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.

A suggestion on article ordering change

This long-running discussion on a proposal to reorganise the article has been divided into sections, one section per day, in order to make editing and reading easier.

Day 1

Looking over the draft (while we're still at draft, and presuming it will not be moved in soon), I really think there is a need to reorganize the material better but without changing the content. And right now, I'm simply talking about text cut and paste moves, no language change outside of necessary sentence flow.

Currently the article structure is this:

• History
  • Gamergate hashtag
  • Subsequent harassment
• Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and antifeminism
• Debate over ethics allegations
• Gamergate organization
  • Activities
    • The Fine Young Capitalists
    • Operation Disrespectful Nod
    • Operation Baby Seal
    • #NotYourShield
• Industry response

I would propose the following:

• History
  • Background (everything prior to August 2014)
  • Onset (this would be the activities within the first ~couple weeks of GG, encompassing Quinn/Sarkeesian; the only major text addition would be to explain that both ethics calls and harassment came from those using the hashtag)
  • Ongoing harassment (From Sarkeesian's bomb threat, Wu, and anything else ongoing including the swatting)
• Gamergate movement (or "organization" if we're still not comfortable with that).
  • History/makeup/organization (what is presently under "Gamergate hashtag"; this also includes, for example, Singal's observations on the lack of organization)
  • Ethics allegations (less any of the "but ethics" broad criticism like the current first paragraph; specific criticism of the specific ethics claims should stay with this)
  • Other activities (same sections as above, but I think we can look to trimming those down too)
• Criticism of Gamergate
  • Debate over ethics allegations
  • Political views
  • Gamer identity
  • Misogyny and anti-feminism
• Industry response/reactions

I suspect that there will be some with issues with putting the Gamergate movement/organization somewhat higher in the article, and doing some reordering around that, but when it comes to the narrative, it makes it much easier to explain the criticism (the sections I've listed above) once you've explained the makeup of GG and their stated desires. Right now, the way this is ordered, the narrative thought is difficult to follow, and this might be part of having too much focus putting the predominate view before the minority view/information. I am not proposing getting rid of any of the predominate view, but just reorganizing the points so that certain facets of the predominate view make more sense or are easier to explain after you've explained the minor view. (For example, the whole "but ethics!" line that the predominate view uses is difficult to understand until after you explain what the ethics claims are, why the press doesn't think those claims can be acted on, and then the complaints about the use of harassment to threaten/silence others.) Again, to stress, the only language change at the start would simply be wording for information flow; most of what I proposed is just moving the right blocks of paragraphs to the different sections.

For sake of minimal disruption, if there's even a reasonable belief this might work better, I would propose that I make the ordering change in the draft article and then revert myself on that change, only so that I can provide a fixed url that would show the skeleton of this re-ordered list to be clearer (and to avoid creating a draft of a draft of info that borders on BLP). --MASEM (t) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:CRITICISM, The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Additionally, a separate section titled "Criticism" implies that criticism should be pigeonholed into that section only, which is similarly not a best practice. I oppose creating a section entitled "Ethics allegations" because it avoids entirely the issue that most of the purported "ethics allegations" are widely viewed as not actually having anything to do with ethics — which is why the section is currently titled "Debate over ethics allegations" to present the fact that almost all external commentators see the allegations as both meritless and not actually involving questions of journalism ethics but rather simply furthering a culture war. I'm not necessarily opposed to some reordering, however. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We could leave readers with a false impression if they only read a single section. In general Masem's outline could work if we drop the criticism section and incorporate it into the prose of the Gamergate movement section. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind CRITICISM is an essay; further even within that, WP:CRITS states "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Here's the problem - there's no "positive" criticism to include. Reading through the rest of CRITICISM shows that separating out the larger criticism against GG as a whole as I suggest does not contradict that essay considering the nature topic at hand.

Additionally, denying a section title like "Ethic allegations" because it doesn't address the predominate view is not a neutral approach. In documenting what we can about the movement, we are not to care if the predominate view says what GG says is bogus when discussing the GG supporters/group. We need to write about the facts of the GG cause without any bias from the predominate viewpoint per FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no positive criticism then uncritically stating their claims is giving them WP:UNDUE weight and could violate WP:FRINGE by making the claims appear to be more notable or accepted then they really are. — Strongjam (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind what I said about how the ethics section would be changed: the specific issues raised by the media about some of the ethics claims (eg how unwieldy asking for "objective reviews" is) would be kept with these specific claims as these are best where those aspects are discussed; the broader criticism that "using ethics claims to cover up harassment" factors would be later when criticism of the movement as a whole is presented. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That might work. Specific claims by GG alongside the specific criticism for those claims, with the broader criticism later. Although I think that we could work the "cover up harassment" criticism as part of the Ethics section, perhaps in a wrap-up paragraph. — Strongjam (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That goes back to the point of the reordering: the criticism of "but ethics" relies on knowing the ethics claims, knowing the criticism of those claims, and knowing the backlash that the harassment has gotten and how some press see harassment is believed to be considered a tool used by GG to intimidate critics; only then the "but ethics" argument clearly make logical sense. The ordering I present makes those points ll in order before hitting on this core "but ethics" aspect. Trying to put it earlier is part of the reason the current narrative is very clunky. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The current Ethics section starts out with a brief description before the criticism already "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their movement is about ethical concerns revolving around the close relationships between journalists and developers, reviewers acknowledging social issues, and private conversations occurring between journalists." I just don't think we need a separate Critiscm of Ethics section, we document their claims (with an eye to WP:FRINGE) and the criticism, and wrap it up with the broader commentary. — Strongjam (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Many instances of harassment described in this article never came from GamerGate. Those who made the treats never mentioned or had anything to do with GamerGate. It is a blatant NPOV violation to include them in this article.

Day 2

Totally disagree with any suggestion to have a criticism section. I don't feel it would improve the article, its readability, or its neutrality at all to try and separate coverage into "supportive", "neutral", and "critical" and divide it up accordingly; those categories are obviously very important to many people involved in the controversy, but they are not encyclopedic divisions -- coverage is coverage, and should inform our entire article in accordance to its representation in reliable sources rather than being divided up based on our personal feelings about whether it makes the subject "look good" or "look bad". In particular, I find your assertion that the "political views" section should be a subsection of the 'criticism' section to make no sense at all; that should be its own section, with "Gamer identity" and "Misogyny and anti-feminism" as subsections of it, since those are the coverage of the politics behind GamerGate as covered by reliable sources. Likewise, it strikes me as bizarre to want to separate 'ethicla issues' and 'criticism of ethical issues' into separate sections -- we must cover the topic in one place as reported by reliable sources; if the ethics claims are generally dismissed in reliable sources, then the ethics section itself must make this its core thesis. Criticism sections are generally, I think, agreed to be terrible things, and I don't see anything in your arguments above that would change it here -- they generally end up serving only to provide dumping grounds for unrelated criticism (stripped of context, and therefore less useful), or to move any aspects of the article someone deems 'negative' out of the rest of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A "Criticism " section does not always mean negative criticism (you can have positive criticism); however, it doesn't have to be called criticism but it should be focused on analysis and criticism of the broad issues of GG. (Perhaps "Responses" as is done on Westboro, for example). There's a better way to gather the information in the article to put most of the broader analysis in one cohensive section. And let me stress - a criticism section has to be kept with this main article because that is what makes up 75%+ of the notability of GG; this is not an attempt to segegrate this off and then prime it to be moved, because I would be fully against that. (Barring anything major in the next few months, I can't see this article growing any more to necessitate a move).

Things like "gamer identity" and "misogyny and anti-feminism" are not political views, that's part of the problem. I'm rereading that section now, and it just doesn't make a lot of cohensive sense, because it feels like we're crowbarring in some thoughts that are better elsewhere in a logical order. I know where the "gamer identity" text came from (I had that as background material months ago), but it doesn't talk about any political views, for example. Maybe if it was "Analysis of Gamergate", discussing the "culture war and gamer identity", "misogyny and anti-feminism" , "lack of GG organization/structure", etc. that might make it clearer without calling it directly as criticism. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with what you're saying here; the section discusses the forces that shape the political views driving GamerGate, which (according to our sources) are primarily the gamer identity, anti-feminism, and misogyny. Certainly anti-feminism is a political view if anything is; but misogyny and gamer identity (when driven by identity politics) are also political views. Regardless, these are not primarily commentary sections, or analysis sections, or criticism sections; these are sections describing the subject of the article and its views, as objectively and thoroughly as we can (using, ideally, the most reliable sources we can.) That is something that an article on a subject like this badly needs. I do not see any gain for the article by transforming them into "commentary" sections -- remember, we're trying to keep people from using the article as a dumping ground for random commentary, since that was a problem in the past. "Analysis of gamergate" (when it comes from reliable sources) is something we must depend upon for every single section of the article -- it is absolutely not something we could confine to just one section. (As my example, above, of the problems we would encounter trying to separate the section on ethics into 'ethics' and 'debate over ethics' shows.) Ultimately, I see no improvement from your proposed reordering -- I think that the current ordering accurately expresses the history of the movement, then the politics behind it, which are by far the most important subjects here. I would strenuously oppose moving anything in the current politics section lower in the article; it feels to me like you feel that the GamerGate Organization section is more 'objective' or that you can write a section that will accurately depict 'what GamerGate really believes' to be contrasted with people's commentary, but note that the organization and hashtag sections also rely on commentary, since there is no central GamerGate organization. To the extent that there is a broad agreement about what GamerGate wants and what it stands for, it is covered by our current politics section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not every section needs analysis. In fact, we should start off with what information is not analysis and move up from that into the more secondary modes later. So starting with the current history and the history of harassment - which is all factual, no analysis needed, moving into what GG is and their claims, which is reporting what they say, though including some commentary on specific issues, and then moving into broad analysis of the situation, including why GG came about, the make up of the people, etc. - following the concept of Bloom's taxonomy in the presentation of this topic as it is very non-standard. And remember, I'm not talking about ridding sections, just reordering to make the narrative and logic flow better. And yes, we should be aiming to accurately represent what GG believes without any attempt at judgement in WP's voice - that's the primary impartial nature we need. We know we have tons of criticism against GG to include, but we can't let the volume of that public opinion sway the approach we talk to writing on the details specific from the GG's mouths. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 3

I disagree with your implicit assertion that we should give critics who claim to be speaking from within some "GamerGate organization" any particular precedent over those who do not when it comes to analyzing and characterizing what is behind the controversy. For one thing, GamerGate is structureless, and therefore such critics' opinions can never be more than their own personal opinions (which must be weighted according to their prominence and usefulness as a reliable source); for another, in situations where these viewpoints conflict, our duty is to focus on things in proportion to their representation in reliable sources -- not to portray "what these random commentators, who arbitrarily claim to be part of some hypothetical GamerGate organization, say their movement is really about." Beyond that, you are still making a false distinction between "criticism against GG, and what the analysis of these supposed critics says it believes" as opposed to "what GG actually believes, according to Real True GamerGators". This is not a meaningful distinction(note that you have to source your statement on what GG actually believes to somewhere, which is, inevitably, analysis.)

As an aside, I note that you have repeatedly said that you want GamerGate covered the way the Westboro Baptist Church is. If you go there and read its Church views section, you'll see it is sourced almost entirely to pieces that are clearly critical of the church; we do not simply rely on the first-hand accounts of the church's own beliefs, but on analysis and interpretation from reliable sources. We must describe GG's beliefs, goals, and politics in the same way, according to what reliable sources have said about them, without regard for what side you (or they) feel they are on; this is what the current politics section does. And in fact it is particularly important here, because unlike the church there is no central GamerGate mouthpiece, meaning that there are almost no concrete and reliable primary sources; but regardless, even if that were not the case, as an encyclopedia, we are supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources and their analysis when discussing eg. what GamerGate is actually all about. In this light, virtually all reliable coverage of GamerGate has said that it is about a culture war centered around people moved by gamer identity politics, gender-politics, and anti-feminism, who have either -- depending on your point of view -- used discussion about ethics in journalism (as it relates to the vast ideological conspiracy that many within GamerGate allege) in order to advance these goals; or who has discovered a vast unethical conspiracy among their ideological opponents on those axes. This is, therefore, what we must lead with in describing it, and it is what the current politics section says. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've argued before to avoid SPS sources for proGG statements - most of what we can say about the GG's claims about ethics, etc. are from sources that are critical of GG. We should rely on these sources to put the GG statements in context, but we also should not forget to include what the original statements are. Those people are one side of the controversy and we should be earnestly trying to document it within our RS policy in as neutral and non-judgemental a manner as possible, as is done on Westboro. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 4

But nobody is saying "the Westboro Baptist church isn't really about opposing gays." If there were people who claimed to be members of the Westboro Church and who argued that it was really about (say) ethics in games journalism, yet the vast majority of reliable sources dismissed that as tangential to its purpose and said that it was about opposition to gays, we would focus on its opposition to gays in its 'political views' section, and make that the focus of the article; this is especially true, of course, if that was what it was notable for. (In fact, the Westboro Church does have many views other than its view on homosexuality. The article notes them, but puts them very far down the article and gives them little attention, because they are not what it is notable for and not what most commentators say is the main driving force behind it.) Additionally, it's important not to fall into the trap of saying that "these people are a side in the controversy" as if that means we need to give them particular weight; our job is not to present all sides equally, but to present them in proportion to their representation among reliable sources. I would actually go so far as to say that they are not a side in the controversy as reflected by reliable sources; as far as I can tell, we don't have any reliable sources -- among those that describe them in any depth, or which give them any credit at all -- that describes the ethics issues as something distinct from the culture-war issues. (That is, there are some sources that argue that GamerGate is part of a legitimate culture war opposing a vast unethical conspiracy by feminists and other ideological opponents in order to control the media; but this is, indeed, already covered by the current political views section, though we cover it in a neutral fashion and therefore without giving undue credence to it. I think it's reasonable to describe it as a fairly WP:FRINGE theory, after all.) At this point I think that there is broad agreement among our sources -- on all 'sides' -- about what exactly GamerGate's ethical issues are about, what they mean, what perspective they come from and how they relate to the larger culture war. They disagree only on whether those accusations are accurate or whether the individual claims amount to proof of this broad conspiracy. Obviously it makes no sense to cut out the arguments that it does amount to proof of a broad conspiracy and try to present them separately, since, again, the media conspiracy allegations are a WP:FRINGE theory, which therefore must be given less prominence than the prevailing view. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "equal" coverage, this is talking about impartial and neutral coverage, and writing an encyclopedia article that can be understood. If I was a reader with no idea about GG but wanted to be informed to learn what the GG movement is, this article does a poor job in its present state because its focused too much on making sure the predominate POV (that GG is bad) is shown, and does not present the GG side with what sources we have in any form of coherent, non-prejudgemental organization. Everything we can factually state about GG, including elements that could be seen as negative aspects like their unorganized, anon nature or their ethics claims, as well as their activities that can be documented, like the various operations to ad agencies, should be kept in one single section; after which we can then include the broad criticism of the group that builds on all those facets. (All this after we've run through the most visible facts of the harassment that has occurred). Keep in mind - in the topic of a Gamergate controversy , the GG movement is not a FRINGE view. If we were talking about gaming journalism, heck yes what GG claims is extremely fringe and likely would not be include, but to the core of this article which is about what has happened because of the actions of this movement, their views are not trivial. They're difficult to document, for certain, and very difficult to find anyone that agrees with them, but we still need to use whatever means to present the GG side as a legitimate part of the controversy as the key party of interest. This article has that information already, but in such a disorganized manner as to create the non-partial approach. Reorganizing in the manner I spoke of, without adding or removing any sourced content and only adjusting sentence for flow, goes a long way to present the GG side in a more encyclopedic and less judgemential light. That's the whole point when you come to Westboro, or Scientology, or any other group/person that has a broad negative public opinion out there; we don't base the article on the negative public opinion but around the group itself in as much a factual manner as possible and then include the criticism. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you came here to find out what the gamergate movement was, you came to the wrong place asking the wrong question. this is the article about the controversy created by the vile vile harassment under the gamergate hashtag and the underlying antifeminist/anti-woman culture war in the gaming world that the vile vile harassment brought into the view of mainstream culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Obviously, we are not going to have an article that separates the harassment facets from the movement (the notability are far too tied together to even consider that), and there is legitimately a question of coming to WP to learn about the movement and trying to understand their motives as to learn about how harassment became an issue. This is the right page on WP to discuss the movement and we are not doing a good job of that due to the current organization. And no, we're not here to talk about the "vile vile harassment" but just the "harassment". WP is amoral in that regards. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

per all the sources , as it relates to the subject of this article - gamergate the so called movement is a NOTHING that accomplished NOTHING other than perhaps attempt to act as a transparent cover for vile vile harassment against women. and aside from the vile vile harassment is a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists who dont know what either "ethics" or "objective" actually means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Popular opinion/criticism, but not fact. We have facts about the movement we can discuss, and which are necessary to discuss, to understand why criticism is as harsh as it is. We should be earnestly trying to use what we can take from the reliable sources to document clearly what factual information there is about the GG movement to explain the people and their stated goals that are at the centerpoint of this controversy, to be encyclopedicly complete, and should not be ignoring the GG movement because of the claimed "vile vile harassment" they've done. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion whatever "facts not opinions" we may have from reliable sources about the "so called movement" are in fact almost entirely devoid of any relevance to the subject of this article, the controversy. WP:COATRACK -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What the GG movement is is absolutely key to this topic and in absolutely no way a coatrack argument. Refusal to cover what the GG movement claims to be (the group that is responsible, directly or not, for the controversy) in a non-judgemental manner, even with as limited an amount of sourcing from reliable sources as we have to do that from, is a direct violation of NPOV, because you are refusing to cover a major facet of the controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT for any article you can provide that has any measure of focus on the "so called movement" i can produce a dozen that have only a passing mention or directly comment on its actual meaninglessness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But the key thing is - there are many highly reliable sources that cover GG as a movement, with most then within a paragraph going on to criticize that for the rest of the article. That means that what GG is is important to their criticism and we should of course cover what GG is and their motives and goals so that the criticism of GG makes sense. You can't introduce "But ethics!" criticism without describing the ethics claims. We don't need dedicated articles that are solely proGG to provide this information, there are plenty of very critical articles against GG that do provide sufficient details for us to explain the GG side of the equation briefly, which we already effectively do, but just with poor narrative or logical progression that can be improved by simply reordering what we have without changing the balance of the article/sources. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for your actual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I already said the sources for this are in the article sourcing what we know about the movement, such as the words by Singal, articles like [1], and [2], albeit briefly because there's not that much they can figure out but they try to at least. They talk about what the GG movement is from the view the GG movement, and then move on to analysis and criticism. So yes, there are sources. There are also sources that completely ignoring what GG wants to write one-sided approaches, but we don't follow tone, we are looking to summarize the whole story, so ignoring what we can source that we know about GG is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 5

No discussion on day 5. --TS 04:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 6

Again, your statement that those sources are one-sided and that they are completely ignoring what GG wants to write is, ultimately, nothing more than your personal opinion. We have plenty of sources that indicate that, yes, there are voices even within GamerGate (or at least, saying that they are within GamerGate) that are loudly and aggressively declaring that the purpose of the movement is to harass specific women, or to advance a gender-politics agenda, or to push hard on one side in a culture war, or countless other things; we rely on sources to parse through these and produce an accurate summary based on their reliability, not based on subjective opinions about what the "real" GamerGate is. Even if you don't realize it, you are basically suggesting that we categorize and weight sources according to your personal POV over which are accurate -- when one source says "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about ethics" you agree with them; when someone says "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about driving LW1, LW2, and L@3 to suicide" or "I went to GamerGate, and they said it was all about crushing Feminism and Social Justice Warriors" or when a source says "I speak for GamerGate, and it's all about fighting the liberal agenda of the media and pushing back against the conspiracy of feminist gender-politics", you're dismissing that solely because you disagree with the conclusions they're drawing. All of those sources, after all, claim to be saying that they are reporting what GG is from the view of the GG movement -- you're treating "what GG is really all about" or even "what GG says GG is really all about" as if it is straightforward and obvious; but given the amount of arguing on this talk page and elsewhere, I don't think it's that obvious. And to the extent that there's a broad agreement, I think it's what our politics section generally describes -- that is, GamerGate is basically about a culture war in which some people are convinced that there is a broad gender-politics conspiracy which is being advanced by sinister, unethical media collusion and which must be confronted and destroyed. The sources disagree a bit on what the driving force is behind this belief (whether it's gamer identity politics, gender politics, misogyny, or whether people are flocking to it because the conspiracy is real and gamers can see that), but the overarching reasons behind the conflict seem like they're largely something every reputable agrees on, regardless of "side"; it would be non-neutral of us to bury that because you personally feel that you've looked at the issue and identified what the Real True View From Within GamerGate is. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We have no sources that say that from within the same group of people that are asking about ethics within the GG movement, that they also engaged in harassment or directly support harassment as a tool of their agenda. Yes, some have said, paraphrasing, "Yes, harassment is bad, but X deserved what they got", and we have clear press statements that call out that opinion, but that's also not a signficiant opinion of the ethics side of the GG part. This goes to the point below - there is no affirmed connection between any person of the GG movement that supports ethics, and those that engaged in harassment. The likelihood that there is a connection is very high, but we can't presume that. It is important to establish that because of how unorganized, anonymous, and diffuse the GG movement is, it is difficult to define exact bounds, and thus it is readily easy to think of both sides as part of the same group, but we also are clear that there's at least two different subgroups (these we can source) - the "GG Moderate", those that are actively trying to stop the harassment and police that, and people who are don't even care about the GG goals but are using the GG name to harass people. There may be other groups, but these are two we can document with existing sources. But this is all more points to explain what the GG movement is as objectively as possible before getting into full-blown criticsm of the group. Whatever the makeup of the group, they're responsible in a direct or indirect manner for every statement made on this page, so it is the movement that needs to have some focus before getting into the analysis and criticism of all these actions. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The issue isn't whether the GamerGate controversy is defined by harassment; that isn't our decision, that's something that is defined by coverage in the mainstream media, which has overwhelmingly made harassment the crux of its reporting. We should, of course, be careful not to inadvertently say "every single person who retweeted GamerGate has committed harassment" or anything like that in the article voice, but we still have to respect the focus of reliable sources, so that aspect isn't really one we can grapple with. (In fact, I don't feel the changes you proposed would affect that aspect much at all.) The issue is the coverage on what the GamerGate controversy is about in terms of politics and goals; this is the focus of the politics section (which you are arguing must be moved to the bottom of the article and generally made less prominent.) Nobody is saying that every single person who ever retweeted #GamerGate is guilty of sending death threats; but the vast majority of our sources say that GamerGate is fundamentally about gamer identity, culture warfare over gender-politics (driven by, as many of our sources term it, misogyny), and opposition to what many people involved in the controversy see as their ideological enemies. This, therefore, must be core to how we describe the conflict. There are very few sources that agree with your implicit assertion that this aspect is divided into two distinct organizations -- some of the people driven by these passions engage in harassment, and some do not, but most sources in our article seem to agree that those particular passions are the driving force behind the controversy. And this is, currently, what our article says; we report on the most noteworthy things that have happened in relation to GamerGate and on what, according to the most reliable sources, the debate is about, what people who are getting angry are angry about, and so on. Your personal opinion that the entire movement splits cleanly into two identifiable groups (and that we must defer to the group that you have identified as the "main" group and give what you say are their views prominent a voice before we move on to what the reliable sources say) is not one that I feel is backed up by the sources we have in the article; most of the in-depth analysis of GamerGate is at this point in broad agreement about the crux of the controversy, and it is not about "ethics" -- it is about people driven by cultural warfare to oppose their ideological opponents, who they believe have used unethical methods to advance their agenda. This is something the current article covers accurately. I feel that your proposed changes would reduce the prominence of this view (which is, again, in the overwhelming majority) in favor of an extremely WP:FRINGE description of the ongoing controversy and a characterization of GamerGate that very very few sources agree reflects reality. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem with how GG is reported in mainstream media, and while I'll frequently point back to things like Westboro Baptist Church, and other groups/people that have a near-universal negative public perception. Yes, it is popular opinion of the press that they think GG is an harassment campaign and that's fair that that is their, but we cannot treat that as fact without any clear established evidence of that, in light that GG does not say they are an harassment campaign. We cannot misrepresent what GG claims to be despite what the popular opinion is. There's not much objective we can say about GG (per WEIGHT/UNDUE), and there's a lot of criticism that we have to include to accurately represent how the popular opinion is about GG, but we have to start without prejudging GG as something they say they are not. We don't treat suspects of crimes who claim they are innocent even if the rest of the world assumes they are guilty, until there is a legal decision that counters that point. Same here - there is no clear evidence of a legal or scientific nature to show that GG is really about harassment. We're going to include the strong doubt this is the case, obviously, but we can't start there, which is what the current organization of the article does. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that people don't disagree about what the Westboro Baptist Church is and what it thinks; everyone agrees that they are opposed to gays, that this is the most noteworthy thing about them, and that the people who we see standing at funerals shouting insults to gays represent the church as a whole, so when we cite critical analysis of what their views are in our description of them, it's clear what it should say. In this case, though, while (as I said) I think there is now fairly broad agreement about what GamerGate is really about, there are a few people (like, I gather, you) who disagree with this broad consensus -- you are saying "these people, who the media quotes, who the coverage focuses on, who the news pieces describe; these are not the real GamerGate. I, Masem, know what the real GamerGate is, and we are being unfair to it." But you need to recognize that this is just your opinion. We have to determine what GamerGate is -- who speaks for it, which opinions it holds, what its goals and methods are -- by looking at reliable sources, not based on your personal feelings. And those sources have generally described it in terms of cultural warfare, fights over gender-politics and gamer-identity-poltitics, and -- yes -- the harassment that has come out of these things. These are the defining aspects of the controversy and the key people involved in it. Describing this as the core of the GamerGate controversy and the driving force behind it is not a misrepresentation; it is an unbiased, accurate coverage of the topic as reported in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Obviously you disagree -- you feel that those sources are wrong, that they're misrepresenting it, and so on -- but that is ultimately just your opinion; it's not backed by the sources we have at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, Westboro themselves do not agree with what is said about them. And yes, we actually can objectively state what GG's intents and motives are. We have those sources already. We have that text already, even - but it's spread out across the article and placed in contradictory sentences that prejudge them. We can write a heck of alot better without changing the balance of material and sources. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Day 7

When the Westboro Baptist church disagrees with what the experts say about them (for instance, in the characterization of them as hyper-calvinist), we go by what the experts say; if someone claiming to speak for the Westboro Baptist Church were to start denying that they were anti-gay, we would still describe them as anti-gay in the lead and devote the bulk of the politics section to their anti-gay sentiments, because our political views section is largely sourced to reliable experts on the topic and not directly to the church itself. Similarly, we can only objectively state what the intents and motives behind the GamerGate controversy are by looking at how they are covered by reliable sources. If the reliable sources state that (for instance) GamerGate is about gender-war politics, harassment, misogyny, gamer identity warfare, and conspiracy theories, we must report these aspects in proportion to the attention such sources have given them; objectivity means reporting what reliable sources say, in proportion to the prominence of the relevant views, without judgment on our part. It is clear that you personally disagree with the conclusion that the majority of reliable sources have come to, and therefore feel that that conclusion is not objective; but it still is what it is. In order to make the locus of controversy completely clear (because I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying): When you say "I just want the article to say what GamerGate really says it is about", I believe that you are looking a small fringe view of what GamerGate says it is about; I am not saying merely that that characterization is a minority view, I am saying that your opinion that GamerGate describes itself that way (to the extent that the controversy can be said to have any concrete character) is not accurate and is not reflected in the sources. The sources in the political views section say that the GamerGate controversy, going by the words of self-described supporters, is focused on fighting a culture war against their gender-politics opponents, which is what our article accurately reflects. I will add one additional thing which might explain your continued confusion when it comes to the focus on harassment: Different sources in the article mean different things when they say 'harassment'. Many of them clearly lump all of the accusations against Quinn et. all under harassment, from the perspective that maliciously repeating untrue accusations is a form of harassment, and therefore describe anyone repeating these accusations as guilty of harassment. In that regard it makes sense for those sources to say that GamerGate is primarily about harassment; and when that perspective is the one reflected in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, we must reflect it here as well, even if it is something that some people who think of themselves as members of GamerGate would object to. Even if you feel that this is unfair or that it does not accurately characterize their viewpoint, we must still go with what those reliable sources say; our responsibility is to ensure that we report things according to their focus in reliable sources, and to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE descriptions of the controversy, no matter how much more accurate you may feel those descriptions are. --Aquillion (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the issue: who are the "experts" making the determination that Westboro is anti-gay, or for anything that is a subjective measure? Usually there is no one that can do this, becuase is near impossible to be an expert in such fields. (Take movie reviews - we will default to explain people like Roger Ebert's POV on a movie because we know he's got a clear handle on films, but his opinion remains opinion, and always in his voice.) There's no issue saying, clearly, "The press think GG is misogynistic", because that is a clear demonstrable fact - 100s of articles express that opinion. But that doesn't mean "GG is misogynistic" is a fact, for the very reason that there is no effective way to prove that. And because this is not fact, and because we're talking about a group central to the issue at hand, we cannot say what they say is wrong (nor right). We have side A, we have side B. We cannot make a judgement which side is right. Side A - the GGers, aren't going to be able to have a lot of objective material here, and side B's voice is going to be a predominate part of this article, but we cannot let the condemnation of the press set our tone in any way. Our responsibility is to stay neutral to what RSes say as we are simply trying to document the event, not try to convince a reader of a conclusion one way or another. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Our job, as an encyclopedia, is not to divide everything into two "sides" and then try to give each side equal weight; our job is to try and ignore (and stay above) the conflict as much as possible while trying to find the most reputable sources on the topic that we can, so we can rely on their coverage and perspectives in proportion to how prominent each aspect is. I strongly disagree with your assertion, in fact, that there are two clearly-distinct, definable 'sides' here -- many, many different reliable sources have weighed in with different perspectives, and we must parse the most reliable coverage of the controversy from those and then produce an accurate, impartial summary of it based on what that says. If you end up feeling that the overall coverage of the topic in reliable sources is biased (and that seems to be what you're saying here when you define "the press" as a side?), that's, unfortunately, not something we can correct as an encyclopedia -- we do not suddenly start disregarding WP:RS simply because some people claim that the press is biased. Our responsibility is to stay neutral by reflecting what each reliable source says in proportion to its prominence; if coverage of the topic among reliable sources is a deafening chorus saying that this is a culture war being waged over gender politics and against so-called social justice warriors, then our article must likewise reflect that deafening chorus, and it would absolutely be a violation of NPOV to say "but here's what some random people say it's really all about." Trying to balance coverage away by taking a WP:FRINGE viewpoint on the controversy and giving it greater weight than it deserves is, in fact, taking an unacceptable stance in support of that viewpoint; it is our job to uncritically report on what the press says, not to define the press as a "side" and then try to argue against it by scavenging for whatever fringe viewpoints in opposition we can find. I assume, based on what you're saying above, that you feel that the press should not be reported uncritically in this case (that it is biased, or that it has clearly taken a side?) But that is not how we write Wikipedia articles; if you want to challenge reliability of the press, this is unfortunately not the place to do it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with any possible bias of the press, only that they are expressing their opinion, not fact. As such, while their voice is predominate and will be the majority of the text we have in the article, as it is now, we cannot slip and take the same tone they have taken to condemn GG, as this is not necessary the "right" or "wrong" position, just the predominate one. We cannot prejudge anything, and if the press has, we have to strip that away in presenting any objective fact, and then be clear when we are expressing their opinion. "GG is considered misogynistic by the mainstream media" is completely acceptable here and I am in no way arguing against removing any of the opinions currently cited to the press to condemn GG, only that we make sure that we keep everything else outside that as objective as possible to be a neutral, impartial work.

