Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 12 October 2014

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gamergate (harassment campaign). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gamergate (harassment campaign) at the Reference desk.

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

Video games Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Taito SJ System (2 participants) Hannah Telle (3 participants) MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1 (3 participants) Real Flight Simulator (4 participants) Gameplay of Hearthstone (4 participants) Kristoffer von Hassel (4 participants) Aimsey (3 participants) Fedmyster (2 participants) Merge discussions Astro Bot (soundtrack) (discussion) Evil Empire (company) (discussion) Console game (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) Ethan Winters (nom) Fallout: New Vegas (nom) The Legend of Dragoon (nom) Rockstar North (nom) Good article nominations Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (nom) Cry of Fear (nom) A Space for the Unbound (nom) The King of Fighters '97 (nom) F1 24 (start) Façade (video game) (start) Prey (2017 video game) (start) Transfer Pak (start) Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (start) Lost Sphear (start) Pocket Monsters' Stadium (start) Celeste 64: Fragments of the Mountain (start) Oatchi (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Dynasty Warriors 4 (nom) Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga (nom) Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (256) screenshots (9,044) photos (70) translation from japan (186) creation merging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Internet culture Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag

And so, a POV tag should remain. Skrelk (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We've addressed the POV aspects numerous times on this page, and have come to the consensus that there's little we can do to correct the fact that the press will bias their reporting on this. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with that though and that is the inconsistently that sources are being used. For instance many of the anti-GG sources basically just down right copy each other and don't actually add anything new. Meanwhile pro-gg sources pretty much all are original in content. Yet[REDACTED] seem to allow these copypasta sources count as individual ones while disqualifying many pro-gg sources with the states reason "they aren't unbiased" or "they add nothing new" while the same could be said for 99% of the anti-gg ones. And that is the problem with how the mods are handling this, you are not being consistent. On one hand you are admitting to that game journalists aren't going to be unbiased then on the other hand you refuse to use non-game journalists articles because you claim they are unbiased? How does that even compute? Also if you admit that the game journalists articles are biased then shouldn't you either refuse to use any of them as sources, or at least make sure that it reflects in the article like I dunno, maybe saying stuff like: "The unbiased game journalists" ect ect I mean, if you admit that they are unbiased then this should be mentioned right?--Thronedrei (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've provided links, in my previous post on this talk page to several unbiased sources. If you take out Vox, Verge, Gawker, etc, most reporting is unbiased, and the raw facts from some of the factually credible biased reporting can be rendered NPOV, and suitable. Skrelk (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And we're addressed those already and sme of them were already being used, and one fails our RS policy. Additionally, no reporting on this will be unbiased, and we are using the least-biased sources to set the framework of events and core issues. That's all within POV policy. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You also removed cites to the Los Angeles Times and The Telegraph — both of which are impeccable mainstream sources. So basically "If you take all of the sources out that I disagree with, then the sources are unbiased." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are really low quality sources, to be fair, even if they are reliable. There are any number of other sources that could replace them, and for the better, although I don't see why the sentence has to be loaded with references; two sources seems good enough, anyway. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty resolved. I'd also point out that the entire foundation of gamergate is straight out of The Paranoid Style in American Politics. It requires (as entre) acceptance of a conspiracy between journalists, indie developers and various other actors. All reasoning stems from that, so sources which don't reaffirm this specific worldview are untrusted or biased. Rather than trying to find bias you're looking at the outcome and judging intent based on that. So we're not going to satisfy claims of neutrality for this WP:FRINGE position without treating it as though its fundamental basis weren't a complete fucking mess. It's impossible. What we're going to do is try to describe the movement using the more reliable sources and summarize from that. Using those we would all try to make the most neutral possible summary, but not without granting, in the voice of the encyclopedia, the megaphone to a fringe viewpoint. If doing so makes the gamergate position seem beleaguered, cruel or dare I say sexist, then that's rough, but it's how it has to work. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that GamerGate backers have legitimate concerns is not a fringe position, and it does not require the acceptance of a conspiracy, it alleges that journalistic ethics were violated. As is, the article is granting the encyclopedic megaphone to the anti-GG side of the issue. And I would point out that you have biases on your part. Skrelk (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is convenient when it's needed to make a loud stink over perceived bias by insinuating that tenuous connections represent in-group circlejerking and privilege granting and therefore disqualify sources which don't buy the line that it's just all about vidya. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased rather than the fact that a large number of people think GamerGate is attempting to intimidate women and other social critics of video games into silence is, yes, what we call a conspiracy theory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Claiming that every single source which disagrees with GamerGate is doing so because of some massive agreement among every journalist to be biased". That's not what people have been saying, and you know that's not what people have been saying. If you and Tarc and TRPoD and Ryulong could stop attributing willful misinterpretations, that would be great. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hilarious though that he linked to a Tumblr .gif, I just... Loganmac (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to remove a template that says 'Do not remove this until the dispute is resolved' The article is clearly slanted towards one direction. Whether that's the absence of reliable sources in the other direction is to be discussed and hopefully to be resolved. That's what a NPOV dispute is. Some people don't think the article is neutral, tag it, then discussion ensues. It's also disheartening to see so many shortly closed recent discussions. I'm sure some are for good reasons, while others...not so much. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When the same arguments that have long been discussed and come to a conclusion by people new to the debate (and in a case like this, where we know there's outside influences to try to change this), closing retreading discussions is acceptable. Until something new is brought to the table to point out the problem, it's wasting the time of editors to readdress. that's why there's an archive page for others to review and determine what new information they can bring. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind linking me to that consensus you mentioned in your first post under this header? Tutelary (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I would not call my self a single purpose account, I've been here a long time and edit plain boring articles because edit wars and people fervently proclaiming they know the truth literally scare me. Now I don't proclaim to speak out for all the other quiet non-confrontational peon editors but here is my idea: I would argue the article needs a current event template as well, but that is academic at this point: why not have everyone just sit back wait a few months and then when "the dust has settled" come back to editing this article, perhaps then more neutral and nuanced sources will be available, and perhaps less single-propose accounts will be around causing edit wars? True I think everyone on both sides can agree the article is in an incomplete state now, but nothing is going to solve that but time and some ovaltine BerserkerBen (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All I see is dozens and dozens of people bringing up valid criticism, and you (Ryulong) flaming them without presenting any sort of rational, fact-based argument, until they give up. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on remembering your password.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please reread WP:CIVIL. It's bad enough that you advertise your personal twitter account here, you don't need to make snide comments too. Muscat Hoe (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't advertised anything. I was attacked on Twitter by the mindless gamergate zombies because I dared to edit this page and no single purpose account is going to make me do anything different.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are people who are clearly not neutral and not experts on this subject allowed to edit and moderate a controversial article at all? Your clearly not educated in this subject and calling everyone who supports this movement "mindless zombies" just proves you are doing biased edits for your own side. Skeeveo (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'd be neutral if people didn't go out of their way to harass me because I edit this page. Now back to Romero's with you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You seriously just admitted your not being neutral while editing this article. Really? Skeeveo (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Misplaced Pages so long as they keep any biases out of their writing. And not one of any of you single purpose accounts, Twitter gaters, or Redditors have shown one piece of evidence coming from the history of the article itself that shows that I've done anything to the article that changes its bias in favor to either side of the debate. People have just complained about how many edits I've made to the page, when most of those edits were to fix reference formats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I just identified your last major edit as a problem as it is a fringe anti-GG point that puts too much weight on that side. I have not details the past edits though have a good idea there's more like this, but this is of the general issues in the section below that I've pointed out before. ---

"Skeevo", how did you find your way to this article to ask this question to Ryulong in particular? Rather curious that you created your account 10 days ago and made your first post just now. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, you don't get to assume bad faith, even with SPAs. Also, don't bite them either. I'm sure everyone loves to bash SPAs on this page, but please, know there's a person behind that account who doesn't like being bashed. Tutelary (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a person behind your account as well, and thanks to off-wiki proof, we know just how disingenuous that person has been in its brief Misplaced Pages tenure. Single-purpose accounts are flagged as such for a reason; they have a vested interest in the topic rather than in creating encyclopedic content about the topic. There's a gulf of difference between the two, and it'd do you a world of good to figure that out. Their input into anything here does not matter. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you just have to bring up the vitriolic harassment that I've suffered rather than citing an actual policy/guideline that actively tells you to ignore SPAs. Ding ding, there isn't one. So your input that they 'don't matter' doesn't matter in itself. That's your own opinion and is not backed up by Misplaced Pages policy/guideline. Tutelary (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it is. You may want to run along and research any AfD, any RfC, any hot-button topic from climate change articles to Israeli apartheid to the Troubles, where you will find that when it come down to determining consensus or vote-tallying or whatnot, they opinions are either weighted less or outright discarded. This isn't something new or wild that I'm advocating for; this is simply me telling you how it is around here. Your voice counts since you've been here long enough, though the term "damaged goods" comes to mind. "Skeevo"'s doesn't. "Muscat Hoe"'s doesn't. That's reality. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to have an opinion? I have been in this industry for over ten years. I have previously edited on Misplaced Pages before but have lost that account, I am commenting on this article because I felt it was necessary to do so. I am not a shill account. I disagree with both sides but disagree with the editing and moderating of this article, I can see why you would assume that I would be one, but I can assure I am not. Skeeveo (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request to Gamergate controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Make the following change proposed by NorthBySouthBaranof (at the end of the "In a nutshell" section), as discussed in the section above:

Change the current content in the lead:

"It concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling elements of the gamer community"

to:

"It concerns chronic issues of sexism and misogyny"

and

"the sexist, misogynistic and trolling behavior of a vocal minority of the gamer community".

Diego (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Only if the "long-standing" terminology is restored, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if you can provide a reference using those words. Diego (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It was removed? Trivially easy to source, as it's about the most famous fact about gaming that is known by the general public through the mainstream press. Here's Amanda Marcotte in the Daily Beast. . We could use the word "chronic" if preferred, as it means longstanding. --TS 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually "chronic" would make sense as it has an emphasis on "continuous" rather than "for a long time", and it is sourced (which is a huge difference). I've added it to the request. Diego (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe these changes are definitely better than what is included at present.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These templates are for uncontroversial changes and we should be waiting for consensus before we request a change using them. I think reinstating 'long-standing' is a better solution than changing it to 'chronic,' which actually sounds rather less neutral to me. We don't have to actually plagiarize our sources to avoid original research: if the issue is 'long-documented,' then it is also 'long-standing.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tara, the initial suggested change had consensus when I first posted it; NorthBySouthBaranof had made after a long discussion a proposal that no one opposed, and I took it as acceptable and posted it here as the resulting consensus of that now archived thread. The problem has come for expanding the initial proposal to add a part that was still under discussion, but I've removed that part and reinstated the original proposed change. Diego (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't. A suggestion from the archives that was 'unopposed' but never endorsed or implemented isn't 'consensus;' the discussion simply moved on. That was not the only place where the lede was being discussed, and the conversation is referring to changes to a very different iteration. You introduced the initial wording you proposed in this section and then made the edit request before anyone else had even commented: other commenters in the discussion above were advocating for reinstating 'longstanding' or other changes. There should be no rush here, and there is no harm in waiting for a few replies before you declare 'consensus.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ingrained" is a much more appropriate word than chronic, as if you look back, the issues of sexism/misogyny in the past were more focused on the developers side (putting these into games) than the player's side, and the current situation can be seen to a degree as a net result of having that last so long - it's ingrained in the culture. Also in the full context of the second change, I would not change it. We know that the group that actually did the trolling was a vocal minority, but the statement is about the press' reaction and that would be to more than just that vocal minority but the ones that also got pulled into the actions. "Elements" is okay, but "subset" is better . (We don't even know if we can say "minority" since the size of GG is vague and unknown). --MASEM (t) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then to summarize the argument so far:

• There's consensus to change "elements of the gamer community" to "behavior of a vocal subset of the gamer community", with no one opposing that change. The "vocal" adjective bit should be safe to use, as it's well sourced by the references (and in particular ).
• There's no consensus as to what we should change "ingrained" or if it should be kept.

As these are proposed changes to two different paragraphs, I think we should keep discussion for them separate. Diego (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vocal is fine, "vocal minority" is sort of a laden term. "vocal subset" is a bit too clever (as it is deliberately broad yet trivially precise), but I'm ok with it over "elements", which is equally broad. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose 'vocal minority' and similar minimization, as it's not well supported by sources. We have strong existing sources that portray this as a pervasive problem. They don't say that all gamers are sexist (and neither does the current version of the article) but they do point out that it is an 'ingrained' and 'long-documented' issue, and that it's pervasive and generally accepted as a serious problem in the gaming community and industry, not just a some bad apples spoiling it for everyone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any unbiased sources that present evidence of a pervasive misogyny problem in the gamer community. The only sources that are claiming that are the outlets who's integrity is being questioned in the first place - Skrelk (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Since a source becomes ipso facto biased by asserting that there are toxic elements to game culture, I'm not surprised it doesn't get through those ever moving goalposts. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling gaming culture toxic doesn't make the source biased. If you could find a RS other than Vox, Verge, or Gawker that established the claim, then that would be fine. But Vox, Verge and Gawker have been pushing this narrative since well before GG erupted, and specialize in clickbait, getting attention. Their focus is on clicks, not unbiased journalism, and they are not an appropriate for such a contentious issue. -Skrelk (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

