Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

The primary targets MUST be mentioned in the lead section

There cannot be any summary of the GG controversy without mentioning who the primary targets are. And we CAN use their names and not attempt to erase them via the GG LW strategy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn is mentioned by name 47 times in this article, and has large sections of the article that are centered around her. Anita Sarkeesian is mentioned 21 times. Brianna Wu is mentioned 9 times. Given that the lede is meant to be a summary of the article, I see no reason reason why they (or at the very least Quinn) should not be mentioned by name in the lede. Bosstopher (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede is "extra" short in our case because there are a lot of tangents in the article; the current length, WP:LEAD would suggest we have 3 paragraphs but to go into any more detail on any specific elements gets us into describing details that are very hard to summarize. As such, to keep the smaller details of the lead as to provide a quick overview has been made to the lead. This has included removing the names of the three primary harassed figures, not because they aren't critical to the story, but simply that at this point, well beyond their initial involvement, the story isn't about those three specifically anymore but the general use of harassment as a silencing tool by their critics that claim to represent GG - that fact which is captured in the lead. They are important to the story as an historical perspective, but they aren't the reason that GG is still discussed (its the ongoing use of harassment that's central). We keep the lede cleaner and sustinct by avoiding that potential rabbit trail, leaving it to the body to explain this part. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh get real. Not one piece of coverage of GG does not name the targets. It would indeed be a NPOV violation for our lead to break with ALL of the sources in such a manner and to omit this major portion of the content of the article. We are not participants in GG's efforts to erase the presence of women. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not an NPOV in terms of the lede (in the body, of course it would be completely wrong to omit them). And I've seen plenty of GG articles of more recent that omit Wu and in some cases Sarkeesian, focusing that it was the allegations against Quinn that set the thing in motion and then her name is dropped. They were, unintentionally, catalysts of the situation and important to the history but in the larger picture, what the controversy is, they were early names but aren't part of that bigger picture on the situation. I'm not saying they aren't important, but in the choice we have made for a very concise lead to avoid rabbit trails of details that would have to be introduced, omitting their names in the lead (in favor of explaining that a series of harassment against numerous people including female game professionals) is an allowable editing choice that does not violation any policy and helps to make the lede read better and direct to the point. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, "omitting their names" is not "allowable editing choic" , it is a step in the GG LW playbook. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If we explain that we then need to explain all the other steps in the GG playbook in the lede (including all the various "Operations', etc) to be neutral, which I'm pretty confident we don't want to do. We cut two paragraphs that when into a history of the details of GG for this reason, to avoid getting into what is a complicated history of events, to focus on the crux of the controversy - "ethics" vs hostile harassment. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No one said we need to explain their playbook in the lead. We just dont need to be accomplices. And your concern about getting dragged into the rabbit hole is addressed by not getting dragged into the rabbit hole, not by pretending that rabbits dont exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You just said it right there, its part of the GG playbook, so if we're going to cover that, we would need to cover the rest, otherwise we are being overly selective for a neutral source. And we're not ignoring anything - the harassment against female game professionals - just not named ones - is still cited as the reason that GG was brought to mainstream attention. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, harassment particularly directed at the LW1-3 is part of the GG playbook and we can cover that easily in the lead as it is a major component of the notability and history of the controversy (you will remember what brought this to the front page NYT ?) - no rabbit holes there. That there are other parts of the GG playbook, such as attempting to invisiblize women, we dont need to cover in the lead, as they have not received significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well considering that The Union says that only a minority are attacking the LW's we can't really call this the standard GG playbook, Wikipedia shouldn't be giving a voice to the minority in the lead as that would be undue. Avono (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we just use their names instead of this literally who crap? — Strongjam (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So it's a BLP violation to spend too much time on the harassment and such, but we must make sure the harassment is in the lead to ensure that it's front and center and bring lots of attention to it? I know that there's a desire to make one side look really, really bad and the other really, really good in the way this article is being edited, but can we maybe aim for neutrality instead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The only reason Gamergate is even notable is its harassment campaigns. There is not a single mainstream reliable source which doesn't discuss Gamergate in the context of vicious, misogynist, anonymous harassment campaigns against Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu and others, because it's essentially the only thing of substance that Gamergate has done. So yes, there's going to be a significant focus on the harassment which Gamergate is responsible for. That is an inevitable consequence of their actions, and it is why the very word is poisonous at this point to anyone not ideologically committed to the movement. We reflect the world as it is, not how a movement's supporters might wish it to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you rephrase this in a neutral way? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not with Intel's $300M thing, it is more than harassment. GG is now notable for having the industry recognize there are internal problems with how they treat women and minorities as a result of GG. It's not what GG wanted, and the methods used are highly suspect. In getting past RECENTISM, their role in the overall situation is no longer a significant factor as what the GG controversy is, to the point that they need to called out in the lede and ignoring other similarly "important" facets (on both sides). The lead summarized the current situation with GG without knowing who exactly those people are. (It also begs the question of who was more important here: remember that others like Phil Fish, Jenn Frank, and Leigh Alexander, among others, got unfair treatment via social media; it is simply better to not play favorites in the lede.) --MASEM (t) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of playing favorites, it's a matter of noting who the primary targets were, as the reliable sources have done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is playing favorites both on targets, and then omitting much of the rest of the history of GG (in both directions). There is nothing special gained for a reader who may be coming in fresh into this article w/o knowledge of Gamergate and its major participants (who are not household names), to know who these three are; you can understand the crux of gamergate - "ethics" vs harassment - without knowing that. Yes, we could put them in, but then we have to include a good summary of all the various core events of GG that go around that, and that was something that was agreed to remove some time ago (when the lead was 4 paragraphs long, it was trimmed to 2). --MASEM (t) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete fucking nonsense. Of COURSE it is relevant to the summary of any subject who the major players are. That GG has decided to remain "identifiable" only anonymous trolls is their PR problem and we are not here to be their "white knights" to fend off their bad press. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about fending off bad press, I'm talking about keeping the lede concise. We have previously agreed to a more condensed lead which did omit the names to avoid going into the detailed history. If we include the names we have to expand the lead to explain all the core history aspects of the story, which weighs down the lead, particularly considering more recent develops are looking well beyond those points (eg Intel's thing). --MASEM (t) 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead is still very precise while adding the single sentence "The harassment has prominently targeted game designers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu as well as Anita Sarkeesian who critiques video games from a feminist perspective. ". And No, we do not need to expand into every detail beyond that. We can control verbal diarrhea, that is what editors do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But again, these are not household names. If they were people of celebrity-type status that were seriously involved (not like Felicia Day or Alec Baldwin's limited involvement but with the recognition of those names), then yes, that might warrant their names. But these are - outside of video games and even within it - nobodies to the average reader. Their role is unavoidable in discussing GG in detail, but they can be omitted from a broad brush stroke, as otherwise we are, to an average reader, throwing out three random names. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not have to be a household name to be a "major player". And for someone to read the lead and walk away with no indication that the major players are Sarkeesian Wu and Quinn would be to WOEFULLY misrepresent to them what the gamergate clusterfuck has involved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That line of logic means we should be including the other major players attached to the GG situation, including Fish, Jenn Frank, Leigh Alexander, Milo, Alec Baldwin, etc. It's a loooong list, and the involvement gets more complex with each name added. Profession women in the vg industry were harassed which was both condemned by others and brought the situation to light to the rest of the world, that's core to the story and a major walking-away point and as it is now, must be in the lead, but the specifics of who, this far past the initial events, is not as critical for a concise lead statement - and that was the consensus when we did condense it down, to provide as short a definition of what GG is without going into any more specific to avoid a potentially POV lead either way. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. Editorial control of verbal diarrhea. The major players that are all in 90% of the coverage are the LW1-3. The others are ALWAYS peripheral when in the few instances they are mentioned at all. If you are not clear about that, WP:COMPETENCE kicks in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But again, the GG situation can be 100% understood at a broad level without mentioning a single name. Remember that most of the sources are anti-GG and are trying to appeal to the popular opinion of readers so they are intentionally or not going to take a personal view of the matter and focus on those three to point out that there are real people that were harassed, compared with the faceless side of the proGG that it hard to muster any sympathy for due to their anonymonity. From a completely impartial POV and in the concern of keeping the lead as tight as possible, omitting the names does no harm to the reader's understand from a broad perspective. It is an editorial choice, yes, there is no policy that says the names must be omitted, but again I will point that the lead of the current draft was something agreed to on a month or so back, and so readding the names is going against that consensus. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

