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.

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,[1][2] New York Times[3] CNN,[4] The Guardian,[5] BBC,[6] TIME,[7] Washington Post.[8] For our Francophones, Le Monde says mouvement[9] 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)

Rhoark, nobody is arguing that we should remove the term 'movement' from the article entirely; but the handful of sources you've presented do not support your assertion that it is "used overwhelmingly", and they definitely do not support your description of "connections between the movement and the harassment" as if these are clearly-defined separate things. Most devote a sentence to the concept at best, often with scare-quotes. The core issue is that the bulk of coverage in all those sources is not on the concept of Gamergate-as-a-moment; most of them use the term in passing, mentioning it as part of the numerous ways people have referred to the controversy, which is exactly how our article uses it currently. Therefore, I feel that those sources support my opinion, above, that the article as it is now reflects the way reliable sources use the term. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If no one is arguing against using the word "movement", why do we have an RFC on exactly that question? If the question is about the organization of the article, it should come out and ask "Is the article reflecting the reliable sources with neutral point of view and due weight?" The answer to that is "not by a long shot". A short list of only the best sources is dismissed as a "handful". When an exhaustive list was given last year, the response was just ankle-biting at the reliability of the lower-tier sources. A persistent refusal to actually engage with source text has derailed article improvement for over a year now. The article only reflects the reliable sources that certain editors imagine or would like to exist. Rhoark (talk) 18:46, 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 do 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)

  That's original research on your part. We follow the sources, which very often use the term movement. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to leaders, identifiable proponents, and a goal or manifesto, this would seem to be an argument based on moving the goalposts, an informal logical fallacy.[10][11][12][13][14][15]. In fact, many of the definitions highlight the diffuse & heterogenous nature of movements. Were this not sufficient, the conjecture that Gamergate has none of these is also highly dubious - it is trivial to name multiple persons who have been identifiable proponents of Gamergate, and, by reference to Gamergate websites et al, their stated goals and manifestos. Given the dearth of reliable sourcing, "Conspiracy" theories are perhaps best left to conspiracy theorists. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. The phrase is literally textbook usage. That we are really having an RfC to allow the usage of a phrase which is commonly used by many reliable sources is astounding... Rhoark's many examples alone (above) should make this an automatic accept. Marteau (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Highly preferably yes as most of the recent reliable sources acknowledge it is a movement albeit with questionable goals and ends, and acknowledging that it is a far different structure of a movement as other previous ones (such as Occupy Wall Street). I also would see it possible to make the claim that they consider themselves a movement (even though "movement" has been used by the press by the pen of the authors) and then subsequent using "movement" to simplify the language of the article and stay neutral to the controversy. Avoiding calling them a movement factually or as a claim is ignoring how this is stated by numerous sources even those that proceed to critically analyze their actions. As a side note I would not however consider changing this article to "GG movement" nor creating a "GG movement" page; the topic is still the controversy, with the movement far too intertwined to consider a separate article on it. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - Article after article refers to it as such, with plenty of caveats. We can do the same here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Both? - I'm not sure being exclusionary either way is the terms to go with. Like, the original "events" are the controversy while the resulting hashtivism is the "movement". On the subject of article naming, drop the word "Controversy" if we have to do something about it. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - Coverage of it (especially more contemporary pieces) focuses on the 'controversy' and harassment side of it, which is where our coverage should focus as well. If we were to define it as a movement, we'd have a great deal of trouble identifying notable features of a movement in Gamergate, such as goals, a leader, or any sort of structure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to goals, a leader, or any sort of structure, this would seem to be an argument based on moving the goalposts, an informal logical fallacy.[16][17][18][19][20][21]. In fact, many of the definitions highlight the diffuse & heterogenous nature of movements. Were this not sufficient, the conjecture that we'd have a great deal of trouble identifying these features is also highly dubious - it is trivial to name multiple persons who have been identifiable proponents of Gamergate, and, by reference to Gamergate websites et al, their stated goals. The question of where the article should focus is perhaps outside the scope of this RfC, but more interesting - I would respectfully suggest that it is possible to document both the harassment and the conglomeration of persons, though diffusely and with loose organisation, collectively acting in pursuit of a shared goal or interest and in doing so to maintain compliance with our policies and guidelines. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's important to note that your response here completely sidesteps the main point of my vote: Sticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Abundant independent, reliable sources use the term - as evidenced in the links above, and in those previously provided by Rhoark. To assert that Coverage of it (especially more contemporary pieces) focuses on the 'controversy' and harassment side of it, which is where our coverage should focus as well is a valid argument against the use of the term is to misunderstand both WP:NNC and WP:UNDUE. It is also original research to suggest that because we'd have a great deal of trouble identifying notable features of a movement in Gamergate, such as goals, a leader, or any sort of structure, we should not use the term. Even if the quoted text were verifiable it would be irrelevant; it is, however, in addition, demonstrably false. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72- the links you provided above are to dictionary entries. They don't even mention Gamergate... PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

So above Columbia Journalism Review,[22][23] New York Times[24] CNN,[25] The Guardian,[26] BBC,[27] TIME,[28] Washington Post.[29] For our Francophones, Le Monde says mouvement[30]; it is below [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. Abundance of "movement" is not mitigated by location. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I see you've stepped up your game from dictionary entries to Clickhole of all places. You do know that site is satirical, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, unless this is an April Fool's joke, in which case- you got me. I truly believed you meant what you were saying. I have been fooled. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Rhoark's words were prescient - When an exhaustive list was given ... the response was just ankle-biting at the reliability of the lower-tier sources. Yes, Clickhole is a satirical site, and they are clearly lampooning aspects of the Gamergate movement in that piece, but the term "movement" is used unironically; as it is in all of the other sources linked. That some of those sources are satirical websites, that some are generally supportive of the movement, and some clearly opposed does not negate or refute that those sources are comfortable in using the term "Gamergate movement".
Other than: "notability should determine content", despite WP:NNC; goalpost shifting definitional arguments, which are clearly ill-founded; and a general "follow the sources", despite no policy basis and despite examination of the sources showing wide use of the term; what exactly is the objection? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A request: Instead of copy pasting arguments from other users in the hopes that you can WP:FILIBUSTER me to resignation, actually look at what you're linking and pick out what demonstrates your case. Give reasons, not assertions. I can't argue against somebody dumping a bunch of dumb links to Clickhole on me. Pick the ones you think are best, explain why they demonstrate your case... try to convince me? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The position I am outlining is that objections raised in the initial !vote and subsequent comments are not supported by either policy or sources. The first sentence of that !vote appears to suggest that "movement" should not be used because content should be determined by notability, which is contrary to policy (WP:NNC). This is refuted by reference to that policy. The second sentence of that !vote appears to suggest that "movement" should not be used because of issues (about goals, leaders, etc) which do not align with any known definition of the term. This is refuted both by reference to definitions of "movement"; and also by asserting that the issues raised are not valid - leaders, goals, etc are all easily identifiable. If either of these are inaccurate descriptions of those objections, it would be helpful for them to be clarified.
A third objection is raised which suggests Sticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in WP:OR; which may or may not be the same as the first "notability" objection. This is refuted by showing that multiple, independent sources, of various types, with varying views on the Gamergate controversy, all comfortably use the term "Gamergate movement" - that is, that the "reliable sources" do use the term, and they do so in abundance. The number and variety of those sources serves to demonstrate that abundance. If there is a suggestion that inclusion of the term "movement" would constitute WP:OR, it would be helpful if this could be explained.
I do not hope to convince; merely to highlight to closing editors that the objections raised in this !vote appear poorly founded. If there are any further objections to the use of the term "movement" which editors should take into account, other than the three described, and rebutted, above, it would be helpful if those further objections were clearly articulated.
I also note continued focus on contributor in the comments above; including an accusation of WP:FILIBUSTERing, and a clear misrepresentation ("a bunch of dumb links to Clickhole"; there is one such link, and it is included to demonstrate the variety of sources). I invite the editor to strike these. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Essentially: If one or more of your links are patently ridiculous (again: Clickhole! Pay more attention), it calls into question the reliability of the rest of your sources, no matter the breadth of them. Give me a list of good, reliable sources and I'll happily read through them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So you're essentially saying that you consider unreliable The New York Times, BBC, CNN, Time magazine, The Washington Post, The Guardian, plus Polygon, Gawker, Re/code... because the language they use is so widespread that other less reliable sources also use it? The argument that one reference taints the rest is ludicrous, the reliability of each source is to be evaluated on its own merits.

