Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:44, 19 September 2015

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Video games Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Real Flight Simulator (1 participant) Gameplay of Hearthstone (2 participants) Kristoffer von Hassel (3 participants) Aimsey (2 participants) Fedmyster (2 participants) Retro Engine (2 participants) Chrome Engine (1 participant) Payal Dhare (4 participants) Merge discussions Evil Empire (company) (discussion) Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) Ethan Winters (nom) Fallout: New Vegas (nom) The Legend of Dragoon (nom) Good article nominations Dark Urge (nom) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (nom) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Cry of Fear (nom) A Space for the Unbound (nom) The King of Fighters '97 (start) F1 24 (start) Façade (video game) (start) Prey (2017 video game) (start) Transfer Pak (start) Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (start) Lost Sphear (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Dynasty Warriors 4 (nom) Articles that need... assessment (1) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (257) screenshots (9,041) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Can I use a particular article as a source? A1: What sources can be used in Misplaced Pages is governed by our reliable sources guideline, which requires "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about whether or not a particular source meets this policy, a good place to ask is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Q2: I found a YouTube video, a post on 4chan/Reddit/9GAG/8chan, or a blog that relates to Gamergate. Can I use it as a source in the article? A2: All sources used in the article must comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. Self-published sources cannot be used for biographical content on a living person. If such sources were used, then gossip, slander and libelous material may find its way into the article, which would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. For further information, please read the guidelines for sources in biographies of living people. Q3: Why is Misplaced Pages preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other? A3: Content on Misplaced Pages is required to maintain a neutral point of view as much as possible, and is based on information from reliable sources (Vox, The Wall Street Journal, etc.). The article and its talk page are under protection due to constant edit warring and addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information prohibited by our policy on biographical content concerning living people (see WP:BLP). Q4: The "reliable sources" don't tell the full story. Why can't we use other sources? A4: Verifiability in reliable sources governs what we write. Misplaced Pages documents what the reliable sources say. If those sources are incorrect or inadequate, it is up to other reliable sources to correct this. Misplaced Pages's role is not to correct the mistakes of the world; it is to write an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable sources. In addition, this article falls under concerns relating to content on living persons. Sources that go into unverified or unsupported claims about living persons cannot be included at all. Editors should review the talk page archives here before suggesting a new source from non-mainstream sources to make sure that it hasn't been discussed previously.

Template:CollapsedShell Template:Copied multi

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The purpose of this Talkpage is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Gamergate controversy article itself. This page is not for discussing this Talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta subpage for that. The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gamergate (harassment campaign) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find video game sources: "Gamergate" harassment campaign – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Article from Spiked

, from the liberal-leaning magazine Spiked (magazine) (which is odd as most of the other media support for GG has come from the conservative side, but in reading, I think this side is more backing GG in the consumer aspect, while the conservatives appear to be backing GG from the social/feminism aspects). It's one source, and thus would be far too much to give more than a sentence-worth of time, but I think between this and other conservative works that back the GG side, we probably need to have one paragraph to explain that these works are backing GG for various reasons. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't think we can use Irene Ogrizek RS. She's rather well known for posting anti-feminist stuff to A Voice for Men. And I think it's OR/Synth to "xplain that these works are backing GG for various reasons". Thought I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does her opinion on being anti-feminist matter? It's still an opinion (and I stress, as an opinion, not statements of fact) that is a different opinion from mainstream but aligns with what GG has said it is. It's not OR to list out what sources back GG, just as we have listed out sources that have condemned GG based on the original accusation. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men is the more salient point. That opinion would have problems with UNDUE and FRINGE. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's not OR to list out what sources back GG" is not the same as "explain that these works are backing GG" ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And again, why does it being A Voice for Men (which I do recognize is a not a very popular viewpoint) matter? And I stress again that given all the various media that is apparently right-wing that are reliable sources for their opinions (not facts), that it is not undue for a short paragraph to outline some of these sources or persons that have come out in favor of GG. As to the second, I would make sure that we have to make sure the language of the source article says with clarity they support the GG movement or the like, rather that just writing about it and then talking their own ideals but without support. That's not OR to do that as long as we're not guessworking on if they support or back GG. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you want to your pet OR again. No, you have to back up things with RS. No OR. No SYNTH. I don't disagree with what you want to write, but I haven't been able to find RS to support it. "Though I'm surprised there isn't RS to back a statement that conservatives back GG." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, from reading some of the GG posts/statement some of them want to claim they are liberals. So your notion of self-report is weak. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the issue, then we don't even need to ID the slant these other sources take, but still should be including these other sources that appear to speak in favor of GG. We can let the reader review the author or work, and make the judgement of which slant these works are, but importantly, they are counteropinions to the mainstream view that should be at least touched on within a single paragraph at most. The only reason I was considering the slant angle is for narrative grouping but that's not required to do it. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Masem, I'd just like to note that to me, you're edging a bit close to "opinions on the shape of the Earth differ" territory. Counteropinions are not, again to me, deserving of inclusion by dint of the fact that they are counteropinions. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking FRINGE here, however. With "shape of the Earth", ample volumes of scientific evidence clearly put any flat earth stances in the FRINGE category. With a controversy where no right answer has been determined or likely will be determined, there is no such application of FRINGE, though we still need to be wary of UNDUE, and hence why its not a call to drive equal balance of viewpoints. But as per the RFC, when we are aware of biased coverage of a topic within the sources, we should be looking towards including other sources so that we can eliminate that bias in WP's writing. Again, one paragraph at most to outline opinions that these other sources have taken is in no way a violation of policy and in fact helps us to document the controversy better. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue, Masem, is that a 'right answer' has been determined- Gamergate is and has been since inception about the harassment of diverse voices and those who seek diversity in the gaming industry. Please stop beating the horse- you've killed it, it's dead, walk away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, can't accept that nor can WP write as if that is fact. That's the predominant view, but it's just a view, not an answer. There has been nothing presented in any reliable source that we on WP should be taking as the definitive result in considering NPOV policy. Thus presenting alternate opinions from the mainstream is appropriate to do. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

So then, Masem, your argument relies upon an identification of Spiked as being part of the mainstream, yes? Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would argue Spiked is mainstream in that it is work that doesn't focus on one area of interest like gaming sites. It does not necessarily represent the mainstream political views because of its specific political slant but that's not how I'd identify "mainstream". --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so 'mainstream' for you is essentially a test of topics covered by a potential source? Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, to avoid confusion (which is my fault) let's avoid getting too far away from the accepted term for mainstream media which generally encompasses the large media sources like NYTimes, WaPost, etc., which by this would put Spiked as an alternative source. Spiked would fall into the non-gaming press, which along with the mainstream media (this exact definition) are better sources to help bring the situation to broader readership and thus more appropriate for the encyclopedia. So to reclarify: Spiked is a non-gaming source but also not part of "mainstream media", but that does not invalidate it as a reliable source for alternate opinions to the predominant opinion that most mainstream media and some other alternate non-gaming and most reliable gaming outlets share on GG's intent/purpose. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When you write "Nope, can't accept that" as a flat response to this every time people point out the fringe-ness of your viewpoint, then reiterate your past points that have been shut down again and again, all I can see is "I didn't hear that". PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Several others editors have pointed out the situation with this article that suffers from the entrenched views of a few; it is not just me. I've listened to all the arguments presented, and as others have pointed out, there is no compelling case under WP neutrality policy to accept that "GG is about harassment" as fact. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RS. Find it. Then edit with it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an RS for opinions as best as I can tell. Plenty of other RSes have been presented for similar reliability of opionions, as well as showing that the existing RSes like NYTimes and WaPost do not actually state things like "GG is only about harassment" either as opinions or as fact. But attempts to use these appropriate are nearly always argued away by some editors. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Masem here, and frankly I'm reading the above and noticing that the statements of several editors are boiling down to "this isn't saying what I want the article to". The same people arguing to systematically remove any source that does not paint this subject as a harassment movement should not be turning around and shouting that a mainstream source saying such is "fringe". It has become increasingly apparent that several editors have made up their minds on what the article should say, and frankly I do feel additional arbitration may be needed. Because as this carries on it does seem we have a valid case for multiple editors trying to enforce ownership of the article, and not making any attempts to hide that their personal feelings on this subject may be affecting their neutrality towards developing an encyclopedic article on the matter.

I really do want to assume good faith here, but I think some of the editors need to look at this thread and ask themselves if the article was instead slamming Gamergate, would you be fighting so fiercely against its inclusion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unusable, due to the WP:FRINGE reasons mentioned above, also well below the threshold of quality for sources that has been argued for elsewhere in the article. Artw (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE cannot apply to the idea of stating other opinions of what the GG movement might be given that there's little actual evidence of what it really is (in contrast to the flat earth theory where piles of evidence exist otherwise), and that the statement that "GG is a harassment movement" is clearly controversial. ("The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." per FRINGE). And per the RFC from early on this article, we are allowed to use less-than-perfect RSes to overcome systematic biases in the media to stay neutral and objective. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely untrue that there is anything controversial in calling GamerGateva harrasment movement since that is how it is consistently described by reliable sources. also is there really an RFC that comes to that conclusion? Show me. Artw (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any such RFC succeeding; and if so, consensus can change. I would definitely assert that there is a clear consensus here against using "less than perfect RSes" like that today. Deliberately using poor-quality sources simply to "balance" a view unequivocally goes against WP:VALID and WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not consistently reported that way in sources; there was an analysis of main highly reliable sources a few months ago here that point out that while there is clearly some connection between harassment and the GG movement, and that universally the way the movement behaves is encouraging that harassment, the most reliable sources do not outright make the claim that GG is a harassment movement. Add in that we have RSes that contend that GG is anything but a harassment movement, and that makes the statement "GG is a harassment movement" contentious, and thus under NPOV should only be treated as a claim and that we should be attempting to document the situation by at least giving other opinions some time too so that the reader can actually understand the situation. And the RFC is here , which I direct to the closer's statement " Here, the key is UNDUE and NPOV, which may mean we have to use some less reliable sources, but all for the benefit of the article in the longer term." --MASEM (t) 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The conclusions of that RFC in no way support your position whatsoever. I'm a bit amazed that you would pass it off as such. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Artw (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your other link fails to convince also. Artw (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'liberal-leaning'? Spiked is a libertarian magazine, and as such both right-wing and generally pretty hardline anti-feminist. I don't feel that this opinion piece is particularly noteworthy, given that, in that it's from a relatively obscure author writing for a relatively obscure, non-mainstream source, saying exactly what we would expect an author there would say about anything that they feel touches on feminism or cultural issues. It's normal for a everyone in politics to say "this current controversy is really about my pet issues" about high-profile topics, but without a higher-quality sources backing it up, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to cover it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Spiked was born from the ashes of a magazine called Living Marxism, and is run by a self proclaimed Marxist. To describe Spiked as liberal leaning isn't entirely untrue. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that Spiked was previously raised at WP:RSN, where it was considered reliable for opinions; but the question of WP:WEIGHT was also raised. Given that this is the Flat Earth article, I would suggest that WP:FRINGE does not apply. On the basis of the number of sources, which are reliable for at least attributed opinions, I would also suggest that it would be WP:UNDUE to exclude these viewpoints entirely. - Ryk72 21:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Another from American Spectator

. Again , a conservative work, and again likely bundled into the same issues above on usability. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that great care would have to be taken with that one. BLP issues abound.— Strongjam (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to refrain from calling sources fringe, but this is a full on conspiracy theory Surrey with the fringe on top. Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is just uncritically regurgitating claims that have been better covered elsewhere, with a really bad analogy and a lot of mistakes. Not worth touching in any way. - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not so much what they are saying, but that they are saying something (this and the Spiked article above, for example, do not appear to be op-eds and there's no cautionary language that I can immediately find on either side to distance the views of these authors from the published work itself. One can argue these works, overall, are op-eds by nature, but they still appear to be editorially controlled) Given that the involvement of the mainstream, more-centralist media is part of the GG situation, the aspect of non-centralist papers commenting on the situation is an important point. It's possible to dismiss that they are just latching onto the general attitudes that the GG side has shown, but it's still a separate view from that of the mainstream. This is why it would make sense to have, at most, one paragraph , or even just a sentence, to describe notable persons and works that have spoken in favor of GG (such as Yannipolis/Brietbart, CH Sommers, Young, and these politically-slanted works). We don't need to go into any great detail of what they say (particularly if it goes into BLP claims), but to flatly ignore that there are several voices opining on the situation from otherwise reliable sources for opinions is not an objective approach here. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with you that it is interesting that these politically-minded sources are, at times, latching onto GamerGate - this is a good example of something that reads as if it was written specifically to appeal to that particular market. But I'm wary of trying to draw any sort of picture from the presence of these articles without a source discussing them. I seem to recall that one of the paper's I'd read had made some mention of the nature of the Yannipolis/Sommers support, so perhaps there was something useful to frame the point there? - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Both Yannipolis and Sommers have stated in their own words they support GG, and both were involved in setting up the DC GG meetup. Cathy Young also appears to support GG per her Reason.com piece (and to note that Sommers, Young, and Singal (who is not) are scheduled to be on a Huffington Post piece tonight as I write this, talking about GG). But as to these articles, and related to AirPlay, is the nature of the media's coverage of GG. It is very very unlikely that the mainstream media is going to point to articles from the political ends that are critical of their coverage of the situation. Ideally either something from a neutral party at the AirPlay event, or a work like CRJ, would probably comment on this fact, but I'm pretty confident we'd be holding out for that. To add, do note that the UPI report on the bomb threat mentions the GG believe about the media bias . (This also relates to the airplay section later). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I did find this Irish Times blog piece that talks about this while searching for some secondary sources on Airplay. I'm not really familiar with the paper, the author, or exactly how they manage their blog pieces though. — Strongjam (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an obligation to tell all sides to this story. It is wrong to ignore these articles. They should be used to balance out the article for a more NPOV. Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the previous at WP:RSN - Every source is reliable for an attributed statement about what it says...; so there are no reliability issues with presenting this type of information as an attributed opinion.
On the questions of WP:DUE; WP:NPOV requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. A number of sources have been provided which reliably verify a range of views on the subject, and it would be improper for the article not to include mention of them. WP:FRINGE does not apply - this is not a matter where there is scientific or academic consensus; and, in any case, this is the Flat Earth article.
Suggest a draft be developed for discussion. - Ryk72 10:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Issues with dealing with coverage of GG from mainstream