E=MC2 can be 100% understood without any mention of Einstein, but to not mention Einstein in the lead would be a travesty that would not happen in any encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence of a front-page article in The New York Times: Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist cultural critic, has for months received death and rape threats from opponents of her recent work challenging the stereotypes of women in video games. Bomb threats for her public talks are now routine. One detractor created a game in which players can click their mouse to punch an image of her face. [1] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a newspaper aimed to sell copies hence they are going to write empathically towards a common public opinion to sell more papers. We're a clinically neutral encyclopedia trying to provide neutral coverage of a topic and do not write in a manner to engage the reader's empathy. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha, no. We don't psychoanalyze the writing of one of the most respected newspapers in the world. "Neutral" coverage of Gamergate, as per WP:NPOV, means that we write about topics as they are reflected in reliable sources. It is trivial to demonstrate that reliable sources focus on the harassment of specific people. Other examples here, here, here, here, here, here and how many more would you like? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do. We are not a newspaper. We have to recognize opinion and empathic writing and separate statements from that in writing an encyclopedia. Otherwise that is non-neutral writing. NPOV does not say we reflect how other sources write their material at all - we don't take up the sympathetic viewpoint that most GG sources have taken for those harassed. We summarize those sources in a neutral, impartial tone as an encyclopedia, balancing the content appropriate to how the sources provide it but without supporting or opposing any point of view. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the stories I just cited are opinion columns — to the contrary, they are all hard news stories published by some of the most respected journalistic outlets on the planet — BBC, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Reporting that specific people have been targeted for vicious and unrelenting harassment campaigns is not a "sympathetic viewpoint," it is simply the mainstream viewpoint about Gamergate and our article will reflect the mainstream viewpoint of reliable sources, as policy demands. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a sympathetic viewpoint. It introduces a victim first before explaining why she was targetted as a victim. That's a key feature of empathatic writing, putting the figure you want the reader to sympathize with front and center, even if the story is all factual. It happens all the time in newspapers (look at the coverage of the current Charlie Hepdo shootings for example from RSes). We on WP do not write that way and have to recognize that tainting coverage when it does happen. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but this is not a "sympathetic viewpoint." It's just not. It is simply how news articles about people who have been victimized are written. That you disagree with how reliable sources frame an issue is interesting, but of no consequence to the encyclopedia. We write articles based on how reliable sources cover something, and reliable sources treat the people at the center of the attacks as what they are - human beings. Because unlike anything Gamergate has raised, that actually is part of journalism ethics: Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect. Journalists should: Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage - from the SPJ Code of Ethics. It is, after all, about ethics in journalism - reporters ethically reporting on people who have been victimized by anonymous Internet harassment campaigns. UI am truly sorry that reliable sources haven't covered Gamergate the way you want them to. That does not give you license to ignore what those sources say or their framing of the movement's real-world impact on real human beings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's very important that we recognize when sources try to create sympathy, because we cannot write in any type of sympathetic style, just as we cannot write in a judgmental style towards the proGG side. They are identified as victims, that's fine, we definitely say that. We use their quotes because of being victims their side is core to understanding. But we cannot write the article to create any more sympathy than that. We can express the attributed viewpoint that most sources give that these women did not deserve the harassment they got or the intensity of it, since that's a major viewpoint. But again, it is a viewpoint and opinion, not a stance that we can take in writing this article. We must be clinically neutral in our writing, which newspapers do not have to be to still be considered highly reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "sympathy" to mention the names of the three most notable victims of Gamergate harassment in the lede of an article which is primarily about the movement's harassment of these three women and the resulting fallout of widespread public condemnation which, in turn, effectively discredited the entire Gamergate movement and resulted in its reduction to an impotent fringe — or, in other words, the Gamergate controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can be taken that way, as by assigning names, you have now introduced real identifible people, who are otherwise unknown outside the situation and the VG field. Obviously in discussing the situation in detail, they cannot be omitted at all, but in a broad summary that the lede should be, it can be seen as personalizing the situation to implicitly create sympathy that the reader should feel. We can write a summary without their names and still get the point across that GG was a situation brought to light by harassment against women professionals in the industry (as you stated above), creating no attempts to sway the reader. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

they are real people. who were attacked viciously by anonymous trolls. that resulted in the coverage that made the controversy notable. end of story. thems just the facts. no "emotion". no "bias". just standard reporting. the only "emotion" is your facile attempt to shield the poor pooor misunderstood gamergate trolls. you will need to take your white knighting elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"They are real people" - right there you have forced sympathy into the argument. As a real person, I appreciate that, but as a WP editor, that's a no-no. The only facet about them being real, identifiable people is making sure to uphold BLP claims, but otherwise that's it. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are so emotional and non objective that the inclusion of information about living people automatically skews your ability to edit appropriately. but please do not project such emotional wimpiness onto others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we use names of people when people are encyclopedic. As per the reliable sources and WP:V, the only reason Gamergate is encyclopedic is because of the public attention drawn by its vicious harassment of, among others, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. All three now have well-sourced biographies on the encyclopedia. Their victimization by Gamergate supporters is indisputably encyclopedic and is widely if not unanimously viewed as the reason Gamergate became a major public controversy. That you disagree with this is of no consequence - we don't write articles that you agree with, we write articles based upon reliable sources, and the reliable sources repeatedly and routinely discuss the controversy in the context of its three primary victims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. Perhaps a third opinion is needed. — Strongjam (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that they should be mentioned in the lede. The harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu make up a significant portion of the article and the coverage. We shouldn't bury the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Counterarguments are deeply unconvincing and basically the same old disruptive editors advocating non-policy. Artw (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

RE TRPoD's OP, why are we even concerned by "the GG LW strategy"? (whatever that is, I have no idea) We should not be affected by that, let's just continue without that in mind. I get where Masem is coming from, if we are really taking a very broad overview of the whole matter, then yeah, we have common themes such as ethics, misogyny, culture war, harassment, social media, but Masem is correct to say that the harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian is just one tangent of the whole issue, with other tangents like Operation Baby Seal and GameJournoPros which are on a totally different tangent. I am definitely not convinced why Brianna Wu should be in the lead, I mean, the blog post on Quinn basically started GamerGate, and Sarkeesian had the university bomb scare, but Wu ... well she was harassed, but others were harassed as well, what makes her so noteworthy of being in the lede? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the harassment of Sarkeesin, Quinn and Wu IS the controversy - it is in no way "tangential". if you are confused about that primary fact, you probably need to consider whether you are up to editing -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask what source you are basing this off of? A very quick google news search of "gamergate controversy" doesn't seem to support this definition, at a glance. Half Hat 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay hold on, I seem to have misunderstood "tangential"; to clarify, the harassment is one part of the controversy, most likely the largest part of the whole controversy, but not the only part of the controversy. There are other parts of the controversy which are unrelated to Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu, including Operation Baby Seal and GameJournoPros. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, those are not part of the "controversy" , they are merely background. The controversy is the vicious horrible harassment of women particularly LW1-3 which led to an exploration of the general culture war against women in video game culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What sources did you get that definition from? You just seem to be declaring that. Half Hat 21:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes them noteworthy is that the harassment the three were subjected to is wholly responsible for making Gamergate a focus of international media attention, turning a spotlight on the issue of sexism in video gaming and revealing the movement's true nature — stripping away the "ethics in gaming journalism" shield to reveal a culture war against game developers, cultural critics, journalists and others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest bringing in external voices here and getting it settled ASAP, these rambling discussions at glance look as unproductive as ever, plus this is quite a major detail of article direction. Half Hat 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Or people could just stop being tendentious making ludicrous attempts to remove the three most prominent people associated with subject from the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think they obviously need to be mentioned. At a bare minimum, we can't leave out Zoe Quinn; even articles published today describe her as "the game developer at the centre of the Gamergate controversy." --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Weedwacker

In this edit weedwacker (talk · contribs) removes from the lede the statement that "commentators have near-universally dismissed the concerns [Gamergate] has focused on as being trivial or unrelated to ethics".

That statement is simply a summary of the section called "Debate over ethics allegations." Removing that text lessens the correspondence between the article body and the lede in a serious way.

That is why I restored the text to the lede by reverting the edit. --TS 02:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaining your reasoning. I mainly took issue with the insertion of the term "near-universally" so I reworded it while leaving the importance of the sentence. I probably shouldn't have just reverted the first time around. "Near-universal" is a phrase that implies almost nobody ever disagreeing with the statement, which isn't true. Just because the number of sources disagreeing with that are a minority does not mean they are going against a universal agreement. Weedwacker (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources (which we use to draw information about public opinion) state that gamergate is near-universally publicly derided. I don't think 'most' accurately conveys what the reliable sources have said- perhaps there's a stronger word to use than 'most' that would be more appropriate in this case? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a statement about the ethical concerns, not about whether the movement is publicly derided. 'a majority of commentators' work better for you? 'Near-universally' is an opinion about the weight that marginalizes sources that don't agree with that statement to the point that it makes them seem non-existent. It has no place in the lede stating that ethical concerns are near-universally dismissed in an article that addresses ethical policy changes by a number of websites as a result of the controversy. Weedwacker (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got me: I should have said "the concerns Gamergate has focused on have been near-universally publicly derided.", as I meant to in the context of the discussion. Do we have the number on the reliable sources which indicate one way or another that these concerns are trivial or unrelated to ethics, or which indicate these concerns are non-trivial or related to ethics? Would this reflect a majority/minority situation (which could be a small difference in opinion), or should we say something like 'vast majority of commentators' (a large difference in opinion regarding these concerns)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think use of the term "universally" should be barred on all of Wikipedia, because my experience has been that never is something universal and any use of that term is typically indicative of agenda-driven editing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to write an essay on the use of the word 'universally'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not one to agree with crusades to eliminate words, but I do agree that it's a bad word for an encyclopedia unless you're actually talking about the universe. Weedwacker (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

State they are concerned about ethics in the lede

Should stay in the lede per our sources and the Debate over ethics allegations section. Per our sources, often when the supporters say they are concerned about ethical issues, what they're talking about aren't actually ethical issues. — Strongjam (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethics in journalism and misogynistic attacks are not mutually exclusive. Using the term "state they are" versus "are" is simply not supportable as NPOV representation. Both are covered. We don't couch beliefs in scare quotes or weasel words and it's why we don't use such equivocal language to describe the harassment. There is no reason to doubt that many gamergate supporters are concerned about ethics in gaming journalism and is a sourcable and true statement. It takes nothing away from harassment, misogyny or sexism. There are no sources that support "Many gamergaters state X but they really don't believe it." It's a false dichotomy and is language that is to be avoided. --DHeyward (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Per our sources:

I'm sure there's more if you want to go digging. — Strongjam (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth explaining what they mean by 'ethics', although I would worry that that could go into too much detail in the lead or give one particular interpretation too much weight. In general, though, the article makes it clear that the ethics issues are intimately connected to the culture war issues (in that the members of GamerGate seem to, generally, believe that their ideological and cultural opponents have established a vast media conspiracy in order to produce and get people to consume media in line with their views, and to suppress any sort of news coverage that threatens this conspiracy.) Obviously that is a fairly WP:FRINGE belief, but I feel, somewhat, as if just saying "ethics" is potentially misleading, since it whitewashes just how out-there much of the underlying thinking here really is. --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The ethics are about more than the culture war issues, according to proponents. The ethics issue didn't just arise with Quinn, it was a long-standing complaint in gamer circles that got co-opted in a sense by this broader cultural broadside. This is why we need better sources for this article, since so much of it provides the appearance of this being a recent complaint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, we, as a neutral work, have to consider what has been reported about the GG's concerns in reliable sources as fully legitimate, and not take the attitude that the press has done that GG is not legit. That the press concerns the movement illegitimate will be a significant portion of the article, no doubt, but when we are describing what GG wants, we cannot play the game of says "yeah, that's what they say but we really know what they are going for" that some of the current language implicates (eg the changes in the article lede today). We are not to try to judge the group's motives either way in WP's voice, though certainly can express the strong negative complaints from others as part of criticism of the group. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No. This is a misconception and a misreading of policy. There is no requirement that we consider anything "fully legitimate" just because someone says it. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources overwhelmingly and essentially unanimously say something, Wikipedia will present that point of view as predominant. We can and should say that some people believe otherwise, but the very point of the due weight, balancing aspects and equal validity sections of the NPOV policy is to refute the idea that Wikipedia has to present anyone and everyone's ideas as "fully legitimate." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And the reliable sources overwhelmingly say that gamergate supporters are concerned with ethics in journalism and also say that the concern has been overshadowed by the harassment of quinn, wu, et al. They do NOT say that gamergate supporters are not concerned with ethics in journalism or that the view by most gamergate supporters was false or insincere. --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, the reliable sources routinely say that the ethics claims are false and are largely a facade for culture-warring against feminists and others who are interested in the diversification of video gaming culture. Strongjam above presented a number of those sources, and there are literally dozens more if you want them. Actual experts in media ethics have examined the claims, refuted them and described the movement not as an "ethics" movement but as a culture war. Plainly and specifically expressed in one of the most respected media criticism publications in America, the Columbia Journalism Review: At core, the movement is a classic culture war. [2] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Understanding that Gjoni was not a gamer and that the gamer community jumped all over the relationship between an indie game developer and a journalist was just the latest in the social justice aspects of gaming. There are many female mainstream gaming executives simply not involved that are much more notable, accomplished and influential than indies likw Quinn and Wu. Sarkeesian has been around a lot longer than Gjoni's post. This isn't new and "Gamergate" is just the latest name for a long standing feud. If we really dig, we'd find transgender vs. radical feminist, indie vs. large commercial gaming companies, modern feminist vs. libertarian feminist, commercial vs. "free" software, etc, etc. The expectation that the press is neutral w.r.t. these issues with full disclosure is not new. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It is required to be neutral and write about GG in a legitimate light with as little as we can from reliable sources. That's the definition of neutrality, that's what WP:IMPARTIAL gives, that's what WP:FRINGE says to do. We have to document without assumption of right or wrongdoing. We have plenty of sources that will be critical of GG and call out what they think is illegitimate, that's fine, but that's just opinion and cannot be presented as fact. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It is synthesis to construct what most gamergater supporters are concerned with by a sampling of discussion boards. The WP article discusses the antics of the discussion forums. That in no way shapes it as mutually exclusive from supporters views about ethics in journalism. Gjoni named Grayson because he was a journalist. NotYourShield arose from it, etc, etc. It takes nothing away from the outrageous behavior and isn't used an excuse. There are no named misogynists yet we still have large sections on misogyny. There are named individuals that are concerned with gaming journalism ethics. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive and I've yet to see any proof that the concern about ethics is not widely held. WP:WEASEL, scare quotes, words to watch and other guidelines explicitly call out such language as unnecessary and an NPOV problem. --DHeyward (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis is what our sources are supposed to do. As the majority viewpoint of our sources are that gamergate supporters say it's about ethics in journalism, but that their issues aren't actually about ethics then the article should reflect that per WP:NPOV. Scare quotes doesn't come into it as there is no expression of doubt. "GG supporters supposedly are concerned about ethics" would be scare qoutes, and weasel is fine in the lede as long as its covered in the article. Indeed, if it wasn't then we should remove it entirely from the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not even weasel to have "GG say but ethics" - thats basic WP:SAID. Proclaiming that "GG are about ethics " is the unalowable WP:OR as the multiple reliable sources state otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

−

Yes, this. The key thing to understand is that our description of GamerGate -- even what GamerGate wants, insofar as that can be characterized when it comes to a disparate, leaderless group -- has to come from reliable sources. Masem said, above, that we have to take what has been "reported about the GG's concerns in reliable sources as fully legitimate"; the thing is, we are doing this; that includes taking reliable sources that say "GamerGate's concerns are mostly about defeating Social Justice Warriors by any means necessary, and really have nothing to do with ethics beyond a vague belief that there is a vast unethical Social Justice Conspiracy that must be defeated", we have to take that seriously. And that (or parts of that) are what the vast majority of reliable sources say! When The Columbia Journalism Review (and many other reliable sources) say that GamerGate is not actually about ethics -- that its ethics concerns are centered around a conspiracy theory intended to provide support for their ongoing culture war -- that is something we must report. I would add to this that the characterization of their ethical concerns as a conspiracy theory used in support of their long-running culture war actually does not contradict most of what the sources we have that claim to be speaking for GamerGate say -- most of those sources, at least the ones we have in the article, seem to agree that the ethics issues are fundamentally about fighting against a conspiracy as part of a long-running culture war. They would just describe it not as a "conspiracy theory" but as a "conspiracy fact"; they believe that their really is a vast unethical "social justice conspiracy" or somesuch that must be defeated. This means that we can most accurately cover the ethical concerns by placing them in the context of that culture war; as far as I can tell, no reliable commentators on any side of the debate are now claiming that it exists outside that context. --Aquillion (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's clearly an opinion, that they feel that GG is not really about ethics. We no way can report that as fact. It is a fact that many sources believe that GG is not about ethics - that point can be made for certain, but not in WP's voice. Facts do not come from common public opinion. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to the better sources, it is not merely an opinion; it is a detailed analysis by reputable sources with a strong reputation for fact-checking and a broadly-trusted ability to interpret and explain cultural phenomenon like these. It is an opinion in the sense that any expert who writes about anything is ultimately only giving their opinion, no matter how well-backed and well-researched that opinion might be; but it is one of sufficient strength and authority -- and with a sufficiently broad consensus -- that we can report it as fact; it is not an opinion in the sense that we use that word in our policies. Facts absolutely do not come from popular opinion, yes; but (at least when it comes to the facts we report in our voice as an encyclopedia) they do come from a consensus among reliable sources, and that is what we have here. They could be wrong; ultimately, even the most reliable journalist or scientist or expert has to use their opinion to interpret results, after all. But as an encyclopedia, we can only follow the consensus among reliable sources. Our articles on other topics do not say "Scientists believe evolution works like this..." or "Historians and political scientists say that America is a representative democracy...", even though there are surely people who would disagree with those statements, and even though you could reasonably say that ultimately it is just the opinions of those people. Instead, we survey the reliable sources and, when there seems to be universal or near-universal agreement on some point, we report it as fact. Beyond that, as I mentioned in my edit above (which edit-conflicted with your reply, sorry!), I am not convinced that there is as much of a conflict between two sides here as people are saying. At this point the vast majority of sources, regardless of what perspective they say they're writing from, seem to agree that the ethics concerns are fundamentally about cultural warfare in the sense of fighting an (alleged or actual) unethical conspiracy by what they view as their ideological and cultural opponents. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your examples are scientific and institutional, this is an article about a group of people. You can't say that a group of people are "near-universally" anything as fact when there are sources that dispute the claims of the others. Weedwacker (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can; that's what "near-universally" means -- almost every source agrees on this, but there are a few who do not. Hence, it is nearly universal. That accurately reflects what the rest of the article says, which is what Wikipedia leads are intended to do. Simply having a few sources that dispute a nearly-universal consensus doesn't change the fact that it's nearly-universal. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The only source that would be considered an expert or close to academic in this whole swath of articles is the CRJ, and even then he was only looking at the media treatment of the situation, not as a social analysis of GG. Not unreliable in discussing this, but far from something akin to a peer-reviewed paper or a court of law to establish their statements about GG as fact. Certainly, in time, we can expect actual studies on this matter (the pieces on DIRGA, for example, promise years of academic analysis of why GG came to be), and perhaps in time, it might be concluded that based on a survey of the people that claim to be GG supporters they were less interested in ethics and more interested in harassment, at which point we can talk to it as a fact. But at this point, the statement that "GG is not about ethics" is a clearly contentious statement, and while the popular opinion is that is it true, we cannot act like it is, but instead describe the predominate view that it is true. We don't call the Westboro church a hate group, but reflect that most everyone else considered them that while noting what they consider themselves as. We don't call ISIS evil but reflect that they are broadly considered that way while describing what they have stated as their beliefs/approach without judgement. That's the same manner we are required to take here and trying to do anything to make GG look illegitate in WP's voice without established facts towards saying it is illegitimate is against NPOV. It is very easily to slip into this mode considered that GG is generally strongly disliked by most everyone but we are still a impartial encyclopedia and have to put that emotion behind us and not slip into this mode. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If GamerGate was a formal organization with recognized leaders and policies, like the others you mentioned, we could rely on those to summarize its goals and beliefs; for instance, we can rely on the WBC to say that they are anti-gay. GamerGate, however, is not an unified organization, but a controversy that has involved a large number of people demanding different (and sometimes contradictory) things for different (and sometimes contradictory) reasons. This confusion has led many reliable sources to do something they wouldn't usually do -- devoting large amounts of time and effort to analyzing and describing the beliefs behind it. As an encyclopedia, we must rely on this analysis if we are to say anything concrete at all; and we have many sources that have done this -- not just the CBJ, but the New York Times, NPR, Time, and so on, throughout the entire article. They have nearly universally come back saying that GamerGate, as a movement, does not particularly care about ethics except as part of a war to advance a particular cultural agenda. In fact, in the context Wikipedia uses to judge facts, I would take it a step beyond near-universal and dispute your assertion that their conclusion is "clearly controversial"; as I said above, I believe that literally all our reliable, non-opinion sources that discuss the ethics issues in any depth -- that is, every one we can rely on for statements of fact -- agrees in some form with the broad statement that GamerGate's primary goal is to wage cultural warfare against its ideological opponents, and that its concern about ethics is primarily restricted to a belief that those ideological enemies have formed an unethical conspiracy. Some of the sources that advance this argument most stridently, in fact, are the ones that describe themselves as agreeing with GamerGate. Simply feeling that it's controversial yourself -- or feeling that there are people on message-boards and blogs who would disagree -- does not render it controversial. In order to be controversial for NPOV purposes, a fact must be contested by other reliable sources (that is, ones that are credible for statements of fact). In this case it simply isn't; it's just a fact which we have to report in the narrative voice. I can understand your concern about emotions, since certainly the entire controversy has made some people very emotional, but the solution to a situation as wrought with emotional tension as this is to focus on reliable sources and to try and avoid substituting our judgment for theirs; in this case, going on from the perspective of reliable sources, I don't think it's controversial at all to describe GamerGate's goals and ethical concerns as being, fundamentally, about a belief that their ideological or cultural opponents are part of a vast unethical conspiracy. Does everyone in GamerGate think that? Is everyone in the movement driven by those beliefs? Of course not. But I think that, going by our sources, it is simply uncontroversial fact that that is what drives the movement as a whole. Obviously in such an emotionally-wrought topic there will always be some people who will get upset at any statement of fact (no matter how simple, no matter how clearly-universal it is, no matter how carefully we qualify it or source it to reliable sources.) But we still have an obligation to report facts, when determined by reliable sources, as facts, and not hedge and describe them as controversial opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's not a dichotomy. "Group A likes meat. Group A is largely known for eating cheese" doesn't mean we say "Group A says they like meat but group A really eats a lot of cheese." I don't really care how many sources say they eat cheese. This is the scenario we have here. Gamergate supporters are concerned with journalism ethics. It doesn't matter how many times people also say misogynistic things on forums. The first thing most reliable sources say is that the hashtag is not really a movement as it's leaderless without a platform. One of its most notable group action is getting Intel adverts pulled from a game review journal. They didn't do that with hate filled screeds and threats written to female Intel employees. This is why journalism ethics is considered the common and binding force of the hashtag. It also has nothing to do with the overshadowing threats and doxing that also occurred. As a neutral observer of reliable sources, we note both as both are true and relevant and sourced according to weight. More importantly there are people associated with the hashtag and all of the named persons associate with the ethics and transparency in journalism aspect and portraying that in any way as insincere or that they really support misogynist and sexist attacks on women is a false light portrayal. It is a synthesis of POV to juxtapose pieces against each other as if both can't be true. --DHeyward (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

