Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Why is misogny mentioned first?

Can we phrase the first line in the article to mention both misogny and journalism ethics then just misogny and harrasment?--Torga (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources focus on the misogyny and harassment primarily, and whatever message there may be about ethics as a footnote. Unfortunately we at Wikipedia cannot write about things that have not already been written or give undue weight to a minority opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it is the first thing nearly all external RSes relate as an issue here. It is the issue of why the larger press is talking about it. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So we do not write about ethics and corruption in the press because the press have not written about it? --Torga (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in there (see Analysis section), but it's not the first issue that's associated with this. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So the press gets accused of something, associates it with a completely unrelated issue, Wikipedia uses it as a primary source, and then Wikipedia itself becomes a source of falsified history. This is exactly why Wikipedia absolutely shouldn't cover ongoing issues, as it is now has the capability to alter the history itself.  Grue  18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Published news articles are secondary sources, and reliable media outlets can still be considered reliable even when they're reporting on a manufactured controversy involving crackpot conspiracy theories about the media. Diaries, chat logs and personal blogs are primary sources: we use those sparingly if at all. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to check if "Gamergate" as such even existed at the time Zoe Quinn's harassment happened? Was Adam Baldwin who created the hashtag ever involved in Zoe Quinn's harassment? Why is all the Zoe Quinn's stuff, that happened before #gamergate was established, in this article and not in hers? These are some basic questions that come to my mind when reading this article. It's like if I was reading an article about hamburgers with a long lead-in about civil war in Somalia.  Grue  18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin used the hashtag while linking to two defamatory youtube videos detailing the ridiculous allegations against Quinn that were being used to justify her harrassment. GamerGate is and always was fundamentally about punishing a woman. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is it the stated goal of the movement, or something derived from (possibly biased) secondary sources? It seems that this is something that could be moved into "Criticism" section, while actual stated goals of the movement, sourced from notable supporters of the movement should be used to lead into the article. This way seems less biased to me and more in line with how other controversial topics are usually treated.  Grue  18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no central voice for the GG movement (ignoring Quinn's claims this was organzied on 4chan), and as such no one can state what the goals of the movement are. All reliable sources are trying to figure out the shape of that, but without a single, reliable voice, GG is going to be treated by the media about how it is perceived, not by how it wants to be perceived. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If the movement's goals aren't what the media is framing them as... what are they, actually? What is the desired outcome of the movement? We've yet to see anyone actually articulate anything beyond "we don't like people writing cultural critiques of video games." If that's the desired outcome, well, yeah, it's not like the movement can somehow stop people from writing cultural critiques of video games. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, this has been answered many times, but every time people ignore it. But I will say, this article from Forbes gets it right. "There were so many points raised about so many issues, it was hard to keep track of a list of actual demands." So many things were brought up. It started with journalism ethics, pushed into the demonetization of people by the cliques of writers (I.e. TFYC), the constant spewing of vitrol that is mirrored in this article currently ("Oh, you disagree with a woman and have valid criticism? MISOGYNY! (which, im not saying harassment should be overlooked here, because dicks were dicks, but it wasnt the movement)). There is also the point that people in the pro gamergate wanted the so called 'SJW' (which, BTW, is the term for extremist activist, that is why #notyourshield was created, to take their platform out from under them. This techcrunch article, who earlier, BTW even pushed a 'Misogyny' related article, said "Gamergate may want mechanical purity free of the sullying of media, but personally I feel that that is the wrong answer.". So they KNOW what it is about. Hell, some developers are coming out and trying to support GG, like the CEO of stardock. Hell, the freaking policy changes, which were praised highly from Kotaku and the Escapist, only get one sentence at the bottom of the article. Two major achievements from the movement are glossed over to push a POV. Cmon. Anyway, probably won't reply again for a while, trying to stay away from most stuff right now cus of anxiety. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny was not part of the movement but it became entrenched within it due to how things started and there's no way you can change that at this point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The hatred of women never became entrenched in GamerGate. You seem to be pushing for your point constantly though, so there isn't much to say to you, since were going to go back to tired arguments that people have gone through before. What caused Kotaku and The Escapist to change their policies? The hatred of women? The only reason it seems 'entrenched' is because of the POV pushing by games outlets, and even writers (such as the time article who wrote on gamasutra and insulted the gamer base near the end with plenty of insults, and the New Yorker guy who funded someone in the deep of Gamergate, then immediatly hid his Patreon as soon as the article was published) who push it. It seems though that the actual story is coming out now, even people trying to slander gamergate have admitted it (i.e. look at the techcrunch article). So no, it isn't, but we can't prove it until more moderate sources publish something about it. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Until those moderate sources publish something about it you are wasting your time here trying to frame the article about events that you think might happen. Come back back when you have actual usable sources and not merely your own opinion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that we're not talking about "disagreeing with a woman," we're talking about an extensive campaigns of vitriol, organized harassment and torrents of abuse. You can't just brush all that off with the throwaway phrase "it wasn't the movement" and pretend like that's a satisfactory answer, because it's not.

If it's not part of the movement, where are those within the movement vocally denouncing it, calling it out and rejecting it? If it's not part of the movement, why was the 4chan IRC channel called "burgersandfries" in a 3rd-grade-level reference to a woman's sex life? If it's not part of the movement, how did Anita Sarkeesian become a target of the argument when she has nothing to do with games journalism? If it's not part of the movement, for God's sake, why was the movement focused on the personal life of an obscure indie developer rather than the squillions of dollars spent to advertise AAA games by EA, Activision, Blizzard and the other big-name developers? Which is a more significant threat to the independence and ethics of games journalism? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't have anything to do with who a woman sleeps with.

Again, as has been discussed in reliable sources, there were most undoubtedly a lot of people with genuine concerns wrapped into it. But the hashtag was taken over by "an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women," and there was apparently no one with either the power or the courage to try and take back control of it and redirect the conversation in a meaningful and productive direction. So here we are, with unintended consequences aplenty. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok then North, since it seems were at a peaceful discussion now (as in hopefully no anxiety), I honestly have a question. Why is the introduction not framed that way then? I am not the best writer, but something such as, "Gamergate started as a movement against current journalism ethics and POV pushing in the current gaming media, but was co-opted by "an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women." I don't think that is 100% correct, but the actual movement of what Gamegate was should be important, even if it was co-opted. Instead, the introduction only makes it seem that gamergate is a movement for harassment(which as you said, it had genuine concerns from it), and then writing off the positives. Hell, again, even the Escapist and Kotaku policy changes only get one sentence, even though those were major breakthroughs in the movement. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the reliable sources focus on the fact that sexism and misogyny took center stage from the very beginning, right down to someone's incredibly-questionable decision to frame the entire movement around tabloid-level allegations about an obscure indie developer's personal life.

The best summation of this mess comes from an actual games developer, who we partially quote through Vox:

Right now, publishers are buying reviews. Right now, publishers are giving large amounts of money and other perks to journalists in order to skew the public perception and influence, both positively and negatively, game sales. Right now, Metacritic is being used to determine whether or not designers get to keep their jobs. Right now, AAA executives are cutting women and LGBT characters out of games in development, because of "the core demographic". These are huge problems. These are problems we want to talk about. These are problems we want to fix. We aren't going to smile and nod while hundreds of people dogpile a couple of people's sex lives. We're not going to cheer you on while muckrakers are hounding people for answers to stupid, invasive questions they shouldn't be asking. We want a better industry. But we feel that what we're seeing, or at least the bulk of what we're seeing is making a worse industry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

BY THE WAY, that was a self posted blog right? We can't trust their words. But we can trust when developers and a CEO come out in support of gamergate, http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Stardock-CEO-League-Legends-Devs-Others-Support-GamerGate-67327.html/ right? PseudoSomething (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use it as a source for the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we can call them on their fact checking right? (Of course your going to say they are right, don't answer that). Why did Kotaku and the Escapist change their policies? Why did TFYC get fully funded to HELP WOMEN DEVELOPERS. Why did '#literatelywho' happen? (that hashtag was trying to show everyone outside the controversy that it wasn't about Zoe, since she did everything she could to make it about her). Why did certain game bloggers release about 12? articles that 'gamers are dead' in 48 hours? Why was there major censorship about the issue from Reddit and 4chan and most blog sites about the issue? (which I am amazingly surprised here, since that is the major issue that caused this, being censored from the start). Why did wikileaks just tweet in support of the movement? What was #notyourshield? None of these questions are getting answered in this article, and they all point to a major push from Gamergate to change the way game bloggers write. These are all things that happened BECAUSE of gamergate, yet aren't given any significance because of POV pushing in this article. If it is about Zoe, since you are pushing that, why aren't the issues about indiecade brought up? Why is the issue of her DMCA'ing a video criticizing her get flagged BY HER, and then reinstated BY YOUTUBE because it was a bad flag? Why is the demonetization of TFYC not being brought up, since that is the reason they got funded? To add to that, that she immediatly created a Game jam that all proceeds went to her PayPal. You don't get to have it one way if you aren't POV pushing. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources to support these statements, and we can start discussing potential additions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It began because a jilted ex-lover of one woman who made a video game that no one liked to begin with accused her of sleeping around with someone who wrote for a video game website that didn't even review her game to begin with, and then had thousands of harassing messages come her way simply because a vocal group of gamers are petulant self-entitled fucks who think anything that doesn't go their way deserves death threats, regardless if it's a man or woman. Everything that caused the uproar was falsified and entrenched in a group that doesn't give a shit about the changes but felt threatened, but that did not stop companies from ringing the death knell for the gamer identity or addressing the new indie dev scene in their conflict of interest policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"jilted ex-lover of one woman" So someone who has proof that his girlfriend cheated on him? That didn't accuse her of anything but brought situation to light? How the issue with her sleeping with someone on the panel of Indiecade who gave an award to her? Sorry, I know exactly where the conversation will end up talking to you, Ryulong. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You literally couldn't be doing a better job making my point if I tried. How many ways are you going to try to justify the movement's focus on tawdry allegations about the sex life of an obscure indie developer? If this is about journalism ethics, what does the fact that someone "cheated on" someone else have to do with anything? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

[reacted] 2601:E:9F80:D74:1440:9475:2F6B:7F48 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a reliable source to support this wild accusation, right? Otherwise it'll have to be redacted per BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Redaction taken care of. And we have no proof of any of the things that Gjoni said are accurate. It's all hearsay that was intentionally posted to bring her down out of revenge and y'all are eating it up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not framing the issue using the sources that have been called into question on the matter (eg, we're not using gaming sites for the main points, we're using national newspapers and magazines). And if those sources are framing it that way, we sorta have to follow. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And some of the editors wont even let both the issue be mentioned in the first sentence. So i think its best to put both issues on the first line. --Torga (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We cover it as the reliable sources cover it. you would need to show that reliable sources are generally covering them equally and not focusing on the harassment and covering the reporter-developer issue as a footnote. Given that everything i have seen published to date is "harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment harassment journalistic ethics harassment harassment" you will need to be coming up with A LOT of sources that focus solely on the journalistic ethics to have a basis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with Torga on this issue. The larger publications have worded it the way they have because the corrupt gaming publications reporting on it first focused on the harassment of key members guilty of collusion and refused to acknowledge their own guilt. In the mainstream media's mind the harassment is the main focus. To people who actually care about what's going on here, the collusion and corruption in the games journalism industry is the real issue, so they both are deserving of a first line focus. It's a bit difficult to cite sources when all the usual sources you'd cite are controlling the information that gets covered. Since Wikipedia's sources don't readily accept blogs, etc. even readily available evidence can't be cited. --JoeyEbidoku (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing the article to conform with Wikipedia's Neutral POV and Encyclopedic style

For some reason, there are constant reverts who just try to make this article fall within wikipedia policy. I don't even mean content, but tone. For example, the unencyclopedic use of words or scare quotes like '"tirade"' is just outrageous. The positive and (unsourced) assertion of there being a sexist conspiracy is outrageous for an encyclopedia. The use of gaming media outlets that are themselves under scrutiny for ethical violations as authoritative sources is outrageous for an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a soap box. A lot of people want it to be favorable to some point of view or cause, and the article currently reflects that. 38.104.236.242 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

its not "scare quotes" its "actual quotes" - we are directly quoting the source and acknowledge it as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECTIVE judgments don't become objective simply because RSes report them. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

one as a "tirade", one as "spiteful blog post, one as the invasion of a developer's privacy by her ex-boyfriend or maybe " a dirty-laundry double load of drama" or a " spiteful attack " . Please choose which one you prefer as representative of the general opinion of the tirade. my !vote is " a dirty-laundry double load of drama" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It should not be used in the introduction to the article. The article should also not start off with political commentary on the movement. Please read NPOV policy Pretendus (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

au contraire. did you actually read WP:NPOV in particular the WP:UNDUE section? we present content as the reliable sources present it. they present it as a "tirade". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

why not edit the first line to read "ALLEGED long-standing issues..."? It's still an ongoing matter, and I'd like a source pointing that there's actual sexism and misogyny in video games, rather than an outright assertion from a Wikipedia article. The word "alleged" would make a lot of the article become more neutral in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Because that would imply that there was no basis for it but the claims of some individuals. That's not the case: our sources don't say 'some people think there is misogyny in gaming culture,' they say 'there is misogyny in gaming culture. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what's known as a subjective judgment. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SUBJECTIVE 71.178.64.248 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, 'misogynistic' actually has an objective meaning and can be applied objectively, and we are required to report what the sources report. When major publications are calling this 'misogynistic,' we have to as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But the sources aren't unbiased scientific papers or show clearly proven cases of misogyny. They are news articles, coming from news outlets, that are reporting on what goes on. And a journalist isn't always unbiased about something like this. I repeat, this is an ongoing matter. It's like saying: Person A is currently in trial because they murdered Person B. But the trial hasn't ended yet, so Person A is not necessarily the one who killed Person B. A more correct way to phrase the above statement then would be, "Person A is currently in trial because they allegedly murdered Person B". And that's exactly how the case will be worded in court as well. The word "alleged" doesn't imply that an argument is wrong. It implies that someone suggested there's something wrong. Which is exactly the state of the argument at this point in time. >— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.252.205 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2014

No, we generally use "alleged" in cases where formal allegations are laid before some sort of governing body which will rule on those allegations; particularly in relation to criminal charges or specifications of wrongdoing. There is no "neutral" governing body or court which determines what is and is not misogynistic. It has an objective dictionary definition, but the application of that word to any given thing is debatable and undoubtedly people disagree on many of its applications.

