Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Lead length and tagging

The article was recently given a "lead too long" tag and then shortly de-tagged. I have no doubt that both were good faith edits, but it gives me a chance to sing my same old tune, so I will! I definitely think the lead here is too long. While I think all the information belongs in the article, I think the lead could be condensed down to a paragraph or two. I tried drafting such a lead some time ago and was summarily (though courteously) shot down. Just throwing this against the wall again, though I am aware I am not likely to have anything near consensus. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Entire article remains terrible. No constructive edits are likely while it is under such extraordinary measures. Have raised it several times, and inevitably it returns to the status quo with persistent drift in the direction of accruing more dross. Koncorde (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with both above comments. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is entirely happy with everything in this article. I've been staring at the lede for 30 minutes and there are certainly changes that I would make, but I doubt there's consensus to make them. Oh well, maybe I'll shoot for something BOLD and self-revert as a place to discuss. Woodroar (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

First draft

Opinions on this version of the lede? Everyone will probably hate it, but it's worth a shot. Woodroar (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite good, though, perhaps I'm just merciless as I would say the third paragraph still strikes me as unnecessary with some slight strengthening of the "commentators dismissed" language. I think stylistically the ending to the second paragraph makes a better conclusion as well. That being said, I would happily support this version as drafted. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it. I'm of two minds on whether there's material that was cut that should be kept, but as a shorter summary it works fairly well. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see it, perhaps cynically and perhaps realistically, as a minimalist version that will necessarily attract cruft, haha. I did consider cutting the third paragraph entirely, but I'm in the middle of a Star Wars marathon at the moment and I had to consider my priorities. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Long live the stormtrooper who bumps his head on the way through the door! Dumuzid (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, no objections here. Artw (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "In August 2014, game developer Zoë Quinn was falsely accused of entering a relationship with a journalist in exchange for positive coverage." or "The harassment against Quinn as well as developer Brianna Wu and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian included doxing, and threats of assault, rape, and murder." is needed as starting sentences. While the initial basis, the events have moved on. It also reads like someone took a look at the order of the section headings and went to mirror that (which isn't always a great idea).

"Most Gamergate supporters are anonymous" might be true and probably sourced, but seems a strong assertion given many can be named (and are proud of their association).

"The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, social criticism in video games, and the identity of gamers." this sentence should be in the opening.

I would say opening paragraph should be along the lines of the below (not how I would actually write it, but here just for expediency):

"Gamergate refers to the controversy around a harassment campaign and issues related to sexism and progressivism in video game culture. "Gamergate" is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign, and actions by those perpetrating the harassment. The harassment was coordinated under the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate, as well as on Internet Relay Chat channels and websites such as reddit, 4chan, and 8chan. The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, social criticism in video games, and the identity of gamers."