When the sources say "Group A says they like meat but group A really eats a lot of cheese." thats what we say. And that is what the sources say: "Some Gamergaters claim to be about 'ethics' but they are actually about harassment and opposition to "social justice warriors" and women and anyone who doesnt by into their 'but ethics'" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia sourcing works. We can say those source say that, but if it is clearly not an established fact (popular public opinion is not fact), we cannot say it in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. we follow the reliable sources in proportion to the manner the views are held in those sources without our personal interpretation to make up for the poor poor gamergaters not being given any credence by any of the sources because we dont get to be their white knights to make up for the fact that an unorganized mob with no idea of what ethics actually is has been dismissed as complete nonsense. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you are missing several factors of NPOV, specifically IMPARTIAL and SUBJECTIVE, that we have to include as well. Wikipedia cannot in any way attack or make any direct negative claims about GG if we are to be neutral, even if the press has opted to do so. We will report the press's opinions as that is the more predominate view per UNDUE/WEIGHT, no question, but we cannot state opinions as fact without ascertaining who stated that opinion. We have to write in a clinically impartial tone, and that means even when reporting what is said as a popular opinion by the press and attributing to them, we cannot glorify or extenuate the wording to even look like we are agreeing with that view or disagreeing with the GG view. We're not trying to make GG look good (the sources don't even go there save for a minority, so we can't go there), but we also cannot attack them in an article on WP, even in a subtle language manner, even if that's the popular opinion of the press - we don't do it anywhere else on WP, we aren't going to start here. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem, for the umpteen thousandth time, it is not violative of "IMPARTIAL" or "SUBJECTIVE" to report that reliable sources say Gamergate has nothing to do with journalism ethics and is a culture war against diversification of gaming. We do not present it as a fact, but we do present it as the overwhelmingly-dominant mainstream view of the movement in mainstream reliable sources, as per policy which expressly states that Wikipedia gives credence to viewpoints in proportion to the credence given them in mainstream reliable sources. We are required to describe Gamergate's small minority viewpoint in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. The beliefs of the greater world are accorded more space and prominence in an encyclopedia than the beliefs of a small fringe minority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point again. Yes, it is not a violation of any policy to say "The majority of media have claimed GG has nothing to do with ethics." That's a fact there's no doubt to. But it is a violation of policy to try to word that approach when talking about GG's concerns which we have to treat legitimately. For example, if the wording was "Though GG claims it is about ethics, the majority of media says it has nothing do with ethics" is not an impartial statement, as it puts weight on the anti-GG side as being "right" (they're only majority view, but that doesn't make them "right"). that's the language that is going on here that has to be stopped to stay within policy. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You've worded it wrong. There's no need for the flipped juxtaposition. Rather, we should state "The Gamergate movement is widely viewed as a culture war against women and diversity in gaming. The movement's supporters say they are interested in ethics in gaming journalism." That's the appropriate wording and weight — the primary mainstream view of the movement is presented first, followed by what supporters argue it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't do that anywhere else on WP; We don't call Westboro a hate group off the bat, but instead describe the congregation legitimately before going into the widely popular criticism of the church as a hate group. We have to treat the GG movement as 100% legitimate movement, letting the press sources give us the basis to express the popular critical stance that it is not, otherwise, we are not being impartial and instead picking the winner, which WP cannot do. --MASEM (t) 07:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article I'm reading? Because I don't think you've read our article on the Westboro Baptist Church — it literally does what you're saying it doesn't do. The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American unaffiliated Baptist church known for its extreme ideologies, especially those against gay people. That specifically presents a fact (that it is a Baptist church) followed by the predominant mainstream view of the WBC's ideologies in the very first sentence — that the group holds views which are "extreme" and "against gay people." The very next sentence — The church is widely described as a hate group[4] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center. further reinforces the mainstream viewpoint. We don't discuss the church's views of its own viewpoints until much later in the article. A comparable first two sentences on Gamergate would be The Gamergate movement is an American social movement known for waging a culture war against the diversification of video gaming culture. The movement is widely described as sexist and misogynist. If that's the first two sentences you want about Gamergate, sounds good to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because we are stating their legitimacy in the first sentence appropriately as a lede (to be concise). The body of the article re-enforces this. Here, we've agreed that ultimately GG is about sexism of one form or another hence appropriate for the lead, and then we have to describe who are involved (the GG supporters) before getting into the criticism of it. Irregardless, notice that the article legitimately covers the church, their views, their activities (including factual lawsuits against it), and only after all that gets into the opinionated criticism against it. Of course, ledes are different from bodies, they have to be concise and cover the situation as briefly as possible. However, the problem is that we don't have a lot of long-term views to be able to determine if we should call a culture war as the primary situation yet. The best we can say is that it is a controversy centering around sexism (the what and when), and then summarize the who, how, and why. --MASEM (t) 07:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And if we had an article on "The Gamergate movement" then it would be appropriate to put their activities and views first in the body. We don't, however — largely because, as Aquillion notes, Gamergate is essentially an inscrutable anonymous mob of trolls, and there's nothing "there" to write about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguable, this is a controversy about actions and behavior of the movement (or at least those attaching themselves to the #GG hashtag), so who the movement is is very important and for all purposes the initiators of the conflict and thus should be discussed first, where possible. In an impartial article about the controversy (I suggested this before when TS was talking about moving the draft over most recently), one of the first things we would write would be who was involved. It is actually much easier and more neutral to say that there was a group of ppl using the #GG hashtag to push ethics, but at nearly the same time, there was a sudden outbreak of harassment attacks against a number of people (describing the whole shebang of the accusations, the females that were harassed, etc.). After explaining that history (all factual so far) we explain who the #GG supporters are and what they sought and the little else we can reliably source about their legitimate actions, and then go into the counter arguments - the more predominate view - of why the movement's flawed (no organization, being tied to a hijacked tag, etc.), why the ethics arguments may be bunk, and the issues with harassment, sexism and misogyny, and finally ending on describing changes that have resulted from the controversy (like intel's $300m). Same information, same weight, but putting it in the order that meets other articles on controversial groups and targets (which nearly always puts the critical reaction section at the end). --MASEM (t) 07:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

no, there is nothing in policy or good writing that says the troll's perspective that everyone has dismissed as utterly inane at best or transparent cover to attempt to hide or justify the harassment should be covered first or ever be given any more than trivial passing coverage. No one cares about "games reviews should be ethical by only presenting object reviews like is it fun" . no one . and covering it first is inappropriate per WP:STRUCTURE / WP:UNDUE - giving undue prominence to trivial aspect of the subject of the article - the controversy of the vile vile harassment and the underlying culture war the harassment exposed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to, as an impartial neutral source, assuming their claims are legitimate. We have to write about them with respect. We cannot think of them as "trolls" - we have the press's opinions to fill that in, but we are never going to write a neutral article if attitudes start from that point, and it is a blatant NPOV to think of them like that even on that talk page. One can have their personal feelings on the matter, but those cannot come in to constructive WP editing and it can be a COI to enter into entering with that stance. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. We do not "assume" something that the reliable sources have determined to be ludicrous, false or dismissed as trivial. Just drop it. your whiteknighting for the GG trolls has gone beyond wikilawyering to completely tendentious to absolutely WP:COMPETENCE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My issue with just saying "They are concerned about ethics in gaming journalism" is that per our sources what is often meant by "ethics in gaming journalism" is not what most of our readers would consider ethical issues. There is no neutrality issue in being clear about that in the lede. Indeed, it's a NPOV issue to not be clear, otherwise we may leave the reader with a misunderstanding of what is meant when they say ethics but really mean what the reader would consider something else. — Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So instead of the lede having a statement of the majority of commentator views on the ethics, you changed it to an ambigious "commenters say it" which can be interpreted as either 'all' or 'some'. I'm in full agreement that most commentators dismiss the ethics claims but it misrepresents the sources to say the only disagreeing source is Milo Yiannopoulos or that all commentators dismiss them. Weedwacker (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of a revert of Masem's edit

