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.

Some/Many users in lede

So I think the problem with some/many is that they can imply sizes or percentages of, when we really just want to say that some separate group of users. Perhaps we can go with 'assorted' or 'various' instead? I've applied an update already, but if someone wants me to self-revert please ask so you don't have to use your 1RR. Ping would be helpful for faster response. — Strongjam (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way "some/many" implies that there are the remainder that have said its something else (arguably "a harassment campaign") in sourcing we can use, but the problem is we have absolutely no sourcing of what else those that have identified with GG say what GG is - the only reliable sources along these lines are GGers that say GG is about ethics. As such, using either "some" or "many" is a problem because we have no idea how big a proportion these people are. In considering what we know GGers have specifically said about GG that is quoted in reliable sources, which only includes those that say it is an ethics campaign, I would actually remove the "some" or "many" quantifier because we have nothing to source that otherwise. (We do state that the media generally does not believe that and that GG is something very different). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

the sources do not say: gamergaters say "but ethics" - the sources say: gamergaters say "but ethics" "die bitch die" "game reviews should be objective" "keep your stinking feminazi nose out of my games" "i am going to kill you cunt" "those making harassment arent really gamergate" "i know where you live" "only people who like the game should review it" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that say "GG supporter say the purpose of their movement is to be able to harass others". There might be some that say this in places like 8chan , etc. but without a RS restating this (as they have done in stating that GG supporters say it is about ethics), we can't make that original research. The only RS-verified self-stated purpose of GG that we can state is that it is about ethics and not about harassment. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In other news, we have no RS-verified self-stated guilty claim for the Manson Family killings by Charles Manson, so without that we can't state that he was responsible for their murder. Sorry: Couldn't resist the joke. Hope this illuminates the problem with your statement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

However Manson was found guilty by a court of law, so as such, we can objectively write him as the person that committed that crime; that's a key major difference here. For example, at the present time, with all the allegations made against Bill Cosby that the press have likely tagged him guilty, WP remains objective and does not assume any guilt on Cosby's part (as an example). There has been zero legal cases in the GG situation, and the press is only a court of public opinion, so we must maintain the same objectivity. No self-stated GG supporter is on the record (within usable reliable sources) stating that GG is an harassment campaign or similar, so we can't report objectively otherwise. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, my point is: We don't have to (and in fact, shouldn't) only use 'self-stated' descriptors in articles. We should use them for things we say are self-stated (obviously), but that doesn't mean we can't use other, more accurate sources for what they actually are (campaign of harassment etc.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A quick read of WP:BLPCRIME might help with the flaws in that analogy. Many prominent voices in GG have stated the movement is focused primarily on ethics, and those voices are quoted in reliable sources. None of those prominent voices have stated that GG is focused primarily on harassment -- that's all come from analysis conducted by secondary sources (typically the article's author). This is an important distinction, because in this particular case we're not trying to answer the question: What is GamerGate really about? That question has been asked and answered. Here, we are only answering the question: What does GamerGate say they are about? I have not found a single case where a journalist quotes a prominent GamerGate proponent thusly: "Only people who like the game should review it." I'd love to see a source for any of those quotes. I can (and have) provided examples where sources quote prominent voices in the GG movement -- some even have secondary analysis -- who have stated that GamerGate supporters believe their movement is about ethics in journalism. Surely we don't have to list those again? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

and many many many of the prominent GG tweets and chan posts are harassment et al. without anything other than the hashtag to signify membership ALL of the harassment are just as valid representations of what gg is/stands for/believes and more importantly DOES. And the sources that have looked at everything have concluded over and over again "those self identified that say 'gg is about ethics' are stupid and have no idea what ethics is, or blind to what is actually happening or actively trying to lie about it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Which are claims and opinions, not facts; well-vocalized claims and should be included, no question, but must be treated as claims, until there is an authority that states otherwise (such as the result of arrests and criminal charges). --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Masem, they are definitively NOT "opinions". It is FACTUAL that "objective reviews" "reviews without social implications" are NOT "ethics". It is FACTUAL that all of harassment and death threats done under gamergate tag IS gamergate because there is no organization/membership/leadership/spokesperson/manifesto to say otherwise. It is FACTUAL that what anyone has found worthy of noting about gamergate is everything BUT the self identified gamergater who says "but ethics!" as under even the briefest study the "ethics" claims fall apart. It IS opinion that when some anon on the web says "I am gamergate and i think gamergate is about ethics".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are opinions, just as what the GG movement say about themselves is opinions as well. Statements of subjectivity cannot be stated as fact. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we need any qualifier either, but I put one in there since I didn't think we'd get consensus to remove it entirely. I think when talking about what is essentially an amorphous and leaderless group it should be taking for granted that any statement given is not a blanket one. — Strongjam (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but I don't think that's going to fix the problem. I'm indifferent to "assorted" versus "various". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think the discussion got skewed quite a bit here... Does the sentence need a qualifier/quantifier? Personally ,I think none would work fine, or using the proper qualifier. But definitely not a quantifier. We don't know how many "users of the hashtag" made the statement. We can't really say it's many, some, a lot, a few or even assorted/various because it might be the same few people cited over and over again as these "media" outlets so often do. It could potentially be every user of the hashtag saying it. All we know is that it is plural.

So I think we should go without, unless we can come up with a better way to specifically identify who the users are. And it seems to be necessary to note that we cannot infer if some users of the hashtag would give a different statement because there is behavior contrary to the original statement. We gotta use what we're given. TyTyMang (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely cannot present the unqualified presentation that all of gamergate being about ethics because the sources clearly and overwhelmingly show that gamergate is about harassment and death threats and misogyny with "but ethics" being only minor portion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

tRPOD, I dont get why you're viewing this as an either/or situation. This isnt about Gamergate actually "being about ethics" this is about whether Gamergate claim to be about ethic.Gamergate is not split into harassers and "but ethickers." Nobody says "I'm a member of Gamergate because I love carrying out harassment." Someone can claim to be a campaigner for journalistic ethics, while actually being a vicious harasser. The fact that a large proportion of Gators believe they are campaigning for journalist ethics, and for some reason believe that journalistic ethics = 'No feminism alowed' is widely mentioned in reliable sources (note how the first sentence in debate over ethics paragraph has six source). While of course gamergate is notoriously unquantiifiable, your reasoning for removing "many" seemed incorrect, which is why I reverted. As it stands I think Strongjam has solved the problem. Do you take any issue with the qualifier they have added ("Assorted")? Bosstopher (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

When you try to state "Gamergate says X" it is false. There is no "gamergate" to say X. It is just one anon who can only speak for themselves. The thousands of other anon members of gamergate sending death threats and harassment are as much speaking for what gamergate IS. To ignore them in preference for an anonymous self serving voice is to fundamentally misrepresent the facts and what the sources present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I recognise the problem that you're bringing up but I think we've avoided it, given that the sentence in question is (loosely paraphrased) "members of Gamergate say they are X, nobody in the press is buying it." I'll ask again: are you ok with the phrasing as Strongjam has left it? Bosstopher (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely your POV, and is unsupported by the reliable sources on the matter that speak to it as a movement that does, en masse, say things and believe things even with a portion of those behind the hashtag engaging in harassment. I fail to see how this benefits any sort of consensus building on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You completely ignore the sources that speak to the fact that it is not a movement - that without membership or spokespeople or a manifesto, it is just people ranting on the internets and sending death threats and one anon's claims that "GG is X" are fully countered by the GG misogynist who is as fully representative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't, no, we've been through this. The sources call it a movement, and your point of view as to what constitutes a movement is of no concern here. You do not need a manifesto or a leader to be a movement. I don't want to derail this further with this diversion, but continuing to say we cannot attribute claims to Gamergate because you believe (absent evidence) they can't constitute a movement is simply untrue and unsupported by sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

some sources use the term "movement" - mostly because there isnt a term for "a collection of anonymous posters on the interwebs using the same hashtag for a wide variety of sometimes vaguely related and sometimes completely unrelated purposes". there are also several sources that specifically look at it under the question "is it a movement?" and come to the very simple conclusion that "no. without leaders, membership, a manifesto, organization or spokespeople, it is not a movement in the classical definition." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The type of obfuscation that we seem to have to go through to avoid giving any possible credibility to GG is becoming extremely counter to objectivity and neutrality. There is no issue calling GG self-statement movement (we have from RSes) as long as we making it 100% clear it is their claim, and within the same article we identify numerous criticism that if it is a movement it is unlike anything called a movement before, and their unorganized, amorphous goals, and attitude/indifference to the harassment attacks begs the question of their purpose. Calling it a movement and adding those critical caveats drastically simplifies the language across the article (such as these lead issue), making it much easier to understand, would not undermine any of the obvious facts of the situation, and keeps us impartial and not pushing an agenda of trying to discredit or judge GG. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldnt need to keep reminding people that the sources that have specifically looked at it as a "movement" have said "nope, its not a movement" if you wouldnt keep pressuring to present the anon voices who have no basis to claim they represent anything are somehow representative of the actual gamergate when they say "but ethics". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right, and the sources actually do support this as a basic claim. Definitely more NPOV, as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree 100% with TyTyMang. Why include a qualifier at all? There is no reason to qulaify the statement with ""some", "many" or "all". I have made the necessary changes. Please let me know if the article reads better. Marcos12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We definitely can't say that. There are many different sources in the article describing what people have said their goals are; we can't attribute that statement to some vague universal group of people. It's something that some (but not all) users of the hashtag has said; that's all we can say. Others, for instance, have said that the purpose is solely to fight a culture war against progressivism, or that it is not at all about fighting against progressivism, but solely about defending videogames; or about fighting censorship or so on. The [Ars Technica|http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/] coverage, in describing the genesis of the movement, cites voices within Gamergate saying that its purpose was to harass Quinn or to drive her to suicide, with quotes like "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" or "Well I don't have a legitimate reason. I just want to see her die horribly." These sorts of things have received as much (if not more) coverage in terms of Gamergate's goals. Obviously people disagree over things like who represents Gamergate, who gets to speak for it or define what it is. Now, of course they note that other people claiming to be part of Gamergate have disagreed with those quotes, so clearly those don't define everyone, either; but as an encyclopedia, our job is to follow reliable sources, which means that when a reputable source like Ars Technica describes those quotes as being representative of what (some of) the people behind Gamergate want, we have to respect and report that. Therefore, we can't just take quotes from a few people and say "this is definitely what Gamergate is and what it stands for." --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: Primary

Primary is also inappropriate per Aquillion and the actual statistical studies from Newsweek and the Swedish source. The anons claiming "gamergate is 'but ethics'" have no validity to represent the "movement" only themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources in the article appear to disagree. The statement is about what the movement claims, independent of what certain studies decide to claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is only "opinion" that those stating that represent "the movement" as there is no official spokespeople or manifesto or organization or leader. The factual statistical representations show that claim is wrong and not primary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not our responsibility to decided if the sources are referring to people who don't represent "the movement" or not. In fact, it is our responsibility to not make this inference per WP:OR. What the group may or may not actually do has no impact on what they say.

