain's views are fairly represented, I am not sure whether the last sentence of Kain's views belongs in the "feminist" section. Perhaps either of you would be better placed to move the last sentence to another section of the article. starship.paint ~ regal 23:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Starship.paint's edits to the page are also heavily misrepresenting Kain's words. He took a statement saying that "it's not about [issues], but then again it is at the same time" to be "it's totally about these issues". He notes the anti-feminism, but then allegedly justifies it at the end. This needs more input from editors other than you three at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong reverted my edit. I'm not sure where I went wrong. #GamerGate isn’t about conspiracies. It isn’t about scandal and corruption. It isn’t about feminists or misogynists. It isn’t about any of these things, and it’s about all of them all at once. So, GamerGate isn't solely about X, Y or Z by themselves, it's about the combination of X, Y, and Z all at once. Also, the justification is entirely Kain's, not mine, when he says that gamers believe that the gaming industry is becoming cliquish and remote. starship.paint ~ regal 02:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ryulong. It is not about any of those things, and yet people keep talking about it. That is what it means. Kirothereaper (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong didn't say that. He said "it's not about [issues], but then again it is at the same time". Essentially, you (Kirothereaper) are saying that it's not about [issues], and yet people keep talking about it. Your conclusion seems rather far-fetched to me. If you maintain your position, this would mean that "it's not about feminists". starship.paint ~ regal 05:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I was heavily paraphrasing the Forbes piece, from which you are pulling a single sentence from the ass end of the article You took

#GamerGate isn’t about conspiracies. It isn’t about scandal and corruption. It isn’t about feminists or misogynists. It isn’t about any of these things, and it’s about all of them all at once.

to say

However, Kain acknowledged that the movement was not solely about feminism, rather, it was about "conspiracies ... scandal and corruption ... feminists or misogynists ... all of them all at once".

I think that's a big stretch and change in voice. ALthough Kain's statement

#GamerGate doesn’t have an end goal. 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. Others simply don’t want to be talked down to by the press, which I think is a reasonable request without a clear solution.

may have some use in the article, or in fact this very talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, I appreciate the change in your tone regarding my edit. Now, if there is a problem with my paraphrasing of Kain, why can't we just use the direct quote "It isn't about..." then? starship.paint ~ regal 05:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that particular quote has much to add to the article as a whole because it relies on a lot of our own interpretation of what he means. We should strive to use more explicitly stated opinions he holds.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many explicit opinions Kain holds. Why did we take one from the interlude? The bolded parts below were by Kain, not me. Some of them were from the In Sum section as labelled by Kain. starship.paint ~ regal 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

... is secondary to one very big fact: Readers have grown deeply distrustful of the gaming press.

First, we have a young, ... male-driven industry on both the producer and consumer side now experiencing growth pains. The media is even younger than the industry itself and it’s experiencing growth pains, too. These growth pains have resulted in some raw, open wounds that fester whenever controversy erupts, and risk being infected further by politicized forces that care less about video games and more about political agendas ...

Second, we have deep mistrust between consumers and the video game industry ... That mistrust is now being cast on the press that’s supposed to be covering the industry to protect the consumer ...

Finally, we have a video game press with a largely left-leaning political bias in some ways alienating itself from much of its readership ...

It’s about a group of consumers and enthusiasts not simply feeling that their identity is threatened, but believing that they’re being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year.

New section, "Gamers' concerns"

Below is a rough outline. Refer to my sandbox for more sources; I'm not sure they're entirely properly categorised because I was skimming towards the end, but I think there are enough sources discussing the points mentioned below, or some variation thereof, that a new section is warranted. I'd appreciate your help in improving this so it becomes fit to go in the article proper.