Masem's edit here is unacceptable because it rejects well-sourced and established facts — that Gamergate is responsible for harassment of people including Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and others. Pretending that this all might be some coincidence ("simultaneously") is simply not supported. This is not a negotiable point or an opinion, it is a fact and the article will present it as such. Moreover, the debate is not just "over social media," it's on the front page of The New York Times and on MSNBC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that those that support GG are the same people that harassed others. Period. There's even sources that say that there are at least some disparate groups (eg the GG conservatives that are trying to stop harassment). The only thing that is factually common - and the reason we have to bring up social media - is that the two groups used the same hashtag of #Gamergate - that's hashtag hijacking at its finest (again, a point commented on by sources that have told the GG conservative to move off the #Gamergate hashtag if they want to be taken seriously by the press). It is certainly possible that one or more "GG Supporters" are also harassers, but we have no evidence of any specific case, and certainly not the group as a whole. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We aren't looking for "evidence," Masem — that's not what we do as Wikipedia editors, and you've been around here long enough to know that. You are suggesting and demanding original research, which categorically violates policy. Reliable sources repeatedly state that elements within the movement are largely responsible for the harassment, and this conclusion is effectively undisputed among the mainstream reliable sources. We republish what reliable sources say. Period. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we require evidence. That's WP:V - we require sourcable evidence to make a statement not said in reliable sources. It is OR to say that the entire GG movement is involved in the harassment and in fact counter to the sources. And no, the most reliable sources do not attribute the harassment to the movement, but to people using the GG hashtag. That's the key factor here. We have to be aware there are real people out there that are supporters of GG but have no involvement in the harassment, and we are choising language and presuming opinions as fact that is attacking them. We cannot do that. --MASEM (t) 07:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking over our sourcing in the history section, I am not sure I not see the distinction you are making; there are numerous sources directly connecting the harassment to GamerGate. Obviously they do not say that all supporters of GamerGate are responsible for harassment (nor does our article), but we need to make the connection clear. That said, now that I've thought about your edit in more detail, I think I see an answer to your concerns; the lead needs to be more specific about the people responsible for those attacks (and, along the same lines, what the attacks were) --Aquillion (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Masem's version is more neutral and still reflects the sources and article. "over social media" is accurate for a majority of the activity of, just because it has been covered by the media doesn't mean it's not primarily taking place on social media and has been reported as such. Mentioning the hashtag is a well reported important thing to include. There's a whole huge talk page discussion up above about including ethics concerns, and including it in the same sentence as the harassment fully encompasses how it's described. The 'simultaneously' part is definitely poorly worded but correct. The harassment "leading commentators to doubt the legitimacy of the movement and their motives" is a good inclusion. The reliable sources do say that harassment occurred specifically against the named people. They are described as misogynistic and sexist. Weedwacker (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, it is not our job to evaluate the evidence, but to report the facts as determined by reliable sources. Your personal opinion that there is insufficient evidence isn't something we can use to build an article. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CS Monitor, the Telegraph, and countless other reliable sources have looked at this and described it in the manner reflected in our lead, nor (so far as I can see) have any reliable non-opinion sources contested this assessment. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to make arguments -- if you want to argue about the evidence, start writing letters to the New York Times and the Washington Post. If you want to talk about what goes into the article, though, you need reliable sources. I'll also point out (since I see this issue a lot on controversial articles) that an article's lead has to reflect its content; if you want to make such a sweeping change to how the article describes the subject, you should start in the text and not the lead, since that is where the sources you are talking about reside. I think you will find it difficult, though, because (as I noted) our description of the connection between the harassment and GamerGate is extensively documented; simply feeling that those sources are wrong (that they didn't look at the evidence right, or that their evidence isn't good enough or things of that nature) is not enough. I would add as a side note that some of the other stuff you're talking about (eg. the existence of GG conservatives seriously trying to stop the harassment) are, as far as I am aware, only attested to in opinion pieces and therefore should never be stated as fact in the article. --07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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." WA Post "No one denies there has been harassment leveled against supporters on both sides of the issue. There's even speculation that the worst comes from Internet trolls who don't feel strongly about either side of the subject but just want to cause trouble. And that doesn't keep the threats from being scary." They are saying what I am saying - you cannot say, factually, the harassment is from "GG Supporters". There's a very strong likelihood a fraction of GG supporters are also harassers (per NYTimes) but it is not 100% of supporters being harassers, and thus we cannot make that impression at all. Even Quinn's acknowledged the hijacking of the hashtag and tried to convince those that want to talk ethics to move to a different tag. Now, we can get into the stubborness that has been mentioned (by Singal, I believe) of GG supporters wanting to stay with the GG hasthag, but that's not the point - not all GG supporters are harassers - the sources are clear on that point. And in terms of the lede, I have previously suggested a more neutral ordering before, and just above, but again, the article properly should flow (without changing sourcing weight) : history (specifically noting that the initial GG calls for ethics and the harassment were simultaneous) , who GG supporters are and their ethics concerns and activities, the criticism against the GG movement (the doubts about ethics, the lack of organization, the use of harassment, the issues of sexism and misogyny), and finally the industry reaction. --MASEM (t) 07:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Nowhere in our article does it say (or imply) that all members of GamerGate are responsible for everything that is done under the hashtag; the section you reworded with your edit said, before you edit it, that "the Gamergate controversy, centering on a debate about sexism in video game culture, came to public attention in August 2014 after a spate of sexist and misogynistic attacks on game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian and others." That description is indisputably factually correct and mirrors what the rest of our article says and the sources it relies on, while reflecting the relevant aspects of the topic in proportion to the weight they are given in reliable sources -- while it may only be a small portion of people who consider themselves part of GamerGate making the attacks, they are indisputably what GamerGate is famous for and what brought it to the public eye. If I understand your concerns here, then, you are upset that members of GamerGate may find themselves tarred by association with this faction (since we are putting so much attention on it in our lead!) But that is not an encyclopedic concern; we give things weight according to the weight reliable sources accord them, and while we certainly do not (and the sentence you changed certainly did not) imply that everyone in GamerGate is responsible for the attacks, we must make them the focus of the article. If this makes people who associate with GamerGate unhappy, they should focus their ire on the coverage by reliable sources, not on us; we must reflect the weight of that coverage. --Aquillion (talk)

Something can be factually correct and also misleading. You are correct that your quote is factually correct that the controversy came to public attention in August because of the attacks. The implication from the quote, and the article at large, is that it's undeniable that the movement, or supporters of the movement, or however you'd prefer to phrase it, are behind it. Clearly, even the reliable sources don't take such a hard line on it, and the more complicated facts surrounding the controversy support that (thus my repeated call for better sources). Masem's changes are better, but the issue is not just the lead, and is not just one minor thing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

it is indisputable that the "controversy" that anyone cares about and has covered is the vile harassment which occurred and the underlying sexism and misogyny /"culture war" that came to light because of the harassment. that is what the sources cover and that is what we cover. there is nothing "misleading". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The harassment is what made the news and became the focus of the hashtag. Describing the "culture war" as only "sexist and misogynistic" is an obtuse view of the various views expressed and it is inaccurate to describe it as such. As an example, if Sarkeesian is representing one aspect of the "culture war" it is not accurate to describe all those that disagree with her as "sexist and misogynistic." --DHeyward (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing Columbia Journalism Review Article?

Strongjam, explanation please? Ries42 (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, I was attempting to add references and content from this article http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/gawker_bullying.php. I was under the impression that Columbia Journalism Review was an impeccably reliable source, and its word is god according to certain editors. Surely giving such a reliable source due weight is appropriate. Ries42 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I add a comment on your talk page, but I didn't realize this was a new CJR article. I don't think we need that much commentary on the tweets, but I'm fine with it. But as adobe was never a sponsor we can't say the pulled sponsorship, especially in since in the same paragraph we say they weren't an advertiser. — Strongjam (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realize that Adobe had never been a sponsor. Like I said on my talk page, I'm rather distant from a lot of the "ongoing" issues here. If you wanted to fix that portion of it (that Adobe never was a sponsor) I would agree with that change, but I would hope you would revert yourself and leave the other parts intact, or mostly intact. Ries42 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was from October, correct? Adobe pulled its sponsorship is straight from the article. ??? --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, hence why I initially put it in, but apparently in some cases the CJR can be wrong. I'm not sure how it works though when we're allowed to contradict a reliable source and when we're not. Ries42 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Other sources make it clear that Adobe wasn't an advertiser. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Gawker disagrees. --DHeyward (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That article does not saw Adobe was sponsering Gawker. It said they asked for their logo to be removed from their advertiser page. — Strongjam (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So they pulled their adverts from Gawker. Distinction? Difference? Gawker didn't treat them differently than Intel. Why should we? --DHeyward (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

They did not pull any advertisement from Gawker, they had no advertisements to pull. The asked Gawker to remove their logo from http://advertising.gawker.com/about/, previously they had a partners section. — Strongjam (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Law

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Your latest edit in the draft article effectively accuses Archive.today of violating copyright laws. Is writer Jason Koebler an attorney giving a legal opinion here? Because if he isn't, he isn't qualified to give legal advice. I would believe that before we make such a claim on Wikipedia we might actually want to get a legal opinion on whether such an act actually is technically copyright infringement from a respected LEGAL source, not a staff writer at what is as best I can tell, a blog. I would revert your edit, but I'd rather you chime in with whether you agree with this and revert it yourself if you agree that making such a legal charge, even attributed to the writer in question, might be going overboard. The previous entry, that it has drawn criticism is probably enough and doesn't put WP in a legal quandary. Ries42 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The author quotes lawyers in his article, and the current state of the article does not make accusations against any particular site and the opinion is attributed. I don't see any issue. An argument for WP:UNDUE might be made though. — Strongjam (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: Regardless of morality or protest value, this is illegal and not a "fair use" of copyrighted content in the United States. Legal conclusion, no 'lawyer' attribution., When considering copyright, judges look at several things, including the nature of the copied work, how much is taken, what it's taken for, and whether the copying is likely to harm the original creator. Copying part of a work, and sometimes, even the whole thing, is permissible as long as it's for commentary or criticism purposes. But that only applies when the original isn't freely available and the commentary occurs on the page itself (i.e., a newspaper's book review or a video review of a movie). discussing a legal principle (not exactly correct, but with law, very little is completely correct).