Wikipedia is not prohibited from adopting statements of fact when those statements represent the dominant point of view among reliable sources. It is indisputable that the predominant POV among reliable sources is that there is misogyny in the gaming community and that this controversy involves misogyny in the gaming community. Therefore, Wikipedia is required to give that POV prominence in its articles. We are prohibited from representing minority or fringe points of view as if they are equivalent to, or as credible as, majority points of view. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality does not mean our articles must be voiceless and judgment-free. We are not required to adopt some sort of impossible neutrality in which articles say nothing and draw no conclusions. Rather, we must draw the same conclusions as those drawn by reliable sources.

There are a great many things that cannot be determined by "unbiased scientific papers," assuming scientific papers are even unbiased, which is a fact not in evidence; all things human are, in some way, biased. Perfect objectivity is a myth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's important to identify "who" if you are going to use broad brush characterizations. Who is misogynistic? We incorrectly identify the gaming community. Zoe's ex is lumped in the article as well though there is no evidence of that or sources that state his acts were misogynistic or that he is a misogynist. Indeed the articles about cite a "mob of angry trolls" which excludes most of the gamer community. Please read up or watch what a "straw feminist trope" is and that is how our article reads and appears to interpret sources from that perspective. All gamers are not misogynist. The gamer community as a whole, which includes Zoe though not her ex, is not misogynist. It's a strong word and using it broadly sounds like it is made by tropes about tropes. Reread the sources and there are subtle distinctions. Lost on the mob here, though. --DHeyward (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove subjective peacock term - tirade

This is mentioned above at #Stop_.27Framing.27_the_Article and #Some_comments_on_neutrality. Instead of arguing over lots of different points, I'm just going to argue for the removal of "tirade".

Tirade is a peacock term, it has been taken from this Washington Post article. Readers can make up their own minds about whether or not Gjoni's blog is a tirade. The Washington Post's original description of the events, in its second paragraph is "an ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post...", in the sixth paragraph, "...wrote a blog post". Instead of repeating those facts, editors (administrators I'm assuming, given the protection) cherry-picked a subjective term from the seventh paragraph and repeated it in the lead and background sections of this article. Editors sought an opinion instead of a fact, that opinion is singled out with its own quotes (which actually demean it - words singled out in quotes are usually ironic scare quotes or air quotes).

If you want to criticise Gjoni, do so in the analysis/response sections. In the lead and the background sections, just present the facts as is. - hahnchen 13:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tirade, quoted, is fine. It was a long list of various things that he claimed towards Quinn, made in a heated manner. We ourselves can't make that exact claim, but a secondary source can. Mind you, I don't like it in the lead (I expressed issues with that there) as it immediately sets an undesirable tone, but it's fine in the body. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't be putting judgements in the background section. They should fall under analysis or response. Wikipedia has made that claim by clearly cherry-picking a subjective statement, if this is not an outright violation of NPOV, it still appears as one. Gjoni's blog post can be described indisputably (from both sides) as a blog post, the Washington Post even does it twice before labelling it a tirade. There's no need for Wikipedia to characterise Gjoni's actions in the background section, when we can go in depth and explicitly call it out in the analysis. - hahnchen 15:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Take it up with the Washington Post; they characterize his tirade as such, so we quote them doing so. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

They also describe it as a blog post twice, but you've cherry-picked the word tirade. It's not about whether I agree that it is a tirade, it's that Wikipedia has placed what is clearly a value judgement in a section that does not require it. Had you cherry-picked the word "bitter" from The Guardian, would you then tell me to contact the Guardian? I've taken it to a Wikipedia talk page, because it's a Wikipedia issue. - hahnchen 15:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, well thanks for the suggestion; I will add "bitter" to the lead when editing opens up again. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, it seems that you did not understand the point I made. I previously removed the word convoluted from the article for the same reasons. I recommend that you stay away from the article when editing opens up again. - hahnchen 16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand very well that you're trying to whitewash the description of the ex's commentary. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The loaded word should definitely not be used in the lead - it's WP:LABEL style guide, and Masem is right that it sets the wrong mood because it's undue prominence. I don't care as much if it's included in the body; However, if reliable sources use different names to describe the blog post, why would we use the more contentious instead of the neutral one? In fact, we shouldn't; we're expected to use an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. If there's a serious willingness to use the term, it should be more clearly attributed - like in "what The Washington Post described as a tirade"; scare quotes are OK when quoting neutral descriptions or clearly attributed ones, but here are used to include a loaded term in nearly Wikipedia voice. Diego (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If these words are being used by sources and we're quoting the sources then there's no issue other than people trying to whitewash the page in favor of the gamer side of things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the argument. Describing a blog post as a blog post is not a whitewash. The Washington Post does it twice before characterising it as a tirade. It's completely unnecessary to use subjective value judgements in the lead or background. Like Diego, I'd be fine with something like "what The Washington Post described as a tirade" in the analysis or response. It's fine to criticise Gjoni's actions, but the word "tirade" has clearly been cherry-picked. - hahnchen 17:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It has not been cherry-picked, it is simply the wording that WaPo chose to describe the angry and demonstrably false rantings of the subject's ex-relation. When someone lies about another person, and posts that lie on game forum after game forum after game forum, before finally devoting a wordpress page solely to their lie to maximize visibility, that's about a clear a "tirade" as one can go on. It will not be removed from the lead. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because it is sourced, does not mean it is not cherry picked. There are plenty of other words that could be used to describe Gjoni's actions, bitter, vengeful, slut-shaming... But Wikipedia has inserted "tirade" in a section where is unrequired. It doesn't matter how much I agree with the characterisation, or how much you agree; that you have to argue how much you agree confirms it as a value judgement. We don't need to tell readers how to think in the lead or the background section, we should not be highlighting value judgements in the background when there are entire sections dedicated to analysis and response. - hahnchen 18:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Blog post" doesn't really hack it since the rant was originally posted in multiple locations before ending up on Wordpress. Also given the inflammatory nature of it "blog post" is extremely bland and weasley - I think we need terms that convey it's intent. "Tirade" seems fine for that IMHO. Artw (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post, "blog post" does hack it, it's used twice to describe the Gjoni's actions. It's unambiguously a blog post, that's a statement of fact. Readers can deduce the nature of the blog post through its contents and the response, there are entire sections on analysis and response. The background should be bland, it should be a dispassionate statement of the facts, not a characterisation and critique of the actions. I'm surprised you've described it bland and WP:WEASEL, usually the latter is used to spice up the former, while we are accurately representing the opinion of the Washington Post, we are doing so in a section that has no need for it, and in so doing call into question the NPOV nature of the article. It's not about whether you agree with the characterisation, it's that the question should not be asked there. - hahnchen 10:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Intro rewrite (With sources)

TDA has a wonderful suggestion for an edit: ""#GamerGate is a controversy that erupted over allegations of improper relationships between gaming journalists and game developers that was seen by media as a cover for a misogynistic harassment campaign against female voices in the industry."

The last request didn't have sources to back it up, so I am making my case. I believe the intro, and article, need to be focused on the goals of #gamergate, with the harassment as a major criticism. Many sources are now talking about what the goals of gamergate are/where, and some of them are even sources that wrote it off as the 'hatred of women' at first. digitimes,techcrunch,Forbes,Vox,Techraptor,Townhall,Forbes,aljazeera,The Guardian,SlateVox, . There are even sources that say that the 'Hatred of Women' point was wrong. Forbes,Techraptor,Slatemetaleater.

Though, in a few of the articles already used, they even state that gamergate views are noble, but there is some harrassment that is hurting it onthemedia.

To also add, #notyoursheild was created that fought against those accusations of the Hatred of Women. cinemablend, Forbes

Not only that, but the gamergate movement has results, such as Destructoid, Kotaku, and Defy Media (who owns The Escapist), all changing their ethics policy, and TFYC getting funded cinemablend,apgnation.

Some major names are even speaking out in the support of gamergate cinemablend.

This Forbes Article sets out the whole situation clearly, yet next to none of it is being used. With all of these sources, as well as actual visible changes (such as ethics policy) that happened, I feel this needs to be on the forefront, with harassment as a major critisism.

Currently, the articles being used to push this as a hatred against women dont have near as much evidence on their point as the people who publish about the issues that gamergate is fighting against. So not only do we have sources backing up the ideals of #gamergate, we also have more evidence that this movement is what gamergate is pushing, and not just word of mouth from many RS'es already used (i.e. many of them run off of what Zoe said). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, we cannot deny that harassment kicked this off. While I will agree that the issues are morphing, all most reliable recent source still lead off that it was harassment. If GG keeps on going for months and the situation changes into a calm and collected discussion of journalism ethics and its clear that the harassment stuff was just a spark, we can rework this, but right now, GG is still presented as primarily an issue with harassment from the start. So we cannot change that. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem, many of those sources blatantly state that that it was because of the nepotism in journalism. We can verify those to, independently. We cannot verify that harassment was the cause, we are taking the word of basically one person being interview in some RS'es. What we cannot deny, is that the nepotism, which is IN THE SOURCES, was the cause of it. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

When I say in the sources, I mean, we can find the nepotism. We can see it ourselves without trusting the source. How is this something that can be denied, but we cannot deny that? PseudoSomething (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. What 'we' can 'see' in the reviews is irrelevant. You do not get to declare a source 'biased' because you don't like what it says. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What are all of those sources that I posted then? Plus the evidence of changes from the movement? PseudoSomething (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

They're a lot of weak sources and a few cherry picked sections from some stronger ones. They don't override the masses of mainstream sources that are treating this as an example of the misogyny in the gaming community. If you'd like to talk about the 'changes' caused by the movement, why stop at a few minor gaming sites who tried to satisfy GamerGate by publishing their ethics policies? Let's talk about the several women who have been hounded out of their careers by GamerGate's irrational rage. The women who are afraid to return home. The calls to the FBI. The massive quantity of libel and rage that this movement has generated. GamerGate got a few minor sites to try pacify them, and screwed up a whole lot of women's lives for absolutely no reason. That's the effect of your movement. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Andddd you have moved the goalpost. I can't discuss when they keep moving. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not. Your sources are weaker than the ones that support the current version of the article. That's just all there is to it. You have not provided anywhere near the quantity of reliable, mainstream sources that present "GamerGate's side" and exclude the misogyny of the movement. That's where the goalposts have been all along. You're asking is to ignore the way a large number of high quality sources are presenting this issue in favor of giving the 'side' presented by some much lower quality sources coupled with a few cherry picked sections from higher quality sources. You have not provided compelling evidence that the 'side' you want presented should be the only one presented in the intro or body of the article. We need to present this the way the sources do, and that means leading with the movement's misogyny and hostility to women. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether there actually is or is not nepotism or favoritism in gamer journalism really has nothing at all to do with what happened here, i.e. a jilted boyfriend slut-shaming his ex and (falsely) claiming that she benefited from such favoritism. If the false claims of favoritism wrt. Quinn sparked a larger conversation about ethics in journalism, that can be addressed in a single sentence. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you have been nothing but rude to me the entire time I have been here. I just provided the sources, you cannot deny the sources. The sources up there don't say that, those sources up there say the issue of nepotism are the cause. Those issues up there barely reference Zoe. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that there is literally no evidence of any nepotism, the claims w/r/t Quinn have been disproven and the movement spent all of its energy making third-grade-level jokes about her alleged sex life as portrayed by a jilted ex-boyfriend. Meanwhile, as multiple reliable sources point out, the movement has completely ignored the influence of the multi-billion-dollar AAA games industry in favor of a crusade against a few people who are daring to discuss the cultural implications of video games. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, Patreon, Indiecade, the indie clique, and probably some other things, not the Zoe post from an emotionally abused ex-boyfriend, but the WHOLE INDUSTRY. But that doesn't matter. The sources I posted focus both on the issues that the gamergate pushes, as well as saying why some of those are not doable, or aren't there, etc.. Don't move the goalpost now. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Indie clique?" Is this high school or something?