there's this and this just off the top of my head, or the sources I noted above in response to your comments on ingrained sexism. Or like, a hojillion other ones after a more concerted search. And let's also not convince ourselves we're awash in a sea of reliable sources asserting everything is awesome and nothing is sexist in game culture. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A Gamasutra blog can in no way be called a reliable source, we need one OUTSIDE the gaming journalistis in contention...I.E. a sociological study, or a mainstream source that doesn't directly rely on the gaming media. The daily beast source is CLEARLY editorial, NOT reporting. That is an editorial, making assertions, with little or no evidence, it is conjecture, an editorial. Both are editorials. An editorial is not an RS. Additionally, the previously posted sources consisted of an editorial, a study that had an abstract describing tension, but not making a conclusion RE misogyny prevalence, and another study regarding the different gaming style of women. - Skrelk (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So per the usual gater logic, you're going to reject anything that doesn't fit your personal qualifications of independency or neutrality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not my 'person qualification'. It's the basic standard that an editorial is not evidence, or a reliable source. Skrelk (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then Skrelk. Feel free to peruse the linked sources in the section above, as they cover basically the same area. Also it's comical to say that because some fringe theory implicates ALL of games journalism that[REDACTED] should kowtow to that interpretation as though it were based in reality. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also I'll be patiently waiting for a reliable source from outside the games industry which describes game culture as not having a problem with ingrained sexism. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I did peruse the linked sources, and as I said they consist of editorials and studies that do not support the claim of ingrained sexism, and are only tangentially related. And, per common sense, WP:BURDEN, the consist of burden of proof, etc, we don't need a NPOV RS refuting the claim that game culture doesn't have a problem, we need one that is neutral, outside the gaming press, and is not an editorial that says it is. I'm surprised that an admin such as you doesn't understand WP:BURDEN - Skrelk (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the game media itself explains it knows there's a problem within game media, that's a perfectly acceptable source for that point. Self-identification is rarely a problematic statement. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the game media yes, but the game media articles/editorials cannot be used to say there is a problem in gaming culture, or in the community as whole outside the media. - Skrelk (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not really, this qualification of sourcing is a non-problem for Misplaced Pages. The gaming media is part of the gaming industry, so they are qualified to make self-assessments about the state of it. There's no requirement that the assessment of this nature has to be completely neutral of the industry. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They're not making a self-assessment about the gaming industry, they're making an assessment of gaming culture, and of gamers generally. If they were saying game developers and plots are misogynistic, that would be completely different. But that isn't at issue here, they're saying that gaming culture and gamers are misogynistic Skrelk (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Which they have. I've provided a range of sources that show the industry knowing the games they develop have presented misogynic ideas, and are clearly aware the problem is not limited to the gamers only. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And those sources can be used to show that misogyny has been a significant issue, perhaps even ingrained, in the game development industry. Skrelk (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's why the lead says "It concerns ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game industry". So there zero issue here. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And so, having accepted the ingrained sexism in game development, it's somehow impossible to accept multiple sources noting a very similar phenomenon among community members as well? Also, I understand "burden", but we're talking about an issue which grew out of online community protests over a woman making a game (which were pretty similar to protests over another woman criticising the industry for the sexism you accept is ingrained and widespread among developers). There are facts on the ground. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate did not start over 'a woman making a game'. It began when, almost simultaneously, conflicts of interest were discovered in gaming journalism, and took off when many journalism outlets published articles attacking gamers, and gaming culture, hence the term 'gamergate'. The sources do not note than the phenomenon, they do not prove it, they merely assert it. I also don't quite agree with the use of the term ingrained(widespread, yes, problematic, yes, ingrained, present to such an extent that you can't play a game without seeing it, no), and questions it's relevance, given that gamergate arose over conflicts between journalists, and gamers, not journalists and the industry. - Skrelk (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say, that's what the popular proGG opinion wants to try to change but that's not apparently happening. All reliable sources all point to the harassment that Quinn got. You cannot argue a point different from that without invalidating all the sources that state this point. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the evidence shows there wasn't a conflict of interest. And the choice to protest an alleged conflict of interest by launching a misogynistic and slut-shaming harassment campaign against a heretofore-obscure female indie developer has not gone unremarked in reliable sources. Third-grade-level sex jokes may have made for five minutes of lulz on a chan board, but they don't do much to rebut the opposition's contention that the movement is motivated by sexism. Choices have consequences, and in an identity movement, anything done under your flag is going to be attributed to your flag. It's the unavoidable consequence of launching a movement based almost entirely on anonymous social media postings. There's no real way to control the message, to have accountability for one's actions or to steer the narrative back in a constructive direction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note sorry, after reading above I'm not sure what there is consensus to change, if anything at this time! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have to have a qualification? Both ingrained and chronic present an opinion. How about just

"It concerns issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming industry" and that's it? Loganmac (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the evolution of the sentance, actually. IIRC it went something like 'pre-existing' -> 'long-standing' -> 'ingrained.' The goal, presumably, was just to make it clear in some fashion that the sexism wasn't a new issue unique to gamergate. Those aren't opinions, by the way: something can absolutely be objectively said to be ingrained or chronic.-- TaraInDC (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is an opinion, my phrase is absolutely neutral, it is up to the reader to disagree if such issues exist or not, and that's what an encyclopedia should aim for Loganmac (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is an objective statement, however, because we have plenty of sources before GG to show that these have been concerns since at least the 1990s (from prior discussions). I would also think that establishing that GG did not introduce sexism and misogyny but existed before, and not just in the gamer side but on the industry side as well would be a more balanced statement about the situation. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's what you're going for then pre-existing like TaraInDC said, or better yet "some pre-existing issues..." is the most neutral you can get, ingrained makes it sound like all of gaming has a misogynist problem. And for "long-standing" you'd have to define "long". This whole misogyny in video games started after people saw that "violence makes gamers violent" wasn't doing anything, in the 90s you had the ocassional random complaint that Lara Croft was sexist but it didn't really catch on towards the late 2000s, early 2010s, with Anita Sarkeesian, at least that's what brought the issue to mainstream coverage Loganmac (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that people are discussing this line. Sexism is still a part of the gaming industry, just as it is a part of society, mentioning especially at the start of the article, makes me think we must have eliminated sexism everywhere else. I mean, why else would it be here? Kau-12 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Rudeness from "the other side", source

Any way to include this? http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/twitter_is_broken_gamergate_proves_it.html

It gives a summary of

1. Leigh Alexander's rude tweets (for lack of a more extreme description)
2. Ridicules a guy comparing GG to ISIS
3. Calls out a Borderland 2 dev for saying GamerGate legitimazies child pornography (not giving names since it could be BLP violation)
4. "doxxing and torment" of pro-gg members (without going into specifics)
5. cartoonist K. Thor Jensen saying "all gamers should die"

Everyone knows "harassment" as you call it in the article has been going from "both sides", yet there wasn't any source saying it yet, I don't get why The Escapist being DDOSed wasn't included also, but if all of this is added, it could get a mention from these sources Loganmac (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What a confused article, and what a confusing request. "Adam Baldwin jacks off goats" equates to rape threats, death threats and, yes, harassment by posting child porn in what world exactly? Artw (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you read the article before commenting further, Artw. There's a reason Loganmac didn't go into specifics.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The extremely vague and dubious claim at the end? Without details it's as substantial as Milo's syringes or Marine Todd. Artw (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A little confused about what you're communicating here.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is primarily about David Auerbach not really understanding Twitter and wringing his hands at the thought of rudeness there, and the only thing that goes beyond that is extremely vague and dubious? Artw (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so what's your standard for defining what is vague and dubious then? Because if we're writing off everything sourced by screenshots, twitter posts, and first person accounts, we might as well delete the whole article.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what role the article is to perform as a source. I'm happy to accept Slate as generally reliable, and I don't doubt the main claims in the article. On the other hand, the article seems to be a bit meandering - I'm not sure what the point is, other than "Twitter is a horrible place to have a debate" (which seems true). Is the intent to use it to source the claim that there have been negative tweets and trolling sent to both sides of the debate? In which case, is that something that needs to be said? I'm not inherently opposed to it, as the aggressive back-and-forth has been a part of the ongoing issue, but I'm not sure how this is to be used. - Bilby (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any new reader to the subject won't know there was an actual flame war, not just from one side Loganmac (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The author doesn't even seem to be suggesting that's the case, though. If you think Alexander making a few rude comments in the face of an absolute torrent of abuse proves 'both sides are at fault' you have no sense of proportion. --TaraInDC (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I could give you pages long of proof of harassment and threats from the anti-GG side, my point here is, so far, the only reliable source stating it is this, as small as it is, it's something. Did you seriously not look into the subject you're writing about? Loganmac (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You could give it but that does not mean it can be mentioned in the article. I'm sure you can use the tweets I had made that you "archived" as evidence for your argument. Lashing out at being harassed does not equate to harassing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A few rude comments, most of which aren't even directed at an individual, are not 'harassment.' Your source would be pretty weak for this even if it said what you believe it does, but it doesn't. You seem to be under the impression that because there are so few pro-gamergate sources available we must accept poorly sourced pro-gamergate material in the interest of 'balance.' That's just not how it works. You can't just point to some rude comments someone who has been targeted by gamergate made and say "See? Both sides do it!!!" That may work in the GG echo chamber, but it's not going to fly here. Look at the level of sourcing that we have for gamergate's harassment. Are we using primary sources? Are we using a mostly unrelated article about the phenomenon of people arguing on twitter? No. We're using many mainstream news articles that clearly and specifically describe this as a harassment campaign targeted mainly at women in the gaming industry. After all the kicking and screaming you guys put up trying to keep the word 'misogyny' out of the lede, the least you could do is hold yourselves to the same standards that you have for everyone else. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I helped writing the lead when the article had just started and I never left the word misogyny out, try again Loganmac (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, you just shoved it to the very end as if it were the least important part of the debate instead of the only reason it had enough coverage to survive AFD. That's much different. Okay, quibble with one detail of my comment and completely ignore my actual points if you like, but that's not going to help you prove me wrong. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying it wouldn't even had an article if the journalists being accused of controversy hadn't accused their accusers of misogyny? I.E you are admitting that this article will only be accepted as a piece that bashes people and lies that they hate women?--Thronedrei (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we please stop toggling the POV tag?

"The neutrality of this article is *disputed*." The way I see it, there is no way to make clearer that someone is pushing an agenda through this article than to remove this tag without an agreed consensus. If the article really is neutral, then at the very least this is additional context. When this blows over things should stabilize, cooler heads will prevail, and the tag will come off. Until then, there's no harm in giving the user additional info about the current dispute.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I requested protection of the article, and readding of the template.I'd replace the template myself, but I don't want to run afoul of 3RR. Skrelk (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to forget that there was never any consensus to add the tag in the first place. In the edit request above there are so many arguments against its use that the admin who stepped in to add it explicitly states that because there is no consensus that means that there is a consensus to add the tag. There is no ongoing dispute on the neutrality of this article; just discussion after discussion begun by editors with a point of view to push constantly complaining that one side is being unfairly treated when it is an artifact of the coverage itself and any attempts to rectify this imbalance would violate the undue weight and fringe view policies and guidelines. The tag does not belong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is argying significant bias in this article who isn't also arguing that we violate WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE and other policies to counter it. Since that's not happening they simply can't be taken seriously as arguments. Artw (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, Artw there is clearly a valid dispute, and the tag should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. It is not a fringe view, and RS supports that. Despite your insistence, a non-insignificant number of editors believe the article is POV. You're insistence that their must be a consensus that a dispute exists is absurd on it's face. People who are arguing that the article is POV are not all necessarily arguing that weight and undue are being violated. You're insistence that those who disagree with you cannot be taken seriously is not constructiveSkrelk (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem treats you far more seriously than they should, but I doubt they would go that far. Artw (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, an SPA adding it back. Artw (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, yet another person who thinks the article is POV Skrelk (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I still haven't seen how disclosing this dispute, regardless of the merits of either side, is causing harm to Misplaced Pages or its readership. Maybe we could expand upon that, please.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if the folks who think this article has POV issues would stop complaining and start making some constructive suggestions and backing them up with actual sources. We can't keep the article tagged indefinitely in the absence of reasonable evidence that there is a problem. Vague handwaving about being 'clinical' and 'detached' and requests to add cherry-picked quotes from Leigh Alexander's twitter feed to prove 'both sides are guilty' aren't helping. We need to hear specific changes you think should be made and we need you to support those changes with reliable sources and relevant policy. Consensus isn't a vote: it doesn't matter how many of you insist that the article is non-neutral if you're not able to provide examples that can actually be discussed. Put up or shut up plzkthx. -TaraInDC (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Like ArmyLine said, what's wrong with having the notice there? There are clearly several users not that happy with the neutrality of it, do people against want readers to take the article as absolute fact? Also how is adding sources that state there was a flame war from both sides not helping? That's the definition of neutrality, to include all sides, with their due weight, the current weight for this is non-existant. I would edit it myself but the edit won't even last 5 seconds for it to be reverted by Ryulong Loganmac (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue with tagging an article as having POV issues if there is an active discussion going on about problems with the article, but that's not what's happening here: I see a few suggestions that are obvious non-starters, and a whole lot of griping. There will always be people who will insist that the article is 'biased' as long as it includes the simple and well cited fact that it is primarily about a harassment campaign. We don't slap a POV tag on an article because someone people don't like it but don't care to support their position or work on improvements.

Also how is adding sources that state there was a flame war from both sides not helping? That's the definition of neutrality, to include all sides, with their due weight, the current weight for this is non-existent. First, because that is not a 'source that states there was a flame war from both sides.' Leigh Alexander didn't act like a patient little angel while a bunch of angry jerks were conducting a massive harassment campaign. That's not the same thing. And WP:WEIGHT sometimes involves not giving any weight to some fringe positions. Your contention that Leigh Alexander was not being harassed, but just involved in a mutual 'flame war,' is an extremely fringe position - so much so in fact that even the one questionable source you've offered does not support it. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There would be an actual discussion if admins weren't closing them with tumblr gifs for explanations Loganmac (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When the fuck has that happened on this page? There are two to three admins who have been dealing with this and I cannot think of one instance where any discussion on neutrality has been shut down and flippantly dismissed them. Every discussion has been pointing out that we cannot and should not cover some of the aspects that every pro-Gamergate editor wants addressed. There is no neutrality dispute that requires the POV tag. It's just the same arguments rehashed by new people and a handful of people hanging around this page to support them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone at least revert the sock puppet that added the tag back because this is getting ridiculous. The article should have been semi protected again rather than allow someone to jump in and further the dispute with an alternate account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WRONGVERSION. Add that it was unlocked for under an hour before it had to be locked again... --MASEM (t) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why someone didn't revert him in that time. It seems odd. Also, he's probably not a sock but just some gater angry at me if this notification I received means anything. I think we need to be more on the ball about restoring the semi-protected status and removing that god damn POV tag because there is no issue with neutrality on this page, just gaters whining about not having a beneficial bias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There was 3-4 reversions of that, that's why this was protected in an under an hour. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for ascribing a more moderate stance to you. I guess if we are going to have a permenant POV tag moving forwards despite your efforts to balance the article we should just accept that and edit accordingly. Artw (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Making threats to ruin the article because POV tag was added. How mature. And how would "editing accordingly" differ from what you've been doing so far? Ledtim (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Where do all these people with dormant accounts keep coming from?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had the time to spend hours on Misplaced Pages like you folks do over the past few years. I don't even feel too strongly about GamerGate, but this petty threat was too delicious for me to not comment. Ledtim (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you may mean someone else since I've made very few edits to the article itself so far. But if you want my full thoughts on how best to "ruin" the article once we abandon failed attempts to keep everyone happy see "Balance and Whitewashing" below. Artw (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no part in this edit war, nor the last one for that matter, but that tag does not belong. I used to see this all the time in the Israeli-Palestine topic area, where a point-of-view pushed by a minority of editors was rejected by consensus, yet they insisted on maintaining the tag as a badge of shame. Here's how tagging works; you tag the article, you come to the talk page to elaborate on the reason, then discussion proceeds. If consensus for altering the pov of the article is achieved, the article is fixed and the tag removed. If the discussion fails to garner consensus in a reasonable amount of time, then the matter is ended and the tag is removed. Seeing how it has been weeks upon weeks now, the "timely manner" criteria has been satisfied. Tag removal does not preclude further discussion, but the matter is no longer of a critical nature that the reader must be warned about serious problems with the article. As determined by the consensus of editors in good standing, i.e. not socks and not SPAs, there is no critical POV issue at this time. When protection expires that tag should, and will, come off. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would you say that there's a "consensus of editors in good standing" that there is no POV issue? There are roughly as many of us editors in good standing saying that the article has neutrality problems as those saying that it doesn't.