You can then go into the specifics / background and wider cultural statements by critics. Koncorde (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really seeing a version of the lede that avoids mentioning Quinn as plausible, since it began as a harrasment campaign against her and they remain obsessed with her. Not really sure there's any evidence of anyone "moving on". Artw (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Ms. Quinn should be mentioned, but I am not sure we need to bring up Ms. Wu or Ms. Sarkeesian in the lead -- I would personally favor a sentence like, "The controversy began with allegations against game developer Zoe Quinn, but quickly grew to include threats and harassment aimed at her as well as a number of other women in the wider video game world." That's clunky, but I trust the idea is visible. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not saying that they don't get mentioned, but that the starting sentences are forced with their inclusion (particularly the way it is currently written). And yes, obviously it has moved on, otherwise why does this have an article at all, rather than just being part of their biographies? Are you saying there is no wider culture war? Because we are presenting evidence across the board that this is much more than harassment of those 3 individuals (even if one of them was the primary focus). Koncorde (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing how we mention them, but I think that sources do support us naming them in the lede. I just looked at 40 references, and of those about or summarizing GamerGate (as opposed to articles about tangentially related topics), only 2 did not mention Quinn and something like 5 did not mention Wu or Sarkeesian. (I was mostly looking for instances of "Quinn" and lost count on Wu and Sarkeesian.) To me, this indicates that all three are very much part of the whole story. Woodroar (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat - the first paragraph should summarise what the article is about. As it currently stands it tries to be too detailed, and then sporadically mentions more critical information elsewhere. This is not about removing those sentences from the lede, it's about where they should sit. Not sure how much more clear I can be. Koncorde (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"the first paragraph should summarise what the article is about." - then Quinn is mentioned exactly where she should be. Artw (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Defending terrible writing and structure is why the article quality sucks. The lede successfully replicates the bloated monstrosity of the body. Koncorde (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Koncorde, my reply was a more general one. I do think that moving the "August 2014" events down in the lede would result in a cleaner first paragraph. But the sources clearly discuss Quinn more than any "culture war", and that counts for something. I hesitate to get too poetic, but Gamergate is notable chiefly because of this war's victims, not because of the war itself. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been arguing since day 1 that this is article is largely a blow-by-blow summary of the harassment of individuals rather than actually about the "controversy" or any other subject matter - so I don't disagree - but that in itself is why this is not a good article. Koncorde (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Koncorde, that "blow-by-blow" summary approach seems to me to be in line with the way the reliable sources covered this nebulous thing called "gamergate." What specifically do you think is receiving short shrift in the article? Dumuzid (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the short shrift, it's the gratuitous detail. A lot of the article is Claim vs Counter Claim, which is not synthesis as they are often directly referencing each other, but is also a very uncomfortable read with shoehorned quotations. The Anita Sarkeesian was also overly detailed, but by applying some reasonable editing we were able to summarise the key points more succinctly. As with most articles there's the rush to include quotes and data points from every single source, but after a while you end up with so much information that condensing the article is the best solution. An obvious minor change would be to adjust "History" to "Background" or "Origins of the #Gamergate controversy". Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I certainly agree with you here. Especially as these events recede in to the past, I think you're quite right that we can sort of smooth it out in to more of a narrative. I doubt we'll have consensus just yet, but I have your back, as the youths are wont to say. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This sentence from the current version needs to stay in the lead: "Many of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag argue that they are campaigning against political correctness and poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry." It's essentially the only mention of any other side to this controversy and needs to remain to provide some modicum of neutrality and balance. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Two questions, in the interest of getting things exactly right. (a) How many people would be required for us to describe them as “many”? More than two? Ten? A hundred? Or is the criterion some percentage -- what percentage, exactly? -- of the total number of those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag (b) What sources specifically indicate meeting this threshold? Is anyone absolutely certain that "those organizing under the Gamergate hashtag" included any substantial number of individuals? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus, one correction. To complain of poor journalistic ethics in the video game industry is absurd, like complaining of poor pitching in NFL Football. People employed in the video game industry are not journalists; they are video game industry employees. What is mean, surely, is alleged ethical lapses among some journalists covering the video-game industry.? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Both your points are easily corrected, if there's consensus to make changes to the sentence. On the first point, by changing "many" to "some" or simply removing the word, based on what sources in the Debate over ethics allegations section say. The four sources right at the beginning of that section look to be the most likely place to look. On the second point, by rewriting the phrasing of the second sentence to more explicitly say "video games journalism" rather than "video games industry". My central point is that some mention of the viewpoint of GG supporters as described by same needs to remain in the lead. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Something really ought to be done about the blanket term statement currently in the lede. It implies that everyone who views thesmselves as amemebr fo gaemrgate or supportive of gamergate, ist aking part in a harassment campaign. Such a claim is not supported in the secondary sources. Brustopher (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate and WaterGate (CamelCase hashtag)

Okay, the original (by Baldwin) and most popular version of the hashtag is CamelCase, and at a previous time, so were most of the references in the article. I know "Watergate" was not a compound word, and neither should most "-gate" things, but that's not what Baldwin wrote, and not what people primarily use. Maybe it's a commentary on how people not being familiar enough with the plain term "scandal" to get interest (see also, Bendgate). IIRC, Strongjam or Woodroar removed most of them for some reason, maybe he felt it was unsightly, but I boldly put it back in the lead as the hashtag. This shouldn't reasonably be any sort of major issue, but then again, this is the GGC lead. If you don't feel it is remotely important, feel free to ignore this notification and go back to restructuring the lead. :) -Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious:. I don't recall removing it, but it's possible. Typically per MOS:CAPS we follow normal English capitalization and don't CamelCase, but I'm not sure if thats a strict rule or just a guideline, Masem may remember better I believe he's who I learned it from. However, I personally don't care as long as we are consistent. There was consensus sometime ago to style it "Gamergate", but if consensus changes that's fine. I don't really have strong opinion one way or another. If we are going to continue with "Gamergate" instead of "GamerGate" it may be worthwhile to just put in something like "... the Gamergate hashtag, typically styled "#GamerGate", ..." — Strongjam (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I've changed "GamerGate" to "Gamergate" en masse previously, unless it was to enforce consensus or the Manual of Style, but of course I could be wrong. Past discussions based on policy have pointed to WP:MOS (especially WP:CAMELCASE), which require that we use standard English capitalization rules in our articles, therefore "Gamergate". Of course, CAMELCASE has changed over time (WP:CCC) and now permits camelcase "where it reflects general usage". So it really doesn't matter how Baldwin capitalized it, but how reliable sources capitalize it, and if they do so consistently.