Gamers' concerns

Under Gamergate, gamers have raised concerns about the video game industry.z Among them is worry that the video games industry is unethical, which worry stems from the close relationship that video games developers and video games journalists have.abc Opportunists are seen to have usurped the press with a view to pushing a political agenda,de which is seen to have given rise to an attendant mischaracterisation of gamers as unwelcoming and bigoted.efd This is understood to have further contributed to the enthusiast press's long-standing mistreatment of its consumers, which gamers believe vilifies and abuses the consumers it should be championing.gdh Although the video games press has long been seen as self-serving, its politicisation is suspected to have even further discouraged covering both sides of contentious stories such as Gamergate.idb Gamers were also concerned that discussion of controversial issues is difficult because online fora, such as video games publications' online comment sections and social networks, largely prohibit such.jhf

Please understand that this section is supposed to discuss what gamers see as the issues, regardless of their merit. The merit is discussed in what will be the proceeding section, "Legitimacy of concerns". Willhesucceed (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The "ethics" angle is give all the weight that it deserves in the article as it presently stands. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you see all the sources? To one degree or another, they've all mentioned other issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
And many more highlight the misogynistic harassment. You and the other pile of single-purpose-accounts simply aren't going to get your way here. The narrative of "gamergate" is that a jilted lover slut-shames his ex, and a pile of anonymous minions pile on, using their pre-existing beefs regarding "ethics in gamer journalism" as a pretense. Tarc (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you think of the concerns, they should at least be represented in the article if they're noteworthy. I've provided the sources. They've been discussed plenty, so they deserve mention. This is, after all, an encyclopaedia. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we weave any of this into the 'legitimacy of concerns' section? -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That's an option, I guess. I suggested a new section a few days ago, which is why I'm proposing it as separate, but I can't think of any reason not to include this under "legitimacy of concerns". The section may need to be renamed, though, since many of these concerns haven't really been addressed other than to note that they exist. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of this is a bit of excess reading of the sources (eg the complaints about forums), but I also believe most of the valid concerns are already incorporated into the article, just not in one single para. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I agree the scope of the wording's too big. Maybe this doesn't belong among the list of concerns but somewhere else in the article? Willhesucceed (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we can, about those forum points, I'm just not seeing that supported in the sources. The censorship that happened at the start of GG, that's documented and included due to the Streisand effect, but I'm not seeing enough to talk about limits on forums for gamers to discuss issues. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of disparaging language being used here that the sources aren't backing up at all: "opportunists", "vilifies", "abuses", and "self-serving" aren't to be found anywhere in these sources. The only use of "politicization" was a quotation from a 4chan member. Woodroar (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is a step in the right direction, especially regarding having a section for gamers' concerns. The titling of Legitimacy of concerns is vague as to whose concerns. We can work together to iron out the language issues. Additionally, I also feel that the titling of Social media campaign and backlash is vague too. Whose campaign? Whose backlash? Is it the gamers? If so, what is the point of the last paragraph in the section? starship.paint ~ regal 04:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The disparaging language is echoing this TechCrunch article, which is where I got the idea for the section, but feel free to moderate the language. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The information is already located throughout the article. Although it may be of use to conglomerate the statements into a single section so as to get Reddit and 4chan off of our backs. I just don't think that the proposed wording here is particularly good.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Reading through the article again, I see your point. Some things need inclusion or fleshing out under "Social media campaign ..." and "legitimacy of concerns", however. Well, now I feel stupid. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sommers reaction articles

Someone keeps reverting my removal of the reaction articles. I wish they would engage with me and explain their reasoning. I've explained mine; reposted from the Archive 5:

I read through the articles again. I really don't see justification for including the Polygon one. Sommers is talking about the criticism leveled at gamers, but [the article] uses Anita's videos about games to criticise Sommers. Moving it to Tropes vs Women or Anita's own page would be better. [...] Kotaku has the better article. I'll see what there is to include from it. [...]
The more I reread that section, the more apparent it becomes that the response articles aren't appropriate to this topic. The only actual criticism in the Kotaku article, which I've included, still focuses on the content of the games, not on gamers. I'd really rather remove it entirely.