BTW, didn't we have administrative sanctions in place that severely admonished anyone commenting on other editor's behaviors instead of their arguments? What has become of them? Diego (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty inaccurate summary- I'm saying it lowers my motivation to read through sources to determine to what extent we can use them if the sources include 'Clickhole' and such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

On reflection & review of the latter comments above, I fear there is a disconnect both in the meaning of "reliable sources"; in the intent of list of sources provided; and in the intent of this RfC section.
Firstly, the Wikipedia term of art, "reliable sources" appears, to my reading of the above, to be assumed to mean roughly "publishers whose works we would almost always regard as reliable for verifying facts" or similar; the term as I intend it means, roughly, "a work which reliably verifies a particular piece of information", and is therefore in the context of that "piece of information" - I suggest that this is the meaning aligned with WP:RS, explicitly so at WP:RSCONTEXT, and the meaning generally understood in discussions at WP:RSN. NOTE: The objection to "Clickhole" is certainly more easily understood if the first meaning of "reliable sources" is intended.
Secondly, the list of sources provided serves only as a rebuttal of an implied suggestion that "reliable sources" do not use the term. If "Clickhole" causes conniptions, then it should be easy to simply ignore it (and any others that cause concern); the sources provided include many which easily fall within the first ("publishers whose works ...") meaning of the term "reliable souces" - including: Columbia Journalism Review[49][50], New York Times[51], CNN[52] The Guardian,[53][54], BBC[55] TIME,[56], Washington Post[57], Le Monde mouvement[58], PRI[59], Business Insider[60], Cinemablend[61], International Business Times[62], The Verge[63], The Establishment[64], Digiday[65], Forbes[66], The Observer[67], Metro[68], Re/code[69], Bustle[70], Polygon[71], Deadspin[72]; Clickhole, Breitbart & Gawker removed from original list.
Additionally, the context for the list of sources is the RfC "Should Gamergate be referred to as a movement, and to what extent?"; more a consideration of WP:WEIGHT - other than rebutting a suggestion that the term "movement" is not used to describe persons aligned under the #Gamergate hashtag, there is no suggestion that these sources should be used or need to be evaluated for any other purpose (although some of them are already used for inclusion of information in the article). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes It's a movement with a subset of anonymous harassers. There is nothing that ties the harassers to the movement except the unprovable association assumed by victims (even though harassment/swatting/doxxing has long preceded gamergate). Anti-gamergate activists have sought to discredit legitimate complaints raised by the movement. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That's original research on your part. We follow the sources, none of which has any idea of whether the harassers are a subset or the entire set, because none of them report any notable activities beyond harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I can name people that argue pro-GamerGate and it has nothing to do with harassment. They are named are covered in mainstream press. Anti-GamerGate critics exist as well, but their argument lacks specificity. They call themselves "anti-gamergate" but they don't categorize the named "pro-gamergate" people they debate as "harassers." It's their argument that lacks specificity. They argue against harassment and I've yet to hear anyone argue for harassment. That makes their position a straw-man argument with invisible boogeymen they associate to their perceived nemesis. Their nemesis points out that is an insane method of correlation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes The vast majority of contemporary articles from high-quality reliable sources refer to Gamergate as a movement. Gamergate fits every definition of a movement. Movement is a neutral term applied to groups with positive and negative aspects and lends the group absolutely no legitimacy. The article name should be changed to Gamergate (social movement), because the article as it stands is more about the movement and the actions of the movement than it is about the initial controversy that spawned the term. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, funnily enough, I don't have strong feelings on using the term "movement," but using "social movement" strikes me as very wrong. I suppose it's because there's no focus on social change, but I have some thinking to do. Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree here: I have not seen anything calling it a "social movement". It is considered part of an ongoing social and culture war, but that doesn't make it a social movement. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just trying to clarify the type of group action at play here. Just calling it a "movement" without some kind of identifier seems far too ambiguous. It's certainly not unheard of to call Gamergate a social movement, as has been done in WaPo (and again), Salon, Gawker, The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, and Business Insider. From what I can tell it's a neutral term, assigned to both positive and negative group actions (mostly negative in the case of Gamergate). The focus of Gamergate seems to be a reaction to progressive (social) concerns. Most sources don't consider it a true consumer movement, and social movement is used as more of a catch-all. It certainly fits the definition: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity". For this change to take effect we'd need to answer the question: "What kind of movement is Gamergate?" A hate group? A hashtag movement? A leaderless movement? An online social movement? I'd like to weigh the sources pointing to each of these options to see which one fits best, and is used most often by the most reliable sources. Movement, on its own, doesn't really mean that much. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I would also second ColorOfSufferings comment regarding an actual contextual review of the sources to properly qualify the movement. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy with this particular terminology (which of course should not and does not trump the reliable sources!). Many of those citations, even while using "social movement," qualify it in a way that makes it seem not quite appropriate without the qualifier. "Ersatz social movement," or "freewheeling catastrophe/social movement/misdirected lynchmob," or even "not your grandmother's social movement." To use the term without qualification just feels misleading and wrong -- but of course that's nothing but my subjective opinion! So it goes. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. As Rhoark has pointed out numerous times, sources calling it a "movement" are ubiquitous. Let's put this issue to rest indeed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

