Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:43, 30 March 2015 view sourceAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators233,058 edits Reverted to revision 654096434 by GoldenRing (talk): Rv commentary unrelated to topic. (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 01:50, 30 March 2015 view source TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits GTFO NYT Where?Next edit →
Line 620: Line 620:
::::We should be trying to establish context as an encyclopedia , to help readers to understand what the broader situation around GG represents. If RSes have noted that GG is believed to be a major facet of a ongoing culture war that has poked up from other avenues (with GG being cited as such), there is no reason not to include that discussion, in brief. It helps to explain why this happened, that many don't think this was a random isolated thing. --] (]) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ::::We should be trying to establish context as an encyclopedia , to help readers to understand what the broader situation around GG represents. If RSes have noted that GG is believed to be a major facet of a ongoing culture war that has poked up from other avenues (with GG being cited as such), there is no reason not to include that discussion, in brief. It helps to explain why this happened, that many don't think this was a random isolated thing. --] (]) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Quite, with one qualification; our duty goes beyond describing what happened, to a fair discussion of what the secondary literature says are the causes and influences. ] (]) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ::::Quite, with one qualification; our duty goes beyond describing what happened, to a fair discussion of what the secondary literature says are the causes and influences. ] (]) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::We do talk about the attempts by conservative talking heads to lure the gg under their wing via their support of the gg conspiracy theory that "nasty feminazis want to take your games away" . -- ] 01:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


== Reverted change to lede by ] == == Reverted change to lede by ] ==

Revision as of 01:50, 30 March 2015

Skip to table of contents
Commons-emblem-issue.svgWARNING: 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.
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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconVideo games Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis 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.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis 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.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting 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.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
  • Jan Rothenberger (10 October 2014). "Der Gesinnungskrieg der Gamer". Der Bund (in German). Dass sich Gegner und Befürworter auch auf Misplaced Pages bekriegten, rief mit Jimmy Wales auch den Chef der Webenzyklopädie auf den Plan. Er mahnte beide Seiten zur Ruhe.
  • Rory Cellan-Jones (16 October 2014). "Twitter and the poisoning of online debate". BBC News. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of Gamergate here - there is what looks like a factual account of this interminable saga on Misplaced Pages, although of course there have been disputes about its objectivity.
  • David Jenkins (20 October 2014). "2014: Video gaming's worst year ever". Metro. The Misplaced Pages entry is as good as any at explaining the basics, and shows how the whole movement is based on nothing but the ravings of a female developer's ex-boyfriend and a level of misogyny that you'd find hard to credit existing in the Middle Ages, let alone the modern day.
  • Caitlin Dewe (29 January 2015). "Gamergate, Misplaced Pages and the limits of 'human knowledge'". The Washington Post. But in a paralyzing battle that has shaken the site's notorious bureaucracy and frustrated the very principles on which Misplaced Pages was built, pro- and anti-Gamergate editors hijacked the Misplaced Pages page on that topic — and spent months vandalizing, weaponizing and name-calling over it.
  • David Auerbach (5 February 2015). "The Misplaced Pages Ouroboros". Slate. ... months of chaos, misconduct, and tendentiousness on Gamergate-related pages ...
  • Amanda Marcotte (6 March 2015). "On Misplaced Pages, Gamergate Refuses to Die". Slate. Gamergaters were ultimately unable to use Misplaced Pages to assert their views as if they were objective reality. Still, Misplaced Pages lost the very people who were trying to guard the gates in the first place. What happens to the next victim of a Misplaced Pages harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system?
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Gamergate controversy was copied or moved into Gamergate controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Articles for deletionThis 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.
Archiving icon
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 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 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.
Article policies
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: 2 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.


Some/Many users in lede

Closing to separate the multiple conversations. Please start a new section to continue conversations. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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


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

Either way "some/many" implies that there are the remainder that have said its something else (arguably "a harassment campaign") in sourcing we can use, but the problem is we have absolutely no sourcing of what else those that have identified with GG say what GG is - the only reliable sources along these lines are GGers that say GG is about ethics. As such, using either "some" or "many" is a problem because we have no idea how big a proportion these people are. In considering what we know GGers have specifically said about GG that is quoted in reliable sources, which only includes those that say it is an ethics campaign, I would actually remove the "some" or "many" quantifier because we have nothing to source that otherwise. (We do state that the media generally does not believe that and that GG is something very different). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
the sources do not say: gamergaters say "but ethics" - the sources say: gamergaters say "but ethics" "die bitch die" "game reviews should be objective" "keep your stinking feminazi nose out of my games" "i am going to kill you cunt" "those making harassment arent really gamergate" "i know where you live" "only people who like the game should review it" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources that say "GG supporter say the purpose of their movement is to be able to harass others". There might be some that say this in places like 8chan , etc. but without a RS restating this (as they have done in stating that GG supporters say it is about ethics), we can't make that original research. The only RS-verified self-stated purpose of GG that we can state is that it is about ethics and not about harassment. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
In other news, we have no RS-verified self-stated guilty claim for the Manson Family killings by Charles Manson, so without that we can't state that he was responsible for their murder. Sorry: Couldn't resist the joke. Hope this illuminates the problem with your statement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
However Manson was found guilty by a court of law, so as such, we can objectively write him as the person that committed that crime; that's a key major difference here. For example, at the present time, with all the allegations made against Bill Cosby that the press have likely tagged him guilty, WP remains objective and does not assume any guilt on Cosby's part (as an example). There has been zero legal cases in the GG situation, and the press is only a court of public opinion, so we must maintain the same objectivity. No self-stated GG supporter is on the record (within usable reliable sources) stating that GG is an harassment campaign or similar, so we can't report objectively otherwise. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Essentially, my point is: We don't have to (and in fact, shouldn't) only use 'self-stated' descriptors in articles. We should use them for things we say are self-stated (obviously), but that doesn't mean we can't use other, more accurate sources for what they actually are (campaign of harassment etc.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. A quick read of WP:BLPCRIME might help with the flaws in that analogy. Many prominent voices in GG have stated the movement is focused primarily on ethics, and those voices are quoted in reliable sources. None of those prominent voices have stated that GG is focused primarily on harassment -- that's all come from analysis conducted by secondary sources (typically the article's author). This is an important distinction, because in this particular case we're not trying to answer the question: What is GamerGate really about? That question has been asked and answered. Here, we are only answering the question: What does GamerGate say they are about? I have not found a single case where a journalist quotes a prominent GamerGate proponent thusly: "Only people who like the game should review it." I'd love to see a source for any of those quotes. I can (and have) provided examples where sources quote prominent voices in the GG movement -- some even have secondary analysis -- who have stated that GamerGate supporters believe their movement is about ethics in journalism. Surely we don't have to list those again? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
and many many many of the prominent GG tweets and chan posts are harassment et al. without anything other than the hashtag to signify membership ALL of the harassment are just as valid representations of what gg is/stands for/believes and more importantly DOES. And the sources that have looked at everything have concluded over and over again "those self identified that say 'gg is about ethics' are stupid and have no idea what ethics is, or blind to what is actually happening or actively trying to lie about it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Which are claims and opinions, not facts; well-vocalized claims and should be included, no question, but must be treated as claims, until there is an authority that states otherwise (such as the result of arrests and criminal charges). --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No, Masem, they are definitively NOT "opinions". It is FACTUAL that "objective reviews" "reviews without social implications" are NOT "ethics". It is FACTUAL that all of harassment and death threats done under gamergate tag IS gamergate because there is no organization/membership/leadership/spokesperson/manifesto to say otherwise. It is FACTUAL that what anyone has found worthy of noting about gamergate is everything BUT the self identified gamergater who says "but ethics!" as under even the briefest study the "ethics" claims fall apart. It IS opinion that when some anon on the web says "I am gamergate and i think gamergate is about ethics".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes they are opinions, just as what the GG movement say about themselves is opinions as well. Statements of subjectivity cannot be stated as fact. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced we need any qualifier either, but I put one in there since I didn't think we'd get consensus to remove it entirely. I think when talking about what is essentially an amorphous and leaderless group it should be taking for granted that any statement given is not a blanket one. — Strongjam (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice try, but I don't think that's going to fix the problem. I'm indifferent to "assorted" versus "various". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the discussion got skewed quite a bit here... Does the sentence need a qualifier/quantifier? Personally ,I think none would work fine, or using the proper qualifier. But definitely not a quantifier. We don't know how many "users of the hashtag" made the statement. We can't really say it's many, some, a lot, a few or even assorted/various because it might be the same few people cited over and over again as these "media" outlets so often do. It could potentially be every user of the hashtag saying it. All we know is that it is plural.
So I think we should go without, unless we can come up with a better way to specifically identify who the users are. And it seems to be necessary to note that we cannot infer if some users of the hashtag would give a different statement because there is behavior contrary to the original statement. We gotta use what we're given. TyTyMang (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It absolutely cannot present the unqualified presentation that all of gamergate being about ethics because the sources clearly and overwhelmingly show that gamergate is about harassment and death threats and misogyny with "but ethics" being only minor portion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
tRPOD, I dont get why you're viewing this as an either/or situation. This isnt about Gamergate actually "being about ethics" this is about whether Gamergate claim to be about ethic.Gamergate is not split into harassers and "but ethickers." Nobody says "I'm a member of Gamergate because I love carrying out harassment." Someone can claim to be a campaigner for journalistic ethics, while actually being a vicious harasser. The fact that a large proportion of Gators believe they are campaigning for journalist ethics, and for some reason believe that journalistic ethics = 'No feminism alowed' is widely mentioned in reliable sources (note how the first sentence in debate over ethics paragraph has six source). While of course gamergate is notoriously unquantiifiable, your reasoning for removing "many" seemed incorrect, which is why I reverted. As it stands I think Strongjam has solved the problem. Do you take any issue with the qualifier they have added ("Assorted")? Bosstopher (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
When you try to state "Gamergate says X" it is false. There is no "gamergate" to say X. It is just one anon who can only speak for themselves. The thousands of other anon members of gamergate sending death threats and harassment are as much speaking for what gamergate IS. To ignore them in preference for an anonymous self serving voice is to fundamentally misrepresent the facts and what the sources present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I recognise the problem that you're bringing up but I think we've avoided it, given that the sentence in question is (loosely paraphrased) "members of Gamergate say they are X, nobody in the press is buying it." I'll ask again: are you ok with the phrasing as Strongjam has left it? Bosstopher (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This is entirely your POV, and is unsupported by the reliable sources on the matter that speak to it as a movement that does, en masse, say things and believe things even with a portion of those behind the hashtag engaging in harassment. I fail to see how this benefits any sort of consensus building on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You completely ignore the sources that speak to the fact that it is not a movement - that without membership or spokespeople or a manifesto, it is just people ranting on the internets and sending death threats and one anon's claims that "GG is X" are fully countered by the GG misogynist who is as fully representative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't, no, we've been through this. The sources call it a movement, and your point of view as to what constitutes a movement is of no concern here. You do not need a manifesto or a leader to be a movement. I don't want to derail this further with this diversion, but continuing to say we cannot attribute claims to Gamergate because you believe (absent evidence) they can't constitute a movement is simply untrue and unsupported by sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
some sources use the term "movement" - mostly because there isnt a term for "a collection of anonymous posters on the interwebs using the same hashtag for a wide variety of sometimes vaguely related and sometimes completely unrelated purposes". there are also several sources that specifically look at it under the question "is it a movement?" and come to the very simple conclusion that "no. without leaders, membership, a manifesto, organization or spokespeople, it is not a movement in the classical definition." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The type of obfuscation that we seem to have to go through to avoid giving any possible credibility to GG is becoming extremely counter to objectivity and neutrality. There is no issue calling GG self-statement movement (we have from RSes) as long as we making it 100% clear it is their claim, and within the same article we identify numerous criticism that if it is a movement it is unlike anything called a movement before, and their unorganized, amorphous goals, and attitude/indifference to the harassment attacks begs the question of their purpose. Calling it a movement and adding those critical caveats drastically simplifies the language across the article (such as these lead issue), making it much easier to understand, would not undermine any of the obvious facts of the situation, and keeps us impartial and not pushing an agenda of trying to discredit or judge GG. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldnt need to keep reminding people that the sources that have specifically looked at it as a "movement" have said "nope, its not a movement" if you wouldnt keep pressuring to present the anon voices who have no basis to claim they represent anything are somehow representative of the actual gamergate when they say "but ethics". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right, and the sources actually do support this as a basic claim. Definitely more NPOV, as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree 100% with TyTyMang. Why include a qualifier at all? There is no reason to qulaify the statement with ""some", "many" or "all". I have made the necessary changes. Please let me know if the article reads better. Marcos12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
We definitely can't say that. There are many different sources in the article describing what people have said their goals are; we can't attribute that statement to some vague universal group of people. It's something that some (but not all) users of the hashtag has said; that's all we can say. Others, for instance, have said that the purpose is solely to fight a culture war against progressivism, or that it is not at all about fighting against progressivism, but solely about defending videogames; or about fighting censorship or so on. The coverage, in describing the genesis of the movement, cites voices within Gamergate saying that its purpose was to harass Quinn or to drive her to suicide, with quotes like "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" or "Well I don't have a legitimate reason. I just want to see her die horribly." These sorts of things have received as much (if not more) coverage in terms of Gamergate's goals. Obviously people disagree over things like who represents Gamergate, who gets to speak for it or define what it is. Now, of course they note that other people claiming to be part of Gamergate have disagreed with those quotes, so clearly those don't define everyone, either; but as an encyclopedia, our job is to follow reliable sources, which means that when a reputable source like Ars Technica describes those quotes as being representative of what (some of) the people behind Gamergate want, we have to respect and report that. Therefore, we can't just take quotes from a few people and say "this is definitely what Gamergate is and what it stands for." --Aquillion (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: Primary