It's not "moving the goalposts" to note that if the movement was truly about "journalism ethics" as it claims to be, its primary focus is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Rather, that simply supports the contention that "journalism ethics" is only a smokescreen for the movement's actual ideology of third-grade-level misogyny, slut-shaming and the opportunity to attack anyone and everyone who makes serious cultural criticism of video games. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Its moving the goalpost since I posted sources, and all of a sudden we can only believe sources that talk about the hatred of women. All while there are changes BECAUSE of gamergate, such as ethic policy updates. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

NOW you're catching on! -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That is what at least one source has said. But hey, I get to add something else that happened to me on WP... called a woman hater... check... called a sock puppet... check.... told to shut up... check.... talked down to... check! PseudoSomething (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean, what do you mean by "indie clique" and "nepotism"? Even assuming there is a "clique" of people who talk to each other about indie games, there is nothing "nepotistic" about people talking to each other. That's literally what people do, like, in the real world and stuff. If they share ideas and share viewpoints, they have conversations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well sorry if you meant it by that. Being called all that crap and then basically talked down to constantly, its basically my go to when someone post something like that. What it is are people getting 'cozy' with each other in the industry, basically making it so that only one view point of something may be shown. In reference to this subject, it would be like the 'Death of Gamers' thing, where suddenly 12 articles were posted in 48 hours, inspired by a blog post. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't explain that well enough, sorry, I am pissed. By indie clique, that also means the possible corruption in the indiecade, where there might actually be fraud. By nepotism, thats corruption. Like funding patreons of people you write about, or not saying, "Hey, we got all this free crap from these people" in articles about them. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If a bunch of people agree with each other, that's not "nepotism," though. I mean, it's just literally not. There's nothing unethical about it. People in every industry talk with one another and discuss things all the time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, 100%. A big reason it seems that they went after it is kinda the situations like the 'Death of Gamers'. But there is criticism like yours in those sources, and should be referenced. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

PseudoSomething, the harassment is still part of it and there's nothing you can say that will change our opinions on that. It will be mentioned in the lede. And Tarc, to be clear, the ex only posted claims that there was an affair. Gamers decided to accuse her of benefiting from favoritism due to their interpretation of the ex's statements.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hat off-topic comments about other contributors. All editors here should focus solely in the editorial content of the article and not make comments about each other. If you want to discuss either or any behavioral issues, take it to your user talk pages or follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥ 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ryu, you don't get top voice in this. You also told me to shut up earlier and seem to be focusing on my post. Just back off. I have no desire to talk to you. PseudoSomething (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC) This is a public forum where you're making problematic statements so you don't have a choice in the matter, bucko.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Ryulong, I've read his blog and don't buy the "oops, a misplaced comma implied something I didn't mean to imply" excuse. As for Mr Pseudo... Tarc, you have been nothing but rude to me the entire time I have been here... is a very curious statement, because a quick perusal of the talk page shows no instance where I have directly addressed you until this specific "Edit Request: Intro rewrite (With sources)" thread. Are you losing track of which sock-puppet you're currently logged in to? Tarc (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Called a sock puppet again! Yey! I think we spoke 3 times. Twice so far you have called me a sock puppet and lead on that I was a woman hater (admin board, at least from what I remember of your post), and one somewhere up there. Or maybe the one up there was just reading your comments. If you think im a sock puppet, bring another admin action against me! PseudoSomething (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

All I've gathered from reading everything is that he did not directly imply that the relationship resulted in beneficial press, but that's what the /v/irgins and redditors deduced.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that there is a possible scenario in the future that if GG actually turns into a long, earnest discussion on journalism ethics with significant changes in how gaming media operates, as reflected by many sources, there might be a reason then to flip this approach around, to note that GG started with Quinn and harassment, but since has become a positive discussion for change in journalism, and then we can rewrite this in the manner suggested. But there is zero way to do that now, and it would both NOR, NPOV, and Crystal balling to make that change. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the most NPOV way to phrase the first sentence of the lede is to say something to the effect of "#GamerGate is a controversy that erupted over allegations of improper relationships between gaming journalists and game developers that was seen by media as a cover for a misogynistic harassment campaign against female voices in the industry." You give a nod to the journalistic ethics complaint, while noting how it was not widely viewed as being about journalistic ethics. The current phrasing is just inaccurate and POV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TDA. If it is written that way, it shows the actual information on what GG is (backed up by sources), and the views on it. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There is something very POVish about that statement even though it is "correct". I don't think "the media" are at this point fully convinced the ethics part was used to try to cover up for the misogynic stuff. The ethics part arose from that, for certain, but to claim the media , as a whole, called it a cover is really more POV. Really, with everything we have sourcewise, we have to start with the spark - the attacks on Quinn et al. Don't get me wrong, I would to be able to turn this around and if we could, footnote that but there's just no sourcing that we can do that and not create a new POV; the bulk of interest in the media is because of the misogynic harassment even if that does not reflect the majority. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem... I just posted a buttload of sources about GG, and what it is about. So we know what GG was pushing for, from RS'es. To say we don't know if the ethics part is actually what was being pushing is ignoring those sources. Right now it is POV because it disregards that many sources talk about the goals of GG, as well as ignoring the things such as policy changes. I think at this point, we can say that GG was pushing for certain journalistic things, but that some of the media saw it as a misogynist movement. If you don't think it is POV, look at many of those people who initially replied to me, it is extremely POV right now. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

did you read the sources you posted at the top of this page? they are all about harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Some are about harassment, others are straight to the point of what GG is/was. I included the ones that included the harassment to show that even those pushing the harassment issue still saw that GG was pushing for Journalist things. I honestly think TDA had a good lead, because it list what the movement is/was, and the reaction to it. PseudoSomething (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please identify one that you think is not primarily about harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are five I pulled straight from my post. digitimes,techcrunch,Forbes,Vox,Techraptor PseudoSomething (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Digitimes is a weak industry source. It's giving a minority opinion even within the gaming journalism field, and one that's not represented at all in the mainstream media. The TechCrunch article absolutely destroys the 'it's not about women' argument. The Forbes article focuses on dissecting the 'we want objective journalism' complaints and exposing them as ridiculous. Vox explains what GamerGaters claim their movement is about and then points out that the targets for harrassment over 'corruption' have been people with absolutely no real power. TechRaptor (another lower-tier source) is one interview with one developer who deflected questions about misogyny. One developer thinks it's not about misogyny. Great!

Most of these are usable in the article, but they do not justify excluding other much stronger sources from the lede or any other portion of the article just because they don't mention things the stronger sources do. When such a quantity of sources have covered the misogyny angle in such detail, you need more than just pieces that don't mention it: at this point, you need sources that say that it's not about misogyny. What you have here are some more focused pieces that mainly point out the flaws in the GamerGaters' other claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaraInDC (talk • contribs) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And yet... Digitimes was earlier said to be a really good article. Seems the only good articles are ones that lines up with your view of "The massive quantity of libel and rage that this movement has generated. GamerGate got a few minor sites to try pacify them, and screwed up a whole lot of women's lives for absolutely no reason. That's the effect of your movement.", right? PseudoSomething (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly, harassment with ideologies such as a hatred of women aren't those of criticism, and thus are the opinions. There's a lot of sources that got linked to and it might upset the WP:BALANCE. We need to make sure we're covering all sides of the issue in order to create articles that are not conflicting with the wikipedia rules, but are also fair in an evaluatino or judgement to aid others in their evaluations. Who is siding with Gamer's Gate? (Other than Gamer's Gate, of course) Who is going with them, that sort of thing. The comment added by PseudSomething brings up an important issue where there is a lack of evidence and of course that means also credibility. It turns from editing wikipedia to competing in a smear campaign against some company / group. Let's try to avoid word of mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

All sides of the issue are being covered as accurately as we can via the reliable sources that we are using to verify this article's content. The attacks on Quinn and Sarkeesian have been labeled misogynist harassment by the world at large. That is what GamerGate appears to be to anyone on the outside. Just because there are people who sincerely want to discuss the ethics of indie devs and games journalists does not change the topic of this page to sweep under the rug all the personal and ad hominem attacks on one woman's private life as well as the reported on threats of rape and death sent her way, and threats sent to a another peripheral but polarizing woman in the public eye. We should find articles that discuss people examining the ethics and other sides of the story. But all it seems is that you want to downplay the aspect that everyone from outside gaming media has been seeing when it's what caused everything else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well from the sources that I posted, it seems that RS means that GG is a movement focused on journalistic ethics and has a large commentary of Misogyny from some media. Forbes, Townhall, Digitimes, Slate, onthemedia, cinemablend... PseudoSomething (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Aren't all of these already in the article and covering the topic in question? All of the articles you're listing may focus on the intended goals but that does not prove your case that the reporting of harassment gets second or no billing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, not all of them are in there, I just used ones that also had that point. But wait, why did you stop talking about WP:RS? Thats what we were talking about right? Through WP:RS, there is a point here. Because "Forbes, Townhall, Digitimes, Slate, onthemedia, cinemablend..." PseudoSomething (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The point of this section is your request to change the lead paragraph to play down the mentions of "misogyny" is it not? My understanding of the situation is that while these sources you are referring to are mostly in the article and for the most part do support the "Gamers just want to talk about ethics", I don't think that changes how the lead should be written, as a bulk of the article discusses the issue of the attacks on Quinn (Fish, and Sarkeesian) and the media and industry's response to those attacks first. As such, the lead should describe that. The ethics issues are discussed and mentioned. It's just that until it becomes the bulk of the iscussion in media, then we don't have much of a choice in how we at Wikipedia report on what other people say about what's going on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you read through the thread you are commenting on, I changed my position, and should probably update the post. I supported TDA change proposal. "#GamerGate is a controversy that erupted over allegations of improper relationships between gaming journalists and game developers that was seen by media as a cover for a misogynistic harassment campaign against female voices in the industry." That was, it incorporates everything the RS'es are saying. Yes, the RS'es are saying that, look at my sources. Oh, and Forbes, Townhall, Digitimes, Slate, onthemedia, cinemablend...PseudoSomething (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, that makes it worse, because it is rather insulting to the proGG side. The problem is that you have a stigma of a few wrecking the situation for the many. If GG becomes a non-story next week, that stigma is going to stay, that GG was harassment and attack that led to discussion of other issues as this is how the situation is presented in the majority of sources. If instead GG continus to receive coverage positively towards address the proGG issues - that is, more sourcing that balances and possibly outweighs the initial issues of the harassment, then the harassment can be taken as a subtopic and made less prominate in the article .But there is no way to do that now without violating WP's sourcing/NOR/NPOV approach. (As a small hint, because there is one way to influence better coverage here that falls within all policy lines and helps the image of the proGG group: if proGG were to organize themselves and present a calm, rational, unified statement that expressed their concerns and sane williness to discuss the matter, and stood against the use of harassment tactics to get ones one, they might get more positive ears to listen and report about them and thus allowing us to change the focus here. But the media is going to have a hard time dealing with thousand of different, haphazard voices, which is why, ignoring the misogyny stuff, the proGG arguments are simply not getting the coverage that they probably could get. But that's just an idea). --MASEM (t) 23:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem... right now it is insulting the proGG side. The edit from TDA would show both sides of it. If your looking for sources, look at the large amount of sources I produced in the opening paragraph. Those are all being overlooked. Those sources I produced showed the pro-GG side. The edit that TDA made tells basically exactly what happens. Pro-GG: " "#GamerGate is a controversy that erupted over allegations of improper relationships between gaming journalists and game developers"... Anti-GG: "that was seen by media as a cover for a misogynistic harassment campaign against female voices in the industry.". We have the sources for Pro-GG all together now, in my request. EDIT: I removed part of that, I read wrong. My apologizes. PseudoSomething (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We are unable to change the common opinion that the proGG side is seen by the mass media as angry young male gamers. Some are trying to dig deeper, but because this started with the harassment of Quinn, it's hard to shake that it is anything more than young men raging on the Internet. If that opinion changes and newer sources from the same type of reliable sources that we have now come around and present the proGG side better, then we can switch. We can't do anything if that is not there in sources, through, without engaging in original research or biasing the sources. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me add - I am fully aware that the proGG is not universally angry young male gamers raging on the Internet (I do believe a few have ruined it for the many); I can see the twitter lines, I can see blogs, etc. I respect that some of that side are trying to turn the tide to get discussion back to the games journalism side. But I as a WPian editor am unable to change what RS do or do not cover. If they don't want to give credence to that side, I'm stuck for lack of sourcing there. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Masem... what about the sources I posted? The many that showed that it was more than young men raging on the Internet? Those are WP:RS. Those show the views behind the Por-GG side, multiple times. Even from big sites, such as Forbes, Slate, and others. How is this not WP:RS to change to what TDA proposed? Anyway, im hoping these logs from this email list that were dug up between game journalist get dumped. So far only breitbart reported directly on it, with techraptor using them as a source for some screens. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It started off with the blog post. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Others have already pointed out the unreliability of some of the sources. The rest only address the rational reasons for the proGG side after explaining the harassment incidents, so we cannot flip it around on just those current sources. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@TaraInDC: "Digitimes is a weak industry source" - I would like to disagree with this claim of yours, if you don't mind me chiming in. DigiTimes is a well-respected and very reputable newspaper in Taiwan. It is an industry-specific daily newspaper that has been in print since 1998 which specifically caters to those within the microprocessor and semiconductor industry (which makes up a large chunk of Taiwan's exports and GDP), which makes it a key media outlet in the business sector of Taiwan. Even mainland China and Hong Kong newspapers such as the People's Daily and South China Morning Post frequently cite DigiTimes for technology-related news, and it is among the most trusted sources among the Chinese speaking world (China, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia) for computer industry news. Please perform a bit of detailed background research before dismissing sources which may not be too convenient for you, thanks. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In comparison with The New Yorker and The Washington Post I'd say it's a weak excuse to ignore the coverage of highly reliable publications. Even a few very strong mainstream sources failing to mention a detail would not be enough to exclude it when it has such strong sourcing, but this is not a particularly strong source in comparison to the mainstream publications we have for this information. This isn't about 'convenience;' 'this source doesn't cite it so we should ignore all the ones that do' is just a terrible argument. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And DigiTimes is "unreliable" somehow? Is there a reason? DigiTimes clearly meets WP:RS criteria and can be used within the article to cite whatever statements necessary. May I remind you that specialist publications do exist, and that there is nothing wrong with being specialist: the Financial Times focuses on finance, but having a specific focus doesn't make it less reliable than a catch-all newspaper. There is nothing surprising about a tech-focused newspaper in Taiwan: I can assure you that every single part within the computer you are using contains components manufactured in Taiwan; computer parts to Taiwan is like bananas to the Philippines or vodka to Poland, it's a central aspect of society. I have yet to see any reasonable statement explaining why I should doubt DigiTimes and consider it a "weak" source like you have stated above. I'm not talking about "this source doesn't cite it so we should ignore all the ones that do", please don't shift the argument elsewhere. I am addressing your claim that "Digitimes is a weak industry source". --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I have not called Digitimes an 'unreliable' source. I am not saying it can not be used in the article. I am saying it can not be used to exclude other, stronger sources from the article. It's kind of ironic that you've told me not to 'shift the argument' back to what my post was actually about when you're happily wailing away on that straw man. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"I am saying it can not be used to exclude other, stronger sources from the article." - and nowhere did I suggest such a thing, which is why I find it strange that you're bringing it up. You made the claim that DigiTimes was not reliable in your original post, and that is exactly what I am addressing - all this mention of "ignoring what stronger sources say" is completely irrelevant to my conversation with you. I'm hoping that we can have a productive discussion, and that neither side will resort to poisoning the well. I have not said anything along the lines of "DigiTimes exist, therefore we can ignore WaPo", please don't imply that I have.