Per Aquillion's statement, we're not talking about "Gamergaters" we're talking about "users of the hashtag". If we need to add another line to represent other views of "the movement" then we can, and should do that as well. TyTyMang (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

except that you cannot separate "users of the hashtag" from "the movement". by design there is no formal organization, no leaders, no spokespeople, no manifesto hence no way to differentiate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, you've made it clear to me that the information has been qualified all along. Who are these people? ... "Users of the hashtag." The statement itself doesn't say what Gamergaters say about it. The statement just says what "users of the hashtag" have stated what Gamergate is about.

To have an NPOV and to prevent OR in the article, we must refrain from making our own conclusions about the topic. To say they are not separable requires us to jump to conclusions that are not logically sound. For instance people outside of Gamergate can and have used the hashtag. And people partial to Gamergate do not all use twitter, much less the hashtag. While these points may not be sourced information, what is sourced is the specification of those making the statement as users of the hashtag. If you want, we can rewrite it as "Users of #GamerGate" as that has been used in at least one source. And actually, that source is probably the most accurate and neutral of all of the sources I've gone through so far. And is also not an involved source. (there really are way too many source on this article) TyTyMang (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Users of the hashtag" have sent death threats and organized horrific harassment campaigns - the items that are the feature of every point of coverage and the reason there is any article about #gamergate. to ignore that and to blanket present "users of the hashtag" as but ethics is the gross NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The key point, as I noticed above, is that we have many people who have used and pushed the hashtag stating different goals (and extensive commentary saying that journalists have had trouble determining their goals.) Therefore, we cannot word this sentence in a way that implies that it is a clear universal goal shared by everyone who has ever used the hashtag; that is not supported by our sources. "One of their goals" doesn't work, for similar reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think Among the #Gamergate postings are those that claim the Gamergate goal is accomplishes what we need to do. It sets up the claim without attributing any "proportion" while signifying that there are other claims and postings of different focus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually this turns "users of the hashtag claim" into "postings claim" and sets this up as a proportion of all postings instead of a proportion of all claims. You say "while signifying that there are other claims". What are these other claims? If we have that sourced information then we wouldn't have to have this discussion in the first place because it would be necessary to proportion out the claims.TyTyMang (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

the "other postings" are of course the harassment campaign for which the hashtag is notable, (and the coordination of slanting the Wikipedia article, the general rantings about LW1-3, the internecine backbiting etc.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

May I suggest something that I think we may be able to agree on? Why not something like: "One of the primary goals stated by the Gamergate *movement* (emphasis mine) is to improve the ethical standards..." This is what RS represent and more importantly we are making a clear distinction between proponents of the movement and users of the hashtag. After all, multiple RS reference the movement, but we have had trouble determining how to incorporate said reference. Marcos12 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We already reference Gamergate using the term 'movement' in many places (eg. in the paragraph above, where it says that that led to an "anonymous and amorphous movement"), but the key point is that the sources don't agree on what the movement is beyond the basic outline of its history -- they disagree on what it wants, who it's composed of, what it stands for, and so on. Many of them refer to it as eg. a gamer movement, an anti-feminist movement, a reactionary movement, a harassment movement and countless other terms; because of this wide range of opinions on what it is and how it defines itself, we cannot lead with a statement implying that there is one clear agreement on what Gamergate is and what it stands for. There is some room for discussion, of course, but the final version of this particular sentence must avoid using the term 'movement' (because we cannot define what sort it is or who qualifies as a member in any concrete terms), and must have 'some' or 'many' or some other qualifier. We cannot say in article text that Gamergate (as a movement or a hashtag) universally shares the goal of improving ethical standards in videogame reviews, because there is significant coverage in reliable sources saying otherwise. We can say that some people have said that that is their goal, but we cannot report their statements as fact or generalize them to the entire hashtag or movement -- members who were quoted in reliable sources as saying eg. "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" must be represented as well. Because of this lack of agreement on what the movement is, who represents it, and so on, the best we can do is make statements about what some people using the hashtag have said, since that is clearly-definable; that's why the sentence was so carefully-worded (to avoid including or excluding definitions of who Gamergate is while representing what some people using the hashtag have claimed, without passing judgment on that claim one way or the other.) Your proposed changes, though, are not backed up by most reliable sources -- you're basically inserting your own opinion on what Gamergate really is about by excluding everyone you feel is not a "real" Gamergater, a true member of the movement, and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12: Please revert your change. You can't say "I think we may be able to agree on?" and make a change that reverts two different edits where people don't agree with you. That's not consensus building. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Current state of the paragraph isn't acceptable to me. I much prefer Aquillion's version. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Primary" was edited out with this chain of edits diff and the "one" edit was changed here ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the this diff is preferable to the other options on the table currently as a compromise, although none of them are necessarily great. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer going to the version just before his last edit, and we can work from there. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12, ForbiddenRocky, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Manual reverted to revision just before. I pretty much like the sentence as-is, just with replacing "some" with another word such as "various" that conveys the meaning of "some" but without implying the size or percentage of. — Strongjam (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ehh, the limitation to the hashtag implies something that isn't supported, IMO. I could live with what's there without the hashtag mention in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please help me here? I don't understand why ANY qualifier is needed. Just because the sentence lacks a qualifier like "some" or "various", does not imply that the goal in question is universal. A couple weeks ago there was an article in the Chicago Tribune with a headline along the lines of "Chicagoans Tired of Cold". It didn't say "Some Chicagoans Tired of Cold". Now, obviously not every Chicagoan is tired of the cold weather. There are many in the city who probably love frigid temps. As I said before, it appears some are having a problem making a distinction between Gamergate (the movement) and #Gamergate (the hashtag). The sources make this distinction, and the ""majority"" of the RS also make it clear that improving ethical standards is one of the primary goals of the movement. When we add an unnecessary qualifier it doesn't accurately reflect what the sources are reporting. Adding a word like "some" or "a number" actually makes the article less accurate. Does anyone object to the following - it does not imply a universal behavior by users of the hashtag and accurately reports what RS reflect: 'One of the primary goals of those using the #Gamergate hashtag is to improve the....Marcos12 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well said. I would still omit "One of" from that line though, based on the reasoning you just presented. TyTyMang (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@TyTyMang, Masem, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Changing to version above. Marcos12 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What are your sources for "primary"? — Strongjam (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12: This is not how you build consensus. Suggest you self-revert and allow time for discussion. — Strongjam (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not my intention to break any rules, the sentence was changed previously without consensus - I was simply following suit. I wasn't aware that a consensus was needed for each change. In any event, I would hope my explanation above makes some sense. If we add a qualifier to this sentence, then we need to do the same all over the article, adding "some" or "a number" before every noun describing a group of people. As I mentioned in my Chicago Tribune example, if an RS says "Gamergate supporters are in favor of ethical reporting" it doesn't imply that 'every single user of the Gamergate hashtag feels this way. Marcos12 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

per the sources quite clearly the primary goal of gg postings is harassment and death threats. See the two actual studies of the postings in Newsweek and the Swedish source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The current version is not that different then whats been in the article for a long time. My biggest issue is not the removal of 'some' but adding "primary". — Strongjam (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The current version needs improvement. The sources in the article clearly state that the primary goal of GG, is neither harassment nor death threats. The sentence I've constructed is about what the movement claims, and what users of the hashtag are claiming per RS. Two studies do not somehow override literally dozens of sources. Marcos12 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Which sources specifically? — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam, TyTyMang, Masem, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Starting with the second source listed at the bottom of the article

(Christian Science Monitor): "Many of her critics took his claims as evidence of corruption in gaming journalism. So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy".

Next source, The Guardian: "proponents of this movement say their key target is games journalism. "

Next source, The Daily Dot: "Gamergate denizens’ concerns boil down to two basic ideas. The first is simple: Journalists are too cozy with developers and are failing to provide unbiased coverage of video game news."

Two sources after that, The New York TImes "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.

I can literally go on and on. This is extremely well sourced. I understand this is a contentious article, but it is not at all contentious to say that one of the primary goals of those using the gamergate hashtag is ethical coverage in gaming journalism. Can we please agree to change the sentence? This is what the RS represent. Marcos12 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

None of that supports the addition of "primary" — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How do they not support the addition of "primary"? Please explain. Marcos12 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

They support the statement that proponents say it's goal, but I don't see support for primary goal. — Strongjam (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I am suggesting "ONE of the primary goals". If you prefer, I could use the wording that The Guardian employed and say "one of the key goals" Marcos12 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Using The Guardian wording would also mean dropping ethics. It just says they're targeting games journalism. — Strongjam (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian sentence continues..."Gamergate complains about cronyism between certain writers and developers and has taken exception to the progressive sociopolitical leanings of news sources such as Polygon and Rock, Paper, Shotgun" Hence, the ethics angle. My suggestion is something along the lines of "One of the key goals stated by the Gamergate movement is to improve the ethical standards of gaming journalism..." Again, this is accurate and well-supported up by extensive RS, while at the same time it's neither controversial nor inflammatory. Marcos12 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Drop key and change "the Gamergate movement" to "Gamergate supporters" and I think we might have something. — Strongjam (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. Let me know how it reads. While didn't use the word "key", I wanted to incorporate something that reflects what is reported by the RS, namely that improving ehtical standards is a central tenet of GG. Marcos12 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I'm dropping 'central' from 'One of the central goals...' I'm not sure how we're going to designate central re: our reliable sources and many of the self stated otherwise motives for supporting gamergate, as well as it being a qualifier of dubious quality- (how would you define a central vs an offcentre goal?) Perhaps there's another way to indicate that the goal was seen as more important than others, but even then it wouldn't reflect what we're citing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken regarding the word "central". I used "main" instead (main as opposed to peripheral). Daily Dot uses the word "key", while Guardian uses the word "central". I think "main" succinctly conveys what the RS say. If you'd like me to revert, please let me know. Marcos12 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth and TheRedPenOfDoom: Just a quick note (and forgive me, as I am not sure this is the appropriate place for this), but directly above is a fairly lengthy and quite civil discussion regarding this section of the article. I realize everyone has their opinion, but I am showing enough respect to discuss changes in the talk section (and making sure there is at least some consensus) before I make the change in the article. Both of you undid revisions that were discussed at some length. You are well within your rights to do so, but in interest of improving the article it would be helpful if there was some discussion first. I learned this lesson myself just the other day. Cheers. Marcos12 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Main reads a lot more naturally- don't at all agree with you continuing to remove 'some', however, given that we cannot accurately gauge the opinion of all members of a leaderless movement. As Strongjam has mentioned above, this is not how you build consensus. It's best to wait for multiple people to chip in, and if something in particular is a sticking point you do not continue to edit the article to enforce your preferred change, but instead discuss it until the matter is settled.PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am willing to self-revert if others are in agreement. However, I believe the issue of using a qualifier like "some" or "many" was already discussed at great length, the consensus being a qualifier is unnecessary. Please see above for the Chicago Tribune reference. Marcos12 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: some