First quote from a lawyer: "They want to criticize the original while destroying its market," Ben Depoorter, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, told me. "It's 100 percent OK to destroy the market for the original, but not by copying it entirely." Doesn't exactly come to a legal conclusion based on a specific set of facts. More like trying to state a relatively general legal principle.

Second quote from a lawyer Richard Stim, a copyright and intellectual property blogger, told me that "arguably (and in a bizarre way) they are commenting on the content by removing the ads, but I don't think that's going to justify fair use either." Makes a legal statement stating that, effectively, what archive today may not be illegal under copyright law. Doesn't come to a direct conclusion, but basically hedges that its possible its completely legal.

Paraphrase of a third lawyer Daniel Nazer, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, suggested that it might be challenging to establish fair use if the sole purpose of archiving an article was to cut off the author's revenue, but that many forms of archiving to preserve content and promote commentary could be fair use: Politicians are caught making dumb tweets, controversial blog posts are cached before they're deleted, and that sort of thing. This is a change from the original article, which the author stated Daniel Nazer, a copyright attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, agreed that using Archive.today links to spread copyrighted material is probably illegal, but said that lots of people do it for a lot of reasons: The original language is very unambiguous, and goes toward the point "this is a violation of copyright law" that the author claims at the top. The new quote, however, reads more like an actual lawyer's opinion. It hedges and mentions several possibilities for fair use that makes the uses of archive.today as completely legal under copyright law, but doesn't go so far as to say that any specific factual situation is legal or illegal.

Last author statement: But, using those tools to copy entire articles so people can continue to read sites their movement ostensibly disagrees with is just plain old stealing. Makes a hardline legal conclusion.

Thus, if we're basing it on he "quoted lawyers" none of the lawyers quoted unambiguously said this was a violation of copyright law. The only person to say that was the author, Jason Koebler. The only lawyer that could have possibly said that asked the author to revise the piece to clarify that his opinion was much more nuanced than the author originally wrote. With all of that, its clear that at BEST the person saying that this is "illegal" is a non-lawyer, the author of the piece. That is very clearly not enough for WP to make a legal opinion. AT BEST, we could say that "Jason Koebler criticized the practice because it may violate copyright law" but even then, who is Koebler to give even that opinion. Some of the lawyers might be able to make that opinion, but it would take several sentences to go into the proper nuance of the legal analysis, and frankly, this Vice piece is not even close to the caliber of legal analysis to be notable in that regard. As such, we shouldn't be making any comment more than "Koebler critisized the practice." And frankly, even that is very poor. The whole criticism should be removed. Ries42 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That he did not put in quotes what more than one lawyer told him is irrelevant. We dont get to disqualify sources because they dont say things the way we want to say them .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Its inappropriate and ACTUALLY illegal to give legal advice or draw a legal conclusion like you did as an unlicensed practice of law. Without the WPF signing off on providing a legal opinion in this article, which is what you did, its completely inappropriate to source a legal opinion for a non-legal source. The source should be disqualified because you're citing it for a legal opinion, and this is CLEARLY an unreliable source for a legal opinion. Ries42 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Where prey tell is the LEGAL advice? It is not in any way shape or form "legal advice" to state that "murder is illegal " nor to state that "copyright violations are illegal". And we do not need to get WMF involved about such nonsense, although if you wish to drag them into this, feel free to do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good: Piracy/Copyright is illegal. Bad: This is a violation of copyright law. Simple enough for you? Ries42 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

After speaking with other editors, I fully support PrimeFac's edit for clarity. It dramatically improves the line, and I wish I thought of it myself. Ries42 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of "swatting"

It seems to me that including this definition is taking up unnecessary space in an already bloated article. Shouldn't wikilinking "swatting" suffice? Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly pleased with the sentence as-is. My preference would be that we re-work it to avoid any jargon, but I'm not much of a wordsmith. — Strongjam (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken re: avoiding jargon. I've taken a crack at it, maybe that will help. Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We could also take the route of re-work the sentence to avoid the jargon and include a wikilink to the jargon at an appropriate place in the sentence, if possible. I would say that it would be the best of both worlds; a summary for those to understand and a link for those who want more. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Call for deletion posted accidentally on a different talk page

Non-actionable and unsupported conspiracy theorizing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following text was placed at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes by Kau-12 (talk · contribs). I believe it was intended to be put here and so I have moved it. Yaris678 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is last time I'm going to suggest this.

WP:NPOV has been circumvented on this article.

Despite this entire article being accurate due to WP:DUE, a large amount of the cited sources can be either directly, or indirectly traced back to Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, or Silverstring Media. Leigh Alexander is a prominent tech writer, and is subcontracted to many different media outlets. She is friends with many of the writers cited in this article. Many of the writers at Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Polygon are friends or known associates of hers, making all articles cited by them subject to massive bias. Leigh Alexander herself writes for TIME, Vice and others. The above and many more writers covering this are also Patreon supporters of each others work.

None of these writers have recused themselves about writing about a subject that they are actually involved in. All of these writers have ended up shaping the initial narrative of #GamerGate for the media outside the initial Games/Tech Industry.

I am unsure if cited articles being inherently biased due to their closeness to the subject they are covering is covered under wikipedia policy.

But hey, I'll give it a shot and ask you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kau-12 (talk • contribs)

Grace Lynn swatting again

The Grace Lynn swatting discussion (archived here) petered out before we decided what to do about the story. I suppose it's been a busy week, but here we now have plenty of coverage of a Gamergate-related event by major reliable sources. It would seem odd not to cover it in view of that. --TS 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

She appears to be the only source connecting an address she no longer lives at to anonymous posting on a forum and concludes it's gamergate supporters in real time (what are the odds?). She's flip-flopped on GamerGate because of the inherent conflict of modern feminism and transgender issues. This is perhaps the single most unreliable incident reported. It discredits the other instances through association, though, which is a strong argument to ignore it. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically every reliable source acknowledges the person responsible claimed to have nothing to do with GamerGate with at least one explicitly describing it as the likely work of an unaffiliated troll. We shouldn't include everything that happens to a person connected with GamerGate in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This incident is already on the swatting article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless we find some sources that talk about how things like the swatting are blamed on Gamergate when they aren't related, I'm not really seeing the point of putting it in given the lack of actual connection. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of attempts to deny the known facts as reported by multiple reliable sources, and at least one attempt to say that all the reliable sources say the exact opposite.

Could we get back to reality, please? We're going to have to cover this. --TS 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on what? The known facts are that she has some sort of relationship to Gamergate, but that the swatting was unrelated to the actual movement. If we're going to include it, and I still don't see a good argument as to why we should, it will have to include that information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources are crystal-clear here; a person or persons under the banner of "Gamergate" swatted a Gamergate critic. We can even tie it to 8chan directly;

8chan user offers to “swat” GamerGate critic, cops sent to an old address

and the information contained there that the police are looking to track down the hoaxer's identity. All of this is relevant to this article. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that her relationship to GamerGate is tenuous. The Oregon Live article isn't particularly reliable for Gamergate as they call it an initial movement for ethics in "video journalism." She felt she was being harassed when she was pro-gamergate, too. Sources reporting based solely what she believes is too much weight. The police didn't attribute a motivation or name a suspect despite her call to the Portland PD and providing her view and the 8chan post doesn't seem to care who they swatted as long as they were doxxed. --DHeyward (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one of those sources actually attributes it to GamerGate, one makes no attribution, and another presents it as Lynn saying one thing and the party responsible saying another thing. This source implies a connection, but notes the party responsible denies affiliation with GamerGate. In The Verge the parties responsible are dismissed as likely trolls unaffiliated with GamerGate. Even Gawker doesn't say GamerGate is responsible. So the people responsible are widely reported to deny affiliation, sources overwhelmingly avoid implicating GamerGate themselves, and at least one outright states it was likely the work of an unaffiliated troll. This would fit just fine in the 8chan article. We don't need to include every incident with a dubious tangential GamerGate connection in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like the same situation with the media on that Blizzcon speech, where many wanted to interpret a simple head nod to an interview question as a full-out accusation against GG (with the higher quality, more neutral sources properly identifying that it was an implied reference). We have to remember that it is factually true there are third parties out there not associated with GG either direction that want to stir the pot, and this sounds like a case of just that. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It was the 8chan "raid board" /baphomet/ who seem like the old 4chan /b/ that just love to raid and doxx everyone they can RetΔrtist (разговор) 10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it definitely belongs in the article, since there has been a huge amount of coverage connecting it to GamerGate; but we should be careful to source exactly what they say. In other words, we can report that most coverage has connected it to GamerGate, that the victim connected it to GamerGate, and so on, and that several news articles have noted that the anonymous nature of 8chan makes it difficult or impossible to confirm. But I think it's clear that sufficient sources have found the possibility of a connection to be notable enough and credible enough that we need to cover it here; it is, for the better or worse, a significant event in the coverage of GamerGate by reliable sources. The fact that an extensive list of reliable news sources found her allegations credible enough to publish is sufficient to include it in our article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Gamergate swatting. The target here is one Israel Galvez. Again, reported a reliable source.