I also don't understand why you're so fixated on the argument that DigiTimes is somehow a "lesser" source compared to others. The world does not revolve around the United States, please stop resorting to the argument from authority that The Washington Post has a superior status because it has a large readership in America. Nobody reads WaPo in Russia, India or China, this appeal to authority is extremely regionalist in its justifications. DigiTimes is a well-trusted source within the Chinese world, and any false equivalences made with WaPo hardly makes sense. Use WaPo to cite statements that can be cited with WaPo, and use DigiTimes to cite statements that can be cited with DigiTimes; stop bringing in other publications when I'm trying to discuss the validity and reliability of DigiTimes. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you're fixated on one phrase and are ignoring everything else in this discussion. It's a technology source, but it's not particularly renowned for gaming industry news, is it? It is not strong enough to discount a massive body of highly reliable sources because they report on information Digitimes did not. Fundamentally, it does not matter whether you think Digitimes is a particularly strong source for gaming industry news, because it does not change the facts one bit: it is not such a strong source that it can be used in the way that it's being used here.

DigiTimes is a well-trusted source within the Chinese world, and any false equivalences made with WaPo hardly makes sense. Use WaPo to cite statements that can be cited with WaPo, and use DigiTimes to cite statements that can be cited with DigiTimes; stop bringing in other publications when I'm trying to discuss the validity and reliability of DigiTimes. And here you are putting words in my mouth again. I'm not making a 'false equivalence,' and I'm not suggesting that the world revolves around the United States. I'm not saying that the Washington Post trumps DigiTimes. I'm saying DigiTimes doens't trump the Washington Post. Please stop misrepresenting me. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The DigiTimes article is actually a pretty important source, because it is A) international, B) not connected to it in any way (so no conflict of interest issues on self reporting), and C) presents a pretty neutral and detached view of the situation. Their concern with the article is whether or not it will impact manufacturing jobs in Taiwan, rather than promoting any particular point of view in the conflict, which makes them a very valuable source because they don't really have a "horse in the race". It is worth noting that it talks a great deal about why gamers are upset, something this article almost totally lacks, and yet it presents it as very important. So do a lot of other sources. This is because they are - there's an enormous number of non-reliable sources on this, and the "mainstream" view amongst gamers who are aware of this, as far as I can tell, seems to be very much against the video game press, which has long been despised by many gamers due to long-term perceptions of incompetence and corruption. As I noted elsewhere, Zoe Quinn has better access to the press due to her connections, which leads to issues of systemic bias. You'll note that a lot of the pro-"this is all misogyny" articles don't really talk to people involved at all other than Zoe Quinn and related folk. This is a big problem and indicates that these sources are probably less reliable. The Washington Post article is actually one of the few which talks about her detractors and note that they don't see themselves as being after her because she is a woman, in sharp contrast to Zoe Quinn's own claims. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a 'pretty important source' because it's nearly the only one that presents the subject of this article the way you want it presented, in other words? Please stop using 'potential conflict of interest' as an excuse to minimize coverage you don't like. We have mainstream sources all saying much the same thing as the 'conflicted' gaming publications you're attempting to discredit. None of the sources you've cited above are sufficient to justify whitewashing this article, so heap on all the praise you like: the mainstream sources aren't going away. As I noted elsewhere, Zoe Quinn has better access to the press due to her connections No. You have no evidence for this. She's a minor indie dev, not some master puppeteer. The things you are claiming happened didn't happen. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"The problem here is that you're fixated on one phrase and are ignoring everything else in this discussion" - Tara, I don't think you quite understand. Had I not called you out on that one sentence (and that one sentence is all I care about, I don't care about your conversation with the other editors), people would have immediately taken your word for it, and assumed that DigiTimes was just a crappy and useless website. That's all there is to it - correcting something you've said so that others don't misunderstand - I really, really don't see the need for this to drag into a discussion about what you guys were discussing earlier. You guys can argue over all that. You cannot deny that you made a bold claim, and that had I not correct you, people would have believed you. You can argue that I've taken you out of context and that I'm misrepresenting you, but I've popped over here specifically to make it clear that DigiTimes is more than what people were giving it credit for, and since I've done exactly that, I'm already satisfied. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"The problem here is that you're fixated on one phrase and are ignoring everything else in this discussion" - Tara, I don't think you quite understand. Had I not called you out on that one sentence (and that one sentence is all I care about, I don't care about your conversation with the other editors), people would have immediately taken your word for it, and assumed that DigiTimes was just a crappy and useless website. I didn't say it was a crappy and useless website. I said it was a weak industry source - that is, a weak source for gaming industry news. As near as I can tell, that's the case. It's neither a gaming website nor a mainstream one. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Playing right into the narrative

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

---

For those of the incessant attempts to minimize the coverage of harassment and misogyny, I would ask if you realize you are playing right into the narrative.

If a mainstream journalist comes to this page, they are going to come it knowing that the most powerful voices of the #gamergaters are the ones sending the incessant vile grotesque harassment at women in the gaming field.

And who is the second loudest voice in the #gamergater? Those claiming "That harassment doesn't matter and doesn't count -you have to listen to ME and not talk about that harassment!!!!!!" ie those whose self-centered attempts to dismiss the incessant vile grotesque harassment that members of the movement have made in their own attempts to relegate death threats of women to be of less value than the fact that they have not been smart enough to realize that companies that buy double-page-spread advertisements previewing their games for six months and then get a 5 star review for a mediocre product are in fact displaying misogynistic tendencies of their own.

what happens to women doesnt matter - whats important is me.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So... any sources that only apply to harrasment are allowed them? I posted to you five sources that showed you what pro-GG says, and you didn't reply. I have near 10, if not more sources, saying the opposite of what your saying... and you ignored it. What is this post about? To try to spread your view and try to get people to say, "Oh no, we should think about the children?" What about the Pro-GG people who are the powerful voices who got changes made to the ethics guidelines of The Escapist, Descrutoid, and Kotaku? What about the ones that funded TFYC, for women. What about the ones who were compared to ISIS, called subhuman trash, the 12 year old who was threatened by an anti-GG who would come to his house and stab him? How about the death threats against the Pro-GG side, the suppression in media against the Pro-GG side, and the desire to label anyone pushing for journalism ethics and integrity to be labeled a woman hater? Lets no POV push, please. PseudoSomething (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Denial of Evidence, or Misunderstanding?

A short time ago, I posted one this talk page, not the article, a link to (redacted link). The edit, rather than be reverted or the policy properly addressed, was deleted under the excuse that the source did not qualify as a reliable source.

However, I took a look at the policy that is listed for what the video falls under:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

(redated claims regarding Quinn's life)

My question is this then, if we have a valid source that qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, then why are we basing our information off of a baseless source and lying to our readers? Honestyislebestpolicy

If you have a problem with this, please discuss it here. Wikipedia claims to want to put forward a neutral view, and to have verification and truth. Why must all three of these be compromised for the sake of one woman? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, which is a policy that applies to any information relating to a living persons. A video link of a random internet user taking a cellphone video of their computer while supposedly bringing up (without verification) what a living person's Facebook, and using comments made from that to claim something about that person is absolutely unallowed even to be considered on WP in light of BLP, moreso as you try to claim that evidence is true. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Link of a random internet user." Sorry, but I can't take you seriously at all. You're denying who this man is and his role in gamergate as Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend at the time of the alleged scandals. The video proves the verification of the Facebook screenshots. Kotaku doesn't prove that the allegations are proven false. It's almost convenient that you seem to fall back on a policy that totally fails to apply here (since Zoe herself put the Facebook chat logs in place) in order to deny this.

Where is Kotaku's verification? They're lacking in truth, so why is the verification allowed to pass by? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

One: chat logs are not proof of anything, period - people lie in those all the time, so maybe Quinn was lying in them too. Second: we have no idea how legit those are either. Websites and identies can be faked all the time. Third: the person making that video is a random internet user and as such has zero reliability as a source.

"One: chat logs are not proof of anything, period" In other words, video proof that the staff of Rock Paper Shotgun knew Quinn before the Game Jam incident that Rock Paper Shotgun THEMSELVES posted doesn't disprove that Nathan Grayson had no relations with Quinn? Why are you special pleading that Kotaku, a group questioned for being liars deserve to have their voices taken as fact?