Also, why should it matter whether we're in good standing or not? Consensus also has to take into account editors "not in good standing". Diego (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not achieved consensus for your point-of-view, thus it fails...that's not hard to understand. The burden is on the tagging party and associates. As for SPAs, no, they do not count, otherwise I could go ring a (figurative) bell and have 2 dozen people show up here by tomorrow...hell, maybe even Ms. Quinn herself. This project doesn't work that way, though; issues of consequence are decided by actual editors, not drive-by redditors and tweeters. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read Misplaced Pages:Consensus again. The word "burden" does not appear in it, and "fail" only appears in the context of requiring more discussion until consensus is reached. Also, what you fail is at following WP:AGF; "drive-by redditors and tweeters" are editors too, and we only should reject their contributions if they become disruptive - not merely because they are interested in a single topic. This is so basic and core to the project that makes me wonder if you're blundering your interpretation of policy on purpose. Diego (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." Stating your opinion isn't enough: if you don't back that opinion up, nobody has to listen to you, 'drive-by' or no. We could have hundreds of editors dropping in to say 'oh, yeah, this article totally needs a POV tag,' but in absence of any specific proposals there's nothing to be done, nothing to discuss, and thus no justification for tagging the article. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Granted, "It's POV, fix it" without any reasonable direction of action to be taken is generally something to ignore, and we know there is a meatpuppetry-like group that wants this changed, which is also something we normally would ignore. But we should also figure out why this is happening and if there is anything in our power to fix it (that being, within the bounds of what WP allows for sourcing and policy). I've done that and I've explained above that while the degree that they think this article is wrong is impossible to fix given how WP approaches topics in regards to mirroring sources and the like, they do have valid complaints that this feels like it was written to preach the anti-GG position in the absence of any counter arguments. That is a legit POV concern. Were it me, I wouldn't add the tag (as tagging POV generally is a more serious thing than what I think this is), but it is a valid tag for this dispute. We just have to be clear that it is not POV in that we cannot flip the narrative around to the proGG side simply as there are limited sources to even do this. (And FWIW, let's not necessary rehash my points here, keep this to the validity of the POV tag, other sections can address my points). --MASEM (t) 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Diego, don't be a troll, I am quite comfortable in my understanding of project norms. You made your case, it failed to be accepted, move on. Your SPA army cannot and will not be allowed to bail you out. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it, if POV-pushers are so actively editing this article, then the neutrality of the article is an issue. I'm be under the impression the POV-pushers on both sides of this issue want to have their cake and eat it too: add their bias to the article and then trot it around as impartial confirmation of their views. Is it too much to ask that we stop arguing over whether there is an argument?--ArmyLine (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding that is why we have WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Artw (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Except they aren't actively editing the article. They're actively editing the talk page to complain that that their opposition's point of view is in the article too much, when that is also not the case. This talk page's archives are full of constant discussion that there's a failure of neutrality without precisely pointing out what parts of the article make it not neutral.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean, except for the numerous points where "editors in good standing" (as Tarc puts it) point to specific problems with the number and detail of quotations from the available references, comments which immediately get disputed? Diego (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That you identify something as a problem doesn't mean that others see it that was, unfortunately. Sometimes "no" is the answer you simply have to live with. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a huge case of 'not buying it' by a bunch of users, dismissing and saying that any attempt to attribute or appropriate any due weight to Pro-GG is fringe views, which is not the case. We can elaborate that they are in the minority but in an attempt to neutrality, we do have to appropriate non-BLP-infringing of their views in favor of NPOV. Having every single argument of one side and absolutely none of the other side is not due weight, it's unbalanced and the tag adequately and succinctly states it. Tutelary (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that there are few if not any sources that meet those requirements that are not already being used in the article. There's no more weight that can be given to the subject because it exists in places that Misplaced Pages cannot cite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, saying "there are too many quotations and they're too detailed" is not specific. Which ones should go? Which ones should be paraphrased? Will paraphrasing them cause POV pushers to say "you're lying about what this person said"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotes that are being used to support the facts of the case (eg that the press called the harassment misogynic) are fine, but the quotes that are just there to support one person's opinion on the matter, which cannot be paraphrased, as being most of the quotes in the Reaction section, are where there is problem; these are individual viewpoints and while they are press memebers, they don't individually represent the larger opinion. A better limited selection of them would help, though right now I'm not sure which specific ones are unnecessary considered the structure of the rest of the article. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, if biased sources are not actively modifying the article then what were all your edits about?--ArmyLine (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you took a look at what I added to the article you would know this. I originally added the section on TFYC, expanded the section on Liana Kerzner's pro-gamer and anti-harassment piece, and most of my other edits have just been minor fixes or rewrites instead of the "KEK RYULONG IS RUINING THE ARTICLE BECAUSE HE'S AN SJW" bullshit still being thrown at me on Twitter Anyone can go into the history of the page and look at every single edit I made and pick out things I've done that they think is wrong but no one ever has. It's just whining from gaters all the time that I'm being an ass here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a dispute over this article. It is going through DR. It is clear from looking at the sources that the piece has problems with WP:UNDUE, as well as citing Leigh Alexander for factual statements, which is not okay because she isn't a RS here because of the conflict of interest issue. There is reason to not include the tag on the article while all of this is going on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Endless repetition of your claim re: Leigh Alexander does not make it any more correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that Leigh Alexander is very much at the center of this issue, it's perfectly fair to say that her conflict of interest here makes her article unusable for RS purposes. Skrelk (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Any future articles written by her will be non-independent sources, but they are not unusable, just not preferred if there are independent sources that have the same information. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem...

As I type, we're on cycle 3 fresh off unprotection on the tag. Yes, I know who is doing it, but you're going to get the article locked down again if you don't stop it. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The tag should not have been added so it should be removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Balance" versus Whitewashing

I am concerned that in attempting to achieve "balance" or "neutrality" in the article we are actually courting severe WP:NPOV problems and coming close to abandoning WP:RS.

I would also add that making sources perceived as "antiGG" jump through hoops to be used in the article while setting a low bar for "proGG" articles and in fact actively misrepresenting some sources to make them "proGG" is nothing short of a deliberate exercise in whitewashing.

In fact we should not be talking about sides at all - we should be seeking out good sources and laying out the facts as shown in those sources. Per WP:UNDUE, where those sources largely agree that is how the subject of an article should be depicted, and minority voices should not be given disproportionate exposure. In editing this article we seem to have come dangerously close to abandoning that policy. I beleive we should pay more attention to it as we move forwards. Artw (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The proGG bar is pretty high actually, and most that have been proposed have been quickly dismissed as failing RS. The only reason that it may seem there's a higher bar for antiGG sources is that we do want to avoid the whitewashing of the issue and so the ones that are less neutral should be challenged over the more balanced ones. And I do agree (from my statements above) that the reaction section is a major contributor to the problem here, in that while not all of them are necessarily anti-GG, they are singular viewpoints from specific critics and at this point in the situation (too soon to the events) to have truly qualified voices speak on this. If there is a conclusion to GG, I would expect that the responses there and then would be more useful for inclusion than the present ones now. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, there are plenty of pretty good sources on the subject matter. I don't get this whole idea that there aren't good sources. The big papers mostly don't go into great depth about it because it is a minor story to them, but they do discuss things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I run a google news scan at least twice a day and am not finding any "pretty good sources" that is claimed that haven't been mentioned here already. Finding sources and bringing them to our attention is good but I doubt that they are "pretty good sources" if my searches aren't coming up with them (that likely indicates they are unreliable sources). --MASEM (t) 04:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Masem, but deliberate manipulation of the sources isn't neutral in the slightest. In fact what you are arguing for is introducing a systmastic bias to meet your own prejudices. 03:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the[REDACTED] article says "commentators have said #GamerGate "poisoned the well" on the #GamerGate hashtag", and yet, the "Gamer's are Dead" articles written by the gaming press, seems to have been the cause for this "poisoning of the well" by calling them Misogynists. So basically they are the ones who first pushed the whole, "GamerGate and Gamers are all Misogynists" narrative.

The issue here is that most Press will defer to the Major Gaming Press on what Narrative to run with when it comes to a "Internet Gaming Controversy". And if the Gaming/Tech Press decide that GamerGate is about Misogyny, then what do you think the more Major Press outlets are going to run with? It ends up becoming a snowballing effect. It means that in order to achieve a more balanced view you'll have to look for articles from people outside of the American/UK Gaming/Tech Industry for more neutral points of view. But then again, I don't know if[REDACTED] is even allowed to take the incestuous nature of the San Fran tech industry into account, or if it falls under original research. Kau-12 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the talk page protected?

Someone messaged me on Twitter and said that they were having trouble editing the talk page. I don't see any marking indicating that the talk page is protected from anyone editing it. Is it? If it is, then there needs to be a marker up so that people know what is going on and what the problem is. If not, I'll try and figure out what the problem is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to be autoconfirmed per WP:AUTOCONFIRM to edit it for some reason. I thought in the past that anyone could contribute to the talk page regardless of the article protection status but I may be mistaken. Muscat Hoe (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is currently semi-protected. Talk pages are rarely protected, but they are when there is serious risk of BLP violations from new editors, and I think that was the case here. It has been a couple of weeks since it was protected - it might be worth considering giving unprotection a quick go and see what happens, although I'm not confident that doing so would end well. - Bilby (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: Can you at least mark the page as semi-protected? I don't see an icon or notice anywhere on the talk page. I'd be good with removing the semi-protection as well, and then putting it back up if we have a flood of IP editors who come in and do BLP vios, but I'm not sure how worried about that we need to be. It has been a while. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The situation online doesn't seem to have been lowered, but I generally think that we need to be cautious about protecting talk pages for too long. I'll unprotect for a bit and see how it goes, but I'll put it back if we end up with issues. - Bilby (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Zoe Quinn talk page was completely blocked on day 1, it was hilarious Loganmac (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, obscene misogynistic harassment that has to be rev-deleted from the page history is so, so funny. You really are determined to do absolutely nothing to disprove the belief that GamerGate is unhealthily obsessed with Zoe Quinn's sex life, aren't you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a suggestion to any weird gamers (or weird people in general) who want to say something disgusting about a stranger's sex life on Misplaced Pages: Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon is not locked and not protected by BLP. Neither are the talk pages of very many more dead women. Take your pick. You could be famous if you started a (slightly) new trend, instead of lost in the crowd here. Sex talk about corpses is also far more open to vileness, in a creative sense, than sex talk about living people. The Internet still loves outgrossing itself, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

New sources, and The Verge

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/10/08/the-culture-wars-are-back-and-this-time-everyone-can-win/

http://www.pocketgamer.biz/stateside/60086/im-ashamed-of-progressive-game-culture-and-heres-why/

Editors should replace Verge citations with others. They are not an appropriate publication for this topic. http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/8/6919179/youre-not-a-gamer-youre-just-an-asshole Kain and Auerbach agree.

Willhesucceed (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't remove reliable sources because someone doesn't like something they publish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Very biased sources can be cited for opinions, but if we have the choice between a very biased source which is calling people feminazis or comparing gamers to the Taliban, and a more neutral source, for citing the same factual information, we should avoid citing the biased sources. Note that the article you cited is an editorial, not a "real" article, so we couldn't really use it as a RS for a lot of purposes anyway. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And as usual, every source that disagrees with you is "biased." Are you really, really going to rehash this for the fiftieth time? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you have a proper WP:NPOV, most of the sources are going to be biased. The issue isn't bias, the issue is whether or not bias is so extreme as to draw their ability to report facts reliably into question, or whether their bias is directly pertinent to the facts reported. We don't cite Breitbart because we have concerns about their reliability because their bias may lead them to omit inconvenient facts. The same applies elsewhere. As I noted, the only thing off your list I felt was probably not something we should cite for factual information due to pure bias, as opposed to factual errors or a conflict of interest, was an article which referred to gamers as "the gamer Taliban". If someone started trying to cite something from a website which referred to progressives as Nazis, I would say that we probably shouldn't be citing them for factual information either. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I will say the new WaPost article does help establish this is part of a larger culture war, which we have a couple others I've know I identified. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Recode's summary (reasonably neutral though noted it's antiGG) of events to date. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker's summary of the situation to date It's written antiGG but does not outright discredit the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources we shouldn't be using

As I noted breaking when breaking down the individual sources, there are some sources which we shouldn't use.

The New Yorker

Zoe Quinn's Depression Quest makes some claims which are outright false. The most notable of which is:

• "In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible."

Bolding is mine.

However, in reality, this was not the case; not only was Grayson the target of attacks, but it rose to the point where his employer, Kotaku, was forced to issue an official response on the subject matter. This is a major factual error, and is directly tied to their conclusion that the

Likewise, the article claims that the controversy dissipated after Quinn claimed that 4Chan was behind it all; given that 4Chan has actually banned discussion of the subject matter at various times, and that the controversy continued on well past this point, it is very questionable.

Two factual errors is quite a few for a piece this short, with one of them being a major factual error which lead directly to their conclusion and could have been easily checked by them. It seems to be very heavily dependent on Zoe Quinn as a source. I don't think that this source should be treated as a reliable source for the purposes of this article, though we could possibly scavenge from it for Quinn quotes if necessary. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In context, the statement is clear. Grayson was not the target of a vicious, sustained and news-making harassment campaign, as Quinn was. This is not a "factual error," merely wording you disagree with.

The statement that "the controversy dissipated" is largely true as regards Zoe Quinn - no source has taken seriously the allegations since they were debunked.