It's turned into an edit war. Whoever it is, please explain your reasoning for referencing response articles to Sommers' video. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it's obviously relevant to this article that's why.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I explain why it's not relevant. You're just asserting that it is. Please explain the reasoning that leads you to conclude they're relevant to this article. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It directly concerns this article as it concerns Hoff Sommers' opinion regarding Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please address my points. Assertion is not justification. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've found a better source for us to use.
"Several users note that the question is not whether video games 'make' gamers sexist, but whether they express and maintain a negative portrayal of women, already present and unconsciously accepted."
Now let's please stop warring over the other two articles. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this source is a good one, and it makes the point of contention more explicit and clear. I'm fine with the Le Monde source being used there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is Christina Hoff Sommers the only one whose political affiliation is noted on the page? It's also noted incorrectly. She's a democrat with libertarian leanings. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's because Hoff Sommers is a highly polarizing semi-anti-feminist figure. Also libertarianism isn't necessarily a political affiliation as much as it is a philosophy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of other polarising figures mentioned in this article. Their political affiliations are not noted. I'm going to remove "Libertarian" from the description yet again. Please don't revert it. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more because she works at a political organization. A politician or someone at a think tank or PAC is generally linked with their political organization or affiliation ("Democratic candidate so-and-so" or "so-and-so of the NRA"), whereas a journalist is linked with their publisher ("so-and-so of MSNBC News"). If a journalist also worked at an organization or served on their board of directors or something, that might be relevant to mention. That's not to say that journalists can't have political beliefs or biases—everyone does, obviously—but in the case of journalists they're not often explicitly mentioned. Woodroar (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I should also mention that, personally, I feel information beyond "so-and-so of organization" is probably unnecessary if that person also has an article and we're linking to it. The article on that person will (or should) go more into their background and beliefs than is appropriate in this article. (We are a wiki, of course!) It seems more factual to present it that way and less apt to draw accusations of a POV. That goes for anti- and pro- positions, of course. Woodroar (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You raise fair points. If someone feels strongly that we should include her political leanings, I'm okay with it, provided that those leanings are described accurately. She's a Democrat with libertarian leanings, as the Kotaku article on her notes.
I do wish whoever has been so contentious with me re: Sommers would deign to discuss her paragraph with me. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Willhesucceed, you don't have consensus to remove "libertarian" from the article because you've been reverted multiple times by multiple editors other than myself (why else does it keep getting added back), so don't remove it, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
She's not a libertarian. You can't just put whatever you want in the article. I'm changing it to "Democrat"; we have a source on that. If we're going to put politics in the page, at least we can do so accurately. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well now someone (not me) has removed "Libertarian", so I'll leave it be. If you want to put her political affiliation in, fine by me, provided it's "Democrat", or "Democrat with libertarian leanings", because that's what she is. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed both 'libertarian' and 'feminist;' I think we should probably include either both or neither as the connotations of just one or the other are going to give a skewed image of who Hoff Sommors is. She and The Fine Young Capitalists are the only ones the article was taking the time to label as 'feminist,' anyway. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Tara. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a massive problem here that Willhesucceed keeps adding the fact that she is a democrat to the section because it mentions that she is libertarian. What party she is a registered voter for is irrelevant to her stance on feminism or whatever. I've removed it, the fact that she is a libertarian, and the fact that AEI is a conservative group from the article. People can read about that on the other respective pages. What matters here is her opinion on what happened. Not what happens when she goes to the polling station in November.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A misplaced paragraph

I feel that the last paragraph in Social media campaign and backlash starting with Non-gaming media attention has ... until protections against threats and abuse. is misplaced. It talks about a) sexism in games and b) the harassment campaign, some of which was directed at Frank. Should part a) be directed to Role of misogyny and antifeminism and part b) to Allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment? starship.paint ~ regal 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is attempting to be both chronological and topical. Perhaps a discussion of how to organise the article is in order. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Willhesucceed, I am afraid there are already too many discussions here ... compared to the progress. I'm going to be bold on this. starship.paint ~ regal 14:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Focus on Ongoing Controversy, not it's Origin or History

Please use one of the many other existing sections about this subject. Please keep in mind our policy WP:UNDUE which will inform how we present content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