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

The sources in the article appear to disagree. The statement is about what the movement claims, independent of what certain studies decide to claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It is only "opinion" that those stating that represent "the movement" as there is no official spokespeople or manifesto or organization or leader. The factual statistical representations show that claim is wrong and not primary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not our responsibility to decided if the sources are referring to people who don't represent "the movement" or not. In fact, it is our responsibility to not make this inference per WP:OR. What the group may or may not actually do has no impact on what they say.
Per Aquillion's statement, we're not talking about "Gamergaters" we're talking about "users of the hashtag". If we need to add another line to represent other views of "the movement" then we can, and should do that as well. TyTyMang (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
except that you cannot separate "users of the hashtag" from "the movement". by design there is no formal organization, no leaders, no spokespeople, no manifesto hence no way to differentiate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Ironically, you've made it clear to me that the information has been qualified all along. Who are these people? ... "Users of the hashtag." The statement itself doesn't say what Gamergaters say about it. The statement just says what "users of the hashtag" have stated what Gamergate is about.
To have an NPOV and to prevent OR in the article, we must refrain from making our own conclusions about the topic. To say they are not separable requires us to jump to conclusions that are not logically sound. For instance people outside of Gamergate can and have used the hashtag. And people partial to Gamergate do not all use twitter, much less the hashtag. While these points may not be sourced information, what is sourced is the specification of those making the statement as users of the hashtag. If you want, we can rewrite it as "Users of #GamerGate" as that has been used in at least one source. And actually, that source is probably the most accurate and neutral of all of the sources I've gone through so far. And is also not an involved source. (there really are way too many source on this article) TyTyMang (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"Users of the hashtag" have sent death threats and organized horrific harassment campaigns - the items that are the feature of every point of coverage and the reason there is any article about #gamergate. to ignore that and to blanket present "users of the hashtag" as but ethics is the gross NPOV violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The key point, as I noticed above, is that we have many people who have used and pushed the hashtag stating different goals (and extensive commentary saying that journalists have had trouble determining their goals.) Therefore, we cannot word this sentence in a way that implies that it is a clear universal goal shared by everyone who has ever used the hashtag; that is not supported by our sources. "One of their goals" doesn't work, for similar reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I still think Among the #Gamergate postings are those that claim the Gamergate goal is accomplishes what we need to do. It sets up the claim without attributing any "proportion" while signifying that there are other claims and postings of different focus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually this turns "users of the hashtag claim" into "postings claim" and sets this up as a proportion of all postings instead of a proportion of all claims. You say "while signifying that there are other claims". What are these other claims? If we have that sourced information then we wouldn't have to have this discussion in the first place because it would be necessary to proportion out the claims.TyTyMang (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
the "other postings" are of course the harassment campaign for which the hashtag is notable, (and the coordination of slanting the Misplaced Pages article, the general rantings about LW1-3, the internecine backbiting etc.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
May I suggest something that I think we may be able to agree on? Why not something like: "One of the primary goals stated by the Gamergate *movement* (emphasis mine) is to improve the ethical standards..." This is what RS represent and more importantly we are making a clear distinction between proponents of the movement and users of the hashtag. After all, multiple RS reference the movement, but we have had trouble determining how to incorporate said reference. Marcos12 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not. We already reference Gamergate using the term 'movement' in many places (eg. in the paragraph above, where it says that that led to an "anonymous and amorphous movement"), but the key point is that the sources don't agree on what the movement is beyond the basic outline of its history -- they disagree on what it wants, who it's composed of, what it stands for, and so on. Many of them refer to it as eg. a gamer movement, an anti-feminist movement, a reactionary movement, a harassment movement and countless other terms; because of this wide range of opinions on what it is and how it defines itself, we cannot lead with a statement implying that there is one clear agreement on what Gamergate is and what it stands for. There is some room for discussion, of course, but the final version of this particular sentence must avoid using the term 'movement' (because we cannot define what sort it is or who qualifies as a member in any concrete terms), and must have 'some' or 'many' or some other qualifier. We cannot say in article text that Gamergate (as a movement or a hashtag) universally shares the goal of improving ethical standards in videogame reviews, because there is significant coverage in reliable sources saying otherwise. We can say that some people have said that that is their goal, but we cannot report their statements as fact or generalize them to the entire hashtag or movement -- members who were quoted in reliable sources as saying eg. "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" must be represented as well. Because of this lack of agreement on what the movement is, who represents it, and so on, the best we can do is make statements about what some people using the hashtag have said, since that is clearly-definable; that's why the sentence was so carefully-worded (to avoid including or excluding definitions of who Gamergate is while representing what some people using the hashtag have claimed, without passing judgment on that claim one way or the other.) Your proposed changes, though, are not backed up by most reliable sources -- you're basically inserting your own opinion on what Gamergate really is about by excluding everyone you feel is not a "real" Gamergater, a true member of the movement, and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Marcos12: Please revert your change. You can't say "I think we may be able to agree on?" and make a change that reverts two different edits where people don't agree with you. That's not consensus building. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Current state of the paragraph isn't acceptable to me. I much prefer Aquillion's version. — Strongjam (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"Primary" was edited out with this chain of edits diff and the "one" edit was changed here ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the this diff is preferable to the other options on the table currently as a compromise, although none of them are necessarily great. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I prefer going to the version just before his last edit, and we can work from there. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Marcos12, ForbiddenRocky, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Manual reverted to revision just before. I pretty much like the sentence as-is, just with replacing "some" with another word such as "various" that conveys the meaning of "some" but without implying the size or percentage of. — Strongjam (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ehh, the limitation to the hashtag implies something that isn't supported, IMO. I could live with what's there without the hashtag mention in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please help me here? I don't understand why ANY qualifier is needed. Just because the sentence lacks a qualifier like "some" or "various", does not imply that the goal in question is universal. A couple weeks ago there was an article in the Chicago Tribune with a headline along the lines of "Chicagoans Tired of Cold". It didn't say "Some Chicagoans Tired of Cold". Now, obviously not every Chicagoan is tired of the cold weather. There are many in the city who probably love frigid temps. As I said before, it appears some are having a problem making a distinction between Gamergate (the movement) and #Gamergate (the hashtag). The sources make this distinction, and the ""majority"" of the RS also make it clear that improving ethical standards is one of the primary goals of the movement. When we add an unnecessary qualifier it doesn't accurately reflect what the sources are reporting. Adding a word like "some" or "a number" actually makes the article less accurate. Does anyone object to the following - it does not imply a universal behavior by users of the hashtag and accurately reports what RS reflect: 'One of the primary goals of those using the #Gamergate hashtag is to improve the....Marcos12 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Very well said. I would still omit "One of" from that line though, based on the reasoning you just presented. TyTyMang (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@TyTyMang, Masem, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Changing to version above. Marcos12 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
What are your sources for "primary"? — Strongjam (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Marcos12: This is not how you build consensus. Suggest you self-revert and allow time for discussion. — Strongjam (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Not my intention to break any rules, the sentence was changed previously without consensus - I was simply following suit. I wasn't aware that a consensus was needed for each change. In any event, I would hope my explanation above makes some sense. If we add a qualifier to this sentence, then we need to do the same all over the article, adding "some" or "a number" before every noun describing a group of people. As I mentioned in my Chicago Tribune example, if an RS says "Gamergate supporters are in favor of ethical reporting" it doesn't imply that 'every single user of the Gamergate hashtag feels this way. Marcos12 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
per the sources quite clearly the primary goal of gg postings is harassment and death threats. See the two actual studies of the postings in Newsweek and the Swedish source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The current version is not that different then whats been in the article for a long time. My biggest issue is not the removal of 'some' but adding "primary". — Strongjam (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The current version needs improvement. The sources in the article clearly state that the primary goal of GG, is neither harassment nor death threats. The sentence I've constructed is about what the movement claims, and what users of the hashtag are claiming per RS. Two studies do not somehow override literally dozens of sources. Marcos12 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Which sources specifically? — Strongjam (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam, TyTyMang, Masem, Thargor Orlando, Aquillion, and TheRedPenOfDoom: Starting with the second source listed at the bottom of the article
(Christian Science Monitor): "Many of her critics took his claims as evidence of corruption in gaming journalism. So they coalesced around the #gamergate hashtag on social media, claiming they were out to expose a gaming conspiracy".
Next source, The Guardian: "proponents of this movement say their key target is games journalism. "
Next source, The Daily Dot: "Gamergate denizens’ concerns boil down to two basic ideas. The first is simple: Journalists are too cozy with developers and are failing to provide unbiased coverage of video game news."
Two sources after that, The New York TImes "a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage.
I can literally go on and on. This is extremely well sourced. I understand this is a contentious article, but it is not at all contentious to say that one of the primary goals of those using the gamergate hashtag is ethical coverage in gaming journalism. Can we please agree to change the sentence? This is what the RS represent. Marcos12 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
None of that supports the addition of "primary" — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
How do they not support the addition of "primary"? Please explain. Marcos12 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
They support the statement that proponents say it's goal, but I don't see support for primary goal. — Strongjam (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I am suggesting "ONE of the primary goals". If you prefer, I could use the wording that The Guardian employed and say "one of the key goals" Marcos12 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Using The Guardian wording would also mean dropping ethics. It just says they're targeting games journalism. — Strongjam (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian sentence continues..."Gamergate complains about cronyism between certain writers and developers and has taken exception to the progressive sociopolitical leanings of news sources such as Polygon and Rock, Paper, Shotgun" Hence, the ethics angle. My suggestion is something along the lines of "One of the key goals stated by the Gamergate movement is to improve the ethical standards of gaming journalism..." Again, this is accurate and well-supported up by extensive RS, while at the same time it's neither controversial nor inflammatory. Marcos12 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Drop key and change "the Gamergate movement" to "Gamergate supporters" and I think we might have something. — Strongjam (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I changed it. Let me know how it reads. While didn't use the word "key", I wanted to incorporate something that reflects what is reported by the RS, namely that improving ehtical standards is a central tenet of GG. Marcos12 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Point taken regarding the word "central". I used "main" instead (main as opposed to peripheral). Daily Dot uses the word "key", while Guardian uses the word "central". I think "main" succinctly conveys what the RS say. If you'd like me to revert, please let me know. Marcos12 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth and TheRedPenOfDoom: Just a quick note (and forgive me, as I am not sure this is the appropriate place for this), but directly above is a fairly lengthy and quite civil discussion regarding this section of the article. I realize everyone has their opinion, but I am showing enough respect to discuss changes in the talk section (and making sure there is at least some consensus) before I make the change in the article. Both of you undid revisions that were discussed at some length. You are well within your rights to do so, but in interest of improving the article it would be helpful if there was some discussion first. I learned this lesson myself just the other day. Cheers. Marcos12 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Main reads a lot more naturally- don't at all agree with you continuing to remove 'some', however, given that we cannot accurately gauge the opinion of all members of a leaderless movement. As Strongjam has mentioned above, this is not how you build consensus. It's best to wait for multiple people to chip in, and if something in particular is a sticking point you do not continue to edit the article to enforce your preferred change, but instead discuss it until the matter is settled.PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I am willing to self-revert if others are in agreement. However, I believe the issue of using a qualifier like "some" or "many" was already discussed at great length, the consensus being a qualifier is unnecessary. Please see above for the Chicago Tribune reference. Marcos12 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: some

I don't see why we wouldn't say "some". Virtually all sources that discuss the movement describe it as as leaderless and heterogeneous. Without a party, there can be no party line. We can't assume that all Gamergate supporters believe in one thing, and we also can't let the handful of (anonymous) supporters who are quoted or summarized in reliable sources to speak for everyone. Woodroar (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I definitely am not seeing any consensus to remove "some." The sources above seem to support it; mostly, they describe it as something that some people using the hashtag have said that they are seeking. Beyond that, I've cited sources that describe other people within it who have specifically said that this is not their goal, so it would definitely be misrepresenting the sources to imply that this is a goal shared by everyone who uses the hashtag, supports gamergate, considers themselves part of the movement and so on. There's some room for discussion on other things, but it's pretty clear that including 'some' is the only reasonable way we can accurately represent the wide variety of sources on the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the examples Marcos mentioned above as illustrating that some users of the hashtag have said that their goals are these things; but since we also have sources where other people say other things, we cannot omit the qualifier. I also feel it's important to focus on the hashtag (which we can define comparatively concretely); 'supporters' is more vague and has caused people to ask constant questions about what it's referring to. To me, the original version is definitely superior to all proposed revisions, but we should discuss changes one at a time -- what are the objections to using the term 'users of the hashtag', say? I feel that it's much more specific, while 'Gamergate supporters' is (in this particular context) unnecessarily vague. One of the biggest problems all coverage has had is in defining exactly what it is, who it involves, and so on, so in the lead, at least, we should try to be as specific as possible in terms of who we are talking about; and 'people using the #Gamergate hashtag' is a group that can be concretely defined. --Aquillion (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Aquillion: If you have them already, please link the sources that have Gamergaters claiming other goals. There really are too many sources for us all to go searching for specific wording.
@Woodroar: Regardless of whether or not this a leaderless/partyless group makes no difference. The sources say "(however they define gamergate) says they are about ethics in gaming journalism" By making implications into the validity of the claim based on how "Without a party, there can be no party line" you are doing research (1. the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.) And we are not allowed to include original research in WP articles.
Unless we can source anything else Gamergate says its goals are, then, as far as we know, it is the only goal they claim. To say "some" or "many" implies that they claim other goals, and we should not be making unsourced implications. TyTyMang (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Having no organization makes a great deal of difference, because without it there can be no unified goal. I fully believe that some Gamergate supporters believe that ethics is a goal, or perhaps the primary goal. But reliable sources say over and over again that Gamergate is amorphous, and because of that we can't ascribe a single goal to an anonymous body of people. And beyond that, it's not original research when multiple sources state that the claimed goal is itself a cover for other goals or activities. Woodroar (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Define what you mean by 'Gamergate'? That's the entire issue here. There's no singular Gamergate organization, no one group that defines what they stand for. Therefore, we can only rely on coverage of what people affiliated with it (users of the hashtag, people from its channels, and so on) have said. And going by that, as I said above, the Ars Technica article quotes people it identifies as being from within it saying things like "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" or "Well I don't have a legitimate reason. I just want to see her die horribly." Likewise, Jesse Singal's excellent coverage here says that he found some similar things when he went to talk to self-described members of the movement. (The current lead actually touches on this, but he also notes that not everyone in the movement agrees -- or at least is willing to admit -- that their goal is to fight feminism and progressivism, while others indicate that that is their sole goal.) The CJR says similar things, explicitly describing the people who call for ethical concern in the terms we do here (as just one voice among many, pursuing different goals.) You can't say "well, but they're the enemy, we need to know what the Real True Gamergate says", because our only valid source for what Gamergate is and what it says is journalists like him -- the angry people telling Singal that it is about ethics have a voice, but so do the people saying that it is a cultural crusade against feminism or liberalism or progressivism, or a crusade to see Zoe get her commuppance, or the like. Those goals are all part of how Gamergate defines itself, not just how it is defined by some nebulous enemy; when many reputable journalists went to the most reliable primary sources they could identify to answer the question of "what is Gamergate and what does it want, in its own terms?", those are some of the answers they came back with. We cannot dismiss or diminish their findings simply because it doesn't agree with what you, personally, feel is the Real True Gamergate or what you, personally, feel the valid Gamergate-supporters say. (It might help to look at it like this, too: I suspect you would say that the people who are saying things like that are not true members of Gamergate, just trolls. But the reason you're saying that is because you already have a preconceived notion of what Gamergate is and, therefore, you see people who are 'disrupting' that as just trolls rather than Real True Gamergaters. From an outside perspective, though, those people are just as much a part of Gamergate as the people calling for ethics, and we therefore can't ignore them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The entire Gamergate controversy article is dedicated to what you're argument is about, how the sources have defined Gamergate. That is not the issue here. What we're discussing here is how "proclaimed supporters", "proponets of the movement", "users of the hashtag", etc say what it is about.
  • I seem to be overlooking those quotes in the Ars Technica article. An article based on the claim that the Gamergate hashtag was created by 4chan, but corrects itself with an update, stating it was actually first introduced by Adam Baldwin. I'd say that at least puts the reliability of the article into question. Regardless, I don't see how these personal statements from individuals change anything. Those don't seem to be statements as to the nature of Gamergate. All I see is implications about the real nature of gamergate, which is what the rest of the article is for.
  • Jesse Singal's "excellent coverage" links to the blog of the anti-feminist, who's introductory paragraph titled "What is GamerGate “really” about?" states "Collusion and corruption in gaming journalism is the theme here". Funny how he overlooked that small excerpt at the very beginning of the blog.
  • The CJR has nothing stating what hashtag users, et al, claim it to be about. It only has quotes of what other publications claim it is about. You should check out WP:RSBREAKING's link to The Breaking News Consumer Handbook. "3. Don't trust stories that cite another news outlet as the source of the information."
This discussion is about how proponents of Gamergate, or however you want to describe it, claim Gamergate to be about. And I still have yet to see other claims. TyTyMang (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
as per Segal and Ars Technica, supporters clearly state they are about harassing Quinn or driving feminist out of gaming or a gajillion other things. The problem with a "movement" with no membership, leaders , spokespeople or manifesto and only a hashtag is that it is not a "movement" that has defined goals or objectives, its merely what is hashed. and with gamergate what is hash ranges from harassment and death threats to antifeminism bizarre claims that only people who like a game should review it to inquests into people's sex lives to just about anything but the actual real life ethical violations of AAA games using games journalism as advertising platforms or buying reviews from bloggers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The Singal and Ars Technica sources clearly cite people who they identify as members of Gamergate, describing their goals as things tangental to or unrelated to videogames (and in some cases, explicitly stating that they have no interest in videogames.) The Singal article also explicitly states that not all Gamergate supporters agree on the political goals, but that some say that those goals are their purpose. (The ref in First Things and the quote by Baldwin also indicate that attacking and punishing liberals, feminists, progressives and so on are the purpose of Gamergate, at least from the perspective of those people.) All of the sources that have surveyed Gamergate proponents to see what their goals are have come to the conclusion that the movement has no clearly-defined goals and that the ones that some people using the hashtag have stated are not shared by all members. Therefore, we cannot say that the goals you are describing are shared by all members. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