The Guardian, Jan 13, 2015, Gamergate hits new low with attempts to send Swat teams to critics

Further opposition to including these serious incidents in the article is looking increasingly silly. --TS 16:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she is a Gamergate critic, but does everything that happens to someone critical (or supportive) of Gamergate need to be in this article? The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate, was co-ordinated on the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement, along with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. I didn't know that 8chan was a subforum of reddit or that the 8chan subforum "baphomet" was in any way affiliated with Gamergate. Those seem to be incorrect as a fact, no? The only connection to GG is that this person is critic of GG? 8chan ≠ Gamergate. Perhaps this is an article that is more appropriate for a criticism within the 8chan article? Ries42 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Swatting is a particular notable form of harassment and I think it's received more then enough attention from RS to include in the article. Per Aquillion's comment above we should be careful say that it's been connected to Gamergate. I think Masem's edit to the draft article is a pretty good starting point, might need some editing to avoid WP:SAY. Strongjam (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC) —

I agree its a start, I've edited to make it clear that the reliable sources attributed the source to "baphomet." If we have a source that links the two (baphomet and gamergate) than we can add that and perhaps make a more causal link that the two are related. For now, I don't think we have a source that makes that link except in inference (i.e., critic of gamergate swatted by X, X must be pro GG instead of independently determining if X is actually related to GG or not). Ries42 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian specifically states "in the latest attempted “swatting” attack linked to the Gamergate movement" and "The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate". We don't require reliable sources to "show their work", so to speak. If they made the connection, then we can use it. Woodroar (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind: 8chan baphomet users appear to be more on the disruptive side and less about any of the base GG "ethics" (even proGG at KIA believe the group is linked to GNAA), but we have no reliabe sources to make that connection otherwise. The problem right now is that because they operate off 8chan, which itself is strongly tied to GG (due to 4chan's moderation at the start of GG factoring into its creation), people are going to tie it directly to GG. I'm not saying that these swats aren't tied to GG (They are predominate anti-GG people that were swatted), but we need to be aware what's behind the scenes here, and the latest Guardian article is careful not to directly say the swatting came from GG supporters, just that its linked to the situation. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Masem, and want to add, it doesn't explain how its "linked" to Gamergate. I'm not asking them to show their work, but the link appears to be, from the article, that the target is a GG critic. That's a link to Gamergate. But I do not see where in that article it says that the swatting was attributed to GG. Its attributed to baphomet by name. If there is a source that directly links the two, we should definitely use it and then we can say "GG swatted X because baphomet is GG," but I haven't seen anything like that. Yes 8chan has been linked to GG, but there is also evidence and reliable sources that show that not all of 8chan is related to GG. Its clearly complex. I don't think we can go wrong though just attributing exactly what the reliable source says, and allowing someone to either make or not make the inference themselves. We shouldn't have to spell something out that the reliable source didn't specifically spell out. Ries42 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The person responsible linked their twitter account on the 8chan thread, and that twitter account's bio has the email from the 8chan post. I haven't seen a reliable source dig into that yet but he seems nice and not GG. Weedwacker (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely be on the watch (and hopeful for the sake of the proGGers that aren't involved) about the nature of baphomet and how it is apparently distanced from GG. We have this Gawker article that explains their take on the nature of baphomet, but doesn't ascribe its connection or lack thereof to GG. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt anyone wants to be associated with /baphomet/, they look like a very much like... well to be perfectly honest, they look more like the real scary boogeyman I've been hearing about (but maybe not seeing so much evidence of). We should look very critically at anyone who attempts to link baphomet with anyone in particular. Not that a connection couldn't exist, but it should be a solid, evidenced backed link and not a inference or opinion before we put it in the article. Ries42 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if the parties who keep reverting can come here and discuss please. I think that the blurb we have now is about as good as it gets, but I have two questions.

First, the relation to Gamergate for these events appears to be that the targets were critical of Gamergate. That being said, the persons taking credit and who are being attributed with the attempted swattings do not appear to be tied or otherwise directly linked to Gamergate. At best it can be said that the closest link is that 8 chan and Gamergate are linked, but that would be like saying something that occurred in the "GamerGate" subforum on reddit is linked to the rest of reddit. The link is tenuous as described in the reliable sources at best.
Second, with the first question and answer in mind, is this linked closely enough with Gamergate to merit inclusion in the article. It is related in the sense that it is similar to other harassment that has been alleged, and the its targets are critical of Gamergate; however, there do not appear to be direct links between these particular actions and a supporter of Gamergate, even in the loosest sense.

To this editor at least, this looks to be unrelated to the Gamergate controversy in the sense that while this was targeted at someone who may be considered part of the controversy, it was done for a reason and by someone unrelated to the controversy. Inclusion would make it seem as if those last two points are otherwise, unless we added additional commentary to that effect. Ries42 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

in situations where it is your interpretation or the Guardian's, we go with the Guardian.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Theredpendofdoom: You seem to only agree with what some reliable sources say Gamergate is, but ignore any reliable source that seems to say what Gamergate is not. Is there a reason for that? It seems to be YOUR interpretation, not a reliable sources, that Gamergate is all of the evil things being ascribed to it, and absolutely none of the "positive" things ascribed to it. Care to comment on your inherent bias here? Ries42 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the end we're going to have to go with what our sources say, and they clearly are connecting it to Gamergate. This is a good example of the problems with GG being un-organized and attributing actions. My personal sense (obviously this is all WP:OR and won't make it into the article) is that the people targeted were chosen because they're GG critics and that gets more press at the moment, but the person doing it isn't necessarily a GG supporter. I think we should include it in the article, but just be very careful about attribution. That should be fine at the moment since our sources aren't directly attributing it to GG supporters, just connecting it to GG, which to me seems reasonable. — Strongjam (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's key that anti-GG people are being targetted, and there's still creating a fear of speaking out. It may not be the GG supporters or even those that might have harassed Quinn and the others 5 months ago, but as this sepearate Guardian article points out, "Like many Twitter campaigns, the ease of joining – which made it so powerful initially – eventually destroyed Gamergate. It became a magnet for sexist bullies who drowned out any substantive points. That said, the forces that drove it have not abated, so Gamergate is unlikely to die – it will simply mutate." This, my gut says, is part of that mutation, and why I hope we get more sources soon that call out what this group is and what seems to be their lack of ties to GG, if only to be clear how the GG hashtag has been easy to hijack for other purposes. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The SWATTERS are as completely and truly the "actual" Gamergate as the "but ethics" crowd and anyone who wants to be taken seriously should have in 5 months recognized that. Anonymous postings in troll havens is not a way to have a "movement". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"The SWATTERS are as completely and truly the 'actual' Gamergate as the 'but ethics' crowd...." Er, not unless they identify as supporters of Gamergate, no. Otherwise your definition of "Gamergate" is effectively "anyone on the internet who does something I don't like." Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

When you choose to be anonymous trolls on the internet, you get what you get. thats just the facts. The "ethics" gamergaters, if there are actually any of them, should have realized this months ago, but they apparently are a little slow and per the First Post some of them are just waking up to this fact now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your own interesting if peculiar understanding of what Gamergate is, but the reliable sources don't share your unique perspective on class inclusion problems and neither should the article. Even if you accept the proposition that all Gamergate supporters are trolls, it does not follow that all trolls are Gamergate supporters.Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: To my reversion of your addition: the Guardian and other article stated there was a link between GG and the incident. The article did not link baphomet and GG as you would see by either reading the source objectively, or this discussion. If you want to put greater emphasis on the link between GG and the incident, feel free, but the source does not link baphomet and GG and any inference or explicit link in the article is inappropriate. WP:PROVEIT if you wish to state otherwise. Ries42 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian explicitly states that baphomet is a subforum of Gamergate's online hub — the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement. That's "a link," obviously. As for your reference to "logic," it's not my logic, it's the reliable source's logic, and you're in no position to question that source's reporting and determination of a link just because you disagree with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire quote, that you're taking out of context reads: The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate, was co-ordinated on the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement, along with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. By that quote, 8chan is a subforum of reddit (its not), further, the quote is describing 8chan as a "hub" for the movement, not baphomet. Baphomet is a completely separate subforum, and even the Guardian does not link GG to baphomet. If it said "Baphomet, a hub for GG" that would be what you're looking for. It doesn't. By your logic, all of reddit is also linked to GG. And yes, I'm attacking your logic, not the Guardian's. The Guardian is not editing WP to link baphomet to GG, you are. Ries42 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this real slow, because you haven't understood it yet. The Guardian says that 8chan (all of it, as a whole) is a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement, together with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. So no, the quote doesn't claim that "8chan is a subforum of Reddit," and if The Guardian describes 8chan as a hub for the movement, it naturally follows that its constituent components are as well. (Basic English meaning.) Your disagreement with The Guardian's conclusion is interesting, but not relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take it even slower... removing the explanation gets the original sentence. The swatting incident, the second this week linked with Gamergate, was co-ordinated on the “baphomet” subforum of the 8chan image board along with a subforum on the social news site Reddit. The inserted section describes 8chan, thus: the 8chan image board, a 4chan-style community which has become a hub of the movement. Seperated, as it is done by the commas, its clear that the hub of the movement comment is directed at 8chan, NOT baphomet. But just because 8chan is a "hub of the movement" does not explicitly link EVERYTHING of 8chan with GG. That's a leap that you are making, not the reliable source. Its the exact same leap to say that "Reddit has been a hub of the movement" which would be true, and then finding a random subreddit (let's say, ShitRedditSays), which I think we can agree is not a part of GG, and then attributing something ShitRedditSays does to GG. The leap in logic is YOURS, not the reliable sources. Ries42 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, by your logic, all of the "Anti-Gamergate" subreddits are also part of Gamergate. All the evils of the world are part of Gamergate by that logic. That is an interesting way to look at things. Ries42 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with this argument is that it seems to be predicated on the idea that there is this body of people called Gamergate, and that you can divide up parts of the internet as "Gamergate" and "not Gamergate." As our article explains, it's not like that. If certain dark corners of the internet produce a certain kind of disgusting activity against perceived "enemies" of Gamergate (that is, anyone who has ever criticised such disgusting activities) then that activity is treated as part of Gamergate by a large proportion of reliable sources.