"Second: we have no idea how legit those are either. Websites and identies can be faked all the time." Dude, I can't say it enough, but you are full of crap. The video proof goes out of its way to point out that the screenshots that were taken were true. The Facebook profiles used can be verified as legitimate (the url is shown and able to be examined), and, most damning, Facebook provided the dates within the chat logs. The fact that you can't connect three obvious points yet special plead that one party directly involve deserves to have their word taken as evidence (despite showing none) is severely hurting the neutral tone of the article. "Third: the person making that video is a random internet user" Yes, because somebody that personally knows one of the centerpieces of the article has damning evidence towards her relations within the alleged companies, that makes him a "random" user with "no reliability" (even though proof was posted). Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Quinn and Grayson knew each other before the date that the ex claims their relationship moved into the next phase, since that's not the issue behind the GG accusation - it was the accusation Quinn slept with Grayson to get positive coverage. We don't need nor want to prove or disprove anything else because it doesn't matter here. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku, being the site that employs and publishes Grayson's writings, would be the most reliable source to assert that Grayson did not write anything about DQ after he started a relation with Quinn. You cannot claim otherwise. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You're literally saying that ,Kotaku, a site with a direct gain from withholding negative press about their writers, is a reliable source for an issue regarding a writer of theirs that's published numerous sources outside of where Kotaku investigated, some of which prove that relations between said writer and Quinn had occured before the time that Kotaku claims no relationship had formed. I can claim otherwise because you're proposing a lie. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Also be aware: we are not here to try to make heads or tails of all the claims made by the ex. The only one that matters to GG is the one that claim an unprofessional relationship with a writer which was later proven false but by then the GG event had gotten into full gear. Nothing else on the ex's list is going to be considered on WP as they are all just claims and fail BLP. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"which was later proven false but by then the GG event had gotten into full gear." Dude, there's no other way for me to say this, but you are full of crap. There is absolutely no evidence that these allegations are false besides the testimonial of the people directly involved, which boils down to circular reasoning. You're assuming they're right because they're published, yet GamerGate is about corruption in publishing, but GamerGate has been absolutely been proven false in these allegations because published sources in question say so? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestyislebestpolicy, I believe that there may be some confusion about what the article is saying. If I understand you correctly, the line you are concerned with reads:

The controversy started around the harassment that an indie game developer received after an ex-boyfriend of hers posted a "tirade" against her that led to allegations of professional impropriety; these allegations were later proven false, but the debate they sparked continued.

It seems that you are interpreting the line as saying that the claims by the ex-boyfriend have been proven false. This isn't the intent of the line. What is being said is that the claims of professional impropriety have been disproved, or, more specifically, that Grayson didn't write about Quinn during their relationship. This doesn't mean that the ex-boyfriend's claims are right or wrong, as we're not denying that a relationship occurred - we're only stating that there was no professional impropriety in that relationship. - Bilby (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a bit frustrated that Wikipedia is having such a supposed hard-on for anything published being taken without face value (which, as pointed out above, is part of what GamerGate is challenging), so I apologize if I seem rude or unprofessional with you. However, this claim is also false as well. Internet Aristocrat has compiled numerous videos that show evidence of Kotaku not confronting the issue of their alleged corruption (before anyone attacks me for "unreliable sources", I'm just using the videos as a proxy for where the source is, Internet Aristocrat cited his sources albeit unprofessionally and shows explicitly where the information can be found). The claim that the allegations of relationships for positive press are in a limbo for what we can verify because Kotaku hasn't actually disproven that such unethical acts have taken place, and this article gives them too much credit for being the centerpiece of this controversy. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku claimed that there was no evidence of professional impropriety in their own reporter's relationship. It should be noted who the source was. When we quote various folks on their own claims of innocence, we do not present it as objective fact. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"These allegations were later proven false," Yes, you do present it as fact.. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Kotaku reported that, not because Quinn denied it. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to attribute that to Kotaku. There is no review. That's a matter of public record. We don't need to say that anyone 'claimed' there was no impropriety: there simply wasn't any. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, how is it a matter of public record? Kotaku and Grayson claimed that there was no inappropriate relationship at the time of the publication of the article. That was an after the fact claim made by parties who have a vested interest in denying any impropriety. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni's diatribe was very detailed and specific, and I don't know if you've noticed, but when journalists publish articles, they very frequently put dates on them. Her game was never reviewed at all - the chief complaint of the GamerGaters - and the article where it was mentioned was published before Gjoni claimed that the alleged relationship began, a fact Gjoni specifically admitted in a later update. This fact has been pointed out in numerous sources. The accusations that Zoe Quinn bought good reviews with sex are false. -- TaraInDC (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the awkward spacing, but, you're going to need to prove that the allegations are false. The allegations were directed towards Kotaku writer Nathan Grayson. Kotaku's investigation relies mainly on Grayson's presence within Kotaku and finding no review present on their site. However, before Game Jam is mentioned, Grayson does make prior to the writing of Game Jam and that he most certainly DID know Zoe Quinn personally. <redacted> Furthermore, if Kotaku verified the statement that Zoe has friends with Kotaku, then how is the claim that there is positive press towards Zoe because of relations within these sites disproven? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh no. We have provided the reliable sources that "prove" it. If you want anything else you will need to provide reliably published sources that have declared some bit of truth to the accusations and not merely your denial. see WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You posted a company damage control that's only source is an alleged investigation within themselves, both disregarding any of the other elegations of positive press by Joshua and disregarding Grayson's involvement and proof on other sites. You don't know what "prove" means, do you? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to go off guns blazing and not reading, understanding and following Wikipedia's policy, you will soon find yourself not being able to go off at all. READ THE POLICIES. Multiple reliably published sources have indicated that the allegations were false We follow the sources. We Do not get to decide that the reliable sources didnt come to the conclusion that we would have and so we need to include our personal interpretation over theirs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight right away, at no point am I assuming what has not been proven either through evidence that has logically proven to be true while falling outside of wikipedia's reliable source description nor relied on a source that falls under a self-published reliable source. The sources that I've presented recently regarding Rock Paper Shotgun were all reliant on what Rock Paper Shotgun themselves had published that directly contradicts the claims that Kotaku makes.

With that being said, the quotation that we're discussing only has one source cited. This one source on the page relies on a company statement released by Kotaku. This one source, mind you, only tackles a fraction of the supposed allegations, and only does so within the scope of a very specific environment. The claims that Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson had sexual relations is one that cannot be proven at this time through reliable evidence, but at the same time the only "reliable" evidence put forward to disprove it fail on a basic logical sense. Yet, this article asserts so clearly that one of these cases is absolutely true, jumping the gun rather than present the information as-is. It fails by its own policy of "Verification, not truth" because there is no verification for the claim that no relations had occurred.

Threaten authority all you want, but would not going to change the problems within the article at this moment nor would it convince me personally that the allegations are false. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Time : "Despite the fact the journalist in question did not ‘review’ the game and wasn’t found to have allocated it any particular special treatment,"

The article only goes on to discuss Grayson's involvement. Dig deeper into where the sources are pulled from, it goes from Time to Vice to Grayson's Twitter. I repeat, the article that you claim to "prove" that the five allegations are false is basing its information on one post on Grayson's Twitter.

Wa Po: "The site investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing

Washington Post has worded this almost exactly how our article should to word it to remain neutral. Regardless, this is that one source cited, and every criticism that I've put forward has already dismissed why this isn't a valid source for "proving" the claims false.

Forbes: "the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire"

The article fails to cite how these concerns are falsified and makes little mention afterwards. Just as well, Forbes takes a tone regarding the issue of Gamergate in a much more neutral, albeit naive (as the author points out) that Wikipedia needs to take a message from. Forbes admits at the time that it does not know everything relating to gamergate, and this particular article was written before all current information within gamergate has been dug up.

I haven’t touched on all the strands. Readers will undoubtedly be disappointed that I haven’t taken a harder stance on one side or the other. They will point out details that I left out, either consciously or because there are simply too many at this point to include in one article or because I personally find them too flimsy to include. Readers will link to heavily subjective and slanted YouTube videos that make claims far too bold for mainstream journalism. We will define the word “fact” differently. Miniature rhetorical wars will be fought.

What I come away with here is not “feminist bullies” destroying the industry or “misogynistic neckbeards” out to scare away all the women.

What I come up with is three-fold:

First, we have a young industry that began, like so many others, as a male-driven industry on both the producer and consumer side now experiencing growth pains. The media is even younger than the industry itself and it’s experiencing growth pains, too. These growth pains have resulted in some raw, open wounds that fester whenever controversy erupts, and risk being infected further by politicized forces that care less about video games and more about political agendas. (All of this is a distraction from the real business of reporting on the video game industry and critiquing video games, though I think there is plenty of room for cultural commentary with political slants here as well, just like in TV, film, etc.)

Second, we have deep mistrust between consumers and the video game industry thanks to years of bad DRM and other poor business practices. That mistrust is now being cast on the press that’s supposed to be covering the industry to protect the consumer. Consumers (gamers) have increasingly viewed the press as “in bed” with the industry rather than working for consumers. This is enforced by stories of chummy developers and journalists, lavish AAA publisher-thrown parties, high-scoring games that aren’t particularly good, and so forth.

Finally, we have a video game press with a largely left-leaning political bias in some ways alienating itself from much of its readership. This seeps into the first two problems and complicates the matter, but isn’t in and of itself an invalid complaint. If the video game press were deeply conservative, you’d have a lot of left-leaning voices decrying it as well. The tenor of the discussion has become so “us vs. them” at this point, that many gamers simply feel unrepresented and condescended.

Add all three pieces together and you have a recipe for disaster.

One of the current problems with the article is that the third point that the third and second points that Kain makes are being underrepresented within the article.

Now holster your "smoking guns" and stop shooting yourself in the foot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See above. It's almost as if you don't know "reliable" means. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

1) don't edit inside another users post. 2) its almost as if you have not read any of our policies including the one on reliable sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The "review" idea being the "chief" complaint is simply false - in one of the most widespread early videos on the subject matter, it noted the positive press coverage of Zoe Quinn by Grayson and questioned whether the story of GAME_JAM, which presented her in a heroic light, but which Grayson himself was not around to witness the start of, might have, perhaps, been "fluffed up" on her behalf. The idea that this was a primary complaint is simply false and something that Zoe Quinn's supporters latched onto; yes, some folks complained about it. Was it ever the primary complaint? No. And it is worth noting that he did recommend her game on RockPaperShotgun, but it was not a review - it was a one-line recommendation on a list of Greenlighted games. Her ex-boyfriend noted that he had no evidence that their relationship had started at that point, though he did note that he believed that they had been friends at the time.

Also note, per WP:BLPNAME that we probably should avoid naming her boyfriend, because he isn't a notable person and his role in this incident was restricted to posting the original blog post. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it was the 'loudest' complaint then. It was the nearest thing to a valid complaint that GamerGate ever had, as if it had been true, it probably would have been notable. But it wasn't, and if we're going to mention these accusations at all in this BLP article we are going to have to immediately and plainly say that there is nothing too them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with noting Kotaku's response/claims about the matter, just as long as we make sure that they are attributed to Kotaku in the text. Kotaku said that there was no impropriety, and I'm 100% for including that in the article, because it is notable and relevant (and is one of the few actual, concrete things which has been reported on - a lot of stuff has been pretty nebulous), but we need to note that it was Kotaku that said so, because they are reporting on themselves and their employees there. My only issue with that little section is that the claims are not all properly sourced to Kotaku in the text as they should be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of other sources which backed up Kotaku's claims - given that it can be handled in about 30 seconds by getting a list of every Kotaku article mentioning Quinn or Depression Quest, it wasn't difficult to verify. I don't see much point in watering down the statement. - Bilby (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I do have a problem with mentioning these accusations without promptly clarifying that there was nothing to them. This is a BLP issue: there's really no room for argument here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To note, the video that was redactacted is about the other claims that were made in the ex's blog, and nothing to do with the specific claim about Kotaku's Nathan, the only one that is discussed in RSes in the first place. This last one is unavoidable (and also disproven), and thus have to be covered using careful application of BLP, but the others remain questionable and thus fall within BLP restrictions and cannot be discussed. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion and inquiry for edit 626159564 ("subject of contention")

Regarding issues strongly related to the above discussion, I would like to inquire about this edit I made in accordance to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:WPNOTRS, along with the consensus which states that Kotaku is an unreliable source. How exactly does this particular edit violate the BLP policy? It was said that there were multiple sources, yet there is but a single cited source linked to the following claim:

those subsequent allegations were later proven false

Upon inspection, the source states:

Quinn’s ex-boyfriend ... wrote a blog post accusing Quinn ... The site [Kotaku] investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing

I'm having trouble figuring out how exactly these two translate each other. Even if they did translate literally (they don't), it's an exceptional claim but there is only one source for it. The source is actually reflecting a conclusion reached by a publisher who is directly involved with allegations. The publisher itself isn't even a reliable source. In any case, Kotaku is as unreliable as the blog post containing the ex-boyfriend's accusations. The case cannot be made that – by acting as a secondary source – The Washington Post renders Kotaku's statements reliable, because it simply reports that the site made a conclusion, not that there is veracity to it.

I suggested that "...allegations were later proven false, but..." be reworded to "...allegations were then the subject of contention, and...", but this was instantly reverted per an alleged adherence to BLP policy. Doesn't BLP policy state that comments such as these mustn't appear at all regardless of its nature when accompanied by poor sources? Yes, it does.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." (WP:NPOV)
• Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. ... Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.(WP:V)
• Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. (WP:NOR)

I would like that somebody be allowed to provide a non-automated response to this matter. I also suggest that the statement be removed (not reworded – per BLP policy – Zoe Quinn does not even necessitate a mention in the intro paragraph) until exceptional sources are added to accommodate this exceptional claim.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The allegations that Grayson provided positive coverage of Quinn while engaged in a relationship with her - which was the core of the allegation of "professional impropriety" per the current wording - were disproved (not merely disputed or the subject of contention) on the grounds that Grayson did not write about Quinn while they were engaged in a relationship. This is what Kokatu confirmed, and was additionally confirmed by parties on both sides: [1] [2] [3] [4]. We could use another source to support it if you wish, but we cannot insinuate that there could be any possible truth to those allegations, as that would be a BLP violation. Hence the current "proven false" wording. - Bilby (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Background section issues

Some present issues with the background section.