This presents a problem. Major search engines don't differentiate between case, so we can't search for "GamerGate" and "Gamergate" in Google and see which returns more hits. What we can do is look at the 244 references currently in the article and see that 58 use "GamerGate" in their title and 62 use "Gamergate". Or we can look at the first page of Google results for "gamergate" and see 10 instances of "GamerGate" and 17 of "Gamergate". (I ignored the first result from Wikipedia.) We can extend this to the first 10 pages of Google results, which give us 89 instances of "GamerGate" and 107 of "Gamergate". So "general usage" doesn't point towards camelcased "GamerGate" at all, but "Gamergate". Which means we should change it back, unless, that is, someone has a better method of gauging usage among reliable sources?

And if it's worth anything, I go back and forth but generally use "GamerGate" myself on Talk pages. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I've taken a look at MOS:CAPS's trademark section. The first and second sentences of the first paragraph would relate to not using it as the primary, but the third sentence suggests "mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead, or illustrated with a graphical logo". Looking at the broader trademark policy, the one I think applies best is the 7th outer bullet, with the Oxycontin/OxyContin example. I think in archive 24, Masem uses the 4th outer bullet (with the ASUS example) based on the terms he uses. Most of the archives are strongly against using it as the main style, and the consensus precedent was applied to the hashtag in this Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which discussions you're talking about. There's no mention of "ASUS" in any of the archives as far as I could tell. And I'm not sure what you mean about the "CamelCase for Hashtag?" discussion. In any case, it's not like "GamerGate" is a trademark or an official spelling, because there is no official spelling, only what the sources use. I could perhaps see an argument for adding '(sometimes capitalized as "Gamergate")' in the first sentence because a significant percentage of sources use camelcase. As long as that's the consensus opinion, of course. Woodroar (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I know it's not really a trademark, per se. The reason I bring up MOSTM is because of this discussion, which came up when I searched "CamelCase" in the thing. The "wording" I mean is when Masem talks about "standard casing". (9th response) Bullet point 4 talks about "standard English" and "nonstandard" usage. Vordox used that thread as precedent in the thread I linked above. I edited the post to mention the word. Hopefully, I sound more coherent now, even if incorrect policy-wise. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WA Post that has the neutrality we need to emulate

Washington Post. Please note the tone of this article, specifically how:

• It acknowledges that GG is reportedly (but not factually) a movement, though in their efforts as a movement, they have engaged in behavior that is considered hostile.
• It acknowledges that there has been harassment surrounding GG, possibly even by some of its members. while other members have attempted to distance GG from this.
• It acknowledges that both sides (GG and the press) are at fault, talking past each other, and failing to find a middle ground.

In other words, this is the receipt for the neutral take on the whole GG situation that we as Wikipedia need to be using that I and others have argued for in the past. It still is highly critical of GG, but recognizes there is no one right answer to describing what GG is. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So, "neutrality" is defined as: "Masem's preferred take." Got it, thanks! And for what it's worth, welcome back. Dumuzid (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, my take has always been that there are so many unknowns and claims being thrown around that the best take for the article is to write it without the absolutes that it currently has, simply to document rather than blame. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a pretty good article, and definitely the kind of higher quality, retrospective analysis I hope to see more of as this stops being burdened by current events style coverage. Emulating that article's balanced approach is something to aim for. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What "sides"? Artw (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I thought you were against op-eds? Artw (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I was against op-eds, only when editors use op-eds to force a controversial statement made by them as fact rather than a claim, as demanded by NPOV. We're stuck with the fact that most of the coverage of GG is from op-eds from RSes, but we can still make a proper neutral article from that. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of the op-ed appears under the disclaimer that it's giving Gamergate the benefit of the doubt. While I could see why that would be aplealing to you - you've long been a proponent of a FOX news style "fair and balanced" approach over regular POV rules - I wouldn't characterize doing so as uncontroversial at all. Artw (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I want anything like FOX "fair and balanced" (which I am assuming is being taken as sarcasm on what that term means given FOX News' reputation). First, as pointed out below, UNDUE/WEIGHT prevents anything from a "balanced" article given the weight of sources critical of GG. I don't question that at this point. Nor is the sources going to make GG smelling like flowers. It is going to come out very much negative sounding for GG. But we can avoid stating absolutes, tempering questionable facts as sourced claims instead and focusing on the fact that no one really has a good handle on what GG , only on what they perceive it is. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, per BLP, as this and other articles name people that call themselves as part of GG, to call that group factually as a harassment group is very much a problem, as this effectively calling those named people harassers without proof. BLP requires us give this the benefit of the doubt, which is the whole point of WP's neutrality policy. We do not judge the topic. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times have you beaten this particular dead horse? I suggest you go bother WP:BLPN about it rather than wasting our time. Artw (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