In the introduction to this article it devotes a lot of space to the origins of the controversy (e.g. Quinn). Why not cut the history of the controversy out of the introduction and isolate it to a sub-section concerning GG's history/origins? The introduction is way too long, and focusing on the controversy itself rather than it's origins would help cull the intro. Also, focusing on the debate itself rather than the events leading up to it seems to make more sense for its own sake. What is the controversy about? Who are the two sides (gamers, game journalists, cultural critics, etc.)? What are their conflicting views? How/where is this controversy playing out (e.g. twitter, gaming media)? The history/origin of the controversy seems like a sub-section topic rather than a 'most of the intro' topic. Just a suggestion. I just found it odd how much the history of the controversy is being relied upon to describe the controversy rather than a focus on what the controversy itself concerns. - Atfyfe (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole reason Gamergate happened was long-stnading issued in the community and thus the history and origin has to be documented. Those need to be covered. There is actually very little else "happening" after the initial ~2 week period of harassment, followed by lots of media coverage, so there's almost nothing else beyond understanding why this flameout happened and , so far, the few attempts to try to avoid repeating it. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course those need to be covered. I am just suggesting that they don't need to be the focus of the article. However, I take your point that there might not be much to focus on other than how the controversy came about. I am just stopping by this entry to offer some suggestions tonight since I know this entry has been having trouble. - Atfyfe (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The articles pends a paragraph giving background information. I don't see how that's a "focus".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think as it is there's six paragraphs about Quinn's harassment in the beginning. Though I think it's important, six paragraphs is more than we have for any other singular topic, making it seem as if the GamerGate controversy is entirely about Quinn specifically. Anyways, I think mention of 'result' should go after 'overview.' EvilConker (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research

In this reversion, editor User:Masem has restored the claim of there being "long-standing misogyny" in the gamer community.

I have repeatedly requested a source be added for this claim.

I demonstrated in Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_4#Misogyny removal that the first 5 articles cited as references for the introductory sentence do NOT make any such claim of misogyny being a long-standing issues of gamer communities.

Since then a sixth has been added from LA Times which only mentions the issue once:

"the ugly reaction has instead exposed the rage and rampant misogyny that lies beneath the surface of an industry that’s still struggling to mature."

This statement is in present-tense, so Todd Martens is only talking about misogyny being present in the present day (not commenting on long-standing issue) and in the industry (not in gamer culture).

So we are still waiting on a reference that indicates this to be long-standing.

The references only mention that misogyny is an issue being discussed in relation to this controversy, not that it is long-standing in gamer communities.

I would like if a moderator could resolve this problem.

For editors to merely think that misogyny is long-standing is not enough, to add that claim without a source is editors here adding in their opinion as some kind of original research. Ranze (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