0) This section completely omits several important background events of the folks involved - the Fine Young Capitalists, Phil Fish's previous issues online, previous allegations of corruption in the video game industry which set up the tensions at the start of this thing, Anita Sarkeesian being criticized for her videos, ect.

1) Depression Quest description at the start of the background section. Unacceptable promotion. Not NPOV.

Fix: In 2013, independent video game developer Zoe Quinn created and released Depression Quest, an interactive fiction title about depression.

2) Saying "According to the Escapist" is simply false at the end of the first paragraph. According to The Escapist itself, the claims of harassment in early 2014 were sourced soley to Zoe Quinn, with no independent validation whatsoever. The Escapist actually edited their article to note this, specifically, and noted that there was a policy in place against fact-checking said claims at the time, something for which they were roundly criticized. Claiming otherwise is simply outright wrong. As Zoe Quinn was the source of these allegations, they should be sourced to Zoe Quinn, not the Escapist. This sentence is a mess anyway.

Fix: While attempting to put Depression Quest on Steam via Valve Greenlight, Zoe Quinn said she was harassed by members of the gaming community. Zoe Quinn attributed this to misogyny, saying her detractors believed that "women cannot relate to anyone with depression".

We do not use the word "claimed" - please see WP:SAID. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We do use the word "claimed" all the time, but we can just use "said" instead. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

2.5) Everything after the first paragraph should be split out into a separate section (Controversy), as it isn't background at that point, it is what actually happened.

3) Quoting someone as calling her boyfriend's post a tirade is simply not acceptable. Again, just because you're quoting a source doesn't mean it isn't a violation of NPOV, because sources are frequently biased. Likewise, this section should NOT name her boyfriend; this is probably a violation of WP:BLPNAME. We have no reason to name him on Wikipedia; it isn't important for understanding the article, and he is not notable. We probably need to name Grayson because he is referenced elsewhere throughout the paragraph.

Fix: Shortly after the full release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's ex-boyfriend wrote a blog post alleging that she had been unfaithful to him and claiming that Zoe Quinn had had sexual relationships with numerous men in the video game industry, including Nathan Grayson, a journalist for the video game website Kotaku.

No. "NPOV" does not prohibit us from adopting the position taken by the majority of reliable sources. Indeed, we are required to present the mainstream point of view as mainstream. Your assertion that the mainstream sources are "biased" is yet again irrelevant; literally every source can be said to have a bias.

This is incorrect. You clearly have not read WP:NPOV:

• Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

It does not require that we "adopt" any positions at all. Indeed, it requires the exact opposite; see WP:IMPARTIAL. Given that a significant number of sources have stated that it isn't about misogyny and because we are supposed to avoid WP:BIAS and, as noted in WP:BIASED:

• Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.

When a source is biased in support of something, that is precisely the way in which it is most likely to be unreliable, whereas if something is biased but the bias has nothing to do with what it is reporting on, it is much more likely to be reliable - basically, people will distort things in their own favor, but are unlikely to distort things which are totally unrelated or report things which work against their own personal biases (so Fox News running something about how global warming is all a gigantic hoax would likely be given less credence than Fox News reporting on some guy getting shot in Des Moines, or Fox News reporting on global warming causing the ice caps to melt). Moreover, given that the articles in question very frequently only feature Zoe Quinn and her supporters' opinions, that makes it all the more likely that they are unreliable as a result of their bias. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Naming a person who has voluntarily injected their personal relationships into the public sphere is not prohibited by BLPNAME; Eron Gjoni can hardly claim to be seeking privacy when he originally published the allegations, he gave an interview to VICE and he continues to discuss the issue on his Twitter page. He is not a private figure any longer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

By that principle we should be naming the other folks involved as well, as they are not private persons and have given interviews to the press, ect. It was my understanding of BLPNAME that its purpose was to avoid naming the names of non-notable persons involved in things unless it was necessary. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We do name the other people involved who are named in reliable sources - Zoe Quinn, Nathan Grayson, Stephen Totilo, etc. If there are any other people named in reliable sources in connection to this, they should be named.

BLPNAME does not apply to people who have sought out public and media attention and made themselves the center of a public controversy, as Eron Gjoni has voluntarily done. Your proposal would effectively allow him to make anonymous accusations in the encyclopedia, and this we will not do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

4) Not really a NPOV issue, but introducing her detractors as "Quinn's opponents" in the next sentence is confusing; who are these people? Well, they're gamers. They should be noted as such. Moreover, most of them were not "Quinn's opponents" until this whole thing happened; most people had no idea who Zoe Quinn was, so calling them such at this point in the chronological timeline is a bit weird.

5) "before the relationship began" is a claim by Kotaku; we should make sure to note this.

6) Again, just because you can quote a source doesn't mean it is NPOV; "virulent campaign" is unacceptable.

Fix: Quinn and her family subsequently became the target of harassment, including doxxing, threats of rape, hacking attempts, and at least one death threat.

7) Describing Phil Fish in this manner is not really correct as well, and really doesn't explain what happened. Phil Fish insulted Zoe Quinn's detractors, and was noted as calling them "ball-less man-boobs", among other things. I'm not sure if we should actually quote him on that to give the readers context, but saying that he "defended" Zoe Quinn, when we are describing people as "harassing" Zoe Quinn, seems questionable from a NPOV perspective; similar behavior should be described similarly. There are numerous sources on him insulting folks, and this was not the first such incident (he infamously got in a fight on Twitter last year, which resulted in him cancelling Fez 2).

Fix: Some who came to Quinn's defense or who insulted her detractors themselves became targets of attack. Fellow video game developer Phil Fish insulted Quinn's detractors on social media sites; he was subsequently doxxed, with many of his personal details and documents relating to his company Polytron exposed in a hack. After the incident, Fish claimed he would sell off Polytron and leave the game industry.

8) We make no mention right now of harassment/doxxing/death threats against Zoe Quinn's detractors. A Breitbart writer was noted as having recieved over a dozen death threats from Zoe Quinn's supporters and John Bain was attacked. Both of these were noted in external sources, and should be noted.

9) Saying that the harassment "expanded" to include feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian is... possibly not really the best way of noting this. Anita Sarkeesian herself had long been the target of detractors who claimed she had no idea what she was talking about, and while she was apparently harassed here, I'm not sure if saying it "expanded" to her or if it was simply something which happened at the same time and later got lumped in with it. The background of criticism directed at her should possibly be noted in the background section itself; I think there should be some RSs on previous things about Sarkeesian.

10) We should probably note Zoe Quinn's propagation of doxx re: TFYC. Zoe Quinn's own history of involvement in harassment and doxxing of other people was part of why people disliked her to begin with.

11) It is not a DDOS attack if your website crashes due to too many people accessing it; this is an incorrect use of the term DDOS and should be amended. A DDOS attack is never unintentional. If it was DDOSed, then it should simply be noted as a DDOS attack.

Fix: During the initial argument between the two camps, TFYC's website temporarily became inaccessible due to increased traffic from the discussion on Twitter exceeding their allowed bandwidth.

12) "allegedly out of spite" should probably be removed re: 4chan's donations. The source which it was taken from itself noted that it was done "partly in order to spite Quinn and partly in order to mess with everyone’s preconceptions of the forum." However, this was the opinion of a writer on Forbes, and it isn't clear on what he based this judgement. Moreover, as 4chan is not really organized, it

13) We should note that Zoe Quinn's supporters were responsible for harassment of TFYC.

14) This whole section gives WP:UNDUE note to harassment; while it was noted in many sources, there were a huge number of sources which noted the allegations of industry harassment of gamers (which needs to be noted; this was picked up by many papers), the controversy over corruption (which is barely even mentioned; it doesn't even have its own paragraph, being hidden in another, big one) and such. There's only so much which can be said about this stuff, but it needs to be noted. See the section about sources up above in the talk page. This is not covered hardly at all in this section, and needs to be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We get it Titanium Dragon. You're pro-GamerGate. None of these proposals of yours are actually based in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You just seem to want to skew the POV of this article it seems with each and every one of your threads and comments.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The allegation on whether he is pro or anti gamergate has nothing to do with it. Adding content and making semantic corrections is in the guidelines WP:Policies_and_guidelines#Content. 62.234.122.19 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with these edits, as long as we can get sources behind the needed changes. Many of them help to fill out the situation that the article is currently pushing toward and fills in many blanks. Much of those rewordings also help to thin out the POV push of the article. PseudoSomething (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please address the massive censorship

Discussion of this issue has become very stifled and outright denied on certain communities such as Gawker article comments, reddit, and even 4chan now. The magnitude of this censorship is what drew the attention of Wikileaks. As The Free Encyclopedia, this needs to be prioritized.

Perhaps this can be one section of the article titled dishonesty, where other sections can include other dishonest acts that game journalism websites have committed(such as blatant lack of research and plagiarism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4080:1814:6C9B:769F:4E37:4028 (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Won't fix TOO much a point of view or bias neutrality is what we strive for Retartist (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: The censorship should be discussed but the rest of the suggestion violates policy Retartist (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards that say there is an issue of censorship instead of just your personal gripes that your comments were removed from several websites because they were just attacks on people, then censorship might be able to be addressed here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see the sources section on this talk page; there are a number of sources which note the allegations of (and actual) censorship. I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with some of the source material. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment. Provide the sources right here, right now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We are aware that there was some sites that shut down discussions, and some aspects of using DMCA takedowns, and thus brought complaints about censorship but no reliable sources have covered these factors and as such we cannot include them until they do. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: WP:BLPNAME violation

I noted this above, but I thought I'd break this out into its own thing: her ex-boyfriend is not a notable person and his name is unnecessary to understanding the article. It should be removed per WP:BLPNAME. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; her ex-boyfriend has voluntarily injected himself into a public debate by publishing personal relationship details on the Internet, voluntarily participated in the 4chan chats which allegedly organized the harassment of Quinn and has voluntarily spoken publicly about the issue. One can't make repeated and very public efforts to air their dirty laundry and then claim a presumption of privacy. He voluntarily widely disseminated his name and has made no effort to conceal it; indeed, he's still talking about the issue on Twitter. There are no grounds for removing his name under BLPNAME. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If this is the case, then we should probably name the game devs involved as well. Also, this contradicts your stated reasons for repeatedly deleting my posts. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Quinn, Fish, and Sarkeesian, as well as various journalists, are all mentioned. Gjoni gets no special treatment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? You've been one of the most insistent voices for including information about the incident to the Zoe Quinn article and now you are trying to censor information about the ex-boyfriends name? He is pretty much responsible for this harassment campaign, GamerGate wouldn't exist without him. As long as this article exists, he should be named as a huge, vocal party of it --5.81.52.138 (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm seems like Mr. Dragon's true colors are shining forth. Btw, before ever seeing this section I created the name last night as a redirect to this article. It is a plausible search term, and we are here to inform the readers after all. No standalone article is warranted at this time, but you never know going forward... Tarc (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a BLP issue to name him, but I also think that we can editorially opt to leave his name out as that is the only place where it comes up (unlike Quinn's). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose any effort to remove the name of the person who sparked this whole sordid mess. He voluntarily chose to make his dirty laundry a public issue and the reliable sources have not failed to notice. Doing so would be perverse in the extreme - we would essentially be allowing him to make anonymous accusations of infidelity in the encyclopedia. Rubbish. He started it, he's named in the reliable sources and he's stuck with it now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

while it might feel good to burden someone who has made other people's lives a hell with their "tirade" of "dirty double load of laundry" , that is not Wikipedia's job and certainly not an acceptable rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's not the rationale. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of the alleged rationale for removing it. The rationale for including it is that reliable sources include it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

They have, but consider what we're struggling with in terms of viewpoint, I'd rather see us not include it by editorial choice. There's no policy that prevents its inclusion, it's just a random detail. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not "a random detail," it's the name of the person whose very public allegations sparked the entire mess. These reliable sources all agree, and here is Eron's voluntary interview with VICE in which he makes public accusations about Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but again, in summarizing this all, his name (not his role) is more a footnote to this. In fact, all that is needed is to establish who Quinn is, and that she an ex that allegated something towards her. We really don't need his name. Please note that I am not arguing for any policy-based reason to remove his name as it does fall within allowances of BLP, just that we don't need it for the narrative even though out sources do name it. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If we omit his name, we are allowing him to anonymously make allegations of infidelity. He has made very specific and very personal allegations about Zoe Quinn, and it is unacceptable for us to publish those allegations without directly attributing them to the named person who made them. It's bad enough we can't directly source the allegations of professional impropriety to the people making them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to fix that, and by at least identifying as her ex boyfriend, that at least means its not a random person making the claims. Additionally, the key charge of professional improprietary has been debunked by Kotaku so who made that exact charge doesn't matter. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's what BLPNAME says, in pertinent part: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