I don't see why we wouldn't say "some". Virtually all sources that discuss the movement describe it as as leaderless and heterogeneous. Without a party, there can be no party line. We can't assume that all Gamergate supporters believe in one thing, and we also can't let the handful of (anonymous) supporters who are quoted or summarized in reliable sources to speak for everyone. Woodroar (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely am not seeing any consensus to remove "some." The sources above seem to support it; mostly, they describe it as something that some people using the hashtag have said that they are seeking. Beyond that, I've cited sources that describe other people within it who have specifically said that this is not their goal, so it would definitely be misrepresenting the sources to imply that this is a goal shared by everyone who uses the hashtag, supports gamergate, considers themselves part of the movement and so on. There's some room for discussion on other things, but it's pretty clear that including 'some' is the only reasonable way we can accurately represent the wide variety of sources on the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the examples Marcos mentioned above as illustrating that some users of the hashtag have said that their goals are these things; but since we also have sources where other people say other things, we cannot omit the qualifier. I also feel it's important to focus on the hashtag (which we can define comparatively concretely); 'supporters' is more vague and has caused people to ask constant questions about what it's referring to. To me, the original version is definitely superior to all proposed revisions, but we should discuss changes one at a time -- what are the objections to using the term 'users of the hashtag', say? I feel that it's much more specific, while 'Gamergate supporters' is (in this particular context) unnecessarily vague. One of the biggest problems all coverage has had is in defining exactly what it is, who it involves, and so on, so in the lead, at least, we should try to be as specific as possible in terms of who we are talking about; and 'people using the #Gamergate hashtag' is a group that can be concretely defined. --Aquillion (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: If you have them already, please link the sources that have Gamergaters claiming other goals. There really are too many sources for us all to go searching for specific wording.

@Woodroar: Regardless of whether or not this a leaderless/partyless group makes no difference. The sources say "(however they define gamergate) says they are about ethics in gaming journalism" By making implications into the validity of the claim based on how "Without a party, there can be no party line" you are doing research (1. the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.) And we are not allowed to include original research in WP articles.

Unless we can source anything else Gamergate says its goals are, then, as far as we know, it is the only goal they claim. To say "some" or "many" implies that they claim other goals, and we should not be making unsourced implications. TyTyMang (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Having no organization makes a great deal of difference, because without it there can be no unified goal. I fully believe that some Gamergate supporters believe that ethics is a goal, or perhaps the primary goal. But reliable sources say over and over again that Gamergate is amorphous, and because of that we can't ascribe a single goal to an anonymous body of people. And beyond that, it's not original research when multiple sources state that the claimed goal is itself a cover for other goals or activities. Woodroar (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Define what you mean by 'Gamergate'? That's the entire issue here. There's no singular Gamergate organization, no one group that defines what they stand for. Therefore, we can only rely on coverage of what people affiliated with it (users of the hashtag, people from its channels, and so on) have said. And going by that, as I said above, the Ars Technica article quotes people it identifies as being from within it saying things like "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" or "Well I don't have a legitimate reason. I just want to see her die horribly." Likewise, Jesse Singal's excellent coverage here says that he found some similar things when he went to talk to self-described members of the movement. (The current lead actually touches on this, but he also notes that not everyone in the movement agrees -- or at least is willing to admit -- that their goal is to fight feminism and progressivism, while others indicate that that is their sole goal.) The CJR says similar things, explicitly describing the people who call for ethical concern in the terms we do here (as just one voice among many, pursuing different goals.) You can't say "well, but they're the enemy, we need to know what the Real True Gamergate says", because our only valid source for what Gamergate is and what it says is journalists like him -- the angry people telling Singal that it is about ethics have a voice, but so do the people saying that it is a cultural crusade against feminism or liberalism or progressivism, or a crusade to see Zoe get her commuppance, or the like. Those goals are all part of how Gamergate defines itself, not just how it is defined by some nebulous enemy; when many reputable journalists went to the most reliable primary sources they could identify to answer the question of "what is Gamergate and what does it want, in its own terms?", those are some of the answers they came back with. We cannot dismiss or diminish their findings simply because it doesn't agree with what you, personally, feel is the Real True Gamergate or what you, personally, feel the valid Gamergate-supporters say. (It might help to look at it like this, too: I suspect you would say that the people who are saying things like that are not true members of Gamergate, just trolls. But the reason you're saying that is because you already have a preconceived notion of what Gamergate is and, therefore, you see people who are 'disrupting' that as just trolls rather than Real True Gamergaters. From an outside perspective, though, those people are just as much a part of Gamergate as the people calling for ethics, and we therefore can't ignore them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire Gamergate controversy article is dedicated to what you're argument is about, how the sources have defined Gamergate. That is not the issue here. What we're discussing here is how "proclaimed supporters", "proponets of the movement", "users of the hashtag", etc say what it is about.

• I seem to be overlooking those quotes in the Ars Technica article. An article based on the claim that the Gamergate hashtag was created by 4chan, but corrects itself with an update, stating it was actually first introduced by Adam Baldwin. I'd say that at least puts the reliability of the article into question. Regardless, I don't see how these personal statements from individuals change anything. Those don't seem to be statements as to the nature of Gamergate. All I see is implications about the real nature of gamergate, which is what the rest of the article is for.
• Jesse Singal's "excellent coverage" links to the blog of the anti-feminist, who's introductory paragraph titled "What is GamerGate “really” about?" states "Collusion and corruption in gaming journalism is the theme here". Funny how he overlooked that small excerpt at the very beginning of the blog.
• The CJR has nothing stating what hashtag users, et al, claim it to be about. It only has quotes of what other publications claim it is about. You should check out WP:RSBREAKING's link to The Breaking News Consumer Handbook. "3. Don't trust stories that cite another news outlet as the source of the information."

This discussion is about how proponents of Gamergate, or however you want to describe it, claim Gamergate to be about. And I still have yet to see other claims. TyTyMang (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

as per Segal and Ars Technica, supporters clearly state they are about harassing Quinn or driving feminist out of gaming or a gajillion other things. The problem with a "movement" with no membership, leaders , spokespeople or manifesto and only a hashtag is that it is not a "movement" that has defined goals or objectives, its merely what is hashed. and with gamergate what is hash ranges from harassment and death threats to antifeminism bizarre claims that only people who like a game should review it to inquests into people's sex lives to just about anything but the actual real life ethical violations of AAA games using games journalism as advertising platforms or buying reviews from bloggers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The Singal and Ars Technica sources clearly cite people who they identify as members of Gamergate, describing their goals as things tangental to or unrelated to videogames (and in some cases, explicitly stating that they have no interest in videogames.) The Singal article also explicitly states that not all Gamergate supporters agree on the political goals, but that some say that those goals are their purpose. (The ref in First Things and the quote by Baldwin also indicate that attacking and punishing liberals, feminists, progressives and so on are the purpose of Gamergate, at least from the perspective of those people.) All of the sources that have surveyed Gamergate proponents to see what their goals are have come to the conclusion that the movement has no clearly-defined goals and that the ones that some people using the hashtag have stated are not shared by all members. Therefore, we cannot say that the goals you are describing are shared by all members. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

appeal to be less judgmental

This entire situation is a result of being far too judgmental towards GG (we can't be as WP editors) and following the sources to their fault. Common sense and non-obfuscated, clear writing needs to take priority here rather than being a perfect mirror of the sources. Ignoring what the sources say for the moment and simply being aware as an Internet user, we know that the people that would identify themselves readily as part of the GG movement are clearly stating that they want how video game journalism is done changed and calling out ethical issues with that. We cannot verify if that is a front or not and engaged in the harassment actions (that remains a clear possibility), and we know that there are people that use the term GG in association with the harassment. We know that some of the press generally considers anyone using the GG hashtag to part of the movement, and since that encompasses the people that are co-opting it for the purposes of harassment, they consider the movement to be engaged in harassment as well. And other press sources, recognizing that there is a core movement interested in video game journalism ethics, are calling out that movement for allowing it to be co-opted by those engaging in harassing and either not doing enough, taking an indifferent attitude, or refusing to organize and move away from the GG name, for indirectly creating the environment of harassment to exist and continue.

Now, this is all information that sources say - none of this . The sources don't say this consistently, and because of there being so few facts to actually build on (both in actually knowing what GG is about ,sources or not; or what actual reliable sources), this is getting in the way of making a simple-to-understand article, particularly when there is judgement about GG going on and refusal to give anything they say about themselves (self-stated claims) any credibility.