rampant - "happening a lot or becoming worse, usually in a way that is out of control". That's not a word to describe something that is merely recent, but rather something that has been building over time. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ranze: perhaps you did not see my reply there, but I did state that several of the sources point to it being a long-standing issue, and I went into why some sources on video games may not use terms like "long-standing". Of course, you were not obligated to reply to me—we're all volunteers here, after all—but saying that you "repeatedly requested a source" insinuates that nobody is replying to you, which is not true at all. Woodroar (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I gave several sources in that discussion that make it clear that misogyny was not something "new" by Gamergate. Per BBC: "She has been subject to misogynist abuse before, most notably in 2012 when a first-person game was published online entitled: Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian." showing at least 2012 (Which for this industry is a long time ago). There are at least two sources dating from last year that point to GDC talks that discuss the issue of misogyny in the industry. It is not original research. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Two years isn't long. The industry's been around for three, going on four, decades. As far as I can recall, the issue of misogyny/anti-feminism has only become a talking point in the past five or so years. If we could find sources that address it at least that far back, that would be great. Willhesucceed (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The GDC talks are backwards-looking pieces that clearly show more than a few years of sexism and misogyny in the industry (and that itself within just the field of the developers and games they made, not even consider the player base). --MASEM (t) 02:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you link to them here, please? Willhesucceed (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned that the sources detail misogyny going to 2005 (and likely further) in the very discussion Ranze linked above. Please understand I'm not trying to be a DICK here, but these sources and statements have been asked for and delivered many times. I understand that you sometimes feel attacked, and I truly am sorry if I've played any part in that, but part of the reason some editors are brusque is because they're being asked to spoon feed answers when those answers are littering the archives. Woodroar (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry, I just spent hours putting together a new section, so I'm a little out of it. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc:: I do not believe 1 author calling something 'rampant' means that something is long-standing. Something can 'happen a lot' or 'become worse' while still being a recent rather than long-standing issue. All that is required for something to become worse or happen a lot is for it to exist for SOME duration (which all issues due) not that this duration be a long one. Ranze (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's nice for you, but both the dictionary sand the sources disagree. The wording will remain as-is. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Woodroar:: The question is WHICH sources. If the 'several sources' you refer to are among the first six, I believe which portions support the 'longstanding issue' claim should be explained. If the ones you refer to are not linked to in the first sentence, then please introduce them so that we can link them there. If you reread the archived, section, I did reply to you at 20:57, 21 September, explaining the problem with your analysis. You only pointed out that the articles mention 'misogyny', you did not provide any evidence of them establishing it as a long-standing issue. I am not looking for the exact term, the meaning conveyed through synonymous phrase is fine too, but that wasn't present. When I say I requested a source, it insinuates I did not get a source, not that I did not get replies. I got replies, but the "sources" provided did not actually support the OR that misogyny is 'long-standing'. Ranze (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Masem::