  The analysis put forward by Ryk72 above really should be dispositive of this question. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - It makes sense to call GamerGate a movement. GamerPro64 06:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - But let us be clear that this RFC is not asking the question "should this article be renamed as Gamergate movement" which is a whole new kettle of fish. However the "movement" inasmuch as it can be defined through reliable sources should clearly be discussed and have due weight (even if that due weight is "it's 100% a campaign of harassment and intimidation" or whatever - that's up to the editors and RS's). Arguments regarding NPOV fork and the fact that the harassment is the only notable feature are clearly mistaking the fact that within the context of an article solely about the harassment that is likely to be the case. The existence of an article solely about the harassment does not preclude the existence of an article discussing the movement if RS's support it. Other things existing isn't a strong argument. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per the reasonings given by GamerPro64, Rhoark and Starke Hathaway. "Movement" has been used in reliable sources and we should use that word in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• We already do refer to GamerGate as a movement, both quoted and in Wikipedia's voice. Should we always use the term, especially when many reliable sources expressly reject it and use other names or phrases? Of course not. And likewise, should we remove the term, when reliable sources use it without a problem? Again, not at all. Like anything having to do with GamerGate, it's complicated. NPOV has to guide us here, not an RFC. Woodroar (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources expressly reject the term, i.e. explicitly say that the Gamergate should not be called a movement? If those are prominent, we should say that the term is controversial, and attribute that rejection to those sources. Diego (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Its more nuanced than just a weight/undue issue. There's a combination of many claims of what the group of people in GG should be called beyond just "movement", including "harassment campaign", some which are being stated as fact in WP's voice in the present article. Because many of these are claims or other aspects that meet cautions outlined at WP:LABEL, we need to figure out the best factual term to refer to the group in writing the structure around the facts that are being stated in WP's voice that meets NPOV. This might mean going against what might be the perceived weight in sources for what is being said in WP's voice. "Movement" appears to be the best term that is a neutral word nor a LABEL, and can be factually sourced and well-repeated in the RSes, even when it is pointed out by the same sources that what GG behaves is very atypical of other movements, they still use that word to simplify their discussion. It is clearly okay when discussing the claims of what GG is, such as labels like "Harassment campaign", to still use those terms there when stated in the sources' voices or similarly claimed. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Masem has made this argument on this page many, many times before. It has attracted little support outside the bevy of Gamergate fans that daily coordinate their plans to take control of Wikipedia. That it has no support is unsurprising, as the principle it advances is deeply incompatible with the project. Adopting this view would allow tendentious editors to "reskew" reliable sources to compensate for what they believe (in this case wrongly) to be bias or to take advantage of information they believe (in this case, again wrongly) they possess but which has been withheld from or ignored by the biased main-stream media. Incessant repetition of the same argument is disruptive. This page’s infamous history AN, AN/I, AE, ArbCom, and in widespread coverage of Wikipedia's humiliating appeasements of Gamergate, can largely be traced to the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of words this editor has dedicated to this precise point. We have already spent thousands of hours of volunteer time to no useful effect, lost many dedicated and useful editors, and exposed the project to ridicule and derision. Let’s stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Mark, every single word you just levied at Masem can be applied to yourself. You are equally motivated, and have produced equal sums of content any time someone has expressed an opinion you do not agree with. This is not about you or Masem, this is about a carbuncle of an article. If addressing Masems concerns opens the door to "reskew" then perhaps the article edifice is more of a facade. Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A cursory review of the hundreds of thousands of words of the archives will disprove the silly assertion that I have produced "equal sums of [talk page] content". MarkBernstein (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, I was referring to the point - counterpoint balance. I have seen Masem hold several threads of conversation which will cause his total volume to be exponentially higher, but I am reasonably confident that your own responses to Masem are relatively equal. However, and I may be wrong, I don't think I have ever seen someone be so specifically vindictive as to lay all blame at one users feet as you did here. How long are you going to keep the axe to that grindstone? Koncorde (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm confused by your response here, Masem. Of course it's more nuanced than WEIGHT/UNDUE, which is why I wrote "it's complicated" and "NPOV" (and not "WEIGHT/UNDUE"). This is about accurately summarizing and attributing what our sources say. I agree that "movement" is a generic label and I've said so in the past. But some sources explicitly reject the term, and referencing "movement" to such sources is misleading. Remember when ArbCom stressed that "[f]ailure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia"? That's why we need to follow NPOV. An RFC doesn't let us misrepresent sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Woodroar, W.r.t. But some sources explicitly reject the term, and referencing "movement" to such sources is misleading and many reliable sources expressly reject it and use other names or phrases, would it be possible to provide details of those sources? It would be helpful to editors to be able to weigh the quantity and quality of those sources against those which do use the term. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, quantity has nothing to do with it. This isn't purely an issue of WEIGHT. Look at The New York Review of Books and The Christian Science Monitor, for example. Both sources are currently being used in the article. TNYRoB avoids using the term "movement" for GamerGate, even though it uses that term for other movements. TCSM goes one step further, not only avoiding "moveement" but instead using words like "online horde". The issue here is that an RFC doesn't give anyone carte blanche to find-and-replace "Gamergate" with "Gamergate movement", because we still have to consider what the referenced sources say. Woodroar (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarifications: TNYRoB did not 'avoid' using the term 'movement'. A "contributor" to TNYRoB avoided it. Here's a page of the contributors to TNYRoB... just the M's look to number close to a hundred. In addition, "The Christian Science Monitor" did not 'avoid' using the term movement. Fruzsina Eördögh, a "Correspondent" there did in a piece she wrote. She's not even on the masthead where they list their reporters. Please do try to be more precise in your attributions and don't make it look like a style guide issue for a publications when it's the preferences of individual contributors. Marteau (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Avoiding the use of the term is not the same as "expressly rejecting" it. If a few reliable sources prefer to use a different term, but a significantly higher number use it, that's not enough to support the idea that the term is controversial nor that using it is a failure of NPOV. IMO this RFC is not about using "Gamergate movement" every time it is used as you suggest, only for defining the term when it is being described as a whole. Diego (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

After (re)considering my comments above, I'm not sure that bringing sources here or debating the extent that they "reject" the term is productive. If a source doesn't use the term "movement", then we shouldn't use "movement" when referencing that source. For the same reason, we wouldn't write "the harassment campaign known as Gamergate did [this]" and reference it to a source that doesn't, in fact, call Gamergate a "harassment campaign". It's really that simple. As far as I'm concerned, "movement" is widely used and WEIGHT suggests that we can use that term generally and even specifically when supported by a reliable source. But neither WEIGHT nor this RFC can direct us to always use the term "movement" or "harassment campaign" or any other label. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's still more nuanced than that. There are actually two different "areas" in our writing where we have to figure out how to address the group of people that support GG. The first area is speaking in the non-WP voice, documenting what others have said about GG, and here is where WEIGHT has to remain king. We can't flip anything on its head to bury the negative and critical take that GG has gotten, so claims that GG is a "harassment campaign", "misogynistic trolls" or whatever other similar language, quoted or paraphrased and attributable to sources, will be more predominate than things like "consumer revolt".