Further, calling the GG movement's view "fringe" really is not appropriate here. If we were talking an article where the topic is gaming journalism, yes their opinion on what they want from gaming journalism is clearly fringe. But GG is the central reason why this article even exists - not necessary by the actions they specifically started but still required their spark to do that. What their side has expressed is important to present to make the media's take on their actions understandable. They are not a fringe view here if they are the central point this all extended from. They don't have a lot of RS to back up their point but they have enough that we can reorganize what we already have to provide a more cohesive picture of their side of this issue, and thus make the criticism the press throws down in spades much clearer to understand. Look at any disliked organization. Look at any page on a major criminal or crime with identified targets. Even if these people are convicted of a crime, we still neutrally and impartially present their side of the issue - not necessary in equal time, but without any prejudging of whether their motives were right or wrong. We need to do the same here, even if the bulk of GG are anon people, they are still people at the end of the day and not any evidence they have engaged in any illegal activity to factually call them out on that. Again to stress: the reorg I have presented would require no removal or addition of sources from what we already have, nor removal of any text, only the addition and wordsmithing of text to smooth presentation. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand your point of view. You think the central reason for this article is something called Gamergate comprising a group of people. This isn't true, though. The article exists because of a series of vehemently misogynistic attacks on women in gaming. We would not be writing this article if it weren't for those attacks, which for want of a better word make this article notable. Some people want to call themselves Gamergate? We write about those guys, too, though it's very difficult because there is little organisation. But the Gamergate controversy is what it is, and we're here to write the best possible article about that. --TS 13:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, though, I think we need something concrete to look at. Please make a skeleton of your proposed outline in your userspace and fill it in with a list of sources and general themes (or content from our existing draft if it fits) and then we'll be able to see more clearly what you mean. I'm a but wary about article forks, which can lead to divisive behaviour, which is why I don't think you should create it in the draft namespace. But personally I wouldn't object to your placing your demo into the draft article's history and then mass reverting it, which I think you suggested earlier. --TS 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the continued problem with the article. Did it get notability because of some attacks? Sure. But now we have an article, so we need to cover what the entire topic is about, not just one aspect of it. The article probably needs a rename and a restructure to start, and perhaps now that ArbCom has done some work here we can start doing the work of repairing the article so it meets our content standards. At no point should this comment be construed as saying the article shouldn't cover the issues of harassment or follow sources, merely that the article, to meet our basic point of view policies, needs significant repair. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that in August/September the reason for this article was the amount of attention the harassment aspects under the GG hashtag got - indeed, the AFD filed shortly after creation suggests that the harassment done under "GamerGate" was the notable factor, not the movement. But we're 5 months out, and things have changed. "Gamergate movement" gets more hits than "Gamergate controversy". The group of people under GG - at least as seen by the press - are the subject of intense criticism. Argubly the movement is its own notable topic, but I would never suggest separating it out at all, because the controversy over harassment, and the movement, are inseparable subjects. I've noted this issue several times before: we are really dealing with two different controversies - what the GG supports have against gaming media, and what the mainstream media has against the tactics used by those under the GG hashtag. The latter has clearly the most cover, but the former is readily sourcable to reliable sources (we already have that). The controversy is about the movement.

As a thought experiment (I would not suggest this format at all), consider if this article was about the GG movement, structured close to how Westboro is laid out. We'd explain how their group came to be and some of the activities they have done. We'd have to explain that there was harassment done under the GG name even if that's not tied to the group. And then we go into the reactions and criticism of the group. 99% of that content would be the same as what we have here. This is more evidence that that "GG controversy" and the "GG movement" are inseparable elements if not synonymous with each other, and as it makes zero sense to have a separate article on the movement when it is so tied to the controversy, we need to make sure that that is covered in an encyclopedic-appropriate manner even with there's only about a dozen RS sources we can pull from to describe this (using a lot of Singal's attempts to dive into the innards to help expand). That's the whole point of my proposed reorg is simply to make sure that we cohesively define what is known about the movement as the central figure to the controversy.

As for the draft, my plan to present something to review but without being disruptive (and as this point, I would even consider a user-space draft to be that way even if there's AGF that I'm not going to twist it around (I fear that others will want to do the same based on that), was to simply inject a revision into the draftspace article (Editeded off line), then revert, and then present the diff id as the first draft of reorg w/ minimal wordsmithing for flow, for evaluation, and why I made sure this was clear before doing that to minimize any apparent disruption that might seem to be. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You and I are thinking alike on this in a few ways, but I'm wondering why you don't like the format you've mapped out here? That seems to be the most reasonable way out, and solves 95% of the problems with this article as is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We are 5 months out and the only thing that has changed is that there are not new press reports coming out everyday of yet another another target of the vile vile gamergate harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, so now it's time to actually look closely at the article and get it in line with our NPOV policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please point out where we do not represent the subject as the reliable sources have presented it? Other than the fact that we spend significantly more time on the "but ethics" than the sources do-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Interjection on Day 6

This discussion, now in its sixth day, is beginning to resemble a rather dull saloon bar discussion largely between two parties who cannot see eye to eye. I think the onus is on Masem to explain why we can't use reliable sources to describe what Gamergate is and how we could do otherwise without making a pact with the dreaded synthesis monster or giving undue weight to negligible voices. Perhaps at this point others may want to chip in with their views. --TS 05:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I mean, according to that, you've already made your decision, haven't you? Saying "explain why we can't use reliable sources to describe what Gamergate is and how we could do otherwise without making a pact with the dreaded synthesis monster or giving undue weight to negligible voices" basically is saying "I think the RS say this, and therefore you trying to change it is working against that." Ries42 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at this stage I think we all are in agreement about what the reliable sources say. I'm trying to work out how this proposal is supposed to reflect those sources with appropriate weight, given what we already know they say, and especially given how overwhelmingly they say it. --TS 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, we're definitely in agreement about what the reliable sources being used in this article say. There's definitely significant disagreement still standing about whether we're using all the available resources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Because there remains a clear serious problem that this article has a non-neutral tone, despite having the proper balance of sources representing the mainstream view, which is against NPOV and also a point addressed by Arbcom in the NPOV statement. To be a neutral entity in this process, we cannot make the same leaps of logic the press has made in the absence of facts. And I'm addressing this as one that doesn't have much sympathy for the general attitude and the various actions made by GG but can see there's a huge problem in how this article's tone is written. People are shutting out any discussion starting "But the press says GG is bad!" but that's simply not how we can start as a neutral impartial article evidenced by most of our other articles on controversial topics on WP. Remember, I'm not asking to change the sources or the bulk of the wording, simply to reorder to improve the tone, narrative, and logic flow. --05:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting that from your proposed outline. You seem to want all criticism of Gamergate corralled in a single section. Isn't that like rewriting the World War I article to describe the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, and Gavrilo Prinzip's motives, and lumping everything else into an "aftermath" section? The Gamergate controversy _is_ the topic. That's why we gave the article that name. --TS 05:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, because this topic is nowhere as complicated in the history as, say, WWI. There is one primary event - the chain of harassment from August to September, and while there are other smaller incidents, everything is still based on that month of problems. We explain that first, then the people that are at least central to some of the issues, and then the criticism of that group and what resulted. That's pretty straight forward and a common approach for single events across WP. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds to me as if you're _now_ saying we should severely narrow our focus. From an ongoing five month harassment campaign widely covered in reliable sources, you want to concentrate on just the first month. I still don't think I get the same description of what you want in any two comments. Perhaps you need to get a coherent idea of what changes you want first, in your own mind, and then you can present it here for discussion. --TS 06:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you also hint that the arbitration committee says something that supports your view that this article is in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. Be specific. Here is their NPOV principle as written. Explain why you think our article fails on this:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.[3]

I note that none of the findings that are passing refer to NPOV, though that doesn't absolve us of the duty to ensure that we get it right. So I want to understand your criticism and satisfy myself in this regard.

Because your criticisms are so vague and take on multiple facets when you're asked to be specific, it's very hard for me to understand what you criticism is except that you don't like it. --TS 07:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding timing - 90% of what this article focuses on is what happened in the first month - Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Felicia Day, the USU threat, the "Death of Gamers", and the initial Operation aimed at advertisers. The rest have be long-tail responses that are not part of the initial matters that brought this to attention, though are part of how the industry and the media has responded to this. It is not like your example of WWI where there were years of many different battles. Things happened, and they tailed off, with bits of news popping up here and there on long term reactions. If the past 5 months were the same amount of news day after day of Gamergate actions, it would be different, but it's clear that the effect of GG appears to be in its last stages, barring any major revelations.

The last part Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited is what applies here. The article is writing strongly against the GG movement and/or very sympathetic towards the harassment victims, even if the bulk of the sources are written this way. We can't write that way, we are supposed to be amoral and clinically neutral which is a challenge here because of the emotional aspects this subject has. We cannot adopt the same tone and attitude the press has taken towards GG, and should be in all earnest and within the limitations of the source of our V/RS polices to present the GG side in an fair and impartial manner before turning to the massive amount of crit we have from the press against GG. And by fair, I don't mean equal time, because that's impossible per V/RS. But I do mean not assuming anything negative about them within WP's voice or approach to writing; we cannot present their self-stated goals and issues with any prejudgement either from us or the press; afterwards, we can include the cric in spades, or where it is attached to specific points where it makes more logical sense (for example, when describing the GG's "objective reviews" we can then counter that point right there that the concept is considered an oxymoron by critics), but the broad sweeping crit like "it's a front for harassment", etc. should be after we have fully presented the GG side. It's both more impartial and more logical in thought to explain the criticism of GG after reviewing all of the GG position. It's completely doable without changing, removing or adding any new sources, it is simply reworking order and sentence flow, as a first point, which is what I have clearly asked for above in this thread. I want to use the draft to show what that order would result in, but I don't want to do that yet given that we're straw polling to have the current version replace the main page, but I also want to make sure that others are clear what I'm doing first before massively reverting any changes. --MASEM (t) 07:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "advocacy or promotion" to report what reliable sources report about something. Indeed, that is exactly what Wikipedia articles do and exactly how they are written. And no, we are not required to present GG's claims as if they are true before reporting that they have been widely debunked by reliable sources. The NPOV policy does not require us to say that something which is false is true — and in fact, the BLP policy requires us to not present false claims as true when they relate to living people, as the vast majority of Gamergate claims do. These are not academic discussions about the finer points of a theory, but attacks on the characters of living people, and we have a fundamental responsibility to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and respect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is not "advocacy or promotion" to state what RS state they feel about a situation, but it is the case when we talk their side as being "right", even if we don't say that. When we write "GG claims it is X but many critics say it is not X", that is a tone that puts the GG as "wrong" and the press "right". We are required to present what GG claims about itself (the little we can extract from RSes) without any prejudgemental calls, because we cannot presume the popular opinion is the right opinion. In regards to anything BLP related in that, there is exactly BLP-tied item that we can actually pull from RSes as part of GG's position, and that is the one accusation that is undenibly proven false, the one about Quinn/Grayson/positive coverage. While I know there are many other accusations out there that some GG want to claim, there's nothing to be pulled from any high-quality RSes, and as such, as long as we are staying to RS coverage, the inclusion of any other BLP that would fall line with policy is not going to happen. (There will continue to be the nature that trolls and the like will stay trolling and insert unsourced material as for example on the Frank Wu article, but that's easily dealt with by BLP policy. This is what happens regardless due to the nature of an open wiki, which isn't going to change). And your final point "to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and respect" -- so are the bulk of the GG movement. They are real people too. No, BLP doesn't apply to them as a broad nameless group, but lacking any clear evidence that all of GG is responsible for the harassment, we should be presenting their side without any prejudgement. The press has enough words about them so the reader will clearly walk away to know the public opinion swings against them, but that should only be after they've read the press's arguments, and not from how WP's voice gives that. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Masem. On timing, now you're up to the USU cancellation which is in the New York Times in mid-October, two months after the fuss began with the Zoe Post. You also mention Felicia Day, which was about a week later. Can you see why this style of discussion is so frustrating? It takes ages for us to get on the same page about a tiny aspect of what you say we should do, and we still haven't examined why you think this reduction in scope is supported by the sources or how that fits in with your broader ideas. It's exhausting and it's clearly not going to get anywhere until we have clear, limited, justifiable and actionable proposals or at least a fighting chance of moving in that direction.

As to explain the gamergate position, I don't think we can do that because we have no reliable source that presents it as coherent. Possibly the best piece on that position (or at least the earnest search to see if such a position exists) is this piece by Singal.

As for the victims, I challenge you to demonstrate to me a way in which we are writing about the victims in a way that is disproportionate. What do you mean when you say we're sympathetic towards the harassment victims? Obviously even describing a victim of death and rape threats as such, even in the most spartan terms, will necessarily evoke sympathy in the reader. But what are we writing that unnecessarily plays on that sympathy? --TS 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake on the length of time but even with October, that's still at most two months of effectively much the same activity (as late August is when the stuff started). The same point is there - this is nothing like WWI in terms of the complexity of events which are the central part of the controversy. The history section captures that period - and the continued harassment that sporatically still occurs - perfectly. Also keep in mind that the press has not focused on any specific event in terms of criticism but the GG movement as a whole; the USU threat, for example, was where the long-running history was brought to the world stage, arguably, but it wasn't the event itself discussed but GG as a whole.

What I've been saying is that we have enough to write a brief but objective section on GG's stance. (brief due to the limited RSes that have talked about it) We talk about how they are (or aren't) organized, where they congregate, their estimated numbers, we talk about their ethics claims already, and actions they've taken in response to negative press. It's all there, but scattered like seeds instead of a cohesive section. That's what the reorganization I've suggested is meant to help. Then once the GG side is explained, we've got a barrage of various facets of negative criticism about GG as a whole, which make much more sense after you've explained the GG approach and mindset.

I never said we're disproportionate about the harassment victims, but we have to be aware that we cannot show sympathy for them just as we cannot show prejudgement for the GG side. I don't think the article at the present time shows any excessive sympathy for Quinn, etc. but it is a danger based on the language that has been used on this talk page and on the ArbCom page (particularly the talk page of the current decisions) that there may be a drive to "protect" these victims. We have to absolutely put down BLP controls to protect them, yes, but the implication of the tone of the talk page of the ArbCom discussion is something more than that. We have to treat the situation amorally, which is difficult here, it's not an easy thing, but it is possible. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But we do have an objective section on what the views behind GamerGate are. We have a section that describes the GamerGate mindset and everything behind it, at least as well as we can for something as complicated and controversial as this. It is the current "political views" section, which has the analysis of numerous reputable sources who have gone over GamerGate's views, goals, opinions, and politics, and documented them in depth. (Most of them generally agree with each other, in broad terms, even -- as I keep pointing out -- the ones who can be generally described as 'friendly' to it. Pretty much all reputable sources that go beyond just describing it as a wave of harassment, at this point, are describing it as a culture war against what's loosely described as 'social justice.') You still have not really said what your problem with that section is beyond a vague assertion that it is not what GamerGate "really" says about itself; presumably you want us lead with a section that will initially ignore some sources in favor of others and say that these sources are what GamerGate "really" thinks while the ones down below are what "critics" say it thinks -- but that doesn't make any sense; all of our coverage, by definition, can only be based on analysis and criticism. GamerGate does not have one central mouthpiece, nor is there any obvious definition of the locus of the controversy; we must therefore rely on reputable secondary sources to collect and describe the views of people involved, which has produced our current generally-excellent political views section. What's your objection to that? --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, I like Masem's idea, but I feel like if we just talk about it, nothing will get done. Is it possible to have a "Second" draft, and have Masem lay out the whole article as he sees it in this new format, and then we can vote on it to replace the draft? That may be the best way to just go about it. Ries42 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There's something much simpler we can do: simply move the current draft page into main article space, then use a new draft page for a proposed rewrite. Shii (tock) 08:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I revoke the above comment in light of the discussion below about keeping the page on full protection. We need to do something to enable collaboration while still offering a presentable page to the world at large, since this page is getting significant media coverage and is the number one result for "gamergate". Instead, maybe Masem and others can start work at Draft:Gamergate controversy/2. Shii (tock) 08:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input on draft version w/ reorg

Per Tony's suggestion after the previous draft was moved into mainspace and encouraging us to use the draft page to explore this above reorganization, I have populated and sorted things around, changing just a bit of wording for flow but otherwise not changing anything else. You can see it at Draft:Gamergate controversy (but you have to backfollow the redirect link at the top) or just jump here [4]. This would not be the perfected text for this , but I don't want to have this sit there for too long as the current mainspace article keeps developing and creating too much of a divergence to catch up with.

Key things:

• In reorganizing the existing text, I recognized that while some of the criticism is broad and aimed at anyone that might have used the #GG hashtag, there are two areas of criticism that we can specifically pin onto the ethics movement itself - their lack of organization/leadership, and the debate over their ethics claims - no matter how much there might be spin in the press coverage, these two things are strictly issues the movement has been called out on, compared to the issues of harassment and sexism/misogyny which may or may not be by the movement but are core issues of the controversy all together. Short of more wordsmithing and adding a few details that we can source to RS's (eg like this article [5]), this is the concise summary of what the movement is and the criticism directed specifically at the movement.
• I pushed the misogyny/feminism section up higher in the following Analysis section, since that's gotten more coverage in mainstream (the gamer stuff was more from the game journalism side).

Again, the wording is not perfect and not significantly changed from the current draft, and there's probably a lot more that can be sorted around, but I want to present how this order would look that I feel better defines the movement without changing the balance of the sources. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not perfect, but better than present. I'll withhold further suggestions to avoid sapping momentum. Rhoark (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No one's saying anything else, and the article will just keep diverging. Pull the trigger. Rhoark (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Need a diff to evaluate. Make whatever change you are proposing and revert it immediately I guess. This "draft" idea is poor, at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite. I'm not sure about the draft, or your intent in the reorganization (and I think that's a wide concern, considering the discussion below). However, this is a long, dense article with 150+ refs; it's going to be unduly difficult to compare all the changes made in the draft without a diff. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the only major thing on the draft was section reorganization without touching the bulk of the text beyond some wordsmithing to flow somewhat better for presentation, and trimming down some of the "Operation X" sections. More work on text would need to be done overall, all I wanted to do was present the reordered version. A diff for comparison is [6]. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom article

Mentions of the wikipedia edit warring have been appearing in news articles about GamerGate for a while, but usually just in passing. Although more focused articles about Jimbo's role exist [7] [8]

Today Guardian has published a piece on the Arbcom case, which i think given that events on wikipedia are very much part of the Gamergate controversy avoids MOS:SELFREF. But there are two problems. The first one is that the article is incredibly inaccurate. First of all its based only off of the original version of the Proposed decision, and doesnt note any of the changes made. It claims bans have already been put in place, this is incorrect. It claims 5 anti-GamerGate editors were proposed topic bans regarding all feminism topics, this is incorrect only 4 were, (and only 3 have had the topic ban pass). While Masem who claims to be anti-GG was proposed a topic ban later, it did not mention prohibiting edits to Also given that the article is pretty much just based off of a blog post by MarkBernstein who's accused Masem of running an evil cabal of 8channers, it seems unlikely the author was referring to Masem. So given how much of a wreck the article is and how much of it is just plain wrong, is it useable?

The second problem is: if it is usuable who's allowed to put information from it into the article? Would it mean that everyone who took part in the Arbcom case would have to keep WP:COS in mind when editing anything referring to it? Would it just be parties to the case? Bosstopher (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source saying that The Guardian is inaccurate? If The Guardian writes about it, with their history of Pulitzer prizes, reliability, and editorial oversight, than I am pretty sure we should report it exactly as Guardian says. Obviously we have to mention this is the Guardian's opinion, and cite it as such, unless you think that's WP:UNDUE. I'm not completely certain. In all seriousness though its probably just undue unless we have more articles writing about the ArbCom case in particular. I vote for passing the buck. Ries42 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We know the Guardian article is wrong because the ArbCom case is still open and all remedies have yet to be voted on completely. Trending towards the conclusions made, yes, but not there yet and some remedies can still flip on votes. Even given that, there's still not a heck of a lot appropriate to the GG topic here from these articles - a topic about the criticism of Wikipedia in general, possibly, but I yet to see any real point of substance of what WP's role has been in GG to date. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to use reliable sources that still get things wrong. If the Guardian chooses to publish something asserting the moon is made of cheese, we wouldn't include that in an article either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe everyone here missed the fact that Ries42 was being sarcastic. — Strongjam (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought the "In all seriousness" afterword would have indicated that. I was indeed being cheeky. Ries42 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. To be fair, it's been impossible to tell as of late here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the arbcom really merits inclusion in the article based on one source (which printed prematurely.) Argument might be made for including something about Jimbo based on multiple sources, but I'm not convinced. Seems like a minor detail at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The arbcom case is definitely not a minor detail. Copulative (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, no aspect of how Wikipedia has handled GG - short of Jimmy Wales' statements and even then to a small degree - has affected the GG situation, or at least what has been reported in RS. The case is important to WP, but from the topic of GG, it has little immediate relevance. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with you, considering how much controversy the Wikipedia article itself has generated. Copulative (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I know in GG circles there is a lot of controversy, and here, I'll just point to the archive page count, but we have nothing from reliable sources that say that WP's article has had any role in the GG controversy. If anything, the stuff about Jimmy talking about the GG's try at their own version of a GG article, that's all about criticism of Wikipedia that involves the GG issue, but not a topic of the GG controversy. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What about this portion from the The Guardian article? "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate" Copulative (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How has the actions we have done here in the long-running debates and through ArbCom have had any direct influence on the GG controversy/movement? The only thing I think that even approaches a point of use is an explanation of how this and other GG-related articles have seen an influx of people likely siding with GG to try to change the way these articles are written, as part of the activities of the GG group -- but there's zero sources for that at all. To GG, this is a non-story, but it is a possible story in discussing WP in the media or criticism of WP. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It has direct influence because when someone doesn't know what Gamergate is, they're going to Google it and the first thing that pops up will be a Wikipedia article called "Gamergate controversy." Copulative (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the issue the GG side has with WP, that's very clear, and that's why we've had lots of new editors trying to participate. But this is not at all documented in any reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on the Arb page, the article is essentially correct; all they whiffed on was quoting Mark Bernstein saying "No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts", as there was only one; TDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 January 2015‎

A diff of Tarc's comment for the interested. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any big problems in article accuracy, sadly. Artw (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I literally listed all the factual errors in the article, at the top of the section. There's a substantial number even excluding the Bernstein quote.Bosstopher (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing those as pretty minor quibbles or subjective on your part, TBH. Artw (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who didn't take part in the ArbCom case can add info from the article without breaking Wikipedia rules. Copulative (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really sad a source as respected as The Gaurdian published something that poor. Anyway it seems undue to go into any of the specifics anyway while there is only one source. HalfHat 18:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• You know what, I actually think this article is very good for something. Specifically, its factual errors point out that its author may not be deserving of the amount of weight this article has given him, and it seriously brings into question his reliability. Currently the Draft has three articles written by Mr. Hern. I believe there may not be anything directly questionable about those articles in a quick review, but perhaps they are not as rock-solid reliable as previous discussions have led us to believe. Ries42 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the following in a separate section before I noticed this discussion:

Some people are saying it's inaccurate but I think that, nitpicking aside, this is as fair an account of the political dimension of the case as I could expect.

This one-off article probably doesn't merit mention in our article yet, because in the grand scheme of things Wikipedia hasn't been a big part of the controversy. That may change if many reliable sources start discussing the arbitration case. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --TS 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not an accurate news piece at all. If you have particular feelings about Gamergate and this article, you might think the whole thing is being handled in a fairly one-sided manner, but as far as I can tell they're handing out various bans, admonishments, or other punishments to both sides pretty readily. I think Halfhat is on the topic ban list, the Devil's Advocate is on the ban list, Loganmac is there, and other users have had their existing bans confirmed. Anti-GG editors seem to be getting sanctioned, but there's politicking about it - especially for Ryulong. It looks like the article is being written based on Mark Bernstein's statements - and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he involved with this whole mess? It's like if the Guardian did an article after an interview with Ryulong or NorthBySouthBaranof, which honestly would have made more sense because those two have done a lot of editing to the article.