Please note that I am not considering this source for including (it is a labeled contribution/op-ed from GamePolitics), but it does bring up points that as editors here we have to be careful of that I have pointed out before many times; this just confirms those points.

describes how reporting on GG brings ire from both sides of the situation (in this case, anti-GG got on Good's case for writing neutrally about GG instead of condemning it) The key point is that in talking to Polygon's Owen Good, Erik Kain, Jesse Singal , and a few others, that they all notes that modern journalism stories mix fact and opinion, compared to old-school journalism where fact was segregated from opinion (they disagree which is the better approach, but all acknowledge this difference). To that end, this points for us as a tertiary source that just because something is said by a reliable source does not make it fact or truth because of the new school of journalism which mixes opinion with fact. That means we should be less hesistent to be using NPOV and not taking RSes sources as facts at their face, but instead where there is any type of contention to make sure it is labeled and attributed as such. This does not mean that all these RSes are unreliable or unusable, but only that if they are making superlative or labeling statements that are contested by others (such as "GG being a harassment campaign", we should be attributing these as opinions. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing a basis for a radical shift away from WP:WEIGHT in this op-ed. Artw (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against WEIGHT; it is still the predominant opinion of mainstream that GG is about harassment and that we have to report appropriately. But the key is to recognize it as opinion and not fact, which amounts to careful wording choices in some parts of this article, not massive editing changes. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact/opinion distinction here is something you have invented for yourself and for anything beyond 1+1=2 is effectively meaningless. Misplaced Pages attempts to construct the best overview of any subject from the opinions of reliable sources, for this article and for others, and has always done so. The WEIGHT guidelines and others others are all based around this and give us a working model of how to do so and this article confirms to that model. I see no reason to make a special case for GamerGate and ignore all that.

Look, you've spend a year now trying to get us to ignore WP:UNDUE so you can paint a rosier picture of GamerGate, so I know you must be familiar with all of this, it's getting rather tiresome having to repeatedly tell you how Misplaced Pages works. Artw (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing against UNDUE. I have said repeatedly that we need to still respect the fact that the predominant coverage of GG is decidedly negative and critical of it, and thus the article will be heavily skewed towards that opinion.

The key point however, is that WP's goal is to provide neutral coverage, and that means recognizing for a controversy and a social situation where there is not necessarily any right answer that we are supposed to be documenting the different points of view without saying which side is correct. And that means that we should not be immediately assuming that just because it is the most common view of mainstream media that their view is 100% correct. This is what NPOV demands. (See WP:NPOV/FAQ - "Rather, to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.") I am not asking for any "special case" as this is ingrained in NPOV to make sure we are documenting the views instead of presuming either side is correct. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand exactly what it is you're specifically arguing for here. In your ideal world what would the article look like? What are the opinions that are stated as fact in the article, and how should they be modified? Brustopher (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very difficult to go into specifics but there are two things broadly that should be done. First, the article must be written on the factual nature that no one knows what GG really is, instead of coming out the door as the article presently does that it is a harassment campaign. While a claim made by many sources, it is also contested by those in the movement as well as the various off-center sources, as well as in sources like the NYTimes and WaPost. It appears as a harassment campaign, but we cannot write the article on that presumption. There has been harassment associated with GG (the history section isn't going anywhere), but we should be treating it factually that we have no idea who is actually engaging in the harassment, though plenty of finger-pointing from the media that it is the movement doing it. This, I should note, does not require major reorganization or rewriting but the appropriate wordsmithing throughout the article.

Second, once its understood that we have a movement that we cannot directly associate with the harssmet, is to make sure that we don't treat their broader claims and activities with resentfulness. (There's only one claim that we have to come out and say has been proven false, and that's the one about Quinn and Grayson that launched the whole thing). The fact we have sections called "Debate about ethics concerns" and "Efforts to impact public perception" is making it look like WP is treating their claims with scorn, which we should not be. As the NPOV/FAQ says, as long as we attribute those claims to the group, this is not WP endorsing those claims. Once we have introduced what the movement is and their claims and what other things they have done, then we can go into the criticism about those claims and the legitimacy of the movement as a whole, which are also valid to include. And it is very likely that this criticism will take more space than the statement of the movements claims, per UNDUE. Doing that is properly documenting of the controversy instead of trying to push one side of it. This would require a reorganization and wordsmithing of information that is already there, but not otherwise changing the existing sources.

This is not the only two changes that would need to be made but they are the broadest two that should be addressed first. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to your first point: the article doesn't start by claiming Gamergate (the group) is a harassment campaign, merely that the controversy surrounding it is "most notable for a harassment campaign." As most of the coverage surrounding Gamergate has focused harassment this is true. Also I don't know of any sources that off-center or not that deny completely GG's association with harassment. There are also sources that specifically note harassing or negative comments on twitter and gamergate forums on reddit and 8chan. It's fair enough to say GG can be associated with harassment in some way or another.

Your second point I find more understandable. We have a lot of sourced that mention certain beliefs and views popular amongst Gamergate supporters, and these views should be given greater inclusion so as to better understand what GG supporters think of themselves as. As for sections titles, what would you suggest as alternatives? Brustopher (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the first point, I personally find that the use of a Misplaced Pages term of art (e.g. notable) in WP:MAINSPACE tends to set off alarm bells, primarily around POV. It may be better for this to be phrased in natural English. - Ryk72 01:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the first point, we have this sentence from the lead "The campaign of harassment was coordinated in IRC channels and online forums such as Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan by an anonymous and amorphous group that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate." Now, I'm not saying this is factually wrong, but it is a very nuanced statement that makes it appear that #gamergate is just about harassment. It sets the tone for the entire rest of the article to say "GG is bad, okay?" And we shouldn't be doing that. There's a better to phrase is to say that on the onset of Gjoni's post, there is documented evidence of coordination of harassment; but coordination of harassment since that point is not shown, it's only perceived by trends that harassment continues. This is the type of language that seems fine if one starts with the thesis "GG is a harassment campaign" but fails to hold up when considering how we should present the sources under NPOV. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the question of section titles. Propose:

Debate over ethics allegations -> Ethics allegations or Ethics concerns - Allegations or concerns is already a hedge word, doubly hedging with "debate over" or "questions of" is POV-sided;

Efforts to impact public perceptions -> remove subsection header; refactor/reorganise Gamergate activities section - The content of this section of the article needs work. That the activities included in this section occurred appears verified by the sources referenced; that they were an attempt to impact public perceptions is an opinion.

W.r.t Brustopher's comment these views should be given greater inclusion so as to better understand what GG supporters think of themselves, I suggest that a clear, concise, non-judgemental, potentially attributed, documenting of the Gamergate movements views of itself would be a distinct, and easily achievable improvement to this article. We can, and should, document what the movement thinks of itself, including what its claims are, without supporting it or those claims. What we have now is either straw men, covered in hedges, or has a screaming case of the WP:HOWEVERs. - Ryk72 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact/opinion distinction is a clearly and unambiguously a core content principle; see WP:5P and WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. With respect, the assertion that Misplaced Pages attempts to construct the best overview from the opinions of reliable sources and other such suggestions that Misplaced Pages should present opinion as fact are patent nonsense, the repetition of which is approaching WP:CIR. - Ryk72 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

okay, let's put it like this: the opinion of any Misplaced Pages editor on what is fact and what is opinion is itself an opinion, and one that can be subject to bias, which is why we lean on the balance of sources to determine what to treat as fact, not individual editors. Artw (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, actually. On Misplaced Pages, that's what consensus is; it's not one editor's opinion, it is what the consensus of editors are, which includes what past policies and guidelines as well as opinions of individual editors. That's why we are supposed to have discussions and !voting and the like. This is our role as a tertiary sources - we have to make such editorial decisions on what are reliable sources, which materials from RSes are appropriate to include, and so on to still write a neutral article that is an appropriate summary of the larger topic. Again, this is outlined in NPOV/FAQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

The consensus is the sources don't support you rewriting the article to support a factually dodgy POV. Artw (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I would suggest that there is a wide consensus, per WP policy & guidelines on WP:NPOV, to support rewriting the article to document the various points of view; regardless of how dodgy they might seem to editors. - Ryk72 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Except there is no consensus of the sources (unlike, say, the established shape of the earth where there is irrefutable evidence towards that). Yes, you have several predominant claims being made (such as GG being a harassment campaign) but these are also contested by other sources as well as the group that the charges are leveled at. As such, they are contentious statements, and per NPOV we don't treat the claims as facts; we don't eliminate those claims but simply attribute them as claims to the major press and don't take a side in the matter. We are required to write this way as a neutral work. It doesn't matter if the counterside is a dodgy POV, because we aren't judging the situation. This is what separates us from just simply mirroring what is said in the media, we actually have to present it in a neutral way, and the way GG has been handled by the press (as indicated by the above link) means that our job is not as straight forward as simply repeating the sources. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be useful, as you say you're actually interested in the topic and not merely trying to score rhetorical points, to take a look at some of the extensive literature on journalism. You're writing as if New Journalism is entirely new to you -- Tom Wolfe’s anthology came out 42 years ago! -- and as if the postmodern turn never happened, and that the turn away from postmodern epistemology also never happened. This gives your argument the appearance of tendentious special pleading -- that we waive NPOV for this article alone because the sources are all bias! bias! bias! -- when in fact you may merely be discovering for the first time that Pulitzer, too, is capable of being problematized. Perhaps I have done you an injustice.

Misplaced Pages's policy is indeed naively reliant on the utility of the accepted consensus of reliable sources, and yes, this is often problematic. This is an encyclopedia, and relies on notions of truth or at least utility that have been doubtful since Diderot and Descarte and untenable for a century. If you'd like to teach postmodernism to your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that).

In the meantime, Misplaced Pages is not going to be "hesitent," as you suggest it should be, to rely upon the consensus view of received sources. Press commentators since Carlyle and Marx have joined you in railing against the bourgeois complacency of this reliance. But if Misplaced Pages were to imagine that the reliable sources are all biased against Gamergate, the Marxists will point out that the reliable sources are demonstrably biased against the proletariat, fundamentalist will observe that the reliable sources are patently biased against Revealed Truth, and off to the races we will go. There’s a huge epistemological literature on the question; again, if you'd like to educate yourself that’s never a bad thing, and if you’d like to educate your fellow editors, the village pump is thataway ⇒ (and good luck with that, too).

Misplaced Pages is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion. That this problematic is certain, but there is no help for it. Of making many books there is no end, a preacher once said. There is no certainty; all is vanity. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing against this statement "Misplaced Pages is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion." (emphasis mine). UNDUE/WEIGHT has to apply. I am not saying because of this new journalism where opinion and facts get mixed without clear bounds that we have to give more excessive weight to other sources. As I stated above, harassment associated with GG is the predominant viewpoint in mainstream, it is impossible to ignore as their stance of what GG is. But this is where I turn back to what you said, that we're looking to summarize the weight of the relevant opinions, and that's the point of the above article - that because of new journalism there are a lot things that are being reported in the words of these journalists in the tone of being fact but that are at their root opinions. And because of that, and that they are contested facts, per NPOV, we take care in ascribing such contentious claims as fact, so that we stay objective and neutral in the face of new journalism. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You mistake me -- or maybe you just seize on my use of "opinion" to score another high school debating point. Who can tell? I can’t. But “received opinion” is, in Misplaced Pages terms, a synonym for "fact": we acknowledge as scientists that all truth is provisional but these facts are what (almost) everyone agrees to be (almost) true. Reflect for a moment from whom (or Whom) we receive these received opinions. Other contested facts include the second law of thermodynamics, the reality of evolution, the historicity of the Holocaust, the meaning of My Little Pony . . . MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. Opinion is opinion on WP, we don't dance around terms like that, and we take very careful steps to avoid having opinion reported as fact per NPOV least we break neutrality and objectivity. The methods of new journalism make it that we as a neutral source are not required to take what an RS says as fact at its face if it is clear that the statement is considered contentious by others. No one has a right answer for many of the open questions on GG, which is the usually case for any social controversy (like Occupy Wall Street, for example). It is opinions battling opinions. This is how we're supposed to report any controversy as long as it remains a controversy (which GG is, there's no evidence of it having ended), and particularly when the media itself is part of it, we need to be even more careful in how we tread. It doesn't make the mainstream sources any less important than they are, just that we cannot a priori assume they are reporting all facts just because the article lacks the "op-ed" byline. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I will disagree with the statement Misplaced Pages is what it is: a digest of the reliable sources’ account of received opinion, in the sense that it appears to be intended above. We document opinions as opinions, we don't simply repeat them because they are popular; there is no follow the sources policy or guideline.