  1. As WHS has pointed out, something occuring in 2012 does not make it a "long-standing issue". Video games have been around since 1947s, 2 years is only 3% of 67 years.
  2. A single woman being subject to allegedly misogynistic abuse does not make it a notable element of "gamer culture". If it were, we'd see a misogyny in gaming article.
  3. It's also worth considering whether Kevin Rawlinson's evaluation of "beat-up-Anita" being misogynistic is a reliable conclusion. If a BBC writer had said that "stomp Obama" was misandric, should Wikipedia repeat that as truth? In cases of reporters taking huge leaps in interpretation I think we ought to present it as that one reporter's opinion unless there's an overwhelming consensus among multiple ones as to that conclusion.
  4. Assuming the GDC talks you refer to are the Game Developers Conference, your commentary on them is not relevant to the article, and is what I mean by original research biasing the introductory statement. If you believe that the GDC talks exhibit long-standing misogyny in gamer culture then surely an article written about them. Since these have been going on since 1988, surely if these are backwards-looking then newspaper articles from the 90s (or even pre-2010) ought to be littered with "misogyny" accusations. Ranze (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
2012 is "ancient" for the video game industry; something that has persisted since then will be considered a long-standing issue. The reason that we don't have misogyny in gaming is because it wasn't a notable topic until Gamergate happened, but it has been known. The GDC talks are well documented elsewhere, establishing it has been a problem in the industry for a while. And documentation from 2013, 2012, 2012, 2011, 2011, 2009, etc. It's been there. --MASEM (t) 06:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed:: I see no need for you to apologize to Woodroar, although WR allegedly "mentioned that the sources detail misogyny going to 2005", the WR statement "The Daily Dot ref links to another Daily Dot article on misogyny going back to 2005" is not a helpful one. The Daily Dot ref in question, when it does mention misogyny, does NOT link to an article, but rather to a TAG called "sexism in gaming". As the string "2005" does not appear when I search the DD ref, it is not clear what hypothetical 2005 article WR is referencing. If such an article exists, I request that Woodroar link to it directly, because THAT (supposing it is valid, which we should discuss first) is what we ought to link here as a reference. Linking to an article that links to a different article which supports something is not how referencing works. Ranze (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's described as a "long-standing issue" in the sources, or having had a history, then we describe it as such, as well. It's not just Zoe Quinn. Anita Sarkeesian was abused. Brianna Wu recalls that she suffered from sexist abuse, among others she spoke to in this piece she wrote. "Beat Up Anita" is misogynistic because the only reason people are mad at her is because she is a feminist and a woman. People wouldn't make a hypothetical "Stomp Obama" game because they systematically hate men (it would probably instead be described as racist). And simply because you can't find something in a tagging system does not mean that it has not existed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that a source has yet to be introduced which describes misogyny as a long-standing issue. Your analysis on ZQ+AS+BW is original research Ryu, as is your providing an analysis of BUA being misogynistic (she has characteristics besides being female or feminist, you do not know which motivated the BUA designer). Please provide a reference which interprets these recent allegations as making misogyny constitute a 'long-standing issue' in gamer culture. I would suggest "recent issues" being applied to misogyny, as that is all the references listed has established so far. Ryu the burden is on claimants to directly link to an article. Merely linking to a tag about "sexism" and demanding critics to "find the long-standing misogyny proof" is not how sourcing works here. Tags are not references, pages are. Ranze (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
All of these women have said that they received threats and sexist harassment and you are calling my descriptions of these things as original research? On the talk page? If the media and the people being attacked describe these things as misogynistic or sexist that is how we report on it on Wikipedia. And I don't know if there's a single thing on the article about a tag on a website that you're going on about. I cannot even begin to understand your complaints at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, the question is whether there's a source that says "long-standing" or something similar. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The August 20, 2014 Daily Dot article links to a December 18, 2012 Daily Dot article (search for "have endured" in the first Daily Dot article, you'll find the link there). In addition to detailing a number of incidents from that year, that 2012 Daily Dot article mentions the Dickwolves controversy from 2010 and an essay from 2005 (search for "Dickwolves incident" and "argued in 2005"). I also feel that the statement in the Forbes article about the "young industry that began, like so many others, as a male-driven industry on both the producer and consumer side now experiencing growth pains" insinuates that this is an old issue, but I recognize that this wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
An industry being male-driven does not equate to the industry being sexist, much less misogynistic, so that Forbes excerpt is irrelevant. Thank you for providing direct link to the earlier 2012 DD article and where it was linked from. Keeping in mind that the full phrase is "endured in recent years" the 'recent' adjective does not paint something as a long-standing issue, instead it is referring to these 2012 events as recent, lumping them in with the 2014 ones as current events, not distant history, which is what 'longstanding' conveys. The article in question uses 'misogyny' in this singular context outside of the main title:
The Daily Dot has spent a considerable amount of time this year reporting incidents of sexism, misogyny, and attacks on women that have occurred throughout the gaming and comics industries this year.
By saying 'this year' (which the 2014 article explains to us is 'recent') the 2012 article is NOT talking about long-standing issues, but still-current ones. So the 2012 article does not paint this as a long-standing issue, however you have provided more things to look at.