In short, your claim of "factual errors" is a nothingburger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The attacks on Grayson's credibility as a journalist were noted by a number of reliable sources, and his employer felt that they were sufficiently numerous and plentiful as to necessitate a direct statement and investigation into the matter. The idea that his credibility was not attacked is simply false; it was. Moreover, the paragraph in question is talking about jouranlistic ethics and attacks on the credibility and ethics as regards journalism. I'm sorry, but what The New Yorker said simply isn't true. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. The source is reliable and it's not going anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Except it isn't. How is this not a direct factual error? You're claiming the source is saying something completely different from what it is saying. The context is clear; it is claiming that she was attacked and Grayson was not. Grayson was, in fact, attacked. Even Grayson's employer stated he was attacked. You have the right to your own opinions, but you don't have the right to your own facts, as they say, and when a source does not fact check, it isn't reliable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that, as described by umpteen reliable sources, Quinn was the subject of the vicious attacks, rape and death threats, doxxing, etc. By comparison, Grayson got basically nothing. Nobody titled IRC channels and hashtags after third-grade-level jokes about Grayson's sex life. If you can't see that context staring you in the face, you're just willfully ignoring it out of your own desperation to find some way, any way to remove sources saying things that you don't like about your ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we'll take the word of a reputable near-century old publication of the word of...you. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Age has nothing to do with reliability. You seem to be confused. I recommend you read WP:RS. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're the last person on earth who will ever lecture me about proper Misplaced Pages use, I'm afraid. The New Yorker is a reliable source for all things at all times in this project. Period. Full Stop. If you attempt to remove material that is sourced to the New Yorker from an article under the claim of "unreliable source", you will be reverted and reported to the appropriate vandalism board. If you really wish to question the New Yorker as a reliable source, the WP:RSN is where you can go roll those dice. I hope this clears some things up for you. Tarc (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, for someone with 21,166 edits you seem to be confusing the non-mutually equivalent concepts of "content dispute" with "vandalism". --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone removes material sourced to the New Yorker, they're either a vandal or incompetent. I'm comfortable with pursuing the matter in either direction if the need arises. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Grayson was in no way "attacked" as Quinn and those who supported her were. The best that we can describe is that Kotaku got a lot of comments but that is a far far cry from harassment. the New Yorker is 100% consistent with all other sources, and nowhere close to be invalidated due to your claim. --MASEM (t) 04:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph makes it very clear that it is talking about attacks on their ethics and integrity. Kotaku themselves said:

• The allegations have been extreme. Nathan has been accused of in some way trading positive coverage of a developer for the opportunity to sleep with her, of failing to disclose that he was in a romantic relationship with a developer he had written about, and that he'd given said developer's game a favorable review.

Numerous early news reports on the matter, including Bright Side of News, Gamer Headlines, GamesNosh, InternetAristocrat, ect. noted the accusations towards Grayson. A number of other articles mentioned the controversy as being a very early thing which subsided before the whole thing really took off. After Kotaku's announcement that they could find no evidence for the claims of impropriety or that the relationship started before the article in question was written, people stopped haranguing on Grayson. Things got significantly worse for Quinn after that point, but the idea that Grayson was not "attacked" was false; his credibility and integrity as a journalist was the subject of considerable controversy in the early days of what later came to be known as GamerGate. As the paragraph in the New Yorker is talking about attacks on the integrity of journalists, in context it is clear that it is saying that it was Quinn who was attacked, not Grayson, when in fact Grayson was subjected to attacks as well. It is true that they subsided while new things rose up to take its place as far as Quinn went (the thing with The Fine Young Capitalists, the DMCA on YouTube which was attributed to her) as well as just general mayhem which came about when people started insulting each other on Twitter and elsewhere, as well as the massive backlash against the attempted censorship campaign, but that doesn't mean that Grayson wasn't "attacked". When someone says that someone slept with someone and gave them positive press, that is definitely an "attack" on their character, integrity, and credibility, and a lot of people were claiming exactly that in the early days of the controversy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous accusations is not an attack, in the eyes of the press that saw the harassment and death threats against Quinn and anyone supported her. Grayson may have had some nasty emails and messages his way, but compared to what Quinn got, he was unscathed. Hence why none of the reliable sources (your list is not that) does not consider Grayson attacked, nowhere close to the attacks Quinn got. So there is nothing wrong with the NYorker's statement here that we can even challenge. (And really, its very obvious we can compare what the history of the social media reveals, it's pretty obvious Grayson was not the primary target that the extreme GG side went towards) --MASEM (t) 05:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

While I think we should be careful not to insert any factual inaccuracies into the article, disallowing sources on the basis of them containing factual inaccuracies would leave us with very little material. Most news coverage on this matter, as with many other matters, is littered with factual inaccuracies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this wiki page for quite a while now, I believe The New Yorker is biased piece. Why you ask? Because when the article was originally submitted it had quotes copy/pasted from Leigh's Time Article, because they contained the same spelling errors as Alexanders article, which were later corrected, not only that but they are friends on Twitter. Make of that what you will. Buut since it's original research it's probably not allowable :P Kau-12 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"I believe The New Yorker is biased piece..." pretty much invalidates anything you have to say on this matter, especially coming from an account dormant for ~8 years. Tarc (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So if I said "I believe the New Yorker piece should be the basis of all modern journalism" You'd be heaping praise on me right?  :) Kau-12 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not The New Yorker's article is biased in one way or the other is more or less only tangentially relevant to whether or not its article should be allowed in our Misplaced Pages article. After all, we're talking about a magazine that's been considered to be a highly respectable source for decades. It is a reliable source and it definitely fits under WP:RS. If we need to challenge any purported bias in the article, we should contrast it with reliable articles which address those concerns. Rselby1 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander is a primary source

Leigh Alexander has written a number of pieces on this, most notably in Time magazine and for Gamasutra. However, Leigh Alexander also works for Kotaku, which is a clear conflict of interest. Additionally, she is directly involved in the controversy herself, both in regards to yelling at people on Twitter, which has been documented by TechCrunch and others, and especially because Intel specifically cited Leigh Alexander's article as being the reason why they were withdrawing their ads from Gamasutra. As a direct party to the conflict, we should treat pieces written by Leigh Alexander as we would any other primary source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, she doesn't, and no, being the subject of a GamerGate campaign does not render one's writing unusable. As has been repeatedly explained, what you propose would effectively give GamerGate a veto over any source it doesn't like - just start targeting them and OMG BIASED COI UNFAIR CAN'T USE THEM. No, that's not how it works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly warned not to misrepresent what others are saying. Please stop doing so. That is not what I said at all. Leigh Alexander works as a freelance writer for Kotaku; this means that she is employed by a press outlet which is at the center of the controversy, a press outlet which had to issue a press release denying that its reporter had done anything wrong. This is an obvious conflict of interest in and of itself. Moreover, she is now a directly involved party, even beyond being a writer for Kotaku. Both of these are very real issues as far as conflict of interest issues go, as well as being a secondary source versus a primary source. If someone denounces a journalist, and the journalist writes a response, that response would not be considered a secondary source but a primary source, regardless of the venue of publication.

This is different from if a reporter is yelled at for being so biased and unfair about something they aren't directly involved in. When you have sources like TechCrunch noting that she is threatening people's careers on Twitter over this (and with screenshots to prove it), this is a bit problematic, don't you think? That's not how a journalist or other secondary source is supposed to behave.

WP:CONFLICT talks about some conflict of interest issues as regards Misplaced Pages. As Michael Davis notes, and is quoted by that article:

• A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship.

When you are dealing with your employer, saying something negative about them can get you fired. Thus, when you are talking about your employer, and addressing their role in a controversy, that is generally going to be a conflict of interest, as you can't very well say "Yeah, they're guilty" or whatever without having a very real risk of losing your job. The issue with Kotaku alone is sufficient to disqualify her as a RS for this issue. Moreover, she, personally, works in PR for indie game developers in addition to working as a games journalist, which is precisely the sort of mixing of roles that this conflict is about, and which she defends in her article, noting that it is totally normal to have friendships with games developers, even though even The New Yorker notes that as being questionable. There are numerous sources which directly contradict her on this point, and reporting on your friends is always going to present a conflict of interest, something she totally dismisses, even going so far as to claim that friendship is essential to reporting in her article in Time.

If you logged onto Misplaced Pages to edit an article about your employer, you'd very likely be subjected to considerable scrutiny, and rightly so. If you inserted positive information about it, it is very likely administrative action would be taken against you. Why, then, are you claiming that Leigh Alexander is somehow different? Are you disputing that she does not act as a freelance writer for Kotaku? Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you have been repeatedly warned that rehashing the same tired, repeatedly-rejected argument over and over and over and over again is unproductive and evidence of disruptive editing behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The argument about Leigh Alexander lacking independence has hardly been rejected, except by you and other editors in the anti-GamerGate camp. I do not think we need to avoid using her as a source altogether or that the current usage is inappropriate, but using her as a source on her own for any contentious claims about GamerGate would be inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, Conflict of Internet only changes a source from independent to dependent, and not into some "unusable" category. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the article, the Leigh Alexander Time article is used seven times. Three of those are unquestionably ok, as their use is to source claims by Alexander. The remaining four seem uncontroversial, and in those cases the reference is only used to provide an additional source for the claims, rather than on its own. We could potentially argue that in those cases the source isn't necessary, although generally a reference from Time is going to be worth including. Alternatively, it also seems that if the uses are supported by additional sources, then we've got greater reason for believing that the Time article is reliable on those points. Is there a particular use which is problematic? - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

One issue is that we're not supposed to be doing it per WP:RS for factual statements, for the same reason we don't cite primary sources on contentious issues about BLPs, even if secondary sources agree with them - we aren't linking to Eron Gjoni's post, even though it is cited by a lot of sources and could be used to cite statements about some of the origins of the thing, because it is against the rules.

The other issue is that the use in the introduction does create a "narrative" which isn't a neutral representation of the facts; reliable sources disagree about the source of the controversy, and Leigh Alexander's presentation is one of the "backlash against cultural commentary/changing demographics" things. The problem is that this is disputed by other sources, which claim that this is about corruption in journalism, and there are about even numbers of sources which claim each. Presenting that as what is going on is questionable, given that is but one "angle" on the story, and it is presented as if it is what happened, rather than being what one group claims. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

SIGH. Leigh Alexander may be an aspect of the controversy now, but that does not retroactively color her previous writings on the subject, because that would set up a slippery slope to encompass any and all writers who were critical of Gamergate that had some level of vitriol and attacks sent their way as a result of the movement's seedier and more vocal parts. And you have provided nothing in the line of reliable sources to refute Alexander's claims. Just more pro-Gamergate rhetoric.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that if the emphasis of the third paragraph is an issue, the problem lies with the paragraph as a whole - the only time Alexander's piece is used as a source is for the line "The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works" which seems in keeping with the general GamerGate debate. Certainly arguments about the emphasis by journalists on social justice issues are coming heavily from pro-GG commentators. - Bilby (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing to keep in mind is that if we really want to stick to hard to the prevailing RS (not even Alexender's) we would have to present GG as much of the other press speak of it as, which is (summarizing their words from more recent, not mine) a bunch of male gamers having a temper-tantrum that the game market is changing on them and doing any deed to get others to notice that. Instead, by treating that view as extreme, we instead at least try to give some creditability to GG and express it this way, and that third paragraph (per Bilby) is probably the fairest and politest and best-light way to call what the GG side that we can through sources. We cannot take the next extreme: that this had been the intent of GG the whole time, as there simply is zero sources to show that there was a movement until after the harassment of Quinn. Which is where Alexander's Time piece (prior to the Intel stuff) actually is probably overly fair towards describing the proGG stuff considering what side she has clearly taken in this, and would definitely not be a reason to remove her for a balanced statement. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:: Please stop repeating this over and over again. It simply is not true. I linked to my (still incomplete) source count here; the bulk of the sources do not agree with that assessment. That is the claim of one side, and it is characterized as such in the majority of the articles. What the GamerGaters are about varies, but the idea that it is all "men hate women in video games" is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. Telegraph, Washington Post, Forbes, Digitimes, Slate, TechCrunch, ect. have all characterized that as what people who are targeted by it claim, and note it as being something else from the GamerGater point of view, and many express skepticism towards the idea that it is all misogyny. So, no, that is not what the RSs characterize it as. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said that the sources are saying "men hate women in video games". They are saying those behind the harassment attacks on Quinn et al are likely driven by misogynist aspects. A few have extended that to all supporters of gamergate, but others have been clear they are aware that those are really a vocal minority. That's included in the article already (the letter of support bit). But that said, nearly all the anti-GG side have said that the vocal minority are these people having this temper-tantrum, and I'm pretty sure the proGG would not like to have that as the clear point on this article. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

can you clarify your last sentance for me? Retartist (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we could use RS to paint the portion of the proGG side in a very negative light using a portion of the body of RSes we have here, but we won't as that's POV as well as perverting the bulk of the content in these. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since when does there have to be an absolute consensus on whether or not an article is biased to mention that the neutrality is disputed?

Now, I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages, in that I've probably only made a half-dozen edits over as many years, but this just seems silly. Obviously, if an article is disputed, there won't be a consensus, so if this were the case, the POV tag would be completely useless. Monkeyfoetus (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no dispute over the neutrality. The dispute is whether or not that dispute exists in the first place. This is not what the POV tag is for. It is not there to quell the fringe and minority voices of a real world debate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on now. I'm not actively editing but I've been watching this develop for a while and let's be clear on something - one side of an argument declaring "there is no dispute" does not make the dispute go away. There are multiple voices here that argue that there is a neutrality issue and simply repeating your personal view that these are 'fringe' opinions doesn't grant you the right to remove the tag. There's no harm in leaving it up until a consensus is reached by more than just editors on your 'side' of this debate. 87.242.187.105 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you have one side going "there's a dispute about neutrality" without really or seriously backing up their claims of instances in the article of lacks of neutrality, then there is no lack of neutrality. The issue that everyone is having is that the pro-Gamergate side is not as represented in the prose because there are no reliable sources out there that supportsanything the pro-Gamergate side has to say other than some that allege that there are issues in games journalism. There are no real moderates looking at this from outside the realm of video games or electronics. You have every article written on Kotaku, Gamasutra, IGN, etc. about Gamergate being dismissed by users pushing a pro-GG POV because they feel that they are inherently biased against them. You have multiple threads and comments on this page dismissing anything ever written by Leigh Alexander because of Intel's decision to pull ads from Gamasutra, despite the fact that it does not really affect anything she wrote before she "became a primary subject". It's all words but no solid evidence to back up the claims that the POV can possibly be disputed. This is just an attempt by people pushing the pro-GG POV to discredit the article because it, by nature of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, slants in the direction that defines the events as a witch hunt propagated by conservative voices in the gaming community who really hate Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest rather than genuinely feel like an indie game, indie game dev, or game jam is really a threat to gaming, more so than Mountain Dew Game Fuel and Doritos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Without really or seriously backing up their claims" "There are no reliable sources" Those are bold faced lies if I've ever seen them. This (incredibly, demonstrably biased) Wiki page aside, I implore you to really, really think about your actions. Take a true, full argument from what you feel is the opposing "side," and write out a detailed response. While doing so, think about any internal conflicts, any conflicts in general, everything. Think deepy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:1200:37E:D95F:517:EFEB:8F72 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Which claims do you think are backed up, and what are the sources for those claims? And no, a YouTube video or a screenshot photoshopped full of word salad are not sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone pointed out exact sections of the page that are problematic? Have any of the established editors on either side of the debate hotly contested anything in particular? No. It's just vague things that people bring up and feel must be addressed without giving suggestions on how to fix it. The only thing that comes close is Masem's complaint about the Verge editorial I just put in, but you have The Devil's Advocate, someone who apparently has an opposing view point to my own based on everyone's interpretations, not deleting it but modifying it and incorporating it better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article was tagged, the concern was discussed, the concerned failed to achieve consensus, the tag was removed. A very simple A ---> B process. A tag does not remain on an article in perpetuity just because the complining party or parties did not achieve their desired result, otherwise these things would be permanent fixtures atop every controversial article. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that new sockpuppets/SPAs show up daily to keep the shame-tagging intact. We're long past overdue for a house-cleaning here. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I had drafted up an ANI thread but Loganmac's actions offsite (and his subsequent counter thread) waylayed that. I didn't really name names but accounts that haven't been used in years and now expressly edit this article really need to be shown the door.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait what did I do offsite? Loganmac (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a consolation prize for editors who have failed in arguing that we ignore Misplaced Pages policy to flatter them. It serves no purpose beyond that. Artw (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/09/the_gender_games_sex_lies_and_videogames_124244.html#.VDbWmQ7vAYQ.twitter

Willhesucceed (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than just dumping a link to the OpEd flavor-of-the-moment, perhaps you could identify passages from the source that you feel would be of use in the article. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

possibly usable:

It is also absurd to suggest that Quinn was disliked simply for being an award-winning female videogame developer. (There have been no hate campaigns against far more prominent women in the field such as Ubisoft executive Jade Raymond, who helped create the hit game Assassin’s Creed, or Kim Swift, designer of the highly successful Portal.) For one, long before the latest drama, Quinn had been widely seen in the gaming community as a beneficiary of gaming-media favoritism.