The second part, and where the nuance comes in, is how to refer to the group in WP's voice, made all the more difficult by the fact that "Gamergate" can refer to the controversy, the hashtag, and/or the group of people, depending on what you read. If there was zero ambiguity about what "Gamergate" meant without any other context, this might be less an issue, but instead we have a term with at least three possible definitions in context. We need, to write with clarity for the reader, a term that describes what "the group of people that support GG" should be called, providing the reader with a legend to help understand what aspect of GG we are speaking about. And to that end we need a consistent term in WP's voice, a fully separate issue from the non-WP voice aspect. And that is where comprehension takes more value than WEIGHT; if we use 20 different terms in WP's voice to maintain equal balance with the weight in source, no reader is going to understand this article. So we have to identify the term that is most commonly used and reflects a neutral stance that we can always rely out in WP-voice prose, which "movement" seems to be the best fit based on recent sources and the previous analysis Rhoark has done. It may not be universally used, but it is far and away the most often used term. Note that the sourcing aspect Woodroar raises is not an issue here. If we have a line "'XYZ News' reporter John Smith says the movement is "most clearly a harassment campaign"", even if the source does not use the word movement but clearly speaking to the group of people that support it, we are not introducing any bias, OR, or weight problems - it is using the WP-voice selected word to normalize out how the group has otherwise been referred to, but still keeping their opinion aspect sourced to them. This is, in essence, about figuring out the common name to refer to the group, which does ignore WEIGHT in favor of readability as determined by consensus. (But please note by no means do I support changing this article's title to "Gamergate movement"; just for the same reason "movement" is the common name for the group of people, "controversy" is the common name for the entire mess.). --MASEM (t) 00:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Masem's has made this argument on this page many, many times before. Here's another 3000 characters worth. The quality of Masem's is not strained. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks are personal attacks Mark. Koncorde (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Complaining about how someone says a thing, rather than addressing what that person says says, is a logical fallacy and a common debating tactic with those who have no other defense. Marteau (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, as most sources refer to Gamergate as a movement. Per WP:UCRN: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above. sst✈ 04:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a neutral term commonly used in the sources. The definition of "movement" doesn't imply that there should be leaders and central coordination, in fact our references for Social movement describe the term as a "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity". Usage of this term doesn't preclude also including at appropriate points in the article some other terms like "harassment campaign", which has also been used by reliable sources. Diego (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - generally throughout the article as a short descriptor for the group of persons collectivising under the #Gamergate banner; with inclusion in the lead section. Whether we regard this group of persons as collectivising against progressive cultural imperialism, against diversity/women in video games, for misogyny, or for ethics in video games journalism, movement is a neutral term for such a collectivisation - a term used not only by high quality, independent sources (links as provided by Rhoark, above), but also by proponents and opponents alike, by observers making casual, passing mention or deeper analysis/comment alike.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]. Use of the term in these instances is in the overwhelming majority unqualified by adjectives or "scare quotes".
  Goalpost shifting arguments as to "leaders, goals, manifestos", above, are as uncompelling as they are logically & factually unfounded. Arguments that notability should determine content are similarly unsupported by policy (see WP:NNC). Claims that sources reject the term movement are, as yet, unsubstantiated, and in any case would be a small exception to the general usage of the term.
  It is clear there is a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people ... tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal[91], and that the overwhelming preponderance of sources use the term "movement" to describe them; we should be unafraid to follow such usage. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Analysis - Fellow editors, I have performed an examination of the sources referenced in the article; seeking to evaluate the proportion and nature of the use of the term movement. Of the 252 sources deemed sufficiently reliable to verify information within the article, I was able to examine 244, finding that of those 95 use the term "movement" to describe the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner, and use that term in the source's voice. "Movement" is overwhelmingly the predominate term used to describe this group of persons across all sources; other terms (e.g. campaign) are used in only a handful of sources; it is indeed "daylight second". No source was found which states that the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner is categorically "not a movement".
NOTES: A) Included in the count are sources using qualifiers or adjectives which do not fundamentally alter the movement nature - misogynistic movement, inchoate movement, loosely organized movement are all in, though this is not the majority usage. Excluded from the count are sources using qualifiers which cast doubt on the movement nature - ostensible, self-described are out - or which attribute the use of the term to another party - described as a movement by X is out; there are a handful of these. B) The following sources have not yet been considered: DOI sources (5) (I have copies of only 2 of these); Video based sources (2) (Comedy Central & MSNBC); Der Bund (1) (Spreche ich nur ein bischen Deutsch).
It should be noted that, of the 149 examined sources which do not use the term "movement", a good, but as yet unquantified, proportion do not provide any documentation or coverage of the group of people aligned under the #Gamergate banner; 39 of those sources do not include the text "Gamergate" at all (focusing on SciFi book awards, Sea lion webcomics, etc). I also noticed, but have not quantified, that sources which provide a broad coverage of the controversy are more inclined to use the term "movement"; sources which focus only on smaller aspects are less inclined, largely due to not documenting the group of people .... Full details to follow in a "collapse". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes -- I agree fully with the comment for "Yes" as given by Koncorde, here, above. Specifically, the comment that: "the "movement" inasmuch as it can be defined through reliable sources should clearly be discussed and have due weight (even if that due weight is "it's 100% a campaign of harassment and intimidation" or whatever - that's up to the editors and RS's)." -- this analysis by Koncorde is most appropriate per Wikipedia site policy. I did a search through reliable sources and we have hundreds that refer to this social movement phenomenon as the "Gamergate movement", verbatim. Per numerous reliable sources, it is most certainly a form of social movement. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: per Rhoark. Plenty of reliable sources call it a movement, and one should reflect this. One should also reflect the sources which call it nothing but a harassment campaign. There are plenty in the former category, and it should be emphasized more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• I was summoned by the bot. I would prefer "campaign", as used in this article from The New York Times, this article from The Guardian, this article from The Washington Post, and this article from the BBC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As a note, three of those sources are from the first few months of the GG situation (starting in August 2014; those are from Oct 2014), and reflect the reactionary WP:RECENTISM of the news cycle when they were first covering the situation. The same sources (and in some cases, the same authors) today more commonly use "movement". (The BBC one uses both, incidentally) --MASEM (t) 14:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Eh. There should be no problem referring to it as a movement so long as the sense is clear. But the questions Woodroar raises above are the appropriate ones. Clearly we shouldn't bend over backwards to work the phrase "movement" in there, nor should we allow the decentralized nature of this "movement" be downplayed. And we certainly shouldn't replace other phrasings used in the reliable sources, such as "campaign" or even "harassment campaign" if they more accurately follow the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The whole reason I raised this issue is because the word movement was systematically removed from the article a few months back (including from quotes until someone noticed). I feel Woodroar's "we already use it" argument is merely a half-truth in this scenario. Brustopher (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of how it looked a few months back, the article now uses the term "movement" several times, including in quotations. Woodroar's questions are good ones - we shouldn't feel obligated to either insert the phrasing or remove it, we should follow NPOV and what the sources say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Woodroar has a very valid point relating to UNDUE, but as I note in my comment at 00:18, 22 March 2016 above, you can break the issue between what sources say or claim and how we'd quote those outside of Wikipedia's voice, which must follow UNDUE/WEIGHT issues as per Woodroar, and how we refer to the group in a neutral, Wikipedia-voice, which should be overall consistent for sake of reading comprehension. The long-standing issue has been broadly on the latter aspect, how to refer to the group in a neutral Wikipedia voice when trying to summarize information- basically, finding a neutral term that is different "the group" or "they" to word sentences that refer to the people that support GG. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Voting no in response to Masems comments above. I was going to remain neutral on this, since we use the term and we should probably continue to use the term, but I am fully in opposition to the use of this RFC by underhand or sloppy editors to push through sweeping changes to the article and currently it is worded in such a way that would allow that. So no, "movement" should not be the primary thing we refer to Gamergate as. Artw (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Battleground tactics not based on policy. Rationale such as this infests this article, and is a perfect example of why this article needs special treatment and attention at the highest levels... perhaps selecting ten trusted editors who have never touched the article or any of the ancillary articles, and re-write it from scratch. This is getting ridiculous, though, and something must be done. 23:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Battleground tactics are precisely why I oppose this RFC becoming part of the arsenal of sticks that never get dropped. Artw (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The President Of The United States, on Gamergate