My guess? It's politics. They're sounding the word that the article needs more anti-GG editors because a few of the current ones may get banned. Emphasis on the "may" part. YellowSandals (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that this article is extremely insulting to the arbitrators, who are volunteers, not Chief Justices, and have worked very hard to pursue a just resolution. If anything this is good evidence that newspaper sources are untrustworthy, and that this article won't really be decent until a greater number of neutral, uninvolved accounts are available. Shii (tock) 01:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an article about it from the beloved Gawker: http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331/+cushac Copulative (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If enough sources report on it, we'll have to cover it here eventually, but for now I think it'd be best to wait until the ArbCom decision is finalized, at least (which should produce most of the coverage if there's going to be more) -- it doesn't seem like something pressingly relevant or high-profile enough that we have to rush to add it on these few sources, anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with the drama, but I just read the news and it's disappointing to hear that a determined group of trolls is pushing away a good group of editors. Sorry I don't have a solution to propose, it's just sad to hear. --Frybread (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not call arbitrators "trolls." They have had to deal with this case for several weeks and are trying to find the best solution to multiple groups of editors whose actions might be deemed problematic. This case isn't a win for anyone, so I will apologize if that sounds snippy. To get back on track, do you have an opinion as to what we should do with the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not the Arbitors he's calling trolls, it's certain editors involved in the dispute. Just to clarify for him. HalfHat 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Whose to say he wasn't. And whose to say he might not be right?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is the following: I do not believe that the article should be included as a source at the present time. It appears to make several mistakes: Implies that the case is over, implies that there was a preliminary decision, states that arbcom has sanctioned anyone, etc. It fails to disclose that Mark Bernstein has an indefinite topic ban on discussion and edits to Gamergate related articles. I feel that the author of the article should have confirmed a few things before this could be a reliable article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with this statement by Super Goku V. We can dismiss even reliable sources articles on a case by case basis and this is one of them. The article has several factual errors and sources statements from an editor who has been topic-banned for his involvement in the dispute. There is little doubt in my mind that at this point this Wikipedia article itself, ArbCom, and the history of this article have become a part of the controversy, but this source is not accurate enough for inclusion about it. Reporting about a controversy over a Wikipedia article on the article itself is also a tricky situation that I think would require more community oversight before it is attempted, if a factual reliable source comes up about it. Weedwacker (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not then further investigate whether a source provides "evidence" — we are encyclopedia editors, not investigative reporters. If reliable sources say something is true, for our purposes it is true." So which is it? Do we have to check if a source is telling the truth before using it or do we not? Or do we decide that based on which narrative we're pushing now? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating two different issues. On this topic, we have only a single reliable source thus far presented and it is reasonable to discuss whether we should write an encyclopedia section based upon only a sole source, or whether we should wait to find out if other reliable sources chime in on the issue and what they have to say. We don't have any reliable sources saying that that source is wrong, but we don't have a consensus of reliable sources to say it's right, either. The more sources we can cite on a particular issue, the more likely we are to avoid issues of undue weight and the more likely we are to appropriately reflect the prevailing mainstream viewpoint of an issue. On the other hand, the issue you cite in your post is not a matter of a sole source, but of a clearly-established and overwhelming consensus of multiple reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth? Akesgeroth (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not truth finders. — Strongjam (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And we are not obligated to put falsehoods in the article simply because traditionally reliable sources decide to promote them, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And the inclusion of any material is subject to editorial discretion, and using a single source for anything this controversial is not best practices at any rate, thus I agree that we should avoid including this issue until we have a wider array of reliable sources from which to support an encyclopedic section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So if you have any reliable sources to support your claim that something is a lie, then you'd present them here. That you haven't suggests that you don't have any reliable sources to support your claim, and that it is little more than your unsupported personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion, nor is it a platform to right great wrongs. I believe that you have a deep-seated and good-faith belief that it is a lie, but that's not how we write encyclopedia articles. It just isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

NBSB is correct. Even if normally reliable sources are wrong, Wikipedia operates on verifiability and not truth. If sources continue to get the facts wrong and the notability of the ArbCom decision in relation to this article rises enough, we will have to include the factually incorrect information in this article. Lignos (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IT KEEPS HAPPENING. [9] Bosstopher (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, this is funny. I think at this rate the GG ArbCom case will become so notable, that we'll have to report on it. And then... wait, do we have to post information that is factually not true because its been reported on so much. I mean, this is The Guardian we're talking about. Even if we KNOW its wrong, for instance, the Arbitrators themselves can say it was factually wrong, are our hands tied? Ries42 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the Guardian article utilizes only one source on the GamerGate article, that being a person with multiple bans re: the GamerGate controversy, it would almost be pro-GG to use the article itself as a "reliable source". Indeed, it almost comes across as a means to inject that person's PoV back into the article by way of getting a news organization to quote him about it. Calbeck (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro GG in what sense exactly? Mr. Bernstien, the quoted source, was not Pro GG. If you mean "it proves the Pro GG narative," well, that doesn't really mean anything. Plus, if The Guardian felt it was reliable, we are supposed to not question that. This falls out in one of three ways. 1) Its not notable enough, and thus, no inclusion. 2) It gains enough notability and it is included as the Guardian says. WP:VNT takes precedence, where despite some things not being completely "correct" we report it as The Guardian sees it. 3) We agree that the falsities in the article outweigh its notability, and we challenge the reliability of it. Most likely the target of the unreliability would be the author, not The Guardian itself. Ries42 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In the sense that histrionics tend to actually go against a person in the public arena. Bernstein's claim that this decision is "worse than a crime" is an example of something that would tend to set an otherwise neutral reader wondering why such hyperbole was in play. I concur, however, that challenging unreliable sources should go to including sources used by otherwise reliable sources, such as the Guardian as an institution.Calbeck (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Has there ever been a precedent where the press is so obscenely lazy, political, and unwilling to do research on a subject that there was no way to write to accurate article? For example, imagine James Cook comes back from Tahiti and and a scholar on his boat says that everyone in Tahiti is beautiful and willing to have romance with any European. Afterward everyone began reporting on that and spreading that lie because it was juicy and sexy, and for years people thought Tahiti was some island of nymphs. Is it possible that maybe a lot of the news doesn't actually care that much about video games or video game culture and they just want to report on the juicy stuff? We've had people both pro and anti-Gamergate say they were harassed and sent death threats, but the press has only talked about the women - we can't really report anti-Gamergate harassers because it's only being discussed in social media and not on the BBC. Maybe there runs a possibility a lot of sources are just off-handedly reporting a sexy narrative that's vaguely based on reality, but as with the stories of Tahiti, have much more mundane, banal origins. YellowSandals (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind: all the articles that I've seen about the ArbCom decision all extend/source directly the Guardian article and then subsequently MB's blog posts. It is effectively the same single article, just in the telephone-game of slight variations from message to message. Let's not yet throw the baby out with the bathwater though we should be aware that the article and its small mutations are creating a stir on the social media that we might have to deal with. --MASEM (t) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not "involved", nor am I a regular Wikipedia editor (I was active in some specialized and unrelated articles about a decade ago, but I have completely lost the login details and can't recover them as I no longer have the associated email address). I have, however, been closely following the issues associated with this article, and have often been stunned at the disconnect between what was actually happening, and what was reported (the "GamerGate is dead/over/old news" drumbeat every week was particularly amusing). Now, I realize that Wikipedia has to use reliable sources, but it is a delicious irony that the same style of reporting (using only one biased viewpoint for sources, and presenting their allegations as facts without further research) that has characterized the entire episode has now, in a beautifully meta moment, wrapped around to the Wikipedia article about the whole mess and the ArbCom case it spawned. Now, for all that the overwhelming majority of RS being of a particular tone and presenting a particular group of facts, you may want to consider, how many of those "facts" were independently derived, and how many of those sources were sourced from each other. 150.167.144.14 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if the information in the article is 100% accurate (I haven't read the article, and I haven't cared enough about this issue in several months for it to be fair for me to comment) and even if we view the source as reliable, we still can't use it in this article because doing so would amount to our article indirectly citing itself (albeit through an article quoting a participant in an arbitration regarding the Wikipedia article citing). I forget the acronym, but I seem to remember it being a rule here that we can't cite reflexively. If it isn't, it should be. Quodfui (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also just like to point out that all of this goes to the point I made October 23rd. We're being used by the Guardian as a primary source in a controversy we're ostensibly reporting on. Quodfui (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That said, I think the Guardian article is important and should be included on Wikipedia, even if not here. Is there an article on discussion of Wikipedia in the media? Quodfui (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As the Guardian article is factually inaccurate, I don't see it getting any play here currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The article reflects very real concerns about the effect of the ArbComm on Wilipedia and the claims of falsehood are massively overblown. Artw (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And as those concerns are based on very real falsehoods, including who is getting banned and the attitude of Wikipedia toward specific points of view, it's not worth discussing at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every sentence about the Arbcom decision contains some factual error. The headline of the article is "Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles " which is factually inaccurate in that only 3 (possibly 4) are being banned, and from articles on gender related disputes not on gender altogether. This means the 3 (not 5) editors have not been banned from making corrections to feminism articles. Also none of the editors have actually been banned yet. Then quoting Mark Bernstein it says only throwaway GG accounts were sanctioned, which is incorrect, and that there will be no feminists left editing the article, which is also incorrect because I consider myself to be a feminist (although Bernstein admits this is by his own rough count). Everything from that point onwards about wiki-politics being super toxic seems fair enough. While whats written written may sound vaguely true all the specifics of fact are completely wrong. Bosstopher (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Argh...please read all of what I wrote before responding to part of it. I do not think the Guardian article should be used for a source here, and I said as much above. I have no reason to doubt that the Guardian article is factually inaccurate, but factual inaccuracy isn't in and of itself a reason not to use a source - this article is on the #Gamergate controversy and the vehemence of the debate here and the article's wide use as a source elsewhere on the internet say it has become part of the controversy. We can't use it because its content derives from the article we'd be citing it on (WP:CIRCULAR). I think it could be included in a different article on controversies regarding Wikipedia's editing policies. I'm sure such an article exists. I think I've read it before. Quodfui (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that was meant as a response to Artw's claims of factual innacuracy being overblown. Bosstopher (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that the case itself becomes notable enough to spawn an article, the place you're probably thinking of is the Criticism page, on a new subpage thereof like other past incidents that became notable. If consensus is that it should be referenced here somehow, we could link to the specific new criticism subpage page from here to avoid WP:SELFREF issues. Sappow (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I knew there was a better spot. The list of controversies is where you want to be. There's already an entry for this event there, and I'm sure there will be a fair number of additional reliable articles about it whenever the ArbCom case closes. Sappow (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So I've heard it go back and forth between not using the source because it's factually inaccurate, but then there are some voices saying that factual inaccuracy does not mean we should not use the source. So I have 2 questions in regards to this.

1. If we use sources that we know to be factually in accurate, what does that say about WP? Is it just a reflection of popular opinion or potentially even just propaganda? I know that WP doesn't consider the "truth" of sources. But if we know an article to not be true, then don't we have a responsibility to avoid using that material? All of the guidelines of WP:RS AND WP:BLP are in regards to material being used in WP. But does that mean we can't use facts to avoid using overly falsified or misleading articles? In other words, we can't use facts to including unreliable material to an article, but can and should we use facts to exclude seemingly reliable source material from an article?

2. Reliability is based on accuracy, honesty and/or achievement. Does this not mean that factual inaccuracies detract from reliability? If an article is factually inaccurate, would that not mean, at the very least, that this article is not reliable and therefore not a proper source of material for WP?

I do realize though that there are some times when facts don't matter in a source, but it seems like those are usually just going to be opinion pieces or other special circumstances. And I guess there's some question to the autonomy of editors too. For WP not being a bureaucracy it sure seems very bureaucraty... Thanks.TyTyMang (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a fair enough argument and we should trim down our use of the Guardian on this specific topic. Shii (tock) 16:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Wikipedia, and to a lesser extent the Arbcom decision are not part of the Gamergate controversy and don't belong in the article at this time.

• Support. Leave it out for now.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I hesitate to stick my head above the parapet. But it seems to me that this is what everyone has said. The Guardian and Mary Sue and others have decided that ArbCom (and hence Wikipedia) are part of GamerGate - and the nasty "misogynist" GamerGate at that, not the nice "ethics in gaming" GamerGate. And of course the dominant narrative is either that the nice "ethics in gaming" GamerGate doesn't exist (it's part of the nasty Gamer Gate", pretending to be nice - just like Wikipedia and ArbCom), that it's vanishingly small, or (per User:Jimbo Wales) that they should "leave GamerGate" and start something troll free (Good luck with that!).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

Eh, I don't think they're making that claim, more just that the ArbCom (and absolutely not "hence Wikipedia") buried its head in the sand and allegedly valued politeness over the quality of the wiki or protecting its editors from harassment. The articles aren't advocating that Wikipedia is like, plotting on KiA or anything, more just that its overseers tried to irresponsibly sweep things under the rug.192.249.47.186 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue in the updated lead

In the current draft lead The hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of many waves of actions ranging from critiques to online and offline harassment to direct threats, now referred to as the Gamergate movement. The overwhelming majority of commentators have dismissed these claims as variously trivial, conspiracy theories, unrelated to ethics or outright false.

The first sentence is not true. We have no source that links any self-ascribed "gamergate movement" user or forum to any specific harassment attack (the sources that talk about the more recent harassment issues are very careful to not specifically blame the movement but note that these are likely tied to the movement), and to broadly state that as a lead fact is not proper. That said, it is important to stress that there is a broad opinion that the movement is used for harassment. I propose the following rewrite. (There's also removing of the peacock "overwhelming majority" for just "most".)

The hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of discussion of debates on video game journalism, and these users referred to themselves as the Gamergate movement. Most commentators have dismissed the otherwise-unorganized movement as a front for or enabling the continuing campaign of harassment and threats, and have rejected the movement's ethics claims as variously trivial, conspiracy theories, unrelated to ethics or outright false. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely have sources which say they're responsible for harassment, the end. Here's The Christian Science Monitor from 20 January: Ms. Quinn was the first target of Gamergate, a movement that styles itself as a voice for ethics in video game journalism but which has come to be defined by its vicious anti-feminist harassment campaign. [10]. Or The Guardian from 3 December: Gamergate continued to suck in more people – some trying to reinvent its origins to make the campaign seem more credible, and some clinging to it as a way of expressing concerns about games journalism, seemingly without comprehending Gamergate’s roots in abuse and harassment. [11] Wired from 20 January: Game developer Zoe Quinn made national headlines last year as the first target of Gamergate, an online movement of angry videogame fans that has inspired widespread harassment, particularly against female games critics and professionals. [12]. It is not a matter of substantive dispute that the movement, such as it is, is responsible for harassment and is, indeed, rooted in that harassment. Not everyone in the movement is responsible, but the very issue with a "movement" is that collective responsibility attaches to uses and abuses of the movement's "good name." If you believe that Gamergate is a "movement," then it is very clear, based upon reliable sources, what that movement is about, what it stands for and what it has done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wording it the way it is now implicates everyone that calls themselves in the GG movement as an harasser and we cannot do that. That's prejudging. It's fine that the press wants to tie the movement to harassment or enabling harassment, that's a fact that has to be in the article and lead as I present, but we cannot make their leap of logic that the movement is all about harassment and stay neutral, when the movement never says this is their purpose. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not "prejudging," Masem. You can't have it both ways — you can't repeatedly ask for Gamergate to be called a "movement" and then have us deny the collective responsibility that is attached to a movement by the reliable sources commenting on the issue. We don't care what the movement says their purpose is — we care what reliable sources say they are about. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say, full stop. If all the reliable sources say Gamergate is about harassment... then yes, we will state that Gamergate is about harassment. This is a question of fact, not of point of view, and the reliable sources are effectively unanimous in their factual description. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not denying the responsibility of the movement and harassment. That's the "enabling" part of the second sentence of mine - the press has repeatedly made it clear that those that might not even do harassment are not helping their cause by not distancing themselves or changing their approach. But that doesn't make those people guilty of harassment. Further, the way the current sentence reads is implying that the movement set off to do harassment, which we have no idea if this is possibly true or not. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, we do have an idea, because the reliable sources I have presented say so. You have presented no reliable sources which say otherwise. "The press" is not a "side" here, the press is the reliable sources which our articles are based upon, by foundational policy. If you disagree with the reliable sources I have presented, I ask that you present the reliable sources which say Gamergate is not responsible for harassment. Otherwise, it is very clear what the consensus of the available reliable sources is. Your version effectively denies that consensus, is directly refuted by the available sources and as such is not appropriate for this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to present the GG movement in a legitimate light if we are staying neutral and impartial. That means we cannot use any assessment of the press that is not based on actual evidence from the GG side to define what GG is. That is like saying "Westboro BC was founded to be a hate mob". The origins of the movement are sketchy, there's no sourcing we can use to directly figure that out, but the people that call themselves the movement reject harassment as a tool, so we cannot say they were formed to engage in harassment. We can certainly express the intent the press has that they feel that GG's motives were about harassment and continue to be about it, but we can't write that as fact. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, but your claim that "the people who call themselves the movement reject harassment as a tool" is both untrue and unsourced. As numerous reliable sources state, anyone who takes the flag "Gamergate" is part of the movement because of its lack of organization. It is indisputable based upon reliable sources that harassment has flowed from a wide array of people who call themselves Gamergate. Thus, your claim is falsified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Source right here [13] "The key to reducing the movement’s size lies in the little known but surprisingly numerous species I call the Gamergate moderate (Gamergater moderabilus), which by my estimate constitutes well over half the movement. They are the people who make up Gamergate’s Harassment Patrol, which polices Twitter and has identified and reported some egregious harassers." So yes, there exists people in the GG movement that are fighting harassment, and thus not engaging in it. It is an attack statement to qualify them under that. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not "an attack statement." You once again fail to get that the movement has been defined by its harassment as per the reliable sources, and at this point that assessment is widespread and overwhelming. A single opinion column cannot override that assessment. Once you choose to accept a collective view of Gamergate, you must accept the collective assessment of their activities. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference to say that the movement is better known/defined by their harassment (a fact I agree with), and to say they are purposely organized to engage in harassment. The former statement properly captures the fact that the movement may not be the ones doing the harassing, but because it is being done in the GG hashtag, they are getting the blame for it. That's completely right and has to be there. The latter is specific blaming them for harassment which we cannot assert, and is an attack statement. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're missing the very point, then. If you refuse to agree that Gamergate has collective responsibility as a "movement," then we cannot describe them as a "movement." Either they're a disorganized rabble for whom nobody is responsible for anyone else, in which case they aren't a "movement" at all, or they're a (loosely-)organized social movement which shares collective identity and responsibility under a shared banner. You're trying to have it both ways, and that's not the way the English language works. Jesse Singal in NY Magazine is on point: So what is Gamergate “really” about? I think this is the sort of question a philosopher of language would tear apart and scatter the remnants of to the wind, because it lacks any real referent. You guys refuse to appoint a leader or write up a platform or really do any of the things real-life, adult “movements” do. I’d argue that there isn’t really any such thing as Gamergate, because any given manifestation of it can be torn down as, again, No True Gamergate by anyone who disagrees with that manifestation or views it as an inconvenient blight from an optics standpoint. [14] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, I'm saying this is what the movement considers themselves. We have to present their point of view legitimately without any bit of prejudgement from the press's side to be impartial, and then go with the counterarguments. I agree there are people in the GG movement that do not understand that if they want to be a movement they have to be responsible for what happens in the name of the movement, and their purposeful means of staying distance from it doesn't help. But that's an opinion. Even your quote above identifies itself as an opinion. Without lack of any evidence to stay that the whole GG movement is purposely there for harassing people, we have assume what they state as their motives as their claims without comment. We cannot write this article as an attack piece against them at all lacking clear solid evidence they are a whole group are purposely engaging in harassment. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we call it a movement because it looks like a movement, acts like a movement, and is described as a movement. That's the difference between that and the claims that the movement is "rooted" in harassment, especially when we know and have sources that note otherwise. The reliable sources describe Gamergate numerous ways, so yes, we will state those numerous ways with attribution, not treat opinion as fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to present said sources here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The ones we use in the article suffice for this specific point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a cop-out. Which sources state that harassment is not part of the activities Gamergate is responsible for? I've cited my sources above and will be happy to provide more upon request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is arguing otherwise? I'm not, and Masem is not. The issue is one of attribution of specific motives and points, not of the broader issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're arguing otherwise — you're arguing to remove that direct statement from the lede of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attribute beliefs or claims to me that I do not hold. Read Masem's replacement text closer to get a better idea as to what I'm arguing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as we pick and choose sources, yes. It's a pretty substantive dispute as to the extent of the harassment in comparison to what the broader movement is, and Masem is correct that the direct language we're using is misleading at best. We must attribute the point to some and/or specific observers, not just relate it as assumed fact. NPOV demands it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of many waves of actions ranging from critiques to online and offline harassment to direct threats, now referred to as the Gamergate movement is a fact. That harassment is a major part of Gamergate's activities — and by far the most notable activity — is not a matter of factual dispute among reliable sources. If you disagree, I invite you to present reliable sources which state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's an opinion, regardless of the notability of the issue. The reliable sources are better described by Masem's language above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This statement is an attack statement against people that have done nothing in relationship to harassment (which we do have sources say exist, the GG moderate) That is completely unallowed per NPOV. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, if you believe that Gamergate is a "movement," then you must accept that the "movement" has long ago been defined by harassment of women in video gaming. That is completely allowed per NPOV, because it is the indisputable consensus of available reliable sources, which our articles are based upon. You have presented a singular source from October, whereas there are multiple, stronger and more recent sources which state otherwise. You cannot simply state that "Gamergate was about discussion and debates of video game journalism" because that is a clear example of lying by omission — omitting what the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources say Gamergate is about NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

One can believe Gamergate is a movement (based on sources and evidence) and not agree that we should "define" it without attribution. Our articles are based on sources, yes. NPOV requires us to attribute those sources properly and not simply assume that the reportws opinions (especially when they conflict with evidence) are fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Building on this point, imaging if the New York Times came out tomorrow and printed some extremely contentious statement about a business without stating why or how but claiming it as fact, and that story got repeated in a number of sources. WP would carefully use that source as a claim, not a fact, despite being printed by the NYT, as without a clear chain of how they got their, the claim is dubious despite the reliability. We are enabled by policy to make that determination and use sources carefully (this was a conclusion of the bias RFC I had). That's what's happening here. There is no evidence or the like that these sources are using to assert that GG is a harassment campaign from the start (and we are aware that the evidence is not readily apparent here), and since that is a contentious claim, we can make sure it is treated only as a claim and not as a fact despite the reliability of the sources. Reliability does not mean infallible, and that's the problem with sources here. I'm not dismissing any of these claims as unusable but they must remain claims and opinions (just as the GG claims and opinions will remain claims and opinions), and cannot make the assumption they are "right". --MASEM (t) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not supported by the facts of the case. That is an opinion that we cannot take as editors here. Let the press do that for us, fine, but not as neutral, impartial editors. We have to be aware that what the instigation of GG is pretty much unknown due to lack of sourcing and the conjunction of many events at the same time (a chicken-egg problem). What the press thinks it is is not the point we can take to edit this article. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You can present a source for your claim that it's "not supported by the facts of the case," right? Otherwise, you get a tag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Salon article above, to start. Plus, there's what is "reality" here. I've spent enough time trying to dig for sources for objectively talking about GG that I know that the bulk of what I read (mostly from KIA) is not about harassment at all, but ethics. That exists. We're stuck, however, with the "verifyability, not truth" paradox, and that information would be both OR and unverifyable obviously, but I know it's true. Take the Guardian article about the ArbCom decision. We know it is factually wrong, but to say why its wrong is OR and unverifiable. But because we know its wrong, we would not include it, or at least make sure its claims remained claims for our article. Same thing here. It's very easy to research what the GG side does, and it is tremendously clear the bulk do not engage in harassment. But again, we have a few RSes that explain there is antiharassment groups within GG, so you don't have to take my word on the nature of what I have to read. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Slate article is an opinion column and dates from October, whereas the sources I have cited above are hard news stories published much more recently. There may have been, at one point, some debate about what Gamergate was about, but there is no longer any such debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing we need to work on getting better sourcing on is the root of the conflict. We have videos and blog posts going back years regarding ethical journalism, and Gamergate exploded those issues while also having proponents engage in harassment. We need more like this that help us connect those dots. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no controversy that gaming journalism has from its inception been essentially an advertising platform. No one really cares. Sexism and harassment of women goes back just as far and people DO care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pen, just because you haven't heard that anyone cares about the state of gaming journalism doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy for discussion in an article that involves gaming journalism as a subject of debate.

I agree that the article would benefit from a better historical look at how either side of Gamergate came into being and why the people supporting either side can't seem to understand each other. As far as I gather, it unfolds as thus:

1. Zoe Quinn makes "Depression Quest" and the game is criticized for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with gender at first.
2. Quinn is assumed to have issued a DMCA claim against a Youtube video that criticized her game. In response, this is when harassment begins in earnest. Still nothing to do with gender so far.
3. Gjoni's posts are discovered. People are led to believe Quinn used distasteful methods to achieve press coverage of her game. Still nothing about gender yet.
4. Zoe Quinn claims she is being harassed because she is a woman. Feminist supporters arrive. NOW it is about gender.
5. Punditry ensues. Gamergate supporters believe they are dealing with DMCA abuse and an unethical press. Gamergate opponents believe they are dealing with vindictive misogynists. Milo reinforces the pro position. Sarkeesian reinforces the anti position. The two sides segregate and fall into their own circles and begin spreading vicious rumors about each other.
6. Actual anti-feminists join the conflict, believing Gamergate is about beating back Feminism. Radical feminists join anti-gamergate in the belief that they are dealing with their ideological foes. The prophesies have fulfilled themselves and now much of the debate is about gender and sexism.
7. Harassment. Everyone gets harassed. Conspiracy theories, death threats, so on and so forth. Gamergate becomes enormous.

Does anyone feel like the above assessment doesn't rather cleanly explain a lot of this without taking a biased, accusatory tone? If you can bring yourself to look at it from the outside this way, you can see how there actually are radical feminists, misogynists, unethical behavior among the press, and every other detail being factually present. This stuff is all here - the two sides are not lying, they just lack perspective. YellowSandals (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no indication that the press "does not understand" gamergaters claimed positions. We have multiple sources that specifically review those claims and dismiss them . That gamergators do not understand the real world and how the real world views gamergators is a potential issue, but I think we cover that, too (or have at one time). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this proposed text: The Gamergate hashtag and a variety of online discussion forums became the center of many waves of actions ranging from critiques to online and offline harassment to direct threats, now referred to as the Gamergate movement. You will notice that I'm avoiding unifying the "many waves of actions" into some kind of cohesive whole here. Because of that, this text deliberately did not do what Masem worries that it does: "implicates everyone that calls themselves in the GG movement as an harasser," any more than coverage of the #BlackLivesMatter protests implicate everyone in the movement with burning police cars.

At the moment, "Gamergate movement" (as a two-word sequence) draws 139,000 hits on Google News. I think it's fair approximation of this public usage by reliable sources to say that it encompasses the variety of actions I referred to. Looking online, one can also find "Gamergate is a movement" said by proponents of GG (largely as an ethics-focused thing) and by opponents of GG. You can also find "Gamergate is not a movement" said by proponents ("it's a constellation of uncoordinated actions," or it's a hashtag") and opponents ("it's a campaign of harassment" or "it's hashtag"). (The latter two draw 10-16,000 hits on Google writ large.) There may not be consensus on whether GG is a movement. However, to do our job on clarity and being an encyclopedia, we must explain what this common phrase "Gamergate movement" actually refers to, when it is used to refer to something. (My edits were prompted by the fact that people on this talk page were unable to understand from the article what it meant to be "a Gamergate supporter," a phrase that is repeatedly used on the page.) On this, we can and must be clear by turning to reliable sources.--Carwil (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't wonder if maybe the problem is that the article so far has spent too much time focusing on who Gamergate is when the reality is that Gamergate means something a little different to everyone involved in it. For some it is about gender, for others it's about journalism. For the ones who find it's about journalism and nothing else, they actually don't like being associated with any of the gender aspects. It's so ideological that I think it's fair to say Gamergate is akin to writing about a religion. You might say, "Christianity is a religion based around actions ranging from helping the poor to burning innocent people alive," and you would be accurate, but it wouldn't be the sanest way of explaining it. What I'd like to see this article do is try less to explain what Gamergate is supposed to be about and instead explain how it exists or became this big.

Gamergate didn't really happen because of misogyny or because of a conspiracy among the press. I think that, most likely, when Zoe Quinn said she was being attacked because she's a girl, she really did believe that. She was getting a ludicrous amount of hate mail for things she may not have done, so she found an explanation and there was an ideological group waiting in the wings to support that conclusion, and here we are with Gamergate now a source of ideological controversy. It started off trivial enough to sweep under the rug with a modest statement by Kotaku. Why anyone's PR department didn't put a stop to things as they caught fire I do not know. YellowSandals (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. Many of our sources say that the harassment Quinn, Sarkeesian, and so on were receiving (even before GamerGate started) was misogynistic in character -- see eg. the Washington Post here, the Guardian here, or Sengal's in-depth analysis of it here; and all of them say that the reason these particular people were targeted was, at least in part, because they raised the ire of people eager to fight culture wars over gender (which some of these articles characterize as 'misogyny', but you get the idea.) And as both they and many other sources say, the initial conspiracy theories about Quinn were (paraphrased) that a feminist-friendly press had used its sinister influence to advance its views; in pushing that theory, the initial push against Quinn was absolutely about gender-politics. I mean, it's a complicated issue, but it's important to underline that the majority of reliable sources agree that gender politics was core to what was driving GamerGate right from the start. This is also easy to see this if you go back to the initial chatlogs and 4chan posts, where people would talk about how to use the "ethics aspect" as a tool advance their agenda, using "SJW language" or whatever to convince people that something vile and unethical had occurred in order to get them on their side -- we can't use those posts as sources directly, but fortunately, many reliable sources have gone over them and reported back, and we can use those. Obviously this doesn't mean that everyone involved at the start was driven by a deep-seated need to fight against what they saw as a feminist conspiracy, but the sources in the article are more than sufficient to support the argument that that was part of the driving force behind GamerGate all the way back when it was just the #Quinnspiracy. Of course I agree with you (as you said below) that it's tricky to ascribe motives and goals to a diffuse group like this; but one advantage journalists have, when it comes to GamerGate, is that the main discussion forums involved are generally public, so a journalist who wants to take the time to go over them and paraphrase what GamerGate is based on what they find there can actually do so (even tracing the controversy right back to its start.) And many of the journalists who did so returned with the conclusion that GamerGate's original targets were chosen because they were women or outspoken feminists (although as our article says, politics related to the gamer identity also played a major role.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of narrative here, but I'm not sure what the point is. YellowSandals, what about the modified lead is inaccurate or unsupported?