While its style is a tad too informal to serve as a template for coverage, its gestalt attitude is consistent with what has always been found in the most reliable sources, and has always failed to be reflected on Wikipedia. I expect to see more examples as SXSW unfolds, and hopefully the appearance of a template-quality retrospective piece. Rhoark (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing useful here, and (sigh) Masem apparently needs to be reminded again: the article is a proper, neutral article that reflects the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources -- all of which disagree with Masem. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This would make sense, if only the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources claim were true, and if only there was some sort of WP:FOLLOWTHESOURCES policy which suggested that we should write articles reflecting the slant & tone of an overwhelming consensus of sources. Rightly or wrongly, we only have the policies which actually do exist - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - the last of which clearly prescribes that articles should be written in a tone impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. The overwhelming consensus argument is a Furphy - stick a flaming fork in it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

one of these days one of you guys are going to read WP:WEIGHT and it's going to blow your minds. Artw (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is also part of WP:NPOV, and cannot be read or understood in isolation from the remainder of that policy. The sections of WP:NPOV which deal with tone are in the introduction, the explanation at WP:YESPOV (Prefer nonjudgemental language), and at WP:IMPARTIAL. WP:WEIGHT cannot be a valid reason for us to ignore these other sections of the same policy. We must find ways to satisfy the whole of the policy - and the whole is clear that tone must be impartial.
I note also that the example presented at WP:WEIGHT, the Flat Earth theory precludes the inclusion of that theory in the Earth article, but does not preclude a fair, neutral & impartially toned explanation of at the Flat Earth article. This, the Gamergate controversy article, is the equivalent of the Flat Earth article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight has nothing to do with tone, which is the problem that this article still has. We do not adopt the tone of the popular opinion if that is a controversial opinion. The popular opinion will dominate the article, but we still must write it in a non-condemning tone. Let quotes from the popular opinion condemn GG, but neutrality demands we treat that as claims, not fact. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about where you see WP:TONE issues? Vague statements about it aren't useful; we need to know which specific sentences you object to. My reading is that the article accurately and neutrally represents the facts (as reported by the sources we have available); it feels like your objection is that these facts, taken together with the weight they have in reliable sources, don't give the overarching impression of the controversy that you believe is right -- that there is a problem in focus, in how most mainstream sources frame the discussion. But that is not a WP:TONE issue (in fact, it means we are correctly adhering to the tone rules in WP:NPOV); WP:NPOV and WP:DUE do not allow us to 'adjust' the balance of sources in order to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE between sides in a dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Masem! I'm sure I'll enjoy this proposal as much as the countless others you will surely soon make. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we going back to Masem's Daily Repetition of thousands of words of text ←←defending the same tired shibboleths? We already have three restatements of the same old discredited argument, that we need to deskew the reliable sources because they are all bias. I've already read hundreds of thousands of words of this from this one editor, as have a number of other volunteers who have worked to prevent Gamergate from using this article to punish women for pursuing careers in the software industry. No, wikipedia will not invent a tone sympathetic to Gamergate harassment beause we support it, or because we think the media are all bias, or because we have super secret insider information that's really keen. If we're returning to this old habit, let's cut straight to the chase and head direct to AE and thence to Arbcom, Congress, and the opinions of mankind. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please tone down the snide remarks and assumptions of bad faith right out of the gate? You don't have to participate if you're not willing to so collegially. The argument is not discredited, merely controversial. There are plenty of editors who feel this article needs a lot of work to more accurately match the tone of the best reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is about reals and not feels, Torchiest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was essentially my point. The claim that anyone who takes issue with the current state of this article supports harassment has no basis in reality. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the endless claims that the article is biased because you or any of your friends feel offended by it has any hold, nor is it likely to ever. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on this talk page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post is an unquestionably a reliable source. The byline is a reporter subject to editorial control of WP. Generally, we take reliable sources that have the most complete take on a subject which means current sources replace outdated sources when a clearer picture emerges. --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI: It's an op-ed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's style is in the form of an FAQ. It's in the "news" section of Washington Post. It's written by a staff reporter covering a current event SXSW. He's not an editor and I don't see an opinion disclaimer. In any case, facts would still be subject to oversight. Why do you believe it's an op-ed? Our article reads more like an Op-Ed compared to a straight news piece so maybe you are confusing the two? --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments and the subsequent disagreement highlight that we really at some point need to have a massive RfC to settle the two big questions that plague all discussions on this article. "Can Gamergate referred to as a movement?" and (once the first question is settled, "What should this article actually be about?" Also, genuinely good to see you back Masem. You were the only person who used to update the article with recent occurences, so with you gone it's gotten kinda out of date. Brustopher (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the core of the dispute is closer to "can we relax the usual standards WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV when some people feel that the vast majority of normally-reliable news sources are unreliable on this topic?" That is at the heart of most of the complaints about this article; the article, as it exists now, is (mostly) an accurate reflection of the overarching coverage in reliable, mainstream news sources, with weight and tone appropriate to how things are covered in those sources. There might be some minor rewordings we could go over in a few areas, but the overarching changes that some people are pushing for aren't possible without making an exception to our core content policies for this article. It would be nice to get that settled once and for all so we can move on. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that one was settled? Didn't we have a massive RfC on that issue ages ago? The 'movement' question and the, what does 'Gamergate controversy' mean questions, are the two biggest unresolved questions where there's actual room to move foward in. The movement question is a tricky one which could really go either way, and probably needs a handling which is nuanced and reads well. Also I'd say the first paragraph as it stands does not accurately reflect the sources. Brustopher (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel we need an RFC for that part; whether or not we should use the word 'movement' at all is not really the question, since we're already quoting people who do in a few places. The activities section says:

"Following the accusations against Quinn, proponents of Gamergate began to use the "KotakuInAction" subreddit and boards on 8chan to discuss and organize. Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate and, with no person or group able to speak for Gamergate, defining it has been difficult. As the threats expanded, international media focused on Gamergate's violent, misogynistic element and its inability to present a coherent message. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Bob Stuart reported that: "Gamergate has since swelled into an unwieldy movement with no apparent leaders, mission statement, or aims beyond calling out 'social justice warriors'."

That, I think, covers most of what people are requesting; the reason people are complaining is because it doesn't get very much focus in the article -- some people seem to want the entire article (or large sections of it) structured around the idea of Gamergate-as-a-movement, with a prominent place in the lead and a lot more detail than "some people have said it morphed into a disorganized, decentralized movement focused around calling out so-called social justice warriors." But that's a separate question from whether we should mention it at all; and I think that it's pretty clear just by looking over the sources that there isn't much support for structuring the entire article around that perspective -- it'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one of numerous ways it's been covered, especially since the sources that have gone furthest into depth on the topic tend closer to the "hard to define" formation we're using currently. We could have an RFC about that, perhaps, but I'd want to be specific that the question is about the amount of weight it should get and whether we should structure the article (or significant portions of it) around that aspect, not whether we should include things like Bob Stuart's quote in the article at all (because we already do!) --Aquillion (talk)

I don't think the general gist of that op-ed overs anything that isn't already in our article; the core conclusion is that "the incredibly violent way in which some Gamergaters have expressed their frustration with video game reporting has poisoned the well for those who honestly believe they're pointing out a problem. And opponents of Gamergate are equally justified in condemning the frothing rage to which they've been subjected", which we already cover, more or less, cited to a better source. Beyond that I don't see much in there that would be useful for rewriting the article; bigger questions about the nature of the controversy and the sides involved are better cited to sources discussing that directly (of which there are many) rather than to an aside in an article about SXSW, which was a tangential aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. But speaking of NPOV, whether Gamergate can be referred to as "a movement" is doubtful, but that is can be referred to as "a conspiracy" is certain. So, when we have that "massive RfC", let's be sure to give equal weight to each proposal.

not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's also an excellent case to be made for "terrorism campaign" -- a case which, if recent events at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies are an indication -- will soon be yet more salient. The relationship between Trumpism and Gamergate’s sense of grievance does merit a closer look, as we'll doubtless see from the coverage of sessions to which this Washington Post op-ed writer is looking forward, We'll see what unfolds.