Eron Gjoni's name has been widely disseminated and there is no evidence that he seeks to conceal his involvement — on the contrary, he continues to involve himself in the controversy. He is directly involved in the article's topic, as the person who acted to instigate the controversy by widely seeking publicity for his allegations about Zoe Quinn. He is not loosely involved and his name and identity are obviously highly relevant to the subject. If we conceal his name, we are, in effect, permitting him to anonymously make allegations of wrongdoing about a living person, which is unacceptable. For these reasons, there is no policy grounds under BLPNAME for the removal of this information. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. the man's name has been used in enough sources by now that it is at least worth a mention. He isn't a minor, thus there is no extra or special protection warranted here. As I noted earlier, Eron Gjoni is currently a redirect to this article. Tarc (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

How he is mentioned is more important than if he is mentioned. He is not a gamer according to any sources. He is not a misogynist. He has not been critical of Depression Quest. He is not a member of reddit as far as I have seen. He has not made any threats or harassed her except a blog that documents his own thoughts. So exactly how will he be included? I agree that he deserves mention as the start of this but it also points out that the start of this had nothing to do with misogyny, sexism or gamers. He called out what he saw as improper employer/employee relationship (is the name of the boss worth mentioning - he's actually a notable figure?) as well as an improper journalist/developer relationship. He only named notable people (i.e. boss, journalist, developer). That it was personal to him and specific to Zoe destroys any broad labels being applied to him. He doesn't do game development and doesn't appear to be a gamer. More of a participant in tumblr in some fashion (I'm sure someone can explain tumblr vs. reddit as I have only come across anecdotes). --DHeyward (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason GG started is because there were those in the gaming community that, already with a strong dislike towards Quinn because of DQ, jumping on the exes accusations to further their attacks; most rationaly wondered if this was a professional improprietary but some, speaking the loudest, harassed her - importantly positing their claims against her strong pro-feminine stance. That's the start of GG and that is what is being called by the press as misogynist, not what the ex did. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talking about structure

Neutrality policy requires that the structure is taken care of to protect neutrality, and the relative prominence of facts is given due weight without creating a false hierarchy of "undisputed" and "discredited" facts and taking into account other balancing aspects. Let's discuss ways to improve the article that don't require finding new references, by enhancing the way already included facts are laid out on the page, and get us closer to the perfect article.

Here are some ideas that have been made in various talks above, feel free to add some more.

• Indicate the relative importance of each viewpoint according to the number and quality of the sources. This should be done for views held by many reliable sources, and for views with less support - let's identify which is which.
• Avoid leading the narrative by introducing judgement values and opinions early in the article; start with facts stated in neutral tone, reserve subjective claims for analysis sections.
• Clearly attribute subjective claims to the party introducing them, no exceptions. This should also help with point 1 - letting the reader assess how much weight is there behind each point, and from what kind of sources.
• Include separate in chronological order. Avoid a claim/counter-claim format for views stated by opposing sources, as those may create WP:SYNTH.

And please discuss the content and references, not the editors. Let's see if we can get some constructive conversation rolling. Diego (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

1) As I noted above, undue weight is being given to the harassment issue; there are dozens of RSs which talk about the issue of gaming corruption.

2) It needs to start out with it noting that GamerGate is about allegations of corruption in the media, and then note that its detractors claim it is all about misogyny. This is standard practice on articles about subjects like this. See also: any conspiracy theory article, which starts out by describing what the conspiracy theory is.

3) The background section should probably be roughly chronologically ordered by subject matter, with controversies about disrespect by the game devs/journalists on top (John Romereo and Daikatana probably being the first notable incidence of such), corruption in the gaming media next (can we use the doritogate picture? That has been attached to this quite a bit), probably followed by misogyny stuff (IIRC that stuff started getting a lot of reporting somewhere in the last five years or so, but if it is earlier we can put it earlier), and Zoe Quinn's stuff at the bottom, because it happened most recently (and also is what immediately led up to things). Probably should start off with a "See also:" which leads to sexual harassment/harassment in video gaming and controversies about games/gaming journalism, because all of that is background to this.

I'm really not familiar with the background on Anita Sarkeesian; I remember hearing about her and watching her first video and remember people talking about how poorly constructed they were, but I don't remember if there was a whole lot of RS coverage of people criticizing her for the videos. I do know that this was hardly the first time she's been caught up in controversy over her videos, but I'm not sure how many of the stupid internet fights made the news.

4) I agree re: chronological order, but I think chronological order by topic might make more sense than strict chronological order for some of this stuff, as a lot of it would be something of a mis-mash otherwise. For instance, start out with the blog post, then the allegations of corruption, then the response to said allegations (including the censorship), then the accusations of misogyny and harassment and such of Zoe Quinn and her supporters, then the attacks on Zoe Quinn's detractors, then Anita Sarkeesian, then the response section. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

1. There's no issue with undue weight other than your insistence that the harassment is not part of it and this article should only focus on the ethics issues which are not a primary aspect at this point.

2. See above.

3. This is about Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest and not at alla bout Daikatana.

4. There are no claims of censorship in any of the reliable sources put forward in any of the sections on this page. Just claims by people who must have had messages on Reddit and other websites removed for saying something about Quinn and Depression Quest.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the structure? If you have something to say about the weight and reliability of content, please link it to how and where it's included in the article layout; this section is about that. Simply repeating general assertions about those concerns that have already been made elsewhere is of no use to achieve actionable proposals to improve the article. Diego (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. (If you have some aspect of the article that you like how it's done and you don't want to see changed, you can tell us that too). Diego (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

" Indicate the relative importance of each viewpoint according to the number and quality of the sources. " - that leaves the structure HARASSMENT

References

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It that means we get to keep a reference section that documents the connections between advertisers, developers and the press, it would be an improvement, yes. Diego (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions that run along the lines of Titanium Dragons #1 & #2 are complete non-starters to any practical discussion on the matter. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not currently agree with the harassment being the opening line and everything else related to the controversy being a separated second sentence. The being said I do not think that these should simply be switched around either, instead merging both major issues that have been reported together in one sentence a'la neutrality. One is not clearly above the other it seems from everything we have available currently, that goes for both sides of the coin. Frankly Man (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Frankly Man: your disagreement doesnt matter unless you can provide enough reliable sources to show that the mainstream view of the subject is not a focus on harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not debating the overall issue but rather the sentence structure. Basically, so far the article (even still in development) appears to have a good variety of sources from multiple perspectives, that the overall narrative is shades of grey. I'm just not sure if opening with an absolute notion reflects that. Then again, I do suppose more needs to be done to the article first. Just a though, nothing major. Frankly Man (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On point 4 - the less we focus on the specific events and/or accusations and more on the overall situation, the less of an issue we will with referencing (with RS) and bias and the like. There are some specifics and their timing that are important to understand why this gained media attention, but beyond that, it doesn't matter specifically when it occurred in the narrative, but that it was part of the situation. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

3. This is about Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest - Correct. Now please tell us how GamerGate is connected to Zoe Quinn and then also why it's not Anita Sarkeesian. Please do so without assuming a feminist trope role that accuses the gaming community at large to be a bunch of mysogynists just as it's also incorrect to call all gaming journalists corrupt. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

" GG is being defined as the incident of Quinn being accused of professional impropriety by her ex and others. Those others didn't magically appear, they were already on her from their previous issues with DQ. Hence why it is only Quinn to start. Sarkeesian comes into this because she was similarly grouped with Quinn and harassed by the same people, but it wasn't anything did by Sarkeesian to initiate GG. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So the ex and "those others" are mysognists? You've correctly tied that others including the ex were critical of Quinn but are you saying that they are all misogynists? (Read "straw feminist trope" profile if that is your view - and that is how the article portrays it currently). And which "same people" harassed Sarkeesian. She's been battling sexism in gaming for years before Depression Quest was being evaluated on Steam so saying her harassment came after is nonsense. She has been the subject of individual gamers ire for quite a while though I doubt Zoe's ex was ever one of the unnamed "others" as 1) he's from tumblr and 2) not a gamer. I am neither a reddit reader, tumblr reader, or journalist so this is my observation from reading mutltiple sources. It is simply wrong to have a group of "others" with a pejorative label as that is exactly what the concern about sexism is in gaming (i.e. "your great game developer Woman X, it's all the 'others' that are bad" - see how that works? It's a trope of a type of personality) That's what this article does except instead of a patronizing male trope, it's a straw feminist trope. Watch Sarkeesian's video on straw feminist tropes. It's her longest one I believe. Find the article in there because it's nailed to a T. --DHeyward (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The harassment sent to Quinn is being described as "misogynist". Not that her attackers are inherently misogynist (I think that's how the article is read). And the article is not saying that Sarkeesian's harassment is new. It's just that the attacks on her for her latest video were lumped into the attacks on Quinn. And Gjoni is a programmer or something isn't he? He seems to be part of the sphere but I don't think the article addresses that anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the article opens with "long-standing issues of sexism and misogyny in the gamer community" - that's describing, in a very broad and strong fashion, a characteristic of a group. Not specific acts of harassment. Not only that, her ex is not a part of that group. In addition, journalists now describe the gaming community as very broad and diverse with women representing 48% of it and climbing. A more accurate statement might be made about certain groups in reddit that have been called out. But calling out the very broad "gaming community" is a form of trope ("gamer trope" being characterized by "straw feminist trope?"). --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That wording in no way says "every gamer is sexist and misogynic". It says these elements exist in the community, even if only small number. And the press believe that the harassment against Quinn and others targets are aligned with attitudes of those that misogynic. There is nothing wrong with this statement based on what reliable sources say. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The article opens with that statement because it reflects what reliable sources have to say on the subject.

"In truth, the harassment has been going on much longer than that. For Quinn and many women who do what she does, threats and sexual innuendo are par for the course. Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.”"

.

Tarc (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected request.

Please add {{current|date=September 2014}} to the article. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, add the template at the top. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The guidelines of that template state "As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a dozens or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news." As this article is protected it is not being edited by dozens of editors, so this template does not apply. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Tabloid. Why are we asking like one?

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

---

This article is baised beyond belief, but one thing that I'd like to talk about rather than the "opposing" evidence. Why is this article giving too much credit to the anti-gamergate sources? I'm not proposing that we remove all of the sources that are anti-gamergate, I've read the policy on biased sources. However, we're jumping to gun too much in the article and it's affecting the neutral stance. For example, I've had edits on here deleted because they target the article's opening paragraph, but even without the damning evidence (that somehow doesn't comply with Wikipedia), we still run into a problem.

The section in question reads

these allegations were later proven false, but the debate they sparked continued.

The source cited is a Washington Post article. However, the Washington Post article fails to actually prove that these allegations are false; Washington Post only discusses one of the five allegations and even then it uses the company statement for its source. Rather, the article should read instead:

"however, Kotaku claims to have investigated the matter and found no such relationships to have taken place. source

In doing so, not only is the article more honest with the information it presents, but we're also eliminating a middle-man for the information. Best of all, this conflicts with none of Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, I don't see any mention of any pro-gamergate sources such as Wikileaks siding with GamerGate, no notable mention of Slate's coverage of the event, or any mention of the the breitbart article that discusses the people accused. There is NO excuse why this article should be slanted so much. Furthermore, I don't understand why Wikipedia holds such a double standard. You claim to not show Breitbart for factual inconsistencies, yet they show their evidence in their article; at the same time you use Kotaku as a source when not only is their integrity a point that gamergate is trying to highlight as problematic, but just as well has had a history of reporting unethically (their accusations that David Jaffe is a misogynist prove this). If you have a problem with what I'm saying, then discuss it here. Reversion is a coward's way out of discussion. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

References in an article talk page

If you cite or plan to use the <ref></ref> tags in any post on the talk page, you have to place a {{reflist talk}} template at the end of the section. Otherwise...in an idiotic decision by our esteemed WMF developers...the refs will be placed automatically at the end of the talk page, thus disconnected from the section once other users start making sections after yours. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist talk|close}} is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't realize that particular one was being used, sorry about removing it. Dreadstar ☥ 18:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, what we also need to do is try to get the archive bot to temporarily archive this page at a faster rate than it's currently set. Ten days is far to slow considering this page is at over 100 separate headers because of the single purpose accounts, meatpuppets, and established editors with dead horses to beat. I don't know if non-admin users can modify the parameters of the bot archive template to get it to go faster because nothing seemed to happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Non admins can change it, but I can take care of it for you. I'll temporarily change it to three one day and see what it does. Dreadstar ☥ 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope the manual archiving I did helped matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been informed that ClueBot III might be a better choice for archival as it has an "archive now" option.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ogeeku

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

---

In the war over Zoe Quinn, there are no winners.