The President himself has now referred to Gamergate’s harassment of women.

Responding to this "epidemic of online harassment", President of the United States Barack Obama said that "We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes." [92]

The discussion proceeds at some length. When an obscure right-wing pundit finds an arguably-reliable publication (or Breitbart) to praise Gamergate, we fall over ourselves to include it. The rest of the time, we listen to Gamergate recruits ring the changes here about how this page "is bias".

Why are the President's observations thought to be of no interest to readers of the encyclopedia, when we are so endlessly fascinated by obscure right-wing columnists? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(Transferred from my own section which was edit conflicted!) Hi all, recently Dr. Bernstein added a quote by president Obama, which Rhoark removed and transferred to the cyberbullying article. I understand why Rhoark thinks the reference irrelevant, but I think it certainly belongs in this article as well. Couched as it is by "last week I was at SXSW...." it seems to me there can be little doubt that gamergate is at least tangentially implicated in his thoughts. As such, I would reinstate it, though I am not sure where best to do so. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a sentence not about Gamergate that was a brief aside in a set of remarks not about Gamergate. SXSW is hardly sufficient connection, since it had a whole day of panels about harassment and not Gamergate. We have several reliable sources saying even Brianna Wu's panel was not about Gamergate, and that the Gamergate panel was not about harassment. Making this connection is pleading special insight into President Obama's thoughts. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the noble Gamergate movement for great ethics has always been against the harassment of female gamers, how silly of me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely the behavior we have come to expect here. If an unknown right-wing pundit says that some anonymous Gamergater claims, off the record, to have opposed the harassment campaign, that’s cause to declare Gamergate a movement (see above) and met with trumpets and cheers. The President deplores, in the context of a "summit" panel about Gamergate, the way gamers have been harassed, threatened, and driven from their homes -- activities clearly documented here -- but we pretend otherwise. Brianna Wu’s panel was not only about Gamergate, but of course Brianna Wu is among the women driven from their homes to whom the President was referring. To echo Dumuzid: this is an example right here of what Gamergate considers to be ethical journalism. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The remarks don't mention Gamergate, but does talk about "gamers" and SXSW. It seems plausible to assume that the remark was about about Gamergate, even if it wasn't mentioned by name (perhaps some sources can be rustled up?). This was just a brief aside in general remarks over treatment women in online world, and no specific action was suggested by Obama. I don't really see what makes it newsworthy, but the page already has a lot of useless material, so I don't think it does much harm. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate. Can you think of another incident or sequence of events that he could be referring to? I'd be interesting to hear about another incident where women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes that had NOTHING to do with Gamergate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Silly Liz! Of 'course' it has nothing to do with Gamergate! All those women doxxed and harassed 'themselves'! There are a couple blog posts that prove it, and if there aren't, we can make some.--Jorm (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the snark at the door and use the talk pages for their intended purpose, Jorm. Marteau (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Pew poll found 4.4% of women sampled had been harassed in an online game. Extrapolating that to the population of US women, that would be 6.9 million individuals. So, yes, there is apparently a lot of harassing women in games that has nothing to do with Gamergate. Here's a specific one.[93] Rhoark (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You've opined on many occasions on how Gamergate is connected to just about everything that crosses your mind, but I don't think you've thought through how such an approach to editing would impact the article. Shall we just get done with it and transclude Brianna Wu, Dylan Roof, and Margaret Sanger? Rhoark (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe Gamergate harassed Margaret Sanger. Of course, the connection to Brianna Wu is obvious, and the connection to Dylan Roof is attested by Dylan Roof, who ought to know. But you know what? My editorial stance here has earned praise from newspapers and journals all over the world, and Rhoark's taunts are sanctionable. AE is thataway--> MarkBernstein (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

While still extraneous, its inclusion is acceptable when its contextually clear that its relation to the topic is completely transitive by way of SXSW. I've made that change, and no one seems to have objected so far. Rhoark (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I ctrl F'd gamergate and got 0 results. Original research is clearly afoot. This obviously should not be in here (per the whole no original research thingamabobam, so I'm removing it. Brustopher (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't described a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research, you have just described a violation of Brustopher's policy on magic words. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

M8, my magic word policy is the definition of original research. People in this talk section through analysis (dare I say research) of a primary source have concluded that it is about Gamergate. The source in question never mentions gamergate, just video game online harassment, a phenomenon endemic since the time online vidya began. We have no secondary sources provided saying that Obama is talking about Gamergate. To quote directly from the WP:OR policy Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. In conclusion: you are wrong, my magic word policy is amazing and I should be made godking of Wikipedia. Brustopher (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Brustopher is right. Not all on-line harassment of women is "Gamergate" and the linking of Obama's words with Gamergate without a reliable source to do it is indeed original research. Marteau (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

So President Obama is a primary source for gamergate? This is fascinating to me. But clearly I am wrong about much. Dumuzid (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