I also suggest that it is a palpable false equivalence to suggest that matters about which there is scientific consensus (second law of thermodynamics, theory of evolution) or significant historical record & academic consensus (historicity of the Holocaust), are the equivalent to matters where we have only the utterings of a series of internet pundits each pushing their own agenda.

Opinions are like Nelsons, everybody's got ones. - Ryk72 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK: you're not really interested in journalism or epistemology, I guess. If you believe that the New Journalism means that reliable sources need not be treated as reliable sources, you believe that Misplaced Pages policy is, and always has, contradicted itself and is meaningless. That seems a good summary of this argument you persistently make, and which has in all the many thousands of repetitions acquired no support anywhere. And a pony. 18:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources does not mean they are 100% accuracy or correct. It means they have fact checking to the best of their ability, but because of new journalism, in the presentation of the material can still be opinionated and skew facts or present opinions without support.

This goes back to a discussion about reviewing the sources from a few months ago. If you carefully read the most reliable sources , like the New York Times or Wa Post, they do not directly state some of the claims that others have made without carefully wording it as an opinion or an observation but not as fact. Less reliable sources (particularly when we get into the gaming media) are less prone to this meticulous checking, and hence they made claims as fact that we have to be careful about. Are they bad sources because of this? No, just that we have to recognize these should be stated as opinions and not as facts as NPOV directly outlines. This is particularly true that this is a social issue, there is no right answer here. There's predominant opinions, but that's it. Document the controversy, not become part of it by blindly accepting one side where there is clear contention from the other side(s) of the situation.

Also, you are now personally attacking me again, please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, I read through, and tried to make sense of the above, but, in faith, could not. Researching New Journalism and Advocacy journalism, and the long storied discussion of these in journalism & academic circles, I can't reach any conclusion other than that you're suggesting that actually, it's about ethics in journalism; but I'm not sure if that's an accurate reflection.

I'm certainly not seeing anything that indicates that we should present opinions as facts, in contravention of WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV, which seems to be the central point of Masem's concerns. - Ryk72 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Masemt, I'm not attacking you. I've been trying to decipher your apparent discovery of modernist and postmodern thought, but that seems to have been a misunderstanding based n your chance use of terminology that, on other circles, has meaning. Here, apparently, it doesn't. My mistake; I'll try not to make that one again. RYK: if you're seriously interested in these questions, start with Eagleton, After Theory. Wolfe himself is always worthwhile as well. Have fun. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, Firstly, I thank you for the Eagleton recommendation; I have looked over some reviews of the work, and it looks most interesting and enlightening. I look forward to reading it.

Thinking through the questions on New Journalism, and the problems inherent with basing our articles on mixtures of fact and opinion, I am not sure that a deeper dive into the questions of modernism, post-modernism & post-post-modernism here necessarily adds to the article. I do consider WP's policies and guidelines to essentially cover this already - they require that we treat the portions that are fact as fact, and the portions that are opinion as opinion. - Ryk72 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Something to point out in light of what Masem is trying to get at, consider this from today, which bases the notion that this particular shooter was 'a Gamergate supporter' when anyone with half a lick of sense would check out the steam account mentioned and quickly realize this was entirely made up. Now consider the fact that this entire piece was based of one individual's statement, and that even if he hadn't been blatantly trolling them it would've still been taken in by these journalists. That's where citing these sources as fact and not opinions starts becoming a problem. There are several lines that take the word of one individual and state it as a fact, when in reality it's their opinion and their recollection of the events related to Gamergate. While it's not our place to try and figure out if Quinn, Gjoni, Wu, Totilo, Bain, etc are telling the truth, we should stick to "according to so-and-so", than to present their statements as without a doubt facts. I don't really care where your opinion lies on this matter, that's just good common sense editing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Williams played online video games with the group known as Gamergate… I don't even know what to say. GamerPro64 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many, many sources have reported on Quinn, Wu, and other gamergate victims. Each has found their claims entirely credible; I believe in fact that not a single major report in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Boston Magazine, have cast any doubt whatsoever on their claims. Yet, for some reason, this Gamergate talking point gets trotted out regularly on Misplaced Pages. Why would that be? Hmm.... I can't seem to put a finger on it. Anyone? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil. Being sarcastic and rude is not going to get us anywhere here. The point still stands that many things reported in this article are from personal accounts and we need to take that into consideration. Nobody's assuming any individual here is presenting a falsehood, but we shouldn't take it as absolute fact either. If there's a media consensus towards what this event is, we should be presenting that, and frankly I think that alone would smooth other a great many criticisms against this article because in its current form it is dictating what something is based off those accounts rather than summarizing the media's reaction towards the matter. And with this many individuals involved from all over, statements should be attributed to the person making them, not some assumption that because a website rallied behind the point it's an absolute.

Hell I've written enough character articles on wikipedia to know that over time consensus can change, or even never have existed at all and only been assumed. If you see that as a slight against you or against the individuals in this article as you indicated with your retort, I don't know what to tell you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do need to be aware that the press does elevate the claims of victims when the victims are sympathetic towards the readership and/or those attacking the victim are not. (GG hits both sides here). The recent mess with Rolling Stone is evidence that sometimes bad reporting happens when such aspects come into play. This is part of the overall caution that we have to be aware of in new journalism. That said, in this situation, we have all three stating they have received harassment themselves (as opposed to someone else speaking for them). Per BLP policy we must assume this is true (they have received harassment) until clear evidence is made by the reliable sources against this. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So what's the point here? First you say we should keep the Rolling Stone case in mind, then you say this is nothing like the Rolling Stone case? The issue here is that we do not to my knowledge have single sources (not even one)that completely denies Gamergate's role in harassment. From my reading of the sources, the writers who've written the most sympathetic RS pieces towards Gamergate (Bokhari, Young and Auerbach), have all acknowledged harassment associated with Gamergate. From Bokhari: "There has been an awful lot of hate on both sides of this divide." From Young: "While the gamers' revolt has very legitimate issues, is (sic.) also true that it has been linked to some very ugly misogynist harassment of feminists." From Auerbach: "It is imperative to stop Gamergate because it’s currently a troll’s paradise, providing cover for a whole host of bad actors, whether they’re pro-Gamergate, anti-Gamergate, or simply wantonly malicious." Even the voices most sympathetic towards Gamergate amongst RS writers note the harassment done under its name. Unless we plan to go full solipsism, there is no reason not to state that supporters of Gamergate have harassed people as a fact. Brustopher (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it becomes a weird thing there with the stated extent: more than a few voices in this article present it as all consuming, while others acknowledge it's presence but a difficulty to attribute it exactly to members of the tag. I think that's where attribution of statements could help a great deal here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific point that I was commenting on is that a few of the more recent sources I located over the last week from right-wing papers beg the question if the claims of harassment by Quinn et al were faked, which I know is also a common theme at GG forums. Because Quinn et al all have self-reported that they have been harassed, but do not specifically name names outside of saying it is related to GG, then per BLP we really cannot even consider this stance in putting in doubts about the harassment as Mark outlined, unless we get a boatload of reliable sources that affirm otherwise. The larger point (mostly separate from this) those is to remember that in this new journalism, the goal of journalists is to draw eyeballs to their stories by writing for the benefit of their readership, and not necessary write neutrality. The most reliable sources like NYTimes, BBC, and WaPost, still maintain some of the old-school journalistic acts by keeping close to neutral, but when you start going off those marks, it is very easy to find sloppy reporting that favors victims like the Rolling Stone thing. As a tertiary source, we have to be fully aware of that when pulling information from these types of sources that they may be slanted. The GG situation provides a case where that slant is potentially large, due to the nature of the victims (female professionals), the fact this is over video games, and that the harassers appear to be 4chan-related young males with misogynist attitudes; it is not helped by the fact that journalistic integrity issues are part of the complaints here. It is very easy for new journalism to slip into non-neutral coverage of this type of story. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have stating that the current sources are opinions or non-neutral or sloppy or slanted? Woodroar (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The one linked at the start of this, for example. But obviously you're not going to find journalists reporting on their own issues. We have to use common sense here as a tertiary source, and all this relates to is understanding when to label statements made by the press as claims rather than facts, not for insert things they or other RSes haven't reported on. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece on a questionable site and your own original research that reporting on GamerGate just has to be biased and so we should treat it all as opinion? I'll ask it again: what reliable sources do you have stating that the current sources are opinions or non-neutral or sloppy or slanted? Woodroar (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, we have every right to consider what sources are reliable (per WP:V and WP:NOR) and when they are speaking opinion or fact (per WP:NPV). We can't change what they say but we can write what they say as claims if the statements are considered contentious, which is the case with most of the situation with GG as stated by journalists involved with GG reporting in that article and from the Society of Professional Journalism. We don't require RSes to evaluate RSes as that is all BG material. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in NPOV that says we get to downgrade facts to opinions whenever we like. In fact, it says specifically that we need to report opinions as opinions and facts as facts. The bulk of our sources consist of factual journalism, and treating them as op-ed pieces is a rather serious misrepresentation. Woodroar (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV requires that we treat contentious assertions as opinions and attribute them; and, consequently, we must do so. W.r.t the categorisation of the sources currently used, with respect, the assertion that they consist (solely) of factual journalism is not supported by an examination of those sources - the vast majority clearly consist of opinion or of a mixture of fact and opinion. This is true even for those sources which are from publishers which we would consider reliable for factual information, and even for those sources which are not clearly identified as opinion pieces. This is quite a normal occurrence; normal enough to have been mentioned in our policies & guidelines on NPOV & Verifiability. - Ryk72 22:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are all these opinions? I just checked the first column of sources in the article and there were zero opinion articles. Should I check the rest? Because it's not up to us to say "yeah, that's a fact; no, that's an opinion". If a reliable source publishes a piece as factual journalism, whether it's a current event or an overview, we have to trust them. (To do otherwise is original research.) And this isn't a "conflicting assertions" situation, it's not 50/50 or even 75/25. Virtually all reliable sources agree on the facts. Calling them anything other than facts is misrepresenting the sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is very exacting to this. If a RS makes a contentious claim, even if they word it as an apparent fact, we are supposed to report it as a claim. That does not "misrepresent" the source in any way, since we are saying "Source X claims this happens". This is documented more at WP:NPOV/FAQ particularly under "Writing for the opposition". Misplaced Pages does less harm by treating contentious statements as claims rather than facts. And no, just because the predominant opinion may be near universal among RSes, for a controversy like GG is, we are also supposed to document the more significant minority viewpoints too, which in this case is what GG have stated. It doesn't matter if they are 5% to 95%, we are still required to document the controversy (the only thing that ratio will impact is the amount of content we give towards the proGG per UNDUE) We as a group have to put aside any contempt we might have towards GG to write neutrally about it, understand how the sources have approached the subject, and how we document the situation without judgement. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that (it appears) you're suggesting we approach this article from the position that all claims are inherently contentious. The narrative or timeline or what-have-you of GamerGate is consistent among reliable sources, outside of a very few. I think we do a fine job of including those conflicting sources–as we do with the few sourced perspectives of GamerGate supporters–but the areas where sources contradict are minimal. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall any reliable sources claiming that harassment hasn't happened, or misogyny doesn't exist, or gamer identity isn't changing. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it really sounds like you're saying that "because of New Journalism" all sources are somehow tainted. As far as policy goes, WP:IRS doesn't warn us not to use sources after 1960. (And outside policy, this is neither the time nor place for a deconstruction of New Journalism, but the backlash against it was, in short, "well duh, objectivity in journalism is impossible and it's always been that way, this isn't new". For this exact reason, Society of Professional Journalists doesn't even include "objective" or "objectivity" in their ethics code anymore.) I agree that we shouldn't say that "GamerGate is the literal devil", but treating all sources as opinions does actually dilute what those sources state as facts. But here's where I AGF and allow that, perhaps, you didn't mean that we should do this throughout the article, but only where sources are in conflict with each other. Maybe you could provide some examples of what you're suggesting? Woodroar (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar, For questions of WP:NPOV & "objectivity", there is no suggestion made that sources are tainted or otherwise unusable, only that contentious assertions should be attributed; please see WP:NPOV/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity for a good explanation of these aspects.

I'm also seeing a couple of lines of thought that might be underpinning the perceived issues w.r.t this aspect of WP:NPOV...

1. Granularity of "fact" vs "opinion" is at the publisher or source level - This is essentially the "New Journalism" discussion above & below, so I will not repeat it overly; suffice to say that sources may contain a mix of fact and opinion, the granularity of which is at the level of the assertion.
2. Conflation of "reliable sources for facts" with "validity of opinion" - This is (imho) a considerable problem, and is evidenced by discussions of sources being reliable or not reliable for opinions of their authors. That we consider the NYT or WaPo a reliable source for facts does not mean that we consider the opinions of their writers to be also fact. That we do not consider other publications to not be reliable for facts does not mean that we consider the opinions of their writers to be invalid or false.

W.r.t the assertion that the narrative ... of GamerGate is consistent among reliable sources, this is simply not supported by an analysis of those sources; see previous Talk page discussion of such an analysis by Rhoark. - Ryk72 23:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, failure of or course granularity in separation of concerns is a perennial problem with peoples' applications of WP policy. On this page and everywhere. Rhoark (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that the common English idiom, "beg the question," means what Masem thinks it means. But of course I might be mistaken. Who can tell? And so who can possibly respond? (I will henceforth refer to this editor as M______ as he persists in using my first name as if we were great pals.)

I also notice that "right wing papers" -- we're talking Breitbart and John Birch right wing, I expect, or maybe the Stormfront right wing, because let’s face it if we were talking merely right-wing like the Le Figaro or the Chicago Tribune we’d be pretending they were centrist -- are now being propped up as a coequal weight with Reliable Sources. And once again we're talking about how the nasty liberal press is all bias, naming specific publications but without the least indication of what ethical lapses M_____ dreams they committed. And we have another accusation that named individuals committed the crime of filing a false police report, based apparently on M___’s original research into unnamed right-wing tabloids.