#GamerGate – All Quiet on the 4chan Front

Willhesucceed (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

we only use reliably published sources, I am not sure what you are posting this here for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

1. In order for you to decide for yourselves whether this is a reliable source. 2. To give you a better perspective on how to structure the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Evidence of journalists in similar fashion to JournoList

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/40217/the-biggest-gaming-news-sites-are-involved-in-a-massive-conspiracy/index.html http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/

The evidence is mounting day by day about the massive conspiracy amongst journalists/game devs. Arstechnica journalist have acknowledgement of it and is apologizing for it. But that doesn't wipe out the evidence that they have and are still currently conspiring with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You can compare this to "JournoList" when there is evidence of similar widespread mainstream coverage.

More to the point, there is no evidence of actual collusion presented; rather, what we have is evidence that journalists talked to one another. BREAKING: People in a profession discuss issues related to that profession with each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The creator of the list offered up a lengthy response, but nothing more so far. Milo Yiannopoulos seems to be planning another piece so it may get more attention after that. For now it is not being taken seriously by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebilly suppressing discussion of GamerGate. Oh noes!--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So...a mailing list that served as a private version of Linkedin is being used as evidence of mass collusion and nefarious misdeeds? The AngryGamers are getting a bit...desperate? Tarc (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC) So far, we have: gaming media persons saying they won't cover a topic because they don't like it (GamerGate), and that they should all buy a present for Zoe (a developer). Both unethical. More coming. :) Willhesucceed (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC) No, there were people saying they wouldn't cover it because they didn't believe it was newsworthy. That's news judgment, and it's part of being a journalist. Journalists are not obligated to write about everything anyone wants them to write about. Otherwise they'd literally write about everything and if everything is news, then nothing is. From what I've seen, there were some people saying they didn't believe allegations about a non-public-figure's private life were newsworthy. Some people disagreed. There were some debates and discussions. Hardly evidence of a globe-spanning conspiracy. I don't know if you realize this, but people who share a profession talk to each other *all the time* and have since the beginning of time. Whether it was in low-rent, smoke-filled bars or on Internet mailing lists, people talk with others in their profession about issues related and unrelated to their work. There is nothing "corrupt" about an Internet water-cooler. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Apparently, that's not all they share. They seem to share bed quite often, as confirmed by fellow game journalist of Techradar. "Who here hasn't slept with a PR person or game developer? #AMIRITE " - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/18/The-emails-that-prove-video-games-journalism-must-be-reformed 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) someone doesnt recognize a joke when it climbs in bed beside them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC) So the very "worst" and "most damning" evidence of collusion that Breitbart can dredge up is one person suggesting a letter of support, two people sort of agreeing with it, one person joking about it and several others saying that it's not a good idea and that they have ethical concerns with it? That's your "conspiracy"? I don't think this e-mail list could agree on where to have lunch. That's without even considering the fact that we're dealing with selectively-quoted snippets of selectively-chosen e-mails from a thread that was likely much larger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC) "I like the signed letter of support idea. Even better if we can get some developers in on that." "I'd also suggest that - if others think the letter is a good idea - we should do this entirely under the radar, organizing it through word-of-mouth and email rather than Twitter." Also, no, no, there's even more coming. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Your first quote is from one of the two people who sort of agreed with it. Your second quote is from the same person who proposed the idea. Three others are quoted as saying the press shouldn't become involved and two raise ethical concerns. That's out of 150 people on the list. This is hardly evidence of a massive conspiracy. Further, Jason Schreier has stated that Breitbart's selective quoting doesn't show a large number of responses on the list from people who didn't believe sending a letter of support was appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) The twitter link you gave shows that the journalists are still hesitant to cover this story because they are uncomfortable with it. There is a story, just that journalist are not covering it. The Miloleak is just a small sample of what is happening. There's evidence all over the internet, with the exception of journalists reporting it themselves, being discussed. Milo is one of the few that is actively reporting this corruption within the gaming industry and putting out new evidence. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Er, no. Schreier said the letter "didn't happen because most people didn't feel comfortable with it." That phrase in context here. Taking things out of context and misreading conversations isn't evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC) You are now trying to change the narrative there. They conspired. Whether it failed or succeeded is not the question here. That's for another section as that hasn't been verified yet. Right now, the only verifiable source is the one from the group discussion where they conspired with one another. That's a story because the discussion is about ethics of journalists, who sleep around with each other, conspire with each other to write stories that paint a single view, offer/trade favors, etc. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) It is certainly a story, but for now it is not a story that has been picked up in enough reliable sources for it to merit inclusion in this article. Maybe we could justify a single sentence about it, but for now there just is not enough attention on the matter to offer further detail. Of course, I seem to be the only one in this discussion interested in discussing the policy side. Everyone else just wants to have a debate about the validity of the allegations.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Acknowledgement via single sentence is all its needed right now. Until we have more information, this is a good start. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I point out that your statement is not supported by the source because you misread the Twitter thread or ignored the context, and you respond by accusing me of "trying to change the narrative." Quite. It appears that #GamerGate supporters are so devoted to their chosen narrative that their beliefs have become non-falsifiable. I think that means #GamerGate has officially turned into a religion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Assume good faith 68.191.160.219 (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC) I'll ignore that personal attack for now. 2601:7:A80:3E:25FC:9879:38E8:7229 (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A forum for people within a certain industry to talk about things "off the wire"? Happens everywhere in every profession. An editor making a comment and realizing later it was taken in the wrong light and apologizing for that? That's editorial responsibility. There's no story here. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia editors often discuss things on mailing lists and chat rooms and we know nothing skeevy ever happens there . . . Anyway, since this is not a forum for discussion and we are not a news organization I believe all we can say for now is that we only have Breitbart reports and the Ars Technica statement. I think we need at least one or two major outlets covering this on its own to justify any mention of it in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay . . . so . . . should we include a single sentence about this in the article citing Breitbart and the Ars Technica source or not?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source, so no. Right now all there is is Ars. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No. There's a fairly simple Wikipedia rule here - anything that depends on a cite from Breitbart is automatically bullshit. Amazing how consistently that rule works. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is reliable for the purpose of noting the allegations, though we would have to attribute the allegations to them in any material added to the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should we be publishing accusations sourced to Milo or to Breitbart.com, even on this talk page. The site is not merely unreliable, it has a history of spreading malicious lies. The ars technica article does no more than acknowledge that the accusations have been made and defend itself from them: that's not a reason to spread these rumors, it's a reason not to. Suggest closing this section and any future ones unless these accusations and innuendos are published in a real source. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Breitbart is reliable for nothing. We've already had more than one RFC case due to this "source" (see gun control RFC/ARB passim). To use a simple term, Breitbart makes stuff up. A good percentage of their websites is simply lies. If they posted a story saying it was snowing outside their office (and included a photo) most people would head straight for weather websites to check it. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos is a reliable source. DHeyward (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol, not even remotely. This is a right-wing blogger/tabloid writer, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a complete mischaracterization of him. He's the author of the piece. He's an advisor to The Daily Dot which we use often and he contributes to a number of other publications. Complaining about Breitbart for providing the space is a lot like complaining about the color of paper he used. It's his story and there is no reason to believe he is not a reliable source or credible journalist. You've providing nothing other than "lol" as your source and it greatly contradicts our own biography of him. --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not how reliable sources work. Reliability doesn't attach to a person's name, it attaches to the place where the content is published. If a journalist publishes something on their personal blog, that personal blogpost is not a reliable source, no matter how good that journalist is. Why? Because the content hasn't been vetted by a credible editorial process such as those adhered to by mainstream media. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Sources can be a type of work, an author, 'or' a publisher. It's right at the top of the definition. An RS requires that it is "published" (meaning available to the public, so, check) and that the source (one of the three types listed) is reliable. If we used your standard, NBC News reporters would never be reliable because an individual journalist secretly attached rocket motors to cars to show how dangerous certain cars were. Conversely, if a noted journalist moves to a different publisher, their standards are not lowered by default. If you have a history of how Yiannopoulos is not reliable point to it, but Breitbart doesn't infect him as being unreliable nor would BusinessWeek suddenly attach reliability. Bob Woodward writes lots of stuff and it's his reputation that makes it reliable, not the publisher that offered him the most money to write it. It need only be published (by anyone) and written by him. Yiannopoulos looks like a genius with this OKCupid column about two weeks before GamerGate (Zoe and ex met through OKCupid) [5]. --DHeyward (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does being right-wing blogger make him an unreliable source? Are you saying wikipedia is only good for left wing bloggers? 76.27.230.7 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is reliable for noting what Breitbart has reported. It is definitely a partisan source, though, and should be attributed as such. Of course, personally, I don't really have a high opinion of news media generally-speaking so perhaps that is why I am not particularly persuaded by the "Breitbart is evil incarnate" commentary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything he published on Breitbart is not. For details, see our handy article on Breitbart.com, which helpfully provides a list of just some of the times the site has lied, fabricated evidence, published hoaxes or otherwise tendentiously pursued non-stories. The site has shown a blatant disregard for the truth when falsehoods better fit its agenda. Just as we cannot use DailyKos as a reliable source because it lacks adequate editorial controls, so too we are barred from using Breitbart. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable for noting what Breitbart reported with the response from Orland.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The publication has a history of publishing outright defamatory information. We can not repeat these accusations, not even with the qualification that Brietbart made them, because it would be a violation of our policy on biographies of living persons. You need high quality sourcing for these accusations to even make the argument that they're notable enough to include. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has put out some inaccurate details after not doing sufficiently thorough checking and sometimes selectively edited material or presented comments out of context to make something look worse. You could say that about pretty much every major news outlet. In-text attribution is more than sufficient to cover for that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN if you'd like a second opinion. But any controversial information about a BLP subject that is being essentially ignored by every media source but one is already distinctly iffy. When the one source that's covering it is one with a reputation for publishing outright lies? No. -- TaraInDC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is BLPN or RSN even matter? The leak isn't about a person, its about group of journalists conspiring. Its a leak. There is nothing specific about a person or their biography. 76.27.230.7 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the complete e-mail thread that Milo went off about. Makes it very obvious that his examples were cherry-picked, and the vast majority of people responding to the "letter" and "gift" idea made the case that it was not appropriate. To wit, "This seems like an absolutely terrible idea," "It’s just plain inappropriate for a group of relative strangers to offer up what amounts to a reassuring pat on the back," "That being said, I do see everyone’s point about it being somewhat inappropriate for a group of relative strangers to send a public note of support," "This situation is awful, but it’s not the place of anyone here to get involved on any level," "Count me out of the letter, for a wide variety of reasons," etc. None of those responses made it into his article, because they didn't support his narrative. Fantastic conspiracy of journalists agreeing that a public letter of support would be inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would journalists ever offer letters of support for their topics? Let's put it this way: journalists that cover Wall Street don't invest on Wall Street. Commentators that cover specific financial sectors as experts disclose all of their interests. It would be very unseemly for journalists to offer a specific letter of support for any subject they are covering. Doxxing as a general matter is fair game to condemn as a journalist. Doxxing of an individual that teeters on the brink of public figure would not be appropriate to condemn. This is plainly obvious when it happens in other areas. Paparrazzi are roundly condemned in general and their targets get sympathy. Not specifically, though, when they catch a public figure making a racist/sexist rant. There are never specific letters of support like that. Zoe was a current events topic and other than covering the event, there is no cheerleading allowed for journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A subjective judgment from a reliable source does not become fact

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

---

A lie that's being repeated often in this talk page is that subjective judgments, such as the first line of the article, are verified facts when they come from a reliable source. This is simply not the case. All editors on such a controversial topic need to become familiar with WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:NPOV. I suggest a major rewrite that reflects the aforementioned policies of the Wikipedia project. 71.178.64.248 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you become familiar with a policy that is, as it states, about "Describing aesthetic opinions." The fact that this issue involves misogyny is not an aesthetic opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Allegations proven false?

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

---

In the introductory paragraph, there is a statement that the allegations were "later proven false", citing this Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/with-gamergate-the-video-game-industrys-growing-pains-go-viral/ . From the article, "The site investigated the alleged ethics breach and concluded there had been no wrongdoing", referencing a Kotaku article here: http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

At minimum, the citation should be updated to point directly to the source Kotaku. Secondly, the conclusion of the allegations being false is highly subjective and inaccurate. It should perhaps more accurately be worded that Kotaku did not feel that Grayson's article written on March 31 and subsequent relation with Quinn in April did not constitute an ethical breach. Thus, Kotaku dismissed the allegation but it was never "proven false". Finally, there's only a single allegation here that was discounted by Kotaku. If there are other allegations that were supposedly disproven, more sources ought to be cited. 67.165.142.226 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Source on Depression Quest having positive reviews for its 2013 release?

The article for depression quest has no mention of this and there source further down says nothing about it either. Subinquisitor (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point - the NYorker article points to it's higher level of coverage than its critical (though the DQ article gives out some of the critical praise). --MASEM (t) 05:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)