President Obama is a primary source for President Obama's words. Interperation of those words requires a secondary source or else it is original research. Brustopher (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see. By the same token, the New York Times must be a primary source for the New York Times's words. So those have to be filtered through a secondary source. So much revision to do! Dumuzid (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the source being used was the Whitehouse website. We need an independent secondary source connecting his speech with this article's topic. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

God-king Noticeboard is -> thataway Rhoark (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

While I am not in favor of the content, as a principle I think relatedness can be established transitively, that is to say if reliable sources establish Topic A is related to Topic B, then claims about Topic B may appear in Article A. That's assuming the claim improves understanding of Topic A; otherwise its a WP:COATRACK. Rhoark (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we really trying to say Obama was talking about GamerGate in his speech? At least Justin Trudeau actually said it in an interview. But this is the basic definition of grasping at straws, people. Not everything is about GamerGate. GamerPro64 04:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Per my edit summary: We include opinions where notable. I think the President of the United States is a bit notable (maybe? I might be overreaching? xXGameDude420Xx may have a more notable opinion on his youtube channel?) PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here, of course, is not the notability of everything Obama says (because Obama says it, naturally) but the linkage of his words with Gamergate. There was plenty of harassment of women on-line prior to 2015, and linking harassment to Gamergate, without a reliable source doing the linking, is clearly original research. Marteau (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

But even if Obama was thinking of some other instance in which female gamers were driven from their homes, I believe the quote still belongs in the article. The reason is simple: Obama is decrying an effect which we have lots of secondary sources linking to gamergate. He need not be referring to any specific instance in order to make it relevant to this article. I'd be fine with a qualifier like "Without mentioning Gamergate, president Obama decried harassment...." or such. I don't want to delve in to the debate over how endemic harassment is to gamergate, but the secondary sources tell us gamergate is strongly associated with harassment. President Obama went out of his way to mention (if not gamergate) the specific form of harassment with which gamergate is associated. Even if the president has never heard the term, that strikes me as a relevant bit of information to include here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/troll-busters-online-harassment/ MarkBernstein (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd. Countless reverts of this addition because 'Obama's not talking about Gamergate, he's just talking about some other contemporary campaign of harassment against women that is totally unrelated to our ethical harassment campaign', and now that MarkBernstein has found an RS that explicitly links it to Gamergate... Starke Hathaway reverts it anyway, just because. Great. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is reliable and the article MarkBernstein links does seem to provide linkage between Gamergate and the President's words. I've restored his version. Marteau (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I did revert "just because" the Daily Dot article does not state that the President's remarks pertained to Gamergate. The linked sources discusses both the president's remarks and Gamergate in the larger context of online harassment. If there is an "explicit link" in that article, as you say, perhaps you could do us the kindness of quoting it here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I concur with Starke Hathaway on this point - while the Daily Dot source[94] mentions both Gamergate and Obama's comments on online harassment - no link is made between the two in that article. If editors opinions differ, I support and also make the request for an explicit link to be quoted here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Torchiest, I would politely ask that you self-revert to restore the reference to the SXSW discussion. While you may be right that the secondary source doesn't make a direct connection, the President himself does. He says "Last Friday, I was at South by Southwest, where the epidemic of online harassment was a topic of discussion." We certainly don't need a secondary source for the context of an opinion when the opinion itself provides it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. done. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I agree strongly here with Liz, above, who wisely commented: "He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate. Can you think of another incident or sequence of events that he could be referring to? I'd be interesting to hear about another incident where women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes that had NOTHING to do with Gamergate.". This statement by Liz is a most apt analysis, unfortunately, of historical behavior patterns relating to the Gamergate social movement, online. — Cirt (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, prior to Aug 2014, there were several documented cases of harassment in the video game industry, including women; Zoe Quinn had been harassed prior to this on the original release of Depression Quest, which only intensified with the start of GG, and there's a name of a female video game journalist who's name I can't immediately recall but who was chased out of that field because of harassing statements to her opinions prior to GG. These problems have been known in the industry has been known for several years. It simply wasn't documented to the degree GG has been and put into the spotlight, forcing the industry to deal with it. I would agree that it is highly likely that the President's words are in relation to GG, but it is not 100% obvious that it is if the term never came up. Take in contrast to Rep. Clark's proposed legislation which while it doesn't mention GG, she's been extremely clear that her proposed measures are needed to fight harassment from GG, so it's reasonable to tie these legislative actions acts to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Carolyn Petit maybe? There was quite a bit of noise about her review of GTAV. — Strongjam (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That might have been it (I also recall Jenn Frank, but her departure was due to her comments at the start of GG). The point is that harassment and misogyny were not isolated events and never existed before GG, but something the industry knew about but hadn't really taken proactive steps to deal with. Also another point: nothing about the harassment attributed to GG is directed at a broad range of gamers, but only to people in the game journalism and development side (who are game players obviously, but are not whom one would normally called "gamers" in this context here). Female gamers get harassed and threatened in general: there are plenty of articles on the "boys' club" that the video game community negatively propagates including the use of harassment, and there are clear ties of the misogyny between those attitudes and the perceived attitudes of GG supporters, but I have not seen any reliable source demonstrate that that the average non-notable gamer that has been directly harassed through Gamergate. So it's still doing a bit of coatrack to attach the President's statement to this. One can say that the SXSW panels on harassment were organized in part due to GG (that can be easily sourced), and the President spoke to the challenge of combat online harassment in the gaming community (which clearly includes the GG controversy), but to say he was speaking directly about GG is a coatrack. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