Whether it’s “easy” or not for the new journalism to slip into non-neutral coverage of “this type of story” is a fascinating question. Since the new journalism ended a quarter of a century ago, we shall never know the answer. I myself think that Hunter S. Thompson -- who is dead -- would prefer to slip into something more comfortable than this type of story. But perhaps M_____ is alluding to the contingent construction of meaning, or maybe he thinks "new journalism" is contemporary. It’s impossible to tell from the text, and he’s not answering the question.

Presently, this note and my notes upstream will again be featured in satirical posts on Gamergate boards, written by a Gamergater whose screen name commemorated the sweet, sweet music made by Nazi dive bombers as they strafed civilian socialists at Guernica. That, too, is intended to send a message; I wonder if M_______ and the admins have noticed that, and if they have, which admins endorse it and which admins simply wash their hands of it.

I’m waiting for the admins -- or someone -- to (a) redact the BLP violations above, (b) do something about this continual attack on Misplaced Pages editors, on-wiki and off, and (c) stop this interminable crusade to throw wikipedia out the window because bias. But, apparently, it's a lot easier to look the other way, isn’t it, and to deliver pious platitudes about assuming good faith despite a track record extending for an entire year and far more than a million words of calculated misogynist bile. As the fellow says, Have a great day! MarkBernstein (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is a personal attack. Do not comment on the contributor, comment on the content, period. You're also not assuming any good faith towards that other editor just based on their username.

We have clear sources that put forth the fact that journalists admit that the GG situation is being reported with a mix of fact and opinion, if this was not already obvious from how the story is covered, as long as you are looking for documenting the controversy and not trying to have WP take a side. Once again, it is not a violation of BLPTALK to talk about what other sources have said in context of improving the article. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It assuredly is a violation of WP:BLPTALK (and common decency, at long last) to insinuate that a named, living individual has committed crimes (and sexual indiscretions) on the basis of what an editors thinks he saw in some unnamed "right wing" papers or other sources that he openly admits are unreliable, unverifiable, and unusable and which are explicitly contradicted by a host of superb sources. And again, there is no personal attack: the attack is on the the incoherence and incomprehensibility of what has been written here. No one who has studied journalism, even superficially, would now claim that any subject, from the Gettysburg Campaign to the sexual overtones of My Little Pony, has been or can be covered without a mixture of fact and opinion; Gamergate in this respect differs not a whit from everything else in the encyclopedia. This is an observation I made many posts above in very plain English and to which you, characteristically, do not respond, choosing instead (to the extent any reader can discern just what these comments intend to express) simply to repeat the error in support of revisions that cannot be accepted. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

BLPTALK says it is acceptable to include claims made by other RS sources (which regardless of the fact they are right-wing papers are still RSes) to consider for inclusion or discuss as necessary. I certainly did not make the claim on my own, nor do I believe that claim, and side with you in keeping that claim out of the article. But it's not a BLPTALK violation to discuss those RS claims. And on your point of new journalism not only is there the above article, there is from 2009, from 2011, in 2010, 2013, and that's just the first page of google hits. New journalism or opinion journalism clearly exists and is in use today, and can be clearly seen in the coverage of GG. And it is a personal attack to try to discredit an editor by point out things like "sexual overtones of MLP" (which I know I had to include in the fandom article because it was covered by RSes). You're not supposed to talk or imply anything about editors, period, on talk pages of mainspace articles. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Understanding historical concepts and literary schools is not simply a matter of looking up the first page of Google hits. The New Journalism was influential. So was the New Criticism, which predates it for a half century. Opinion journalism, on the other hand, predates the New Journalism by several centuries; it's not the droid you're looking for, even if some other people abuse the term. An expert Wikipedian might be leery of relying on Misplaced Pages for such abstruse literary history, but here it is from Misplaced Pages’s lede: "The phenomenon of New Journalism is generally considered to have ended by the early 1980s". That, friends, is thirty years ago: Like A Virgin and One More Night were top of the charts, Amadeus was best picture, the Apple Macintosh had been on sale for several months, and Mike Trout would be born only six years later.

If M_____ has written anything about sex and My Little Pony, that’s news to me; like The Gettysburg Campaign, it was a shot at venture. (I can't believe I'm writing about writing about sex and My Little Pony; the Baudrillard Singularity Of The Meta must be imminent.) If M_____ has reliable right-wing sources for his insinuations about Zoe Quinn’s sex life and purported crimes, he might have identified them at once, and surely would have identified them after my previous speculation that they were either from the Breitbart fringe or the Storefront fringe. And it's convenient to constantly cry about personal attacks when you've got your very own platform in the wings constantly attacking your fellow editors, run by that charming fellow whose name commemorates the sweet, sweet music of Nazi dive bombers as they gunned down fleeing socialists, and about which M___ has, apparently, been too busy writing about his little pony to denounce. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Stick a fork in this thread; it's done. We are not going to relax Misplaced Pages's hard-and-fast policy on WP:NPOV simply because GG is not being portrayed here fairly, as determined by Masem. Binksternet (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, Many thanks for your thoughts. With respect, I suggest that the shoe would appear to be, at least in part, on the other foot; or perhaps there are two shoes. A number of editors have asserted, above and elsewhere, that we should relax WP's hard-and-fast policy on WP:NPOV by documenting opinions and/or contentious statements as facts. Such assertions clearly do not align with WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV. - Ryk72 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC) updated - Ryk72 00:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Have they really asserted that? Because that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike any of the statements I've read above. Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woodroar Yes. That's essentially been the line pushed on multiple occasions.

1. Equate reliability for facts with reliability for attributed opinions. (NB: This is not supported by policy, or consensus practice at WP:RSN);
2. Assert that all "reliable sources" present the same opinion. (NB: This has been demonstrated to be false per analysis by Rhoark et al);
3. Assert that we should "follow the sources", "report the consensus of reliable sources", or similiar. (NB: This is not supported by policy - there is no "Follow the sources" policy);1, 2
4. Assert that because those sources present the same opinion, and that those publishers are considered reliable for fact, that those opinions are fact. (NB: This is not supported by policy, and directly contradicts WP:NPOV. This is also logically invalid, the conclusion does not follow from the premise);1
5. For sources which present alternate opinions, assert that those sources are WP:FRINGE because they do not agree with the "facts". (See above; including discussion of Spiked above).1, 2, 3, 4

I think we need to agree that the standards for reliably verifying opinion are manifestly different from those for reliably verifying fact; I think we need to agree that we document opinions as opinions, and only clear uncontroversial fact as fact; I think we need to agree that we should be documenting the range of opinions, attributed, rather than a purported consensus of them - this is the Flat Earth article. - Ryk72 13:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have done you the courtesy of again reading the above statements from Artw, Brustopher, MarkBernstein, and myself, and they do not appear to say what you claim they say. (Perhaps me fail english, but that is literally unpossible.) I noticed that you made similar claims at AE, even after editors pointed out your misunderstanding. At this time, I must politely request that you read the thread again and ask clarifying questions if necessary. I briefly quested after Rhoark's Mystical Codex of Evidence +5 but my ctrl-F has failed—perhaps the section is hatted?—so kindly stop pinging me unless you have reliable sources or something new to bring here. Woodroar (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for your courtesy. I fear there may have been a misunderstanding. I do not suggest that each of the points outlined above is included explicitly in the section above, far less transparently so. I do suggest that the discussion above is the direct result of such; by "multiple occasions", above, I am suggesting that it is necessary to look outside this thread. I have included a link to the analysis of sources, and some other diffs from this and other recent discussions, and will attempt to find links to examples of the other points. I do note that the thread containing the analysis did not formally close, and consider that discussion here might be improved if discussions were closed. Per your request, I am not pinging you. - Ryk72 20:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it.

First, Rhoark's list is a non-starter:

If Gamergate controversy‎ were based on the quoted selections from those 31 sources and only those quoted selections, then yes, the article would likely be drastically different. But that would ignore (a) that several of those sources are unreliable and/or opinion pieces, (b) other quotes from those articles provide necessary context, (c) the 200+ other sources already in the article, and (d) the many reliable sources that aren't currently in the article (or were removed) because of redundancy. When we consider WP:WEIGHT (and similar policies regarding balance of sources), we must look at the entirety of reliable sources, not selected quotations from selected sources.

Furthermore, if there had been consensus to change the article based on Rhoark's list, then we would have done so. All of the above issues were pointed out in that discussion, which is why the suggested changes were not made.

Second, I still feel like the statements of Artw, Brustopher, and MarkBernstein in the links above were misunderstood. I am reluctant to put words in their mouths, but I'll attempt a general summary with a small amount of analogy (and I won't be offended if they come along to correct me). I hope you'll agree when I say that there are an almost endless number of facts, but of course those facts must necessarily be narrowed down to work with them. An investigative journalist can't report literally every single witness report or their column would run to hundreds of pages of primary documents. This is true of anyone summarizing vast amounts of documents or data, historians and analysts and so on. This process is necessarily subjective: how to include/exclude and/or rank/weigh documents, consider correlation and confounding factors, etc. We're all fallible, but we have processes to account for that, like peer-review and editors/fact-checkers. Ultimately, we trust the people and organizations that rigorously adhere to these processes because they're right more than they're wrong. They have, to use our words, "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So when MarkBernstein (for example) talks about "received opinion", he isn't talking about some "Letters to the Editor"-quality op-eds. He's saying that sources like the New York Times have considered all of the facts at hand and reported what they believe to be an accurate summary of events. This is subjective by nature and necessity, but the same is true of literally every summary in every field. Their "received opinion" is the same as a fact, and distinct from an op-ed.

To make a long story short (too late), these editors aren't suggesting that we report opinion as fact. On the contrary, they are suggesting that we shouldn't look at, say, some piece of factual journalism from the New York Times and cherry-pick the facts we dislike, considering them mere opinions because it suits our purposes. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought long about the above. I'm sure I must be missing something here, because, with respect, I'm not sure how to respond to the thought that editors are not saying "opinions are facts", because, essentially, "opinions are facts".
Are editors supporting an assertion that Misplaced Pages should only present received opinion able to provide policy based support for this assertion?
It would seem to fly in the face of WP:NPOV - All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
We have ample sources which verify that there are a range of views on this controversy; the name, controversy itself implies as much. We have a non-negotiable policy which states that we should document those viewpoints. - Ryk72 09:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we're talking about separate things here.

The editors are saying that our article should be based on facts as found in reliable sources, with minimal use of opinion, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. They see this notion of "sources are a mixture of fact and opinion" as a ploy to selectively remove facts that one doesn't like, which undermines our sourcing policies. The archived Talk pages are filled with (to paraphrase) "the source says X but it doesn't say how or why so it's opinion" and "the source didn't go into Y so it's opinion". But we don't get decide that a source's analysis is opinion simply because we don't like it, because our own OR says that it's not true. And then there are actual opinion pieces, like the one linked at the top of this section, that should be used sparingly (if at all) because they typically don't go through the normal editorial fact-checking process. They certainly shouldn't guide the article because they are, after all, opinion pieces.

And then there's our summary of the "sides" as you mentioned. We call this article a "controversy" because that's how reliable sources consider it. Reliable sources also talk about a "climate change debate", because there is a debate of sorts in that there are "sides", but it's not really a debate. Now I can't speak for everyone here, but I agree that there are a range of views and that we should document them, but we have to draw from reliable sources and not opinion pieces. And we can't pretend that there is anything resembling equality in how reliable sources report on GamerGate. Woodroar (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hugos UNDUE and NPOV

Could someone fix that paragraph? Leaving the result out (a repudiation of the GG/SP/RP position) has a problem with NPOV. That last sentence is particularly bad. I would, but I'm crazy busy right now. and additional RS:

• http://national.deseretnews.com/article/5663/Sci-fi-fans-vote-for-diversity-at-2015-Hugo-Awards.html

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Done: . (I didn't see any NPOV or UNDUE problem, but it wasn't hard to add a sentence, and it does complete the story, so I did it.) Gronky (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gronky: Is that blogspot with the voting numbers an official one? Maybe we can find a more mainstream source? — Strongjam (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeh, just found them here:

I've added it now:

I think I'm done now for this burst of editing. Gronky (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the Rabid Puppies slate, led by Vox Day, is Gamergate affliated has WP:BLP issues unless it sourced to a statement by Day himself; especially as the Sad Puppies slates predate GG. Suggest this should be removed, or that the association be attributed. Suggest rephrasing the section to remove "GG affliated" from this sentence, and add a follow up to say that the Hugo Awards slates & Gamergate were seen as related by (named persons). - Ryk72 22:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I didn't notice anything relevant in my recent skimming of articles on this topic, but a glance at google new says that people do associate these two things:

• https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=hugo+awards+gamergate