Masem raised alternate text way at the top of this discussion. It modifies my text to say …became the center of discussion of debates on video game journalism. To my mind, that was part of the "critiques" in the text, but those critiques also clearly include critiques of mainstream journalism, social justice movements, and scientific researchers, so I don't see how Masem's text is an imporvement. --Carwil (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying Masem's change is specifically better or worse since both options read similarly. I was suggesting maybe an alternative approach that doesn't try to explain up front what Gamergate is except an "online controversy". What I mean to imply is that it might be better to kind of explain the history and divergent viewpoints without really trying to say Gamergate is about any particular thing. A chronological blow-by-blow. This occurred, that occurred, he said this, she said that, and so on. That way the reader understands a picture of things from either angle and understands why there's a conflict. So far the article has struggled to achieve balance because the two sides want to say the movement is about ethics or the movement is about harassment, but we really just don't have concrete demographic data on any of it. We don't know how many are involved in harassment, the ethics, the anti-feminism, or what. For all we could know, the controversy involves a hundred dedicated supporters and a thousand dedicated detractors - the demographics involved make a difference to how you might explain Gamergate. Since we don't have that data, I feel like it might be wiser to avoid talking motives or demographics and instead explain the concrete history.

The source I found mentioned a lot of non-gender related criticism of Quinn prior to Gamergate, but Aquillion insists there's data showing gender-based criticism from early on. Since these are divergent accounts, we probably need to express that contradiction in perspective since it is most likely that either perspective is true depending on your social circle. The bulk of the article really will detail the harassment because that's so prevalent in the press, but in terms of explaining what Gamergate is, I think it might be better to explain where it diverges and how it's come to mean different things to different people. YellowSandals (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How about someone suggest a rewritten intro, post is here and we discuss it?BerserkerBen (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Another potential lead issue

One word in the lead that raises an eyebrow is the "terrorism" bit. The USU threat was described by the sources as possible terrorism, no doubt (though "terrorism" is a word that gets thrown around a lot loosely to evoke empathy.) But this is the only case that I think we can document that way (that is, described by RSes as terrorism), and thus using one case to put that into the lead appears to be specifically evoke the word to drive empathy against the GG. The multiple harassment and death threats have to be summarized in the lede, but not a single one-off incident. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No, terroristic threats is not "thrown around lightly to evoke empathy". It is an accurate accounting of terroristic threats to gun down an auditorium full of people because the person issuing the threat does not want people to hear her ideas. Basic definition of terrorism.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: All articles state that specific threat was not done by or connected to Gamergate other than the target of it was Ms. Sarkeesian. Although she is connected to GG, not everything she does, nor all the threats she received before and after GG began are all connected to the GG controversy at the same level. There was another threat that occurred at the same time that did, however, connect to Gamergate. The other/secondary threat was not, to my recollection, called terrorist in nature by any source. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Ries42 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

you are flat out wrong

Cough. USU officials and Sarkeesian on Wednesday revealed new details about the threats. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate. The content of the first threat is posted at the bottom of this article. No comment on Gamergate is made in the threat itself. This is the threat that is being called "terrorist" in nature. Ries42 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you would think that people would say "Well the first letter that came in threatening a mass shooting is terrorism, but those second two that came in threatening mass shootings were not." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no indication in any reliable source that I've seen as to the content of the second or third threats. Whether they were terrorist in nature or just "death threats like Ms Sarkeesian" received prior to GG. I've looked. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it. Ries42 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian said a threat to kill at USU "did claim affiliation with #gamergate" and many reliable sources have reported that detail. You're welcome to contact those publications to see how (if?) they confirmed the claim, but for our purposes here what matters is that reliable sources are reporting it. For that matter, reliable sources (really everyone covering the story) have also reported on the connection between the most publicized of those Utah threats and GamerGate, despite that specific threat lacking the hashtag. Emarkcd (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There was, as best as has been reported, exactly one threat that has been called "terrorism" by the press. We cannot say "terrorism attacks" since that's false, and compared to everything else, that is calling out one very specific instance in the lede, which is too fine a detail for that. And yes, post-9/11, the word "terrorism" is a weighted word that gets thrown around a lot on things that aren't really terrorism to evoke emotion. I am not saying that the USU incident wasn't called terrorism by sources, but again to stress - it was one isolated incident and still unsure if connected to the movement, so we should not be calling it out in the lead. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

one "isolated" incident ? it is that incident which brought the issue to the NYT. it is not tangential to the controversy, it is a major factor in its notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's still isolated relative everything else that at least is attributed to someone using the Gamergate hashtag. The shooting threat was only tied by the fact it was targetted at Sarkeesian who at that time was also a GG target, but threat in no way connected itself to GG. The secondary threats - which were not called terrorism by any source - had the GG mention to link them. As such , that bomb threat may not even be GG related, though it is still necessary to point out that at the end of the day, the use of threats of any nature is a highly criticized and condemned action. So it is completely improper to highlight one event that might not have been done by anyone using the GG hashtag as a GG threat in the lead. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So the lede would look like this if the questionable issues were removed:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention in August 2014 as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, and others. These attacks, which were often performed under the #gamergate hashtag or by people connected to it, included online harassment and death threats, and were frequently coordinated and promoted within subforums of virtual communities such as Reddit and 8chan.

Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war that is resisting the diversification of gaming culture, the recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video game tropes, and the impact of these things on gamer social identity.

Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism, but the majority of commentators have dismissed the concerns it has focused on as being trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics.

Removed "mainstream media" buzzword as well. I don't think its needed in the first place, and it definitely isn't necessary if overwhelming is removed. Ries42 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Third para I'd move to second, and in that , add something about how the press see the movement is seen as a front and/or enabling a campaign of harassment. (That the press sees it like that, that's factually true). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Perhaps separate the "but" comment as well, to show like this:

The Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention in August 2014 as a result of sexist and misogynistic attacks targeting a number of women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, and others. These attacks, which were often performed under the #gamergate hashtag or by people connected to it, included online harassment and death threats, and were frequently coordinated and promoted within subforums of virtual communities such as Reddit and 8chan.

Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. However, the movement has been denounced by the majority of commentators because it is viewed as enabling the harassment campaign and commentators dismiss their stated concerns as being trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics.

Gamergate is widely viewed as a manifestation of a culture war that is resisting the diversification of gaming culture, the recognition of video games as an art form, social criticism of video game tropes, and the impact of these things on gamer social identity.

Ries42 (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wordsmithing: However, the seemingly-unorganized movement has been denounced by most commentators and viewed as enabling the harassment campaign, with the movement's stated concerns considered trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. I do have an issue with the first sentence, as it seems to have been wordsmithed at some point. I.e. Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement... When it was originally Some people within the Gamergate movement say they are concerned... I think this was the result of the whole "fighting" to call it a movement issue. Would you be OK with just reverting it back to

Some people within the Gamergate movement say they are concerned with ethical issues in video game journalism. However, the seemingly-unorganized movement has been denounced by most commentators and viewed as enabling the harassment, with the movement's stated concerns considered trivial, conspiracy theories, or unrelated to ethics.

Ries42 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How about A self-described Gamergate movement say they are concerned.... "Some people" begs, who they are, they just seem to be out of nowhere. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gold. Run with it IMO. Ries42 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just accepted that in Pending Changes, though I do prefer the original ordering of paragraphs. The Land (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the new order is much better because it goes into the two important points first. A) History, B) The Movement that formed, C) The overarching themes. The old order doesn't make sense because it goes A) History, B) Overarching themes, then C) The movement. Its difficult to discuss themes until everything is presented. Ries42 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find it difficult to make sense of the movement without understanding the themes, and suspect someone reading the article "cold" would feel likewise. The Land (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The themes (eg the culture war stuff) are assessments that have been made in the longer-term about why we got to this state in terms of GG (that is, it is third-parties making those assessments for the most part). As such, it logically follows in both timing and narrative. If it was the case that GG came out claiming they were fighting a culture war, that would be different, but we'd be writing other things differently too. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

To add on to Masem, your opservation (The Land) actually makes the new order better because it avoids a possible attempt to lead a POV. The themes are supposed to be overarching to the whole of the controversy, not directly related to the movement. By saying it like that, it almost sounds like its injecting a POV that the themes are directly related to the movement itself. A point that I know myself and several editors have been careful to avoid because while there are sources that claim that, there are others that do not (see Auerbach's Slate piece for an in-depth discussion of the "movement"). That isn't to say that some or all of the movement may not encompass some or all of the themes, but it seems to be, *ahem* an attempt to lead someone into a specific mindset instead of attempting to keep it as neutral as possible to introduce the "themes" before introducing all the relevent "players" so to speak. Ries42 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that "Some people involved in the controversy say that it is a movement concerned with..." is best; there clearly isn't enough unanimity among the sources to call it a cohesive movement in the article text, so that's something better attributed to the views of specific people. --Aquillion (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

While the school shooting threat is the most notable act of terrorism it is not the only. There have been countless threats meant to intimidate, the motive is political, and 'non-combatants' (like family and friends who get doxxed, police who are disrupted by swatting/false reports) are intentionally targeted. Also, most of the reputable coverage of the Utah school shooting terrorist threats (plural) confirm GamerGate's targets have received many similar threats. (Redacted) have (Redacted) and reported on the ongoing threats more broadly as (Redacted), not limited to just the specific USU example. Emarkcd (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are those reliable sources? Otherwise I would recommend you to immediately remove them as they thus irrelevant and violate WP:BLP. Avono (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

'Overwhelming Majority' vs 'Most'

Hi! I don't believe WP:PEA in the Manual of Style is appropriate to reference when making this kind of edit. When considering the difference between 'overwhelming majority' and 'most', it's very clear they are talking about different degrees of size. I believe nearly all the sources we are currently using that comment on its concerns dismiss them, which reflects 'overwhelming majority' moreso than it does 'most', and as such I have reverted your edit. If you disagree, feel free to discuss it here or on my talk page. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to include this talk page discussion in my edit summary- my apologies. An aside: Does anybody know how to add in an edit summary after the fact? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Some people do a null edit. As for "overwhelming majority," is that an observation made by a reliable source? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel like we've had this argument 20 or 30 times. Each time overwhelming is taken out, and eventually it weeds its way back in. Ries42 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it is a far more accurate descriptor of the fact that no reliable sources say otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But the lede doesn't say "reliable sources" it says commentators. Ries42 (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would an encyclopedia article need to specify that it was only using reliable sources? No encyclopedia bases content on non reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if you're talking about what commentators say, that would imply you're saying what RSes have said it has been described as. HalfHat 09:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So, in other words, it's original research? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: can you please cite where "The Columbia Journal Review et al" states "most" commentators saying what our lede currently claims, and why you believe "most" is more accurate than "other?" You've chosen to edit war so far, but not explain your edit or cite your work. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(I've changed the title of this section.)

I did. Can you answer my question please? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, both 'most' and 'overwhelming majority' are references to quantity. I don't see either as being different to each other except in terms of size implicated- I don't think one is more emotive than the other, for example. If we are okay with talking about quantity of commentators in the lede (aka if you are okay with using most) you should be okay using 'overwhelming majority', given that it more accurately reflects the number of those reliable sources we use who denounce the movement compared to those who don't. In order to make it more clear that we're talking about reliable sources, I'm also going to call them 'commentators in mainstream media' as opposed to 'commentators', given that concern was raised over how 'commentators' by itself would be interpreted. Let me know what you think! Is there a better phrase than 'overwhelming majority' that also clearly describes just how many reliable sources denounce it compared to those who don't? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In considering original research related to this statement, we as a tertiary source can make rough quantitive calls when considering the number of sources, as long as it is an obvious result and we keep to broad terms. For example if we were talking film reviews, we fairly state that a film was well received, poorly received or had mixed reviews simply by editors' observation of the number of positive and negative sources, and if we can't easily make the call, then it falls to the default "mixed". Here, it is completely fair to call out "most" commentators because that is fairly obvious from the source. But to use the more contentiously precise language "overwhelming majority" is original research because it is a more subjective call and thus requires a secondary source to express the number to that size, which we do not have anywhere (much less about the lead). As such, "most" or "a majority" are acceptable terms, but not "overwhelming majority". --MASEM (t) 04:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's agreeably contentious, then I agree that we should find better phrasing than 'overwhelming majority'. I disagree with simply using 'most', but it's preferable to 'majority' which simply indicates something greater than 50%. Does 'vast majority' have the same issues as 'overwhelming majority'? Would 'a great majority of commentators' be less objectionable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the PC Peter made, precisely because of the reasons Masem stated above.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Would people be okay with me reinserting 'commentators in mainstream media' in the meantime, or is that also contentious? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Many" or "several" also work - again, it is very obvious from a simple GNews search which way the opinion falls. Leaving it without a quantitative qualifier does beg, in context, if this was a minor viewpoint or not. It is not - we do need to state somehow this wasn't a few isolated commentators but a large number of them. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since we're really discussing a proportion or ratio, "most" would be most accurate. Something like "many" or "several" could mean just a few out of perhaps tens or hundreds of sources. I would also argue against "commentators in mainstream media" because that should be assumed. Woodroar (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how 'commentators in mainstream media' is an improvement As opposed to non-mainstream commentators? In other words, I think it is implied they are mainstream.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm specifically referring to the complaint Ries42 made, which I admittedly did view as frivolous. It's still worth considering ceding to points where readers may be confused, which I'm glad we've done in this case. Seeing general consensus, I can agree that it's not at all a point of confusion for most of Wikipedia's literate readers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Commentators in media" could include every blogger on the planet, in which case the statement would be very difficult to quantify. Clarifying mainstream limits it to our body of RSes and that makes "most" easy to observe from the sources. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ries42 above, it's extremely inaccurate to estimate what proportion of people hold an opinion if we don't qualify which kind of commentators, specially without a reliable source making the claim that we can refer to. To be accurate we should refer to "most commentators used as reference for this article", but that only says something about the criteria used for selecting sources, is not informative about the world. Lacking a reliable source that analyses the frequency and king of commentators holding certain opinions, it's best to avoid the synthesis and omit any quantifier. Diego (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Diego, if you have reliable sources that do not denounce gamergate, you're welcome to add them. I invite you to re-read WP:SYNTH and understand what it's about and what it's not about, because I feel you're misusing policy when you say it discourages the use of quantitative language when talking about sources. Masem mentions film review sections on the articles about films, which frequently make these kinds of quantitative judgements based on the reliable sources, and are perfectly fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "most sources considered reliable by Wikipedians...", it says "most commentators". SYNTH is pretty clear that the article should not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Synth may not discourage quantitative language, but it certainly discourages unverifiable quantitative language. The burden is on you to provide a reference that makes that claim, not mine to provide references disproving it. Film reviews are not exactly comparable; there exist professional critics whose work is dedicated in exclusivity to make such reviews, so in those sections it's clear about whom they are talking about, while there are no professionals dedicated to comment on the GamerGate. Yet if there was a highly controversial film for which reception was divided, where it was unclear how many media outlets are covering it, we would all agree that a statement like "most commentators think this is a good film" would require support from a direct reference.

The essential point about that sentence is that it needs to be verifiable, so that a reader wishing to assess who are these commentators and how the majority is being calculated can go to the sources and check whether they agree with that assertion. If we had an academic or news outlet saying something like "I have selected a random sample of articles coming from online newspapers with a paid editorial staff, and we consider that they dismiss ethical concerns if they include any synonym of the words 'ethics' and 'dismiss', and we considered a majority when their count exceeded 51%", then we would have a verifiable claim. But there is no such source; a reader willing to verify the claim would find out that it's only supported by "a Wikipedia talk page, where a number of editors have agreed that 'most commentators' is a valid summary of the number of references that have been selected for inclusion in the article, which only includes sources that pass the criteria listed at WP:RS". Sourcing article content with talk page discussions is the very definition of WP:Original research, and cannot stay without a strong consensus to ignore WP:V. Diego (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's worth being aware that "mainstream media" carries linguistic baggage; The article on the phrase notes that it has history in internet circles as a pejorative and euphemism for 'disreputable from our perspective'. If qualifying who is saying these things is necessary, is that the best way for us to state it? Sappow (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly attempted to fix this by listing the sources that made the comments in question. Please edit, or revert me, or request I self revert. You'll get faster service if you also request I revert on my talk page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good compromise - it attributes the claim to specific commentators without attempting to assert that they're a majority like the previous wording did; and provides a taste of the nature of sources making the claim without describing them with a controversial qualifier like "mainstream media". Though I don't know what others think of its length? Diego (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not crazy over it myself, but I think it's probably the only thing that's going to make everyone happy, or at least not angry. I think we could maybe trim the less well-known publications if we have to. — Strongjam (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to sidestep the obvious "Why you put in this one but leave out that one," in my attempt to be as inoffensive as possible. I agree that we can/should trim. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the trimming. Please oblige and any of you do the trimming, I have no preference over which links to keep and which to remove. Diego (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have taken out the Daily Dot - that's a weak RS, but the others are generally okay and reflect a broad selection of higher reliability sources. I'm not thrilled with a list but it works until a better solution can be found. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll again offer the some/other option I tried here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The goal in editing wikipedia is to improve articles. The mechanism we use to do that is consensus. Do you believe that you could ever reach consensus with that wording? Specifically, imagine your most strident detractor, and what they would say about that edit. What is it they say? How could you fix that? Iterate until you believe your most strident detractor is convinceable, and pitch that edit. The way you are going about it - by pitching these edits that even the least jaded editor knows would never fly isn't going to work. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I think even a marginally jaded editor wouldn't protest against the neutral language I supported, I offered it up specifically as a sort of middle way. If people aren't willing to collaborate, then there's a bigger problem at hand. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I definitely object to that wording, as it massively misleads the reader as to the scope of the commentary. I cant see anything to justify that wording in the sources or article.192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"GamerGate," not "Gamergate"

"GamerGate," with the second capital G, is the far more common capitalization for this controversy, and, as far as I can tell, the one Baldwin used in his tweet coining it and in all tweets thereafter. It is, by all accounts that I can concieve, the proper capitalization. (Yes, I know it was Watergate and not WaterGate, but this article is about GamerGate, not Watergate.) Garrett Albright (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, and per MOS guidelines, "Gamergate" is the better way to present the the title throughout. The casing is sources is not sufficiently consistent (even if it is how it might have originated.) --MASEM (t) 05:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS or no, it's incorrect, and to any degree that the casing is inconsistent, "Gamergate" is the less widely used and frankly just looks wrong to anyone with a familiarity of this topic, so it's not "better" either. For whatever it's worth, the arbitration pages for this mess got it correct.

I don't understand how frequent Wikipedia editors can bemoan their own declining numbers but then make it such a fight to change the simplest yet most blatantly incorrect things. Garrett Albright (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, how is it incorrect? Baldwin's initial tweet might have been camel case, but today, the case choice is not clear, and there's no authority to tell us what is the "right" name. While camel case may be the more common option, either way is correct, and there is a house style that WP does write towards to make reading comprehension by editors where English might not be their first language easier. I do note that most "-gate" scandals don't capitalize "gate" - on WP or elsewhere (like the current "deflategate") so its wider used style to not capitalize the "gate" part. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate actually redirects to camel case, FWIW. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It must have moved as the standard casing version seems to be the one to stick. Even then, going to google news hits, it's clearly the common casing as opposed to camel casing that's most common.--MASEM (t) 04:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

With lack of some kind of authority to tell us which one is correct, let's find reasons to pick one or the other. I already laid out my reasons why "GamerGate" should be used; it's what Baldwin coined, and it's far more common. What are the reasons to use "Gamergate?" Garrett Albright (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

CamelCase words are not common english and per WP:MOSTM are generally rewritten in standard casing. As an example, see List of scandals with "-gate" suffix that all of them as standard casing. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping it as it is. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Pruning Superfluous Additions

I will first off apologize ahead of time for any errors I make in using this talk page. I am still relatively new.

Anyway, I wish to bring up an example of something I do not understand, and have not received a reply on. In the second paragraph of the History section there is this sentence. "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay",[7] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.[8]"

As far as I can tell, the section ", described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay"," is entirely superfluous and serves no benefit beyond a jab at Gjoni. As I am new, I may have missed something which clarifies why this is needed, in which case I would like to know what. If there is not a reason, I feel it would be best removed as it adds nothing to the understanding of the controversy. 173.89.145.97 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's there to represent the mainstream POV of the post. That particular quote was chosen as it was the most neutral of the descriptions. Strongjam (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I admit, I fail to see why a description of the post is needed. A summation of the history does not need to detail how the press thought about it, unless somehow that response was relevant to the controversy itself. As is, removing that section leaves the sentence as a simple statement of fact, leading into the more relevant sections dealing with harassment. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The response of the press to GamerGate is a big part of the controversy, though. There should be note of the opinions of mainstream media, which makes this useful to have -- even if it could be better stated and detailed. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason we need to have any sort of descriptor of the post at this stage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To accurately reflect the POV of reliable sources of what most sources credit as the beginning of the whole controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do we care about what "most sources" credit about one point? We don't attribute every single claim being made, why should this be different? The discussion you link to assumes we're okay with this sort of description, the question is now raised as to why we need a description at all. I'm not seeing the benefit from a NPOV standpoint. If anything, it seems to be asserting a very specific point of view by assuming the opinion of one source is the best way to describe something that doesn't need description and exists in the article on its own informational merits. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We care about representing "most sources" because, you know, its policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy does not require us to attribute random musings about a specific point, especially if it violates one of our five pillars. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As been repeatedly stated, it's not a "random musing." It was chosen from a wealth of examples as representative of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. — Strongjam (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And as has been repeatedly stated, there has been no clear rationale as to why we need to attribute anything to this specific point. Can you provide one? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV. As others have said, RS that have covered the post have noted on the tone. It is not neutral for us to ignore that. The NY quote is representative of the overall description used by RS and is the most neutrally worded. I've said all I have to say on this matter I don't feel this debate is moving forward at all. — Strongjam (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth taking a closer look at this now that some of the heat has burned off. I'm not sure I see the value in continuing to have it in there, even as I was agnostic about it before in general. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think its important for context, without the mentions of length the reader could leave the article assuming Gjoni posted a paragraph on his tumblr or something. To be honest perhaps a quote noting the word count would be better, but there is a general consensus amongst sources for rambliness. Bosstopher (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That consensus is clearly in question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't something like "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a several page blog post, containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson" work better? We cover length, while removing the unnecessary quotation in an already quotation heavy article. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To make something clear, since I fear my purpose in bringing this up may be misinterpreted due to the heated nature of the article, I bring this up in an attempt to make the article more 'matter of fact'. I feel that this, and any, controversy would be best stated with only the bare facts to the viewer, allowing them to come to their own conclusion. I have my own biases, but I think we can all agree that if one side is 'in the wrong' than their actions should speak for themselves, so adding on pointed language seems... irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The article shouldn't try to persuade the reader that Gjoni is a fraud, and this statement should go, because it's not our policy to drop in colorful language from NYT or elsewhere. Shii (tock) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Describing the tone of Gjoni's rant is absolutely critical, because its the event that began this whole mess. This isn't some small detail, the RS describe its tone specifically, and so should we. This is not a neutrality issue, the sources all describe it in similar ways, and a large discussion between editors came to that phrase with consensus. Parabolist (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is kind of a neutrality issue, as we (as a project) are taking a position on the piece by including some sort of description of it and by choosing one and not others. No one is arguing that we shouldn't include note that there was a post that began the mess, but describing the tone is not something I'm currently convinced is neutral. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, no offense, you should reread the articles that describe its tone. Gjoni's 'essay' was not some dispassionate expose, it was an emotional, spiteful, and gross emptying of his dirty laundry onto the metaphorical floor. How we know this is verifiable is because sources knew it was important enough to specifically describe the tone of his post. Wingfield wasn't just padding out his article with adjectives. A lengithier discussion, for everyone to peruse, on this exact section of the article is here. Parabolist (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's already been linked once before. News outlets are able to (and often encouraged to) be non-neutral in their descriptions. The question is whether we need to also wade into the gutter, or if we're going to remain NPOV about the situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We report that they report. Considering that the passage in question is not only quotes, cited, but also prefaced with the fact that it is the analysis of the NYT author of the article, I have no idea why you think it violates NPOV, especially considering that Wingfield's opinion is not uncommon among those who have reported on it. 20:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Parabolist (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainly because there is no need to report anything about it, as far as I can see. It exists whether or not we attribute anything to it, and by picking one random comment to attribute to it, it creates a few POV problems. What other reason is there to include the description except to make a statement, in Wikipedia's voice, about that post? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, an attributed opinion, in quotes, is absolutely not in wikipedia's voice, and I encourage you to reread the NPOV guidelines if you somehow think differently. Secondly, this is not a "random comment." This is the most representative quote of an opinion shared by multiple reliable sources, from the New York Times, one of the most reliable news outlets in the US. This is getting ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually have problems with it on non-NPOV grounds... which was the entire point of my clarification. I suggested something above, that translated the generally-accepted view of it by reliable sources into a much simpler, non-quote manner. a "many page blog post" says everything the reader NEEDS to know about it. The harassment that ensued is more important than qualifying the post itself. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why we should be paying any attention to the latest opinion gamergate agender pushing single purpose account. Yes the facts spoil your creation myth but that isn't really our problem.©Geni (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I do believe this would be both Bad Faith and a personal attack. Entirely unwarranted at that. Yes, I support GG, yes, at this time I appear to be an SPA, though that is only due to me not being entirely familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, so I am keeping myself restricted to a single general topic until I get me sea legs. The thing is, I am choosing to do this work politely, using only facts, and constantly keeping in mind the principles and requirements of Wikipedia. I will explain nothing to you, if you cannot at least address me civilly. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to get your sea legs I suggest working on articles related to pre-Victorian naval artillery. Its a large topic area with plenty of work to do and a much better area to lean than one in which you have a significant personal bias. Anglo-saxon ceramics would be another option. Hmm “using only facts” interesting claim. Thing is “The quote in no way increases a readers understanding of the controversy itself” is an opinion not a fact. If you want me to assume good faith I can only assume you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.©Geni (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should behave like newbie and not the 104th SPA gamergate advocate.©Geni (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

By including any sort of opinion, in this case, is us making a judgement of it. I'm very familiar with the NPOV guidelines, I am not new to this. Are you able to answer my question about what reason there is to include it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a significant point of view that adds understanding to topic that is well attested by reliable sources.©Geni (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Significant... how? The important part is the harassment that resulted, not the post itself. The controversy is about both the harassment and claimed reasoning behind both sides. The post, beyond being a trigger for events, is not as important as what resulted from it. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How in the world is the trigger for the entire controversy not important to the article about the controversy it caused? Parabolist (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I stated it was not as important in my second sentence for a reason. It holds importance, just not as much as the controversy itself. Stating the triggers of the controversy is needed to lay the foundation for the rest of the article, this is needed to enable a full understanding of the meat of the article. The quote in no way increases a readers understanding of the controversy itself. It deserves mention that it exists, and that it was long as Bosstopher said, but it is not the controversy itself and thus holds a lesser degree of importance. To use an example: If a driver were to crash their car into a home, the fact that they hit a home and potentially hurt people would be more important than the fact the driver fell asleep at the wheel. It deserves mention, but the primary focus should be on what resulted, not how it happened. Mentioning further is simply not needed, and should be cut. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is important, that's why we include it. What's not important is what random news organizations choose to describe it as. That's the difference. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

The only content of Gjoni's that is described is the part about Grayson. That allegation is rejected, so there is no danger of a reader being misled about what the mainstream view is. The aims of WP:DUE are satisfied. What anyone thought about Gjoni's writing style, or any content that's not notable enough to talk about in the article, is fluff. Rhoark (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really, as has already been mentioned the Zoepost ignited the whole thing, and has been the focus of some specific coverage with press interviews of Gjoni existing.[15][16] The length of the post is vital information. There is a massive difference in writing a paragraph about you ex, and writing a 10000 word essay with notes citations and appendices. There is also a difference between a 10,000 word bullet point list of grievances, and a "rambling online essay" these differences are important to capture. Also at risk of opening a massive can of worms, should Gjoni's self proclaimed motives for writing the Zoepost be noted? Bosstopher (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is where I surprise those who are determined ti mislabel me. The answer, I would say, is no. While I honestly believe his motives would make him look BETTER... I can think of no reason to add it to an article on the GAMERGATE controversy. Gjoni's post helped light a spark, but I feel it is not important enough to warrant beyond mentioning it. Though, I do have to disagree with something you said. The quality or aspects of the piece is, in my opinion, irrelevant. The article is about the Controversy surrounding GAMERGATE, no? Gjoni is not part of it, and even the sources say he only unwittingly lit the fuse. I agree mention of it is important, but I feel it should be cut down to merely mentioning there was a long post by him that triggered the events that would become the controversy this article is about. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it can be handled with BLP in mind...maybe? There's no reason to open the can of worms, though: perhaps a word similar to "lengthy" might suffice? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggested above to use ""Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a several page blog post, containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson.". Saying it was several pages would definitely get across the sheer length of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsFenrisulfr (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@AnsFenrisulfr "The quality or aspects of the piece is, in my opinion, irrelevant." Unfortunately, past a certain point, it's not up to editors to determine what is or is not relevant about particular elements of the controversy. The sources that report on this particular aspect very often saw fit to provide a brief characterisation of the post, in the style of the NYT example. To ignore the way that sources characterise the post would seem to me to be irresponsible. Lord Lion Lad 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I can understand your point... but I disagree with it. If the article was about gamergate itself, I would have much less issue since then the quality of things that started it could be relevant to how the current movement acts. As is, this article is about the controversy, not the movement. Something I feel editors on both sides seem to forget. The quality of the fuse doesn't matter when talking about the controversy it started. What matters is the controversy. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont undertand your position that it would be important to gg the movement but is not important to the controversy. and there are in fact several sources that specifically tie the tone of the original post to the acts make up the controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, how to put this... the Controversy deals with the back and forth. A said B about C who said D about A. What is more, the controversy itself doesn't really kick off until the large number of articles are posted and GamerGate itself is started (Prior to that, something else was in the space). With this said, the qualities of the Gjoni post are largely irrelevant, since they are not a part of the controversy, they are something that helped light a fuel leading UP to the controversy. (Plus the quote as is, is a debatable BLP violation).