But Masem, because the President was specifically referencing the SXSW panels, can't we say his words reference gamergate to the extent the panels themselves do? Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We know the panels at SXSW were scheduled in part to address the situation from GG but were not only reason these panels were planned. The President clearly spoke to online harassment in the gaming community but that doesn't logically connect his words to GG. I think it would be fair to say something like "The 2016 SXSW event included a summit featuring panels related to the problems with online harassment, including panels related to the GamerGate controversy. President Obama, speaking to the summit and responding to this "epidemic of online harassment", said "We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes."" I feel that's a tiniest bit of a coatrack but acceptable, and far from directly saying the President's speaking about GG. This is appropriate in the context that GG has heightened awareness of online harassment in the gaming community. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right: "Female gamers get harassed and threatened in general." And if they complain, we will organize to use Wikipedia, among other channels, to publicize their sex lives. So sad, too bad. When the President of the United States deplores this harassment, our resident Gamergaters invent a wall of text because the President didn't actually use the hashtag, although the meaning of his remarks is unmistakable. (This is the same logic, by the way, that argued that sending rape cartoons to female software developers could not be described as Gamergate harassment because no static image can unambiguously depict rape. Funny coincidence, isn't it?) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc! for dragging that hoary old chestnut out of the annals of vague misrepresentation to which it should have been permanently assigned (See [95][96][97]; ctrl+f "piccolo").
To be clear, the argument is that the colours green and purple, either singularly or in combination, do not in and of themselves, as an inate property, covey, act or serve as a rape threat or harassment. That a cartoon image of a red-haired woman clothed in those colours does not covey, act or serve as a rape threat or harassment, simply by virtue of being so enhued. That this is so despite those colours being chosen due to the cartoon character's association with the 4chan image board "/v/"; and those colours being associated with "/v/" due to repeated "daily dose" postings on that board of an animated image of one purple clothed, green skinned, male alien character vigorously embuggering another male character (See [98]). That the quality of buggery is not transitive.
> [redacting] Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[redacting] PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's about time we stop bringing up "sex lives of female gamers" on the talk page. No one's proposing that we put it in the article. It's not a topic we're going to debate. If that's the reason you're here, you should probably find another hobby or reread all the times it's been mentioned in archives and never been put in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Put an end to this, and all the other forms of arguing against things that no one here is arguing for. Rhoark (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• A suggestion from an infrequent editor of this page: If President Obama made comments about protests of police shootings of African Americans, but somehow didn't say "Black Lives Matter," it wouldn't require several pages of debate to decide whether the comments belong on that page. Wikilawyering and pedantry aren't helpful to making an encyclopedia.--Carwil (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a different situation though: the number of "protests of police shooting of African Americans" is small, and the only one that is widely known is Black Lives Matter. So if he state that, it's very likely the words were specifically in reference to BLM, though there's still enough vagueness that it could be a coatrack issue. For this specific situation, "harassment of female gamers" is a very broad statement, and what direct relationship that is to GG is very weak (as the harassment that is attributed to GG is stated to be at female members of the industry/press side of video games, and not to the average game player). As such, saying that the President's speech was directly related to GG is definitely a coatrack, and careless inclusion just because it seems to be about GG is not neutral. But as I mentioned above, the fact that SXSW had session panels dedicated to discussion the growing situation about harassment in the gaming community, which includes what has resulted from GG, and that the President commented on that factor, is far less a coatrack and could be included as long as it is tied to SXSW's panels. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The only case of women gamers being harassed that has spilled over into mainstream consciousness is Gamergate. Please tell me what other case of harassment the President could be talking about. Kaldari (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carwl: More directly, try to add "Obama supported the acquittal or George Zimmerman when he said he respected the rule of law." Or infer condemnation of BLM for speaking out against riots in Baltimore based solely on the inference that BLM was somehow responsible for riots. Ain't going to get that far so there isn't endless debate. So the question here is "Why does that inference crap keep trying to get added here?" --17:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Alison Rapp

The original, passive voice description of her firing and the complaints were unintelligible. It read as if the "GamerGate harassers" were attacking her for both removing sexualized content ("localization") while at the same time attacking her for defending the Japanese original sexualized content in her paper. It needs some attribution and the name associated with Rapp defending Japanese sexualized content is "Jamie Walton." Multiple sources list her comments calling for Rapp's termination. Sources list her as being from the Wayne Foundation Later, Jamie Walton of the Wayne Foundation, an anti-sex trafficking campaigner, tweeted that Rapp should be fired as a result of the views expressed in her essay.[99]. It makes more sense to attribute views to the individuas the reliable sources cite. "Jamie Walton" is listed as the primary person calling for termination on the child pornography grounds. Also, I changed "stripped" to "removed" as "stripped" has misogynistic sexual overtones (i.e. "stripper") that are completely out of place considering the all the buzz around the second job. No reason to use language that furthers a negative view of the job and "removed" is a much better choice of words. --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Gamergate harassers" are a disparate collection. I believe you yourself have stated this in the past. Is it not possible that some hold views at odds with others, and while they may share a target, they have several different reprehensible motives for harassment? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As to specifically attributing that to Walton; I really don't think we can do this at this phase. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this could be useful. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Walton is directly mentioned in nearly every source. In fact, it's hard to find a source that doesn't mention Walton. What part did you think needs more sourcing? The sources link to the tweets which is why every source attributes the anti-child pornography angle to her tweets. Even sympathetic sources mention Walton. --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The specific reasoning you attribute to Walton in your edits, e.g. saying that Walton believes Rapp is a pedophilia apologist. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed and replaced with quoted language in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph on Rapp

I removed the paragraph on Alison Rapp but it was reverted by Jorm. It's currently unacceptable as it claims Walton only cared about her paper. That is incorrect. It was tweets such as (Redacted) and made numerous other comments that Walton felt were inappropriate for a person marketing products for children. This is all in reliable sources and we could flesh it out so that we don't portray Walton falsely as being concerned solely about a school paper. Or we can just remove the entire paragraph. If Rapp is never heard from again, that paragraph will serve only to immortalize her firing, document her tweets, document Walton's concerns, document Nintendo's response, etc, etc. If she remains in the news and Nintendo continues to receive negative publicity for the firing, anyone that's ever worked for a large company knows that the next step is to disclose the outside employment she was fired over, and then that would added. Neither Rapp nor Nintendo have released that. Rather than keep that paragraph and perpetuate/immortalize this event, the decent thing to do is delete it. --DHeyward (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems far more reasonable to delete the discussion of Walton, who (as far as I know) is not particularly notable. Walton was not harassed by Gamergate, after all, though Rapp was. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Walton is mentioned in essentially all the reliable sources. She's notable for this particular incident because all the sources are talking about her involvement. Outside of that, though, I'm not seeing anything in the Guardian, Mirror, and Kotaku sources saying Walton was complaining about any of Rapp's tweets. They all seem to be focused on criticism of the essay. Are there other sources you're thinking of, DHeyward? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, NY Mag mentioned the tweets and there are others, but the progression was Walton informing Nintendo of the tweets (with a phone call), investigation of the tweets by Nintendo, removal of Rapp as spokesperson (the job transfer in early March) based on tweets and weeks later the firing for the second job. Walton co-founded the foundation with Kevin Smith. Nintendo only talked about the events in the month prior to her firing which were Walton's complaints. Rapp says that the company learned of her second job as part of its investigation spurred by Walton. My argument is not to flesh out the harassment, child pornography or firing which means removing the paragraph. The rest of her life is more important than scoring point in gg debates. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You're timeline seems off. All of the sources attribute the controversy to some combination of GG supporters (or some splinter group, which is interesting, but I've never heard of before), or white supremacists (not sure why they care about a Japanese game localization.) I think you're over emphasizing Walton's part in all of it, which seems to be limited to a couple of tweets and a phone call. Rapp also doesn't say the investigation was spurred by Walton in any of our sources. — Strongjam (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You're missing it. This has more timeline and it's published when Walton got involved. If you can find a reliable source published before Walton got involved you have more information then me. Walton triggered the coverage in RSs, not GG or white supremacists. Similarly, the firing statement from Nintendo says "last few weeks," not months. Rapp blames GG for months of harassment and bringing the scrutiny which Nintendo doesn't even seem to be aware of. Nintendo is notoriously shy about speaking publicly which seems why they transferred her to a non-public role and very surprised that twitter was even happening. GG might be mad about localizations (and have more in line views with Rapp regarding how adolescents are portrayed) but but it's quite the opposite from what upset Walton. It's an interesting dichotomy in feminist thought that on the hand, opposition to sexual objectification supports removal of "boob sliders" where other views object to heteronormative male and western stereotypes and is open to ideas regarding adolescent sexuality. They both hate GG but I'm not sure they would all agree with each other, whence the criticism by someone with Walton's background. --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You're missing it. This has more timeline and it's published when Walton got involved. I'm missing what? That says exactly what I said. And it wasn't published when Walton got involved, it was published after Rapp was fired, and it doesn't attribute Walton as the reason for any investigation. Maybe you can point to a passage that you think supports that? If anything it seems to indicate that weev was much more active in trying to get Rapp fired then Walton. — Strongjam (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're in the UK? That Kotaku article is from March 4, not April 3, well before Rapp was actually fired. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