GamerGate-related harassment and online abuse have happened on both sides. The TFYC hacking was just one of many disturbing incidents directed at GamerGate supporters. In late September, there was a “doxxing”—net-speak for public release of private information—directed at six prominent GamerGate supporters including Yiannopoulous and Baldwin, with their “crimes” listed alongside their home addresses. Yiannopoulous also received a jiffy bag in the mail containing a syringe. Oliver Campbell, a black male videogame journalist, has written about being harassed and threatened on Twitter after he spoke out in support of GamerGate. A young female gamergater who wanted to be identified only as Lizzy F.—she says there have been attempts to hack into her email and Twitter account—wrote to me in an email that she has experienced a stream of harassment

--Old Guard (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Due to the hostile nature of this talk page, I have no desire to interact with anyone anymore. I provide the sources. If you truly want a good article, you'll read them and decide without bias what's deserving of inclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a serious mistake in the first claim, in that Jade Raymond was the victim of a particularly nasty harassment incident in 2007. - Bilby (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, if we're going to discuss that claim... back in 2007 someone made a webcomic depicting a scantily-clad Jade Raymond performing oral sex which drew a threat of a lawsuit by Ubisoft, and became a similar touchpoint for discussion of the gaming community's misogynist and trolling elements. Everything old is new again. We can certainly mention her claim that there haven't been hate campaigns against female developers such as Jade Raymond, but we'd have to mention that no, there actually was such a campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Kim Swift has spoken openly about sexism in the video game industry and stated that she feared "retribution" for discussing the problem in public. Citing her as evidence that there isn't a problem doesn't seem supportable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jade having a pornographic image of her is not a hate campaign, nor is Kim being afraid of potential retribution for talking about sexism in the video game industry a hate campaign. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, having viciously-degrading images of you spread over the Internet is harassment, hatred and misogyny, as multiple sources note. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a big difference between someone making a pornographic image based on a rumor that was going around at the time and a hate campaign. The article you even used to cite that there was a hate campaign against her never even calls it harassment, let alone a hate campaign. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As I say right below, it is original research to throw in that kind of stuff.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And by the above I don't mean to say that we can't include this writer's opinion. But it would be rather disingenuous to quote her opinion's use of Jade Raymond and Kim Swift to support her viewpoint without noting the reliable sources that establish that Raymond has been the subject of misogynistic harassment and that Swift has said gaming has a problem with sexism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What you are suggesting would be original research.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We can quote this editorial, but also bring up the points that explicitly refute the statements on the two individuals that were name dropped. I don't see how that's original research.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How is going "He says these things happened,<ref>Editorial</ref> but it has been established prior that these other things happened.<ref>Prior story 1</ref><ref>Prior story 2</ref>" a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? There is no original conclusion being made. Simply contrary information that exists otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making a connection from a current event to a past one. While this may not always being SYNTH, in the contxt of this article, we definitely should be wary of making OR connections. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

InternetAristocrat is a secondary source

What I said. Just keep it in mind

69.113.112.192 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

IA may be secondary (commenting on the events) but they would not be reliable (no history of editorial journalism) nor independent (involved in the events, not someone looking in). --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

However, he was involved enough in the events to warrant some mention, and in case of that event, we must establish this. 69.113.112.192 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

To mention IA you would need to cite a reliable source that identifies him as playing a role. I know he's reported on this via YouTube and Twitter but unfortunately that's not enough to consider him "reliable" Muscat Hoe (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend reviewing WP:RS policy as regards folks like this; does he have editors who work with him? Does he have a reputation for fact checking? Is he regarded as an expert in the field? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really, not reliable, plus pretty biased Loganmac (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

People have had their comments rev-delled previously just for linking to his videos, so I doubt you could even use him as a primary source. I mean, at least one reliable source has mentioned his video, but I am not sure certain editors are going to tolerate a direct link to the video on this page even in that case let alone on the article itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Describing Quinn-Grayson relationship in the lede

Several editors persistently remove mention of Quinn "cheating" on Gjoni with Grayson by saying it was a blog post making "allegations about her personal life" or calling it a "romantic relationship", which not only overlook the sexual element, but also avoid any mention of cheating. The efforts to avoid this in the lede may be partly motivated by privacy concerns that are at this point irrelevant, but seems to me that this also serves to downplay the significance of the allegations as well as playing into certain negative characterizations of Gjoni's actions. Being completely frank about the allegations in the lede seems appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't really care about the nature of the relationship; it's irrelevant to the controversy except to further demonstrate that GamerGate cares more about someone's sexual relationships than it does about anything having to do with "journalism ethics." The interpersonal drama between Gjoni and Quinn is of no public interest; what is of potential public interest is if any of her relationships created a conflict of interest in journalistic coverage. That it did not has been amply demonstrated. If you want to add information that further demonstrates GamerGate's unhealthy obsession with Zoe Quinn's personal life, I think that speaks volumes for what the movement is really interested in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all about tone. If we leave it like this it sounds like Quinn got into a relationship with the game journalist after she broke up with the ex-boyfriend. The allegations that the ex-boyfriend made was that she was having sexual realtionships whilst she was still dating him. --86.169.65.156 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We (on Misplaced Pages) do not care about the other assertions of infidelity about Quinn as any other such claim is a violation of BLP; the only claim that matters is if the romantic relationship between Quinn and Grayson spurred positive coverage her. More than just a friendship (since it is established they knew each other before as friends but not romantic friends). Whether that was her being dishonest with her boyfriend at the time does not matter one iota for us or this article as that's BLP violation to claim that otherwise. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just took a quick skim through the WP:BLP. I can see where I was wrong (Self-published source and libel). But, there is one more thing, the current wording says that the ex-boyfriends "posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014", but from what I can tell it has all the hallmarks of a single-purpose blog (no entries before it's creation). Could we clarify that the ex-boyfriend "created a blog to post numerous allegations in August 2014", or would that require a source? --86.169.65.156 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have a way to tell when the actual blog was created, only when the first entry was posted. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My question concerns whether we should pussyfoot around about Gjoni's allegations in the lede or simply say Quinn cheated on him with Grayson. Right now we seem to have one person laying in bed and the other sitting in bed with feet on the floor. This ain't An Affair to Remember but Fatal Attraction (I leave it to the reader to decide who gets to be Glenn Close since a direct comparison does not sync well).--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually have no evidence that meets the BLP quality standards to support that claim - that is, we have no idea from reliable sources (the ex's blog is not one for this) if she had broke up with him before seeing Grayson. I'm well aware of what the claim is, but it definitely is BLP to go into that. All that we need to go into is that the ex claimed she was seeing Grayson , which expanded by others to make the claim about using that relationship to get reviews. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We never explicitly say she did cheat on him, to be precise. It is noted as an allegation and that is how it was being noted in the lede, but apparently any implication of sexual activity on Quinn's part is too much for some editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If GG never happened, all of the allegations made by the ex would fail to be on WP because they are clear BLP violations. The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex. Whether she cheated on her ex has zero relevance for GG and remains a BLP problem to include directly. That said a smart reader can read between the lines and come to their own conclusion what actually happened, but we cannot outright say that. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources mention the allegation was about her cheating on him with Grayson, among others: . Add that to the four sources mentioning "Five guy burgers and fries" and that is quite a few reliable sources talking about the allegations of cheating. Beating around the bush on the nature of the relationship only serves to mislead readers when plenty of reliable sources aren't so coy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn's motivations, whether she did something FOR something else, is irrelevant. A journalist failed to disclose a close relationship with someone he was writing about and giving positive coverage to. This is all that matters here. Snakebyte42 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why was Quinn sent so much vitriol?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask a telepath.Snakebyte42 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the journalist didn't write about or give positive coverage to her during the relationship, as described by multiple sources. You sure aren't helping GamerGate make its case that "it's not about Zoe Quinn," are you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What in the hell is your problem? I was responding to a specific word in the post above mine. I haven't spouted off any ideology or claimed to support any group. I don't think speculating on anyone's motivation is the sort of material that needs to be in an encyclopedia. Additionally, you are defining 'the relationship' as a romantic one. I am not. Stating that two people were not having sexual intercourse at a specific time does not mean that they were not close enough for there to be an ethical concern. Unless your sources conclusively prove when Nathan Greyson and Zoe Quinn MET, they do not debunk anything. They only de-sensationalize it. Snakebyte42 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't work on the concept that one must prove a negative. The burden of evidence in any accusation is on those who make the accusation. More to the point, multiple reliable sources describe the allegation as false, unfounded and unsupported. Our content is based on what reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're rather loony, aren't you? I was responding to The Devil's Advocate's comment above: "The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex.". I'm saying that doesn't matter either. Nor does whether she slept with him at all, to be quite honest. That Nathan Grayson reported on a topic he had a conflict of interest in is the only allegation that matters for the purposes of this article. If you believe you have adequately proven that to be false, then so be it, include the allegation and the contradicting proof. The other allegations don't merit inclusion. Additionally, I'm simply pointing out, not for anything related to inclusion in the article but as my own thoughts in response to your own words, that 'conflict of interest' is not synonymous with 'sex' and refuting the latter does not refute the former. Snakebyte42 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're demonstrating that you haven't read the article. The reliable sources debunking the allegation of a conflict of interest are amply and repeatedly linked. Now go read the article before commenting further. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct! I read the talk page. I commented on the talk page. To someone else. About an allegation being irrelevant. You saw the need to attack me. Way to go. Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, we tend to, y'know, actually read the article before commenting about it on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

By the looks of it, what you tend to do on Misplaced Pages is drive off fellow contributors because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Now go read WP:Civil. Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's to discourage editors whose sole purpose on Misplaced Pages is to attempt to push a point of view that goes against common sense and what the reliable sources on the subject discuss. The pro-Gamergate side can complain about Grayson and Quinn being friends at the time of his GAME_JAM article until the cows come home, but that does not mean there was any conflict of interest as journalist after journalist (outside of gaming) who have been commenting on Gamergate have noted that it is extremely common for journalists to establish a raport with the people they regularly cover. Totillo stated that there was no further articles written by Grayson about Quinn when they began their romantic relationship so why is this constantly refuted and the goal posts constantly moved whenever this discussion happens?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what's supposed to be "uncivil" about pointing out that you're making a long-debunked allegation and that the reliably-sourced answer to your question is in this talk page's article, which you just admitted you haven't even bothered to read. But have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm saying that Zoe Quinn's motivations aren't the relevant allegation here. I am not trying to make any statement regarding what happened, did not happen, was proven, nor have I at any point. I addressed a statement that said it mattered why Zoe Quinn sought a sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson by saying that it does not, it only matters whether preferential coverage took place while it, or a close non-sexual relationship, existed. This is the relevant allegation. It's what should be in the article. Why someone slept with someone else is not Misplaced Pages material. If I missed including an instance of the word 'allegation' in previous comments, you have my apologies. You would do well to refrain from attacking other editors.Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is not discussing "why someone slept with someone else". It is discussing the fact that the Gamergate movement began with attacks on a woman game dev for having a romantic relationship with someone who works for a website no one takes seriously anyway and the vague interview she had with him for the site somehow constitutes "preferential coverage" despite no financial gain to be made, as far as I am aware. The claims you believe are being addressed are no where in the article. It's just constant discussion here because the pro-Gamergate movement will not drop the false allegations against her and constantly move the goal posts on when the allegations refer to. If it's not a sexual relationship then it's a platonic relationship. What sort of nepotism arises from someone who gave a video game away for free by someone who writes for a website that compared the Hong Kong democracy protests with Resident Evil?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you even hear yourself? I was commenting. On the talk page. I spoke out against including something. I'm not a fucking movement. I'm not a fucking sockpuppet. I disagreed with an opinion espoused by The Devil's Advocate and was instantly characterized as a drop-in zealot and set upon by you and NorthBySouthBaranof. What are you even doing? Learn to productively edit and engage in discourse to improve an article. Contrary to The Devil's Advocate, I don't believe Zoe Quinn's motivations for engaging in a sexual relationship with Nathan Greyson should be added to this article. This shouldn't merit you trying to bait me with anti-Gamergate drivel. Please peddle your biased horseshit elsewhere. I've been, and will continue to be, nothing but neutral. Whether a desire for positive press or a desire for penis drove Zoe Quinn onto Nathan Grayson's throbbing shaft is NOT WIKIPEDIA'S CONCERN. How much clearer do I have to make this--my only--statement? Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think there is any mention of "motivations for engaging in a sexual relationship" in the article or in TDA's statement. The only discussion is whether or not it should be referred to as an affair or a sexual relationship, rather than a "romantic relationship". The argument is whether or not we include Gjoni's allegation that the relationship with Grayson began before he and Quinn split. No one has mentioned anything about sexual motivations but you, and certainly not in that language that's probably going to get revdelled.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're entirely correct, there was an edit conflict as I was posting my original comment and I did not look up carefully enough when referencing it just now. I am referring to Masem's comment immediately above The Devil's Advocate's comment. I haven't even read TDA's. This comment is the one I intended to reference: "If GG never happened, all of the allegations made by the ex would fail to be on WP because they are clear BLP violations. The only allegation that matters for the purposes of GG, and thus nullifying the BLP aspect, is that she slept with Grayson explicitly for getting positive press cover, not that this was cheating on her ex. Whether she cheated on her ex has zero relevance for GG and remains a BLP problem to include directly. That said a smart reader can read between the lines and come to their own conclusion what actually happened, but we cannot outright say that. " I am saying NO, NOT EVEN THAT ALLEGATION MATTERS. This is not a pro-Gamergate comment. I am taking a step backwards from Masem's position, not pushing anything. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That allegation is the one that started the mess of events here, of course it matters. That said, we have no right to try to guess why Quinn decided to get involved with Grayson, nor does that matter. We have to mention the accusation and it's subsequent refuting by Kotaku and others as 1) it is what set in motion the claims of journalistic ethics and 2) those already with a dislike of Quinn to have more material to use against her. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable and addresses my objection. Your professionalism is appreciated. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to make this article a venue for schoolyard gossip about someone's personal life. The allegation started the events, but let's be honest about that--the allegation of cheating came from a blog post by an ex-boyfriend and contained inaccurate (and the inaccuracy is important here) accusations about Quinn's motivation and the outcome of her relationship. And the whole thing stinks of "well, her game couldn't be that good so she fucked her way to the top" which is just a particular example of the insistence that any woman in the business fucked her way to where she is now. It's disgusting. As for the distinction between "sexual" and "romantic", what business do we have making that characterization? You can have a sexual relationship, a romantic relationship or both. And you can have a romantic relationship while cheating on someone. Protonk (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The inaccuracy was a typo and is plainly evident as a typo from looking over the Zoe post in its original form prior to editing. Nowhere does Gjoni actually make or hint at the allegations that are being claimed to have come from him. With one of the other allegations of cheating he explicitly says she is quite qualified and did not need to have sex with a person to get an advantage. People saw the post, perhaps not reading it entirely, and drew their own conclusions. I am not suggesting we make this article a venue for schoolyard gossip about someone's life. My suggestion is rather simple, instead of saying "including that she had a 'romantic relationship' with a Kotaku journalist" in the lede we say "including that she cheated on him with a Kotaku journalist". Further down in the article body I would support, at a bare minimum, saying "cheated on him with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson, among others." Truthfully, we could justify making mention of "five guys burgers and fries" since multiple reliable sources mention this term in connection with the original allegations and it did actually play a big role in the origins of GamerGate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