We need to drop this judgmental approach and write plainly. We can write about their being a core movement that have a self-stated goal to challenge the current nature of video game journalism, and then note that being unorganized, leaderless, and just based off a hashtag is either not convincing to others and believed to be a front, or has allowed the movement to be coopted by trolls. We can write that some in the press see the movement being anyone that uses that hashtag, and thus see harassment and attempts to silence others as the primary/most visible goals. That's all possible without violating any WP sourcing policy, once we recognize that all we are doing is presenting claims made by the GG side and the press side in what the nature of GG is, and only adopting language (such as calling it a self-stated movement) in the interest of readability and simplification. We are doing a disservice to readers by trying to tiptoe around any statements that might seem to be validating the GG standpoint even when these are citable by a subset of the RSes we have. We're not factually stating they are a movement this way, for example, only that that is what they call themselves and we have the press's counterclaims to this. That's perfectly fine and the better way to present this for all involved. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We follow the sources. The "core movement" as described by the sources, especially those that are entirely "factual" - the Newsweek and Swedish analysis of the postings, is harassment.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And this is all stuff found in the sources. But because it's not consistently reported the same across sources, there's general refusal to use anything that's not sited equally in sources, and to take the more negative view of GG. And that's not what NPOV says. When that occurs, that's when we state things as claims to reflect the fact that the statements said are conflicting. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what policies you are reading, but the policies I am reading WP:OR /WP:V / WP:NPOV / state that we follow the sources, that we follow the most reliable sources, and that we give the most weight to the most widely held views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." and "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." We have conflicting statements from the highest reliable sources (I'm not talking about trying to compare the NYTimes with Kain of Forbes, but NYTimes vs WaPost vs Boston Globe type levels), and as such need to write with that awareness. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As per CJR it is seriously contested what gamergate might actually be. to proclaim it as a "movement" and to anoint certain claims as being completely representative would be absolute violation of any reading of NPOV. There is however no serious contestation that gg is heavily linked and entirely notable for the harassment and death threats emanating from it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Stating that GG claims they are a movement in absolutely no way violates NPOV, as long as we also include the claims that they are not a movement later. In fact, omitting that fact is a violation of NPOV, because that removes impartiality from the article. And remember, there are RSes that state that GG is self-claimed to be a movement. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

only some claim that they are a "movement" and what those some claim the "movement" is supposedly about also varies from soup to nuts. You cannot discard the "i'm gamergate and we are going to drive women from gaming by harassment and death threats" from the "im gamergate and we are about discussing why only people who like a video game should review it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no usable sources that support the self-stating claim of "i'm gamergate and we are going to drive women from gaming by harassment and death threats" (this does not mean there might be some in that community that state that is their goal, and I certainly would not be surprised if there are 8chan posts that can be read this way, just that no one that that has ID'd themselves as the movement says that is their goal within the body of reliable sources that we have to work from). That there is a perception that regardless of what self-stated claims GG says that they are really engaged in harassment, that's clearly sourced. But it is absolutely zero violation of any policy particularly NPOV to state that when people have self-identified themselves directly as part of the movement they state the movement is one about journalism ethics. That is a completely verifyable, neutral statement of a claim. We are not factually stating they are a movement, or that they are about ethics, but only the fact that this is what those that state they are part of the movement state what the movement is about, and those are claims that readibly sourcable in highly RS. They are also claims that have counterpoints, so we simply leave them as claims per the cited sections of NPOV above. To treat those statements any other way is apply judgement that we cannot do. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

THere is also no valid source that says the "i am gamergate and we are about ethics in journalism" is representative of anything other than one of many things that gg claim and actually are about. to grant that one view prominence when there is no official backing is improper . (and we do have multiple reliable sources of the "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" " variety) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are. Just recently Boston Globe. Note that this points out both the self-stated claim, and the counterclaim of the press. Again, for us to repeat what a reliable, third-party source to "the movement/the hashtag" of what the purpose of GG is self-claimed to be by a person that claims to be a GG supporter is fully in line with V, NOR, and NPOV, as long as we are very clear it is a self-stated claim, and that we include what we already do, the skepticism and accusations the press has made about that claim. Also, there are no reliable sources that say, as a self-stated claim of a GG supporter "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance"; there are GG posts that exist to this point, yes, but we can't use forum posts as a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So in your view, the one story by the boston globe about Wu's appearance at a con despite death threats from gamergate is what we should use instead of the Columbia Journalism Review's analysis of the coverage of what gamergate is? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

or if you are so keen on Boston Globe as the authority, then we can go with their analysis that Originally presented as a forum for discussions of journalistic ethics, it soon devolved into hate-filled rants directed against female designers and writers, fuelling online threats of rape and murder, - whatever is was it now is rape and murder threats. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am talking about what GG says they are, by their claims, not what other people say they are. And that Boston Globe article section that is key is this "Backers of the GamerGate movement say the behavior of a few extremists is being used to smear their entire movement. “You can’t say that all people who support GamerGate hate women, just because one person in GamerGate might really hate women,” said PAX East attendee Andrew Sampson, a 20-year-old software developer from Atlanta. Sampson insisted GamerGate isn’t a war on women, but on corruption and dishonesty in video game journalism. “Video game journalists for the longest time have been colluding together,” said Sampson. “Basically taking bribes, taking offers to publish positive reviews.”". That's completely fair to use to explain the self-stated goals. To say "No, we can't use them because non-GG say the are something else" is a violation of objectivity and impartialness. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about presenting the claims of some anonymous posters as if they are treated as if they have legitimate basis to be for speaking for all anonymous posters. the sources are clear that they do not have legitimacy to make such claims and that the actions of those sending rape and death threats are clear evidence that they in fact are not speaking for anything other than "some" people. We cannot present it otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a named person, so no, anonymous doesn't count here. And it is clear that most reliable sources are aware that the core GG movement claims to be about journalism ethics, even if they don't believe this one bit and really think GG is about something else like harassment. It is completely silly and inane to try to avoid saying that GG movement self-states it is about ethics when this is clearly repeated throughout all sources. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

most sources are aware the the core of gamergate is harassment. see the Newsweek and Swedish studies of the actual posts and twits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Newsweek does not say that at all. Only that of tweets they could classified, more were negative towards devs than positive. Nothing about harassment determined from the study. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. There is no debate to what Gamergate supporters claim the goal of Gamergate to be. Nobody has said anything differently.

This line is about what proponents *say* Gamergate is about. It doesn't matter if the statement is true, false or even a blatant lie. It doesn't matter what individuals say they care about personally, they are not making a statement about Gamergate. All sources have quoted Gamergate proponents saying "the movement is about Ethics." It has been sourced extremely well that this has been said. To discredit the sources and imply gamergate proponents have stated otherwise is very much NPOV.

This entire debate over something otherwise so trivial just goes to show the preconceived judgement and POV pushing surrounding this article. So blatant in fact that not even this single item that would give the tiniest of justification for a reasonable person to be a proponent of gamergate is being so heavily opposed.

We DO NOT need to know what the sources say gamergate is about when writing what sources say gamergate proponents say it's about. TyTyMang (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually unless you have not read the sources, it is quite clear that there is a great debate in the sources as to what gamergate is about. there is not contention over the fact that some have stated gamergate is about X. there is great contention over whether those claims have any actual value or merit as representing anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine that there's contention of their self-stated claims being true or not. We are not to judge any way on this - whether the self-stated claims are true or false, or that the contentions are justified or not. We can source them, we can include them and present the issue that what GG is really about is not established in any reasonable manner. That's an objective stance to take. --18:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we should be doing some attribution about who believes what about the movement's beliefs, and spend some time dispassionately talking about what the movement believes it is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the "movement" has steadfastly refused to identify a leader or spokesperson or generate an official manifesto. we cover that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) it is self stated claims by some anons with the authority to represent themselves. thats all. to present them as anything more is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:You keep making the same argument about the validity of the statement. The validity of the statement does not impact the validity of it's existence.

• The statement is not up for interpretation.
• Who made the statement is not up for interpretation.
• Assuming contradictory statements exist is not up for interpretation.
• The statement of individuals about their personal interests is not a statement about the nature of gamergate by proponents.

Basically all the sources say "(gg supporters, et al) say Gamergate is about ethics." I have not seen one source say "(gg supports, et al) say Gamergate is about *insert anything else here*" TheRedPenOfDoom, your point may be valid for the rest of the article, but for this specific instance it is not. TyTyMang (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have provided such sources above, repeatedly. Gamergate is a large and complicated controversy involving a huge number of people, and many reliable sources have said that there is no agreement among its proponents on what they want, what they stand for, and what they object to. Singal and the CJR say this explicitly. Ars Technica provides specific quotes from people within the movement highlighting this. We must rely on reliable sources; we cannot ignore them simply because you disagree with their conclusions. To go over quotes from people you personally identify as Gamergate member and try to use that to ignore the coverage of those sources is WP:OR; their conclusions are valid even if you feel that the people they quoted and spoke to and covered were not 'real' proponents, and even if you disagree with the way they analyzed their sources. In other words -- you are looking over the things that people have said and saying 'Gamergate is obviously entirely about this, and every single person who has posted the hashtag or supported it clearly agrees! I cannot find any quotes I accept saying otherwise!' But the sources I cited have examined the same things you have and came to the opposite conclusion; we cannot substitute your conclusion for theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: "But the sources I cited have examined the same things you have and came to the opposite conclusion; we cannot substitute your conclusion for theirs." Missed the point once again. We are not looking for anyone's conclusion on anything. What we are writing is what proponents say it is about. You are trying to marginalize what gamergate proponents say about their goals. You can always state the sources have come to a different conclusion to what gamergate proponents say it's about, but you cannot change what they say based on this conclusion. I still have yet to see a source say "supports of gamergate say they are about misogyny" or anything but ethics for that matter.

And I have already addressed the sources you have referenced Aquillion. Singal's article, in specific, may violate BLP. In his article he linked to the blog he was referencing. And in the blog he referenced, it claimed his article was a misrepresentation of the blogger and his point of view. The the blog clearly states in the introductory paragraph that gamergate is about ethics. Singal falsely labeled the blogger an "Anti-Feminist" and falsely attributed him to the statement that the gamergate movement is about anti-feminism. This seems fairly libelous. TyTyMang (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

When dealing with an amorphous, leaderless, structureless phenomenon like Gamergate, Wikipedia editors simply can't use primary sources like direct statements by people claiming to represent Gamergate. Selecting the views of Gamergate advocates A, B and C while setting aside the views of X, Y and Z who also use the hashtag is interpretation and synthesis, which we don't engage in as Wikipedia editors. Instead, we should build and maintain this article based on summarizing what the best of the reliable, secondary sources say about the topic. That is the only policy compliant path available to us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is talking about using primary sources. High quality RSes from the likes of NYTimes, WaPost, and so on do state that the self-stated goal of GG is "about ethics". They often immediately follow that with "but we doubt that", but they state was GG claims it is. That's acceptable. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you linked to a specific source, we could discuss that source. How can a leaderless phenomenon without a manifesto "self-state" anything? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think they are more subtle (and we should reflect that subtlety). They do affirm that GamerGate's stated purpose is reforming ethics in gaming journalism. Brianna Wu has stated that ethics are an issue in gaming journalism as well. The subtlety is that RS's state that GamerGate is inexorably linked to misogynistic attacks by nameless hordes that use the gamergate banner and its stated purpose is no longer its defining attribute. It's a subtle difference. Example of RS statement: "GamerGate grew out of a concern for ethics in journalism but soon became associated with harassment and threats primarily against women." Opinion piece: "GamerGate is about an orchestrated attempt to drive women from gaming and technology." There are many people that hold the latter view but reliable sources generally use the former. --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, how can a leaderless amorphous entity without a manifesto possibly "state" anything? Since it can't, as I see it, we have to rely on what the reliable independent sources say about Gamergate. Those sources may report that many individuals claiming to speak for Gamergate mention journalism ethics issues, but any source that purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole calls its own reliability into question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You'll have to ask the Sources where they got their information.