"were seen as related by XYZ" is one way to note this connection. Or maybe the're just "similar" rather than "related". Gronky (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's covered here: "After failing to move the needle the first year, Sad Puppies organized around another slate of candidates and garnered an additional 70 or so votes last year to edge a few of their chosen authors onto the ballot. The overall voting membership wasn’t impressed with these choices, and awarded other work in every category. But this year, Sad Puppies, buoyed by Beale’s more extreme, Gamergate-affiliated campaign Rabid Puppies, managed to secure the extra votes needed to dominate the nominations." More specifically, this is what the article currently describes as "a Gamergate-affiliated splinter group led by Vox Day" (Vox Day being Beale.) I'm not sure where you're getting the argument that this has to be sourced to Beale himself; no such requirement exists. It simply has to be sourced to a reliable source, which it is. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, With respect, I do not concur that this passing mention, which appears to be opinion, is sufficient to include this as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, especially with BLP implications. I would be comfortable with attributed opinion. Alternately, it might be raised at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. - Ryk72 12:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Not sure I see the BLP implications, Day is pretty open about his support of Gamergate. If we really must we could cite SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Day. He dedicates the book to Gamergate. — Strongjam (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Firstly, apologies for the delayed response. While I agree that Vox Day appears to be supportive of Gamergate (per here), I think it would be WP:SYNTH for us to use that to write that the Rabid Puppies ticket is Gamergate-affiliated, in Misplaced Pages's voice. Of the 4 sources that we have for this section - one does not mention Gamergate at all1; one mentions it only in passing, as an example of another "front" in a wider culture war2 (I think this angle is worth exploring); another is likely not from an independent source3; and the last mis-affliates Gamergate with the "Sad Puppies" slate, seemingly on the basis of tweets by an interested party4.
Do some sections of the Gamergate movement & supporters of the Sad Puppies & Rabid Puppies slates share common goals? I would say "absolutely", and I think we would easily find sources that would support inclusion of the same viewpoint. But that does not mean that they are "affliated", which implies a close association, which I do not believe that we have sources to state as fact. - Ryk72 10:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Ah, I thought your concern was just BLP with connecting Day to Gamergate. I wouldn't use that ref as a way to connect GG to the Puppies as that's definitely synth as you say. There is definitely enough in the sources to say that they are related in someway. Although the whole paragraph as it is right now is much more than we need. — Strongjam (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Many thanks for your response. I do think that we have a BLP issue w.r.t connecting Day to Gamergate - in so far as it's a contentious assertion that's currently not well sourced. But I also concur that it should be easy to resolve.
ON the connection between Gamergate & the various Puppies, I would agree with you if we were to phrase as "There is definitely enough in the sources to say that they are seen as related in someway". It's (potentially?) a small difference, but I think it gets us closer aligned to what's verifiable.
I also agree that a whole paragraph is more than is required. My personal suggestion would be to include it in an expanded, explained, "culture war" section; I see the sources here making the Gamergate/Puppies connection in that context. Thoughts? - Ryk72 11:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I am not sure how connecting Vox Day to gamergate is contentious? See, e.g., , a (quite lengthy) video interview he gives on the subject of gamergate, wherein he describes himself as involved and gives a long disquisition on the motives and goals he sees for the movement. It would seem to me the subject himself sees himself as somehow 'connected' to gamergate. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, I think connecting any living person with a controversy that has raged from more than a year is a contentious assertion, and, per BLP, one that should be well sourced in the article. The issue is that it's not currently well sourced in the article. As above, it should be easy; if we have verifying sources, we should cite them.
The second issue is that the sources that do seem to verify a connection (I trust in good faith that this includes the YouTube interview above), verify only personal support, not a link or affiliation between Gamergate and the Puppies campaigns. - Ryk72 20:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I agree that there is an issue linking the 'puppies' with gamergate. But I still think, given his own self-declarations, linking Vox Day is totally non-contentious. What better indication of this could there be than his statements that he is 'involved' and supports gamergate? I am certainly mindful of the issues with primary sources, but when it comes to someone's subjective feelings and experiences, there is no better source. I guess my question boils down to this: what more is there to a gamergate 'link' than saying, in essence, "I'm on board?" Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the "Third Party Trolls" part in the article

Any particular reasoning for removing Allum Bokhari's comment on saying that third party trolls were provoking both sides? (DIFF) Doesn't come off as some kind of "paranoia" here. He says that there is third party trolls are provoking people, not claiming. Seems rather fair to have it in the article. GamerPro64 02:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Having been the target of a thoroughly inaccurate article by Allum Bokhari, I'm surprised we're considering using him as a source at all in any article. Gamaliel (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean, if it was worthwhile to be quoted on the BBC that can mean something. It's not like we're using his actual works here. Just something he said himself. GamerPro64 02:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A fair point, I would just caution using him as a source of any factual information, even if quoted by a more reputable news source. Editors here can hash out if and how to use a particular source, I was just expressing surprise at seeing his name here, that's all. Gamaliel (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While I have no objection to the inclusion of this bit, I'm not sure it really adds much. After all, it seems to me "there were third-party trolls" is functionally the same as saying "it was on the internet." As such, I would support removal simply to be parsimonious. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, With respect, I am not sure that these are functionally the same. The third party (as opposed to a pro-GG or anti-GG) aspect appears to be the important distinction being made by these sources. - Ryk72 03:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I stand by my belief that the article is better off without this bit simply for Strunk and/or White's wonderfully tautological exhortation to "omit needless words." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, I maintain that a distinction is made in the sources, and that it is not appropriate to remove it for "verbosity reasons". Additional response below. - Ryk72 11:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The use of sources authored by Allum Bokhari was previously discussed on this Talk page here. I made the point then, by which I now stand, that while it is entirely appropriate & natural for editors to feel personally aggrieved where they feel slighted by the press, it is not appropriate that such be a basis for exclusion of sources by that author from the Article. - Ryk72 02:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not suggest such a thing, so I hope you are not implying that I am. I merely noted his factual inaccuracy while also clearly disclosing my COI. Gamaliel (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not make such an implication. - Ryk72 11:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in the section directly above yours, I'm making an effort to remove parts of the GGC that, looking back, haven't been noteworthy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the claim of third-party trolls is not noteworthy. Its can be seen as something to consider. I mean there are a lot of perspectives seen on the whole thing. Why not one more? GamerPro64 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

'It exists' is not a compelling argument for inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64, I understand your point, but as I've said above, the generalized idea that "there might be third-party trolls online" more or less goes without saying. Without something more, I think simple economy dictates leaving it out. But, as I like to say, I am often wrong. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I just think its good that we're talking about this before throwing caution to the wind and outright removing things from the article. GamerPro64 03:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Be bold, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course. But with an article as controversial as this, you have to still be careful what you take out. GamerPro64 03:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dumuzid, The generalized idea that "there might be third-party trolls online" may more or less go without saying; but the content removed is the specific idea that a portion of the harassment may have been perpetrated by persons disinterested in the underlying controversy (difference of views). I do not concur that this is an idea that will be obvious to readers, just because it happened on the Internet. - Ryk72 11:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While on a personal level I have to agree with everything Dumuzid said regarding the third party trolls narrative, this doesn't change the fact that it was covered by reputable news sources such as the Washington Post and the BBC making my opinions for the most part irrelevant. Definitely notable enough to warrant a place in the article.Brustopher (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Was it covered in those sources? Sure. Was/is it notable? Eeeeh, not really. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." There's enough coverage of it by reputable mainstream sources for it not to be undue to include these claims. Brustopher (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't link nor refer to that policy. I'm talking notable in terms of 'is it really important enough to include in the article?' to which the answer is no. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterTheFourth, With respect, a number of editors here assert that it is important enough to include. - Ryk72 11:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ryk72. I don't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: to me, the specific notability language you've quoted here supports my point of view; that is though this particular small facet of the article was covered in RS, it does not merit inclusion in the article (at least in my opinion). Notability controls whether there is an article on a given topic, but not all notable information on a topic needs to be included in an article. Obviously Ryk72 disagrees with me, but I state again that in my humblest of opinions, this is just too speculative and generic to be of use. If someone said "third-party trolls from Freedonia are interfering," or "third-party trolls interested in radical photosynthesis are harassing people," then we'd have a real addition. As it is, I think we gain more from streamlining in this case than inclusion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's also important to note just how tenacious this is. The quote in question is an article mentioning an opinion by Bokhari. Is Bokhari so important that one offhand reference to his opinion in a larger article is worth pulling out and highlighting? I don't see how it is. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, I am not sure exactly what you mean by how tenancious. I do note from some of the comments below that it may not be clear that my concern is not primarily for the removal of the quote by Bokhari, but for the subsequent removal of the mention of Internet trolls at all. I hope that this makes my position clearer, and more understandable. - Ryk72 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Good practice for an informative article is to be clear and upfront with the most basic facts of who, what, when, where, why, and how. Now I think we're all in agreement the most important "what" of the article is harassment. It should also be apparent then that the associated "who" (third party trolls) is also very important information for the article's readers. Rhoark (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's important to be cautious about what exactly we're discussing here; no sources we can use for statements of fact have said anything about "third party trolls." Even Bokhari isn't asserting that. The issue is whether it's worth highlighting Bokhari's personal opinion that there is a (vague, unspecified) group of well-known trolls working to stir up 'both sides.' (Note that he does not assert that the trolls are third-party or uninvolved, merely that they're manipulating both 'sides'. Implying that this means that eg. the trolls aren't part of Gamergate, or even the people behind Gamergate who are trolling everyone involved to keep the fire burning, would be WP:SYNTH. In fact, that's my reading of what he says -- when he says a "well-known trolling group", I would assume he's talking about parts of 4chan and /pol/, which other sources say, in much more detail, are the ones who initially got Gamergate rolling.) Beyond that, I don't think that it's worth hightlighting; nothing about him makes him particularly relevant. And once you strip away the WP:SYNTH, what he's saying isn't particularly interesting; without more detail about this 'well-known' trolling group he personally feels is responsible, "there are trolls involved" is essentially a non-statement. The question is therefore whether his opinion here, which gets a one-sentence mention in one other article, is worth covering here, or whether we'd be giving it WP:UNDUE weight (especially, again, given the risk of WP:SYNTH problems that your misreading of it highlighted.) I think this sort of focus on it would definitely be undue. --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: To clarify this discussion isn't just about Bokhari. But also claims made by WaPo and Vice of a similar nature. Also the sourced information removed from the article did not use the "third-party trolls" lingo which was introduced to the conversation by Peter in his edit summaries. Would you oppose the restoration of this information (perhaps slightly rephrased)? Brustopher (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the comment at the top of the section was about Bokhari, so that's what I focused on. The other one is more complicated, but I don't think that the sources for that are really sufficient to support its inclusion. One source was the Bokhari quote, which I mentioned above. The second, the Vice article, has the same problems I highlighted in my reading of how we were using Bokhari, above; they say that trolls are involved, not that (as we implied) the trolls aren't part of Gamergate. The relevant quote when you search for 'troll' in there actually seems to imply the opposite: "I can’t get with that, but during our tweets he messages me a sentiment I can side with, regarding the continual stirring of GamerGate by Twitter trolls: “Talk without progress becomes stagnant.”" My reading of that is that the Gamergate supporter he's talking to there is saying that the trolls are a good thing because they're adding 'progress', not that he's saying that they're outsiders. The only source that really supported the statement is the WP, which says that "there's even speculation that the worst comes from Internet trolls who don't feel strongly about either side of the subject but just want to cause trouble." I don't feel that that, on its own, passes the three-part test in WP:UNDUE; one source saying "unnamed people have speculated about this" isn't really enough to support the idea that the view has prominent adherents. And that one line is not representative of the tone of even that one article, so again, pulling it out and highlighting it here feels like it's giving it WP:UNDUE weight; if this is a prominent viewpoint, given the amount of ink that's been spilled over the controversy, then it should be easy to find one or two reliable sources that actually discuss it in-depth rather than just mentioning it in passing like that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you're right in your interpretation regarding the Diver quote. He must have phrased what he was trying to say badly, because otherwise Diver is endorsing trolling as a method of progress himself, which seems highly unlikely. The part I thought supported the claim was the "These actions are almost universally performed by lone online psychos." by TotalBiscuit. Perhaps this can be rephrased to note that Gamergate supporters argue that it's a vocal minority within them who are doing the trolling and harassment? Brustopher (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While I admire the intent to reach a compromise; unfortunately, I feel that it might be drawing a very long bow to use that particular phrasing. I don't see that it's supported by either the WaPost/Tsukuyama or Vice/Diver sources. I think it's clear that the Gamergate supporters argue there that it's external trolls. There's even speculation that the worst comes from Internet trolls who don't feel strongly about either side of the subject but just want to cause trouble - Tsukuyama, may be instructive here.