You mention the reaction to a 2010 webcomic. The 2012 article says "major blowups like the 2010 Dickwolves incident". However it does not say that this is a "misogynism" related blow-up, just that it is a blow-up that geeks have seen. Mentioning that a misogynism-related incident is a 'geek blowup' does not mean that other examples of geek-blowups mentioned are being called misogynistic in nature. When I look at the article section you link to, the term misogyny is not mentioned in any way on the Penny Arcade article, so where is this association established?
You mention a 2005 essay, specifically the 2012 article quote referencing this is:
Gillam argued in 2005 that within gaming fandom, “true gender equality is actually perceived [by male gamers] as inequality.”
Issues of gender-equality are sexism issues, but not necessarily misogyny issues. Even if 2005 were considered long-standing (9 years is <14% of 67 years) that would only support stating that sexism is long-standing in gaming, not misogyny. Misogyny is a more extreme form of sexism specifically pertaining to women and hating them, and gender inequality does not inherently mean hating women.
The phrase "argued in 2005" links to http://www.trickster.org/symposium/symp181.htm where I looked for the string "miso" and hate/hatred/hating and got no results. Where in this "Fanfic Symoposium" does Gillam discuss hatred of women being a long-standing issue? Ranze (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're looking for further back, we've got "An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior", a journal article from 1998 which is referenced in our own article on misogyny and mass media. And there's "Dangerous Relationships: Pornography, Misogyny and Rape" and "Game On, Hollywood!: Essays on the Intersection of Video Games and Cinema", which both discuss the misogyny and sexualized violence against women in 1982's Custer's Revenge. Woodroar (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd add to that list Delamere, Fern M. ; Shaw, Susan M. (2008) '“They see it as a guy's game”: The politics of gender in digital games', Leisure/Loisir, 32:2, 279-302, DOI: 10.1080/14927713.2008.9651411. Although published in 2008, the authors highlight as an example of the treatment of women an event at a gaming tournament in 2003, which is going back 11 years. - Bilby (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: regarding your revert, the issue here is not whether or not sources mention "misogyny". If you pay attention to my edit, I did not remove the term, I changed the phrasing. The issue is that the sources do not call misogyny a long-standing issue in gaming culture, this is original research by Wikipedians so far unsupported by references. Please undo your revert and restore my phrasing, your edit summary does not match up with your edit. Ranze (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You were given references that supported it and ignored them on your own claims. That's edit warring. Again, in the video game industry, "long-standing" is something that may have persisted for only for a few years because this industry moves fast, so a year is a heck of a lot of time. Remember, the other factor here is the rise of social media that actually shows that misogyny that would otherwise not be obvious to see unless you could also see gamer feedback, and that didn't happen until after 2000. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked through the links in the old discussion, and the links in this one. Ranze has a point. None of the following sources mentioned support "long-standing": Daily Dot, Daily Dot, (in fact, the earliest mention of "sexism in gaming" at Daily Dot is 2012 as per http://www.dailydot.com/tags/sexism-in-gaming/), Al Jazeera, Telegraph, Wired, LA Times, BBC, RPS, CBC, Eurogamer, Cinema Blend, Daily Dot, Forbes, Trickster (which talks about perceptions of equality, another topic altogether), Polygon. In fact, many of them support the idea that misogyny is a recent phenomenon, because they use phrases like "this year", "recently", etc.
This paper talks about gender roles and violence, not misogyny. This book appears to be about pornography, not video games. Custer's Revenge is claimed to produce "misogynistic pleasure" here, but as far as I can see it claims only that certain adults would enjoy the game, not that misogyny is pervasive in the industry or the audience.
I can't access this link for some reason, but from the title it would appear to only focus on D&D.
The only articles linked that do support "long-standing" is this one by Kotaku, which quotes another article referring to misogyny as "established" in just one sentence and this Venturebeat article. Considering the other sources which outright state it's a recent phenomenon, I'd say that's not enough.
Someone correct me if I've missed something. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, some editors here seem to be conflating the topics of equality, sexism, and misogyny, but these are three quite distinct things, each with distinct concerns. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Sexism and misogyny are nearly paired up in all sources that talk about how the issue has been around for many years; equality not so much nor is that really an issue here. Keep in mind there are several goggle book hits that are very relevant too (there's one "From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games" that comes up a few tmes, for example, from 1998). Basically, if you're looking for a source for the exact claim "long-standing issue of misogyny", we're not likely going to get that, but we are going to get plenty that show misogyny is suddenly not a new issue due to the harassment from GG. Also keep in mind: this is misogyny throughout the industy, including that charge against developers (eg like the Custard's Last Stand game, above). We're just all now well more aware of the issues and where the actual vectors of sexism and misogyny arise from. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind linking those books? We can use them as sources to confirm whether or not it's a long-standing issue. Considering how important this topic apparently is, there should be someone somewhere laying out how the industry and the audience have been misogynistic throughout their existence.
I understand that many sources in the past year or two have paired up sexism and misogyny, but they really are two separate things, so unless we have a reliable source that claims actual long-standing misogyny, i.e. hatred of women, it should be referred to as sexism, if there is indeed a source saying there's long-standing sexism. Just because current sources use the two words interchangeably doesn't mean Wikipedia should.