ahh thanks, stupid date formats. Strongjam (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources that could be used (or may in fact, already be in use) that were provided to me on my talk page by Torven (who can't post here himself.) Sorry for being so late in relaying them.

Ars Technica: Nintendo fires harassed staffer but denies caving to trolls’ demands

The Guardian: Nintendo denies Alison Rapp firing is linked to harassment campaign

New York Mag: Gamergate May Have Just Won Its Most Disgraceful Scalp Yet

News.com.au: Nintendo employee Alison Rapp fired after #GamerGate campaign

Wired: Nintendo Firing a Female Gamer Only Makes the Trolls More Rabid

The Verge: Nintendo fires staffer who faced sustained harassment

When discussing whether or not the harassment campaign against Alison Rapp was related to gamergate, I think sufficient reliable sources conclude that that it's worthy of inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No one has said GG didn't harass her (and Nintendo's "weeks" vs. "months" indicates how tone deaf Nintendo was or how exaggerated the harassment was). Any sources before Walton became involved with the complaints regarding pedophilia and her tweets regarding it? The question is whether to include all the reasons for her firing or just remove the paragraph. I vote to end her victimization and delete it. What say you? --DHeyward (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear, I'm fine with removing it. I think there are BLP issues here we should consider. Do we really think Allison Rapp wants to be included in this article in this way? I doubt it. Consider the policy WP:AVOIDVICTIM. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

My position on this is either "simple" or "complex" depending on how you want to look at it. Simply, I see no reason to drag Ms. Rapp's name around this in explicit detail. On the other hand, I think that the events are a fairly good example of the kind of harassment that is attributed to Gamergate. Removing the information completely can be seen as attempting to whitewash the behavior, which I'm not entirely hip to. I wonder if we can't simply include a single sentence or two elsewhere that basically says "Gamergate also blah blah blah, resulting in a Nintendo employee being terminated." (without using names, but citations pointing to various articles that may or may not name her. It's not our job to rocket people into the public eye. I'm also fine with it being gone entirely (because seriously, the litany of sins committed by Gamergate is pretty long and one more or less doesn't change the nature of the beast). --Jorm (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is there is no coverage before Walton. There is no reason to think Walton is GamerGate (or Stormfront for that matter and they Godwin'ed it early). Despite the "guilt by association"/yellow journalism coverage in the likes of Kotaku, Walton's actions stand apart from Gamergate. The press blindly criticizes Nintendo but the press, like Nintendo and IGDA, also did nothing until Walton got involved. To me, that says the GamerGate component is negligible and not notable because there is no independent coverage of that harassment before Walton. That's much different than the coverage afforded Sarkheesian and Wu as they received coverage of their harassment as it occurred. After Walton it centers on the pedophile aspects. Even Nintendo doesn't acknowledge anything prior to Walton. Therefore delete as having minimal gamergate connections and large potential for harm. --DHeyward (talk)

My thoughts mostly mirror that of DHeyward, that we would be stretching to make a marginal link in some very choppy waters, and that it would be original research to mention the allegations against her in the context of the gamergate article. I'm thinking that the article would best be served with the whole section on Alison Rapp to be eliminated, or at best to go with something like "Proponents of Gamergate claimed victory when Nintendo fired a member of their Treehouse marketing team. Nintendo denied that the allegations made by Gamergate proponents had anything to do with the termination of the employee." (with links to the Wired and ArsTechnica stories). Just my 2 pfennigs. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And User:DHeyward's prediction has now come true. At least one reliable source is reporting on what Rapp's second job was. I'm not going to link it here because, as I said, I think there are WP:BLP considerations. Rapp has no article of her own; this is a BLP1E for her that is becoming extremely unflattering. Let's just axe it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. That fills in a lot of gaps. Yes, nuke it from orbit. --DHeyward (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if the (very badly sourced) speculations I see in the game media are true, they are irrelevant. Alison Rapp was a female game developer who Gamergate supporters believed (falsely) had worked to tone down the sex in US versions of some games. To punish her, they pored through every record, tweet, and photograph they could find, and claim (bizarrely, in my opinion) that an undergraduate essay that endorses Japan's right to enact its own laws and to respect its own traditions is incompatible with employment by a Japanese company. They have now launched a second accusation, apparently containing further speculation about her personal life. Neither the undergraduate essay nor her personal life are germane but of course the harassment is germane. And while it's one event for Rapp, it's just another in a long chain of terror for Gamergate. As {{ping}SirFozzie}} suggests, we should (and indeed must) describe the campaign of intimidation, but I agree we can ignore the details of the smear campaign. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed for now. Genearlly I think it's worth a mention, but as SirFozzie and Jorm suggest, I think a brief overview without going into details or names would be fine. — Strongjam (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No. People are going to read this article, and see the part about Rapp. If we are going to include mention of her, we absolutely have to include Nintendo's official response, as nearly every RS reporting on this has quoted it. If we do that, a non-zero number of people are going to go looking for what her second job was. It is unconscionable for us to contribute to tarnishing her reputation. Read WP:AVOIDVICTIM and try to see how mentioning her at all doesn't violate this policy. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The harassment campaign is part of Gamergate and must be reported here. Nintendo is not part of Gamergate and, if you feel strongly about that, can be omitted. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose content like that. Essentially every reliable source that has reported on this has included Nintendo's official response/reasoning with regard to Rapp's termination. Per WP:NPOV, we can't only report Rapp's side of the story without including Nintendo's, precisely because all the sources are doing so. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course we can pick and choose. There's a name for that: editing. And this isn't a he-said, she-said: the harassment and smear campaign is a fact, one directly pertinent to the Gamergate controversy. We can and must report it. Subsequent events and allegations do not involve Gamergate; we need not concern ourselves with them. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)