MarkBernstein (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it's not an op-ed. Straight up background reporting for a current event. --DHeyward (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly an opinion peice of the "hey, everyone should get along and ignore the harassment campaign because these guys might have something to say, though what I will not specify", with very little in the way of background material and certainly nothing we don't have here. Artw (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I read. That seems to your POV and not supported by WaPo. There's no opinion or editorial in the piece. It's background for SXSW and the discussions that will take place. The journalist is paid reporter staff for WaPo and it's in the news section with no disclaimer. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Artw (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

?? WTF? --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As for a "Gamergate movement" page, I don't believe there's a way of creating such an article without it basically being a POV fork and so we should not do so. Artw (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is already a POV fork highlighted by your mistaken belief that the news piece in WaPo is an op-ed. In fact, the WaPo piece should be one of the most heavily weighted reliable sources due to it's straight news coverage and the benefit it has being removed from initial observations. It's beyond the fog. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. The article as it stands is not a POV fork. Possibly you need to read up on what a POV fork actually is? Artw (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

From today in The Guardian [1]: "Gamergate is a loose collection of people who believe that 'social justice warriors' are trying to politicize video games by trying to make them more diverse. The movement grew into an amorphous and persistent mob with a coordinated campaign of harassment that targeted prominent women and minorities in the technology world." That's more recent, so EVEN MORE beyond the fog, I guess! Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Routinely it has been referred to as a "movement" (about 6 months ago I went through 50% of the sources and almost all used it in some fashion). It's well established that this article would not be called "Gamergate controversy" if there wasn't an ant holding precedence. While this article is called the "controversy" there is no room for the "movement". This leaves the article accurate/NPOV for discussion of the "controversy" but of no use for actually discussing Gamergate itself. Resistance to renaming the article, which would immediately force a rethink of the content, has long been resisted by the "not a movement argument" coming from editors, rather than actual usage in sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde, I actually have some sympathy for this sentiment, though I would quibble on whether it's the primacy of the ant classification that's responsible for this being a "controversy" page. The harassment is certainly what got press coverage, and therefore made this whole mess notable per Wikipedia. But that aside, it's tough for me to imagine a "Gamergate movement (or group, or hashtag, or what have you)" page that is not merely a POV fork of this one. I confess I also don't think there's that much you could really say with any assurance. But why not try drafting an independent article? As I say, I can't envision it, but I am not omniscient (nor all that smart). Even if it just ends up as fodder for this page, it's still a positive step. Just a thought, of course. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