appeal to be less judgmental

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

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

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

We follow the sources. The "core movement" as described by the sources, especially those that are entirely "factual" - the Newsweek and Swedish analysis of the postings, is harassment.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
And this is all stuff found in the sources. But because it's not consistently reported the same across sources, there's general refusal to use anything that's not sited equally in sources, and to take the more negative view of GG. And that's not what NPOV says. When that occurs, that's when we state things as claims to reflect the fact that the statements said are conflicting. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what policies you are reading, but the policies I am reading WP:OR /WP:V / WP:NPOV / state that we follow the sources, that we follow the most reliable sources, and that we give the most weight to the most widely held views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." and "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." We have conflicting statements from the highest reliable sources (I'm not talking about trying to compare the NYTimes with Kain of Forbes, but NYTimes vs WaPost vs Boston Globe type levels), and as such need to write with that awareness. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As per CJR it is seriously contested what gamergate might actually be. to proclaim it as a "movement" and to anoint certain claims as being completely representative would be absolute violation of any reading of NPOV. There is however no serious contestation that gg is heavily linked and entirely notable for the harassment and death threats emanating from it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Stating that GG claims they are a movement in absolutely no way violates NPOV, as long as we also include the claims that they are not a movement later. In fact, omitting that fact is a violation of NPOV, because that removes impartiality from the article. And remember, there are RSes that state that GG is self-claimed to be a movement. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
only some claim that they are a "movement" and what those some claim the "movement" is supposedly about also varies from soup to nuts. You cannot discard the "i'm gamergate and we are going to drive women from gaming by harassment and death threats" from the "im gamergate and we are about discussing why only people who like a video game should review it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no usable sources that support the self-stating claim of "i'm gamergate and we are going to drive women from gaming by harassment and death threats" (this does not mean there might be some in that community that state that is their goal, and I certainly would not be surprised if there are 8chan posts that can be read this way, just that no one that that has ID'd themselves as the movement says that is their goal within the body of reliable sources that we have to work from). That there is a perception that regardless of what self-stated claims GG says that they are really engaged in harassment, that's clearly sourced. But it is absolutely zero violation of any policy particularly NPOV to state that when people have self-identified themselves directly as part of the movement they state the movement is one about journalism ethics. That is a completely verifyable, neutral statement of a claim. We are not factually stating they are a movement, or that they are about ethics, but only the fact that this is what those that state they are part of the movement state what the movement is about, and those are claims that readibly sourcable in highly RS. They are also claims that have counterpoints, so we simply leave them as claims per the cited sections of NPOV above. To treat those statements any other way is apply judgement that we cannot do. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
THere is also no valid source that says the "i am gamergate and we are about ethics in journalism" is representative of anything other than one of many things that gg claim and actually are about. to grant that one view prominence when there is no official backing is improper . (and we do have multiple reliable sources of the "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance" " variety) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes there are. Just recently Boston Globe. Note that this points out both the self-stated claim, and the counterclaim of the press. Again, for us to repeat what a reliable, third-party source to "the movement/the hashtag" of what the purpose of GG is self-claimed to be by a person that claims to be a GG supporter is fully in line with V, NOR, and NPOV, as long as we are very clear it is a self-stated claim, and that we include what we already do, the skepticism and accusations the press has made about that claim. Also, there are no reliable sources that say, as a self-stated claim of a GG supporter "i couldnt care less about vidya, i just want to see zoe receive her comeuppance"; there are GG posts that exist to this point, yes, but we can't use forum posts as a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So in your view, the one story by the boston globe about Wu's appearance at a con despite death threats from gamergate is what we should use instead of the Columbia Journalism Review's analysis of the coverage of what gamergate is? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
or if you are so keen on Boston Globe as the authority, then we can go with their analysis that Originally presented as a forum for discussions of journalistic ethics, it soon devolved into hate-filled rants directed against female designers and writers, fuelling online threats of rape and murder, - whatever is was it now is rape and murder threats. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, I am talking about what GG says they are, by their claims, not what other people say they are. And that Boston Globe article section that is key is this "Backers of the GamerGate movement say the behavior of a few extremists is being used to smear their entire movement. “You can’t say that all people who support GamerGate hate women, just because one person in GamerGate might really hate women,” said PAX East attendee Andrew Sampson, a 20-year-old software developer from Atlanta. Sampson insisted GamerGate isn’t a war on women, but on corruption and dishonesty in video game journalism. “Video game journalists for the longest time have been colluding together,” said Sampson. “Basically taking bribes, taking offers to publish positive reviews.”". That's completely fair to use to explain the self-stated goals. To say "No, we can't use them because non-GG say the are something else" is a violation of objectivity and impartialness. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
You are talking about presenting the claims of some anonymous posters as if they are treated as if they have legitimate basis to be for speaking for all anonymous posters. the sources are clear that they do not have legitimacy to make such claims and that the actions of those sending rape and death threats are clear evidence that they in fact are not speaking for anything other than "some" people. We cannot present it otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a named person, so no, anonymous doesn't count here. And it is clear that most reliable sources are aware that the core GG movement claims to be about journalism ethics, even if they don't believe this one bit and really think GG is about something else like harassment. It is completely silly and inane to try to avoid saying that GG movement self-states it is about ethics when this is clearly repeated throughout all sources. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
most sources are aware the the core of gamergate is harassment. see the Newsweek and Swedish studies of the actual posts and twits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Newsweek does not say that at all. Only that of tweets they could classified, more were negative towards devs than positive. Nothing about harassment determined from the study. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I agree with Masem. There is no debate to what Gamergate supporters claim the goal of Gamergate to be. Nobody has said anything differently.
This line is about what proponents *say* Gamergate is about. It doesn't matter if the statement is true, false or even a blatant lie. It doesn't matter what individuals say they care about personally, they are not making a statement about Gamergate. All sources have quoted Gamergate proponents saying "the movement is about Ethics." It has been sourced extremely well that this has been said. To discredit the sources and imply gamergate proponents have stated otherwise is very much NPOV.
This entire debate over something otherwise so trivial just goes to show the preconceived judgement and POV pushing surrounding this article. So blatant in fact that not even this single item that would give the tiniest of justification for a reasonable person to be a proponent of gamergate is being so heavily opposed.
We DO NOT need to know what the sources say gamergate is about when writing what sources say gamergate proponents say it's about. TyTyMang (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually unless you have not read the sources, it is quite clear that there is a great debate in the sources as to what gamergate is about. there is not contention over the fact that some have stated gamergate is about X. there is great contention over whether those claims have any actual value or merit as representing anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine that there's contention of their self-stated claims being true or not. We are not to judge any way on this - whether the self-stated claims are true or false, or that the contentions are justified or not. We can source them, we can include them and present the issue that what GG is really about is not established in any reasonable manner. That's an objective stance to take. --18:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is why we should be doing some attribution about who believes what about the movement's beliefs, and spend some time dispassionately talking about what the movement believes it is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
the "movement" has steadfastly refused to identify a leader or spokesperson or generate an official manifesto. we cover that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) it is self stated claims by some anons with the authority to represent themselves. thats all. to present them as anything more is inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom:You keep making the same argument about the validity of the statement. The validity of the statement does not impact the validity of it's existence.
  • The statement is not up for interpretation.
  • Who made the statement is not up for interpretation.
  • Assuming contradictory statements exist is not up for interpretation.
  • The statement of individuals about their personal interests is not a statement about the nature of gamergate by proponents.
Basically all the sources say "(gg supporters, et al) say Gamergate is about ethics." I have not seen one source say "(gg supports, et al) say Gamergate is about *insert anything else here*" TheRedPenOfDoom, your point may be valid for the rest of the article, but for this specific instance it is not. TyTyMang (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I have provided such sources above, repeatedly. Gamergate is a large and complicated controversy involving a huge number of people, and many reliable sources have said that there is no agreement among its proponents on what they want, what they stand for, and what they object to. Singal and the CJR say this explicitly. Ars Technica provides specific quotes from people within the movement highlighting this. We must rely on reliable sources; we cannot ignore them simply because you disagree with their conclusions. To go over quotes from people you personally identify as Gamergate member and try to use that to ignore the coverage of those sources is WP:OR; their conclusions are valid even if you feel that the people they quoted and spoke to and covered were not 'real' proponents, and even if you disagree with the way they analyzed their sources. In other words -- you are looking over the things that people have said and saying 'Gamergate is obviously entirely about this, and every single person who has posted the hashtag or supported it clearly agrees! I cannot find any quotes I accept saying otherwise!' But the sources I cited have examined the same things you have and came to the opposite conclusion; we cannot substitute your conclusion for theirs. --Aquillion (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Aquillion: "But the sources I cited have examined the same things you have and came to the opposite conclusion; we cannot substitute your conclusion for theirs." Missed the point once again. We are not looking for anyone's conclusion on anything. What we are writing is what proponents say it is about. You are trying to marginalize what gamergate proponents say about their goals. You can always state the sources have come to a different conclusion to what gamergate proponents say it's about, but you cannot change what they say based on this conclusion. I still have yet to see a source say "supports of gamergate say they are about misogyny" or anything but ethics for that matter.
And I have already addressed the sources you have referenced Aquillion. Singal's article, in specific, may violate BLP. In his article he linked to the blog he was referencing. And in the blog he referenced, it claimed his article was a misrepresentation of the blogger and his point of view. The the blog clearly states in the introductory paragraph that gamergate is about ethics. Singal falsely labeled the blogger an "Anti-Feminist" and falsely attributed him to the statement that the gamergate movement is about anti-feminism. This seems fairly libelous. TyTyMang (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
When dealing with an amorphous, leaderless, structureless phenomenon like Gamergate, Misplaced Pages editors simply can't use primary sources like direct statements by people claiming to represent Gamergate. Selecting the views of Gamergate advocates A, B and C while setting aside the views of X, Y and Z who also use the hashtag is interpretation and synthesis, which we don't engage in as Misplaced Pages editors. Instead, we should build and maintain this article based on summarizing what the best of the reliable, secondary sources say about the topic. That is the only policy compliant path available to us. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No one is talking about using primary sources. High quality RSes from the likes of NYTimes, WaPost, and so on do state that the self-stated goal of GG is "about ethics". They often immediately follow that with "but we doubt that", but they state was GG claims it is. That's acceptable. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If you linked to a specific source, we could discuss that source. How can a leaderless phenomenon without a manifesto "self-state" anything? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think they are more subtle (and we should reflect that subtlety). They do affirm that GamerGate's stated purpose is reforming ethics in gaming journalism. Brianna Wu has stated that ethics are an issue in gaming journalism as well. The subtlety is that RS's state that GamerGate is inexorably linked to misogynistic attacks by nameless hordes that use the gamergate banner and its stated purpose is no longer its defining attribute. It's a subtle difference. Example of RS statement: "GamerGate grew out of a concern for ethics in journalism but soon became associated with harassment and threats primarily against women." Opinion piece: "GamerGate is about an orchestrated attempt to drive women from gaming and technology." There are many people that hold the latter view but reliable sources generally use the former. --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: Leaderless or Quantifier