With that said, if the article was about the movement itself, the qualities of the post might be a bit more relevant, since THEN characterizing how a movement began is more important. Why? To cut off this question. Because an article about the movement has more to do with the PEOPLE than the ACT. An article about a movement deals with the people in that movement. An article about a controversy deals with two opposing FORCES. Not people, forces. It is more impersonal, since the greater focus is on what has happened, not who it happened to, unless who it happened to is required to further flesh out the whys of something happening. So to summarize, the qualities of the post are largely unimportant to the article, because the article is dealing with actions done and not people. Or at least it should be, instead of the weird hybrid of what should really be two separate articles. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the controversy deals with the fact that there were (and still are) coordinated campaigns of vile vile harassment under the auspices of "#gamergate", and that upon further exploration of these harassment campaigns, an underlying core of misogyny, sexism and harassment in the gaming community came to light. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that including that language sourced to the NYT is less than ideal. We should write "wrote a rambling online essay," since a "blog post" implies that there was an active blog of some sort there. However, the language presented is the result of a substantial debate that took place Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_18#Wingfield.27s_opinion_on_Gjoni.27s_blogpost among other places, and should not be revisited except as an agreed upon compromise being rescinded, which means we should revisit if calling the blogpost something in wikipedia's voice as opposed to the NYT's voice is appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No special procedures have to be observed to change consensus. Reliable sources say a lot of things about a lot of things. We are obligated to ensure verifiability and due weight, not to defer editorial decision making about what belongs in an encyclopedia to the authors of our sources. The quality of Eron Gjoni's wordsmithing is not of encyclopedic interest, and its not in an encyclopedic tone to describe it using either our own words or the NYT's. The only part of the post we consider important is the accusation about Grayson. We describe what the mainstream view of that accusation is in full sufficiency later in the paragraph. If describing mainstream opinion of any other part of the Zoepost is worth including, what is actually said by that part of the Zoepost would have to be worth including first. I don't think that is warranted, at all. The fact that the post started the affair obviates none of the above. Rhoark (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the sentence be revised to read as follows: "Shortly after the Steam release of Depression Quest in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a essay alleging, among other things, that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Rhoark (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The plain word "essay" provides false and unsupported dignity to the text in question.©Geni (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You've never read a second grader's essay about Justin Bieber, I take it. "Essay" is a neutral, nominative word carrying no connotations about the dignity, eloquence, or accuracy of what was written. If you have a better synonym, please share it. Rhoark (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"rambling online essay" is an acceptable description.©Geni (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It violates NPOV. Why are you in favor of eschewing neutral language for loaded language? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not say what you think it says. "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The quote is attributed and was chosen as representative of the views of sources on the topic. There is no violation of NPOV. You are suggesting we don't represent the views of reliable sources, which does violate NPOV. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic is Gamergate, not Gjoni. This specific issue is a biased take on this one source, included solely to disparage. The necessity for including it has not been demonstrated to this point, nor am I sure there is consensus for it at this point given the discussion here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a reasonably comprehensive list of source descriptions of the essay. "Rambling, online" seems to be a pretty good summary. What do you believe is not covered? I guess we could call it a screed? Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As hurt as I am that you picked tRPOD's list over my much larger and cooler one I agree that rambling and online are fairly good descriptors. I dont really get why there's so much opposition to the presence of this, and why it's thought of as NPOV violating. Calling a 10,000 word blogpost about an ex-girlfriend rambling is practically tautology. Rambling is hardly an insult, and is indicative of the general press reception of the zoepost. If the article for Disaster Movie is allowed to state "It is considered by some to be one of the worst films of all time." why cant we contain a quote noting that the Zoepost is considered rambly. As it stands for that exact same reason I'd be willing to replace the quote with a sentence detailing the extreme length of the zoepost. But I don't get why people want to replace the quote so badly in the first place. Bosstopher (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We still don't have anyone explaining why we need to have any sort of judgement on it. It's simply a repetition that, since other sources disparaged it, so must we. Gjoni isn't the topic. It adds nothing to the article except disparagement. Where is the logical rationale for including it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It provides useful context and is supported by reliable sources.©Geni (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Useful in what way? How is the reader's understanding of Gamergate enhanced by knowing that Gjoni was "rambling"? Rhoark (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the RS consensus on what kind of thing served as a trigger for Gamergate. It shows the reader that, according to the RS, Gamergate was willing to start all of this over someone's "rambling screed". It informs the reader of the contempt with which the RS hold Gamergate's justifications for their actions.192.249.47.186 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The "kind of thing" is an essay. The rest of that is POV pushing. One sentence out of the whole article to explain that most reliable sources condemn Gamergate would be enough to satisfy WP:DUE. It is unnecessary sea-lioning and WP:HOWEVER to snipe at Gamergate using every last sentence or citation. Rhoark (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be very naive to claim that the RS are condemning campaigns that are launched by essays. The very clear point of each RS when they describe the post as "rambling" is to imply "seriously, they started it over this", rather than a very matter-of-fact "this is an essay, let's move on". I could support something along the implication of "Gjoni's essay, which commentators saw as a unjustifiable reason to launch such a campaign" (replace unjustifiable with "frivolous", etc., as desired), but there is a very clear message of incredulity in the various RS commentaries.192.249.47.186 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources condemn one specific campaign that was instigated by one specific essay. We describe the situation such that there is no confusion over the attitude of reliable sources. We're not trying to identify general categories of things condemned by reliable sources. This article is about the Gamergate controversy. Whether the Zoepost was rambling, insightful, waterlogged, upside-down, or plaid, it does not merit embellishment with any kind of adjective in the article. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think replacing the quote with a sentence describing it is the best option. There are enough sources that describe it in similar ways that I think we can get a good descriptive sentence without relying on a single source's description. Honestly though, I don't see the big deal with just removing the quote entirely and leaving it as is. We already describe the allegations made by Gjoni and the harassment Quinn faced as a result, I don't think any reader will look at that and not understand that the blog post was an attack on Quinn and her integrity. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're describing the content by mentioning the allegations, a few adjectives describing the post itself seems only fair. Especially when it seems like most RS generally agree and had a similar impression of the piece? Actually, are there any RS who interpreted it otherwise? Sappow (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, I just think that picking a random quote from one of the many sources that agree on what kind of blog post it was implies that it's only that one source with that opinion and not like... all of them. I realize the point of choosing a quote was to keep the description from being in Wikipedia's voice, but I think there are enough sources in agreement that we should be able to come up with our own sentence describing it.Kaciemonster (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the description is fair. It is not in encyclopedic interest or style to describe it at all. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If all the sources are describing it in a similar way, it's only good practice to include at least some adjective or adjective string describing it, rather than leaving it as a blank noun. Especially if RS consider it a notable quality, and it isn't a BLP violation or anything else serious. I agree with Kaciemonster also. A quote is worth avoiding when there's this much consistency in how it is being covered. People who are objecting, can we at least agree on something like "lengthy" as a starting point? Sappow (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A naked noun with no adjectives doesn't scan well when reading it, anyway. At least IMO. Sappow (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If the desire is for some word, any word, then "online" will suffice without being unencyclopedic. Rhoark (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be encyclopedic. That's why it's in quotes, and attributed to a reliable source. Reliable sources aren't encyclopedias like Wikipedia, they're allowed to say things like that. In fact, they're encouraged! That's their job, and our job is to report them, which we're doing. Parabolist (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's sarcasm. If not, you need a WP:TROUT. The 1st pillar of Wikipedia is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Rhoark (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Some new perspectives on reliable sourcing

Have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Guardian.2C_Alex_Hern.2C_Wikipedia_as_the_Topic

The interesting self-referential quandary this article has gotten into lately seems to have generated out of necessity consensus for two interesting principles about reliable sourcing.

First: A work containing gross factual errors is not reliable, even if from a reliable publisher. Note the fact that errors exist in this case is only confirmed by WP acting as a self-source, not other reliable secondary sources.

Second: A work can be deemed opinion/editorial and treated as such, even if not presented or marked as such by the publisher.

It will be a large project, but I think over time the existing sourcing in this article needs to be reviewed in light of these principles. Rhoark (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

While I agree reviewing sources is important, I feel it should be done for a different reason. With all the edit warring that went on, I think all sources should be re-vetted to ensure that all of them, no matter which 'side' they are on, comply with Wikipedia's policies. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Massive changes to policy and interpretation of policy would need to be community vetted other than by a couple of voices on a notice board and attempts to implement the same before such community consensus would be rather disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree to this, though do you think going through the sources to make sure nothing slipped by in the heat of the moment would not be a good thing? I am personally uncomfortable doing such a thing myself, as I have no been on wikipedia long enough to know what red flags to look for. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cherrypicking

This finding of principle has unanimous support in the proposed ArbCom resolution: "The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia."

We presently cite this article: http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736

to support this statement: "Newsweek/Brandwatch performed an analysis of about 25% of two million Twitter messages with the Gamergate tag from September 1, 2014 onward, and suggested from the results that "contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists".

Reading the article, one finds they based this conclusion on tweets directed at a whopping six twitter accounts. It was also unable to determine the sentiment of more than 90% of tweets in the sample. This analysis is obviously utter garbage, and falls under the remit of my post directly above in that reliable publishers are not reliable when making gross errors. Failing that, its rampant cherry-picking and against the above ArbCom finding to cite the conclusion of this farcical analysis without mentioning how the analysis directly contradicts itself - no synthesis required on WP's part. Rhoark (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That the algorithm used was not, on its own, able to automatically categorize 90% of the tweets without further human analysis does not imply that the overall analysis is "obviously utter garbage". You are taking lines from the study grossly out of context.192.249.47.186 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The context is they have basically no idea who is tweeting what at whom. They don't know which tweets come from Gamergate. They don't know if they were positive or negative. They don't know who was tweeted at outside of 5 individuals and 1 corporation. The context is that they have no clue, and any citation of their conclusion without that fact is out of context. Rhoark (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that it is a cited, attributed, noteworthy analysis. We could poke holes in it all day, but, in this case, I don't think there's a problem with how we're treating it in the article. This aspect of the analysis (and we call it a study in the article elsewhere and that's misleading, and I'll change that) is getting one sentence and seems like the proper weight and play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Again: the algorithm did not know who was tweeting what at whom. The analysis went on from there, and followed standard methods of assessing relevance from a statistical perspective. If you would like to constructively refute them, and add to the RS against their result, perhaps you could help author a peer-reviewed refutation of their method.192.249.47.186 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That would likely be original research and thus inappropriate. The Newsweek methodology is sound, statistically speaking, even if we can quibble with some of the choices. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The process of editorial decisions, like determining a claim does not reflect the content of its citation, is outside the scope of page-content policies like WP:OR. Rhoark (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel like people must be reading an entirely different article than me. They said what the algorithm spat out, showing their big grey bars with slivers of red and green on the ends. Then they said it means Gamergate is bad. That's it. No analysis, no statistics. Definitely not anything like a p-value. Unless there's some kind of link to a Part 2 that I'm missing, they do nothing of the kind. Rhoark (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, you actually have a point I wasn't considering here. What we have here is factually true, but also misleading based on the data. You're not wrong. I'd love to get some more feedback on this from other observers. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently the observations this article is cited for are not in fact "Gamergate is Bad". They're the pretty uncontroversial points that examination reveals a lot of new accounts taking part in the discussion, and that game developers are being tweeted at much more often than journalists. Those are points based on the data gathered that aren't influence by the whole grey bars neutral or unclassified confusion. Additionally the original post on this topic is incorrect. The 6 twitter accounts displayed in the graphs were not the only ones examined, they were the 6 most mentioned. The "gross error" that supposedly invalidates its use as a source is an imagined one. Lord Lion Lad 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the medium piece that examined tweets. This says nothing about new accounts. It says nothing about how the 6 accounts were selected. Even if they are the top recipients, by the numbers given they account for about 5% of their sample of 500,000 #gamergate tweets. That enables them to draw precisely zero valid conclusions, not limited to the one we cite them for, "GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists". (Edit: dropped a 0, its 5% rather than .5%. conclusions unaffected) Rhoark (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is cited twice. Once for each of the claims I mentioned. Taking another look it does seem like the attached claim is nowhere to be found in that particular article, though I do remember it being a Brandwatch where I first saw that info presented. Maybe in some kind of additional graphs left out of the main article? I can't seem to find anything on short notice though. May be something worth looking into all on its own.

Outside it being cited for something it doesn't seem to say though, none of the things you've brought up are enough to discount it being used as a source. It still doesn't contradict itself anywhere that I can see and the conclusion it's cited for in the Wiki article seem to be pretty self-evident from the pure numbers. It doesn't really matter how small a proportion of direct @ mentions make up the tweet numbers, there were still far more directed at one group than the other. This isn't as clear-cut a case of inaccuracy as something like the Guardian's Arbcom coverage. Until we have a reliable source rebutting it other than you, there's no reason to remove it. Lord Lion Lad 04:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I open a bag of M&M's and remove 3. Two are yellow, and one is brown. Do they contain peanuts? Rhoark (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand exactly what you're trying to say here, Rhoark. Try again? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell, based on the color of 3 M&Ms from a bag, whether or not it is a bag of peanut M&Ms? Can you do that? You might take advantage of the fact that different flavors of M&Ms have different color distributions, but there would still be absolutely no way to confidently answer this question. A sample of just 3 M&Ms does not have statistical significance to tell you what the color distribution of the bag is. I'm asking anyone who wants to say they feel the article's statistical methods are valid to actually look at the (lack of) statistical methods they are talking about. OR does not apply to editorial decisions. You don't need OR anyway - you can just look at the graph that demonstrates in a very visual manner that they don't know what the tweets are. They could be cited for saying Zoe Quinn was tweeted at more than Nathan Grayson. It can be cited for saying their algorithm was able to find more negative than positive tweets. To cite it for saying developers were tweeted at more than journalists, or that there were more negative than positive tweets, without also mentioning its statistical failures, is to misleadingly excerpt the article. Rhoark (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So thinking about this more, do we just introduce a more direct analysis into the article? Perhaps going with something better wordsmithed along the lines of "and suggested from the analysis of tweets showing a positive or negative tone, 'GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists'. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To avoid being misleading, the level of uncertainty needs to be explicit. I suggest, "A Brandwatch analysis of 500,000 #gamergate tweets beginning September 1 found significantly more tweets were personally directed at Zoe Quinn than at Nathan Grayson or Stephen Tolito. More still were sent to the official Kotaku account or "Gamers are Dead" author Leigh Alexander. Receiving the most individual mentions were Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, though all of the above represented less than 5% of #gamergate tweets. Algorithms were able to determine the sentiment of fewer than 10% of these tweets." Rhoark (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Or more concisely, "Based on Twitter mentions of seven selected accounts for which automated algorithms were able to determine a sentiment, constituting about 0.125% of #gamergate tweets over a period during September 2014, Newsweek concluded that Gamergate tweeted negatively at game developers more than at journalists." Rhoark (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're attempting to do here, but the first option is too much and the second is far too caveat-heavy. What we have is one sentence in the article about this specific point from the analysis, is there a way we can tweak that sentence to be more accurate? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence has a lot of caveats because the analysis has a lot of caveats. To leave it out is misleading. Rhoark (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia editors attempting to use their own analysis to discredit a reliable source that has a decades long history of analyzing popular culture and who hired a professional social media analysis firm is PRECISELY the the type of disruptive behavior the ArbCom has noted is not acceptable. Drop the stick or you will be the next to go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Determining the reliability of sources is a core function of a Wikipedia editor. No publisher becomes so reliable they get an automatic free pass. What is disruptive behavior is using threats to try to shut down discussion aimed at improving the article. Didn't ArbCom just personally admonish you about that? Rhoark (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: this sort of response is more disruptive than analyzing whether or not to use a source. This is a civil conversation that may result in some positive improvements, so if you believe this analysis to be worthwhile as handled, a better tack might be to explain why you support it as used as opposed to using a better explanation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to keep going down this path, do not say you were not warned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think that the analysis, as offered, is worthwhile, please share why. Discussion about the article is what we do on talk pages to build consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The "analysis" as offered is not worthwhile as it inappropriately substitutes Wikipedia editor's opinions over the analysis of a reliably published source and a professional social media analytics firm. Please identify any manner in which the article content is misrepresenting the clear analysis presented in the source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd start with what I posted above. Would you have a problem with that adjusted language? If so, why? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Does this count as a reliable source? An Actual Statistical Analysis of #GamerGate? UPDATED by CaineJW It debunks the findings of the Newsweek / Brandwatch "study" fairly effectively -- to be specific, the Brandwatch study did not say what Newsweek claims it said. KiTA (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be an excellent source of great value to the article, except that Medium is a self-publishing platform. Rhoark (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A quick google search of site:en.wikipedia.org "medium.com" suggests that it is used as a reliable source on many, many other articles. KiTA (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we need to clean those articles up, as most usages of Medium don't fall within our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To note, I originally had problems with the Newsweek article but as tRPoD has pointed out and as I came to recognize, to counterargument that does require SYNTH and OR we cannot include. As such, we have to accept that this is what the editors that analyzed the tweets and wrote the article concluded. But I will also note that that sentence in our article was written by me (or at least its start), and that it properly puts their conclusion (which they did state in with "seemingly"-type language) as just their conclusion, and not as an absolute fact, thus keeping what is included simply stating "this is their study, this is what they concluded", and letting the reader determine if the study is good or not. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a way to word it, however, to note that the distinction is made about those with a clear tone in either direction. Are you opposed to that language? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it impossible to parse this section on cherrypicking. I'd say that cherrypicking is when you dig deep into an article to find a sentence that supports what you want it to say, as opposed to reading the first sentence that defines the conclusion and use that to summarize the source. In this case, it appears people want to use the source to say "Using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment," which appears approximately 9/10ths down the page as opposed to "an analysis by Newsweek found that Twitter users tweeting the hashtag #GamerGate direct negative tweets at critics of the gaming world more than they do at the journalists whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." which is the first statement summarizing the study made. Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, the analysis shows that more negative than positive tweets occurred, but more neutral tweets occurred than either positive or negative, and by a large margin. Our sentence on the article instead suggests that the analysis is only showing more negative than positive tweets, which is misleading but not totally inaccurate. Thus my suggestion that we reword it to ensure that we're talking about the tweets with a specific tone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused, because when I read the article, I go to the conclusion (which is at the top of inverted pyramid article writing - which is what almost all news-analysis articles are). Could you explain why you are focused on the deep body, and accusing others of cherrypicking, if that's what you're doing? If you're doing something else, could you explain what you're doing, in a section titled appropriately, as opposed to "cherrypicking," which implies that other people are finding single sentences deep in the body of the article to cast doubt on the conclusion? Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive." Neutral is not the right word to use here, as out-of-context it means something they did not intend for it to mean. — Strongjam (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe your quote is below the bottom of the article - I'd call it 11/10 of the way through, correct? Why are you digging for that quote and accusing others of cherrypicking by using a quote from the introduction? Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that calling the bulk of the tweets "neutral" would be cherry picking. Not suggesting we add that quote to the article. Quote from the intro is fine with me. — Strongjam (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it? I mean, is it really cherrypicking to see the graph, see mostly undetermined tweets, and then wonder if saying "more negative than positive" is really the most accurate reading? Maybe we shouldn't be using this article for this claim if the intent is what I'm seeing here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Newsweek is a reliable source. You appear to be using the graph to reach a conclusion not stated in the article. I think that's a very exciting novel work that you've created, and I'd be excited to consider including it as soon as you get in published in a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Essentially, the analysis shows that more negative than positive tweets occurred, but more neutral tweets occurred than either positive or negative, and by a large margin." -- this is absolutely false. If you read the analysis, these "neutral" tweets are actually tweets unclassified by the algorithm -- basically, they had an automatic sorter, and the sorter said "you're going to have to do these ones by hand". Classifying them as "neutral" is a gross failure to understand the classifications of the analysis.192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying Newsweek is not reliable, nor is anyone reaching a conclusion that isn't in the article. As editors, we need to use discretion in what sources we use and how we use them. If you believe my claim to be novel, please explain why as opposed to this sort of response that brings more heat than light. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"I mean, is it really cherrypicking to see the graph, see mostly undetermined tweets, and then wonder if saying "more negative than positive" is really the most accurate reading?" -- yes, it is definitively cherrypicking. You're choosing to base an analysis on the graph alone, setting aside the rest of the study that explains what the graph means, and the newsweek article that provides further context. That's pretty much the definition of cherrypicking, as given in definition 1 and 1a. To be frank, you're also choosing to set aside basic methods of statistical analysis, and how they're used. I would strongly advise that you leave opinions on statistics to actual statisticians, because making false implications by misunderstanding the significance of statistics is a huge issue for lay people. Again: if one wants to dispute the findings of the brandwatch analysis, or its coverage by Newsweek, I strongly advise them to author a published, peer-reviewed rebuttal so that we can cite it.192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Masem If we wanted a counter-analysis that would be OR. Including more detail from the source to avoid being misleading is not OR. It is not synthesis to notice the axis markings on a chart. Enabling the reader to decide is precisely the goal. Deciding editorially that it is misleading at present is outside the scope of OR.

@Thargor It doesn't even show that there were more negative than positive tweets. It just shows the algorithm was able to classify more negative than positive tweets.

@Hipocrite Where something appears on the page should not be a dominant indicator. If I presented a source with the headline "Most women worldwide support GamerGate" and supplied a pie chart showing 10,000 support and 4 billion were not polled I'm sure people would have a problem with that. Just taking the headline can still be cherrypicking. Rhoark (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, I don't think that presenting an article that would never exist is really telling me much about things - if such an article were written, (and ignoring that headlines are separate from articles, so let's assume the headline is repeated in the body), I'd support this article using it, and not engaging in a novel work about why the article was wrong. The reason position in the article is relevant is because of the inverted-pyramid structure of news articles - the important stuff goes at the top, the filler below. The author highlighted the main conclusions - as we should - not an irrelevancy about process. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I had my doubts on this article; I asked at the OR board if a reasonable argument that any person skilled in statistics could demonstrate would be OR and yes it was considered that. We cannot state, in WP's words, highlight the fact the bulk of the tweets were neutral if this is not what the study concluded. The sentence as I have written is fully fair game to include, as well as its conclusion as sourced. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you link that discussion? My point is different from that, in any regard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

[17]. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading this now, the question/consensus is about whether Newsweek is reliable. Of course they are. I see no consensus there regarding OR claims or even any significant addressing of the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As we're attributing the analysis appropriately, what they're saying isn't entirely wrong. This is like arguing that political polls shouldn't be used since they use a small sample. The issue is not the methodology, it is how we're presenting the conclusion. The conclusion, as we have it in the article, is "more negative tweets than positive tweets." The conclusion of the analysis is "more negative tweets than positive tweets out of those that could be determined." My desire is for the latter to be what's reflected in the article, as it matches up with the study. If we can't do that, we shouldn't have a mention of that aspect in the article at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

But as you notice, the discuss does say, effectively, we cannot throw doubt on the results as they report in WP's voice otherwise that's OR. I know there's bloggers that went through and did their analysis but these are effectively SPS so unusable for us. We certainly could add about the determination of tone of tweets, that's fine, but we have to be careful in going too far beyond that. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that. Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely does: From a measurement of "the sentiment of GamerGate tweets...using an algorithm that looks for positive and negative words, BrandWatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. 'If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral,' a Brandwatch representative told Newsweek. 'Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined' because the algorithm did not classify the mention as either negative or positive.'" The conclusion we've pulled from the data is instead simply what Newsweek has opted to use from what was determined, rather than what the data says. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The source does not say "more negative tweets than positive tweets out of those that could be determined." It says "more negative tweets than positive tweets." It also says "If our algorithm doesn't identify a tweet as positive or negative, it categorizes it as neutral." It also says "Data scientists refer to these tweets as 'undetermined'." It also says "most tweets were neutral in sentiment." One statements was given prominent weight in the source. Three of them were buried at the bottom. You want to take the prominent statement, stich it together with the buried statement to reach a conclusion not in the source. You are creating a novel statement that is not in the piece you are citing. This is WP:OR, and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I have pasted exactly the part that is of importance to the section. I do not want to create a novel statement, but rather use the relevant statement. Note that most tweets had an undetermined tone, but that the ones that could be determined were more negative than positive. Why are you opposed to that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose all policy violations. The source states what it believes to be important up in the summary of the source - that more tweets were negative than positive . It is not our job to second guess our sources. I'm stepping out of this circular discussion now, as you're obviously never going to change your mind, and I'm entirely unimpressed by your argument. Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So you'll be okay with pulling the comment entirely, as it's a NPOV violation? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We are opposed to the statement because the tweets of undetermined tone are as irrelevant as the 75% of tweets that weren't sampled, or the tweets pre-9/1 and post-10/24, or tweets that didn't include the hashtag "#GamerGate". There are a near-infinite number of statements that could be made about data that was not included in the analysis of their results, but we're not going to include them because they are irrelevant. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is about the tweets. Are you saying it isn't misleading to say that, when most tweets are undetermined, "more" do X than Y? Maybe this is a reason to simply remove that sentence. It's literally one sentence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The article states that undetermined tweets are not included in their final analysis, so any mention of them by us is misleading. It is equally as misleading as adding a ridiculous statement like "Newsweek and Brandwatch also found no positive tweets prior to Sept. 1st". We know that is factually true by looking at their data samples?—or, in this case, their lack of data samples—but it is a fundamental misrepresentation of the source. Woodroar (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, which is why I think we, if we use this sentence at all, clarify that the tweets that could be determined are what were measured. Right now, we don't do that, and it provides a misleading sentence as a result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

But it's obvious that they are only ever going to base their analysis on tweets that can be determined. Mentioning that some tweets were undetermined only introduces ambiguity and confusion when Newsweek and Brandwatch are unambiguous and clear in how they present their interpretation. Woodroar (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Then what value is this to the article at all? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. It's a reliable source with findings relevant to the article. Why wouldn't we include it? Woodroar (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If clarity and specificity are not valuable and relevant to this information for the article, why have the sentence at all? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Because your "clarity" and "specificity" gives a false impression of a violation of normal statistical procedure, which this is not. The Newsweek analysis gives no indication that the study authors have misunderstood statistical significance. Introducing your language would give that indication, in contradiction to the RS.192.249.47.186 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically, I think it does. The Newsweek article states that most tweets were "neutral in sentiment", which it quickly clarifies means "not identified by the algorithm" (and I think all of us here should be fully familiar with the concept of being negative to someone without using words that are specific red flags). It gives a fairly good sample size -- 25% of all #gamergate tweets --and makes the following analyses based on the data:

• Tweets were overwhelmingly more focused at female game developers or commentators who had done no more than criticize Gamergate, rather than at journalists or males who Gamergate had made specifical allegations of ethical violations against
• Most tweets were unable to be classified for sentiment by the specific algorithm used
• Tweets directed at the male journalists are generally angrier than at the females
• However, negative tweets directed at the females critics were far greater in quantity, indicating that the females recieved both more positive tweets mentioning gamergate, to even out the average, but also that a greater majority of negative tweets mentioning gamergate were sent to harass female developers who disliked gamergate rather than male journalists who gamergate had accused of ethical violations.