@DHeyward: It's our responsibility to avoid reading into the information such as trying to reflect their subtlety. Besides, how can the attribution of a statement have any subtlety?

Lets not forget what this discussion is about. It's about applying a quantifier to gamergate proponents who have stated gamergate is about ethics. Unless there is a source claiming gamergate proponents said gamergate is about something else, then using a quantifier is a misrepresentation of the sourced material. (i.e.: if we say "some" gg users say "x", then we need to have, while "other" gg users say "y") — Preceding unsigned comment added by TyTyMang (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Which sources in particular should I take my question to? Which reliable source purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two excellent articles from highly reliable sources that, while they do not purport to speak for Gamergate as a whole (an impossible request to fill; journalists report, they do not purport), they take a top-down look at the controversy and report on the motivations of each side as a whole. The first oft-cited article is the Columbia Journalism Review article by Chris Ip. Here's a direct quote from that article: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press." Note the use of the word "many" rather than "some." Also note how the author speaks for the whole of the movement (by reporting, not purporting). This is in direct opposition of the current sentence in the article that reads "Some of the people using the #Gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism." When the most highly-regarded and oft-quoted source directly contradicts a sentence in the article space, it's a problem. The second highly-reliable article that takes a top-down look at the controversy is from the Washington Post, titled The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read. When a headline like that appears in the Washington Post, I would take them at their word. The reporter attempts to report on how Gamergate self-identifies: "Almost two months later, in fact, many people will still try to tell you that ethics in game journalism are all Gamergate’s really about." One again, there's that word "many," not "some." I cannot fathom how this point has met with such resistance. A manifesto about the movement does not exist, so short of that we go to the analysis of the best sources. The CJR and WaPo articles are two of the best sources we have on Gamergate. If we ignore or dismiss how highly reliable sources characterize the views of the movement, we are doing a grave disservice to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Later in that same Washington Post article, that instance of "many" is undermined by this: "[t]hat isn’t to say that everyone flying the #Gamergate banner is sexist/racist/crazy, and that isn’t to say there aren’t some decent arguments about journalism ethics being made. But whatever voices of reason may have existed, at some point, have been totally subsumed by the mob". Another Washington Post article from later that month quotes a supporter as saying the "more rational voices" are about ethics in journalism, which seems to be a common theme with the WP. Clearly, we have multiple sources—and even the same paper, quoting different people—saying multiple things. To say "many" based on two sentences would be UNDUE. Woodroar (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not "what gamergate is", the issue is "what gamergate says it is". The quote you used is the conclusion made by the writer. It may undermine what the Many proponents have said, but it does not undermine that they said it. And to read into it to say that it is undermining itself is to be doing original research. To say "some" based on WP:OR would be even greater UNDUE.

So it looks like we're back to many.TyTyMang (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

TyTyMang hit the nail on the head, and I don't understand why we need to keep restating this point. It is true that the journalists eventually draw conclusions on Gamergate. But this discussion is not about that analysis. This current discussion is about how the journalists describe the stated goals of Gamergate, and whether these goals are described as being held by "many" of "some" of the supporters. And I must respectfully disagree; we're not basing this conclusion off of "two sentences." I can post many more examples, and I have before, but inevitably any source I post that states the exact thing we're discussing is straw manned and/or ignored. The question was: Which reliable source purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole? I gave two examples of highly-reliable sources with the exact quote. After I did that, another editor responds with Clearly, we have multiple sources—and even the same paper, quoting different people—saying multiple things. This is not true. I have presented two highly-reliable sources that use the word "most." This fact is not undermined at any point in the article. The fact that most Gamergaters believe their movement is about ethics is not contested. In fact, in the other WaPo article you posted, you must have missed this sentence: "Failing to disclose those conflicts, many supporters said, is 'disrespectful' to those who read game sites, and that's the core of what makes them so mad." So that's a third article, and three sentences that describe ethical views as being held by a majority of supporters. As an added bonus, here is a fourth article, from the New York Times "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. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women." The NYT writer describes the bulk of the movement as concerned about ethical problems, and a smaller faction concerned with harassment and threats aimed at women. Okay. So I now have four incredibly reliable sources saying that ethical concerns are the focus of the majority of supporters. Can you provide four equally reliable sources that say that ethical concerns are only the focus of a minority of supporters, as is currently claimed in the article space? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess maybe the better question is, if there is such disagreement in the sources, why are we using a qualifier at all? And why, if there is disagreement, are we using the qualifier some? It doesn't make sense, and it is not supported by the sources. We follow the sources. Right? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course this discussion is about the analysis, because that's virtually all we have. Except for a few direct quotes from supporters, everything mentioned above has been a summary from journalists of "how Gamergate supporters describe their movement" based on what those journalists have heard and observed: "many claim to be advocating greater ethics" from the CJR, "many people will still try to tell you" and "many supporters said" from the WaPo. All summary gathered from a variety of supporters, which must be balanced with the journalists' exceptions and qualifiers. Your other example, "work of a much smaller faction" from the NYT, only says that "[t]he more extreme threats" are coming from a small faction, which could imply that a larger faction is responsible for less extreme threats. Minor Threats, if you will. (Of course, I wouldn't ever suggest sourcing that opinion to the article, because that would be OR. Plenty of other sources have said it, though.) So we can't simply pick out the word "many" and call it a day: per NPOV, we have to give necessary context. And we have to balance it against reporting from other sources, like ArsTech and NYMag as mentioned above.

That being said, I've been considering this issue and I would support the use of "many" as long as we do it right, with proper context and attribution. So we could say something like According to the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post, many Gamergate supporters claim they are concerned about journalistic ethics among the video game press. However, examples of alleged wrongdoing provided to them were found to be unrelated to journalism or ethics, but rather debunked conspiracy theories. Ars Technica and New York Magazine, on the other hand, consider it to be a manufactured PR campaign, where claims about ethical journalism are a cover for continued misogynist attacks. The two primary views of "ethics in journalism"—debunked vs. deception—in context and attributed to their sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that the conclusion drawn by the sources about the goals of gamergate have some impact on the statement made by gamergate proponents? ... So if someone says "I am not guilty" but then they are convicted, we'll change what they say to "I am guilty". That's pretty much what's happening here.

This wording issue makes no sense to me. You want to attribute the claim as a statement of opinion from the sources about what gamergate proponents say gamergate is about. However, throughout the rest of the article we're going to attribute the findings of these same sources as statements of fact. What??? And seriously, the entire article is dedicated to debunking that claim. To marginalize the only claim being made by proponents of gamergate about gamergate is entirely UNDUE. Besides, what kind of a hate group hides it's hate? Never saw the KKK or westboro baptist church try to hide their hate. TyTyMang (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Not Your Shield

As it stands the current wording doesn't reflect anywhere near what RS report.

From The Telegraph: "One example is #NotYourShield – a hashtag that people of minorities are using to say they also agree with #GamerGate."

From The Washington Post": "It’s also spawned a parallel hashtag, #NotYourShield, used by minority members of the gaming community who want to distance themselves from Quinn and Sarkeesian’s accusations of bigotry."

Any thoughts on changing the NYS section so it more accurately reflects RS? Marcos12 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the many sources we have that support our current wording, and would you like to explain why you believe they're unsuitable or not fully accurate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, here is how the first paragraph currently reads:

To respond to widespread criticism of their movement as misogynistic, Gamergate supporters adopted a second Twitter hashtag, #NotYourShield, to claim that some women and minorities in the gaming community were also critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian, and argue that accusations of misogyny should not be used as a shield against criticism.

It references Arts Technica, WaPo, The Telegraph and LeMonde. If you take the time to read those articles carefully, you will find that the paragraph as it stands makes conclusions not supported the sources. The Telegraph says, "One example is #NotYourShield – a hashtag that people of minorities are using to say they also agree with #GamerGate." If you look at what is written on the wiki article, it makes the jump that Gamergate is claiming (important distinction) that some women and minorities are critical of Quinn and Sarkeesian. Same with the WaPo article - it claims that NYS is used by minority members of the gaming community. Not that Gamergate is claiming so. Marcos12 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Ars Technica source as well as the Daily Dot and Escapist sources in the next paragraph support those particular claims. Woodroar (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points here. Unlike the rest of this article, the sources contradicting the validity of #notyourshield are very much not the majority. Infact, most of the sources don't even address it at all. Here's a couple of things I think are important to look at.

• I think it might be important to note that the Ars Technica article has been updated and contradicts it's headline and introductory paragraph. It seems this would put the reliability of this specific article in question.
• Also we're including an article by Arthur Chu as a source of information for this section. If that's the case then we should also use an article opposing that view such as this written by Patrick Toworfe, who is without a doubt more reliable than Arthur Chu, a self-described "Freelance Blogger".
• The Escapist article only reported what Quinn and "4chan" said and did. They made no statement regarding the validity of the claims. In fact the only statement they made was to incorrectly define "Blackhat" and "SJW".

This entire section is in dire need of revision. TyTyMang (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Most sources don't even address it at all."- this would be justification for mentioning it less, not changing how we're mentioning it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Essentially all of the sources in that section come down to the same conclusion that it was an astroturf campaign and is seen as an astroturf campaign. Theres more where they came from. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you quote those relevant parts for the record? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom WP:CONS: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." I feel like I have made some quality arguments against the blatant POV of the material in tjis section. Which you have not just failed to address, but have ignored completely. Even one that contradicts your statement where I noted how a source was just informing the reader of the information and not making it's own conclusions or statements. Ignoring these issues is not conducive to consensus building.