With textbook coverage of this issue becoming more common, in regards to GamerGate being a "movement" we have "Law of Journalism and Mass Communication" (CQ Press, Nov 2015) by Robert Trager PhD (Associate Professor of Political Science, UCLA) Susan Dente Ross PhD (Associate Dean of Research at Washington State Univ) and Amy Reynolds PhD (Associate Professor of Sociology, Wheaton Univ) where on page 529 it says, "In response to what some called biased journalistic coverage of video games, the GamerGate movement emerged in 2014, named after its Twitter hashtag (#GamerGate). GamerGate became an online movement accused of cyberbullying and misogynistic threats to those who sought real social change in the video game industry." (emphasis mine) Marteau (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Marteau, so, do you think a "Gamergate movement" page could be created separate from this one would which not simply be a POV fork? Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Although this article needs a lot of work and has some fatal flaws, there is no reason coverage of the movement, the hashtag, and the events and people surrounding them cannot and should not be covered in one article. Marteau (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason for this section is because WaPo did it in one news article. It's a pretty good summary and they covered more than our entire 18 month-old article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, then why not draft something so we can talk about concrete changes? It's worth a shot, no? Dumuzid (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have emerged from my WikiBreak and resumed work on the draft I started in December. The latest section, on Gamergate as an entity[2], is apropos. Rhoark (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Rhoark, I think it's a commendable effort. My initial question would be simply: is GamePolitics.com a reliable source? I don't know much about it, but it seems to mostly be described as a "blog" and I don't see much editorial control (though my investigation has not been exhaustive). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I know mainly what is at GamePolitics.com, but the key factors seem to be that it meets the non-negotiable RS requirements (i.e., not UGC) and is reputable within the specific arena of video game controversies. There's also the proof-in-the-pudding that they have actually researched the topic to a degree that is rare in GGC RS's. Rhoark (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking over WP:RS, I would suggest GamePolitics.com is easily reliable for attributed opinion (per WP:NEWSORG, WP:RSOPINION). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am obviously less bothered about clear statements of opinion (though I am not totally sold that GamePolitics meets that threshold either), but the draft as presented relies on the site for some statements of fact and for survey responses, which is an interesting issue itself. Honestly, with all due respect to Rhoark, I think the section would be stronger without paragraphs 3 and 5 and with a reworked paragraph 4. I don't mean this pejoratively towards Rhoark's writing or the information presented, for the record! Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is to give the best available information on what Gamergate the Thing is as opposed to Gamergate the Controversy. Basically, its a bunch of people yammering on social media, but describing how many people, who are the prominent ones, and what they are like gives the reader something more concrete to hang their hat on. I used GamePolitics because its where the most complete and current information is. Deadspin and CJR clearly believed the number of Redditors was a useful figure, so its not a stretch to trust Brad Glasgow that it's still a relevant number a year later and to read off what that number is. Likewise we can get the general summary that "GGers say ethics, anti says harassment" from any number of places like CNN or BBC if we need to fortify the due weight of what comes from the horse's mouth (from KiA or Valenti/Herzog respectively). Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the purpose, but I think the numbers are a bit too primary source-ish; what they mean is really not represented in your section (probably because it's largely unknown) and I think it's better without them. As to prominent members, I again think that's misleading in a "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" way. After saying "it is a movement without leaders," it says "here are some prominent folks (read: leaders)." But even moreso, no disrespect to those listed, but they're not terribly prominent on their own. If say, Queen Elizabeth II were an acknowledged gamergater, that would be news. It feels, in short, a bit like your article (or at least the section at issue) as drafted is trying to impose order on something more nebulous--"Gamergate is a formless movement, but, here's the form." Still, thanks for getting this ball rolling. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Revised a bit. Fewer numbers, better organized, fortified with vitamin RS. Rhoark (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Another new article, from NYtimes [3], emphasis mine:

"Much of it has centered on the games industry and is associated with a grass-roots movement called “#GamerGate,” a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists.
But, paradoxically, people associated with the movement have systematically targeted and attacked women online, including women like Ms. Wu and Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist cultural critic who focuses often on video games and game culture."

This clearly establishes there is GG the movement, and there are some but not all people using the GG movement for harassment, and that harassment has been bad and a point of discussion for a long time. But it clearly differentiates this from GG as a whole being a harassment campaign, only that some in its ranks have used it as such. This remains consistent with the WAPost point above and the article collection Rhoark previously reviewed. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Quoting the paragraph before significantly shifts that though:

The experiences of Ms. Wu, who works for the gaming studio Giant Spacekat, are not an anomaly. Other women in the gaming community have faced similar online harassment, which, they say, goes far beyond name calling and has moved into the realm of violent threats and rampant misogyny.

Much of it has centered on the games industry and is associated with a grass-roots movement called “#GamerGate,” a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists.

So I don't think your point really stands. Artw (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The logic flow is: 1) Woman in the gaming community have been facing harassment. 2) Much of that harassment is around the games industry. 3) Much of that harassment in the games industry is associated to the GG movement. 4) The GG movement is a group fighting against unfair portrayals. 5) Some members of that group engage in harassment. This logic asserts that some of the harassment Wu and others face are from people that are associated with GG (which is a point we can factually state), but it does not at all say that GG is a harassment campaign, and in fact asserts differently, that it is a protest movement against a perceived problem in the industry. Just because members of a group are doing something bad does not immediately make the entire group factually guilty. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly defines Gamergate as "a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists." Where's the part where Gamergate is described as a harassment campaign? Because I'm not seeing it. Your supposed rebuttal sounds suspiciously like a fallacy of composition to me. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

SXSW Harrassment Summit

Since we're can deal with coverage from an actual event now, rather than just the dramatic lead up, we should probably look at what we need to take from it:

• SXSW 2016: Little impact from isolated online abuse summit
• SXSW sets online summit apart from main fest, sending wrong message
• SXSW's online harassment summit was a peaceful look at an ugly problem
• SXSW Online Harassment Summit: How Widespread Is Internet Hate and What Can We Do About It?
• Security Tight at SXSW Harassment Seminars
• SXSW: Online Harassment Summit Highlights Gender Bias in Media