The overall conclusion of the article is that gamergate supporters, by a wide margin, prefer to harass female non-journalists who criticize gamergate or sexism in gaming, in place of harassing male journalists who have been alleged (truly or falsely) of violations by gamergate. The article restates forms of this conclusion several times throughout, so some rewording of it should be how we represent the article. The specific percentages of Positive/Negative/Undetermined tweets for each player are not the point of the article, and it feels undue to focus on them.192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's far worse than that. While at some point they had in hand 25% of tweets, they then whittle down to the 5% that mention one of the chosen 7 accounts. Figures like Eron Gjoni, Phil Fish, Greg Tito, Ben Kuchera, Milo, Totalbiscuit, etc that could skew the results greatly are left out. Then they further restrict to the 0.5% that the algorithm can classify in order to draw all their conclusions. This is misleading. What is at question is not whether Newsweek is generally a reliable source, or whether we can say in the article that the methods are bad. What is at question is whether we can knowingly abet the intent to mislead by leaving out conflicting information that can be found in the article itself. The ArbCom principle cited at the start of this says we can not. The article states both in words and graphics that the intent of most tweets could not be classified. It clearly shows only 7 accounts were considered. This is not original research. We don't need another reliable source to tell us which parts of the first source we can include. It doesn't matter if this information is at the top of the page or the bottom of the page. Leaving it out is misleading. Rhoark (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, your personal interpretation of the data is irrelevant. What matters is what the reliable source who hired a professional social media analyitics firm decided. That is the starting point. The ending point is: Are we appropriately reflecting what the reliable source determined. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The reliable source determined how many tweets they examined, how many tweets they did not examine, and that most of them could not be classified. The reader's opportunity to know and interpret this information for themselves is very relevant. Rhoark (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. Particularly in the overall scheme of the article. If the reader cares, they click on the reference and find the details. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The only objection to my proposed wording was that they included too much description. It should be possible to convey the skepticism this article is due using only a single figure: the percentage of tweets in the sample that were used to derive their conclusion. Arriving at this figure is simple calculation that does not constitute original research. (See WP:NOTOR). They initially sampled 25% of 2 million, so 500,000. Eyeballing their chart: http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2014/10/24/sentimentvolume.jpg?itok=eySg1iIE approximately 2400 tweets were categorized. There's some fuzziness here, so chime in if you have a better estimate. 2400/500000=.0048 so just under one half of one percent of tweets their sample were used to inform their conclusion. Incorporating the 75% they discarded at the outset, they used 0.12% of #gamergate tweets in the sampling period. Rhoark (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Slotting this right in to the existing grammar of the statement, we could say: Newsweek/Brandwatch performed an analysis using 0.12% of two million Twitter messages with the Gamergate tag beginning September 1, 2014, and suggested from the results that "contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists." Rhoark (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We're not going to question a source with your own eyeballed fuzzy napkin math. The source specifically calls it a "reflective amount of data". Woodroar (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTOR "You may round to appropriate levels of precision." If you have a problem with my estimate, give your own. Rhoark (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not when you're using it to suggest that a sample size is insufficient, when the actual experts state that it is. Woodroar (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the proposed wording suggest that? Show me. Rhoark (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If not for that reason, then why the complicated breakdown of their sample? Woodroar (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To enable the reader to decide. We can't tell them there's a problem with the statistics, but we are under an onus to indicate in some manner that there is content in the article we cite that conflicts with the conclusion we cite it for. The only acceptable alternative is to exclude the citation. WP:EP "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information" Rhoark (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, inserting "the reader's opportunity to know and interpret this information for themselves is very relevant," would, in this case, amount to pointing at a number, tacitly implying it's an overly large number (without explaining, as the RS does, that this does not detract from the mathematical significance of the result), and putting it, contextless, in front of a reader that is well-established to have a poor understanding of how statistics work. There is ample understanding in the academic community that this kind of fuzzy napkin statistics is usually misleading if not outright dishonest. The main thrust of the Newsweek article is very clear: Gamergate supporters make more tweets harassing females/female developers unrelated to ethics allegations for criticizing gamergate, than they spend harassing males/journalists they've accused of violations. Any tweets the computer-programmed algorithm classified as "undetermined" are literally that -- tweets not taken into the analysis. The statisticians know how to deal with having sample sizes less than 100% (or even less than 25%), and you've failed to provide any evidence that they neglected to apply the well-understood accomodations for less-than-total sample size.

In order to insert that "context" here (which conveniently ignores the frequently-repeated analysis of gamergate preferring to harass female developers over male journalists) would amount to woowoo noises unless we went through and inserted "and here's everything that wasn't measured" into basically every sentence. The study, nor Newsweek's summary of it, is not out of the bounds of normal statistical procedure.192.249.47.186 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reducing the initial sample to 25% is not the problem here. That is the one valid step they take. The rest is, to use your words "misleading if not outright dishonest". I am thoroughly aware of the kinds of mathematical tools that can control for sample size and support reasoning under uncertainty. Newsweek does not use them. They use only raw counts of Twitter mentions. We cannot use WP's voice to give their analysis the thrashing it deserves, but we have not just the justification but the responsibility to provide information from the citation that undermines its own conclusion. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Might i remind you of "The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia." You do not get to assert that the reliable sources have "gotten it wrong". (Well, you can, but no one needs to take such assertions seriously and repeated actions of that type will be subject to the GG sanctions)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussions remain okay, and threatening people over a content dispute is not okay. Please stop doing that. As for your quote, we all agree with you. We just disagree as to whether the information from the source is being fairly or accurately reflected, and some of us believe that the source is being misleadingly and unfairly excerpted. This is directly relevant to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thargor, Rhoark -- do you feel that the intent of the Newsweek article is not "Gamergate supporters were found to spend more tweets harassing female developers and critics of gamergate more than they harassed male journalists that they had alleged violated journalistic ethics."? If we all agree that that's the intent of the Newsweek article, than any attempt on our part to "provide clarification" or "give it the thrashing it deserves" would be solidly SYNTH and OR.192.249.47.186 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That is clearly the intent of the Newsweek article, but its intent is at odds with its own "contents and meaning". Thats why citing it for its intent alone is misleading excerptation. It would have been nice to refute it directly, but that would be OR. I have never proposed to do that. What we can do is include additional specific information sourced from Newsweek itself so that it is no longer misleadingly excerpted. Rhoark (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe we should be interested in what the article says, not what the article intended to say. If those two are at odds, then maybe we shouldn't be using the Newsweek article at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I know I said I was done with this never-gonna-happen section, but to rephrase, you believe we need to include a few specific sentences from the article so that readers can figure out on their own that the main point of the article is wrong, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Close. We need to include some additional information, which is probably easier to do in a summary tone than by quotation. The justification in doing so is for the way in which it is cited to not mislead about its content. Rhoark (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to establish 1) that we ARE misleading and 2) that any "misleading" is relevant to the subject of the article. It seems that it is abundantly clear what the source found relevant and it seems equally clear that we are reporting what they found relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What they found relevant is not the entirety of the content and meaning of the article. If you prefer option A below to B or C, that's fine. If you can't accept additional well-sourced information being used, the burden of proof is on you to explain why. Rhoark (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

These are the options as I see it:

• A: Cite the conclusion along with specific caveats drawn from the article.
  • A1: Note that only mentions against hand-picked accounts were included, and that the sentiment of most of the tweets is unknown.
  • A2: Skip over the nature of the sampling problems and encapsulate them with the figure that only 0.48% of the tweets were used to draw the conclusion. (Since the initial cut to 25% was a valid move, this is more fair than the 0.12% figure)
• B: Don't cite the conclusion, just numerical results such as X combined tweets at Kotaku/Tolito/Grayson vs Y combined tweets at Zoe Quinn/Brianna Wu
• C: Don't cite the article

Rhoark (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your basis that there is a "sampling problem" makes this discussion moot. The reliable source has professional social media analysts look at the data. There is no mention of any "sampling problem" mentioned in the article and no reliable third party has identified any. We cannot as Wikipedia editors proceed as if there were. Doing so is a blatant violation of the ArbCom's : "The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not, as editors, bound to proceed only on the basis of citable sources. You may find it helpful to reflect on Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. The citation as it stands is misleading and does not reflect the totality of its source. We do not need citable sources in order to establish that. I'm not going to continue to rehash why it is misleading. You can look at what I've already said, what Thargor has said, and the medium.com analysis to help you understand. We cannot use those resources in the article itself, but fortunately the situation can be resolved using only material from Newsweek. The ArbCom quotation with which I began this section and that you keep repeating describes the problem with the status quo, not the proposed remedies. Rhoark (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote as it stands does indeed reflect the totality of the source: Newsweek a reliable source hired a firm qualified to analyze social media and here are their conclusions. The details are are not necessary to understand the Newsweeks overall story about their study. Including such details, particularly for the purpose of attempting to throw the study into question are completely inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's inappropriate is to allow known falsehood to remain in the article. WP:EP "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information." You have developed a very strident notion that a publisher at any point considered reliable for any single claim thereby becomes infallible for all purposes, not only in articles but talk pages. There is no support for this in any Wikipedia policy, essay, or community consensus. Rhoark (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So now your position is that the Newsweek article is false? And you are basing this on? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Newsweek's conclusion is devoid of any relationship with the data they collected. It is perfectly admissible to cite them for their opinion that they figured something out, but it has to be tempered with some indication that avoids misleading people into accepting that Newsweek's conclusion bears even a semblance to their data. Rhoark (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are second guessing a reliable source based solely on your interpreation . Cant do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "second guessing". I'm finding unequivocally that the source is inaccurate. An editor is not only enabled by policy but mandated to consider the accuracy of a source, whether or not it has been previously considered reliable. Your continual insistence that this is not a function an editor can perform is unproductive. Rhoark (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia." Without anything other than your assertion that it is inaccurate, we are done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes a good argument is enough. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, and part of that includes editorial discretion. Why you're arguing to use a misleading-to-incorrect source in the article, I remain puzzled by. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because there's nothing to demonstrate that it is "misleading-to-incorrect" beyond the fuzzy napkin math of a non-expert editor. That is the entire reason WP:NOR is a policy. Seriously, can you not see how it would be a problem for, say, an article stating the government was running up the debt to be "discarded as an RS" simply because an editor said "Nah, that doesn't look right"? I mean, we're getting into Trutherism here.

I guess neither of you are taking me up on my request to try to write an analysis that could get published and actually cited, so at the very least, have either of you actually [i]read the Brandwatch study[/i]?192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Simple calculation is WP:NOTOR. A valid analogy would be an article with the headline "Government is running up the debt" where later in the article it has a chart showing increased taxes and no information about spending. I have only read what Newsweek says about the Brandwatch study, but if this study itself is available in a more raw form it might be a preferable source entirely. Rhoark (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be true if you were proposing a simple calculation. You're not. You're proposing that numbers you decide (which, let's be honest, rely on what are almost certainly fuzzy numbers to begin with) are significant be mentioned as significant, when the RS you are taking them from specifically portrays them as not significant. You are asking that we interpret data in specific opposition to how the RS interprets it, and to cap it off, you've even made it very explicit above that your intention is to "thrash" the RS. Your whole argument, in fact, hinges on the assumption of Newsweek's incompetence in interpreting data based on Newsweek's interpretation alone, when you admit you haven't looked at the actual original data they draw their conclusions from.

I'm frankly bewildered here, as this seems to be the exact behavior that WP:OR is intended to prevent. When and if you decide to take a look at the original study, and can demonstrate from actual evidence that Newsweek's analysis is misleading, that would be absolutely worth discussing. But a citation to Newsweek for what would essentially be "Hey, Newsweek is stupid" seems the very worst at misrepresenting a citation.192.249.47.186 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The actual data they draw their conclusions from are summarized in the charts they publish, which is the same basis for my arguments. There is no reason to believe any other unpublished information informed their conclusion. Material taken directly from the article, with or without simple calculations, cannot be OR. An editorial decision to make that inclusion is perfectly permissible to support using original research, and is strengthened for it. The fact that Newsweek considers these matters not to be significant only deepens the case for their Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. Guidelines on potentially inaccurate material are to inline attribute it and provide balancing material, or if this is not possible then to drop the citation. Rhoark (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The WP:NOR article explicitly disagrees with you: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." You have yourself stated that the conclusion we've been talking about "is clearly the intent of the Newsweek article", and that your intent is to "provide information from the citation that undermines its own conclusion". The WP:NOR policy explicitly says that what you are trying to do is a misuse of sources, and absolutely forbidden. If you are unfamiliar with the details of the NOR policy, as you seem to be, please go read it before continuing to edit, but right now you seem to be arguing as if the NOR policy doesn't exist. If you still dispute this interpretation, I strongly advise you to take it up with the noticeboard, making sure to link back to this thread.192.249.47.186 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you quote is from WP:SYNTH Synthesis does not occur if no new thesis is stated or implied. WP:SYNTHNOT gives further guidance that mere juxtaposition is not synthesis, summary or explanation is not synthesis, a conclusion an educated person could reach from reading the cited source is not synthesis, and anything that is not OR is automatically not synthesis. Neither OR or SYNTH applies to the reasoning for an edit given on a talk page. I am in the habit of reading every applicable policy, guideline, or essay in the process of preparing an edit, rather than stopping with the first convenient phrase that seems friendly to my position. I advise you to avoid calling the WP:KETTLE black. Rhoark (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:Cherrypicking Rhoark (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Okay, first off, yes, that sentence is in the SYNTH section, which is on the NOR page. Second off, you have explicitly stated that your intent in adding this juxtaposition is to "provide information from the citation that undermines its own conclusion". "Mere juxtaposition" is allowed, certainly, but I don't see how you can claim, with a straight face, that you are attempting "mere juxtaposition" while simultaneously claiming that you intend to "provide information from the citation that undermines its own conclusion". This is also distinct from summary, as you are, in your own words, attempting to introduce a new thesis -- that the Newsweek interpretation is inaccurate. This is not a thesis present in the Newsweek article, and is not a valid summary of their article.

I am honestly unsure whether productive discussion can continue on this, if you're now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. Would you prefer to take this to dispute resolution?192.249.47.186 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I accuse you of nothing, but want you to know your condescending implication that I might not have read a policy I cited while simultaneously misapplying it yourself is unappreciated.

Yes, there is information in the source that undermines the conclusion. It is my intention to include this information in the article, as prescribed by Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. "The main information from a source, insofar as stated in Wikipedia, must be accompanied by any contradictory and qualifying information from the same source." "As to contradictory information, if, for example, a source says 'Charlie loves all blue coats and hates all red coats', to report in Wikipedia that according to the same source 'Charlie loves all ... coats' is cherrypicking. It is cherrypicking even if the source is precisely cited." "Qualifying information is information that might not contradict the main information but that alters how the main information should be understood. For example, to quote a source that says that most Americans sleep late and skip work but to ignore that the source limits that by saying "on weekends" is to omit qualifying information and misrepresent the source on Americans' work customs." "Either contradictory or qualifying information may be found anywhere in a source, not necessarily adjacent to the main information. For example, while the main information may be in a middle chapter of a book, contradictory or qualifying information may be in an endnote, in an introduction, or on a cover. Many sources are well organized and make finding everything you need relatively simple, but not all sources are so helpful."

The logical structure of these example fallacies is almost isomorphic to those exhibited by Newsweek. Replace coats with twitter accounts and replace "on weekends" with "when the algorithm could decide".

Just because a source has at some point been considered reliable does not grant it protection from skepticism. On the contrary, one of the reasons given that cherrypicking is a a problem is that it could cause information to be missed, that could otherwise point to the unreliability of the source.

There is no synthesis in the article if there is no new thesis stated in the article. If information is juxtaposed in a way that a reasonable reader will draw a valid conclusion themselves, that's just good editing. It is mere juxtaposition if the relationship between two pieces of information is not characterized by a connective such as "because" or "however", but uses that are not mere juxtaposition may still not be synthesis. It's not synthesis if its not original research. Sums, averages, approximations, and other simple mathematical operations combining separate verifiable numbers are not original research or synthesis. The burden of proof is on someone asserting a claim is synthesis.

Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and Wikipedia:Inaccuracy have the status of an essay rather than guideline or policy, but as essays they are well regarded and ultimately traceable to reasoned application of WP:EP and WP:V. If you do want to have a productive discussion, I suggest you express a preference for one or more of options A, B, and C that I presented previously. Rhoark (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If I may reply to long with short: "Yes, there is information in the source that undermines the conclusion." This statement isn't accurate. Identifying this false premise solves your dilemma, I should think. Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Prove it. Rhoark (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person making the statement, Rhoark, not the person calling it out. Would you like to preset proof that your premise is not false? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This thread currently runs to six pages on my screen, and I have a big screen. I will not recap it all to do the work for an editor who tacks "nuh-uh" on the end. A summary for the benefit of external commentators may yet be necessary, but in the meantime the analogy of the coats in the strand directly above this interjection is a good starting point. Rhoark (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The NOR, SYNTH, and Cherrypicking guidelines are exceedingly clear that their purpose is to prevent editors from misrepresenting the message of a source by taking specific pieces from a source, whether you're taking more or less than what the article already uses, in order to make an implication or thesis that is not an accurate summary of the source. Your stated intent is to take a point from the article in order to "give it a thrashing" and "undermine the message of the article". I'll say it again: you have explicitly stated that your intention is to use the source to make a message opposing the spirit of the source. This is a bald-faced admission that you intend to flout the spirit of the guidelines. If you truly, honestly, sincerely believe the claims about the purpose of the guidelines that you are making, take it up with the OR noticeboard. It's there for exactly that reason. But otherwise, there's nothing else to say, as consensus and policy are clearly against you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You make an argument that supports inclusion of Newsweek's thesis so long as the source is cited. To do otherwise would equally be cherrypicking. Consider option B off the table. The purpose of the policies and essays I have cited is not to enshrine the "spirit" of a source but to ensure the material on Wikipedia is verifiable. If the motives of editors are to come in to play, the first one to question would be the motive for misleading the reader. The OR noticeboard is not an appropriate venue for matters that do not involve original research. Rhoark (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Video Game Industry and Media Critics" to "Video Game Industry and Media Commentators"

I thought this would be a fairly straightforward edit, but I'm making a section just in case people disagree. I don't really understand what's intended by characterising that large majority in the mainstream media who denounce gamergate as 'video game industry critics' & 'media critics'. It has legs beyond that, so I've changed the wording to commentators. Also, 'media critics'? That seems like really weird phrasing to use. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate somebody telling me how 'at the expense of not focusing on other, more serious, ethical concerns.' is supposed to be interpreted. Who's not doing the focusing here? It feels as if somebody has come in overnight and inserted some seriously sloppy language to the article which hinders readability. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's supposed to mean that there are legitimate ethical concerns, but most commentators see GG as focusing on things that are either not ethical concerns or trivial. I believe we have sources to that say that, although I don't have them on-hand at the moment. — Strongjam (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In that event, there might be a way to shorten the sentence and make it more legible. Instead of 'unrelated to ethics- at the expense of not focusing on other, more serious, ethical concerns', we could write 'unrelated to the actual issues of ethics in the industry'. Would this be an appropriate change? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, but lets give some time for some more editors to weigh in. Every change to the lede is inevitable controversial. — Strongjam (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is the other side though too, that GG essentially ignores the actual ethical journalistic issues from the AAA firms and big budget projects - ie Shadows of Mordor game paying reviewers for positive coverage of the game down and even dictating phraseology that needed to be used . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a very poor example, actually. Since it was revealed originally BY a GamerGater, TotalBiscuit to be specific. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if anything, the roots of GamerGate appear to be in situations like the Mordor game reviews or this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Example is still apt. The point isn't that they never bring up legitimate issues, rather that it's not the focus or that it's overshadowed by bad actors. — Strongjam (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Mordor issue was specifically cited in a lot of coverage as something that GamerGate ignored because (as they say) it didn't fit into their specific culture war. While it is true that Totalbiscuit was involved in it at the start, he was denying being part of GamerGate at the time, and all sources seem to universally agree that it failed to "gain traction" in GamerGate the way, say, attacking Wu or Sarkeesian did. We have to report that coverage; saying "well, TB did it, and TB was later involved in GamerGate, so I feel it is connected to GamerGate" is original research. More generally, a huge number of sources have discussed the way GamerGate ignores eg. reviews being influenced by ad-purchases, and have connected this to the fact that GamerGate is primarily interested in fighting a culture war over gender politics (or, as its most prominent figures tend to put it, pushing back against what they see as the unethical way feminists and social justice advocates have advanced their cause in games and the media) rather than fighting for ethics in game journalism in a more general sense. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

When things settle down more, and (hopefully) the reordered version I've proposed on the draft page is accepted, there are some aspects and criticism of the ethics angle that can be expanded on; the Mordor issue is one - I'm 99% sure I've seen a few sources go "where's the GG on this big scandle" and the reasoning Aquillion gives above. There's articles after GG broke from the VG industry journalists and developers going "Here are ethics issues we know exist..." but none that lined up with the GG side; arguably the whole thing with Intel's $300M and the industry recognizing they've created a sexist environment internally is a similar fallout or the like. That said, I am also very well aware that GG sides Gerstmann's outster from Gamespot and Doritosgate as fuel for their fire (and there are some VG commentators agree), but we lack RSes that cover this. This is what makes writing this article hard is that I know there are some truths on what GG have identified but with no sources that discuss it to include outside their own manifests, which fail RS (and to some extent, BLP) for this situation. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what Masem said, we lack the RSes for a lot of these things. Most RSes have taken up a specific viewpoint and not deviated from that view. Just worth the mention (I think) that Totalbiscuit himself says "The idea that 'Gamergate' did not care about this issue [Shadows of Mordor] has no basis in reality. Revisionist history, nothing more." HessmixD (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

per Masem isnt a policy. per WP:UNDUE IS policy and says that when "Most RSes have taken up a specific viewpoint and not deviated from that view. " THAT is the view that we report. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE says nothing about taking the view or the tone, but simply balancing the representation of the views proportionate to sources; WP:IMPARTIAL does state to keep everything to a neutral tone. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, please identify where the article is not impartially representing the sources or stop making such assertions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the 'Video Game Industry and Media Commentators' characterization entirely; we use all reliable sources, and the statement encompasses covers all of them, not merely ones who are specifically focused on commenting about videogames or the media. Beyond that, saying "...according to the mainstream media..." in a Wikipedia article is redundant (and, I would argue, prejudicial in the sense that it tries to prejudice the reader against the majority of reputable sources by lumping them together under that characterization); we go by what reliable sources say, so if the majority of the reliable sources condemn something, we can just report that it is broadly-condemned. Even beyond that, though, we have many sources that, in turn, compile quotes and responses from other sources that don't fall into the general categories listed; these cover the overwhelming majority of commentators overall. Finally, I would add that it is absolutely essential to quantify the scale of each respective view (per WP:NPOV); that is, we must use words like 'overwhelming majority' or, at least, 'most', which were lost in some of the proposed changes. It is important that the lead make it clear that the dismissal of the ethics concerns (at least, as something separate from the cultural warfare aspect) is nearly universal across the broad field of all commentators. --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I consider "media commentators" to include those from the mainstream sources like NYTimes, etc. and as to distinguish from bloggers, etc (because from a blogging side, the GG has an overwhelming # of support, so we could not say "most commentators" unless this is clear.) Also "overwhelming majority" is both a weasel/peacock term, and reflects original research - meaning that someone had to go through and count sources and make that accessment. "Most" is a much fairer and non-OR way to state that. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for GG having "and overwhelming # of support" among bloggers? Because the article has many sources saying otherwise; numerous sources (including some who can, roughly, be characterized as 'friendly' to GamerGate) agree that the hashtag is 'toxic' and describe people abandoning it. Likewise, we have a huge number of reliable sources saying that the ethics concerns have been widely debunked. (eg. the CJR doesn't simply dismiss the concerns itself; it says that "Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate—about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked.") Our responsibility, as an encyclopedia, is to go with the coverage of reliable sources; if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that an accusation has been debunked (especially, as in this case, where it is one against many specific living people), we have a requirement to describe it as debunked in the article text and to make it clear that it is seen as universally debunked among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede: most commentators ... say GG ignored more serious ethical concerns

The lede made the point that most commentators ... have said that it ignored other, more serious, ethical concerns, focusing exclusively on ones that fit into the context of its culture war. I have hidden that sentence at the moment, because I am not sure whether this is such a hugely discussed point to warrant mention in the lede. Could someone point out where does the Wikipedia article state that most commentators feel that there is an ignorance of more serious ethical concerns? I did a CTRL-F on "ignore", and there is only one such use in the body (RE: Quinn) irrelevant to this issue. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Here, here, and here are citations appended to sentences that make this exact point in the text of the article itself, and that's without finding the other pieces that we aren't directly quoting that say the same thing. I found them by rereading the article, as relying on ctrl-f often leads to missing crucial details. Parabolist (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015

The introduction of this article seems deeply biased and is written in an aggressive stance towards what seems to be the editor's opposition (supporters of gamergate).

Please review and be aware. 128.187.97.21 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." Please try to present actual content changes you would like see. Using a template you didn't even read to demand we change the article in some vague way is way past useless. Parabolist (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to cleaning up the article?

Now that the worst abusers have been topic and site banned, can we get back to cleaning up and rewriting the article? I tried before only to have one of them harass and maliciously try to cause an edit war with me. This article is currently one of the most embarrassing articles on English Wikipedia. For comparison, the Spanish article on the subject is significantly more neutral, especially in the intro -- I would propose we start with a translation of that and go from there.

Gamergate has absolutely nothing to do with supposed sexism or misogyny in gaming despite the narrative the abusers who were banned were pushing, and it's time we start cleaning this article of it's non-neutral (and not-based in reality) POV. KiTA (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose the changes you'd like to make, and their supporting sources. There does seem to be a fairly strong consensus about much of the current article, though, so starting from a position of "this article is based on a POV pushed by a bunch of people who've been banned" is likely not a productive place to start. The Land (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Lets start with the fact that the article lede claims that this consumer movement is about "sexism in video game culture." This is blatantly not true, as defined by the actual people who participate in GamerGate -- for example, the primer posted on the gamergate wiki [redacted possible blp concern], which is notable as a primary / first hand source. For more traditionally published sources, here's noted columnist Erik Kain contributing to Forbes about it. Here's another by award winning Russian American journalist Cathy Young talking about how the controversy is much more nuanced. (As a bonus, she covers several points that are non-neutrally taken as "fact" in this article, such as the scandals relating to Zoe Quinn.) Here's another article by Ricky Morris at Digitimes talking about it. It is clear that the people that participate in GamerGate, as well as a non-trivial amount of sources, consider the controversy a consumer movement about ethical practices in gaming journalism, and the article's basis should reflect that fact. If we can start with that as a basis of the article, most of my criticisms of the article would vanish -- although I still maintain that the use of certain publications as sources, when they are embroiled in this very controversy, is inappropriate (Polygon, for example).

A more neutral lede would start along the lines of "GamerGate is a consumer revolt focused on perceived media bias, nepotism, and lack of journalistic ethics in the Gaming Press. Some people posting under the GamerGate hashtag have been criticized for perceived sexist and misogynistic comments, including harassment and threats of violence."

T hat last line there is how criticism is brought up in the Feminism article lede. I still maintain that a good starting point and a neutral lede is available over on the Spanish language wikipedia article for GamerGate, and highly recommend it as good reading. KiTA (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede has been an issue, but we do need to reflect what the sourcing says a little more than that as well. Part of the problem is the title of the article, which focuses on the controversy when it really should focus on the overall movement. Your lede is a good start, and you have some good supporting sources, but we might want to try and expand on it a bit more before making a firm proposal. I do agree that "sexism in video game culture" is really not an issue of Gamergate, but perhaps of Gamergate's opponents. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but Gamergate does not have "absolutely nothing" to do with sexism and misogyny in gaming. The vast majority of criticism of Gamergate comes from a sexism and misogyny angle. Actions like funding TFYC and founding notyourshield, were attempts by Gamergaters to deal with concerns that they were misogynistic. Even if you do believe ethics concerns deserve a place in the first paragraph of the lead (which I think is fair enough, seems nonsensical to knock Gamergate down without even explaining what it claims to be), we cant remove all mentions of sexism or misogyny. Bosstopher (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of GamerGate, yes. But that is not how the article is written. The article is written as if GamerGate is all about Sexism and Misogyny, with ethics being some form of shield to justify that. That is my concern, and that was the wonkery that the banned editors were enforcing upon the subject. The article should talk about the Journalistic ethical concerns first, the supposed sexism and misogynistic criticisms second, and the controversial figures such as Zoe Quinn last (if at all). KiTA (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is written that way because that is what the sources say. The sources look at the "but ethics" see nothing worth writing about. They look at the sexism and harassment and go "this is important" . We dont undue the analysis by the reliable sources and give first credence to something they dismiss.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Analysis? Possibly, although a quick read of a random sampling of the current citations reveals that many of these citations are actually opinion, not factual analysis, which is against WP:ASSERT and WP:NPOV.

But more specifically, I'm going to quote NPOV Principle 2 -- "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." If there are reliable sources that conflict with other reliable sources, it counts as opinion, not fact, and thus cannot be asserted as fact. That alone requires huge swaths of editing to this article to fix NPOV since there are two diametrically opposed sides to this controversy, both with sources that back them up -- one side claiming it's about Ethics with "social justice warriors" and other demagogues trolling and trying to make it all about them, another claiming it's about social justice with supposedly non-diverse gamers reacting to changing dynamics.

Since a major part of the NPOV problems that the banned editors brought to this article was purging citations they disagreed with, this is a problem that will fix itself as alternative viewpoint sources are reintroduced. KiTA (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence anywhere that there is a "problem" with the content. The last community RfC in fact identified no major POV issues. The people on the arbcom "naughty list" are not there because of content issues, it is from a perception of overreacting to swarms of SPAs attempting to violate POV issues and coordinated offsite harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an underhanded way of saying the RfC identified minor POV issues. They also said we should include "less reliable sources", but as you point out when convenient, an RfC is not binding. Rhoark (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

All articles, even Featured Articles, have minor POV issues - community editing, by non-experts, using the sources available is not going to be perfect.

If you feel it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to call another RfC on the existence of POV issues or the greater use of less reliable sources, that would be your choice. If you do, I would encourage you to carefully craft with others the wording of the RfC to ensure that such a process is an actual value-add use of community time and resources and not a clusterfuck that doesnt help settle any actual determination of the greater community consensus on the actual contested issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with this, though. Using opinion pieces is not forbidden, and much of this entire conflict is about perception and opinion, so the use of sources that discuss it reliably is not inappropriate. We do have a weight problem, and we do have a problem with the tone and point of view of the article, but jumping to this conclusion as you have here is as dangerous as the activities that got the article into this state to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Except we have sources that also cover both. No one is arguing that we do not talk about the sexism and harassment, but instead are rightfully arguing about the weight and structure of the article, which has been a continued problem exerbated by the bad behavior. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To be fair KiTA seems to be arguing for that to a large extent, with his claims that GamerGate has nothing to do with sexism and that Zoe Quinn should possibly not be mentioned in the article. I really dont get how you can argue that. Gamergate started with Zoe Quinn, has been strongly opposed by Zoe Quinn, and almost all discussions about Gamergate (especially in the reliable sources) invariably mention Quinn. You cant write about Gamergate without writing about Quinn.Bosstopher (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it absolutely did not start with Zoe Quinn. [BLP redacted] That was the major concern, combined with the "Gamers are Dead" / GameJournalPros collusion scandal, that sparked GamerGate. Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian ultimately have little to do with GamerGate outside of their attempts to subvert the discussion to their own ends as noted demagogues. KiTA (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If KiTA is saying no coverage of the Quinn and harassment debacles, I'm obviously opposed to it. Gamergate as a "movement," as a "controversy," has a history beyond Quinn and harassment that has been exised for reasons I don't care to speculate on anymore, and that we have an opportunity to solve the real NPOV issues in the article is one we should be embracing without ignoring other aspects as you note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate has absolutely nothing to do with supposed sexism or misogyny in gaming." But the vast majority of reliable sources cited in this article disagree with that statement. Sookenon (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of opinions cited in this article, which by definition are not appropriate sources. In addition, there was a general purging of sources by previous editors that slanted the article, a NPOV violation. KiTA (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Irregardless of the Arbcom case, what the article has been, while off in tone and approach, still falls very much appropriately into what WP polices limit us to. The sourcing is moistly within policy requirements, and poor sourcing for a highly contentious topic have been removed. This is the challenge created by both the GG situation (where there is very little coverage of the proGG side), and our policies on requiring high quality sources. The "verifyability, not truth" paradox. There is no way we can invert the approach of this article with sources given to make it "friendly" to GG because nearly no source does. But what we can do it watch for opinion stated as fact and the hyperbole the press has used. The article will, at the end of the day, have a large amount of negative comments related to GG, but we can be better to give what legitimate voice we can to the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This response is aimed at the people who will read Masem's comment and immediately seek to make a case of 'undue weight'. You have an article about a controversy... and many seem intent to have no mention of the other side. This article is meant to be a summation of events between two forces, so providing the other side comes part and parcel with that. This goes back to something I have been saying a bit of. This article should ether be split into two, or renamed. Since people seem intent to try to write it like it is about the GamerGate MOVEMENT and not the GamerGate CONTROVERSY. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that might just be the way to go. GamerGate the Movement, and "Criticism of Sexism and Misogyny in Gaming." The more I think of your suggestion, the more I think it's a great idea. KiTA (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I know it will end up biased against GG ether way, because the RS's are biased against GG. I have no illusions that this will magically 'make things better'. It WOULD remove a lot of headaches for everyone involved. Since "GamerGate Controversy" is right now being used as an article for two separate things, leading to a sub-par article. Having the movement portion and the controversy portion separated would allow a more narrow view on both, leaving less room for vague interpretations, and helping to make better, more concise, less battleground-y articles. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there enough articles specifically about the movement itself to meet our notability guidelines? Personally, I doubt it, which is why we have an article about the controversy. You are correct, though, that if we were to round up enough articles to support an article about the movement itself, it would still reflect the movement as being primarily about sexism and misogyny, as reliable sources overwhelmingly state. Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the archives a bit, and "Gamergate movement" is actually more popular as a term than "controversy" at this point. I planned on introducing a move request sooner rather than later. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather see a rename for this one and a new article for movement. Start fresh. Maybe use the Spanish language Gamergate article as a basis -- again, it's very well written. KiTA (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those things will be happening. A rename is possible, but two articles probably won't happen at this point and using the Spanish is simply not applicable. This is a much more detailed and better article even with its faults. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we could show the movement is notable on its own from the controversy that the movement has created (either directly or indirectly), separating the topics is not a good idea - the two ideas (even if separate) are still too interrelated to discuss them in separate articles. Much of the controversy tied to the GG the movement is a result of what has happened with harassment and the like even if this was not GG's goal from the start - the movement has been blamed for it, and we cannot avoid that. We can make the GG movement side with more clarity and there are a few more reasonable sources to be added, but having thought long on how the organization of this article is, I strongly recognize not to try to think about these as separate articles, but just a manner of seeing how to better press GG the movement (which is something I have done per the re-org at the draft version). And no, the Spanish article translation won't work here. Each wiki has different policies , and we at en.wiki have much more stricter rules on sourcing. With the sources given we cannot flip the article around like that. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate has absolutely everything to do with actual sexism and misogyny, as supported by reliable sources. I certainly hope that project policy holds in the future, as it has held so far. (And in case you're wondering, topic bans are not enacted until the case is closed). Tarc (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We should probably be super cautious about including material from the Spanish version of the article; I noticed it directly links "the Zoe post" in multiple places, which obviously violates WP:BLP. I can't speak Spanish so I have no specific commentary on the actual content there, but that's a pretty bright red flag. I have also heard scuttlebutt elsewhere that the Spanish page has been an operational target of the gamergate people themselves? The Spanish language article's talk page is very sparse, and I think one of the only posts there is complaining about a lot of anonymous IP vandalism dropping google-translated material into the article. As I said though; I can't speak spanish, so all I've got is google translate. Sappow (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've just had a reversion on material which did nothing other than expand on information provided by an already-accepted source. Indeed, I didn't even need to change the reference, since it's the same article from the same author (Forbes, Kain). Rather than crop anything out, I added more material to improve context and reduce POV issues... so I'm not at all sure why it was revised with an "unsourced" statement.Calbeck (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit, sourced to a Forbes contributor blog, was inappropriately speculative about who issued a DMCA request. The forbes blog was equally speculative, but Forbes apparently believes that unverified tumblr blogs are reliable sources about who is submitting sworn documents. The bar for BLP issues like that is higher. Hipocrite (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Except the Forbes blog, which is accepted as reliable elsewhere in the same article for various of its ruminations, directly cites its own source, which is the screen capture of official YouTube statements both identifying the DMCA'er and also that the DMCA request was invalid. Your sole argument that the source is invalid is that the secondary source cites it from a blog (whether tumblr or not is ultimately irrelevant). This would be of import if "the author and the publisher are the same" (this being the WP definition of Self-Published). In this instance, the author is YouTube and the publisher is the blogger, eliminating any Self-Published argument. Neither does an examination of Questionable Sources reveal a description to cover this material. Nor does WP:BLP apply, as this material is neither unsourced or poorly sourced, YouTube itself being the author and speaking to its own policies on DMCA takedowns. "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source".Calbeck (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if accusing someone of "offensive abuse" of the legal system with no evidence (not even the source you give argues that) is really the sort of thing that reduces POV issues... Bosstopher (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The source in question, YouTube, states that the person in question filed the claim and that it was invalid. I positioned this as "offensive" compared to the "defensive" act of censorship. Taking both specific terms out would seem to resolve the issue.Calbeck (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Youtube? I thought Kain was your source? Youtube is not a reliable source.Bosstopher (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear here. Forbes contributor blogs WP:NEWSBLOG and are not regularly fact checked by Forbes. They cannot be used for any contentions BLP content. There is a RSN discussion about this for the interested. — Strongjam (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, such a blog cannot be used as a Reliable Source, period, according to WP:RS. "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." If the blog is acceptable to this article as a reliable source in general, then its citation of primary source documentation which is neither Questionable nor Self-Published seems not to be in issue.Calbeck (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: in clarification, apparently such newsblogs are acceptable if the blog is "subject" to control, whether or not the news organization in question actually fact-checks them at at all.Calbeck (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The source of the DMCA request could be named if we say it was "alleged to be Zoe Quinn" by the sources. The screen cap of the youtube notice is not a proof as it may very well be Photoshopped, but for my part there is no doubt that it is correct, and I don't think people who argue against naming her are doing so because they don't believe she was the one. I strongly agree that we should treat anyone as innocent until proven, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty when it comes to criminal conduct. Citing a reasonable and likely allegation, however should be permissible, especially if there is a Reliable source that claims it. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no reliable sources that claims it. Woodroar (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Forbes, Kain source seems to claim just that, and it is already listed in the article. If yoou deem it to be unreliable, I suggest it to be removed, if not, my original argument stands. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes source is being used to give Kain's personal and general thoughts about the controversy, which is consistent with WP:BLPSPS. We cannot use that source to make BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To say nothing of the fact that Kain's mention of the DMCA request is clearly speculative, and is basically a five-word blurb apparently based on MundaneMatt's speculation. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole DMCA bit seems WP:UNDUE to me. I've only found two sources that talk about it, Vox and Kain, both written very early into the controversy. None of our more retrospective sources seem to give any weight to the incident. — Strongjam (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look closely to the article where this source is being cited, you can see that it's not used to give Kain's personal thoughts, especially in the subtitle "Gamergate Hashtag." The same source is cited several times without any mention to Kain, and to justify sentences like "Such incidents led to a Streisand effect that brought more attention to Gjoni's accusations." This is clearly a claim by Kain, and it was permitted. Why not permit something like "One YouTube commentator had a video critical of Quinn removed following a DMCA takedown request, allegedly requested by Zoe Quinn"(Wording can be better of course.) As I understand it, this allegation is one of the starting points of the backlash against Quinn, and the subsequent harassment. If we are to tell the Pro GG side of the story as well as we can, this piece of information seems like a good place to start. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because context matters for source reliability, and to allege that a particular person sent the notice requires a much stronger source as it's about a living person. — Strongjam (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to be persistent, but I have one more contest, allegations about living people are being voiced in other articles like "Bill Cosby". He is a living person as far as I know, and accused of raping some number of women, and there is, justifiably, a subtitle devoted to those allegations. But they are no more than allegations, despite having insane amount of media coverage there is no evidence brought to him, much less proven. As for "context matters", I agree and despite the lack of additional reliable sources to the claim, it is reasonable to assume it is most likely the truth. Moreover, whether the allegation is true or false, it is a cornerstone to this controversy, at least in the eyes of Pro GG people. Which makes the allegation itself, relevant to the controversy. 78.174.201.176 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference is the quality of the sources. A single Forbes contributor blog is simply not enough to put an allegation against a living person into Wikipedia. No matter how important some people may think it is. In the case of Mr. Cosby the allegations have been printed in many more, and higher quality sources. — Strongjam (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with the Bill Cosby article, but I suspect that the article correctly lists the rape allegations as allegations, and I know for a fact (having read some of them) that reports of those allegations are widely available in reliable sources. That's simply not the case here; we have (so far as I can tell) one blog post that mentions it in a speculative fashion, linking to another person posting speculative claims. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we should be able to call them allegations here, too. Andnandnandn (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when those allegations are "widely available in reliable sources." Parabolist (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

New section on arbitration ruling

Should we include a section on the arbitration ruling that has begun to enter the mainstream media? Such as here, here, here, here, or here? Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 16:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of that list, only two of them are reliable sources (The Guardian and The Verge). Of those two, The Verge might be reasonable for this, but The Guardian article, as noted in a few sections above, have numerous factual errors that will preclude it from being used here. The Verge article appears to be suffering from similar, but not equal, problems. Still recommend waiting for now to see if anyone picks this up of note without running with the ravings of a blog post as its source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure The Verge article would be a great choice either. The wiki article already cites 9 articles by The Verge(and also 9 by The Guardian). Can the case be made that one publication is gaining too much weight? I didn't find that in WP:UNDUE but it may lead to WP:OVERSITE instead. This may be an unrelated problem, but still one worthy of discussion. Camarouge (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Verge article is fine - recognize that it is also opinion. The Guardian article would have to be used as that's the spark that set the attention of the decision to the rest of the world, and then the WMF's official response to the misinformation to that. But again, this isn't for this page. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No. So far, there is nothing that WP has that has affected the GG situation. There are pages about Criticism of WP that this could go, though as TO notes, only a few above are reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GG is a controversy playing out online, in various fora. WP has not just affected the GG situation. It is the GG situation right now. However, WP:NOTNEWS. There should be more time and reliable sources before considering putting anything in the article. Rhoark (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There has yet to be a sourcable impact on GG because of the ArbCom ruling, which is why sticking it in here now it a bit of navel gazing. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, information about this Arbcom ruling has been included in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, alongside Auerbach's comments on the GGTF arbcom ruling. Bosstopher (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

1RR

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

---

In accordance with the newly authorised discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBGG, this article is subject to a one-revert restriction. Any editor who makes more than one revert in any 24-hour period (with exceptions for vandalism and BLP violations) may be blocked without further warning. I have added an editnotice to that effect to the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question. Does the 1RR count for anyone declining an edit in pending changes? GamerPro64 02:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. As reviewers we should accept anything as long as it's not vandalism or BLP violation (a mistake I have made and won't repeat BTW.) If we want to revert something that isn't one of those two things we should accept it then revert so that everyone can see what we did. — Strongjam (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The revert rule doesn't apply to reverting obvious vandalism, which should be the context of most such refusals. Rhoark (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And of course, if you're in doubt, you can always drop an protected-edit request to catch the eye of admin. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this remedy make the arbitration decision of editors subjected to a 1RR restriction moot? hy would you put everyone on the same footing as those sanctioned for edit warring? --DHeyward (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Weren't they subject to 1RR for all articles? Silverseren^C 03:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussing other editors on article talk pages is inappropriate per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Instead, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE should be followed. Dreadstar ☥ 07:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This isn't a battlefield. You shouldn't be worrying about being put on 'the same footing' as others- you're not fighting a war, you're working in a collaborative environment, and I advise you to remember such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) No, but there are revert warriors that ignore discussion and revert with a template never to be heard from again. I'd be fine letting it go, but as it is it doesn't seem like they're removing content for a proper reason. Let me know! --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Do at least pretend to be polite, DHeyward. If you believe I've done ill, take it up with the Arbitration Committee- otherwise, picking a fight is just poor behaviour. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

ESPN blog

ESPN blog is clearly discussing historical/contemporary views regarding sports and gaming. It's misleading to pull quote one sentence from the blog. Misogyny in sports journalism would be more apropos for contemporary comparisons. --DHeyward (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of PeterTheFourth's revert of an edit by DHeyward

Hi! I reverted your reversion of an edit by TheRedPenOfDoom. You stated that you believed his edit was 'misleading' (which I don't see as relevant because it's a direct quote from a news article which supports this quote) and 'out of historical context', which doesn't necessarily make sense for the removal of a quote which is commenting on a current day situation. If you'd like to explain your reversion here, I'd be fine letting it go through, but as it is it doesn't seem like you're removing content for a proper reason. Let me know! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I already commented above yours. I wish you had read the talk page before reverting. --DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the context "Being a sports fan can be tough for women, but I think it's a generational thing," Sprague said. "Games are different -- they've always been geared more toward men. So if women say, 'We'd like to see fewer women in bikinis shooting things,' that's going at the core.". Women as fans are more accepted. Women don't compete with men in the majority of sports. For pro-sports, at least in the U.S., tropes like cheerleaders are accepted even as the role of women have evolved as a fans. What hasn't evolved is coaching and journalism. Sports journalists and game developers are much more comparable with respect to how they are received (i.e. women in locker rooms, women in play-by-play roles, women journalists that aren't worried about someone taking photos of them in their hotel room). All of those are recent sports stories regarding women. There are no stories or controversy about why women aren't in the NBA, MLB or NFL. That makes the pull quote out of context. --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that I think the quote is really not adding anything new beyond yet another voice to pile onto misogyny criticism. She's a person not affected or directly connected to any of the events here, so it's just a random commentator tossing their hat into the ring. (I do note that the quote needed context becuase without attaching that she was speaking of GG, it seemed to be directed to the industy's problems, not GG) --MASEM (t) 04:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is titled 'Why GamerGate Is Important'. I'm having trouble seeing how it's not relevant to gamergate, or how its inclusion is 'out of context'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote helps place the games misogyny in context of other aspects of the world, in this case the sports world which is another milieu which is a comparable male dominated entertainment industry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While that's understandable, as we have no idea how or what she's implying in talking about the misogyny in the sports world (is it due to the fans of sports, or the male-dominated nature of it?) I'm not 100% sure it still fits. On an article like Sexism in video games, it would have a better fit (as while the blog is certainly based off GG events, it seems to speak to the larger problems the vg industry has had, highlighted by GG). --MASEM (t) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When it introduces the line, the context seems to pretty clearly be that the shift towards female voices in games and backdraft from certain sectors parallels similar events that sports already went through. It ends with a quote about not wanting to say which is worse because "they're both bad", so I don't think TRPoD's version hit the nail on the head -- I think a better phrasing, more to the point, would be "In her blog on ESPN, Jane McManus noted that the harassment women face in the gaming industry and culture parallels that they face in sports, and quoted Yardbarker online editor Sarah Sprague as saying 'Sports already went through this a long time ago.'" Or something less clunky -- basically, that the article seems to be saying it's an echo of the sports shift.192.249.47.186 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Info from former reddit mod regarding alleged censorship and collusion?

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

---

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but can [redated BLP problem links] be mentioned in the article? Seeing as how censorship and collusion is kinda central to the movement, and this provides evidence of that.

Or is this deemed unreliable due to not being mentioned in any news articles? If that is the case, is there any further information that would allow this information to be deemed reliable? Like proof that the individual in question was a mod? Jabberwock xeno (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source which talks about these stories, they're valid for addition. I'd welcome any attempt to get a reliable source about it. Best of luck. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use them at all because they have BLP violating material towards specific people. We cannot use material that accuses named living persons unless this is well-established/described in high quality reliable sources per WP:BLP policy. --MASEM (t) 08:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a source has BLP information does not restrict us from using it in ways that do not repeat the BLP information in the article. It especially does not prohibit sharing a link on a talk page for the purpose of determining suitability. A reddit moderator discussing the subreddit under their control may be permissible as a WP:SELFSOURCE. To know for sure, we'd have to see what the link is. Rhoark (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It can't be used if it involves claims about third parties (which it does.) Even if it didn't, it would be WP:UNDUE. And ignoring all that, there is no way we could cover this without mentioning claims about 3rd parties since the whole point of the post is claims about other people. — Strongjam (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is irrelevant, but the link in question doesn't name people specifically, it gives aliases and psuedoynms, Or does that not matter in regards to BLP? Jabberwock xeno (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the writer of the blog. The proposed source is a blog. Thus, the proposed source is not a reliable source for anything but the writers opinion. Why is the writers opinion notable enough for inclusion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a Reddit moderator's report on internal Reddit drama, which isn't even mentioned in the article. Shii (tock) 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

More or less. It was the former moderator claiming that zoe or other indivuals were colluding with other reddit moderators to censor disscusion on the site about gamergate. I'd say that is information notable enough to be listed, but I figured that due to the information being in a blog and having not been reported on elsewhere that it probably wouldn't be able to be included, which is a shame. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

What is "pro-Gamergate"?

"Wu and a number of sources have attributed to Gamergate supporters." It is unclear to me if the pro-Gamergate crowd is supporting the misogynistic harrassment, or if it is in opposition. Can someone clarify this please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's supposed to mean that the death and rape threats were attributed to the pro-Gamergate crowd. The way it's written is a bit WP:WEASELly at the moment though. — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Could you add this to the article please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped the wording for now. The salient point is she mocked Gamergate and then was harassed. — Strongjam (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

IB Times

Some concern about this edit by @Carwil:. I don't think it's supported by the source, and maybe attributing opinions to Baldwin that aren't supported by the source. Am I missing something in the source? — Strongjam (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the relevant quote: "Actor Adam Baldwin, 52, known for his past roles as Agent John Casey in NBC series “Chuck” and Jayne Cobb in sci-fi series “Firefly,” was the first to use the gamergate hashtag on Twitter in August. Baldwin continues to be an active participant in the online debate, accusing gaming journalism sites like Kotaku of using collusion tactics and alleged unethical conduct." Other than saying that -gate means "a scandal" I don't see what I'm adding here.--Carwil (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In our article "sought to define certain media coverage—praise of certain games developed by women and criticism of sexism within the video game industry—as an ethical scandal", I don't think the source talks about the type of media coverage so I don't think we can make the jump in our paraphrasing. — Strongjam (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There's also this: [18] "[The liberal]'s agenda's been to enforce arbitrary "social justice" rules upon gamers & the culture by stifling varying viewpoints."

And this: "I just put a hashtag on a tweet when I saw a couple of videos. I had no intention of creating a hashtag movement or anything like that. I just thought of it as Watergate Jr. I’m not really the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to gamer journalism or even games in general. But the people that took up the mantle have been experiencing social justice warfare, and they’re sick of it, and they’re speaking up. And obviously the social justice warriors are angry and lashing back."[19]

I'm open to other ways of defining this, but there should be some way to do so here.--Carwil (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Might be able to do something with the interview (is Rawstory RS?) for his opinion that "[Liberal media] agenda's been to enforce arbitrary "social justice" rules upon gamers & the culture by stifling varying viewpoints." Seems to encapsulate his view as what GG is fighting against. Also, I feel stupid as I just noticed that is exactly what you quoted. — Strongjam (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviated that quote and combined with culture war reference. RawStory should be reliable as publisher of interview about the interviewee's views, per WP:QUESTIONABLE.--Carwil (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the "controversy"?

This article is supposed to be about the controversy, but it's not very clear what the two sides of the controversy are. For this article to do justice to this referent, it should go out of its way to present to give both sides. Otherwise, this article should be retitled by moving it to "Gamersgate", because it's not about a controversy but a hashtag movement. Chrisrus (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some ants that might object to that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also an online retailer that might object. — Strongjam (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For extra laughs [20] Avono (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Many archive pages go into this, but the controversy as reflected by the sources we have is primarily is about how the actions of the movement - directly or not - have been perceived and condemned by the media at large. We know that the movement itself has controversial issues with games journalism, but is really not sufficient sourcing to go into much detail about this. As per NPOV and UNDUE, we are restricted to what the body of reliable sources in terms of how much weight we give any side of a topic. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right. This issue is difficult for that reason. However, can't WP:RSes be found in which the author reaches out to the pro-GamerGate side and summarizes their side of the story? What about this one, here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/? Even though Gamergate supporters are a group of living people, not a single living person, living people are being broadly painted as bunch of vile women-hating thugs here, and as with our guidelines of living people state, when people are being accused of something terrible we have an obligation to go out of our way to be very careful to be as fair and balanced as possible. Chrisrus (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply to large anonymous groups. Also, Erik Kain is already heavily used in the article (indeed I'm pretty sure he is by far our most cited source.) Well past where it's WP:UNDUE for a WP:NEWSBLOG. — Strongjam (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick count and I was wrong, we cite Kain 13 times and VanDerWerff 14 times! Eventually we're going to have to go back over this article and think about re-weighting some of our earlier tech blog articles. — Strongjam (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We have been working to reflect in this article that it is a strong, widely-held opinion of the press that, for example, GG is misogynistic campaign instead of one based on ethics, and making sure that it is not presented as a fact, nor the "right" opinion. That's unfortunately the best we can do to take away that stigma - that's most of the reason that GG is covered in reliable sources to start is that the press has reported so negatively about it. That's been the struggle of the last several months is that there is very little press that does not take that tone, though we do have enough to at least describe the movement as an challenge towards ethics, but that's still an element that has recieved criticism that we can't avoid. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I think we've done a pretty good job of making sure such things are attributed. I think the only thing that can be difficult to read out of the article at the moment is "What is Gamergate?" and unfortunately if you asked five Gamergate supporters that question you'll probably get five different answers. I'm not sure what we can do about that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll point again to my reorg that is presently sitting at the draft page (per suggestion of Tony). The one thing we can do is at least segment off what we know the GG movement is, what demonstrated ethic issues they have, and address commentary that is specifically about the movement with no question - that is, the doubts and concerns of their ethics claims, and the aspects of the leaderless organization. The remaining material about sexism/misogyny, gamer identity, and the like, are about more than just the movement itself, and does include aspects of the industry recognizing that they partially to blame for what has happened. In addition to just reviewing the wording and choice of quotes, that would help be as neutral as we possibly can be within the constraits of WP's sourcing requirements and without moving too far off what the press has to say about this. We just can make sure the neutrality is better met to avoid any judgement of the movement in WP's voice, while reiterating what is loud and clear from the press side. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem might be that we spend a lot of time focusing on Gamergate as a movement and less on what they did and when/why. Right now we've got a whole section on the Gamergate Organization and their activities, but having it in its own section separates the activities from the context in which they happened. I've attempted a reorganization here. I also did a whole lot of trimming, which I'm sure won't get many positive responses, but I think the structure change helps, and also puts into perspective where we have an excess of information and where we might be able to add more or cut things out entirely. Thoughts? Kaciemonster (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose my question, for both Masem and Kaciemonster (and anyone else), is how we differentiate "commentary that is specifically about the movement with no question" from "material about sexism/misogyny, gamer identity, and the like." I think there are a significant number of people, a significant number of editors, and most importantly a significant number of our reliable sources that would argue that the material regarding sexism, gamer identity, etc., is just as important to a discussion and understanding of the "movement." AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's why a more chronological organization works better. I think the current article, even though it mentions how misogynistic the harassment was and the sexism in gamer culture is talked about, it's not really presented in any way other than commentary. We have enough sources to present the article as the facts in the order and way they happened, and honestly I don't think much more needs to be done other than that to demonstrate exactly what the movement did and when to show why it was misogynistic. We might want to consider (regardless of what we ultimately decide to do with the article) looking at the timeline of events as a way to refocus. I've seen a lot of people on the talk page say "well we really don't know what happened" but the thing is we know exactly what happened, and I think we did so much fiddling with the article and trying to get everything to a place where nobody was upset about the content that we over-focused on the commentary and sort of forgot about the events. I hope this makes sense, sorry :( Kaciemonster (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention gamer identity. I think we have the perfect place to discuss that in the section about the "end of the gamer" articles. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To comment on that draft, I think that order doesn't work well. The GG situation has had many simultaneous things happening after August/Sept that a chronological order doesn't make that much sense, and complicates the matters of distinguishing what "Gamergate the self-described movement" has done and what "Gamergate the hashtag that has been used to harass women" has done without implicating the two groups are the same (which is a key element here - the press have claimed they are but there's also sourcable counterclaims to at least assert that they are not equal groups, and because of that, we need to treat "Gamergate the movement" the decorum of presuming they are not about harassment, though will include the press's opinion that it is.) --MASEM (t) 21:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be separating the Gamergate movement from the Gamergate harassment. Reliable sources don't treat them as two separate groups and neither should we. This is also an article about the Gamergate controversy, not the Gamergate movement, and so we should be covering all aspects of the controversy. Chronologically, I think it makes quite a bit of sense. Zoepost is released, Quinn is accused of sleeping with a journalist for positive press, accusations are shown to be false. The Fine Young Capitalists talk about their feud with Quinn, people get riled up about it and give them a bunch of money. Adam Baldwin tweets a link to some videos about the "Quinnspiracy" with the hashtag Gamergate. People run with it, the hashtag Notyourshield comes out right after. Shortly after, Sarkeesian is harassed when she releases a new episode of Tropes VS Women. In response to the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian, a bunch of journalists write "End of the Gamer" articles. In response to that, Gamergate starts Operation Disrespectful Nod to get companies to pull advertising from the sites that posted the articles. The response to the Sam Biddle tweets can also be included here since they were part of the same operation. Some advertisers pulled advertising and then reinstated it, Intel did a bunch of stuff, Operation Baby Seal, etc. Then we've got the Sarkeesian shooting threat, the harassment of Wu, and Day, and the industry response to it. Those are the main events of the controversy, I don't understand how presenting it like that is unclear. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, they are considered two separate groups, though with a possible overlap in membership, but to what degree, we don't know. We know from sources there are some GG movement members that are not harassers, and there's a strong evidence that there are harassers that are not GG people. The reason this article is a battleground is that it initially started assigning these groups the same due to how sources were presenting it, and thus basically implicating anyone that was a GG member as an harasser. Since we have sources that make it clear this cannot be said factually, we should take the most cautious road and consider them two separate groups though with possible cross-membership, which prevents us from saying anything stronger than what the sources give. In terms of the chronology, alot of the events following the Wu harassment and the USU threat are just arguments and not time-critical events in the situation, hence why a detailed chronological matter doesn't make sense here, beyond the initial 2-some months. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The only people who believe they are considered two separate groups are you and Gamergate supporters. No source is saying that literally all Gamergate supporters are also harassers, and it would be ridiculous to argue that, but this is an article about the Gamergate Controversy, so unless we're going to remove everything about the apparently completely separate Gamergate movement that just so happened to pop up at the exact same time as the harassment of Zoe Quinn and just leave in the stuff about the harassment, we have to treat them as coming from the same group. There are way more sources that do not make the distinction "not all Gamergaters" than those that do, and realistically, all they're saying is "not all Gamergaters." Basing the entire article around a barely supported viewpoint is giving it undue weight. Also considering the harassment in October is basically the last notable thing that Gamergate did, I don't think that's really an argument against a more chronological structure. Kaciemonster (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm 100% against any attempt to split the topic of the GG movement and the harassment via GG tag into separate articles. The two topics are so interlocked, and we cannot avoid talking about the press that have blamed the movement for creating the environment that allows for harassment. My point is that we can better see how to write a neutral article keeping in mind we have two different aspects of one topic here: the movement, and the harassment. See the NYTimes quote I put below that shows what the better sources are doing: they aren't saying the harassment comes from the movement, directly, but that the harassment is aligned with the movement, and they blame the movement for enabling this. We can write a neutral article that considers both parts separately, with the criticism of the harassment build atop the knowledge about the movement's problems as seen by the press. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying we should split them into two articles, I'm saying you're misinterpreting sources, and as a result absolving the Gamergate movement of the harassment they caused. You're implying that the source is saying something that it isn't actually saying. I suggest you read my comment again. Kaciemonster (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in full agreement that we have to say that commentators have agreed that the GG movement - directly or not - are responsible for creating the environment and/or attitude for the harassment attacks, and for this reason alone is why the two parts have to be discussed within the same article and discussed at times together. Just that we cannot assign direct blame of the harassment (that is, the people actually sending the messages, performing the doxxing, etc.) to the movement because it is not clear by the sources if the movement has any direct role in the harassment, and certainly not the whole movement. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing though, there aren't two parts that need to be discussed. They're from the same group and we have enough sources to back it up. Nobody is suggesting "let's directly blame the harassment on each and every individual 'gater", but we DO have to blame it on Gamergate itself, as per reliable sources. We don't need to constantly suggest throughout the article that it's only SOME Gamergate supporters doing harassment, but this is what their movement is notable for. We can't pretend there are two different gamergates, the good one and the bad one, they're both the same group. Kaciemonster (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there really isn't any sources that put the ethics controversy at the same level or more important than the issues about sexism and misogyny that we can use. We have some sources that do have the industry figures stating that there are ethics issues - though not all the same GG has identified, but then say all this is overwhelmed by the situation regarding the harassment. This is where we are stuck with, and would require either a larger number of equivalently reliable sources focus on the ethics (which we have no idea if this might come around or not), or we have a massive sea change at WP at what we use as sources, which is very much unlikely to happen given how stable they are. The article in its present state is about 90% appropriate under WP policy, irregardless of what has happened prior to the ArbCom decision; the last 10% has been what is the issue of trying to improve it better. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem: would you mind pointing to some of these sources? The ones on the article seem to very clearly equate the movement with the harassers, although to be honest a few of them run with the "useful idiots" angle as well.192.249.47.186 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at a place I can link the sources, but in the present article, we have the discussion about the "GG moderate" that are engaged in anti-harassment stuff, at least one or two sources that discuss the harassers being a "vocal minority" of those using the hashtag, and sources that point to evidence of third-parties getting involved that have no stake in GG but using it to stir the pot. The higher quality sources like NYTimes and the like are careful in their language too - they do assign that harassment comes from people using the GG tag or tied to the GG movement, but do not say explicitly say the movement itself did the harassment; they have readily placed blame on the movement - even if they are not actively doing anything with harassment - that their lack of organization and their indifference or the like towards the harassment has created a situation that enables the harassment. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really make it sound like they are two unique groups, though, that just makes it sound like the opinions are not unanimous among all members, but are still enabled. For example, it's true that not all Republicans are Conservatives, and vice versa, but it would not be very reasonable to talk about them as disparate groups, and claim that the Republican Party does not support conservative values, without RS making that distinction as their conclusion. If the RS are implicitly or explicitly distinguishing between "Gamergaters" and "Gamergate-based Harassers", then I could support distinguishing between them in the article, but I'm not sure the examples you brought up support that.

Sidenote: I believe mentioning "Quinn is accused <redacted>" above to be a violation of BLP requirements for this page, even if that is what she was accused of. Do we need to scrub it, or are we allowed to discuss the content of the accusations so long as we note them as false?192.249.47.186 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Since we're discussing whether something in a source is reasonable for use in the article, I think it's fine there, although I could be wrong. Supported or not, it is undeniably stated in the cited source. I would be perfectly happy if a more experienced editor decided it was appropriate to scrub it. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I tend to agree with your characterization of how the movement is covered in the cited sources, and any of the reliable sources I've seen. That was why I was interested how it was proposed we should try to differentiate between the two. But I suppose that's the debate here--or one of them, at least. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it's impossible to have a conversation about why the harassment against Quinn was misogynistic if we can't discuss what the misogynistic accusations against her actually were. It's classic sexism to accuse a woman of sleeping with someone to further her career, and it's something we need to be able to discuss in that context. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, we do have a (very serious) responsibility to avoid spreading any harassment further, or giving it undue weight, which we can do even by mentioning it here. It was a fair point that the IP editor made, I think. Either way, it seems to have been handled. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The attacks against Quinn and Sarkeesian and Wu are all see as misogynyistic because as RS state, there was a pattern (they're all females) in addition to the use of rape threats and the SWJ/feminism threats. This only came out after the fact - the threats towards Quinn alone did not have that pattern. But that's the attacks. The identity of the people that did them and their relation to the people that identify themselves as the GG movement is unclear and/or a contested fact in highly reliable sources; there is no evidence they are one and the same, but there's no evidence that they aren't the same, and hence the need to tread with more care and making sure when opinions that claim that the harassment came from the movement, to express these as opinions and not fact. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"The identity of the people that did them and their relation to the people that identify themselves as the GG movement is unclear and/or a contested fact in highly reliable sources" - again, can you provide the source for that? That's a rather strong claim to make, and the NY Times article you specified doesn't seem to make that strong a claim. If I'm just failing to find these highly reliable sources, can you please help me out? If not, I'll try to go through the sources we have attached to the article already.192.249.47.186 (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Take this NYTimes article [21]. "The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage." Note that it considers the harasser institigators and the movement separate, as I've described. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but feel you're trying to cut a proverbial hair here, particularly given (as you have repeatedly noted) that whatever this movement is, it's both leaderless and decentralized. If we have a number of sources that associate the harassment with the movement itself (or persons within the movement), and a few others that can be selected out as saying that the harassment was carried out by people "allied with the broader movement," is that really a significant difference, or are we trying to bend the sources over backwards to paint a picture? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that less-then-higher reliable sources have blamed the entire GG movement for actively engaging in harassment, which is a contentious claim given that others like the NYTimes article here and others have said there are GG movement supporters that are not in this. We have to be aware that is a very contentious claim and should be treated carefully per NPOV (opinion, not fact). Taking the stance that factually there is the GG movement, that there are harassers that use GG, with unclear overlap, we have a base that builds onto the predominate view that the GG movement - directly or indirectly - is responsible for the harassment, and the smaller view that some of the GG movement is trying stop the harassment. It is not a manner of trying to twist through the reliable sources, but recognizing that they have prejudged the GG movement, and we cannot take that same tone as an encyclopedia to be neutral. We have to find the neutral ,factual details and then show the opinions that stem from the those. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been explained multiple times now why this is a misinterpretation of the reliable sources. The harassment has been connected to the Gamergate movement in basically every single reliable source we use, including the example you gave. You can't claim that all of the reliable sources except the ones you support are only stating their opinions, and we shouldn't follow up every single mention of harassment in the article with "not all gamergaters". Kaciemonster (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, largely, I just think that we have to use the reliable sources we have, until such a time as new ones are found, presented, or come into existence. Trying to draw a distinction between action attributed by the sources to the "movement" and actions attributed to the "allies of the movement" seems like a stretch, particularly as it's a distinction that isn't made in all, most, or (as far as I can tell) more than a few of the sources currently available.

That being said, I do agree with Masem's goal in principle, so I think I'm going to hold of on adding to this back and forth for actual changes to the article or the draft. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I misspoke, I don't think we should draw any distinctions between the actions attributed to the movement and the actions attributed to the allies of the movement. They're one in the same, and I think we have more than enough sources to show that. Kaciemonster (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the confusion is more on me. My previous comment was more in response to Masem; I didn't really notice as I was writing it that you had commented as I was writing the response. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is some confusion because there are two ways that the harassment has been connected to the movement claimed by the press. One is the direct - the actual actions of sending threats, doxxing, making calls, etc., all the criminal activities that harassment covers, and the other is the indirect factor - people going "they got what they deserved", speaking ill will of those targetted, and not trying to distance themselves from that. The latter, I'm in 100% full agreement that most sources attach the harassment to the movement via this means. They just careful avoid saying that the movement is directly involved (instead assigning direct blame to people that use the gg hashtag), and that's the clarity we need to keep in mind here. The current article state does a careful job to make this distinction to follow this approach in the sources. There is absolutely no way not to include the criticism of the movement that assigns them the impartial responsibility for the harassment campaign. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The confusion has literally nothing to do with that, I thought they were replying to me but they were replying to you, that was the confusion. It still doesn't change the fact that this conversation isn't going anywhere. I've responded already to everything you keep repeating, as have other people. Writing the same thing over and over again isn't productive. It's time to move on from this conversation. Kaciemonster (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Administrator note It is acceptable to discuss false allegations in the context of the way they were reported or in the context of their being false, as far is as absolutely necessary for the development of the article, but please be very careful in how you choose your words and have due care for the real people who are being discussed. The same considerations obviously apply to true allegations, but that requires rock-solid sourcing, even on a talk page. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To put the blame of the harassment direct on the movement is not something we can do. I will agree some sources do say that. But other just-as-reliable sources say that they are not, thus creating a conflict. Because we are neutral and impartial, and play things safe on purpose, we need to take the road that it is unknown if the harassment came from the movement, but we can certainly spell out the claims made by many sources that the harassment is directly done by the harassment. That keeps that predominate view in the article as it needs to be, but out of WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from, Masem. Would you help me see where our reliable sources say that the harassment tied so strongly to gamergate does not come from the leaderless gamergate movement? Is there another faction here we're missing? It's important that we correctly attribute harassment, as if our attribution is tied to identifiable persons, it may violate out BLP policies. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no source that has evidence of any person that says they are a GG supporter of also being a harasser. Claims that this is the case, yes, from many sources, but we have, for example this that identifies that there is a large fraction of people in the GG movement that are fighting the harassment. There might exist some GG movement people that are involved in the harassment, but we simply don't have evidence of that, and even if we did, we as a neutral voice could not use the superlative "the entire GG movement is performing the harassment." We absolutely need to attribute the harassment to people using the "gamergate" hashtag (this is 100% clear in the sources), but that's a different group from the group that makes up GG movement, whom also use the "gamergate" hashtag to promote their concerns. That's the limit we can assign direct responsibility for harassment. As for the indirect responsibility, many sources do put that blame on the GG movement for creating the environment that enables the harassment, but that doesn't mean we in WP's voice can directly blame them for the harassment. Note that there are no known identifyable persons in the movement establishes yet. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we can't be saying "the entire GG movement is performing the harassment." Frankly, particularly in the more recent revisions of the article, I don't see anywhere that it does say that. But you're still trying to draw a line between "people using the GG hashtag for harassment" and "the group that makes up GG movement, whom also use the "gamergate" hashtag to promote their concerns." As you say yourself, it's a leaderless movement that is often distinguished solely by the use of the hashtag (or similar identification). I think a lot of the questions you're seeing here are people wondering where, and how, you want to draw the line between the two. It seems a number of us are still failing to see the distinction you're trying to make. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is a completely fair question. The way I view the distinction is that the "movement" are those people that say that they are part of the GG movement specifically calling to the ethics issues, regardless if they use the hashtag or not. The other group are people that just happen to use the #GG directly for harassment. A way to possible see what I mean is to check the draft space article here: [22] --MASEM (t) 05:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So, effectively, the true gamergaters are those who talk about the ethics claims that have been denounced by our reliable sources, and anybody who uses the GG hashtag to harass people is no true gamergater? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be more the case that the harassers are a subset of the people that use the GG hashtag, and whom have poisoned the term for anyone else, including those in the movement, that have used it. But I'm not sure how well that clears that up. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the reliable source you wish to use that makes that distinction, or delineates the groups how you wish to have them delineated? It would be much easier to discuss with your source to refer to. Sappow (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Take the NYTimes source quote above. It, and where most other sources attempt an objective definition of the movement, are clear that they see the movement as those people that say they are about ethics concerns. Another example, [23] "In other words, the movement is focused on “ethical problems” in games journalism; the harassment which is endemic in gamergate is then blamed on “a much smaller faction”, one which the bulk of Gamergate is, to quote actor Adam Baldwin, the instigator of the hashtag, saying “this is not what we’re about”. The Gamergate line is that it vigorously self-polices, tracking down rogue elements within the movement who harass women, and telling them to stop." Mind you, some of this is self-definition (there's sources that doubt the veracity of the "movement" claim, no question), but this is a line we can use. The movement are those talking ethics but do not discuss, or otherwise they denounce, the harassment aspects, while the set of people that harass under the GG tag is the other larger group. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It took me a bit to find all three articles; To round em up for other people reading, the ones he's linked are Slate, The Guardian, and NYTimes. I note all these articles are from October, two from fairly early in it; are you trying to make a historical argument here? Or just state that that's what Gamergate believes/believed about itself in October?

Because that Guardian article doesn't actually -support- that point of view, the section you shared is wrapped up in quotes for a reason; That and the paragraph before it were introduced by ending the paragraph before them by saying "the New York Times piece also regurgitated Gamergate’s own explanations for its existence.", and then quoting the times. That seems to indicate that The Guardian gives no actual credence to those claims? 'Regurgitated' is generally not something I imagine as a positive adjective you use for statements you consider valid and credible.

Like, that set of paragraphs was then followed with "But while the movement identifies itself as being about ethics in gaming journalism, its targets and its practices belie the truth."

Basically, to me that seems to strongly indicate that their writer and editors believed, well, just about the opposite of what you're claiming they were saying... have I misread something? That particular article does not seem to give any credibility to GG's claims about itself. Sappow (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because the writer concludes a different interpretation of the details at the end of the day doesn't mean their attempt to be objective to start cannot be used. Nearly all sources stated with some type of objectivity the movement claims it is not about harassment but about ethics. At which point the bulk of those sources say "that's likely BS" and assign blame of the situation on the movement. Both facets can be used - objectively to talk about the movement, and in criticism and analysis to talk about how the media believes its not. That's a neutral picture to present as we do with most other groups or people that are otherwise universally disliked by the public opinion. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting we do is use the sources we're citing to come to a completely different conclusion than the sourcing we're citing do? The sources are not specifying a difference between Gamergate the harassers and Gamergate the movement.Kaciemonster (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No. But that there is a line drawn between facts that we can state in WPs voice (that GG is a self-described movement that claims to be about ethics) and opinion (that the press widely see the movement as enabling harassment). A given source may provide both. The NYTimes article for example is a good example of this where it tries to lay out objectively what the movement is before going deep into the criticism against it. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes Gamergate's statement on what they're about objective, while the press statement is only opinion? We know, as a fact from basically every single reliable source that we have, that Gamergate started as a campaign to discredit and harass Zoe Quinn. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is their statement that they are a movement. That's a fact. That is, it is not saying factually "Gamergate is a movement" but "Gamergate supports say that Gamergate is a movement". And no, we don't have evidence that Gamergate was organized to be about harassment, short of Quinn's logs which have been tagged as uncertain. We know harassment was used the GG hashtag from the start, we know the movement started at the same time, and Occum's razor suggests they are one and the same, but that's not evidence to make the claim. It's certainly the predominate view to express but that's what the controversy is for all purposes - is the GG movement about ethics or is it about harassment? --MASEM (t) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep rehashing the same argument, please re-read all of my replies to you for my response. You're making the same points in every comment, and I'm not going to continue with a discussion where my previous replies to you aren't considered. This is no longer a productive discussion on how to better improve the article, and if neither "side" is going to change their talking points or concede in any way then it should not continue. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, to be clear: it is objective for us to say "Gamergate believes itself as a movement about ethics". It is objective for us to say "The press believe GG is a campaign for harassment". We are presenting both view in an objective manner, stating their separate ideas of what they believe the GG movement is about. There's no special treatment here. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both statements are sourced to the press, so if we do it your way we must also say "The press believes that Gamergate believes itself as a movement about ethics". The harassment is undeniably coming from Gamergate, and we can't pretend that it's the just the opinion of every single reliable source that we have. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we cannot write that the harassment is "undeniably" coming from Gamergate. We have sources that counter this, that have recognized that there are people that may use the GG hashtag but are not associated with the movement directly (like the NYtimes) and sources that say that there are third parties that are harassing under the hashtag just to stir the pot. Harassment is coming from those using the GG hashtag, absolutely true, but we cannot say that the harassment is coming directly from those that consider themselves part of the movement. That the press has a strong belief that there are those in the movement engaging in harassing, or that the movement as a whole is about harassment, we can absolutely state with attribution. That the press strongly believes the movement is enabling the harassment by their unorganized nature, we can absolutely state with attribution. But we cannot state, as a fact, that the GG movement is directly responsible for the harassment as a fact in WP's voice, because the claims from RSes are very much conflicted on this. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Of the 3 sources you mentioned that you say support your opinion, 2 of them don't actually support the idea that there are two separate groups, and the other one I didn't read. It's been explained why your interpretation of the NYTimes article is wrong. Everything else has already been explained to you in detail, and if you still don't agree, there's no more conversation to be had here. Unless you'd like to keep rehashing the same points. I'd be happy to do that, since we both seem to have a horrendous case of LastWorditis, but we're both past the point of productive conversation. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been said above in several words, so I'm just going to repeat it down here quite simply: This seems like a very well-worded "No True Scotsman" that has been seen all along in this, and most other, leaderless movements. I have no doubt that Masem's intent is good, but I fail to see how the sources, including those you continue presenting, draw a line there. How is one person using the hashtag, and another person using the hashtag, ant different? Further, as Kaciemonster noted above, it's a conclusion that not even the sources come to, leading us to cite the sources towards a conclusion they themselves do not draw. (NB: Edit Conflict) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue on wording

I have an issue with wording shown by this diff. I think it should be changed to "commentators say" per WP:NOPV, what i want to know is if we have enough sources to justify the claim? --RetΔrtist (разговор) 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you could expand how you believe this somehow violates NPOV, I'd appreciate it, because as it stands, I have no idea why you'd think that it isn't justifiably sourced. Parabolist (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree there's no issue here. The harassment that has been reported has been decidely towards women. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

At some point (which I believe we've reached with the reliable sources) we are no longer required to state that 'commentators say' because the reliable sources are of such breadth that it is no longer remotely controversial. For example, we don't start our article on the September 11 attacks with 'Commentators say the September 11 attacks were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda...' In this vein, we are not required to label everything (especially not such easily sourced things as the majority of gamergate targets being women) in the article with 'commentators say'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree--RetΔrtist (разговор) 03:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Commentators have said that..."

I've noticed a trend in the recent article changes to change wording from "This is the case" to "Commentators have said that this is the case," most recently [24]. If people are going to keep trying to make this edit, I have to ask, when is your personal burden of proof met? When can we, as an encyclopedia, stop saying "These commentators say this happened?" It seems to me (not to assume anyone's intent) that this wording can be used as a quick way to try to soften the wording of the article, when the sources say what they say. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond to Retartist's post, in the section above, down here, since I second AtomsOrSystems' question wholeheartedly. I'd also like to note that the sentence in question is at the beginning of a paragraph which quotes two reliable articles about its point. This isn't a standalone opinion, its a simple topic sentence, and doesn't need to be weasel-worded. Parabolist (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice can be used when the claim is made by a source that is reliable as fact rather than just opinion, and one of the following is true:

• No one can be identified who thinks otherwise
• Thinking otherwise is WP:FRINGE
• The article is written in a scope that excludes other views (e.g., is the article Big Bang or Cosmogony?)

Rhoark (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't tend to believe that policy, or any other policy really, is intended to allow the insertion of weasel words against the preponderance of reliable sources. To say nothing of the argument with could/would (will?) almost inevitably lead to. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If weasel words were a problem, the antidote would be to specify exactly which commentators are meant. I think that's satisfied by having specific citations of those commentators nearby. Rhoark (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like condition 2 covers most of the scenarios people want to "Commentators have said..." about, also. For example, with Retartist's suggestion above, there just don't seem to be any reliable sources that actually disagree with the claim about women being the primary targets of harassment. Have I overlooked one? It seems safe to use the voice, if none can be found. Sappow (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We have sources in the article showing men on both sides have been harassed. There are many more non-reliable sources that could not be cited but can be considered for editorial decisions about fringiness. Combine that with mainstream discussion about studies by Demos and Pew on the overall level harassment against men on Twitter, and its clear that dissent from pat simplification of Gamergate is a minority, but not fringe view. Inline attributions should be strongly preferred to WP's voice. Rhoark (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

lede summary

"These attacks, mainly performed under the #gamergate hashtag and sometimes coordinated in forums on Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan, included online harassment, revealing of private information, and death threats, including a threat of a mass shooting at a public speaking event. Many observers describe this set of critiques and actions, and the people who engage in them, as a leaderless, amorphous Gamergate movement."

This makes no sense. What "critiques and actions" is the sentence referring to? The attacks and harassment?192.249.47.186 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. With something that gets tinkered as much as the lede does, weird artifacts of older structure can slip through. I took a shot at trying to duplicate it to make more sense.Parabolist (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

On the Law & Order news

[25]. As the source of this is a source I'm not 100% familiar with, I recommend we hold off until the episode airs or nears airing and there's better confirmation that the episode alludes/mirrors/was inspired by GG to include. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps create a "References in popular media" section when it airs and create a list. I'm sure South Park will have something before long. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this (most pop culture references, I would think) certainly seem like something we should hold off mentioning until they're actually released. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh not the worse source in the world but I see little reason not to wait until the show has been released.©Geni (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't need to include that with such a tenuous connection at this point, since we don't know all the details yet. After the show airs and some reviews/analysis come out, we could revisit. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

On the reversion of the harassment of Lizzyf

@Scalhotrod:I fail to see why my inclusion is undue. I've got two separate sources noting that Lizzy F. was harassed, and it fits into the general theme noted by other sources cited that Gamergate supporters have been harassed too. Please explain. Bosstopher (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is Lizzyf? Not saying this is where to draw the line, but considering the 10s of thousands of people being nasty to each other on Twitter, at some point the article will need to be more systematic about which nastiness to cover and why. Rhoark (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

More on point, WP:DUE is weaksauce for removing something without discussing first. Burden of proof in on the reverter. Rhoark (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Justifying the addition of content is on the person adding the content. See WP:BRD. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone wants to use BRD they have to actually D. If their reason is a verifiable claim is not DUE, they have to say why. Rhoark (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Looking at the picture attached to the article in question - File:BRD1.svg, who is expected to start the discuss, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The person who reverts is responsible for starting discussion, if its not already occurring. (excluding removal of vandalism, BLP, or unsourced claims) Rhoark (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. This discussion is over. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PRESERVE, WP:REMOVAL, WP:BRD-NOT, WP:Stonewalling, WP:REVEXP, and WP:LEGS Rhoark (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind the change removed the sourced details of people wanting to make a con cancel Baldwin's appearances due to his involvement in GG. While this isn't "harassment" as described, it is a negative impact done to someone that is pro-GG by those anti-GG. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So? I agree it provides undue weight to what is at best a sidenote. Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I probably should have mentioned that aspect too, sorry. But my reasoning was, as mentioned in edit summary, that it seemed misleading to put the Baldwin petition in a paragraph about harassment,and it didn't seem to fit in anywhere else. Also the harassment Lizzy had faced had popped up in at least two reliable sources that were independent of each other. It seems due weighting to me if you take into account the other sources noting harassment of Gamergate supporters in general.Bosstopher (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure this is the same "lizzy?" Source one writes: "identified only as Lizzy F," while source two writes "'Lizzyf620,' a female Gamergate supporter who asked to be identified only by her Twitter handle" Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any sourcing for it, but I am personally confident that it's the same Lizzy. If I recall correctly, she went by "Lizzy F" is talking, while "@Lizzyf620" was her twitter handle (prior to her deleting her account). AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which perhaps doesn't say a great deal for her notability, as Rhoark brings up above. Although she was (again, personal memory) a prominent voice for a while in the "movement," so... I don't have much opinion on that either way, I suppose, if her harassment is sourced. (Edit Conflict) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If we could edit by editor certainty, I've got a lot of changes to make to this article, and I don't think people would be happy with them. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which was precisely the point I was making, and why I emphasised that I was speaking from my own knowledge. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both sources mention the threat of breaking into the house through a comment about window security, it's pretty obvious they're talking about the same lizzyf. Bosstopher (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If "obvious," was universally understood, sure. There are some things that are obvious to me that I'd like to put in the article, but I don't think people would be happy with them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is a fair point, and one I agree with. I suspect someone could probably dig up sources "proving" they were the same person, but as I was trying (perhaps poorly) to say above, I'm not sure this is an especially notable incident that needs to be included either way. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What are the things that seem obvious to you that you want to add, so I can have a comparison? Because this is the same level of obvious as assuming that historian Conrad Russel writing about the civil war in one article is the same person as historian C. Russel writing about the civil war in another article. If any of the things you want to add are at this level of obvious, I'd fully support you. On a side note, given the stuff being discussed below i think Strongjam's suggestion would work. Bosstopher (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I should allow you to be the arbiter of "obvious." I think I should get to decide what's obvious. Seems obvious to me. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you have failed to read my question. As the new sole arbiter of what is obvious, you should obviously be able to describe the obvious changes you wish to make to this article. [On a side note would you seriously oppose the assumption that C.Russel who does the same things as Conrad Russel is the same person?] Bosstopher (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the LizF is the LizF and that C.Russel is C.Russel. On this article, however, I think obvious is a problem, which is why I asked if we were sure. If anyone were to step up and object, I'd be right there with them, but I don't have the knowledge background. Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Though a strong case of harassment against GG supporters, arguably, Lizzyf620 herself would not want her case to be added to this article. As stated in her "final letter," she seems to be actively trying to fall off the radar of the whole controversy. Though I understand that's not necessarily a strong argument to not add her, maybe this isn't a case that us gamers should go to the mat for. Garrett Albright (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a different complaint from the same person about the harassment they report receiving. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep getting edit conflicts, but I do want to say that identifying by pseudonym doesn't seem very helpful for the reader, and as she's been targeted for abuse not very helpful for her either. Perhaps just "a young woman who supports Gamergate" would be better? — Strongjam (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)