While Gjoni's allegation may be that she cheated on him, that factor about it doesn't matter; only that he claimed she had a relation with Grayson, and then others took that up as stating she was using Grayson to get positive reviews. We do not have to lower our standards to cover Gjoni's claims when the bulk of them simply are BLP violations and gossipmongering; only one facet going forward is key from that. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Then, as I suggested below, we should remove anything that uses Gjoni's blog post against GamerGate or that mentions Gjoni except noting the blog post sparked off the controversy in the relevant section about the allegations against Quinn. Everything else concerning Gjoni and the blog post should get nuked if we aren't allowed to describe the exact nature of the allegation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference 'a' only needs to be one reference? Maybe?

Is there are reason this reference has several sources saying the same thing? Why can't we use the Kotaku article that said there was no sex for favours going on (http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346) and leave it at that? --86.169.65.156 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Others have complained that Kotaku cannot be a reliable source for this claim , which is a fallacy, but to show that there is agreement that Kotaku is not lying about dismissing the Quinn/Grayson allegation, we use other sources that affirm that they state Kotaku has properly dismissed the claim. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. So... additional sources to back up the initial claim, right? Does this mean that we can include the Kotaku article in my first post into the 'a' ref.? Or would it be superflous at this point? --86.169.65.156 (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added the Kotaku refuting point there too now, this is extremely valid to include in the lead since it is the authoratitive source here. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we merge Ref. 8 into Ref 'a', or do we need to keep the two separate for some reason? Bloating a reference, for example? --86.169.65.156 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Two separate, as the kotaku piece is reused as a solitary ref for other bits. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Is ... A Consumer Movement

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/

Willhesucceed (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

... What should we do with this information? I mean, we obviously can use it as a source for saying what Gamergate is/not, but where do we put it? --86.169.65.156 (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a rather rambling opinion piece that's hard to fit presently into the narrative. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Erik Kain argued that GamerGate has been misjudged by mainstream media and does not support harassment, but that its diffuse nature has made it difficult to coalesce around coherent goals. He called for a diverse dialogue about the future of the movement."? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given issues about putting a lot of weight on Kain's POV from other articles, I'd rather not use yet another one of his alone. That said, I think I've seen this diffuse nature aspect pointed out by others that could be used to present a viewpoint shared by a few. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been noted by other sources as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, pet peeve of mine, but could you list them? Or maybe make a pastebin of them and link them here? Unless that's against one of Misplaced Pages's policies. --86.169.65.156 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

TD had make a compilation at . Now that the discussion is closed they're hard to reach; I've copied them to Talk:Gamergate controversy/References to have them available, without them being archived. Diego (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, i feel that Erik Kain has balanced the whole situation nicely. For me, this article is a sign of the tides are changing and we should remove sexual harrasment as the first identification of GamerGate. --Torga (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since that is a verifiable falsehood, no, it will not happen. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the first article I have read on this topic with a NPOV. Hopefully more like this will come so we can have an educational article that actually defines what gamergate is instead of going off on a tangent the whole time regarding the treatment of a few women by fringes of this movement piratemd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is very little sourcing by reliable sources that have confirmed this is a "movement". Kain's piece is not sufficient for that. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this source could be quite useful as a source for the journalism side that I think needs more work. Halfhat (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/ It expresses views which otherwise may be harder to source Halfhat (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

See above Loganmac (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OppsHalfhat (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Role of misogyny and antifeminism - please remove reference to anti-feminism in the headline

The reason is apparent -- the wording of the headline makes it sound as if misogyny and anti-feminism are related. I.E it gives a skewed image of reality. Further, anti-feminism is mentioned all but three times in the piece, hardly enough for it to actually be mentioned in the article.--Thronedrei (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to turn the section into something more like "Role of gender issues debates in gaming" or something, but what do I know? Halfhat (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC) New idea split it into two parts, something along the lines of "Critism due to claims of harasmet and misogyny" and "Role of antifeminist movements" Halfhat (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the exact right title but there is definitely a better title for this section as a whole. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the paragraphs in Background needs fixed or deleted.

"One such incident of harassment occurred after independent video game developer Zoe Quinn developed and released her interactive fiction title Depression Quest in early 2013, as a means to represent her own bout with depression. Upon its release, some members of the gaming community expressed dislike towards Quinn and the title. Some expressed concern that using a video game to present a "dark" theme was inappropriate, whilst others felt that the critical attention it received was disproportionate to the quality of the game, and that the game presented the solution to depression in a manner that was too simplistic. Others, however, saw the game as an important expression of significant personal themes not previously addressed in mainstream gaming — "'game' as communication, comfort and tool of understanding", in the words of Rock, Paper, Shotgun's Adam Smith. A profile of Quinn in The New Yorker said that the harassment surrounding Depression Quest, which by the time of Gjoni's accusations had been going on for eighteen months, had created "an ambient hum of menace in her life, albeit one that she has mostly been able to ignore.""

While the opening sentence does imply relevance, nothing described to the paragraph actually backs up the initial sentence. Since one of the catalysts for the drama was the claim that people publicised the because of their relationship with her, it probably warrants mention, but in this form it really adds nothing. Halfhat (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen others suggesting that this should be shortened, I agree that some info on her game should be mentioned, but most of what it's there isn't related to GamerGate at all Loganmac (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

To note, most of that sets up some of the proGG issues - devs using VGs for social commentary and losing focus on gameplay - and also establishes that Quinn was in the eye of those that would then harass her prior to the events. Before, we did not have the other 3 para of bg, so this helped to get some of that established early, but with the restructure, some might be out of place but the information here is critical somewhere in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

At the very least can the opening sentence be changed to something that is more relevant to the paragraph?Halfhat (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved the paragraph and reworked the sentence. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's better. Halfhat (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article only mention one guy Quinn allegedly had a relationship with

I'm sure the claim was there were five of them, maybe I missed it, but I think in that case it should be made more clear.Halfhat (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning any of the other allegations would be a BLP violation - it is only the one with Grayson that has recieved attention as being proven false, that means that we have to include it to complete the others. Any of the other ex's allegations are unnecessary in the scope of GG and fail BLP as our RS's do not address these others. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources: .--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not enough, really. They mention the allegations alongside the main one but do no attempt to discredit or the like. As such, that's gossip that flat out fails BLP. (The only thing that might be necessary, and I am very much against including it unless it needs to be, is the mention of the certain chain in association with the allegations as shorthand for the situation, but that's not really used alot around. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilipedia is not in charge of policing peoples sexual activity on behalf of creeps. Artw (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

More evidence that GamerGate isn't about Zoe Quinn except for all the GamerGate people who want us to republish all the details of Zoe Quinn's personal life. Thank you for helping demonstrate why reliable sources treat GamerGate as a fount of misogynistic harassment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, the issue here is that we are misleading readers by characterizing it as though she simply was with another guy, with some editors even wanting to downplay the cheating aspect, and her boyfriend went on a tirade against her sparking off a wave of misogynistic harassment. According to Gjoni, the problem is that she cheated on him with multiple men. There is actually even more to it than that, but the reliable sources only talk about the cheating on him with multiple men part. You can guffaw about how this proves it is all totally about Quinn, but it is really about the narrative. It is well-recognized that Gjoni's post was a big part of what sparked this off and it is also well-recognized that many media are using their characterization of that post and Gjoni to perpetuate a certain narrative regarding GamerGate. Not suggesting we go on about all the dirty details, but I think simply noting the allegations concerned cheating and concerned more than one incidence of cheating is an important bit of context. It does give you a little insight into why Gjoni might have been a tad upset. Again there is more to it than just cheating, but that is what we have from reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We need to move off that fact, because it wasn't Gjoni's initial accusation, but the ones that extrapolated that to professional impropriety and that is the only accusation that is significant to GG. We are not here to even question Quinn's personal life choices at all, and it would be BLP to go into that further than the fact that the ex felt jaded enough to announce her relationship with Grayson. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so if nothing Gjoni said was relevant then I say we remove all of Marcotte's insinuations about him, the New York Times characterization of his blog post, and any other references to Quinn's "personal life" and focus only on what people inferred from his blog post with nary a mention of what he actually said. Editors cannot have it both ways and still be in accord with NPOV. We can't avoid mentioning the allegation of Quinn cheating on Gjoni with multiple guys on the basis of it being irrelevant despite getting mentioned in numerous reliable sources and simultaneously weaponize his blog post against GamerGate without being at odds with policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with this - this should not be about anything about their past relation (outside they used to have one). To be clear, this is not for removal of the stuff about Depression Quest and the harassment she got for that beforehand (that establishes that she was a "target" before the accusation), but any other personal life stuff about Quinn that is extraneous from the issues of GG and her subsequent harassment should be removed. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

TDA: Can I ask what parts of "Quinn's personal life" you are seeing in the article that shoudl be removed? I'm not sure what you mean (or if you are just saying we shouldn't care to have them even) --MASEM (t) 20:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So basically, the material in question would be the following:

Amanda Marcotte in an article for The Daily Beast described the controversy as arising from the comments of a "vindictive ex-boyfriend", stated it was "pure misogyny to use online harassment troops" against Quinn . . .

. . . noting that its origin was attacks on Zoe Quinn concerning her personal life.

This post, which The New York Times described as a "strange, rambling attack," . . .

In fact, if Gjoni is so irrelevant to this subject that we cannot mention the allegation of Quinn cheating on him, let alone with multiple guys, then the only mention of him should be when mentioning him putting up the blog post, rather than referring to the controversy in terms of "Gjoni's accusations" or "Gjoni's blog entry" at other points in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So again you are stating that this whole gamergate thing is because allegations of Quinn's sex life being more interesting than all of the basement dwelling gamergaters could possible hope to ever experience? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That is just being childish. Come on man calm down. You're just being prejudiced. We're not here to argue about the merits, or lack there of, of GamerGate. We're here to make a good article covering the drama. Halfhat (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That is hardly what I am saying and it is definitely not my position. We cannot be right with NPOV if we are saying the blog post can be used against GamerGate without us being clear about what the post concerned. If the position here is that we have to ignore numerous reliable sources noting the allegations concerned cheating because his allegations are irrelevant, then what people think of Gjoni and the blog post is also irrelevant since their thoughts are premised on his allegations. My default position would be to keep the stuff about Gjoni and the blog post being evidence of "vindictive" behavior and misogyny, but note the blog post concerned Quinn allegedly cheating on Gjoni with multiple men. Both details are backed by numerous reliable sources, but if we are saying the latter detail cannot be included, then the former detail is no better for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have a lot of RS on what else was accused in that post so that's why per BLP reducing the "important" of the blog post should be done so that it is simply "he accused her, others jumped on that". --MASEM (t) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but mentioning other people is not a violation of anyone's personal lives as these people worked either with press and gaming community as well. --Artman40 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to make a claim about the relationships, however, even if the names are recognized people. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because someone works in the "press and gaming community" does not make their personal lives a subject of Misplaced Pages interest, and it doesn't change our reliable sourcing requirements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

At least the article should mention that the press does not comment on those other people. It would be hypocritical to only include Grayson. It would be like saying that the person is innocent when committing 4 crimes, being charged with 5 and finding 1 of the crimes baseless. --Artman40 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No. There is zero public interest in any allegations made in an ex-boyfriend's "strange, rambling attack." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There IS public interest. By the way, Kotaku, Destructoid and other sites are accused on harming journalistic integrity and therefore count as primary sources. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/09/09/GamerGate-Why-Gaming-Journalists-Keep-Dragging-Zoe-Quinns-Sex-Life-into-the-Spotlight --Artman40 (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source, and your claim that sites "accused on harming journalistic integrity" (huh?) become primary sources is utterly nonsensical. No, they don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Excactly why aren't Breitbart, Nichegamer and Techraptor reliable sources and why is Cracked a preferred source to Forbes? --Artman40 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cracked is not used on this article. It may be used at Zoe Quinn because it's a piece she wrote about herself, but nothing else from Cracked is being used anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Breitbart has an established history of blatantly lying, taking things out of context, and other instances of a complete lack of journalistic integrity to even be close to be considered a reliable source. The only reason the gaters have latched onto it is because Milo Yiannopoulos and Gamergate supporters have a lot in common. I don't know what Nichegamer or Techraptor have said on these matters, but the issue at hand here is that in the context of what Gamergate wants itself to be about, there is only one personal relationship out of all of Eric Gjoni's allegations that the latched onto and wanted to expose and that was the relationship with Grayson rather than anyone else Gjoni rambled on about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

With that logic, we can say that Kotaku, Polygon, RockPaperShotgun and other alledged sites want the context of Gamergate to be about misogyny despite GamerGate not being about misogyny. --Artman40 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not what people are saying here or on this article. Again, people acknowledge across the board that Gamergate wants to be about journalistic integrity, but they note that there is a misogynistic streak in the actions perpetrated under the name of Gamergate. This has been picked up outside of the gaming websites, where as the pro-gamergate rhetoric only comes from these fringe and completely unreliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

"The controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment that indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had a "romantic relationship" with a Kotaku journalist, which prompted concerns that the relationship led to positive media coverage for her game. Although these concerns proved unfounded,"

Why were the concerns proven unfounded? Firstly the allegations were that Quinn recieved favourable coverage compared to her peers, not a review. <redact BLP violations> Lastly, the sources are quite literally just Grayson saying "I didn't do it". How is that allowed as evidence that the accusations were proven false?