We should always make sure we don't mislead the reader into the belief that there is a coordinated campaign; as far as we can tell, there isn't. To all, appearances, it's mostly just a heap of people doing disgusting things to their victims and pretending the victims deserve it because of ethics in gaming journalism or something. We should just be upfront about the fact that attribution in these circumstances is necessarily loose. --TS 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. There is organization among those that claim to be challenging the ethics - it is weak and very unstructured with no leadership, but there are hubs of discussions where they talk about things (KIA, 4chan, 8chan), and they have tried to organize wikis and the like. What is the problem is that because of the lack of structure, the only way they identify themselves to the rest of the world is via the GG hashtag which is very easy to hijack, or to claim activity under without being part of the movement. (Both of these points are sourced in the article already). The doxxing issues are coming from boards that the GG supporters do not claim as their own and have been tracked to groups that operate primarily on the principle of screwing up things for others; as the Gawker article I linked above noted, the baphomet board is a board that wants to continue any type of attack or the like regardless of the cause. And because GG has not established a structure or a way to identify themselves, it is very easy for groups like baphomet to go after an anti-GG critic and have it appear as the actions of a proGG. The Guardian article carefully avoids blaming the swat against GG supporters, but instead properly from the baphomet board, and we have to do. (This is not to say there is a chance of people playing both sides of the game, but no one had made that claim yett) It's clear a few sources like the Guardian and Gawker are recognizing baphomet has very unclear ties with GG being co-habitating the social hubs that talk about GG. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

while some pie in the sky gg may want that to be the truth, it isnt. because GG has refused to have any type of structure, they are in no position claim or disclaim anything. we follow what the reliable sources indicate is gg related. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And the sources say exactly what I said, except for what the origins of the baphomet board is, which no one has reported on, yet, but is something we should keep in mind to see if this is reported elsewhere. But the sources are clear to keep a separation between the GG movement and baphomet, the only commonalities being cohabiting the same forum sites, and that the doxxing have been against critics of the GG movement. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are operating under the misguided perception that there is some true "gamergate" that is not harassment. that is just not so. being simply an anonymous posting drama board, anything done under the name of gg IS gamergate. they cannot "Its not GG" because the only identification of what is GG is someone claiming to be GG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not every troll on the internet is "gamergate." Not every "swatting" is gamergate. The guardian article isn't even about a gamergate "swatting." It show as picture of what a swat team looks like. It goes into detail about what a swat team did in Italy (though it related to a "swatting"). In reality there is a troll that called the police and 5 officers total eventually responded. No swat. No pictures. No confirmation of the caller. Same in in Portland. The only claims to gamergate are by those people insightful enough to call the police and let them know that the call that will be made about them is false. The police haven't made the claim it is gamergate or who perpetrated the call. The only reliable information is that a call was made and SWAT was NOT sent. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Absolutely wrong. We have sources that have pointed to GG supporters that are against harassment and as such as absolutely cannot ever characters the movement as only being harassment. We as a neutral source cannot work off the theory that anything about GG is harassment. To say that GG is only about harassment is prejudgmental and factually wrong, and introducing a POV not supported by sources. That there's a history of harassment around GG is not in question, but we have to say neutral and work from the legitimacy of GG being about ethics. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} per The Union A minority also retorts to anonymous attacks against critics and dissenters through Online Stalking,Wikipedia vandalism and threats of violence. Therefore not all gamergate is harassment. Avono (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are some who say "I am GG and I want to talk about ethics, like how game reviews should be objective and not talk about how women are portrayed, just how fun they are". But they have no standing to say "That person who is SWATTING and pushing vile vile harassment and sending terrorist threats to universities is not gamergate." with no actual organization and no way to tell if the anonymous "ethics gg" is or is not the "SWAT gg" its up to the reliable sources to identify what in fact IS a gg, and they have spoken - the SWATTING harassers are in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. The press has not attached the current swatting attacks to GG supporters in any way, only that they share social boards, which is far from being a proven fact. We must not be prejudgemental towards GG and cannot imply that GG is behind the swatting when sources have not done that either - yes, we have to mention the swatting in light of being anti-GG people, and I expect readers will come to their own conclusion that "oh, it's likely GG supporters behind it", we can't stop that from happening, but we cannot make that connection for them when none of the press sources do. And no, we cannot overlook the reliable sources that cite the GG supports in regards to ethics just because of the harassment. They get a legitimately fair treatment per NPOV and FRINGE, and failure to consider that means we are not neutral. We have to report on their side fairly (And the second most-recent Guardian article actually does spend most of their time describing their concerns in a legitimate light). --MASEM (t) 23:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what press you are looking at, but Gamergate hits new low with attempts to send Swat teams to critics seems to attach the current swatting attacks to GG supporters in a very direct way.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP has long discounted headlines of articles as not part of a WP:RS source, since usually it is a different writer/editor that writes those, for maximum eye-catchiness, and thus not representative of the content of the article. The article does not say anything to that extent, that's what we go by. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important not to forget that this article is about the controversy surrounding gamergate, not the movement itself. If critics of gamergate are being harassed by an online forum, that is relevant because it is an aspect of that controversy. Ultimately, it matters not to whom we can attribute that harassment, what matters is that someone who is known for being opposed to the movement has been attacked. That's what has made this a controversy- that someone who speaks in opposition to the movement has something to fear. Whether its from gamergate or someone else doesn't actually matter, they're being harassed because of gamergate- if gamergate didn't exist, they likely would not be harassed. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, in the first few months of this, it was about the "controversy" per the original AFD; the movement itself had little notability. But I would actually call that at this point months out, the issue is about "the movement" - including anyone that claims association with it, including the harassment done in the name of GG and related issues like this doxxing stuff (against antiGG). It wouldn't change the weight of the article (it is a controversy about what the GG movement has - purposely or inadvertently - created) but if you do a google hits check, "gamergate movement" now has about 25% more hits than "gamergate controversy". However, that's not enough to force a name flip, but it is something to consider here. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Careful Masem, talk like that is likely to get you labeled a conspiracy theorist (sarcasm) <3 Ries42 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

arguably, they still all preface with "so-called" or use "movement" in scare quotes or go into detail about how its not really a movement as such but there really isnt a word for a bunch of people using the same hashtag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read in the various reliable sources covering this matter, the vast majority do not suggest GamerGate is to blame and thus neither should we. Aside from a few clickbaity headlines, they tend to just say x was a critic of GamerGate and that 8chan has a GamerGate discussion board on it. In the case of Lynn, the Verge explicitly stated that it was likely a troll and numerous sources noted that the responsible party stated he did not support GamerGate. Here the only claim that GamerGate was to blame was in a headline.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk like what, Ries? I think Masem hit the nail on the head: "it is a controversy about what the GG movement has - purposely or inadvertently - created". Even if it was inadvertent, this is the environment that gamergate has created. That is what the reliable sources are in agreement about. There's nothing conspiratorial about that. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? I responded with a sarcastic (I even labeled it as such in the post) comment about the sometimes point-y-ness of this talk page to be tongue in cheek and you... make an actual point-y comment directed at me? Think about that for a moment. I fully understand what this article is and isn't. I'd appreciate it if you don't lecture or make aspirations directly at me as your post does. I agreed with Masem's sentiment... that this article is currently one thing, but we shouldn't be so blind as not to realize it's current focus and organization may have shifted over time, and we should be aware of this shift should it prove necessary to make adjustments. Ries42 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I must not have been clear in my point. It doesn't matter whether it's gamergate doing this bit of harassment or if it's J. Edgar Hoover (in fairness, it very well could be J. Edgar Hoover). The fact is that someone who has been critical of gamergate was harassed, and that is notable with regard to the gamergate controversy. That's ultimately the case with the women at the center of this controversey who have been targeted- they were critical of gamergate and then they were harassed. Maybe we shouldn't attribute this bit of harassment to gamergate, but to pretend it didn't happen seems baffling to me. Even if it wasn't gamergate doing the harassment, it is very clearly a story related to gamergate- so the reliable sources say. Ultimately, our article, if I'm reading it correctly, is about the controversy surrounding the gamergate movement. That is what this community has decided, for better or worse- it is not a biographical article about the movement itself. If any editors disagree with that consensus, there's a place to have that conversation - Masem's points in reply to me, while I don't agree, are a great good faith way of starting that conversation - but as the article stands now, anything that happens in relationship to gamergate is able to be included. That the harassment leveled against critics of gamergate has escalated to this level would seem to be worthy of inclusion in the article to me. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Two things have developed today: First this WA Post article that has a history of 8chan including as a haven for people to launch attacks in the name of GG after 4chan clamped down on it, and secondly, I've heard but can't find an RS at the moment that Caitlin Dewey, the author of that, has been doxxed and/or swatted in response to that article. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We've not always seen eye to eye, but I think your edits create a very well-written and fair accounting of the situation. Well done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Source Trimming

Bernstein, Joseph (August 28, 2014). "Gaming Is Leaving "Gamers" Behind". Buzzfeed. Retrieved September 7, 2014.

Buzzfeed article, citing in two places in the Draft, and in both places there are other citations that are provided for the information. Can we kill this source? Seems to be only marginally reliable and I'd personally prefer not to infer much reliability to Buzzfeed. Comments? Ries42 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Usually best to be bold about these things. I have no real opinion on the reliability of BF, but I've given it a go, as there's no real need to pile on the sources if something is already well sourced. — Strongjam (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm learning to be bold when necessary, but cautious on certain things, especially removal. Best to just double check in talk than to get stung ;) Ries42 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)