I do consider that it may be where the quoted "Gamergate supporters" are making a distinction between the "controversy" & the "movement". Threats & harassment are undoubtedly part of the former; whether they are part of the latter seems, for many, a matter of opinion. - Ryk72 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't feel that "they don't feel strongly" means "third party." My reading of that is that the "trolling group" Bokhari is referring to is 4chan, whose users formed Gamergate's initial core (I honestly can't think what else he would mean by a "well-known trolling group", since they're the only really well known one involved). Similarly, when the other quotes say that the trolls "don't really care about either side", my interpretation is that they're saying that many people involved in this who don't actually feel strongly about the things they say they feel strongly about -- in other words, that there are people within Gamergate who don't care about ethics or anything and whose only real goal is to stir up as much trouble as possible. This comes back to a more core issue that nobody actually has any way to declare someone in or outside of Gamergate, of course, which is something else that many sources highlight and part of the reason we're cautious about defining it. I don't feel, though, that there is a meaningful distinction between the 'controversy' and the 'movement', or that the 'movement' is a clearly-defined thing. (My problem with that reading is that it feels like you're implicitly saying "someone who is just using Gamergate as an excuse to harass people and who doesn't actually care about ethics is by definition not part of the "movement", which isn't really in any of the sources and which doesn't really seem like a reasonable conclusion to me; interpreting it that way lets you define Gamergate however you like by throwing out everyone who you disagree with, but it doesn't really match what any of the sources -- even the ones used for this sentence -- really say.) And, with all of that said: I also feel that the only real purpose the statement served in the article was to try and make the above WP:SYNTH by implicitly trying to get the reader to interpret it through that filter. If you just go by what it actually says, it's not worth covering; we already have plenty of sources covering the difficulty of trying to figure out what people actually want, what their goals are, whether they actually mean what they say and so on. "Some people involved in this might just be trolling" and "this is a huge incoherent mess of people with divergent aims that aren't always easy to quantify" is already covered at much more length in the 'Gamergate activities' section. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's rather contradictory to describe a trolling group as a "core" of anything. Trolling by definition will be whatever it needs to be to cause drama. There are trolls from many sides and sites that don't form the core of feminism or gamers or game developers or journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources (including one of the few academic sources we have) have described 4chan, especially the members who participated in those early chats, as being the original source of Gamergate and the people whose astroturfing campaigns initially pushed it into the media spotlight. Sure, this doesn't mean that they're the entire thing -- most sources describe it as picking up unrelated people around the edges after they got it rolling -- but they're clearly described as central in many places, so I think it's bizarre to imply that they aren't part of the "movement", to the extent that that's concretely-defined. The chat logs analyzed by Heron, Belford, and Goker are one of the few places we can concretely say that we're looking at Gamergate's organizers in their own words. And they describe the tone of discussion in depth; there was a deliberate effort to cultivate a palpable narrative for public consumption (focusing on journalism one one hand and feminism on the other), while internal discussions focused on personal grudges against Quinn and a desire to destroy her personally. For example, one early member of the moment is quoted there as saying that "./v should be in charge of the gaming journalism aspect of it. /pol should be in charge of the feminism aspect, and /b should be in charge of harassing her into killing herself." These are not all the members of Gamergate, but they're the people who pushed it most fervently early on, so I think it's silly to imply that they're not part of it just because their motivations are terrible. Regardless, I think that if we want to cover trolls within Gamergate, Heron, Belford, and Goker are a better source, since they're analyzing them directly rather than just speculating. --Aquillion (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aquillion, With respect, I'm concerned that there's a lot of reading into what's in the sources. The thought that Bokhari is suggesting 4chan seems unverifiable WP:OR, and t.b.h. while I personally think it more likely that the reference is to /baphomet/, we're better sticking to the sources than reading into them. There's also a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in equating 4chan and Gamergate; while there may be overlap between the two, they are not congruent. The thought that there are people within Gamergate who don't care about ethics or anything and whose only real goal is to stir up as much trouble as possible is an interesting theory; but we'd be better to find noteworthy sources to whom we could attribute it.
For core issue that nobody actually has any way to declare someone in or outside of Gamergate, of course, which is something else that many sources highlight and part of the reason we're cautious about defining it, again this is interesting, but ultimately it's not so relevant if we stick to documenting the various opinions & points of view as attributed opinion. We don't need to define it, just document the range of viewpoints.
And we don't need to second guess whether people are being sincere or disingenuous; just document what they said, and what was said about them; each attributed. - Ryk72 10:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. My point is that that those are equally-valid ways to interpret what the sources say, so it is WP:SYNTH to use them to assert that the trolls are third-party, or to use them in a way that would imply that. In context, "there are trolls within Gamergate" or "a significant portion of Gamergate consists of trolls" is a reasonable way to read all the sources we're dealing with here, especially since it agrees with what many other sources say explicitly; yet some people are arguing that we can use them to (essentially) say the opposite, to say that the trolls are not part of Gamergate. Obviously we can't do that. It would be totally be WP:SYNTH to use those specific quotes to say, explicitly, that 4chan is part of Gamergate (but, fortunately, we have plenty of other sources to rely on for that.) My point is that they can be interpreted that way, especially in the context of the overarching coverage, which makes it WP:OR to use them to state definitively that there are "third party" trolls involved, which is what the OP seems to want to do; and that, for the most part, the way people have tried to use them in the past has been WP:SYNTH to try and imply that the trolls aren't part of Gamergate, when that's not really what those sources say. In other words, a quote like Bokhari's that fails to specify the "well-known trolling group" he's talking about adds nothing to the article on top of what's already there (because we need to commit WP:OR to assert or even imply that he's talking about something other than 4chan, too.) You're asserting that when he talks about trolls, he represents a different spot on a "range of viewpoints" than eg. Heron, Belford, and Goker; but that assertion is entirely WP:SYNTH on your part -- nothing in his words contradicts theirs, or implies anything different. Therefore, we should simply go with the more detailed and reliable source here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

'Exploited by right wing voices...'

Hey! I was thinking about this sentence- "Commentators such as Jon Stone, Liana Kerzner and Ryan Cooper have said that the controversy is being exploited by right-wing voices and by conservative pundits who had little interest in gaming." Currently, we don't discuss GG figureheads such as Milo Yiannopoulis, Christina H. Sommers or smaller ones like Sargon of Akkad that much. I'm wondering how feasible it is to expand this sentence into its own paragraph or section about the movement's adoption by political figures outside gaming. It seems like we have sufficient sources to support such a move, but I welcome input. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that doesn't quite work out as well as you might think when you consider Sommers has stated several times she's a liberal, the most recent of which occurred in an interview with Fox News where she corrected the interviewer on her political affiliations. Beyond that suggesting GG is right-wing driven feels like WP:UNDUE and WP:TANGENT.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man, for me, Ms. Sommers' personal identification of her beliefs matter less than how the RSes see her, per WP:PRIMARY. Moreover, her current employment suggests that she holds at least some ideas that the mainstream would consider 'conservative.' I'm not sure there's enough in the RSes for a section as proposed (I don't think so), but I don't see the suggestion as being that "GG is right-wing driven," rather that certain right-wing figures have attached themselves to the hashtag. That might be a slight difference, but I think it's a very important one. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But this would be the equivalent of gaming websites saying what the inspiration of a game was, the dev saying no, it was this, and then still citing those reliable sources solely to back up a related claim somewhere else. If she's not right-wing, focusing solely on what reliable sources assumed (and to clarify in the Fox News segment, it was an assumption on the interviewer's part) versus what the individual says so it fits a tangential angle on this subject seems to be greatly stretching a point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree only insofar as it is more like a dev saying 'this is an action game,' the press saying 'it's really more of a strategy game,' and going with the latter. Inspiration is solely within the purview of the inspired, while the classification of our own political beliefs is subject to some objective referents (e.g., if I say I agree with Rush Limbaugh about everything and call myself a left-wing Democrat, people might disagree). I agree the angle is tangential, and again, I don't see enough in the RSes to sustain a section (though I haven't really checked). But what there is seems to identify Ms. Sommers as conservative. If (big if, of course) this proposed section were citable to the New York Times, the BBC, etc., then the fact that Ms. Sommers self-identifies as a liberal would give me no pause. But as it is, I think this is a lot of argument over a few offhand references. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly which part of WP:PRIMARY supports the sentence: "personal identification of her beliefs matter less than how the RSes see her"? A direct quote might be enlightening. In return, I would direct you to WP:SELFPUB which contains the following quote: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". The policy is fairly unambiguous. Further, stating that Ms. Sommers is "right-wing" may run afoul of WP:BLP. Stating that commentators view her as conservative is reasonable, but stating that she is conservative, in spite of her self-published beliefs, is not. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes the case that a person may assert things about themselves that the consensus of reliable sources finds to be incomplete, inconsistent, or untrue. In that case, Misplaced Pages policy holds that the encyclopedia adheres to the weighted evidence of reliable sources. “Right-wing”, when applied to an employee of the American Enterprise Institute, is not a violation of BLP, nor is it incorrect to describe her as a conservative; the preponderance of her writing and her political affiliations are consistent with that characterization, and that conclusion has been widely drawn by reliably sources. That said, it does not appear to me that Sommers’ opinions of Gamergate are consequential to the controversy; as people are looking for opportunities to shorten the article, policy suggests that we might solve this problem by removing Sommers. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy holds that the encyclopedia adheres to the weighted evidence of reliable sources. Which policy? - Ryk72 22:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@ColorOfSuffering: I didn't mean to suggest that Ms. Sommers' self-identification is somehow meaningless. I merely meant to say that "conservative" is a subjective categorization which is not self-controlled. Thus, if someone refers to themselves as a 'liberal,' this is fine to note, but if the RSes unilaterally refer to said person as a 'conservative,' one's own categorization of one's political beliefs does not necessarily control. If I refer to myself as an "outside-the-box, forward-thinking inspirer," it does not mean I am not really a rote, regressive dullard--all subjective categories. I honestly don't know much about Ms. Sommers. I do know that, again, simply for me, Ms. Sommers own view of her political philosophy does not control others' classification of her. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Ms. Hoff Sommers' work either, and I would never claim to be an authority on her views (as others here appear to have done). Perhaps this profile from The Telegraph might help, as it also explains her role with regards to GamerGate. Certainly her views are many-faceted and defy simple classification. The way I see it, Christina Hoff Sommers is the best authority on all things Christina Hoff Sommers, and I'm perplexed as to how you could believe otherwise. If you think you are one thing (an outside-the-box, forward-thinking inspirer), and someone else thinks you're the opposite (a rote, regressive dullard) then we can't just state that you are a regressive dullard. Only that certain people believe you are. Do you see the difference? That's basic BLP stuff. Use the example of Uri Geller. He calls himself an illusionist and psychic who possesses paranormal powers. Most sources (including the New York Times) label him a fraud. His "powers" have been unilaterally debunked by nearly every reliable source that has covered him. But in what universe do you think it's acceptable to label him explicitly and solely as a debunked fraud?

Much has been written and speculated about the views of Ms. Hoff Sommers. If we don't trust her own writing, we are essentially calling her duplicitous, which is libel unless you can locate a high-quality source that elucidates that point. I'm curious which policy you believe gives us the authority to state that she's not what she says she is, because it sounds suspiciously like gas-lighting to me. You mentioned WP:PRIMARY, but you failed to point out exactly how that policy applies. Do you care to clarify your point further? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My point with regard to WP:PRIMARY was simply that primary sources are to be used with care, and generally, secondary sources are preferred. My broader point was simply that some categories are subjective, and therefore self-identification is not necessarily controlling. I am in no way calling Ms. Sommers duplicitous; I am saying that this particular categorization is largely dependent upon the observer. Given your take on things, apparently, if I were to declare myself "the most creative man in the western world" and "the leading light of my generation," it would be a BLP issue to suggest that I may not have an accurate view of myself. Ms. Sommers is absolutely to be trusted, so far as I know. But that does not mean her own subjective qualitative assessments of herself outweigh others'. There is a big difference between one stating facts about one's self and one's appraisal of one's position on a spectrum involving other people (e.g., political ideology). Or at least that's how I see it. You obviously think me wrong, and that's fine. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not just talking about a slight difference in subjective opinion. We're talking about polar opposites. Liberal is the opposite of conservative. Democrat is the opposite of republican. Right-wing is the opposite of left-wing. And so on. To use your example, if you were to declare yourself "the most creative man in the western world" and "the leading light of my generation," and instead I decided to only call you "the least creative man in the western world" and "a depressingly dim bulb who is a discredit to every generation" because every journalist at The Guardian, Slate, and Mary Sue called you that, I'd be in troubled BLP waters. I'd never do that, of course, because I sincerely like you and I truly value your contributions on this page and I believe you to be both impartial and open-minded (that's a sincere compliment, for those who are watching). Were I to try to tackle your analogy using my own terrible prose, I'd write it thusly: "Misplaced Pages editor Dumuzid is the self-proclaimed leading light of his generation, though most commentators agree that he is, in fact, the dimmest darkness of all generations." Or if you prefer, "Misplaced Pages editor Dumuzid is known as the dimmest darkness of all generations, though he maintains that not only is he the leading light of his generation, he also claims to be the most creative man in the western world." Lastly, I wouldn't say you're wrong here -- this is a discussion page, not a courtroom, so I can't deal in right/wrong. I'll just say that I disagree with your interpretation. It's equally possible, if not downright likely that I'm the one who is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We've gone quite far afield here, especially considering that I don't think this should be in the article! Thank you for the compliment. Yes, liberal and conservative are opposites, but they're rather notional opposites, and highly contextual. If I may use a U.S. example, a Massachusetts conservative might be a Texas liberal. Moreover, someone who is generally agreed to follow an ideological line might depart on a certain topic or topics. I would certainly never oppose noting someone's view of his or herself. My narrow point (if I remember it correctly!) was merely that having a quote from someone saying "I'm a liberal" would not categorically exclude them from being a 'right wing voice' in some contexts, or on some topics. Either way, I still vote that we continue the trend toward parsimony and leave all of this out. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's dial things back a bit and not throw around terms like libel, keeping in mind Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. There's no reason to escalate this discussion in this manner. Let's stick to discussing what the sources say. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Gamaliel? Have you read WP:No Legal Threats, or did you just see the word "libel" and assume it was a threat of some kind? Do me a favor and read the policy you posted. I will quote the relevant section titled What is not a legal threat: A discussion of whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. You are an administrator. I would expect you to be more familiar with these concepts. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We also expect users to be familiar with the policy WP:CIVIL. When discussions get heated, it's a good idea to take a break from that discussion for a bit to avoid violating that policy by, say, throwing around accusations or implications that other editors are engaging in libel. If you have any questions about that policy you are welcome to visit my personal talk page. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That categorisation of person on a political spectrum is subjective is clear, and (it appears) agreed. WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. and WP:NPOV@WP:ASSERT When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion. are also clear - subjective "opinions" must be attributed. WP:BLP means that this is even more important.
Suggest that the issue can be resolved by documenting the stated opinion of the commentators making the "Exploited by right wing voices..." assertions, attributed; if this angle is considered due.
Also suggest that we should include the stated opinions of the subjects (Milo Yiannopoulos, CH Sommers, et al) on the GamerGate controversy - it is WP:UNDUE to the point of WP:POV to not have included a neutrally voiced, attributed, documentation of these pro-GamerGate voices in the article. - Ryk72 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

For me, I don't think this particular tangent merits expansion at the moment, either as to "co-opting" or the opinions of these allegedly Gamergate-sympathetic commentators. I still think streamlining is a good watchword. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly all the right wing demagogues latching on to GamerGate should get their own "Culture War" section? Artw (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Might be something usable from this:

• Chituc, Vlad (September 11, 2015). "Gamergate: A Culture War for People Who Don't Play Videogames". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583.