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 March 2016‎ (UTC)

And one more from the Washington Post: SXSW: The most (and least) remarkable thing about the online harassment summit Artw (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also some coverage of the Savepoint panel SXSW panel rallies pro-Gamergate community Artw (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

TotalBiscuit BBC3 interview

[4] [5] Interesting reference? PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting? Perhaps. Includable here? No. His only credentials are his popularity as a podcaster and whatever notability he has does not even come close to clearing the bar for having any of his opinions included in this article. Marteau (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure this discussion page is full of opinion pushers and I'm not going to indulge in in depth discussions about a subject which i don't care about. It's an interview by a reputable source which litterally states that the subject, TotalBiscuit, was "at the very centre of #GamerGate". As far as I know the WP guidelines, that qualifies it as a relevant article that should be included unless there are better sources that refute his relevance to the subject. PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What text would you like added, and where exactly? With the citation please. Marteau (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said: I don't care about the subject and I don't feel like arguing about it. You seem to know more about it than me, so you're better suited than me to decide how to incorporate the reference. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I know what this is. @Marteau: Perhaps he wants to mention something about "In an interview with BBC Three, Bain claimed he has recieved death threats from and has been harassed by trolls who opposed his view on Gamergate. He has since left social media."source. PizzaMan, is this what you want? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Gamergate be referred to as a movement, and to what extent?

Ok. It's time to get this question settled once and for all, instead of arguing over it with no agreement as we have for the past few months. Greetings, soon to be very miserable uninvolved RfC commenters! This article is about a controversy that broke out over the twitter hashtag #Gamergate. A group of loosely associated people emerged on this hashtag and began coordinating all sorts of stuff. Most notably some pretty extreme online harassment was coordinated, but also email campaigns ostensibly about journalism ethics, campaigns against feminism, donations to video game fundraisers and the like. The question you need to answer is this: should we refer to these people as part of a 'Gamergate movement?' Do the secondary sources support such a description? If not what would be more accurate to refer to this grouping as? Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No more than it already is in our article. As I mentioned above, we do have a few references to it (since the term is occasionally used), but I feel it is clearly not the main way the topic is discussed in most of the highest-profile coverage, so it would be WP:UNDUE to use it to structure significant parts of the article or to inform the article's entire tone by eg. using at every opportunity or anything of that nature. Our current "activities" section (which goes into depth using sources that have analyzed exactly what it is) strikes me as mostly ideal; there is a quote from someone who uses the term, but it is balanced with broader coverage of the difficulty journalists have had defining the scope of the debate and the people involved. --Aquillion (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment if you ctrl+f you will find we call it a movement several times. Per Aquillon I would be against any general shift in tone, since the harassment campaign is the most notable aspect of the controversy, and against a separate Gamergate Movement article since it would constitute a POV fork. Artw (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, use the word movement when talking about the movement. The term "movement" is used overwhelmingly in the reliable sources. Columbia Journalism Review,[6][7] New York Times[8] CNN,[9] The Guardian,[10] BBC,[11] TIME,[12] Washington Post.[13] For our Francophones, Le Monde says mouvement[14] These are just top-tier sources, not even stepping down to the likes of Salon or Polygon. It is hard to accept that anyone against the term "movement" could be arguing in good faith. As for how the sources talk about the movement they discuss what it is, who's in it, and what they stand for. They present harassment as a cornerstone of the controversy, but present the connections between the movement and the harassment as complicated or disputed. They do not discuss the movement only in the context of harassment. Let this put the question to rest. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted also that the reliable sources note there are people who say it should not be called a movement, and that there is nothing but harassment. These are attributed opinions embedded in RS's that call it a movement and discuss things besides harassment. These views should all be discussed per NPOV with proper weight. Rhoark (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No. A “movement” has leaders, identifiable proponents, and a goal or manifesto. Gamergate has none of these. The term “movement” is used occasionally in the press, and we can use it where sources use it even if it is not strictly accurate. What is unquestioned, and widely attested, is that Gamergate is a conspiracy

-- a secret and anonymous collaboration to to things that are illegal or harmful. The notable actions of Gamergate are without doubt harmful and intended to do harm, and no one doubts that Gamergate’s membership is secret and and its leaders secretive. “Conspiracy” is the word we’re looking for. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)