At the very least the material from Arthur Chu, a self proclaimed "Freelance Blogger" should be omitted completely. TyTyMang (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had on these talk pages, as little as a week or so ago. We decided against it. Perhaps you should read back into the archives to find it, and only bring this up if you have some new concern to raise about our citing Salon? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the conclusion that a notable game show contestant turned blogger isn't a reliable source for anything but his opinion. And his opinion on gamerGate is not any more notable than any other twitter user. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That was your assertion. People disagreed with you, and that's why we still cite Salon despite your apparent grudge against Arthur Chu. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on content. Chu has not established any credibility. He's a blogger with no peer reviewed work. Nor is he a journalist. There are plenty of GG bloggers and tweeters with the same level of expertise or more. Milo Yannopoulis is an example of someone with quite a bit more experience and credentials as a journalist. Chu simply isn't lacks the CV to be considered a serious source for anything beyond Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In the future, DHeyward, don't edit other editors comments. I can't believe I have to remind such a senior editor of these things. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Name one gg blogger who has been featured on Salon, NPR , Slate and Huffington Post? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to feature any bloggers as there are plenty of reliable sources from non-bloggers. --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop discussing fellow editors. Also, WP:CIVIL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth please remove your comments as I attempted to do without fanfare. I have no grudges and I need no reminding. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I made what edits I made- I have no desire to scrub my speech from history in the hopes of evading notice. If people note my comments, and think less of me, I'm willing to accept that.

@EvergreenFir: I appreciate the reminder, for it is both timely and perhaps necessary given recent events. I'll strive to be more civil. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So if we're going to keep Freelance Blogger Arthur Chu's opinion as a reliable source of content. Then in the name of Neutrality we must also include an opposing opinion by someone with at least as much credibility. Is this article, dedicated to #notyourshield, by a black journalist, that also references one of their own female writers to contradict the sock puppet claims, not reliable enough to use as content for this section?TyTyMang (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

you still seem to completely NOT GET Wikipedia's NPOV policy - have you actually read it? We present the mainstream voices in the proportion that they are held. and we dont attempt to create false balance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And if we can't find Artur Chu's opinion used in anything but his blog, it's unique and in the "not at all" portion of FRINGE viewpoints. If you can find his opinion expressed in a mainstream source as fact, then cite the mainstream article. Arthur Chu's solely held opinions, as a proportion, is not notably larger than zero. --DHeyward (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The viewpoint that #notyourshield was an astroturf campaign is not FRINGE. That #notyourshield actually represented a significant range of voices that were women and non white is the fringe viewpoint. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Dheyward, Arthur Chu's opinion is not a "mainstream voice" of any significance. In fact, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming mainstream consensus against the validity of #notyourshield. It seems the current version of this section is the "UNDUE" version.TyTyMang (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If we could add Bloggers (Factual and Opinial) I have about 50 or so from GamerGate. However that would be not productive to the article due to the massive difference of opinion. I would also agree that Bloggers should not be put into the article. TheRealVordox (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu is now a writer for Salon, a reliable source. The article is tagged as "life news" and "editor's picks". Woodroar (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Chu, as I have already mentioned, is a self-described "Freelance Blogger" since 2014. Yes he does write for Salon, but that does not make him any less of a blogger. There are plenty of proGG blogs out there, should we allow the use of all of those too? Here is a piece that is from a very reputable source that we can use in the rest of the article as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ Though it does paint quite a different narrative than all the other sources. TyTyMang (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@TyTyMang: You don't seem to be familiar with the Forbes contributor model. That article isn't a Forbes article, it's a blog post by one of 2,500 people that Forbes.com calls contributors. They're not staff, but rather paid based on traffic they drive to the site. Their posts are not subject to editorial review or fact checking before publication. It's not what WP would normally consider a high quality reliable source. — Strongjam (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: This is somewhat troubling to hear, actually- we cite Erik Kain's posts to Forbes quite a lot in our article, and if what he's written truly are blog posts without any sort of editorial oversight then this is something we definitely need to cut back on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The UNDUE amount of Erik Kain references in this article has been an issue for quite some time now. drseudo (t) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Kain's posts there are blog posts, even if they're on Forbes, so we should avoid citing him for points of fact; mostly, we can just rely on him as a cite for his own opinion. I went through and removed most of the refs to him from the article (although for now I left in every reference to his opinion; fortunately, nearly every point of fact we cited to him was also cited to a more reliable source.) There are one or two things left uncited which we might want to consider either 1. removing, 2. rewording in a way that makes it clear that it's just Kain's opinion, then citing it to him again (which I think is a bad option given that we already give him, yes, WP:UNDUE weight), 3. finding a better source for, or 4. finding a wider variety of opinion sources to indicate that it's an opinion held by many people rather than just Kain, and describe it as such. More specifically, after going back over it, the only part of the article that both stated as fact and sourced solely to Kain's post was the statement that early forum bannings led to a Streisand effect that brought more attention to the accusations; we need a non-blog source if we want to state that as fact rather than just as Kain's personal opinion. For now I put a fact tag on it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any news-based replacement - blogs from all sides, yes, agreeing that the 4chan censoring caused the situation to explode, but not an RS to be used. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate and antifeminism

Second paragraph of the section Social and cultural implications starts with

Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies.

citing "in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women’s rights as citizens." (http://www.nordicsts.org/index.php/njsts/article/download/Editorial/pdf_4)

Now, in my opinion this source and not even the provided quote supports directly (as required by wiki rules) the statement. First, if you check the wikipedia site on Antifeminism it is stated that antifeminism is an ideology opposing feminism or aspects of feminism - not women (as in the quote); further down in the article on antifeminism are various differing definitions from some individuals even more examples for antifeminism from different time periods are extremely inconsistent - and mind you the examples from the 21st century are not in the slightest something like "against women" or "limiting women's rights". If you go further and try to find out what Feminism is you find 20 different definitions/examples (?) - so which is gamergate opposing exactly?

What I am trying to say here is, that antifeminism is even using our very own wikipedia rather difficult if not even impossible.

I added an [citation needed] and removed the source that didn't support this statement. It was reverted, with the comment that the source supports the statement. It doesn't! The source just tells us that the authors of this editorial have the opinion that gamergate is against women's rights. This is why I thought coming to the talk page was a good idea. It was also implied that the sources of the directly following statement would support this statement as well.

1. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html indeed states that some random guy on the internet said that they think that gamergate is antifeminist. But if you follow the given source for this statement you find a blogpost that just says something different - yes, the words antifeminist occour, but just as this guy describing himself and not gamergate, in the blog is even a reply to the source emphasising this fact. This indicates clearly that this source is not reliable and should be removed. Just to quote the source of this source:

I am anti-feminist and freely admit that, not because I’m against women’s rights or opportunities, but because “feminism”, much like GamerGate, has become too nebulous and mixed up with people of completely seperate ideas of what “feminism” is or isn’t.

So if we call gamergate antifeminist because someone in an editorial said it is against women's rights and the other source says it is antifeminist because some guy said so (with a nebulous definition of it), but this guy actually said he is not against women's rights then this doesn't make much sense at all.

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/ doesn't talk about feminism or antifeminism.
2. http://www.vice.com/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it contradicts the given statement. Even goes as far to say that connecting (anti)feminism with gamergate is bullshit.
3. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance is a really bad article. poorly sourced and then there is a link in a statement about some neonazi in the gamergate ranks but the link is just a piece on some internetcelebrity-neonazi with no mention of gamergate whatsoever. Then a statement about how gamergate punishes its targets links to an article about intel apologising for pulling ads. this is not in the slightest to be considered reliable.
4. http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-female-gamer-mascot-created-by-anti-feminists-828 Yes it talks about antifeminism but only asserts that gaming culture and 4chan is inherently antifeminist. Well if we just define it as antifeminist (whatever bad thing that is), well, then gamergate must be antifeminist. Nope. Crappy source that doesn't fit the description reliable source.
5. http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/8/6919179/stop-supporting-gamergate doesn't even talk about antifeminism.

I could go on. It appears to me that every single one of the sources on this page is just an opinion piece. please check WP:NEWSORG for guidelines on reliability.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

Much of what I read here and in the sources provided sounds just like gossip, rumors and labelling groups of people with no proof whatsoever besides "everyone says so". After reading some of the Arbcom stuff regarding this article I don't think I want to come back here. As parting advice: Pick a random number and check the according source in this article with respect to reliability. This article is in bad shape. Sorry if this sounded like I was venting. If it wasn't appropriate feel free to delete this. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific source that is being mis represented or a source that you think should be added? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

My main concern was/is that many sources are rather opinion pieces or even poorly written (badly sourced themselves) and should be checked if they individually should really be considered reliable sources. See answer below. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 11:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are quite good about separating their editorial/opinion sections from factual journalism. That's part of why they're considered reliable sources. None of these articles are marked as editorial or opinion. Woodroar (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should assert that certain outlets/publishers/magazines are inherently reliable. This may be the case with news agencies because their trade is fact checking but not so much elsewhere. I don't think you should argue that just because some writer works for NYTimes what he writes is reliable and fact based (I think I proved that this is indeed not the case). Just to show you that your assumption is problematic in this case:

I believe Smilomaniac. I also believe the various Reddit and 8chan posts and the folks in the Hangout; I think Gamergate is primarily about anger at progressive people who care about feminism and transgender rights and mental health and whatever else [...]

This is definitely the authors opinion that is represented here. Similar:

Journalists donating to crowd-funding campaigns, which is another major Gamergate complaint? I bet if you asked 100 journalists you'd get 100 different opinions on whether this should be inherently off-limits (personal take is that it isn't, but that journalists should certainly disclose any projects to which they donate and shouldn't report on them)

If I am correct (I didn't go into much detail checking out the gamergate "demands" on the ethics side) the author contradicts himself here - gamergate demands that such things should be disclosed (and not off-limits) - so is the "but ethics" wrong or not? Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 11:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem . The cites for the two sentences all discuss the GG being associated with anti-feminism, limiting women's rights, or misogyny just saying "anti-feminism" seems like a decent way to describe that, as I don't see the need to pile it on. The point of the two sentences isn't to label GG as anti-feminist but simply to assert that it's been described as anti-feminist and that those who support GG dispute that. — Strongjam (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that some $writer said something about gamergate and antifeminism. I argue that the sources are not reliable and should be checked. In the first source I discussed the case was that supposedly some random guy on the internet made this connection - which wasn't even true - and among others this (wrong) information leads to wikipedia writing about the connection between antifeminism and gamegate.

On another note, I think antifeminism too broad a notion to be useful. The first definition I ever heard was opposition of feminism in the sense that feminism tries to achieve equality by focusing solely on women and antifeminism wants to get rid of this one-sidedness by acknowledging that men have disadvantages too and both genders need equality. There was nothing in it that said something about "against women's rights" or misogyny. So I argue that this should be formulated more precise since the definition of antifeminism is not that clear (see its wikipage) and arguably not all-encompassing.Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 11:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not substitute our "verification" of an authors work for the editorial board of their publication. If you feel that one of the sources does not in this instance meet the criteria, you will need to take it up at the WP:RSN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In other words: We know that the source is wrong, but we wilfully ignore that fact. What does this say about Wikipedia if its editors use questionable sources, just because these sources are judged by the publishing entity usually being considered reliable and not by its own merit? Any insight from veterans how my chances with the bureaucracy are in such a case? Will I waste everyone's time or can I expect a reasonable result?Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 14:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That hardly seems a fair summation. I've admittedly only skimmed through this discussion but I don't think you've written anything that proves one of the sources is objectively wrong. What qualifies as anti-feminism is very much in the eye of the beholder, for instance see Christina Hoff Sommers who considers herself a feminist, but is considered an anti-feminist by many mainstream feminists. If we had to have a deep theoretical debate on the concept of anti-feminism, everytime someone wants to make a change to the article, everything would probably be on lockdown. In cases where sources have made claims that have been proven outright wrong by later sources, (this occurs in a lot of the earliest articles from August), we've left out those false claims. Bosstopher (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that anti-feminism is a poorly-defined, overly-broad, and inconsistently applied concept. It's also true that, for statements of fact, we should avoid using opinion articles and stick to only the best sources available. The NYMag article is definitely an opinion piece, barely rising to the level of an "editorial." However, the claim made in the article space is not that "Gamergate is anti-feminist," it is "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies." This is a true statement -- the nebulous and vague term has been affixed to the Gamergate movement by commentators. I see it as balanced, too, because the next sentence is used to clarify that supporters do not agree with that definition. This section seems quite balanced to me, but I do appreciate your willingness dig into the sources to see if they are being properly represented in the article space. We need more of that here. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking about Miss Sommers, she's a supporter of GamerGate according to her actions and she's celebrated by the GamerGaters for her views on feminism, however I cannot find a single reliable source about it which had linked her support in mainstream media. This is mostly common knowledge but due to sources it cannot be included since she has also become under attack/criticism and even slandered (As Bosstopher said about Mainstream media and labeling) but there's no talk about it in journalistic circles which means it cannot be included. Even if she's a part of the controversy. Why is truth so selective... Even worse is that GamerGate is called anti-feminists when we clearly have several feminists(They need to split and reform into different categories, it's called a movement but the manifesto is not in focus anymore for feminists either). As a pro-GamerGate there's no reliable sources to weigh to help elevate inconsistencies.

And yes Citogenesis, you hit the nail on the head with a "truth" that isn't reported which makes this article what it is. And it's known here that due to how wikipedia works with sources and encyclopedia, there is nothing here that can be done except changed later if media gives more coverage. That's the current truth due to failure of sources and evidence to backup the claim in the sources used, as Colourof suffering mentioned above. But at the same time, can Wikipedia be selective of the statements? That's a whole other bucket of worms to dig trough. TheRealVordox (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose to change the statement to:

"Gamergate has been described as involving worse than militant islamic, fascist and anti-feminist ideologies."

No. No reliable source would ever print such a baseless statement ... wait a minute, they did and at least the fascist claim is already cited here (currently 144). I hope this makes it quite clear that repeating idiotic and factually baseless claims on Wikipedia is just plain stupid and should be avoided. We are not here to distribute gossip. And it doesn't matter if some high-profile writer says something stupid it is still stupid. And before writing such nonsense we Wikipedians should wait until such claims are reasonably explained. Until then we can only report that gamergaters claim ethics, a lot of writers for various outlets claim harassment and nobody is the wiser. The statistics I have seen so far have been interpreted both ways by third-parties. I'd say, wait a year or so and then rewrite history, er, the article. And another point: Are the sources I reviewed above so essential to this article that it would fall apart without? Aren't there any sources of better quality available? I think not. So long. Thanks for the amusement. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't stuff like this, a popular thread on a main GamerGate supporter hub which d, enough for us to discard the canard that Gamergate isn't anti-feminist? The entire weight of the RS is behind the claim that Gamergate is anti-feminist, a basic perusal of what Gamergate says is enough to demonstrate that they are against feminism, even if they don't like that the media calls them anti-feminist, and...I mean jesus, what possible sources are being brought forward to claim that they aren't anti-feminist? Literally all I can see in the arguments above is the claim that maybe they aren't anti-feminist -- no evidence, no sources, nothing. That is some weak sauce. Some very, very weak sauce.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Academic Paper on GG

Potential source

• Chess, Shira; Shaw, Adrienne (2015). "A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 59 (1): 208–220. doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.999917.

I don't currently have access to it, but other editors might so I thought I'd link to it here. Based on the abstract might be useful for expanding on DiGRA. — Strongjam (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Misogynistic attacks" is an opinion

Whether or not this harassment was misogynistic in nature in an opinion. This statement (among others) attempts to disguise an opinion as fact: "...when several women ... were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks." You may use a source's opinion only when explicitly stating that it is that source's opinion. You may not take that opinion and present it as factual. See WP:RSOPINION. Galestar (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not all adjectives are matters of opinion. You are, unfortunately, wrong in your assertion that stating harassment is misogynistic is a matter of opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not all adjectives are matters of opinion - just this one. To call it misogynistic is to make a judgement about the motives of the perpetrators. If your source does so then you are free to say "[source] says it is misogynistic" but you are not free to state this as fact.

WP:RSOPINION states: ″Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".

I will be removing these adjectives as per WP:RSOPINION Galestar (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Galestar:For clarification (not going to revert and report because this is an easy mistake to make): 1RR doesn't simply count times you press the "undo" button, removing information from the article technically counts as a revert. You have currently passed 1RR please self revert.Bosstopher (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I added the disputed adjective back in, with a template. Galestar (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because many reliable sources describe the attacks as misogynistic, I will remove the template once and then step aside. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So now not only can I not remove an opinion disguised as fact, I can't even mark it as disputed? If you wish to challenge my assertion that this is on opinion other than just "not its not" please do so here. Galestar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note the bit about reliable sources. Attacks can be misogynistic in nature. The sentence does not ascribe that nature to PEOPLE, but to the ATTACKS. Parabolist (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Dozens of sources refer to it this way. Per WP:LEAD, calling them misogynistic is a correct description. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Attacks are only misogynistic if done for misogynistic reasons. To state that an attack is misogynistic is to assert that the people performing the attacks hated women in general. Your "reliable" sources (I may shortly challenge if they count as reliable) are allowed to make the leap that they are misogynistic; you as an editor may only quote their opinion.

Even one of the sources in the article echoes this: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement." Galestar (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Galestar, you are misunderstanding WP:RSOPINION - it is a guideline on the use of "opinion pieces" (e.g. editorials, blog-format sections, columnist pieces etc.) as reliable sources for their author's opinions. These stand in contrast to "normal" articles which are presented not as opinion but as fact vouched for by the news organization. CIreland (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually most of these sources are editorials and columnists. So there's that. Galestar (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Galestar, I reverted your last two edits, which were dedicated to removing descriptions of Gamergate as "misogynistic" or claiming that those descriptions are in dispute. In particular, the CJR piece you linked did not support the lede change. Please propose any other changes here before making edits so that consensus can be reached. Thanks! drseudo (t) 00:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The CJR piece states: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press.". This is one of several sources that were already in use by the article that point out that whether or not the attacks were misogynistic is in dispute. Please make sure you are following NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Galestar: NPOV means that we report fairly and proportionally what reliable sources say about a topic. And they virtually all agree that the harassment was misogynistic in nature. See the "Misogyny and sexism" section and check the sources, you'll find "misogynistic" and plenty of other similar adjectives. (I would also encourage you to browse through the Talk archives, as this has been discussed many times before.) Now sources sometimes acknowledge that Gamergate supporters dispute the term, yes, but they still characterize the harassment as such in the same way that they consider claims of "ethics in games journalism" to be debunked. Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be a persistent problem in gender-related articles that there are two quite different meanings of the word 'misogynistic'. One takes it to mean, 'Motivated by an innate hatred of women,' while another takes it to mean, 'Targeted at harming women specifically.' We see this come up quite regularly in gender-related disputes, where someone's statement or action is described as misogynistic and the response is, "But I don't hate women." I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that those arguing for excluding the word are taking the former meaning, while those arguing for inclusion are taking the latter. It's not helpful to our readers if some are likely to make the same mistake (and if editors make this mistake, then surely our readers will also). Is there some way we can clarify the language to show the intended meaning, rather than removing it from the article? GoldenRing (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, I take the word to mean the former. The word indicates the motivation and not simply that the victim was female. The act must be a manifestation of the perpetrator's misogyny. Galestar (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So, is there some better way of describing it? I don't think anyone would deny that there has been a lot of harassment targeting women; how do we say that without confusing readers? GoldenRing (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why find another word when the current one is (1) adequately descriptive and (2) what the RS use? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing for another word. I'm saying I think there is confusion around its use and we should do something to avoid that confusion. Maybe the ambiguity in 'misogynistic' I've described above is inherent and we should avoid the word. Maybe I'm wrong and those advocating including the word do mean, 'Motivated by an innate hatred of women.' Maybe we need a sentence clarifying how the word is used in the article, or some qualifying adjective to go with the word that makes clear which meaning we're using. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I could see possibly putting a footnote by it... just an idea... but honestly I don't think it's necessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment of women which is threatening, intense, frequent, prolonged, sexualized, violent in its imagery, rape oriented, and reveling in the imagined suffering of its female victims is also "misogynistic", by any reasonable definition of the word. That is what Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian have experienced, according to a large number of reliable sources that we have vetted for months. I read one week of Sarkeesian's messages and was horrified. This matter is crystal clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on this one. The word misogyny stands for hatred towards women. Now, your adjectives describe in no sense whatsoever hatred towards women because it is not clear if the hypothetical perpetrator practices this kind of harassment (especially rape oriented, possibly sexualized - although sexualized harrassment definitely occurs as well if a man is the target) because the target is female (and has for whatever absurd reason drawn the perpetrators attention) OR the perpetrator is just incompetent to argue rationally with the target or whatever other cause (some people react with aggression to certain things) results in hostility towards the target normal people would articulate in a calmer and acceptable manner and instead tries intimidation (people do that sometimes) - and since the target is a women the perpetrator uses this as well - not because the perpetrator hates women - but because the intimidation is specifically targeted. "I will cut off your ...!" just doesn't make much sense if expressed towards a woman. And this is the problem in this discussion. The definition is unclear, misogyny is a catchy word, of course journalists will use it. But we should be able to stand above such unquestioned labelling. Yes, enough people working for outlets considered reliable have said it, but attribute it to them, Wikipedia doesn't judge - they do.Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well here. Above, Parabolist says, The sentence does not ascribe that nature to PEOPLE, but to the ATTACKS. Do you think he is right that the article should describe the attacks as misogynistic but not the people? Or that we should be describing the people as misogynistic also? This seems to me to be the root of the dispute over use of the word. It seems fairly clear to me that some people are reading that sentence as a description of the people behind the attacks - eg Galestar above (note Galestar is blocked for 48 hours for a 1RR violation and so won't be commenting here for the foreseeable). GoldenRing (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a distinction without significance since the lead of the article currently describes the attacks that way since that is what so many reliable sources say. Misogynistic attacks are rarely delivered against every single woman on earth but usually against individual women or specific groups of women. I see no one proposing that we should change "attacks" to "people" so why are we bothering to discuss that? Why waste electrons? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Because a significant number of people read 'misogynistic attacks' as attacks motivated by an innate hatred of women in the attackers. Isn't giving that impression, however unintentially, in fact especially unintentially, a problem? GoldenRing (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't a problem, not in the slightest, because we are accurately summarizing what the range of the best reliable sources say. That is our job here. No more. No less.

It is not our job to imagine that some poor misunderstood soul who tweets out a murderous sexualized misogynistic threat is not really a misogynist. That's original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course our job is more than that; our job is also to communicate it effectively to readers. GoldenRing (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Accurately summarizing is essentially identical to communucating effectively here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying not to summarize the source, but as a neutral tertiary source, per NPOV, we are able to state that information from an RS is only a claim if there are problems with such statements, and strive to avoid stating contentious statements as fact. Calling the attacks directly as misogynyist is an opinion based on observation. We can call the attacks appearing to be amisogynistic pattern or that the attacks are widely considered as misogynistic, but we should not be directly calling the attacks misogynistic in WP's voice because this is a strongly contested statement. It is a very subtle but important point to keep us objective and neutral. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongly contested? Which reliable sources argue that the attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu are not misogynistic? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be contested, just contentious. Calling an attack "misogynistic" is fully subjective and thus a contentious statement, and can only be determined clearly if that is the intent of the persons behind it, if they intended it to be misogynistic. And we have no idea what that intent is. It is very likely the case that these attacks are driven by misogyny but we have no data to confirm that, only the observations of the press. So instead of saying as we have now "...were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks", we can state "...were subjected to a sustained campaign of a misogynistic pattern of attacks", which keeps that important opinion of the press in the lead, but only stated as a claim, not a fact. --MASEM (t) 07:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Masem's 'fully subjective' statement, but anyway, it's a bit beside the point I'm making. The sources describe the attacks as misogynistic, and so should we. However, there are two common meanings of misogynistic. There seems to be a reasonable sort of consensus that the sources we are citing are using one of those meanings, but that is not clear from our article (or at least a significant number of people coming to the article don't read it that way). That's not effectively communicating a summary of the source. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there are two common meanings of misogynistic. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not the situation here. Misogyny - the hatred, dislike, or prejudging towards women - is pretty much that, but it is a term that gets thrown around a lot by commentators because it is a "hot" word - used right, it will create sympathy from the right audiences, just as the word "terrorism" can swing audience. I am not saying this word does not apply here - the sources make it unavoidable to use, and Occum's razor says that if the brunt of GG's attacks are towards women and specifically towards their nature as females, yeah , misogyny is very likely a cause. But we still have zero idea what these people are thinking for us, or the press, to know if the harassment is being done for misogynistic purposes or not. No one - short of Singal's attempt to rationalize with GG on reddit - has tried to get into the minds of these people as they have with Quinn, etc. Keeping in mind they have gone after men (like Phil Fish) as well, just not with the same vigor, it is quite possible they might simply be trying to troll what they believe are easy targets, or the whole SWJ thing. The result of whatever they are doing appears misogynistic, no question, but we have nothing beyond the claim of the press that they are misogynistic. I will stress that this is no way denying the likelihood that the attacks are truly misogynistic, but as a tertiary neutral source, we have to recognize that some of the leaps of logic made by the press cannot be repeat as fact in WP, and thus should simply make sure that this stance is reported as the most predominate opinion on what the harassment looks like. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Masem. We reflect what the media says, especially (but not only) if it's as obviously accurate as it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We cannot prejudge what the situation is, that fails the objectivity and impartialness we have to maintain. We cannot pretend that what the press says is "accurate" for a claim about the reason for the harassment if they have no spoken to anyone within GG. That's why this is contentious and simply should be clear it is the predominate claim, but not fact. Again, to stress, I'm not say that this is wrong but we are aware that we can't say it is necessarily right based on on their observations. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Our article can't reflect what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources with a history of accuracy say is correct because <original research>? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can. NPOV has this allowance there when the claim is contentious and that is our function/ability as a tertiary source, to evaluate the nature of sources as to how they best apply to the topic in question (this was also confirmed in the RFC about bias in the press that we can judge if there is bias and adjust appropriately). Also note that we don't judge sources on accuracy, but reliability. (That's why it's at WP:RS, not "WP:AS"). --MASEM (t) 20:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What else would we call it? Terrorist? The sources, including non-WP:BIASED ones, call it misogynistic. I don't think the term is contentious in this case. It's clear from the wording that we're describing the attacks as misogynistic. Would attacks that are misogynistic in nature be better? Seems too wordy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The pattern of the harassment is clearly misogynistic (that's a factual statement about their observations), but without any evidence that they have talked to people behind the attacks to understand exactly why they initiate the attacks, saying the attacks were misogynistic can't be claimed as fact. We have to understand that the press has been doing a very poor job of trying to understand the GG side and making broad statements about the observed before. I do not question that it is highly likely that the intentions of the attacks were misogynistic, and the press may be fully correct at the end of the day, but there is nothing to back up how they came to their conclusion outside of the natural bias that exists in a story where you have women vs online trolls. What the press has stated is clearly a contentious statement given the lack of investigation demonstrated to make this determination. We can recognize that issue as a tertiary source per NPOV and make sure to avoid stating what is contentious as fact. That's why I've put wording above to not call the attacks directly as misogynistic, but that the pattern of harassment attacks is misogynistic. This is the same situation with something like global warming. There's a huge swath of reliable source that says it exists, but our article still presents it as the predominate theory and not a fact. (And this might be nitpicking on one or two words, but one or two words do make a significant difference when we are talking about our article's neutrality and tone). --MASEM (t) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"We have to understand that the press has been doing a very poor job of trying to understand the GG side" - I'm sorry but that sounds like a poor excuse to throw out reliable sources out the window, when those sources don't say what you want them to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where does Masem say anything about throwing out sources? It seems pretty clear to me he's explaining WP:LABEL. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said to throw out the sources, only recognize that the coverage of GG has been one sided, in part due to the nature of the GG dis-organization (from the CRJ article) and part due to "women vs online trolls". There's still fine sources, but they are simply making claims that are contentious because the coverage is simply not sufficient to be making factual claims about the intent of GG. (And this works both ways, which when I say we have to say , any claims made by GG about their intent is self-statements, not factual actual). Per NPOV we opts to report contentious claims as claims, not fact. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with VM here. But Kyohyi even if that is the case, we use the LABELs in the lead if they are overwhelmingly used by RS. For example Boko Haram is called terrorist without attribution in the lead. I use this example because terrorist is mentioned in LABEL and there was someone recently trying to remove it claiming NPOV. To be clear, I am not calling GGers Boko Haram, but there is a parallel in the cases.

Masem, we are to present due weight, not artificial balance. The sources are "one sided" in part because the actions of GG are so reprehensible. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in no way attempting to affect the balance. We've been there, that can't happen. But we need to recognize that there is too little information for us as a tertiary source to be stating factually what their intents are, despite the press having overwhelming claiming they know. Also keep in mind with Boko Haram, we have several official government sources that have labeled the group as terrorists, which no longer makes that claim contentious. However, newspapers are not the same as official government sources. If the FBI does get involved and at the end of day calls the GG movement as misogynistic, then we have a fact to build on, just like the case of BH. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding, I'm very new around here, but I just wanted to try to help. It struck me that the "misogynist" claim was more about the nature of the attacks than any unknowable intent, no? An insult that used ethnic slurs might reasonably be called racist (or at least ethnocentric!) without appealing to the intent of the speaker. Dumuzid (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We definitely can say the attacks appeared to be misogynistic, had a pattern of misogyny, or the like. The near-unanimous take of the press on the stuff they can observe and which they explain in detail is clearly something we can state as fact. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm probably missing something. But can't we also say that [simply by way of example!] an attack using gendered slurs is misogynistic in the same way one using racial epithets is racist in an absolute sense, regardless of subjective intent? I know this does not completely encompass the debate with regard to this section, but I am trying to figure out our definitions. Dumuzid (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While it is very likely that harassment that includes gendered slurs slanted towards women arises from misogynistic attitudes, there are other attitudes that could also lead to that behavior (for example, if there are true third-party users out there trolling both sides of the issues, and are just using the language to mask their activities). It's Occum's razor, yes, but Occum's razor is enough to raise the OR issues with claims. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone uses female gendered derogatives and insults doesn't mean it is misogynistic. This label is used in the controversy for too many instances of any kind of somewhat hostile expression directed at women. It goes so far that people even start to ridicule that notion that critizising a women or wearing a shirt with depictions of sexualized women is already misogynistic. You can definitely write that commentators/journalists have described much of the harassment directed towards women involved as misogynistic. But we don't judge. And we don't label indiscriminately. They do! Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Citogenitor -- Okay then, I guess I am not understanding how you would propose to change the article. It doesn't sound like you think all mentions of misogyny should be excised, but can you give me some sort of concrete suggestion(s)? Dumuzid (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just attribute them to the writers/platforms and don't use universal quantifications. I would suggest in general to ask yourself: would the majority of people actually involved (not necessarily directly) in the matter at hand - regardless of how much their voice gets heard agree with a statement or not. Just because most media platforms tell one story does not equal the truth. We don't research the truth ourselves but we also don't accept statements as truth if there are some indications that a lot of people involved would disagree, which is the case here. This means that attributes (especially judgmental ones) mustn't be stated as fact but as descriptions by third parties. Edit: I fucked up outdenting. Citogenitor^{[talk needed]} 14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand the argument that not all #GamerGate supporters would agree, but I can't see that as overriding reliable sources. And to me, the article does a decent job of marking the "misogyny" bits as opinion (even if there are other issues). Can you point me to specific sections or sentences that you think should be changed? Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)