Notably I think it goes with a bit more nuanced view then "Right-wing", and it does talk about the Airplay event as well. — Strongjam (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)]

Good article, thank you. The placing of gamergate in a wider cultural context is useful, but the commentators appear, to my eye, basically to bolster the point that "it's not really about games." I'm still not sure we need anything more than we have. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The politics have been there from the outset and it's very similar to the "Hate, Rape and Rap" campaign especially in terms of the players. Rappers and Gamers are similar in their political demographics. Tipper Gore and Sarkeesian appear to be arguing from the same place politically. Gamers (and rappers) are not "right wing" and generally support progressive ideals (I think one of our sources breaks down gamer identity demographics). Sommers is libertarian or a classical liberal (that's not right-wing). Conservatives ultimately could care less about who wins and rail against both political correctness and video game violence. “Cultural libertarianism” vs. “cultural authoritarians” is an excellent summary of both campaigns though they are 20 years apart. --DHeyward (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ethics concerns in lead

At the moment, the lead makes mention of Gamergate "opposing social criticism in video game reviews" and goes on to say that this is the result of collusion between various parties. However, in the body of the article, when we discuss ethics, most people are talking about a different issue, where Gamergate is opposing what they see as perceived conflicts of interest between developers and journalists. That's a separate issue. Gamergate is concerned with fighting social criticism, and it is true that some justify this in terms of arguing a grand conspiracy between journalists and feminists, which, they say, creates ethical problems. However, Gamergate is also concerned with showing conflicts of interest which are unrelated to the social criticism side. I'd like to change the lead to mention both, as at the moment it is unbalanced. I'm proposing changing it to:

"Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism through highlighting perceived conflicts of interest between journalists and developers and opposing social criticism in video game reviews, which they say is the result of collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics."

I want to highlight that these are perceived conflicts of interest, because much of what has been highlighted were not actual conflicts of interest. But I think it is important to note both sides of their approach. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal. Do you have some reliable sources to cite for the proposition? I'd appreciate seeing them. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD@WP:LEADCITE and here. - Ryk72 23:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Ryk72, it's been a long day. Could you be more explicit about what you're trying to say? I'd be grateful. Dumuzid (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article. Per WP:LEADCITE citations are not required for the lead. The assertion is already in the article at the section here; where it is sourced & cited. - Ryk72 23:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So long as we follow up with something akin to "these purported concerns have been rejected by media critics and commentators as ill-founded and unsupported," that seems reasonable to me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned below (and in my initial revert), that section does not currently support the proposed addition to the lead. It says that that the focus on conflicts of interest are used as evidence of that progressive social issues are a result of collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics -- that they're being highlighted, in other words, as an example of the collusion that the lead already covers in its summary -- so per WP:LEAD we can't imply that it's a separate thing. --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you point to the parts of the article body you believe your addition summarizes? The section on ethics summarizes the sources as follows: "...arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are creating conflicts of interest, and argue that these relationships provide evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues." That's the only mention of conflicts of interest as a focal point of the controversy, and it makes it explicit that they are cited purely as evidence of collusion, as part of one argument rather than as a separate "side" -- as evidence of the alleged unethical conspiracy to advance a progressive agenda. The lead currently covers that, as far as I can tell. I don't think there are significant sources supporting the idea that there is a focus on conflicts of interest distinct from the belief that it is a form of collusion being used to advance progressive social issues; that is to say, according to the sources that have gone into it in depth, the ethics concerns advanced by Gamergates' supporters are solely about a single core allegation of collusion among journalists and developers as part of a conspiracy to advance progressive social issues, with all other points merely serving as evidence and data-points that they believe support that thesis. I would strongly oppose any wording in the lead that could be interpreted to mean that these are different things, since that's not remotely implied by any part of the current article, nor (I believe) is it particularly supported by the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We've been handling that whole ethics section badly. What we should be doing is outlining the Gamergate stance and then covering criticism, What we do instead is outline the criticism, with almost no mention of the stance. However, the Alexander reference in Time, which leads the criticism, is specifically about the conflicts of interest between developers and journalists, and a lot of the criticism that we're quoting is about - or makes mention of - the conflicts of interest between the two. It is mentioned in The Guardian, Vox , Alexander in Time, and referred to as the corruption issue in Internet Monitor. If nothing else, that's where the "ethics" side of this started - claims (proven false) that there was a conflict of interest between a developer and journalist when he was writing. That Gamergate is largely about opposing social criticism is a given. However, that it has also had a component arguing against close relationships between journalists and developers should also be clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is very little GamerGate stance to cover - just some vague words about "Ethics in Games Journalism" and then a complete absense of anything following it up or any concrete concerns. Critisism gets more coverage because it's actually substantial. Artw (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There have been concrete concerns. Most have been marginal at best, but certainly Gamergate has raised a number of specific issues related to conflicts of interest between developers and journalists. Personally, I feel the vast majority are nothing, and even those which aren't are overstated, but the concerns have been raised. - Bilby (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've yet to see this demonstrated anywhere. At best actual concerns about games journalism have been projected onto GamerGate, but they've yet to show any interest themselves. Artw (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) We have to respect WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE weight; giving equal validity to all sides in a controversy is a violation of WP:VALID. If a concern is marginal, amounts to nothing, and has the coverage you'd expect from something that amounts to nothing, then we can't really give it any focus; we have to focus on the consensus of reliable sources instead, which means that, for the most part, it is entirely appropriate for the section on ethics to have one or two sentences saying that some people have said it is about ethics and alleged unethical progressive conspiracies, then focus primarily on the near-universal dismissal among reliable sources. (This is especially true when some of the accusations are against specific people, of course, at which point including them in detail immediately runs into WP:BLP issues unless we have good sources substantiating them and illustrating that the weight you're suggesting giving them is appropriate.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes, except this is more tricky than many other situations. It is so because of the sheer amount of outrage displayed by those who claim to have been targeted in various ways, their hangers-on, sympathisers and numerous talking heads who espouse certain causes at every imaginable opportunity. There is basically a very visible, media-savvy etc opposition and a much less visible "other side". It is possible to over-egg a pudding: eggs are needed as much as sugar and the like but too many eggs produces a mess. Which is what this article has been almost from Day One. It needs cutting down dramatically. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you're right (it's pretty clear from the sources that the raw outrage and emotion here is mostly coming from the people who pushed the hashtag into the limelight -- again, look at Heron, Belford, and Goker's discussion of the chat logs, it makes it pretty clear that the initial 'core' of Gamergate was driven by emotional outrage, that they used all sorts of detailed, carefully-planned techniques to manipulate the media, and so on.) But either way, we can't relax our WP:RS or WP:NPOV policies based on your personal belief that the media is getting it wrong; it violates NPOV to give equal validity to all sides in a conflict, and it violates WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to give additional weight to marginal or less reliable sources, regardless of the reason. As it is now, this article fairly accurately reflects the consensus of the mainstream media, with weight appropriate to how things are covered there; that's our goal to shoot for as an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, it mostly reflects a lot of op-eds by people with political agendas and axes to grind. It is bollocks, basically. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit to suggest? Not a general complaint, but a specific edit? Otherwise, it looks like you're soapboxing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, though -- read those sources more carefully. They're not just saying that there were allegations of generic, unspecified 'corruption', they're saying that the initial accusations in Gamergate were, specifically, that there was a conspiracy to push for a focus on progressive social issues. Eg from the Guardian, summarizing the ethics issues, concludes: "Its supporters call their enemies “social justice warriors” and worry that they will usher in a new age where the latest Call of Duty won’t let you shoot nameless baddies - but instead ask you to talk about your feelings." The whole point of the ethics accusations is the belief that there is a conspiracy using unethical methods to advance a political agenda that would change the face of gaming; the culture-war and ethics-attack aspects are not separate. (The coverage of early Gamergate IRC channels makes this even more clear, since it quotes early members specifically discussing how to divide up ethics, anti-feminism, and harassment as part of a goal of ultimately crushing Quinn and defeating their ideological opponents.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues. What are they claiming, and how people are interpreting those claims. The what (in regard to ethics) is primarily about collusion between journalists (GameJournoPros), conflicts of interest between developers and journalists, and the pushing of a political agenda (social justice/feminism). The interpretation is that the first two are mostly covers for the third. I have no problem with a heavy focus on the interpretation. But we also need to clearly state what it is that we are interpreting. We're doing fine on the first half, and very poorly on the second.

The culture war aspects and ethics are separate things. You are welcome to argue that they are closely tied together, but in describing them we still need to fully describe each. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The question here is whether the purported ethics concerns are actually ethics concerns, or simply a publicity stunt or public relations ruse. My local diner might call its fried chicken "world famous", but Misplaced Pages would want confirmation of that fame in the consensus of reliable sources. Here, the consensus of reliable sources holds that the chicken is not famous, or is only famous because people say it’s famous chicken when it's not particularly famous and probably also not chicken. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's even a matter of "are they real concerns"; while I don't like dividing sources rigidly into sides, to the extent that there is a division, most sources on both sides describe the ethics issues as a fusillade in the culture war, based on the belief among people pushing the hashtag that their ideological enemies have formed an conspiracy to advance a progressive (or, if you prefer, "social justice") agenda through unethical collusion and by exploiting conflicts of interest. Some sources have mentioned that there are other aspects involved in the periphery, but the core of Gamergate's allegations, to the extent that anyone has been able to cover them in depth and go into detail on it, is entirely about cultural warfare. By "ethics", all sources that go into depth on the concerns and passions behind Gamergate explicitly state that they mean that one side in the culture wars is acting unethically, and we need to report that -- we can't cover it as though they're making unrelated, culturally-neutral ethics allegations, because that's not what the sources that have gone into depth on it say. I also think that -- while we have to rely on the sources that have covered it -- ultimately this part is uncontroversial. All of the op-eds that people say "support" Gamergate have called it a culture war and have tied the ethics concerns directly to the culture war. If you drop into KIA or wherever, most people there will aggressively insist that the ethics concerns and their culture war are interconnected. The idea that they're different things just isn't well-reflected in any sources, because it flatly isn't true. Gamergate is about a culture-war and a belief that one side in the culture war is behaving unethically; there are no significant ethics allegations involved that aren't part of that culture war. Some aspects of the article are controversial, but I honestly don't think that this one is. --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We're still caught up in the interpretations. The issue is that we need to be very clear that their ethics concerns are related primarily to conflicts of interest. We're welcome to then explain that they are part of a culture war. What we're missing is that statement of what they are, rather than how they're interpreted. At any rate, I'll work on something and see were it goes. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sources support the idea that their ethics concerns are primarily related to conflicts of interest. The overarching agreement among sources (as far as their is one) seems to be that their ethics concerns are primarily related to their belief that there is a conspiracy among journalists to push a progressive agenda. For example, the ethics section says that "As evidence of this, they point to what they consider as disproportionate praise that video game journalism has given broadly towards recent games such as Depression Quest and Gone Home, which offer little conventional gameplay or skill to complete and relating a story with current social implications, while traditional AAA titles are downplayed and eschewed." Likewise, the backlash against articles celebrating diversity in the game industry, the focus on Sarkeesian and Wu, the attacks on DIGRA and so on, and even GameJournoPros -- none of those accuse anyone of any conflicts of interest; rather, they allege collusion among journalists to advance a progressive agenda. Sometimes this collusion can be described as a conflict of interest, but the overarching coverage focuses on their opposition to what they believe is a progressive media conspiracy, not on opposing conflicts of interest in a general sense. --Aquillion (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that's a largely artificial distinction. Collusion to promote friends, acquaintances, or romantic partners is indeed a conflict of interest, but so is putting ideology ahead of facts or objectivity. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If opinionated or even partisan reviewing represents a conflict of interest, some of Gamergate’s poster-children for unethical journalism necessarily include Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, James Agee, Evelyn Waugh, and Gore Vidal. Those are mighty big windmills, and it's hard to see how threatening Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian assists a crusade against James Agee. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant, almost to the point of being a strawman. None of those people wrote about Gamergate (obviously). - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A net so wide it might capture even you. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, stop trolling. I'm no journalist. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My that's not very WP:CIVIL. But it does demonstrate the point (and that you understand the point), that too wide a net and you end up including people who should not be included in various aspersions, and you end up talking about stuff that does not belong in the GGC entry for reasons related to relevancy, UNDUE, and FRINGE. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You got RS to back up those claims? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: Are you asking me to back up those claims, or is the indentation scrambled? Sorry! I'm happy to do a short paragraph or two on politics and polemic in criticism in the late 19th and early 20th century, but I’d have thought the point was fairly clear. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: that was meant for somewhere else. Not sure how I managed to place it here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks as always for your input. I'm having a hard time finding the parts of your latest comment that are relevant to the article topic. None of the people you named have been involved in the controversy and in fact I believe most if not all of them were dead before it arose. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No, none of the people of whom I wrote were supporters of Gamergate, but all were unabashedly opinionated cultural critics. If polemic or partisan criticism represents a "conflict of interest", as -Starke Hathaway seemed to indicate, then all the above are certainly implicated far more extensively than anyone who writes about video games. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, none of the people you named are in any way relevant to this article. In the future, do you think you could restrict your commentary to things that are relevant? This can be a heated topic and I'm sure we'd all like to keep the signal to noise ratio as high as practicable. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, -Starke Hathaway appeared to argue above that polemical or partisan reviews were conflicts of interest. I responded with a short list of incredibly famous and influential reviewers -- Shaw and Wilde in theater, Agee in film -- who most people would agree were also polemical or partisan, and whom no one ever considered to be unethical. -Starke Hathaway believes this is all irrelevant and reminds me that this is a heated topic: filed for the next time I'm dragged unreasonably to AE and accused (again) of making a personal attack or failing to assume bad faith or whatever Gamergate’s supporters decide might be to their advantage. Let’s hat this (otherwise) fruitless discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "fruitless" is a very good description for baseless speculation about what Gamergate supporters should think about a bunch of mostly novelists who (a) are dead, (b) never wrote about video games, and (c) are wholly unrelated to the article. If you have something to say about the article let's by all means discuss. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Starke Hathway, I would say that counter-examples to your proffered view of conflict of interest are, by definition, no less (or more) relevant than your initial assertion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, this part of the digression is a bit off-topic. The key point (as, I feel, most of the sources that go into depth on the issue attest) is that all of the ethical issues Gamergate have focused on are part of a core allegation of collusion to advance social criticism in games, art-games, and so on. All the other points (the exact nature of the connections and collusion they're accusing people of, the accusations of putting ideology ahead of facts and objectivity, etc) are a part of this core thesis. They're things the hashtag's users have presented as subsidiary evidence for their core allegation, and therefore do not belong in the lead -- covering that central 'unethical conspiracy' thesis that binds Gamergate together is sufficient. Our personal opinions on whether the bits and pieces of that thesis hold up under scrutiny doesn't really matter; our role as an encyclopedia is simply to identify it and note that it has been roundly dismissed by most reliable sources. I feel that the current lead does that effectively. Obviously, since we're talking about a poorly-defined group of people, there may be people inside it who don't buy into the core narrative, or people who want to drag it in different directions or whatever. But I think that to the extent that there is any firm agreement among the sources on what Gamergate means by "ethics", the current lead captures it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have gone in a weird direction. What do people think of the recent rewording of the lede?Brustopher (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine, yeah.. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to be clearer that the "ethics" claims are almost universally seen as a deceptive public relations ploy, and I just fixed a pair of grammatical lapses without, as far as I can see, changing the meaning. I agree with Aquillion that this language is not intolerable. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Blythwood's recent additions