Someone please explain to me how this is considered factual neutral information? Kau-12 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not make unsourced accusations of wrongdoing or speculative claims about people's personal lives. Provide reliable sources if you intend to make negative claims about a person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We have no 100% way to prove what Grayson, Quinn, and Kotaku said were false, but the fact that other reliable sources read what they had written and stated affirmatively the accusations were false means that is how we are reporting it in the encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a provable fact that Grayson did not write any articles about Quinn after beginning the relationship, as per the timeline given in Gjoni's own blogposts. There were specific allegations laid that he had reviewed her game, which, provably, he did not, because no such review exists. Reliable sources have repeatedly noted those facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(Factually, we actually have no affirmation from a non-independent source when the relation began, but as I noted, other sources have trusted what Kotaku has said for this). --MASEM (t) 00:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, but Gjoni established in his own posts when he believed the relationship began, and given that it's his side of the story which spurred the allegations, they're about the "best case scenario" for Gamergate. And by Gjoni's timeline, Grayson wrote nothing about Quinn after beginning the relationship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So because Grayson posted the article featuring Quinn's game, two before after they were officially a couple, there is no ethical breach, and no reason for GamerGate at all? And because Kotaku is being parroted as being the official account by other press sources, it's now considered fact by wikipedia. And because no sources able to counter this argument are considered "reliable" I'm guessing this is how the entire wiki page will be panning out? And any original research submitted here is also considered "inadmissible". So the best thing anyone can do for improving this article is to spend a few years getting their Journalism degree, work their way up to Time Magazine, and publish a properly researched article. So I should expect this article to be Neutral Point of View by... 2020? Maybe? Kau-12 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "official" date they were a couple, the only date that RSs give is about April 2014, I think, and with that , anyone can prove there were no sources from Grayson near that. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the only thing Nathan Grayson ever wrote about Depression Quest - literally a three-word mention as a "standout" and a screenshot in a short blogposted list of Greenlighted Steam games. You strain credulity by claiming that is a "feature." And yes, this was four months before any relationship happened, by Gjoni's own timeline.

If there are reliable sources noting evidence that any of this is untrue, feel free to present those sources here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

50 Games Greenlighted, Depression Quest gets the title screenshot and the title is a play on words of Quinn's game. If that isn't a feature of an article, I don't know what is. But we can cover other things as well, Patrick Klepek, Quinn's panel Collaborator, writing a glowing review of Depression Quest. Robin Arnott, who awarded Quinn's game the selection award, which kicked off more press coverage. All have relationships with Quinn of some sort. But because it's not published in the Boston Globe, or the New York Times, it's considered original research or from a unreliable source, and therefore, the entire press narrative that says that GamerGate is little more than a woman hating conspiracy remains unchanged, they have effectively "poisoned the well" so to speak. I feel sorry for anyone that reads this[REDACTED] page and takes it's research at face value. Kau-12 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, that story was 3 months before we can accurately say they had a relationship. Mind you, the industry has made it clear that devs and journalists are friends, and there is a playing for positive coverage from indie devs all the time (in addition to the pomp triple AAA studios do). But the specific accusation that is central is that Quinn was romantically involved with Grayson to get positive coverage of her game, which is has been refuted as best as we expect. Quinn being friends with any of those others is not a factor in the charges that the GG side has made to this. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that a person who once spoke on the same conference panel with another person now has a conflict of interest strikes me as the reachiest reach that ever reached. You realize that conferences are designed for people to share ideas, discuss their industries and create connections, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but at this point this discussion is veering off course as a something that seems to be productive towards improving the Gamergate article itself and is instead debating the issues itself. I ask for everyone to keep WP:TPG in light. Rselby1 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he's right so I guess that no one will be annoyed if the game they were working on for 3 years might not get any press coverage because devs who are lovers/buddies of the journos are getting preferential coverage. No one should be pissed off, it happens all the time! So what, no big deal. There are children starving in Africa, these are just kids games. Cool off. Go outside. Kau-12 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? As I've said before, this discussion is veering off topic from what guidelines state that talk pages are supposed to be about: discussing the article's merits and how to improve the article. Let's try to keep this discussion towards improving the article itself. Keep in mind WP:TPG, and assume good faith here WP:AGF. Remember, we're all in this together. Rselby1 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

requesting 5 sources for ingrainedness of MISOGYNY

@Masem: regarding your removal of a reference where you said:

There are at minimum 5 sources for this. This was established on talk page before, discuss there and do not change again

I would like to see these 5 references, or be provided a link to where they were provided previously.

Keeping in mind that this is about misogyny, not sexism. This dispute is about calling misogyny ingrained, not calling sexism ingrained. Sexism is a broad issue I am not objecting to, as I see it ingrained in pretty much anything.

As misogyny is hatred of women, I would like to see these 5 sources you claim support the allegation that hatred of women is ingrained within gaming culture.

I believe that if multiple sources DO support that, that we should list them all as references on the page. Listing shadow references doesn't make any sense.

We currently only list one reference, a 2011 article from VentureBeat, and I supplied a 2012 article from VentureBeat which contradicts the casual claim of it being ingrained, which explicitly states in the title that gaming culture is NOT misogynistic.

Unless there is a basis for thinking McLaughlin a more reliable reporter than Yang, I think you ought to explain why we leave Rus's article up as a reference while you have deleted Joe's article as a reference, when they come from the same news site.

I am open to considering your sources, but if you won't link to them in the article, you should present them here on request. Previous replies I have seen have moved the goalposts of the issue and not addressed misogyny directly in references. Ranze (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing a different point. The current situation is about the sexism and misogyny in the culture, whether from the harassment or just as it has been for sometime. Those are the five references at the end of the first paragraph. Your edit was saying because one author said otherwise, we can't say it's about misogyny but that's clearly not the case. Now on the other end of the argument, a very different one, is the claim that these have been issues for some time, and we've had this discussion before in the archives that point to several points in VG's industry past that discuss both terms (), but for the purposes of establishing that it's been around, we need that one source for the word "ingrained". Your source is only one voice, and also is a clear blog piece and not a reviewed work and such is unallowable as a source. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

To be more exact - in the lead, the broad summary of sources clearly shows that sexism and misogyny are long-standing issues in the industry and to go into any more detail in the lead is bogging that down. In the body, we can (if necessary) present Yang's opinion as a counter statement, though again, I caution that as a clear opinion piece and not necessarily one with journalisic standards, we may not be able to use it. But if it usable, its in the body of the article. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The broad summary of sources? Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it since that see m more like a personally opinion. You have to cite the sources and proof that there actually is misogyny -- if it is just a reporter or a cluster of reporters claiming such a thing then it isn't worth anything. Only if the reporters themselves provide actual proof to their claims can they be taken as anything but just an opinion panel. Like mentioned before, sexism and misogyny are two different things and I'd argue that sexism itself hasn't been proven either. For instance if a woman isn't hired because the men there don't want to work with women, guess what? That is NOT sexism, that is just exclusion. Likewise, misogyny is hatred of women, if you want to say somebody practice misogyny then you would have to actually prove that they hate women. But that is the problem with how media allows feminism and people to get away with this kind of crap. Since calling somebody a misogynist could land them sued for slander and libel, people instead call institutions and groups "misogynist". I.E they are claiming that the core reason of a group hates women. In other words they are claiming that the game industry hates women as a sex. ORLY? and their proof? Well, that is why we are asking you to actually post proof. If you don't you are just turning[REDACTED] into a propaganda page for feminism.--Thronedrei (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources in my link above, including two GDC talks from developers, citing misogyny from the industry/content creation side - maybe not intentional but prevailing through video games through the decades. (And no, the definition of misogyny is not "hatred" but "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women", the latter the focus of most every discussion on the issue) --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment occurring does not make harassment ingrained. This is tantamount to saying fiance-punching is ingrained in football just because it has happened with Ray Rice. I already dismantled the 5 references at the end of the first paragraph in our previous discussions, not a single one far as I recall used terms like 'ingrained' in associating misogyny with gamer culture. The burden is on you to explain here how those references support the use of such a strong word which composes a strong condemnative statement about gamer-culture. You only have 1 author saying it is ingrained, and there is at least 1 author saying the culture isn't misogynistic (more strongly, and more recently) the other sources do not make claimed about the culture overall or it's ingrained attributes. The discussions we had before had bad rebuttals I never got a chance to reply to because they got archived so quickly, you never defended those 5 references as conveying this message, nobody did. The OR section criticism stands: saying misogyny is ingrained in game culture is still original research, because you're quote-mining a single article on a news site while removing contradicting articles from the same news site. There is no uniform viewpoint, so Misplaced Pages should not speak as if there is.

I call on you to directly show us where these sources call misogyny ingrained. If you want to change it to long-standing, feel free to edit the text and argue on that end. It seems to me that when called to task for 1 term, it's flipped to another in a cup game. You call Yang's article an 'opinion piece', what qualifies you to say that Yang's is opinion while McLaughlin's is journalistic, exactly? Ranze (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're mixing apples and oranges. The five references at the end are not supporting the claim of "ingrained" but instead that GG is about sexism and misogyny in the culture. There is one used source to identify that these aren't new topics but I've pointed to where you can find several more sources that assert this. And again, the culture is not just gamers, it is gamers and devs and publishers - everyone being "guilty" here, not just an isolated group. And again, your source is not usable as a counterpoint to the many sources we have as it is just an opinion piece. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a settled issue. Further rehashing of a settled issue is disruptive. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly a settled issue. Saying it is "ingrained . . . in the gaming community" is a generalization about the gaming community being deeply sexist and misogynistic in nature, which is a very serious allegation (just so everyone remembers the severity of the term, "misogyny" literally means "hatred of women"). Nothing I have read even remotely convinces me that this is an accurate description or sufficiently backed by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The key is that we're talking the culture which is fully inclusion of gamers and developers and publishers, so it's a broad allegation that applies across the board. If it was specifically only for gamers that the phrasing was intended, I would definitely be asking for more, but by pointing to the culture, we are addressing "everyone". --MASEM (t) 00:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So, are you saying that developers hate women? or that game-companies do? Or that most "gemers" do? See the problem here? You are using a blanket claim which you don't actually go into specifics with. Since the blanket statement includes any and all there is no need for the person making the claim to actually provide any proof or so it seems. So exactly what are you saying? Are you saying that the "culture" of gaming is created or based on hatred of women? Or... what exactly ARE you saying?--Thronedrei (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you're using too strong/narrow a definition of misogyny. "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women" is what is referred to here, with the last part being the more applicable focus. And this is mostly from the dev/publishing side that can be sourced as a long term problem, and very difficult to paint gamers as such until only these recent harassment attacks. "Culture" is the proper term, though again, I would rather say "industry" since that's where the problem is clearly originated from. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced, that's all there is to it. The present wording was somewhat of a compromise from the previous version as well, but now, suddenly, it isn't good enough? Do you think you're fooling anyone here? The slanted pro-GG editors scream and demand a change, and their editing suggestions are met halfway. Then a few weeks later, they come back again because THAT previously agreed=-upon wording is now no longer any good. So you're going to approach this "death by 1,000 cuts" style until it is in exact tune with the minority pro-GG point-of-view. Not gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"ingrained issues of sexism and misogyny in the gaming community". Ingrained isn't needed at all. Ingrained means a habit, belief, or attitude firmly fixed or established. Calling the gaming community sexists and misogynists in the first sentence is clearly controversial. Diyoev (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I had less a problem with "long-standing" than "ingrained" as the former only suggests there have been issues of sexism and misogyny in the community for a long time, which does not cast that issue on the whole community. To say it is "ingrained" is to effectively stain the entire community as sexist and misogynist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

At one point I had used the word "video game industry" as to reflect that the producers of the content were aware they were creating this problem, also taking some of the blame off the gamer side (as other wording can do potentially). --MASEM (t) 01:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I think you ought to choose a single role regarding this article. You should either be a moderator (as we see you using your administrative powers in the below section) or advocate your interpretation of this conflict. You acting as an administrator here is a conflict of interest when your are simultaneously engaging in POV-pushing.

Masem if the 5 references are about GamerGate and not gaming culture, why exactly did you bring them up here? If these references did not support your declaration (you have made it yours by restoring it) about gamer culture then it was misleading for you to refer to them during your reversion.

You continually claim 'many sources' but have not listed them here or on the page. As you admit, the five you referred to are related to whether or not misogyny is a factor in the gamerGate controversy, not in gaming culture as a whole, leaving you bereft of references.

@Tarc: settled this issue isn't, as TDA points out, and your effort to squelch conversation through intimidation by throwing accusations like 'disruptive' around is itself disruptive to discussion, where we aim to properly vet all sources to see whether they adequately and fairly support statements Wikipedians have made here.

Getting back to Masem's further claims here, although I agree 'community' is broad and can apply to developers/gamers, widening the net does not strengthen any arguments for labeling misogyny as 'ingrained'. Developers have created several characters with moustaches, and the gaming community includes gamers who are fans of moustaches, and may even grow them. The mere presence of a factor does not qualify is to say 'moustaches are ingrained in gaming'. Isolated presence is not overwhelming presence, and if you want to upgrade the former to the latter, you must properly reference it, which has not been done.

Getting back to Tarc's further claim, it hasn't been properly sourced, because it is only displaying a single source showing a single isolated view. No valid reasoning has been introduced as to why this sole viewpoint is being portrayed as truth, when I have provided a source of EQUAL WEIGHT which has a contradicting viewpoint.

Tarc I am finding difficulty assuming your good faith when you paint this particular issue as pro-GG in nature. This actually isn't about GamerGate at all. This is about a broad statement made in this article applying to a much wider topic, that of gaming in it's entirety. Thinking that misogyny might not be ingrained in gaming, thinking you're only showing the elephant's trunk, does not relate in any way to holding any particular stance about GamerGate in particular. The participants in this controversy do not reflect gaming culture or community as a whole.

TDA I agree, while I have problems with both ('long' being too strong, IMO) ingrained is way more suggestive, any neither are properly referenced. We ought to dial this back to just 'sexism' until desciptors about misogyny are referenced in a balanced way, they never have been. Ranze (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is completely okay to do non-controversial corrections as an involved person. I can't add new stuff while its protected but fixing a wikilink is not an issue for example. As for references I have provided a link to a prior discussion that gives at least 6 that talk about sexism and misogyny in the past of the VG industry, and this was part of the previous discussion that Tarc has pointed out that we've gone over and over again and a consensus was reached on the wording. You need to go back and re-read those discussions first. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixing a typo would be a non-controversial correction. What you did was not a correction, it was nothing like 'fixing a wikilink' and it IS a controversial edit. The page is locked with YOUR (and Rus McLaughlin's) viewpoint, even though you haven't sourced it in a balanced way. Adding things is not the only way to generate controversy. You removed a reference, removing a reference is not controversial.