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

@Cullen328: You'll have to ask the Sources where they got their information.
@DHeyward: It's our responsibility to avoid reading into the information such as trying to reflect their subtlety. Besides, how can the attribution of a statement have any subtlety?
Lets not forget what this discussion is about. It's about applying a quantifier to gamergate proponents who have stated gamergate is about ethics. Unless there is a source claiming gamergate proponents said gamergate is about something else, then using a quantifier is a misrepresentation of the sourced material. (i.e.: if we say "some" gg users say "x", then we need to have, while "other" gg users say "y") — Preceding unsigned comment added by TyTyMang (talkcontribs) 07:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Which sources in particular should I take my question to? Which reliable source purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole? Cullen Let's discuss it 07:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There are two excellent articles from highly reliable sources that, while they do not purport to speak for Gamergate as a whole (an impossible request to fill; journalists report, they do not purport), they take a top-down look at the controversy and report on the motivations of each side as a whole. The first oft-cited article is the Columbia Journalism Review article by Chris Ip. Here's a direct quote from that article: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press." Note the use of the word "many" rather than "some." Also note how the author speaks for the whole of the movement (by reporting, not purporting). This is in direct opposition of the current sentence in the article that reads "Some of the people using the #Gamergate hashtag have said their goal is to improve the ethical standards of video game journalism." When the most highly-regarded and oft-quoted source directly contradicts a sentence in the article space, it's a problem. The second highly-reliable article that takes a top-down look at the controversy is from the Washington Post, titled The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read. When a headline like that appears in the Washington Post, I would take them at their word. The reporter attempts to report on how Gamergate self-identifies: "Almost two months later, in fact, many people will still try to tell you that ethics in game journalism are all Gamergate’s really about." One again, there's that word "many," not "some." I cannot fathom how this point has met with such resistance. A manifesto about the movement does not exist, so short of that we go to the analysis of the best sources. The CJR and WaPo articles are two of the best sources we have on Gamergate. If we ignore or dismiss how highly reliable sources characterize the views of the movement, we are doing a grave disservice to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Later in that same Washington Post article, that instance of "many" is undermined by this: "hat isn’t to say that everyone flying the #Gamergate banner is sexist/racist/crazy, and that isn’t to say there aren’t some decent arguments about journalism ethics being made. But whatever voices of reason may have existed, at some point, have been totally subsumed by the mob". Another Washington Post article from later that month quotes a supporter as saying the "more rational voices" are about ethics in journalism, which seems to be a common theme with the WP. Clearly, we have multiple sources—and even the same paper, quoting different people—saying multiple things. To say "many" based on two sentences would be UNDUE. Woodroar (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, the issue is not "what gamergate is", the issue is "what gamergate says it is". The quote you used is the conclusion made by the writer. It may undermine what the Many proponents have said, but it does not undermine that they said it. And to read into it to say that it is undermining itself is to be doing original research. To say "some" based on WP:OR would be even greater UNDUE.
So it looks like we're back to many.TyTyMang (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
TyTyMang hit the nail on the head, and I don't understand why we need to keep restating this point. It is true that the journalists eventually draw conclusions on Gamergate. But this discussion is not about that analysis. This current discussion is about how the journalists describe the stated goals of Gamergate, and whether these goals are described as being held by "many" of "some" of the supporters. And I must respectfully disagree; we're not basing this conclusion off of "two sentences." I can post many more examples, and I have before, but inevitably any source I post that states the exact thing we're discussing is straw manned and/or ignored. The question was: Which reliable source purports to speak for Gamergate as a whole? I gave two examples of highly-reliable sources with the exact quote. After I did that, another editor responds with Clearly, we have multiple sources—and even the same paper, quoting different people—saying multiple things. This is not true. I have presented two highly-reliable sources that use the word "most." This fact is not undermined at any point in the article. The fact that most Gamergaters believe their movement is about ethics is not contested. In fact, in the other WaPo article you posted, you must have missed this sentence: "Failing to disclose those conflicts, many supporters said, is 'disrespectful' to those who read game sites, and that's the core of what makes them so mad." So that's a third article, and three sentences that describe ethical views as being held by a majority of supporters. As an added bonus, here is a fourth article, from the New York Times "The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate, a term adopted by those who see ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage. The more extreme threats, though, seem to be the work of a much smaller faction and aimed at women." The NYT writer describes the bulk of the movement as concerned about ethical problems, and a smaller faction concerned with harassment and threats aimed at women. Okay. So I now have four incredibly reliable sources saying that ethical concerns are the focus of the majority of supporters. Can you provide four equally reliable sources that say that ethical concerns are only the focus of a minority of supporters, as is currently claimed in the article space? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess maybe the better question is, if there is such disagreement in the sources, why are we using a qualifier at all? And why, if there is disagreement, are we using the qualifier some? It doesn't make sense, and it is not supported by the sources. We follow the sources. Right? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course this discussion is about the analysis, because that's virtually all we have. Except for a few direct quotes from supporters, everything mentioned above has been a summary from journalists of "how Gamergate supporters describe their movement" based on what those journalists have heard and observed: "many claim to be advocating greater ethics" from the CJR, "many people will still try to tell you" and "many supporters said" from the WaPo. All summary gathered from a variety of supporters, which must be balanced with the journalists' exceptions and qualifiers. Your other example, "work of a much smaller faction" from the NYT, only says that "he more extreme threats" are coming from a small faction, which could imply that a larger faction is responsible for less extreme threats. Minor Threats, if you will. (Of course, I wouldn't ever suggest sourcing that opinion to the article, because that would be OR. Plenty of other sources have said it, though.) So we can't simply pick out the word "many" and call it a day: per NPOV, we have to give necessary context. And we have to balance it against reporting from other sources, like ArsTech and NYMag as mentioned above.
That being said, I've been considering this issue and I would support the use of "many" as long as we do it right, with proper context and attribution. So we could say something like According to the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post, many Gamergate supporters claim they are concerned about journalistic ethics among the video game press. However, examples of alleged wrongdoing provided to them were found to be unrelated to journalism or ethics, but rather debunked conspiracy theories. Ars Technica and New York Magazine, on the other hand, consider it to be a manufactured PR campaign, where claims about ethical journalism are a cover for continued misogynist attacks. The two primary views of "ethics in journalism"—debunked vs. deception—in context and attributed to their sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying that the conclusion drawn by the sources about the goals of gamergate have some impact on the statement made by gamergate proponents? ... So if someone says "I am not guilty" but then they are convicted, we'll change what they say to "I am guilty". That's pretty much what's happening here.
This wording issue makes no sense to me. You want to attribute the claim as a statement of opinion from the sources about what gamergate proponents say gamergate is about. However, throughout the rest of the article we're going to attribute the findings of these same sources as statements of fact. What??? And seriously, the entire article is dedicated to debunking that claim. To marginalize the only claim being made by proponents of gamergate about gamergate is entirely UNDUE. Besides, what kind of a hate group hides it's hate? Never saw the KKK or westboro baptist church try to hide their hate. TyTyMang (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you actually seen the KKK or WBC do anything? What are you basing this opinion on? Claiming that they're "not racist, just trying to protect the world from white genocide/being punished for the homosexual's 'immorality'" is part and parcel with what they do. Interviews with members who have left those cults generally show that they were brought in with promises of community and fixing the things that were ruining the member's life, and when they're hooked, that's when they start opening up about the hate agenda.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The idea that "hate groups don't hide their hate," besides being egregiously wrong, was the recent subject of a thread on a major GG discussion hub. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see it percolating down to this talk space. drseudo (t) 16:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@TyTyMang: this has nothing to do with fact vs. opinion, but of using reliable sources properly and proportionally. Few sources care to report Gamergate supporters' self-professed goals with any credulity, and even those that do—the CJR and WaPo—immediately debunk them. And if a few sources consider them credulous, then we should attribute that. But most sources either don't care or consider "ethics in game journalism" laughable at best. By comparison, look at our article on Frank Abagnale. He himself claimed that he was a pilot, sure, and that's widely sourced. But we certainly don't belabor that point simply because he said it, and in fact we undermine it consistently because that's exactly what reliable sources do. Maybe Gamergate will someday inspire a film starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks and Christopher Walken and somehow be vindicated, but until that happens we need to follow the sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
We are talking in circles again. For the "some/many" question, it does not matter if the views are "debunked." It doesn't matter if the views are "credible." This is not a question as to the legitimacy of the claims. We are simply trying to determine the existence of those claims using reliable sources. Once we verify the existence, we determine whether those sources ascribe these views (whether credible or not) to the majority of Gamergate supporters. That's it. We follow the sources. The Frank Abagnale analogy is flawed for a few reasons, most obviously because he is a single person and his beliefs are relatively simple to ascertain, but I'll use him anyway to make my point. Abernale claimed he was a pilot, and reliable sources have verified this information. Gamergate supporters claim they are concerned with journalistic ethics, and the sources verify this information. WP:V has a way to handle when sources disagree. "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Now, can we reasonably weigh the Columbia Journalism Review against ArsTechnica? Can we weigh an article in the Washington Post against an opinion piece in New York Magazine? Is that even close? Even having said that, I can't find a source for the quote "...consider the ethics to be a manufactured PR campaign, where claims about ethical journalism are a cover for continued misogynist attacks." Where is this stated in the articles? Can you give me a quote, because I seem to be missing it. Having said that, I do like your proposal, and I would propose this simplified edit: According to the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post, many Gamergate supporters claim they are primarily concerned with journalistic ethics among the video game press. However, examples of alleged wrongdoing provided to them were found to be unrelated to journalism or ethics, but rather easily-debunked conspiracy theories. Does that still work? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. In the meantime, I notice we still have not deleted the qualifier "some". This has been discussed at length and consensus was reached. , , Marcos12 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No, consensus was not reached. And DUE doesn't mean that when two sources disagree with two other sources, we choose the two that we like best. If it's ten versus two, that's a different story, but that's not what we have here. Woodroar (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to re-enforce it, consensus was not reached. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Have either of you looked at the three citations I referenced? Please explain how consensus was not reached, because I am not following. There was extensive discussion on how to better reword the sentence in question. Agreement was reached among multiple editors. Consensus does not mean "unanimous", nor is consensus a vote. If you disagree that consensus was reached, please back up your assertion. Thanks. Marcos12 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Your citations are all from Strongjam. 1) One person agreeing with you does not make a consensus. 2) Strongjam in your last citation added "some" back. 3) I do not agree with your proposed change. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: For the record I'm sorry I ever started this discussion. I should have known that a discussion about one word would have spawned a weeks long argument. Also, as you said, the one change I was fine with was just one person agreeing, hardly quorum on a well trafficked talk page like this. — Strongjam (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:DRNC. Also WP:UNANIMOUS. I agree, it is frustrating that a one-word edit requires this much discussion, but it's a reflection of the poor state of this talk page, and it's closest we have come to consensus on this issue in two weeks. So let's discuss the proposed change. We have identified an issue -- a sentence in the article is directly contradicted by several highly reliable sources (two of which are The Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Post). We follow the sources, so several editors have worked on a proposal to change to that sentence that properly reflects the disagreement in the sources. Per WP:BALANCE: "hen reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Marcos12 boldly made an edit to the sentence in the article space. If you have problems with that edit, I would gently suggest you discuss the problems with the proposed edit rather than decrying the fact that we have not achieved consensus. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's the same argument over and over and over again. It's the same refutation. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, my comment about "no consensus" is that Marcos12 claimed consensus. Also, there needs to be RS support for the change. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any contradiction between the current version and any of the sources cited. When some reliable sources explicitly say "some people using the hashtag say X, and other people using the hashtag say Y", while others say "people using the hashtag say X," that is not a contradiction; it just means that the second source only covers part of the topic. It would be a contradiction if there were sources that explicitly denied that there was a variety of views and goals represented by the hashtag, but I see no contradiction in the fact that different articles have covered different aspects of the controversy. I definitely feel that none of the sources people have cited above give us any reason to doubt or question the numerous reliable sources that have explicitly stated that Gamergate's views and goals cannot be identified with any certainty; therefore, I think that it's about time to put a close to this discussion with the conclusion that the lead must qualify any statement of possible goals or ideology to make it clear that that is not accepted as universal to everyone using the hashtag; that is, we must use the word 'some' or something similar. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: close this section start new sections

This section is a monster and covering a range of topics. I propose we close this, and each person who wants to continue a sub-topic, start a new section. I'm reaching the limit of my ability to follow what's happening in this section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

"Misogynistic attacks" is an opinion

Closing to separate the multiple conversations. Please start a new section to continue conversations. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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


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

Not all adjectives are matters of opinion. You are, unfortunately, wrong in your assertion that stating harassment is misogynistic is a matter of opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No, not all adjectives are matters of opinion - just this one. To call it misogynistic is to make a judgement about the motives of the perpetrators. If your source does so then you are free to say " says it is misogynistic" but you are not free to state this as fact.
WP:RSOPINION states: ″Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".
I will be removing these adjectives as per WP:RSOPINION Galestar (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Galestar:For clarification (not going to revert and report because this is an easy mistake to make): 1RR doesn't simply count times you press the "undo" button, removing information from the article technically counts as a revert. You have currently passed 1RR please self revert.Bosstopher (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I added the disputed adjective back in, with a template. Galestar (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Because many reliable sources describe the attacks as misogynistic, I will remove the template once and then step aside. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
So now not only can I not remove an opinion disguised as fact, I can't even mark it as disputed? If you wish to challenge my assertion that this is on opinion other than just "not its not" please do so here. Galestar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Note the bit about reliable sources. Attacks can be misogynistic in nature. The sentence does not ascribe that nature to PEOPLE, but to the ATTACKS. Parabolist (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Dozens of sources refer to it this way. Per WP:LEAD, calling them misogynistic is a correct description. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Attacks are only misogynistic if done for misogynistic reasons. To state that an attack is misogynistic is to assert that the people performing the attacks hated women in general. Your "reliable" sources (I may shortly challenge if they count as reliable) are allowed to make the leap that they are misogynistic; you as an editor may only quote their opinion.
Even one of the sources in the article echoes this: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement." Galestar (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/gamergate.php
Galestar, you are misunderstanding WP:RSOPINION - it is a guideline on the use of "opinion pieces" (e.g. editorials, blog-format sections, columnist pieces etc.) as reliable sources for their author's opinions. These stand in contrast to "normal" articles which are presented not as opinion but as fact vouched for by the news organization. CIreland (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually most of these sources are editorials and columnists. So there's that. Galestar (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Galestar, I reverted your last two edits, which were dedicated to removing descriptions of Gamergate as "misogynistic" or claiming that those descriptions are in dispute. In particular, the CJR piece you linked did not support the lede change. Please propose any other changes here before making edits so that consensus can be reached. Thanks! drseudo (t) 00:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The CJR piece states: "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement. Instead, many claim to be advocating greater ethics among the video game press.". This is one of several sources that were already in use by the article that point out that whether or not the attacks were misogynistic is in dispute. Please make sure you are following NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talkcontribs) 01:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Galestar: NPOV means that we report fairly and proportionally what reliable sources say about a topic. And they virtually all agree that the harassment was misogynistic in nature. See the "Misogyny and sexism" section and check the sources, you'll find "misogynistic" and plenty of other similar adjectives. (I would also encourage you to browse through the Talk archives, as this has been discussed many times before.) Now sources sometimes acknowledge that Gamergate supporters dispute the term, yes, but they still characterize the harassment as such in the same way that they consider claims of "ethics in games journalism" to be debunked. Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There does seem to be a persistent problem in gender-related articles that there are two quite different meanings of the word 'misogynistic'. One takes it to mean, 'Motivated by an innate hatred of women,' while another takes it to mean, 'Targeted at harming women specifically.' We see this come up quite regularly in gender-related disputes, where someone's statement or action is described as misogynistic and the response is, "But I don't hate women." I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that those arguing for excluding the word are taking the former meaning, while those arguing for inclusion are taking the latter. It's not helpful to our readers if some are likely to make the same mistake (and if editors make this mistake, then surely our readers will also). Is there some way we can clarify the language to show the intended meaning, rather than removing it from the article? GoldenRing (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, I take the word to mean the former. The word indicates the motivation and not simply that the victim was female. The act must be a manifestation of the perpetrator's misogyny. Galestar (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So, is there some better way of describing it? I don't think anyone would deny that there has been a lot of harassment targeting women; how do we say that without confusing readers? GoldenRing (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Why find another word when the current one is (1) adequately descriptive and (2) what the RS use? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily arguing for another word. I'm saying I think there is confusion around its use and we should do something to avoid that confusion. Maybe the ambiguity in 'misogynistic' I've described above is inherent and we should avoid the word. Maybe I'm wrong and those advocating including the word do mean, 'Motivated by an innate hatred of women.' Maybe we need a sentence clarifying how the word is used in the article, or some qualifying adjective to go with the word that makes clear which meaning we're using. GoldenRing (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I could see possibly putting a footnote by it... just an idea... but honestly I don't think it's necessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Harassment of women which is threatening, intense, frequent, prolonged, sexualized, violent in its imagery, rape oriented, and reveling in the imagined suffering of its female victims is also "misogynistic", by any reasonable definition of the word. That is what Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian have experienced, according to a large number of reliable sources that we have vetted for months. I read one week of Sarkeesian's messages and was horrified. This matter is crystal clear. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree on this one. The word misogyny stands for hatred towards women. Now, your adjectives describe in no sense whatsoever hatred towards women because it is not clear if the hypothetical perpetrator practices this kind of harassment (especially rape oriented, possibly sexualized - although sexualized harrassment definitely occurs as well if a man is the target) because the target is female (and has for whatever absurd reason drawn the perpetrators attention) OR the perpetrator is just incompetent to argue rationally with the target or whatever other cause (some people react with aggression to certain things) results in hostility towards the target normal people would articulate in a calmer and acceptable manner and instead tries intimidation (people do that sometimes) - and since the target is a women the perpetrator uses this as well - not because the perpetrator hates women - but because the intimidation is specifically targeted. "I will cut off your ...!" just doesn't make much sense if expressed towards a woman. And this is the problem in this discussion. The definition is unclear, misogyny is a catchy word, of course journalists will use it. But we should be able to stand above such unquestioned labelling. Yes, enough people working for outlets considered reliable have said it, but attribute it to them, Misplaced Pages doesn't judge - they do.Citogenitor 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well here. Above, Parabolist says, The sentence does not ascribe that nature to PEOPLE, but to the ATTACKS. Do you think he is right that the article should describe the attacks as misogynistic but not the people? Or that we should be describing the people as misogynistic also? This seems to me to be the root of the dispute over use of the word. It seems fairly clear to me that some people are reading that sentence as a description of the people behind the attacks - eg Galestar above (note Galestar is blocked for 48 hours for a 1RR violation and so won't be commenting here for the foreseeable). GoldenRing (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a distinction without significance since the lead of the article currently describes the attacks that way since that is what so many reliable sources say. Misogynistic attacks are rarely delivered against every single woman on earth but usually against individual women or specific groups of women. I see no one proposing that we should change "attacks" to "people" so why are we bothering to discuss that? Why waste electrons? Cullen Let's discuss it 05:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Because a significant number of people read 'misogynistic attacks' as attacks motivated by an innate hatred of women in the attackers. Isn't giving that impression, however unintentially, in fact especially unintentially, a problem? GoldenRing (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Of course our job is more than that; our job is also to communicate it effectively to readers. GoldenRing (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Accurately summarizing is essentially identical to communucating effectively here on Misplaced Pages. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying not to summarize the source, but as a neutral tertiary source, per NPOV, we are able to state that information from an RS is only a claim if there are problems with such statements, and strive to avoid stating contentious statements as fact. Calling the attacks directly as misogynyist is an opinion based on observation. We can call the attacks appearing to be amisogynistic pattern or that the attacks are widely considered as misogynistic, but we should not be directly calling the attacks misogynistic in WP's voice because this is a strongly contested statement. It is a very subtle but important point to keep us objective and neutral. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Strongly contested? Which reliable sources argue that the attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu are not misogynistic? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be contested, just contentious. Calling an attack "misogynistic" is fully subjective and thus a contentious statement, and can only be determined clearly if that is the intent of the persons behind it, if they intended it to be misogynistic. And we have no idea what that intent is. It is very likely the case that these attacks are driven by misogyny but we have no data to confirm that, only the observations of the press. So instead of saying as we have now "...were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks", we can state "...were subjected to a sustained campaign of a misogynistic pattern of attacks", which keeps that important opinion of the press in the lead, but only stated as a claim, not a fact. --MASEM (t) 07:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with Masem's 'fully subjective' statement, but anyway, it's a bit beside the point I'm making. The sources describe the attacks as misogynistic, and so should we. However, there are two common meanings of misogynistic. There seems to be a reasonable sort of consensus that the sources we are citing are using one of those meanings, but that is not clear from our article (or at least a significant number of people coming to the article don't read it that way). That's not effectively communicating a summary of the source. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there are two common meanings of misogynistic. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not the situation here. Misogyny - the hatred, dislike, or prejudging towards women - is pretty much that, but it is a term that gets thrown around a lot by commentators because it is a "hot" word - used right, it will create sympathy from the right audiences, just as the word "terrorism" can swing audience. I am not saying this word does not apply here - the sources make it unavoidable to use, and Occum's razor says that if the brunt of GG's attacks are towards women and specifically towards their nature as females, yeah , misogyny is very likely a cause. But we still have zero idea what these people are thinking for us, or the press, to know if the harassment is being done for misogynistic purposes or not. No one - short of Singal's attempt to rationalize with GG on reddit - has tried to get into the minds of these people as they have with Quinn, etc. Keeping in mind they have gone after men (like Phil Fish) as well, just not with the same vigor, it is quite possible they might simply be trying to troll what they believe are easy targets, or the whole SWJ thing. The result of whatever they are doing appears misogynistic, no question, but we have nothing beyond the claim of the press that they are misogynistic. I will stress that this is no way denying the likelihood that the attacks are truly misogynistic, but as a tertiary neutral source, we have to recognize that some of the leaps of logic made by the press cannot be repeat as fact in WP, and thus should simply make sure that this stance is reported as the most predominate opinion on what the harassment looks like. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Masem. We reflect what the media says, especially (but not only) if it's as obviously accurate as it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We cannot prejudge what the situation is, that fails the objectivity and impartialness we have to maintain. We cannot pretend that what the press says is "accurate" for a claim about the reason for the harassment if they have no spoken to anyone within GG. That's why this is contentious and simply should be clear it is the predominate claim, but not fact. Again, to stress, I'm not say that this is wrong but we are aware that we can't say it is necessarily right based on on their observations. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Our article can't reflect what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources with a history of accuracy say is correct because <original research>? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it can. NPOV has this allowance there when the claim is contentious and that is our function/ability as a tertiary source, to evaluate the nature of sources as to how they best apply to the topic in question (this was also confirmed in the RFC about bias in the press that we can judge if there is bias and adjust appropriately). Also note that we don't judge sources on accuracy, but reliability. (That's why it's at WP:RS, not "WP:AS"). --MASEM (t) 20:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What else would we call it? Terrorist? The sources, including non-WP:BIASED ones, call it misogynistic. I don't think the term is contentious in this case. It's clear from the wording that we're describing the attacks as misogynistic. Would attacks that are misogynistic in nature be better? Seems too wordy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The pattern of the harassment is clearly misogynistic (that's a factual statement about their observations), but without any evidence that they have talked to people behind the attacks to understand exactly why they initiate the attacks, saying the attacks were misogynistic can't be claimed as fact. We have to understand that the press has been doing a very poor job of trying to understand the GG side and making broad statements about the observed before. I do not question that it is highly likely that the intentions of the attacks were misogynistic, and the press may be fully correct at the end of the day, but there is nothing to back up how they came to their conclusion outside of the natural bias that exists in a story where you have women vs online trolls. What the press has stated is clearly a contentious statement given the lack of investigation demonstrated to make this determination. We can recognize that issue as a tertiary source per NPOV and make sure to avoid stating what is contentious as fact. That's why I've put wording above to not call the attacks directly as misogynistic, but that the pattern of harassment attacks is misogynistic. This is the same situation with something like global warming. There's a huge swath of reliable source that says it exists, but our article still presents it as the predominate theory and not a fact. (And this might be nitpicking on one or two words, but one or two words do make a significant difference when we are talking about our article's neutrality and tone). --MASEM (t) 20:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"We have to understand that the press has been doing a very poor job of trying to understand the GG side" - I'm sorry but that sounds like a poor excuse to throw out reliable sources out the window, when those sources don't say what you want them to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where does Masem say anything about throwing out sources? It seems pretty clear to me he's explaining WP:LABEL. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I never said to throw out the sources, only recognize that the coverage of GG has been one sided, in part due to the nature of the GG dis-organization (from the CRJ article) and part due to "women vs online trolls". There's still fine sources, but they are simply making claims that are contentious because the coverage is simply not sufficient to be making factual claims about the intent of GG. (And this works both ways, which when I say we have to say , any claims made by GG about their intent is self-statements, not factual actual). Per NPOV we opts to report contentious claims as claims, not fact. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with VM here. But Kyohyi even if that is the case, we use the LABELs in the lead if they are overwhelmingly used by RS. For example Boko Haram is called terrorist without attribution in the lead. I use this example because terrorist is mentioned in LABEL and there was someone recently trying to remove it claiming NPOV. To be clear, I am not calling GGers Boko Haram, but there is a parallel in the cases.
Masem, we are to present due weight, not artificial balance. The sources are "one sided" in part because the actions of GG are so reprehensible. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm in no way attempting to affect the balance. We've been there, that can't happen. But we need to recognize that there is too little information for us as a tertiary source to be stating factually what their intents are, despite the press having overwhelming claiming they know. Also keep in mind with Boko Haram, we have several official government sources that have labeled the group as terrorists, which no longer makes that claim contentious. However, newspapers are not the same as official government sources. If the FBI does get involved and at the end of day calls the GG movement as misogynistic, then we have a fact to build on, just like the case of BH. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me for intruding, I'm very new around here, but I just wanted to try to help. It struck me that the "misogynist" claim was more about the nature of the attacks than any unknowable intent, no? An insult that used ethnic slurs might reasonably be called racist (or at least ethnocentric!) without appealing to the intent of the speaker. Dumuzid (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We definitely can say the attacks appeared to be misogynistic, had a pattern of misogyny, or the like. The near-unanimous take of the press on the stuff they can observe and which they explain in detail is clearly something we can state as fact. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm probably missing something. But can't we also say that an attack using gendered slurs is misogynistic in the same way one using racial epithets is racist in an absolute sense, regardless of subjective intent? I know this does not completely encompass the debate with regard to this section, but I am trying to figure out our definitions. Dumuzid (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
While it is very likely that harassment that includes gendered slurs slanted towards women arises from misogynistic attitudes, there are other attitudes that could also lead to that behavior (for example, if there are true third-party users out there trolling both sides of the issues, and are just using the language to mask their activities). It's Occum's razor, yes, but Occum's razor is enough to raise the OR issues with claims. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because someone uses female gendered derogatives and insults doesn't mean it is misogynistic. This label is used in the controversy for too many instances of any kind of somewhat hostile expression directed at women. It goes so far that people even start to ridicule that notion that critizising a women or wearing a shirt with depictions of sexualized women is already misogynistic. You can definitely write that commentators/journalists have described much of the harassment directed towards women involved as misogynistic. But we don't judge. And we don't label indiscriminately. They do! Citogenitor 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Citogenitor -- Okay then, I guess I am not understanding how you would propose to change the article. It doesn't sound like you think all mentions of misogyny should be excised, but can you give me some sort of concrete suggestion(s)? Dumuzid (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Just attribute them to the writers/platforms and don't use universal quantifications. I would suggest in general to ask yourself: would the majority of people actually involved (not necessarily directly) in the matter at hand - regardless of how much their voice gets heard agree with a statement or not. Just because most media platforms tell one story does not equal the truth. We don't research the truth ourselves but we also don't accept statements as truth if there are some indications that a lot of people involved would disagree, which is the case here. This means that attributes (especially judgmental ones) mustn't be stated as fact but as descriptions by third parties. Edit: I fucked up outdenting. Citogenitor 14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand the argument that not all #GamerGate supporters would agree, but I can't see that as overriding reliable sources. And to me, the article does a decent job of marking the "misogyny" bits as opinion (even if there are other issues). Can you point me to specific sections or sentences that you think should be changed? Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This section begins with an example. It is referring to the lead.Galestar (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well that was quite the conversation I've started. Thanks everyone. I would like to challenge the continually repeated statement that "reliable sources describe the attacks as misogynistic". I've done a sampling of a handful of the (many) sources on this article. Only a small minority of that sample describe the attacks as misogynistic. Most of the sources in general appear to be editorial/opinion pieces, but this is especially true for those that describe the attacks as misogynistic. As per WP:NEWSORG:

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

So would someone please demonstrate to how they came to the conclusion the "RS describe it.." conclusion. Please use non-editorial, non-opinion pieces. Also given the large number of sources on this article, cherry-picking a single article does not allow you to claim it is "the majority".

Additionally, here are two sources that do bring up the (albeit dubious) claim that the motivations were about ethics. Yes, it is a dubious claim. No, you cannot ignore it and state the competing claim as factual.

  • "Whether the crux of Gamergate is ethics in video game journalism or misogyny among gamers continues to spark heated debate online."
  • Still, some justified their attacks on the “manipulative” Quinn in the name of ethics.

Galestar (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Tech-Culture/2014/1125/Gamergate-and-the-new-horde-of-digital-saboteurs
  2. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest
There are only a handful of reliable sources which describe the attacks as misogynistic. Most of the good sources use neutral language. There is a group-think that goes on in this talk page where editors assume the "majority of reliable sources" say something, then they repeat that mantra without actually citing said reliable sources. Of the 19 reliably sourced articles I reference for questions of this nature, only 5 describe the attacks as misogynistic. Here they are:
  1. AFP: "The horrific misogynistic abuse of female figures within the video game industry has triggered debate over whether women are being accepted as equal partners in the sector."
  2. Washington Post: "One problem Gamergate supporters face in defending against accusations of intolerance is that the blog post that sparked the controversy set a misogynistic tone." (this is more about the tone of the movement, rather than describing the harassment but I included it anyway)
  3. Washington Post: "Here at the Intersect, we have ignored Gamergate for as long as humanly possible — in large part because it’s been covered in enormous, impressive depth elsewhere, and in smaller part because we’re exhausted by the senseless, never-ending onslaught of Internet misogyny, which really can’t be explained in a blog post — or, frankly, anywhere else."
  4. LA Times "Far from making a point, the ugly reaction has instead exposed the rage and rampant misogyny that lies beneath the surface of an industry that’s still struggling to mature." (again, this is discussing video game culture rather than the actual harassment, but I think it's close enough)
  5. Time: "Despite the fact the journalist in question did not 'review' the game and wasn’t found to have allocated it any particular special treatment, the misogynistic 'scandal' — and fans' fear of women 'censoring' their medium by seeking more positive and diverse portrayals — has launched an 'ethical inquiry' by fans campaigning to unearth evidence of corruption and collusion among people who they feel are too close to the games and developers they write about."
But this is not conclusive proof. As with most of the bickering over word choices, sources do not uniformly describe this as one thing or another. For example, an equal number sources actually use the word "misogyny" only to claim that proponents of Gamergate oppose the label, as demonstrated in the CJR article you quoted:
  1. Columbia Journalism Review "When reporters characterize Gamergate as misogynistic, proponents say those views don’t represent the movement."
  2. Al Jazeera "And as consumers who helped to make video games an industry that earns tens of billions of dollars a year, they feel like a focus by the gaming press on issues like misogyny will lead to censorship and alter the games they love."
  3. Washington Post "So we reached out via Twitter to Gamergate supporters, who are defending gaming culture against accusations of misogyny, for their opinions and suggestions of who they felt could tell their side of the story."
  4. Boston Globe "Gamergate's proponents claim that this isn’t about misogyny but rather about corruption in the gaming world."
  5. The New Yorker "Some feel that Sarkeesian, in criticizing games for their misogynistic portrayals of women, is also accusing those who enjoy the games of misogyny."
  6. The Guardian "Not all gamers and not even all those who support #GamerGate attack women or support misogynist views, however."
The rest of the articles don't mention misogyny and stick to more neutral terminology to discuss the attacks. So that's the scoop. As it turns out, there is actually no agreement in the sources. I suppose, in this crazy la-la land of an article, that means we should default to the most incendiary language possible, right? Because the only section of WP:NPOV that many editors are familiar with is WP:UNDUE. Or something. I have no idea. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Please read through the archives, as this has been discussed to death. We decided long ago that there's no need to add source after source about certain subjects—"misogyny" being one of them—when we can reasonably source a claim to a handful of high-quality reliable sources. Google "Gamergate misogyny" and you'll find plenty of RS sourcing this absolutely DUE statement. Woodroar (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:TALKEDABOUTIT your previous decisions are not binding. Consensus can change. Galestar (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Additionally: I (or we?) are challenging the assertion that the attacks are being *universally* or *mostly* described as misogynistic. Some sources do. Most don't. Telling us to Google for those exact words is begging the question / confirmation bias ("see, if I search for X I find X. Therefore X is everywhere"). Galestar (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't use such a label universally. We should in most cases avoid generalization if there is a hint of controversy. @ColorOfSuffering: Thanks for the research! Citogenitor 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Those attacks were specifically directed at her being a woman. That makes it clearly misogynistic. I do not see the need for debate.Lucentcalendar (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that doesn't. It's the most likely reason, but there are many other reasons from what the GG people have been saying that they could have harassment these targets. For example, one complaint they have is the whole "SWJ" thing, in that they don't want any message pushing in their games whether it is about feminism, LGBT, parenting, etc. So their harassment would be to this end, though obviously more women would be caught in that. So unless we know with strong clarity the motivations behind the harassment (which no one has provided), we as a tertiary source cannot state the attacks are misogynistic, though clearly they have a pattern that equates to misogynistic behavior, the predominate claim across most sources, which we can cite. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I started looking at the sources and found 11 instances of sources describing either the attacks or supporters as misogynistic—The Telegraph, again, and again, On the Media, Canada.com, The Daily Beast, Ars Technica, Reason, International Business Times, Metro, Washington Post—and that's only the first row (browsing through 60 of 184 sources), only looking for "misogyn*" and not synonyms, and not even going into the Talk archives or finding new sources with Google. Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
And as I've described before, as a neutral tertiary source, we have the ability to recognize that they have only looked at the surface of GG to make that declaration and thus cite it as opinion, not fact. That the attacks have a pattern of misogyny, no question that they can report on that, but they have not presented any reason to make a highly subjective statement, that the reason behind the attacks is due to misogyny, as a fact. So we simple should report this as "the attacks are perceived to be misogynistic", or "the misogynistic pattern of attacks", or "the misogynositic attacks as described by mainstream sources", but we cannot factually state "misogynistic attacks" because that is contentious. This is following what NPOV describes. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I can start here. @Masem would you agree that there are enough reliable sources writing that the movement is misogynistic in nature that to leave that allegation out entirely would be to do the article a disservice? I can't tell if this argument is over the information itself or the weight given to the information. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Lucentcalendar on this. Quacks like a duck. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lucentcalendar I don't recall that anyone was ever attacked for being a woman. Is that what you meant? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@AugustRemembrancer: I meant that her and later them being women was at the core of this incident. I have only read this article, but if it is correct, accusations against Zoe Qinn were based on her having an affair and she was then threatened with rape. That is misogonystic. The online gaming community used a lot of strong language. But a man would not have been threatened with rape and it would not have reached such a scope and public attention. So this aspect is central to this article and should be in the lead.Lucentcalendar (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't agree with the majority of this. All of these things can in fact occur without misogynistic intent, to men as well. It is hard to justify this level of strident conclusion in the absence of supporting sources. This is directly related to @Galestar's original point. Are such powerful opinions being allowed to creep into the introduction without supporting sources? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It's amazing to me how many people show up here within moments of reaching Autoconfirmed status to make frankly stupid claims like "rape threats are not misogynistic intent". Truly fucking shocking. --Jorm (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It is you, that is making false claims. "Rape threat implies misogyny" is not a valid logical implication. A rape threat is a deplorable method to intimidate a woman, but it is not necessarily inherently misogynistic. For intimidation to be effective one would have to target it specifically to the victim. So if for some reason the target would be a women and intimidation is the goal, it is obvious that "I'll cut your dick off" less effective than a rape threat (would you describe the former as misandrist?). I know, this is sociopathic logic but I hope this shows that said implication is logically false. Sadly, nobody in the media takes the time to articulate themselves logically coherent and in this case it is much easier to deflect everything on the victims being women and derail any form of discussion (and I don't mean "discussing" with harassers, that is the job of law enforcement). Misogyny everywhere. Citogenitor 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
your critique of the media while deeply passionate does not belong here. We go by what the reliable sources say, not what a horde of internet trolls would like themselves to be portrayed as. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
But the comment above from user Jorm has its place? He judged Wikipedians by their perceived Misplaced Pages-age. Called their arguments stupid. (This would be an ad-hominem per definition, and I think we can stand above that and discuss ideas on their merit alone) I just answered his nonsensical claim with a rebuttal showing that such generalisations (either way) are false and is unfortunately common in the media (while it should be clear that the last part is just my personal opinion and I wouldn't argue if you dismissed that part as conspiratorial BS). The point I wanted to make was that almost all generalisations in this controversy are sadly enough easily dismissed as jumping to conclusions or projecting and therefor logically false. The only thing you can argue is that there are people on the internet (with some ties to GamerGate) that seem to really hate several people, among them some women. Even if it were only the mentioned women it is a idiotic projection to argue from hating three women to hating women in general (i.e. misogyny). But what do I have to say - it seems that logic is not something of value to you (who argue for such unquestioned labelling). Good bye. Citogenitor 14:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
i take it as a sign of how poor the american education system is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Colbert "Misogynistic intent" Sentence

I'd like to raise a specific concern related to the use of the word "misogyny" and derivatives in a specific instance in the article. The sentence about Stephen Colbert citing "misogynistic intent". I'll quote the current sentence (highlight mine)

This contrast between targeting a woman over two men was cited by Stephen Colbert as evidence of there being misogynistic intent behind the harassment.

The concern I would have is that neither reference uses the word "misogynistic" or "misogyny". The sentence currently gives the impression that Colbert used that phrase, or something equally as strong. Since the statement is basically ascribing those words to Colbert, I think the references would need to be stronger.

I don't have an interview transcript to hand, but my recollection of the interview was that Colbert was fairly droll throughout, and I personally don't remember him making a statement quite that strong. Since the topic is fraught enough as it is, I think the article needs to be careful about making any undue ascriptions. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My skepticism of your very fresh account aside, I agree this should be reworded. That wording ventures a bit too into SYNTH for my liking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the extensive and highly controversial nature of this subject, it would very easily fall under the second bullet of WP:VALIDALT. Reviewing his/her edits, it doesn't look like a new editor. This was a very good issue they brought up and they are obviously familiar with WP. Mores so than I am at least. I think it's more than reasonable to extend some additional good faith to new accounts and judge editors by their actions instead of the age of their account. TyTyMang (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
When one hears hoofbeats, one does not expect zebras.--Jorm (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

call for a close of this section

If no one has 1) a specific line in our article that is misrepresenting the sources or 2) several reliable sources that state that gamergate is NOT misogynistic, then we are clearly done here and are merely beating an already WP:DEADHORSE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I endorse this idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.--Jorm (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This talk page is littered with dozens of abused equine corpses. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop the beating already. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reopening as EvergreenFir and others seem to believe that they have won, without adequately addressing the main points brought up. You cannot state an editorial source's opinion as fact. Period. Galestar (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is well covered. They're misogynistic attacks. There is a wealth of sources for this in the discussion above. Every single one of them can't be an editorial. — Strongjam (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes they can be all editorials, particularly when we are talking a story that is by its nature biased in coverage (no one is going to give "online trolls" any due in a story that pits them against female journalists and developers). Not a single source has shown how they can prove the motivation of the attacks are misogynistic, as no one outside a few source like Singal have spoken to the GG directly or implied they have. They are looking at a pattern (which is clearly misogynistic, no question) and making a leap of logic that because they appear misogynistic, they must be driven by misogyny. That's a logical fallacy. It's well within possibility and probably true, but it simply cannot be said as fact under NPOV policy. It is a contentious claim that we should make sure it is stated as a claim or attribute the misogyny to the readily-observed pattern of harassment. As a tertiary source we have the ability to recognize that, not assume the press is automatically right, and simply attribute these as claims. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a contentious claim. For it to be contentious there would have to be disagreement in reliable sources. — Strongjam (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't fully read this section. There is disagreement and it has been brought up a few times. Galestar (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, NPOV does not require the claim to be contested in sources (that's what FRINGE is about), but if we as tertiary source editors believe the claim is contentious (which should be readily obvious here). NPOV stresses this, this is what WP:BIAS lays out, this is what WP:LABEL defines, and is practice throughout WP for other people and groups that are generally negatively covered by the press. It keeps us impartial and neutral when we know that there is an implicit bias in the sources (and this was reaffirmed at the RFC on this point earlier). --MASEM (t) 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not obvious. Both "misogyny" and "misogynistic" are used widely in factual reporting by reliable sources, not just one or two editorials. In addition, we do not require reliable sources to show their work. That their information is vetted is part of what gives reliable sources a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Woodroar (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
  • WP:YESPOV - If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
  • WP:BIAS - Essays aren't policy.
  • WP:LABEL - Applies to groups and people, not attacks. Are we going to argue about wether we are going to call them "attacks" next or are they just "vigorous critiscm"?
Strongjam (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we do put more weight on sources that show work - things like peer-reviewed journals and the like that demonstrate scientific method. And especially when we are talking a subjective measure as opposed to something objective; this is why we don't flat out call Westboro BC a hate group. (A recent case in point is the shootings at Parliament Hill in Canada a few months ago - major sources raced to call the event terrorism , and while it eventually was considered a domestic terrorism attack by government officials, the article stressed until then that the terrorism label was cited by certain people and not factually). If a "fact" is made by an RS without demonstrating the route they got there that one would normally use to demonstrate it as fact, that begs that it is a claim, not a fact. And this happens a lot in the media of late, not just with GG. And they don't have the same responsibility as we do to being absolutely neutral.
And the obviousness of the issues here are clear if one reads more than just the RS involving GG and keeping an objective mind about things. RS policy doesn't state at all that we only glean information from RSes and ignore all other sources. We can't use those sources, and certainly not to prove the RSes wrong, but that's not what is being said here. It is simply that these are claims. No one has any idea of what is really at the center of GG, probably not even more GGers themselves. We can observe their patterns, what goes in, what comes out, but because by both nature and design the unorganized nature of GG we can't identify any actors, much less their motivations for what they are doing. There's tons of Occum's Razor explainations, and I do not doubt misogyny of some of the GGers is a factor here. But we cannot use the court of public opinion as a basis of fact when there's no basis for how they arrived at that fact as given.
to Strongjam, for NPOV there is "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." If we are calling the attacks misogynistic as fact, that means we are labeling GGers as misogynistic as fact, so LABEL very much applies. (that's why the pattern of the attacks appears misogynistic is completely fine - it remains a claim as to the purposes of the attacks). And just because BIAS is an essay still means it is advice to consider, which was re-enforced by the RFC. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

--MASEM (t) 19:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC) @Masem: have you actually read WP:BIAS? while this article is a PRIME example of BIAS in that a western troll harassment group has a far more developed article than most leaders of South America, Africa or Asia countries, i dont think that is what you mean. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

BIAS talks about any type of systematic bias , which while more about geographical issues, includes other biases in the press. We know the press wants to paint GG as a troll movement but we absolutely cannot take that stance as a neutral, impartial entity; we recognize this is how it is popularized, but that's all claims, not fact. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no systemic bias that an internet troll harassment group is widely covered as an internet harassment group. That is just factual reporting.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that's all claims made by the press. They are probably right, but until we have an authority (such as the FBI starting to make GG-related arrests in the name that GG engages in harassment) we must keep in mind that the group is only perceived by the press as troll group. We cannot take any other stance on this matter without becoming partial and non-neutral. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not take an FBI report to identify misogynistic harassment as misogynistic harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We need something more than just press people making claims without evidence. It's jumping to conclusions. FBI or a similar group would be the type to identify the actual people involved in harassment and do the psychological profiles as to understand if the attacks were purposely done for misogynistic reasons, which we then can factually say they were misogynistic attacks. But we have none of that and no sign the RSes did this at all, and as such, it is a label that should be stated as a claim, not fact. We are not saying the press are wrong here, just that they are claiming this in lieu of anything else to say. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
it is perfectly within the normal capabilities of reporters to look at twits and chan posts and see that they are harassments emanating from people identified with gamergate. it is not rocket science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We know the press wants to paint GG as a troll movement We don't actually know that. — Strongjam (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes we do , in our role as a tertiary source. We know the press is standing very much against the GG harassment stuff. We can't source it, obviously, but this is not something to source - it is simply knowledge we need to be aware of in writing about the article. (a simple example would be using FOX news to include views about Democratic subjects, knowing that FOX has a clear GOP-leaning bias). We need to be looking at the GG issue from a 60,000 ft level, knowing all details far and wide (including what GG have said themselves) but then distill that down to what RSes are saying about that, and when we are aware of RSes taking a side, we should evaluate anything they say as claims when they conflict with the larger picture. We have to write this article knowing what GG thinks of itself even if we cannot include a single bit of that due to lack of any RSes. Otherwise, we are as biased as the press here in the matter, which we can't be. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We can't say out of one side of our mouth that we know what the press wants, and then out of the other side say we can't speculate on the motives on people making misogynistic attacks. — Strongjam (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We know what the press has said through plenty of editorials (their stance is worn on their sleeves); we know what some GGers want through reddit and other sites. Of course, the side that GG presents publicly is not about harassment at all, but we know this is also not the full picture. This is the problem - the people making the harassment attacks keep very much anonymous, keep their goals about harassment (if they have that) quiet, to a point we have no idea who is the harassers and who are simply trying to discuss ethics (the whole leaderless, unorganized issue at length). We can't write to that in the article, but at the 60,000 ft level of a tertiary source, we need to be very much aware of this issue and use the RSes appropriate towards it. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
you keep attempting to present this as "press vs gamergate" it is not . it is the press reviewing what emanates from gamergate. what emanates is 1) harassment and death threats 2) claims that harassment and death threats dont represent gamergate but no official gamergate emerging to give such a claim any basis.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We know the press wants to paint GG as a troll movement - and therein lies the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that plagues this article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not righting wrongs. Righting wrongs in this context would be demanding more balanced coverage (which this is not), or demanding that we don't give any time to a troll group that is harassing women to protect them. And this latter is what happened in Arbcom, editors battlegrounding on this article in the name of protecting the harassed targets. If anything, the only wrong that I am asking to be fixed is to keep up more neutral and impartial by simply downgrading statements made by the press from fact to claims. Not eliminating them, not giving more space to GG, etc. but simply recognizing that no one knows who is in the right or wrong here, so we should not be presenting this as a fact at the current time. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: RFC?

I'm going to suggest we have an RFC on this issue, because this remains the point of contention in the article - are we required by WP:RS to take the press's stance as fact when it is the overwhelming opinion of the press on this point. It's clear that policy does not well cover a case like this (you can read policy both ways) and we really need to have a global consensus on this point instead of fighting this among a small # of editors. I don't know how to word it yet. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

My immediate concern is that RFC are often treated as votes. Any setup of an RFC needs to be clear about that, especially given the off-site coordination surrounding this article. Personally I'd rather discuss some of your suggestions at rewording instead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I would pre-RFC ask ArbCom to nominate an uninvolved individual (or set of three) to mediate/decide the RFC. I've been a mediator as a result of an ArbCom case before, so this is certainly not outside their scope or ability. That way there would be no reason to doubt the involvement of the mediators. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that was an option. Wonderful idea. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, let's just have the RFC instead of mediator. Given past history, a mediator's decision is unlikely to be enough to settle things. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The point of the mediator(s) in this case would be the person(s) that would review the RFC at the conclusion as well as handle any attempts at problem posters and keeping discussion on track. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
My concern is that your last RfC was decidedly less than neutral and you STILL went on beating the dead horse afterwards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I respected that decision of the RFC which noted we can't change the UNDUE/WEIGHT of sources in this case (that is, we are no way going to be able to have "equal time coverage" here), though with some IAR as needed. Much more NPOV issues have arisen since then. Also please discuss content, not contributors. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Please identify where these horrible new NPOV violations are so that they may be addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The key issue is this article is written assuming that the press is "right" without zero consideration of anything that is not in an RS. While that arguably is a strict reading of WP:RS, NPOV says we do not take a side, and make sure contentious claims are stated as claims, not fact, and that requires handling the GG situation with a objective, impartial, non-judgement approach, but also being aware that the situation is made more complex that RS policy limits us to only using what is found in the RSes even though we know there is much more to the story that exists beyond that. It is being closed-minded to any other viewpoint but the press and assuming that the press is infalliable is what is the major NPOV violation here. And that's why we need the RFC to establish how to approach how to write this article knowing that the press (explicitly or not) have really only cared about writing one side of this story and omitting what can be readily observed but not included that represents the missing side. It's not a simple problem with a simple solution, and that's why we need more than just the small group of eyes on this, but instead establish how such controversial topics need to be approached in the future too. Policy conflicts on how to handle this as well, hence the need for more consensus building from uninvolved people. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Masem, it is not in any way an improvement to the encyclopedia to throw away WP:V and WP:OR because you think all reporters are incapable of properly interpreting "Die fucking cunt" as misogynistic harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
We know there are third-parties that are neither pro- or anti-GG that want to simply stir up the pot and are engaging in harassment "for the lulz". That's not misogynistic. We know the entire story, not just what is limited to RS, and know that the conclusions the press are making fall in the ground of WP:LABEL problems. It significant improves the neutrality and impartiality of the encyclopedia to say that the press's statements are claims, not fact, but does not affect the weight of their opinion on the article. But we should be trying to get consensus to make sure this is the right approach to take - again policy conflicts on this point. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If there are a significant amount of people using #gamergate just to stir up the pot, that doesn't mean a thing in terms of whether or not that involvement is legitimate. #gamergate is as #gamergate does- it's a leaderless group based around a hashtag. You can't say some people are real gamergaters and some aren't. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we're assuming the press is infallible, Masem. Are you really trying to argue that we use sources that are difficult or impossible use as RS? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. The press is not always right. And in this case, the claims of the hashtag users are against the press that we are using as RS. Having an RFC with mediation sounds like a good idea for the sake of NPOV. If the notion is so ridiculous then things will remain the way they are now anyways. I don't understand the opposition to the idea. TyTyMang (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
while the press is occasionally wrong, you would have to be some type of conspiracy theorist to believe that EVERY MAJOR MEDIA OUTLET has been WRONG for 6 months of coverage. Do you have any slight piece of actual evidence to support such a FRINGE claim? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No one has said the press is wrong. But we don't have enough information (no one does due to the anonymous nature of GG) to say they are right, and hence the need to keep their claims as claims, which is not the same as saying they are wrong. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, you are pushing that we cover stuff the reliable sources dont because...... well, you think we should. That is not how things work Masem, you are experienced enough for god's sake to know better. 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
And they have covered the aspects Gamergate_controversy#Debate_over_ethics_allegations and come to the conclusion, "God, not only are they misogynist trolls, they are so stupid they wouldnt know ethics if it hit them over the head with a brick." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
As I'm reading this, the argument is that the RSs are not nice to GG, so must not be reliable? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That is absolutely not what the issue is. Also, we cannot discuss and write this article with that attitude about GG, even if the press thinks that's the case, as that's overly prejudgemental. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No, masem, it is NOT prejudgmental. No judgment was made prior to reviewing the facts. It is based on what the reliable sources have reported about what gg has done and presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No legal authority has made any statement about any person involved in GG or the GG group to date. As such, we cannot assume them of any wrongdoing in terms of being objective and neutral. We'll let the wealth of press statement state their condemnation of the group, but we absolutely must stay away from judging the group ourselves to avoid COI and stay neutral and objective. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The argument is: there is plenty of non-RS material out there that has not been covered by the RSs. And this article has been written from the POV of the press as fact.
Also, it is sourced that some/many/(some quantity) of the gamergate proponents have claimed #gamergate is about ethics in game journalism, however we are using game journalism and affiliates as reliable sources to discredit that claim. This seems to be a specific violation of NPOV. TyTyMang (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you almost have it TyTy. Yes, there is a lot of not reliable junk that we do not use- because we are writing an encyclopedia and we focus on using the reliable stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not quite. The argument is that they are blogs/opinion pieces and as such they are only appropriate for use in an encyclopedia as statements of opinion, not as fact. Galestar (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to cut it back to the New York Times, The Guardian, Newsweek and PBS, you still are not going to get a different article, just shorter. We can do that if you want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: Clarification

My apologies for wading into this and then disappearing - I've been away from electricity for a few days. I set out trying to reword the first paragraph to spell out more clearly what is meant by 'misogynistic', but ran up against a problem: I have difficulty articulating what the phrase 'misogynistic attacks' means. Here are some options I came up with:

  1. Attacks motivated by an innate hatred of women. This essentially changes 'misogynistic' from a description of the attacks to a description of the attackers. At least some above indicated this is not what they meant, while for others I'm less sure.
  2. Attacks directed primarily (though not exclusively) directly at women (ie women are the immediate target of the attack).
  3. Attacks meant to drive women out of a particular (cultural) space (ie while the attacks might not be all directed at women, nonetheless they are an attempt to drive off women beyond the immediate target by making the space hostile to women).
  4. Attacks which use methods that particularly or disproportionately target women (eg rape threats, certain insults etc which are seen as an assertion of male dominance).

At least three of the above four, possibly all four of them are true of the attacks in question; my question is, which meaning are we intending when we describe the attacks as misogynistic? GoldenRing (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If at least three of these four meanings are accurate, then we'd lose more than we'd gain by narrowing the definition so tightly. 'Misogynistic' is accurate to the sources we're using and the article we have currently, so we can keep it like that with confidence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the answer is, "All of them," then fine. You only needed to say so. Is it? GoldenRing (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You typed: "At least three of the above four, possibly all four of them are true". What do you think, buddy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I said at the top, I don't know what I think. I asked what you (and others) think because I actually want to know and think that it could be helpful to develop the article. GoldenRing (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose you could say I think at least three of the above four are true :) PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
How many angels dance on the head of a pin? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Can "attacks" even be misogynistic? Do the attacks themselves hate women? The sentence doesn't even make any sense. Why does everyone want to keep it so badly when its an obvious grammatical failure and sensationalist headline? Galestar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Can "attacks" even be misogynistic?. Yes. The answer is yes. The same as attacks can be "racist" or "sexist". It's not an uncommon phrasing (see also, "racist/sexist/misogynistic joke".) — Strongjam (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It strikes me that this is covered by WP:NAD. That is, "Misplaced Pages is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used...." Even if you disagree with a word as used in the RS, I think we should follow them. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Strange how you neglected to include the rest of that sentence from WP:NAD - "but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used". WP:NAD means that the article should not discuss the words, not that we should not take the meaning of words into account when editing the article. Galestar (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, this article is not about the usage of the word "misogyny." I think if those sentences stand for anything, they stand for the proposition that we should not gainsay RS based upon a perceived inaccurate usage. Misplaced Pages is a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive source, if you like. Dumuzid (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
this article is not about the usage of the word "misogyny." Entirely agree. This thread on the talk page is though. There is a distinction between the two. I don't think WP:NAD means what you think it means. It is attempting to avoid the article becoming a word usage guide - which no-one is advocating. Galestar (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I retract my previous statement (can "attacks" even be misogynistic). The joke analogy was surprisingly convincing. I do still maintain that it is a contentious opinion (as would any outright claim of racism would be) and only supported by sources that count as opinion under WP:NEWSORG. Galestar (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
For what its worth I believe the most common interpretation is #1. Even if you interpret it as any of the others then #1 is implicit to the reader. Galestar (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is this even such a contentious issue?

I've refrained from commenting on this issue before, because I could never see what the big deal surrounding it is meant to be, but now that this is going to RfC I may as well ask: why does it matter so much whether the attacks are classified as misogynistic or not? If the attacks are not labeled as misogynistic it's not as if it's a win for GG that slants things positively in their POV. Doxxing, harassment, death threats and rape threats are just as horrifying whether or not they're labelled as misogynistic, and its not as if the article doesn't fail to account for the role of sexism. Conversely, it is not Gamergate itself that is labelled as misogynistic here but instead the actions of harassment, doxxing, and online threatening as manisfested during GG. Why does the reputation and integrity of the death threat have to defended against claims of misogyny? This seems like a template color tier issue. Bosstopher (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The highly misogynistic nature of the attacks is 1) key to why these attacks were noted in the first place and 2) key to the conclusion that this is a culture war against women. Erasing from the lead is erasing the heart of the entire issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TRPOD on this point. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Directly calling the attacks misogynistic is stating the attacks were done for misogynistic reasons, which is something that the press (much less anyone else) can't know if no one knows the specific people that have done the attacks and their motivations for doing the attacks. The pattern or nature of the attacks are clearly something we can call misogynistic ,since they do target women and use gender-bias attacked language, and while being done by a misogynistic motivation is perhaps the most likely and simplest explanation of why these attacks are being done, it is not the only reason. And if we start labeling the attacks as misogynistic in a factual nature, this is implicitly labeling any GG supporter as misogynistic (with the way the rest of this article is penned), and per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, we should not be doing that even if the press has swung the story that way. Since we know - beyond the RSes - that there's factions within GG, including some that are just playing the harassment game "for the lulz", there are many other possible motivations that would generate a series of attacks that appear misogynistic in nature but not driven by misogyny.
The larger issue, which is what I would focus the RFC is, is basically how much of a slave we are to RSes when we know there's more story here that we know we can't include, when it comes to issues like NPOV and the like. We know that the predominate opinion of GG is negative, and the press by its nature have made claims that, we as a tertiary sourcing and having the ability to look at the situation from afar and more objectively, are aware of it being somewhat exaggerated and beyond their ability if they have not shown their homework of talking to the GG side, though far from being so wrong to invalid their use as sources. Policy is unclear if we are forced to pretend that no other information on a controversy exists beyond the wall of RSes, or if we should be aware of that and make sure to simply temper the use of press as opinions and claims rather than facts when the full picture, even as unclear as GG is, shows that there remains contention of what is happening. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought the ArbCom decision was extremely clear: that we must accurately summarize reliable sources and avoid original research and synthesis. WP:LABEL is irrelevant if reliable sources widely use the word "misogyny" or "misogynistic". Likewise, WP:NPOV says to avoid reporting opinions as facts but also facts as opinions, and—with the exception of a handful of opinion pieces—the references we use were published as factual reporting. All this talk of being a "slave" to reliable sources and suggesting that "they have not shown their homework" looks like an attempt to sidestep our core content policies. Woodroar (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not "widely" use the word. There are about a half a dozen out of over a hundred and 4 of them are easily identifiable as blogs. If you wish to continue repeating this claim, provide your evidence. Galestar (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I already have. I'll copy it here: I started looking at the sources and found 11 instances of sources describing either the attacks or supporters as misogynistic—The Telegraph, again, and again, On the Media, Canada.com, The Daily Beast, Ars Technica, Reason, International Business Times, Metro, Washington Post—and that's only the first row (browsing through 60 of 184 sources), only looking for "misogyn*" and not synonyms, and not even going into the Talk archives or finding new sources with Google. Woodroar (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I will analyze that. Galestar (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not going against RS. We can't include other sources beyond what meets RS and we do have to summarize them - the point is whether we document the RSes statements as facts or as claims eg "X is Y" verse "X is claimed to by Y by Z". As a tertiary source, we should be aware that the claims made by RSes are contentious by involved parties that can't be used as RSes, so should we be documenting claims with that knowledge, or are we policy-bound to ignore all other non-RS sources and write like the RSes are final word. We're not changing how the RSes are summarized or what RSes are used, but simply how to word what they state. --MASEM (t)
There's no need to throw away WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT just so that some gamer denials of misogyny can be pushed into the article. The "wall" of reliable sources is actually the foundation. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no wall of RS that describe it as such. There are about a half a dozen out of over a hundred and 4 of them are easily identifiable as blogs. If you wish to continue repeating this claim, provide your evidence. Galestar (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not about adding content or pushing more sources. It is simply tempering statements made by the press that are presented presently as fact to simply claims. No need to include any rebuttal or counterpoints, just that because no one has a full picture of what is going on, we're simply treating the press's statements as claims and avoid contentious labels without identify who said it. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
We do not "temper" the reliable sources by making them appear as they do not appear. Where do you get that doing so is in any way appropriate, particularly given the clear instruction from ArbCom that WE MUST ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE SOURCES - (the ArbCom decision was not temper the sources so that they meet your personal interpretation) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
We are not misrepresenting sources by stating what they state as claims rather than fact, simply taking the objective, impartial view; it does not say they are wrong. And this is exactly in line with NPOV, where contentious statements should not be stated as fact. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
actually we are. there is no contesting of the evidence and the assessment of the evidence of misogyny through and through. to misrepresent the universal analysis is not acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
And this is why we need an RFC on this situation. If we limit our vision to only what the RSes say, yes, this is the case that the statement is made without contest. If we take in the entire picture going beyond the RSes, knowing full well that we can't include those sources but simply aware of their existence and content, it paints a very different picture, which directs us how to best use the RSes that we do have. However, policy is conflicting on this, and this discussion keeps going in the same loop, hence the need for more eyes. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
quite plainly. no. we do not need an RfC to see if we should follow our own interpretation of things instead of the reliable sources. that has already been decided by the arbcom and is just a complete TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes we do. We have too small a pool of editors here to be making decisions that involve major conflicts in WP policy. And there is absolutely zero harm in having an RFC about this, that is what ArbCom wanted was more eyes on this article to help resolve problems like this. Purposely trying to block discussion is a battleground mentality. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Policy is not conflicting. Please show me policy where it says that we should temper what the reliable sources say because some editors think that every major source has gotten something wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
NPOV says it twice: "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. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." amd "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." And let me remind you: I have never said the sources have it wrong, they instead have reached a conclusion that is impossible to make without knowing much more about the people they are accusing; their conclusion is likely right, but we should not be presenting it as fact because it clearly is contentious with the people they are accusing. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Masem, I believe the point of "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" is to state the claim as an opinion if the claim is contentious among reliable sources, not the accused. The claim is not contested in reliable sources. Also, that the conclusion is impossible to make without knowing more about the accused is just your opinion, and multiple editors are disagreeing with you on that point. Kaciemonster (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's the issue that needs wider discussion - NPOV is very unclear and/or conflicting on this as it does not outright say that the contestability must be documented or stated by RSes. Particularly emphasis is needed on whether the group that is being accused or labelled should have their contestability of the claims ignored even if RSes do not report that, and thus the nature of how much of the story outside the wall of RSes can we consider in developing the article even though we know we can't use those sources. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Different reliable sources are not making conflicting assertions on the matter, it doesn't matter how the accused feels about it unless it's reported by reliable sources. We can't write about what reliable sources do not report. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
And if you take the first bullet of NPOV, it says to ascribe these as views, and doesn't mention that the contesting has to be done in RSes. As I said - it is conflicting, as well as the general fact that the way GG has been reported in RS presents a situation where a viewpoint of a core party has been left off the reporting table. As an objective source, we need to be able to question that. Thats why an RFC around this issue to get wider input is appropriate, because we can sit here all day and throw conflicting policy statements at each other but it doesn't address the uniqueness of this situation. We get a global consensus and we go with that. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
NPOV is how we analyze reliable sources, of course the contesting has to be done in reliable sources. The second bullet point specifically says that it's about how to handle different reliable sources making conflicting statements. The first bullet point says, "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. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." This is coming back around to a conversation me and you have had before. If it isn't presented in the reliable source as an opinion and multiple reliable sources agree, we aren't presenting an opinion as a fact. Describing attacks as misogynistic isn't an opinion, it's analyzing the nature of the attacks. Didn't you already have an RFC on source bias? Kaciemonster (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Not quite, NPOV is how we present reliable sources. We don't take a side, we present the sides. The fourth point of NPOV is Prefer nonjudgemental language. Misogyny, and misogynistic is a judgement call. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I meant present, not analyze. The rest of my comment still stands. Calling something misogynistic is no more of a judgment call than calling something racist is. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
And the point of that statement is that if even if there is a predominate number of sources calling something by a judgemental term, we should keep it clear that it is a judgement call and not fact. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The point of my statement is neither of them are judgment calls. We're describing the nature of attacks aimed at women and their supporters that use violent and degrading gender-specific threats and language. "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." For clarity, we call this misogynistic. It's not passing judgment on it's subject, it's a description of the type of attack faced by the targets. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, there are two ways the phrase "misogynistic attacks" can be taken. 1) That the attacks have a pattern of misogyny, which indeed is something that is indisputably fact from the standpoint of the sources and a fully valid assessment they can make by observation. 2) That that attacks are driven/guided by misogyny, which is something we don't know is true or not. It is a hypothesis, potentially a correct one, but one that remains unverified (as described elsewhere, there are ways for a misogynistic pattern to come out from other drivers that are not misogynistic - its a symptom but not a cause). It is the nature of the English language that there is confusion here which is why we should be either stating "misogynistic attacks" as a claim, or using language that clearly establishes that the pattern of attacks being misogynistic as a fact. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There should not be any confusion here. Regardless of whether or not the intent of the harassers was misogyny, the attacks are and can accurately be described as misogynistic. It doesn't matter if they didn't mean for the attacks to be misogynistic. It doesn't matter if someone says "I'm not a misogynist, I love women!" The attacks contained misogynistic content, so we describe them as misogynistic. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am in agreement of your assessment of what we can describe as misogynistic, but I am pointing out the language issue that when someone calls out "(subjective word) attacks", there are two possible meanings here, and by simply using clearer language that ascribes the assessment to the pattern or nature, and not the motiviation, we remove that issue. "A misogynistic pattern of attacks", for example, clears up the wording completely to avoid the English language ambiguity. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If this is what all that all of this is about, the difference in meaning between the two is not worth the extensive conversation that has happened here. Misogynistic attacks is more accurate in meaning than misogynistic pattern. If we call it a pattern, we'll need to describe the pattern, and will probably head into OR territory. Misogynistic attacks is unambiguous and makes no judgment on the motivation, although we do have sources that describe the attacks (and movement) as motivated by misogyny so I'm still not sure what the issue here is. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it is about what is happening. If we are using language stated in a factual manner (as it presently in the lead) that can be taken in a different possible meaning that is really a subjective claim, either we change the language to be clear what we are stating as fact, or make it a point that it is a claim. And to that, that it is claimed by the press that the harassment is being done for misogynistic reasons when they have not made any attempt to talk to the people doing the harassment is a contentious statement given that GGs say they are not about misogyny. WP as an objective, neutral source should be as conservative as possible to avoid stating anything that can be contentious in WP's voice, and that's why the RFC is needed is to assess whether knowing what is not printed in RSes should be used to judge the contentious nature of a statement. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want us to do. It's not a contentious claim among the reliable sources. It's a contentious claim in your opinion. You personally don't like how the reliable sources did their research. Should we follow your opinion over policy? Being neutral doesn't mean not saying anything that someone might consider mean. Misogyny is misogyny. We have reliable sources to cite "misogynistic attacks" to. Didn't you already have an RFC on source bias?
I suggest we shut this section down. If you want to have a conversation about misogynistic attacks vs pattern of misogynistic attacks you should start a new section. This section has gotten bloated and sad, and we're off topic from the original purpose. Kaciemonster (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No, you are missing the point. The question on the table is whether we are to consider the entire story that goes beyond the RSes in trying to judge how to present statements made by RSes. GG deny they are about misogyny. That may be a lie or a cover statement, but they do make the claim they do not stand for misogyny, but it is not documented strongly in RSes. As such, outside the bounds of WP, stating that the attacks were driven by misogyny is a contentious claim. But if we are limited only to what we can pull in from RSes, then that contention completely disappears. That is not how objective or neutrality should work on WP, but NPOV does not give consistent advice to this end (as noted, the policy has conflicting statements here). And this goes more beyond the misogyny issue (how it is phrased in the lede is but one facet), its understanding that there is much more to the GG story that we certainly can't document on WP, but can be used to judge how to write what the RSes state. That's the point of the proposed RFC. Not about bias (that bias was established in the previous one, and reflecting that we can't weaken what RSes we use, but that's a far different point). And because I can see this happening in many other cases where the press has only opted to cover part of a story, this will affect many other potential articles so getting some consistent advice towards this is necessary. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not missing the point, I just disagree with you. The answer to your question is no, we shouldn't consider anything beyond the reliable sources to determine how we present statements in reliable sources. Why should we? Because you disagree with the reliable sources? Kaciemonster (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It sound a lot like Masem is suggesting we use OR because the RS doesn't cover what he thinks the RS should cover. If it's not in RS, then its unreliable sources; it's that simple. Masem, if you want to add something, find an RS to support it. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying. What this boils down, simply, is how we write about certain predominate statements that the press have stated: do we write those as facts in WP's voice, or do we write them as opinions that the press has made. No new sources are to be added to do this, but the question does involve whether we should be fully aware of what exists past the RSes that we can't include. A hypothetical example is the statement "Gamergate is misogynyistic" that appears true if you fully limit yourself to the available RSes, but clearly contentious beyond that; policy is unclear/unspoken/conflicting on whether we are to be fully aware of these outside issues in writing the WP article. In other words, how beholden are we to stay exactly in the press's footprints or not. Nothing here involves new sources at all, or at least any new sources that can be used on WP, only recognizing their existence. --18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You look past the reliable sources and see the statement as contentious. I look past the reliable sources and see the statement as accurate. That's why we stick to reliable sources and don't go beyond them to determine the Truth. Kaciemonster (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Masem, perhaps you could draft an edit and let us look at it? Because at this point it I still can't pin down what you mean. "The question on the table is whether we are to consider the entire story that goes beyond the RSes in trying to judge how to present statements made by RSes." seriously sounds like doing or using OR to me. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC proposal drafting