@Blythwood: I'd like to start by acknowledging that there's nothing more annoying that trying to edit an article you haven't touched before and finding every single change you made reverted. But this does not change the fact that most of you recent additions to the article are all WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. You are using sources that do not mention Gamergate. We should mention this stuff in the gamergate article, unless somebody links them to gamergate. If none of the sources link issues such as booth babes to gamergate, this is just you concluding that the two are related and linking them based on your opinions. This stuff belongs in the article on sexism in videogames, not the gamergate article.Brustopher (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The smartphone game section in particular strikes me as going pretty far off topic -- this article isn't the place to analyze the exact reasons behind changing demographics. The bit about conferences might be a bit more useful in terms of background, since they discuss rising gender-issue tensions in the community leading up to this, but really, the article is already hugely long, and these additions are just going into extra detail on stuff that's already covered. There's nothing wrong with them beyond that that I can see, but I don't think they belong here given how wordy and complicated the article is already. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I removed another of your edits. I think a shorter addition might be worth adding, but that edit really belongs as part of Sexism in video gaming. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The litmus test should not be whether a source mentions the topic by name, but by whether it is useful to the reader in understanding the topic. Sources establish that gender representation or the changing dynamics of it are important to Gamergate, so it's not improper to include a limited amount of information in WP:SUMMARY style. Rhoark (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The New Republic

Gamergate: A Culture War for People Who Don't Play Videogames (Vlad Chituc).

A recent post at Breitbart, however, helps to explain GamerGate’s appeal: It’s an accessible front for a new kind of culture warrior to push back against the perceived authoritarianism of the social-justice left.

A good refutation of Allum Bokhari's latest Breitbart. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like yet another niche source to me. Bin it. If stuff isn't covered by major sources of repute, it isn't worth mentioning because we'll be drifting into the realms of those sources that are fringe, advocacy and similar. I have heard of New Republic but, well, I've heard of Breitbart also and neither are worthy. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I have linked to the article above in the #'Exploited by right wing voices...' section (I hope I get that anchor right.) Definitely a biased source though. — Strongjam (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"A biased source" in what way? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just mean that it's been pretty openly left-leaning political magazine for the past 100 years or so. If we are going to use it we should be mindful of that. — Strongjam (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

While as a politics nerd I might quibble with some periods in that century, point taken. Thanks for the elucidation. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with magazines such as TNR, New Statesman and Spectator is that they exist merely to preach to the converted. As more often than not does The Guardian. They give voices to people who often would otherwise be addressing an empty room. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIASED "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Points of view are the topic here. We've got one thing that's too far right, one that's too far left? This is like the blind men and the elephant. There's no gold standard source here. Taken together, Breitbart and New Statesman do better at showing the shape of the controversy over the last 6 months than anything else I've seen. Rhoark (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, um no. Probably best not to compare things that haven't been banned from use as a RS to Breitbart. Artw (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart's uses are limited, but that's a far cry from "banned from use". The question of whether Breitbart is reliable for its own opinion was hashed out in detail last year. It obviously is, though in 2014 it was undue. That was before Breitbart journalists were among those elected as representatives for Gamergate and other sources were commenting on it. That makes it due, and you don't even have to use Breitbart as a source for its own opinion. Rhoark (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

These bits of this lede sentence

Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism by opposing alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, which they believe is the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.

A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag 
B. have said their 
C. goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism 
D. by opposing alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, 
E. which they believe is 
F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.

A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag 
D. by opposing alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, 
E. which they believe is 
F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.
B. have said their 
C. goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism 

A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag 
D'. oppose alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, 
E. which they believe is 
F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.
B'. Some of hashtag users have said their 
C'. goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism.

A. Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag 
D'. oppose alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, 
E. which they believe is 
F. the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.
B'. Some of hashtag users have said their 
C'. goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism.

Some of the people using the Gamergate hashtag oppose alleged collusion among feminists, progressives, journalists and social critics, which they believe is the cause of increasing social criticism in video game reviews.

Some of hashtag users have said their goal for their actions is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a positive edit. Artw (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Story to Keep an Eye On

This is the story of a young man from Florida who masqueraded as several different personas, among them a gamergate supporter. He was arrested for making terrorist threats and, I think it's fair to say, engaged in plenty of online harassment. The broader story has gotten plenty of 'pick up,' especially in Australia, but the gamergate aspect has not. As of right now, I don't think it's anything we need to put in the article, but coverage may change or increase. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a better source on the guy, though it doesn't cover his GamerGate posting or his connections with Breitbart, which is of course where it would become of interste in relation to this article. If some of the stuff I'm seeing in primary sources gets decent secondary source coverage I'm thinking a sentence or might be warranted. Artw (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

An incident where an internet troll is actually a terrorist. What a time to be alive. GamerPro64 21:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah apparently he played everyone: used the GG hashtag on twitter, wrote articles under other names, wrote for the Daily Kos under yet another name, spoke with both Milo and Wu on both sides of that fence...if anything it's a good reason to argue again that statements need to be attributed to folks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, Kung Fu Man. I was just thinking how it shows the weakness of attribution in our new digital world. We're probably both right. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of "no true Scotsman" spin going on right now, it is true. I would treat it all with a grain of salt and remember that "massive internet troll with an obsession with false flags and an interest in harming people" is pretty much the quintessential definition of a GamerGate, minus the odd right wing demagogue or gaslit chump. Anyway, if we get any sources that deal with this in depth we will see. Artw (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a prime example of the type of "third party troll" discussed above. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

SMH does have an updated story that mentions Gamergate, but I don't see any reason for inclusion. Unless there are some charges added in the future that relate to GG, in which case we should update the first sentence in the Law enforcement section. It appears his connection to GG has nothing to do with what he was arrested for. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's another piece talking about how he liked to take both sides of a variety of controversial topics. —Torchiest _edits 22:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Another source: The real terrorist threat - Markos Moulitsas, The Hill Goldberg worked closely with conservative news outlet Breitbart on efforts to discredit the Black Lives Matter movement, tried tirelessly to smear human rights groups including the Human Rights Law Center and Amnesty International, and was an avid participant in the “Gamergate” movement, a misogynist effort to drive out feminists from the video game industry. Artw (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Redacted ref?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gamergate_controversy&diff=680846387&oldid=680844250 What does this edit mean? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Just means that the quote is verbatim from the source wasn't censored by Misplaced Pages. Just a long-winded Sic really. We could just use the {{sic}} template to accomplish the same thing. — Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible ref (9/14/15)

Gotta say I didn't expect an article like this being made but The Verge posted out a rather interesting article today: How Gamergate's earliest target came to empathize with her abusers. Basically Zoe Quinn talking about GamerGate at the XOXO Festival. GamerPro64 22:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So... About the article? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A specific edit proposal would be nice (or if someone just wants to be WP:BOLD and do one,) but I'm not seeing a good place for this at the moment. Maybe more useful for Quinn's biography or the Cash Override article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of like another phase of GG has started. It's kind of a "lessons learned" things. I don't see a place to put it yet. Perhaps with the comment atry from Peter Moore. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Name changing

Personally, I think there should be some kind of sanction or restriction that prevents any name change proposal for this article and the Gamergate article. I am very confident that consensus has been reached to NOT change any names, and so editors should realise this and not to revive any discussion to try and change the names. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a controversial enough issue to bother getting a moratorium. There's only been around 3 move requests to my knowledge and one of them was started by someone trying to troll the article. You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. Brustopher (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be glad to impose a restriction if there's an actual issue that's causing disruption, but it doesn't appear to be a serious problem. When was the last request? Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the most recent attempt to move the article was on 30 August, 19 days ago. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here was the conversation. I wasn't aware of that one, but we've had quite a few more it seems over time. Things seem quiet over at the ant article now , but I'm split on doing anything more proactively. We could put a talk page notification here showing consensus not to propose another article move in the near future, but WP:BEANS also comes to mind. If it were a few months ago when we had proposals almost every week it seemed, I think an editing restriction would have been very valid like Gamaliel mentioned, but I think we're at enough of a lull at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

While it isn't a serious issue as of now, I think it's best to be cautious when another discussion emerges and still consider my option in the future. It should be thoroughly clear that consensus has been reached and editors will be wasting their time. Brustopher, I do believe it can be problematic when consensus has clearly been reached and editors simply ignore this decision; they're pretty much reviving a dead issue. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to a blanket sanction for these kinds of discussions because consensus can change. But I fully agree that at present there is a sound guideline-based consensus not to rename this article "Gamergate" nor to disambiguate "Gamergate" to "Gamergate (ant)". I also see current consensus to keep this article as "Gamergate controversy" (although I must confess that I don't know the specifics regarding why it was changed from the CamelCase term "GamerGate" in the first place). I agree with the sentiments above: if this persists and becomes disruptive then I would consider adding an explanation to the FAQ. Otherwise it's probably best to avoid the BEANS. -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

However many attempts we have to ram through a rename on the backs of zombie and brigaded accounts -- seven? Eight? In the past year? -- it's somehow not disruptive enough.14:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Only four that I'm aware of (i.e. that were listed at Talk:Gamergate). All four proposals were from different accounts. Mildly tiresome, perhaps, but I don't consider that to be overly disruptive. As the GamerGate furor dies down these requests are sure to die down as well. But look, if this seems too disruptive for any of the regulars at this page then by all means you should draft an FAQ note to point new editors to the discussions where consensus emerged. That should save you some headaches. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it comes up often enough to matter (and as repetitive discussions go, it rarely lasts long or takes up much time.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Describing points of view & Misplaced Pages:Neutrality of sources

The intention of making GamerGate look like a terrorist organization similar to ISIS dedicated to scaring women out of working in games which dominates the opening paragraphs is clearly not treating the controversy as a controversy. Because that's not controversial. It's universally condemned. Why does the title say, "Gamergate controversy" when there's no controversy? Shouldn't it say, "Gamergate (sexist terrorism)"? --BenMcLean (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: how long has is been since this was discussed at length? Three weeks? Four? Does "consensus can change" mean everyone can raid every settled question every month, or is that reserved for Gamergate extremists? Can someone lease hat this promptly?MarkBernstein (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2015

It has been proposed in this section that Gamergate (harassment campaign) be renamed and moved to Gamergate (sexist terrorism). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Gamergate controversy → Gamergate (sexist terrorism) – This would better match the actual content of the article, especially it's opening paragraphs. Sexist terrorism isn't a controversy as all reliable sources would condemn sexist terrorism. A controversy implies at least two sides engaged in rational argument. BenMcLean (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I am now going to support my argument from Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title. This is justified on the grounds of precision. It is important to be able to tell Gamergate, the sexist terrorist criminal entity, apart from an actual controversy. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class video game articles
• Mid-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Requested moves