And finally, we shouldn't use "long-standing" without reliable sources to back it up because it would be prejudicial. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
since we do have multiple reliable sources, please move on to something appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Show me these sources. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Gamergate_controversy#References take your pick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
And which source of those "directly supports" the wording in the current lead? How long is long-standing? If that description is verifiable, it should be possible to quote it for what they mean exactly, right? So how much is long-standing, two years? Ten? 30? Diego (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Numerous sources have been listed before. You're complaining that the word "long-term issues of misogyny" can't be found in a source, but the fact that there is a easily-found history of misogyny in the video game field dating to at least the 1990s means, by common sense it is a long-term issue. Racism is clearly a long-term issue in the United States, but you'd probably have a hard time finding a source in the present that makes that statement becuase it is patently obvious. Same concept here. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Since it's easily found, we should be able to have some sources to hand, no? Two or three that point to misogyny in the industry/audience as prevalent more than two or three years ago? It's absurd that on the one hand you claim there's all this long-standing misogyny, but on the other hand that no one has discussed it. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You're trying to find a seminal piece about misogyny in video games that no one has specifically written yet, though there is plenty of evidence that misogyny in video games exists as highlighted at several points in the history of the industry since at least the 90s. Most of the sources on the GG do not say explicitly "a long history of misogyny" but clearly imply that it is there. There is zero original research here. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
No, all I'm asking for is a handful of sources spread throughout a decade or two that state that there's widespread misogyny in gaming. That no one is able to provide this is both amusing and bemusing. Now I'm done with this topic. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Which have been provided (we have some from the 1990s). --MASEM (t) 14:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Masem, then WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. If the words "long-term issues of misogyny" can't be found in a source, we don't use them, we use the words that the sources have used; and if no reliable source has adopted that view, we don't do it either. Several people have been accused at this talk page of introducing sources to push a narrative, and now we see exactly the same for those writing the lead from sentences that "can be inferred" or something "the sources imply", which is explicitly forbidden. If original research is unacceptable, it's unacceptable for everybody. The lead as it stands now could be very well removed for failing WP:V and couldn't be restored per WP:BURDEN - someone reliable needs to make the connection between the different sources presented here if you want to say something about all them in general. That's policy, you mean you suddenly don't agree with that? Diego (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
However, if you read the sources from GG coverage of today, it is readily clear this has been a long-standing problem. No one uses the explicit language, but it is well-established just reading the narratives that sexism and misogyny in video games has been there, this was the event that flamed it to the forefront. The press clearly makes the assumption that the reader is aware these exists. We have plenty of sources to show sexism and misogyny tied to video games from the 1990s. It is, for anyone in the industry, a patently obvious statement. Note: importantly, the statement that WP makes is not saying that gamers have been sexist and misogynist for a long time (which would be a statement that as potentially insulting would need to be sources), but that sexism and misogyny have persisted in the industry as a whole for some time, including on developers and the like, that no side of the issue is immune to these issues. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As a possible intermediate solution, one option might be to replace "long-standing" with "pre-existing". It is important to state that GG did not create these issues, but as there is concern about how long they have been around, stating "pre-existing" avoids that issue, and that's clearly established in sources. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Already being discussed above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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 noted something when browsing the Edit History for the page here. From what it looks, Tarc randomly rolled back an edit by Masem for "not a chance that any of that "private mailing list" nuttery is going to be her,e in any form",not using any real reasoning for why it was removed. From what I'm guessing, there seems to be a resistance of having the "mailing list" added into the article despite it being cited by notable sources. Any explanation for this revision conflict? Derpen (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes please look at section 15 of the talk page where this is being discussed. You really should have known better than starting a new section given that you've already posted in that section. Bosstopher (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes Mr. WP:SPA, I just randomly hit "revert" and randomly types in words into the edit summary that just by the merest of cosmic circumstances happened to randomly form into a coherent English explanation of why I reverted the text. The assertion that there was collusion by journalists on a mailing list is Breitbart et al fueled fringe conspiracy, and has no place in this article. I mean, imagine; professionals actually talking to each other about their profession? I'm glad no one knows about my Spiceworks membership, where we plan global domination of the IT industry. (Oops, did I say that out loud?) Tarc (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)/Archive_5&oldid=1146651372"