A rough version of the question in general would "In determining if a statement made by a significant number of reliable sources is contentious or not (thus labeling it as fact or opinion), should editors consider the contentiousness of the statement in sources that do not routinely qualify as reliable sources? If the statements are directed towards a person or group that falls outside the scope of BLP, should the contentiousness of the statement by members of that group made in non-reliable sources be considered?" This arguable is OR but it is the same type of OR associated with being a tertiary source - it has to do with how we select and use sources, which does require a minimal amount of OR. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you draft a proposed change? It would be easier to see what you mean. (also could we move this conversation by starting a new section) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The change to the article would be far too much to go into, and again, this is a larger issue than just GG in terms of source evaluation. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should we consider sources that we can't use in the article to determine how we use content in the article? Kaciemonster (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Because we're looking at objectivity here, and knowing that a statement made by reliable sources is contentious by the people that the statement is directed at should be something we'd ought to consider if we are trying to stay neutral and impartial. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The opinions of this amorphous, unidentifiable group of people are far less important to the article than sticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in original research. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #unknown

Indeed, I also don't see how saying an attack is misogynistic is the same thing as saying all GG supporters are misogynist, that's quite a leap. — Strongjam (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The language of the article says the movement is anyone using the hashtag, and that the attacks are done by those supporting the hashtag. That's an implicit connection to be avoiding. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What bothers me here is that ultimately this is an argument from the unknown. As discussed, there is no way to get any sort of accurate demographics from a hashtag. It is asserted that there are factions within GamerGate, and that much I think is obvious. What is not obvious is how big any of them are. Is it possible that the "misogynistic (for lack of a better term)" element is infinitesimally small? Absolutely. Is it possible that that element represents 98% of the hashtag users? I don't believe that, but it's certainly possible. In the face of the unknown, I think it's more important than ever to remain agnostic and simply go with the RS. That being said, I agree that this doesn't need to be so contentious. Perhaps there's some sort of compromise describing the attacks as "apparently motivated by misogyny," or some such? Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly on target. The point is not saying the RSes are wrong, because we clearly have nothing to show they are flat out wrong, so this is not saying to go off track of what the RSes are saying, but simply to temper the language to show this is what has been claimed by the press and nothing yet factual. In the case of describing the attacks "apparently motivated by misogyny" or any similar language is completely fair, particularly as we have a whole section that goes into detail why misogyny is believed to be tied to GG. It is not at attempt to bury the claims of misogyny but simply state as claims. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The more I re-read the lede, the less I think my suggestion works. "Misogynistic" there clearly is describing the attacks themselves, and not the intent behind them. I think it does the article a disservice to not mention that said attacks were directed at the targets AS women, for a clumsy way of putting it. That being said, perhaps "gendered" attacks would be one way to put it while avoiding this apparent hot-button? Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"gendered attacks" would be using WEASEL wording. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The attacks being perceived as misogynistic in nature is completely fine. They focused on women, they used gender-directed threats. That aspect is supported with the near unanimity of sources without question, but that language also keeps it to a clear and fair observational stance without knowledge of the true intents. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
While I am not sure that using "gendered" would be weasel wording (though I will happily defer on this point), the more I think about it, the 'perception' issue is. "Misogynistic" here is arguably not describing the motives for the attack but rather the mode of attack itself. Forgive my jargon here, but there is an actual act and a mens rea--a guilty mind. We can certainly call attacks that "focus on women use gender-directed threats" as misogynistic without regard to the subjective intent of the speaker. In the actual body of the article the claims seem to me well-sourced, and so I think the lede needs to mention this in stronger terms than "perception." Sorry to vacillate so, but I tried to think hard about the function of the lede and this statement within it. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I've proposed "a misogynistic pattern of harassment" which is something we can say as an unequivacle fact, and defer factual statement of motives to the larger discussion in the body of the article. It's that pattern that brought attention, regardless of the motives of GGers. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Urgh. No thank you. The less weasel words the better- if news sources can state it clearly and understandably, so can we. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no weasel words in that, and it avoids any contentious statements or labeling of groups. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that the phrasing 'a misogynistic pattern of harassment' is not just a weasel wordy way of avoiding the use of misogynistic as an accurate adjective for the actions of those discussed. Also: Spellcheck is telling me that it's spelt 'unequivocal'. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, it strikes me that a misogynistic pattern is different from misogynistic attacks. If I call every woman I see "stupid," arguably that's a misogynistic pattern without being a misogynistic attack. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly; the symptom - that the harassment is directed with gender-biased language towards women - can come about from other causes than just misogynistic motivations. For example, we know an issue highlighted is that GG have issues with "social justice warriors" - that they don't want people pushing any type of message in games. By nature of this so-called social justice, most of their SJW targets are female, but that doesn't mean they have an issue with feminism or are misogynistic - just anyone pushing a message. But without knowing the reasons, the end result is a misogynistic pattern. Clearly, we have a whole section in the article that highlights why the most likely cause of GG is misogyny in the gaming community and that's great to build out the opinions of why they think GGers are misogynistic, but that all is properly identified as opinion and claims, not factual, as it should be.
Now, an issue that I am seeing is that there's two possible ways to read the term "misogynistic attacks" based on how people are discussing this. I've always read the phrase as "attacks that are motivated by misogyny", but there's clearly others reading it as "attacks that appear to be misogynistic". In the latter case, the phrasing "misogynistic attacks" would be fine, because reading it that way, its only describing the end result, not the people behind it, and which is readily visible without knowing the inner workings of GG. But the phrasing can be read in a different way that can assign the label to the people behind it. Hence the need to be a bit more exacting in describing the terms to avoid the potential misread. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
several articles clearly deal with the discussions of the "but ethics" people explaining their motivations: nope, not ethics - misogyny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a claim, not fact, particularly when the people that are being called out that they are really about harassment are stating otherwise, even if we consider the possible case that the GG group is flat out lying and using it as a cover. That's a clear and obvious contentious statement and must be presented that way. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
no, it is a fact that segal and several others who have directly connected with the "but ethics" and when asked "what do you mean by that?" comes up with "more talking points that are clearly not about ethics" and when clarified that the next layer is right there blatant misogyny about feminazi cunts need to die because they are ruining my games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Singal's pieces at no time state that GG is not about ethics. From his NYMag piece "I think Gamergate is primarily about anger at progressive people who care about feminism and transgender rights and mental health and whatever else is getting involved in gaming, and by what gamergaters see as overly solicitous coverage of said individuals and their games. And here’s the thing: That’s fine! It's an opinion I happen to disagree with, but it’s a coherent, concrete viewpoint. Say what you will about the tenets of anti-progressivism, dude, but at least it’s an ethos." He recognize what they claim about themselves - and then rightly goes on to say that their message is being lost being being unorganized, leaderless, and staying with the GG label. He never states factually that GG is not able ethics. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You must be reading a different part of the article than you quoted, because what you quoted is clearly stating that what they are about is not ethics- its anti-progressivism. And that they are either oblivious to the fact that that is what they are actually championing is anti-progressivism and not ethics or are actively attempting to hide what they are actually about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The part about overly solicitious coverage is about ethics of journalism (when taking the entire article article in whole). And it doesn't matter if they are misstaken about what they are asking about, that's still their claim. Yes, it very much weakens and undermines what they claim to be about, but that's not our place to be judgemental about that. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
An ostensible claim made by particular anonymous individuals who have nothing to back up that they are speaking for anyone other than themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No, Singal identifies that this is out of the KIA forum. The individuals may be anonymous but this is identified in RSes as a central point. Singal makes this clear. That is their self-stated claim as reported by Singal. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So, KIA IS gamergate? and if so, there are plenty within KIA to support that gg IS misogynistic WITH misogynistic intent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I fear that your trouble with interpreting the term is something that most readers would not have, and by changing how we're describing these misogynistic attacks we would obscure its meaning from the average reader. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There's clearly others in this discussion that see it read the way I described, so that confusion is possible. Hence why we should be using the language that removes any ambiguity. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hence 'most readers' and not 'most editors', Masem. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't be making that distinction. If editors see that a phrase can be misread and give a different meaning from that misread, we should use a phrase that avoids any ambiguity. (For example, this is why we avoid using seasonal terms since what they mean have different meanings in different parts of the world). --MASEM (t) 22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears we need an RFC on this issue, and a few others in the article. Marcos12 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Marcos12 What other issues do you think should undergo the RFC process? It would be helpful to know. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This distinction is what I was trying to get at with my clarification above. I suspect that to someone well-versed in gender politics the meaning will be clear; to the average reader, it is not. Masem's 'misogynistic pattern of attacks' above is the sort of thing I was looking for – something that says 'misogynistic' but is clearer about the meaning – but it still feels clunky. GoldenRing (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
One of the arguments I've seen on this talk page before is about how gamergate is an "amorphous, leaderless, structureless phenomenon" or how "the "movement" has steadfastly refused to identify a leader or spokesperson or generate an official manifesto". But in the Lede it says it is coordinated on 4chan, 8chan and Reddit to commit these misogynistic attacks and thus we are defining the movement as a misogynistic movement. Masem's wording seems to work well. It separates the nature of the attacks from the nature of the group which is of course amorphous etc and cannot be defined as misogynistic... At least without some qualifier as per the "Some/Many users in Lede" section. TyTyMang (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
But we can still make statements of fact about it when the coverage among reliable sources is overwhelmingly in agreement; in this case, I think it clearly is. The only argument above seems to be "yes, but these people are opposed to the reliable sources, so we shouldn't treat them as reliable in this case!" That's not a valid argument to ignore WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Break: KKK, Osama, The Holocaust, EP Massacre

It is intentionally loaded, emotive language, and it only serves to poison the well right from the start. Let's drag up some of the worst parts of human history where we have managed to avoid such inflammatory language in their lede's:
I submit that the above pages avoid this kind of language as they are actually attempting to be encyclopedic, rather than this page's intention the invoke emotional reactions or right great wrongs. We should be better than this. Galestar (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is a problem at other articles then those should be fixed. I would not argue for mistakes made elsewhere to be repeated here. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Those pages are doing things right. They are not POV pushing or attempting to right great wrongs. This page is. Galestar (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
KKK are noted for promoted racism. Use "GG is noted for promoting misogyny" wording? Osama, in the lede, is noted having been on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. The Holocaust is called genocide - using a more specific term than racism. Use "GG is anti-feminist"? The EP Massacre is perhaps more debateable. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I ask that no-one take this as an invitation to go over to those pages and starting to insert incendiary language. Galestar (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: close this section, too, start new sections

This section is a monster and covering a range of topics. I propose we close this, and each person who wants to continue a sub-topic, start a new section. I'm reaching the limit of my ability to follow what's happening in this section. (I originally meant to put this on this section, but I added it to the wrong one above, but it probably needs the same treatment.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I was actually just about to make this section. I support this 10000% Kaciemonster (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do. Scrolling past these constant walls of text is wearing down on me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Total agreement. Currently a mess. New, focused discussions would be very helpful. — Strongjam (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GTFO NYT Where?

Per Masem's suggestion, I'm trying to add a summary of this quote: " While online harassment in the video game industry has made headlines of late — most notably, with the so-called GamerGate controversy, in which anonymous players threatened to rape and murder the game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others — “GTFO” (an acronym for an obscene dismissal) makes the case that these are not isolated incidents, yelled or texted today and gone tomorrow. “I do worry that the general public will focus too much on GamerGate and say, ‘Look at this crazy thing that happened,’ ” the film’s director, Shannon Sun-Higginson, said. “It was a terrible, terrible thing, but it’s actually symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem.”" from the NYT article.

Without rearranging too much, I was thinking of adding it to History or Subsequent Harassment (and rename Subsequent Harassment to something like Historic and Subsequent Harassment).

Input? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Film maker Shannon Sun-Higginson said that while Gamergate was a "terrible, terrible thing", the harassment was "symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem" and she hoped that the attention Gamergate received would not overshadow the wider issues.

Her basic take is not that much different than a lot of the others, "gamergate highlights an ongoing issue" - except that others come at it from "gamergate brought those issues (back) into the public eye in a horrific manner" while she is presenting "the public may see gamergate as sooooo horribly over the top awful that gamergate cannot represent anything other than a one time catastrophe -and so the public will go back to ignoring the baseline issues" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
So hard to do what Masem suggests without a radical rewrite. I generally agree that the History section needs some historic context in it, but I don't see how to do it without creating a redundant sub-section. I think I'll add this to the Social and cultural implication:Misogyny and Sexism subsection. It almost seems possible to move paragraph 2 of that subsection to the history section - maybe as Historic Context subsection. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As a possible suggestion, a section that focuses on the "Culture war" (not just within the VG industry), located at the same level just after the current "Sexism and misogyny" subsection would seem to hit on this documentary, and the above articles on other -gates that GG is seen as the most visible example of. --MASEM (t)
For any historical event, one may point to deeper sources and antecedents that influenced and propelled it. So, yes, certainly Gamergate has been influenced int some ways by Movement Conservatism, by the legacy of Reconstruction, by resentment of the women’s movement, by all sorts of things. This is also true of popular music, breakfast pastry, and health insurance; in each case, the main duty of the encyclopedia is to describe that happened, not to invent excuses for it based on interpreting the cultural milieu. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
We should be trying to establish context as an encyclopedia , to help readers to understand what the broader situation around GG represents. If RSes have noted that GG is believed to be a major facet of a ongoing culture war that has poked up from other avenues (with GG being cited as such), there is no reason not to include that discussion, in brief. It helps to explain why this happened, that many don't think this was a random isolated thing. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite, with one qualification; our duty goes beyond describing what happened, to a fair discussion of what the secondary literature says are the causes and influences. GoldenRing (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
We do talk about the attempts by conservative talking heads to lure the gg under their wing via their support of the gg conspiracy theory that "nasty feminazis want to take your games away" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted change to lede by Popcor11235

I reverted the removal of misogynistic from the lede by Popcor11235. We haven't build a concensus on that, and it's an on-going discussion. Also, should I have removed the box? It looks like one edit technically, but shows as two. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the {{cleanup}} tag. The tag is for non-content focuses changes (spelling, grammar, etc.) — Strongjam (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also left a note one their talk page to come talk here with us. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on their recent edit history, this is going to be a three-peat of previous fun.--Jorm (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions Add topic