What you have done is enforced a biased view of the discussion of misogyny's role in gaming community/culture. Previously I removed the claim of long-standing (now allegedly inherent/ingrained) misogyny and you added it in again, rather than supply supporting references on the article (nor even on the talk, your claims about doing so are false) you just injected your PoV as summary.

The prior discussion's 6 links have discussed RECENT events in VG industry. You are portraying those reports inaccurately by injecting your PoV that they constitute a new 'ingrained' issue by putting forth that sole viewpoint and squelching the contrary viewpoint that gaming culture is not overall misogynist and that these are merely accessory events by portions of it (much like criminal violence and football players).

Tarc has not 'pointed out' anything real, he's clearly, like you, trying to restrict conversation here by calling us GGers and disruptors, even though this is not making claims about GG and in reality, generalizations about gaming culture are themselves disrupting and distracting from an article that is supposed to be about GamerGate and not about injecting isolated unbacked criticisms of gaming community/culture as a whole.

If misogyny is an ingrained issue, why is it not even mentioned on articles about gaming community here? The reason that jumps out at me is that pages like that lack dedicated PoV-pushers continually re-inserting unbacked claims as this one has.

I am not making any support of GamerGate here, and the only thing I am disrupting is evidence that Misplaced Pages is hosting a biased improperly sourced assertion (a claim that misogyny is ingrained in gaming community) because only a single-sided (single-referenced) viewpoint is being conveyed here.

If this is to be balanced and you want to rely on VentureBeat as a reliable source of references, then you are obligated to mention Joe Yang's headline alongside Rus McLaughlin's footnote. You are conveying undue importance to Rus' article because it suits your viewpoints even though there is no reason provided to give his article priority over Joe's.

You are wrong when you claim consensus was achieved over what wording is ideal. Consensus was not achieved, the argument merely got buried. Past consensi also do not remove the requirement of adequate referencing. If 10 page editors reach a consensus that 'Obama is a martian' it doesn't mean someone can't come along later and demand proper referencing for it. The need for proper sourcing outweighs tyranny of majority (or more accurately, tyranny of the daily-editors over the weekly).

I have reread all those discussions, I was part of them and saw how they concluded, and nothing of required substance was added prior to their archival. If you think anything was, summarize and reiterate how MULTIPLE sources allege this to be ingrained, because the two VentureBeats cancel each other out. Find a 2nd supporting the viewpoint you keep adding in and I'll then shoulder a burden of searching out further contradictors to provide a balance viewpoint. Ranze (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The rest of us have come to consensus, so asking us to rehash a point you disagree with is disruptive. (Also, the edit of removing your change was done before the article was locked, and because it introduced an unreliable source into an article that needs higher scrutiny of sources, so that was not done as an admin action). --MASEM (t) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And again to point out: the Yang VB article is not a reliable source for the claims as it is specifically labelled as an unreviewed opinion piece, while the other VB article is not and presented as a editor-reviewed work. Huge different there. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are painting a false picture of those discussions, I was not the only detractor to your arguments then, nor am I now, nor would opposition being singular matter, consensus is not a vote, it is more than majority, and I am not convinced you have even that. I am not understanding your argument for one VB article being reliable and the other being unreliable. Let's compare:

1. Rus McLaughlin (February 15, 2011). "Sexism and misogyny are gaming's status quo". VentureBeat. Retrieved September 28, 2014.
2. Joe Yang (11 December 2012). "Why gaming culture is not misogynistic". VentureBeat. Retrieved 10 October 2014.

You claim 1 from 2011 is "editor-reviewed work" while 2 from 2012 is "unreviewed opinion piece". These articles are not merely on the same website, they are both part of the same ongoing series called "GamesBeat". Let's look at the actual phrases:

1. This post has been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
2. This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.

Now keep in mind that BOTH of the GamesBeat articles on VentureBeat contain this disclaimer:

• These are unvetted stories from the GamesBeat community. The staff picks the best ones and edits them for the front page.

So while the 2011 was 'edited', it is still 'unvetted' and does not reflect staff opinions. All this could mean is that staff had to fix a typo in the 2011 article but didn't have to make any corrections to the 2012 one. That an edit was made does not in any way give the 2011 article more reliability than the 2012 one. 'Staff pick the best ones' means that BOTH were reviewed by staff.

I request you admit that your summary here was wrong, and that you are misleading talk page readers about these sources. BOTH pieces are presented as editor-reviewed works AND 'opinions by community writers' (this phrase is the single time 'opinion' appears on either article). They are of EQUAL status and you are misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the relevance of an edit being made to one. Ranze (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Even considering that, Yang's article does not counter the statement we make. Key quote "gaming culture is not inherently misogynistic. Its institutions, its structures, hierarchy, its payscales, and its distribution of power may be misogynistic, yes, but gamers themselves are not misogynistic. Their beliefs and rituals are not inherently misogynigistic." We are not saying that the gaming culture, by its nature, misogynist, only that there does exist misogyny within it for some time, and the Yang article agrees on this point. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That is , as long as other editors agreed that the first piece to source "ingrained" is fine, then this source can be used as a backup to that claim as well; if not, we've demonstrated in the past archives how the term still applies since it goes back pre-2000 (it is also fairly obvious to any subject matter expert in the field). --MASEM (t) 03:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 October 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• In the Background section, please resolve the dab link ] to ].

Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done non-controversial fix. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional request: the phrase "in the gaming community" appears 3 times in this article and 2 more times in our references. I request that the first instance of gaming community be hyperlinked so that people can click this phrase and understand what it means. If we have not defined what a phrase means in some form then we should not be using it in such a specific (definite article 'the' singular and authoritative) way. Perhaps this could also lead to expanding the stub note that currently inhabits the phrase. Ranze (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that gaming community is a disambig page, I'm hesistent to this if we have "gamer" already linked (which is the most relevant link on the disambi page). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Attitudes

I haven't edited this article, but I have been following it and this talk page quite closely, and despite the warning at the top, it doesn't seem to affect the vitriolic nature of some editor's comments and responses. As an observer and someone who may at some point have something valuable to contribute, whether to the discussion, this article, or any other part, could a more professional tone be adopted? While some have done this all along and maintained a cool head, others present would never survive a professional atmosphere. 2601:B:3100:5E9:6439:B30B:3F8C:B85E (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a largely unspoken de facto rule, but Misplaced Pages isn't about what rules you follow, but how many friends you can make that can stick up for you when you break those rules. I really doubt that any of the people here throwing attacks around will ever get reprimanded for their behaviour. It also proves, once again, that being an old boy is much better than being a new editor. Cue a dozen editors denying all of this in 3, 2, 1... --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment, however unfortunate. It's largely true everywhere, though, not just on Misplaced Pages. I do think that respect goes both ways, and that new editors who come out swinging or who can't be troubled to read shouldn't be surprised at the reaction they get. But I was online (shortly) before Eternal September when there was an expectation that you would read the FAQs and lurk for a while to get a feeling for the community before wading in to say they're doing everything wrong. I guess that's just me. Woodroar (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Brianna Wu

, was following this last night, this appears to be first story about it (and do not: gamasutra has put a statement that they are involved due to the Intel piece - that's okay to use them). However, as she is not notable (for a standalone page), I 'm not sure if we need to include yet as another example. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Venturebeat too so we can avoid the dependent source. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Re/Code has it now as well: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku:

Worthwhile quote there: "I was literally watching 8chan go after me in their specific chatroom for Gamergate," she told Kotaku today. "They posted my address, and within moments I got that death threat." Artw (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not notable, already countless mentions of harassment, it was a throwaway twitter account. Maybe a one sentence mention with other figures harassed. But this will fall into yet again another "according to Kotaku writer A GamerGate is misogynyst, according to Gamasutra writer B GamerGate is misogynyst" Loganmac (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that it's not notable is interesting, yet reliable sources state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We only need a sentencet to mention here, up where we talk Phil Fish. I know there's been talk of how many have been harassed/death threated/doxxed (and claims on both sides) but the only major ones that have been reported are Quinn, Sarkeenstain, Fish, and now Wu. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo has also been mentioned here and there, including in the Kokatu article linked above. And the Slate twitter piece mentioned other online harassment, although not as serious as what has been covered. It may be worth thinking about an "Online harassment" in the "Backlash and social media campaign" section, although we're probably getting to a point where a discussion about an overall reorganisation is perhaps merited. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo was also mentioned in the latest RealClearPolitics and Slate pieces. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also in The Verge. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And Destructoid. I'll start working up a proposal section shortly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually this might be best: Polygon, which includes confirmation that the police are investigating. Again, we only need like a sentence for this, given that she is not that significant yet to the overall issue, but it is a noted example of a problem. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A sentence, a paragraph or whatever we see fit. Artw (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For now only a sentence or two are warranted. That is the way it is with Phil Fish.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps now her previous article on misogyny and sexism in gaming can also be included in the article as it was before?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We can add she was harassed from that before, so not an unknown in this, but the rest of the details would bog this down. Again, a sentence or two is literally all that is needed if we decide to add this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Article predates the controversy so it should not be included. I think reliable sources about this incident already mention her previous writings and experiences.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Now in The Boston Globe. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We will be definitely including that source, over any of the ones above. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Brad Wardell interview

I don't know if this is notable, reliable, or not, but I believe this is the first time a game developer has really weighed in: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12397-Brad-Wardell-GamerGate-Interview

I leave this here for others to use, or not use, at their discretion. 2601:B:3100:5E9:6439:B30B:3F8C:B85E (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I self-correct. A number of articles from various industry professionals, spanning a variety of different views, were posted simultaneously: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews This was merely the first one I encountered. 2601:B:3100:5E9:6439:B30B:3F8C:B85E (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically there is also a similar set from female game devs, though the Escapist has come under some flak on this in both presentation and the fact the female devs all replied anonymously. (in addition to one of the male devs having a reputation in the present situation). I'd rather cut down on the singular opinions here only due to how that is creating the bias here. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained misogynist and sexism in gaming community

So hating women and sexism is what makes a gamer community? According to whom and on what factual data? Accusing millions of people of being sexist and misogynist just because they wear the tag "gamer" is a serious accusation. Is it a requirement to be a misogynist or are you a sexist if you are a gamer? Is it some small minority with those beliefs? Can you paint the whole gaming culture as sexist and misogyny based on an editorial piece? What is the consensus of the editors here on this? If its a minor belief within the gaming community, shouldn't this reflect the fact? If it is a major held belief, then leave it at that, but we would need some proof of that. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It reflects the sustained patterns of harassment that women within the video gaming culture, from developers to players, have experienced over the years. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not make the statement that the sexism and misogyny is ingrained in the community, but the culture (encompassing all parts of video game industry including devs and journalists and publishers), a very key difference in wording. I would agree that we actually would not be able to say that the community has these ingrained issues as that's very difficult to source, but for the culture, it is very well sourced and acknowledged as a problem. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is the person involved in the controversy allowed to be a source in this?

The WSJ article was written by the same person involved in the controversy, this is bias. EDIT: Corrections I meant the Time magazine article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing from the Wall Street Journal used in the article. Could you be more specific as to the issue at hand?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Per your correction, it has been previously discussed that content by Leigh Alexander prior to Intel pulling ads from Gamasutra are still considered reliable sources because at the time she was not a "person involved in the controversy". You cannot retroactively discredit a source like this because the author has become part of what has since happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Corrections. She's in the organizations involved in the controversy. Since that's the case, using her article as a source will be counted as bias. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exefisher (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What "organizations involved in the controversy"? Is this organization the "video game media"? It's clear you're trying to discredit her word here, and the word of anyone that has voiced opposition to Gamergate. It's not going to fly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Exefisher, this has been pointed out again and again, and a handful of editors continue to insist that it's a usable source. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Willhesucceed (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Or the way to actually explain it is, a majority of editors cite project policy regarding verifiability and sourcing. This is not a point of legitimate contention. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time piece was written well before the Intel bit made her "involved", so it is a completely acceptable source. Now that she is, her writing would be a "dependent" source as involved, meaning we'd prefer independent sources for equivalent information, but not invalid as a source. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind that Alexander writes for Gamasutra, Polygon, Kotaku, that she's written over and over again about how much she despises her audience, that her Twitter feed is full of even more of such bile, editors will continue to insist she's a good source on this. Imagine if we treated the Westboro Baptist Church's thoughts on homosexuality as reliable. This is basically the same thing. But it's okay because Time knows so much about video games that surely they wouldn't pick the wrong person to write the article! ;) Willhesucceed (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind: sources are judged case by case , and in reference to what they have done. Alexander has a history of good journalism before this, so if she writes an article that contains factual statements with no hint of bias or opinion, that's fine. If she writes something as her opinion, we have to judge how appropriate it is to include here. (Note that her "rant" piece on the death of gamers is not used to source anything about the event, outside of it being highlighted in the Intel situation, for example). --MASEM (t) 17:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You sure do like being condescending don't you, Willhesucceed? (´･ω･`) Perhaps she would have a better view of the movement if it hadn't attacked her viciously and cost her website money because people were incensed over her actions instead of just like not going to her website anymore. No. You have to get advertising pulled instead of just not going to the website in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

New article from Reason magazine

Part 1 (suggesting part 2 may be coming).

Yes, Reason is liberal-leaining and so definitely siding proGG on this but it is also a person not involved in the gaming community and for all other purposes an RS, for at least setting up some of the rationale of what proGG side is looking for. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this is the same article published in RealClearPolitics. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

With some slight changes:

Note: This version of the article incorporates a minor correction to the original, which incorrectly stated that the Kotaku editor who contributed to Zoe Quinn's crowdfunding account went on to review her game. It also contains some additional information in the first paragraph on the political profile of GamerGate supporters.

Willhesucceed (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It still contains a number of unsubstantiated or outright debunked claims about Quinn that may make it tricky from a WP:BLP aspect. Also Reason is basically the house magazine of the Libertarian movement, and in no sense "Liberal". Artw (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

However, unlike the pub in RCP (which admits its an aggregator and not editorialized), Reason is, making at least some of the comments usable. I did see the "mistake" about Jade for example, but there's other factors that are completely legit "here's what proGG is looking for" statements that are not refuted by anything else we have. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Useful for her opinions, if we decide they're interesting enough to merit inclusion. Not usable for allegations about living people. She states her POV on her sleeve right up front by comparing "SJWs" to "cultist zealots who enforce the party line with the fervor of Mao's Red Guards." So like The Week piece, et al., it's an op-ed rather than a reported news story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander's "list of ethics problems"

From her own blog.

Understanding she's involved, etc. etc. , that this is an SPS, etc. etc. I will point out that I've seen this linked now from a few other RS places (eg ) to show that there is legit ethical concerns in the industry above and beyond the current GG issue. I know there's other sources that are by VG journalists that affirm that there are self-recognized problems with how the current VG journalism industry is being run. I'm just not 100% sure how to include it or if it needs including. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Could probably go at the end of the second paragraph. Artw (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class video game articles
• Mid-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles