Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

§ Other targets of harassment

[Anita] Sarkeesian's attackers took her critical commentary as unfair and unwarranted, and considered her an interloper.

I think this statement is an example of false balance, giving undue weight to the views of some Internet trolls, and ought to be cut absent more thorough secondary sourcing. The first two sources are short, contemporary news articles about responses to the game "Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian" and don't analyze the views of her attackers in any depth. The second is actually just a statement by Sarkeesian attached to a recap of an earlier story.

The Cosmo story seems to be the source for the "unfair and unwarranted" text. However, the source immediately goes on to say (my bolding): There are surely a lot of reasons why people think it’s acceptable to harass a stranger online: a virtual mob mentality that encourages bystanders to participate, a specific kind of socially stunted young man who may frequent male-heavy online gaming communities, the safety in being cruel anonymously, and the rush as others applaud your viciousness. Sarkeesian was attacked because she was a woman in a space many men believed was created for and by them, and she was trying to change gaming. Her harassers seemed to fear that her efforts might just work. The focus is clearly on the misogyny, rather than Sarkeesian's purported unfairness or status as an "interloper". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

...In a similar manner to how Rosa Parks would not have generated the same level of notoriety in the white establishment had she been a man. It's been established that GG had little to do with "ethics in video game journalism" or anything substantive/profound, so the backlash against Sarkeesian was predominantly miogonystic in nature, stemming from her speaking out against a toxic male dominated gaming culture, and far less to do with her being an "interloper". If at all. Sarkeesian was deeply unpopular in the gamebro crowd before GG came along... --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So I basically agree with all of the above, and wouldn't mind changing the text to reflect that. I think the quoted statement is true if we replace "took" with "claimed," as I think that is an accurate description of what the 'critics' said, disingenuous though it was. We would need an addendum obviously to reflect that it was rooted in misogyny. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly the page goes into far too much detail on nitty-gritty like that in general - back and forth arguments that loomed large in 2014 but don't appear in coverage today. I feel the article could do with some serious revisions to focus less on individual details or arguments from 2014, and more on the overarching structure of Gamergate, how it was able to manipulate media attention, and (most importantly) how this became a model for similar things going forward, especially parallels to the strategy used by the Alt-Right and a lot of Trumpy stuff. Almost all coverage of Gamergate today focuses on those things rather than individual back-and-forth or stuff about gaming culture. (You can find some discussion of sources in the section above.) The problem is that it's going to be a pretty hefty addition that will require a lot of work, in addition to figuring out what parts to trim down from the current version in order to make room for it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Let's also remember that much of that detail exists only as compromise to (mostly-gone-or-blocked) partisans who were trying to reframe or white-wash things. It can safely be reworked.--Jorm (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think anything that's sourced solely to contemporary news reports (except for some of the more in-depth articles from established outlets) could be treated as lingering remnants of the kind of recentist focus that dominates many Wikipedia articles, and either spun off into a separate Timeline of Gamergate or simply cut entirely. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Should this article mention Ethan Ralph?

Even if not, a subject-matter expert is invited to expand Ethan Ralph § GamerGate controversy as appropriate. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, and this guy shouldn't even have a Wikipedia article. Complete puffed up irrelevance over there. ValarianB (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@ValarianB: I looked at his article and I tend to agree with you. All of the sourcing is either primary, or articles that barely mention him. It really looks like the article has been puffed up out of practically nothing. Is deletion a realistic possibility? Wes sideman (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Minor ref error

There is a ref error, where a list defined reference named "IBTimesTrudeauGG" is unused and therefore has created a cite error. Please fix this error. Thanks. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality Infraction

At the end of the third paragraph in the article, there is a line that says "Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims."

Should the word "falsely" be used there? This would indicate that "falsely" is a fact, and there may be varying opinions on that.

Jimithing1980 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, since the claims were false, it is, indeed, the correct word. We will be going with what reliable sources say. --Jorm (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's five yards for a neutrality infraction? I forget. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying the claims were true or false, and in fact, I agree they were false, but I cannot prove they were false. If you are saying there are "reliable sources" that say this, then they should at least be cited. Jimithing1980 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't put cites in the lead section because it's just a summary of the article body. If we added citations, we'd have about 280 sources for 4 paragraphs, which is both ridiculous to read and also tedious to edit. The sentence in question is a summary of the Coordination of harassment section (which is sourced), but virtually all reliable sources covering Gamergate in general do characterize the claims as false. Woodroar (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree per Woodroar and Jorm. The issue always boils down to one side, with no evidence, or reliable sources, claiming false flag and making No True Scotsman claims despite the abundance of reliable sources otherwise covering the content. Koncorde (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Jan 2021 Capitol riot paragraph in the Legacy section

While the above noted paragraph does involve comments made by a central GamerGate figure, Brianna Wu, the paragraph and comments made by Mx. Wu, are in no way related to, or resulting from, the GamerGate controversy. Therefore, per WP:OFFTOPIC. I have removed this paragraph. In contrast, the other recently added Legacy content does have some connection to the GamerGate controversy and therefore should remain in the article.

If you disagree with this removal, fair enough - however I would ask to please discuss here so we can arrive at consensus - Thanks. --- VeritasS (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The direct cite specifically calls GamerGate as a precursor to the movements which led to the attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

direct site calls GamerGate as a precursor to the movements which led to the attacks

Nowhere is that present is the cited article. The article merely quotes Mx. Wu's sentiments that "it's not inconceivable that many of these people were probably caught up in GamerGate". While entitled to their opinion, this article does not assert, nor has it been proven elsewhere, that any of the same GamerGate perpetrators played any role in the Jan 2021 riot. I would agree that Mx. Wu's comments belong in an article about them or perhaps even the Jan 2021 riot, but not in the GamerGate article. --- VeritasS (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wu was a major target of Gamergate, so it makes sense to include a quote from her that reliable sources thought was relevant enough to quote in a news article. That said, it's easy to find additional sources that go into more depth, so I'll add a few. Also, can you explain what you mean by "Mx. Wu?" --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I had read elsewhere that Wu had indicated they were NB and per this, "Mx." is the appropo title to use. If I am mistaken as to the NB, please let me know. --- VeritasS (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of (and I double-checked just now to be sure before saying anything so I didn't put my foot in my mouth, haha.) You may be mixing her up with Zoë Quinn, another Gamergate target. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough - my understanding is also that absent a clear indication of one's desired pronouns, it is strongly urged to not presume and go with "they\their". Extending this to titles, my feeling is that it is probably best to go with gender neutral as well especially when juxtaposed against the more parochial standard of "Mr." in reference to someone regardless of that person being male or female. Of course the option always exists to just use the full or last name and skip the formality - perhaps I will choose this going forward. --- VeritasS (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Add these parameters to reference #264: (currently this: )

|last=Rosenburg
|first=Alyssa
|date=December 7, 2015
|title=Donald Trump is the Gamergate of Republican politics
|website=The Washington Post

Coolperson177 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Softening language around the flight of Zoe Quinn

This edit softening the language has been made twice now: [1] [2], I guess on the pretext that the source says "After the developer was doxed, the prank calls, threatening e-mails, and abusive tweets intensified to such a degree that Quinn, fearing for her safety, chose to leave her home and sleep on friends’ sofas. She is now working with authorities to find the faceless attackers." but does not directly use the word "flee". Given that "left" undersells the situation and there's no end of sources that will say "flee" but that we are trying what is our bets course of action here? Assuming the concensus is not just that we simply revert it on common sense grounds. Artw (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The context surrounding the phrasing is that she fled. "Fearing for her safety" is "fled". I'm replacing "fled". Jorm (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No it's not, as you'll see if you look up the flee in a dictionary [3]. But it's OK; you two knock yourselves out. EEng 18:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Artw: If "there's no end of sources that will say 'flee'" then provide an inline citation to those sources before re-adding the content. It's unsourced content otherwise. Stop edit warring and add a citation. You can't synthesize here because you feel like it. Use the original language of the source or remove it. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If it works for everyone, we can just use the Washington Post's "The Only Guide to Gamergate You Will Ever Need," currently at citation #149, which says: "Some of the people sent Quinn death and rape threats so specific, so actionable, that she fled her house and called the cops." Dumuzid (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Good find. Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course it'd probably then get trimmed next time we are cutting down on sources as people will forget the dumb bit of literalism it was supposed to appease. Artw (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: For whatever it is worth basic reading skills do not constitute "synthesis". Articles are based on the content of their sources, not the language. Artw (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The content of the source did not include the word "fled". A lack of basic reading skills does, in fact, constitute synthesis when it leads to using language that the original source did not. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

1) WP:NPA

2) We've already established another source used in this article does us the term "fled." Continuing to argue about this is pointless. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've added another source. There are a bunch more if needed; it wouldn't hurt to replace the contemporary New Yorker piece with an academic source from later on. But this should be enough. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Solid. But I stand by ny initial concerns given the history of this article and the pruning down of sources we've been doing lately. If this form of word by word pedantry has the potential to open a new line of disruptive editing on the article then it's absolutely worth nipping in the bud. Or we just add all the sources back in defensively. Artw (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we should focus on shifting to newer, more academic sources. We rely too much on news reports from 2014; for the most part, the sources seem to consider things a lot more clear now, and there's a lot more high-quality academic sourcing. Many of the news reports also used more cautious language than higher-quality modern sources do because they lacked the resources or time to fully investigate (not to mention lacking a bunch of previous investigations and academic papers to draw on.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gamergate which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

National Review piece

I've reverted this edit for a handful of reasons and thought I'd lay them out here rather than stuffing it into an edit summary. The first issue is that the added text struck me as out of place. That sentence begins by discussing how Gamergate was fueled by misogyny and sexism, this claim appears to blame feminism itself, and then we're back to talking about misogyny. I suppose there might be a better place for it, but the second (and bigger) issue is the National Review piece itself. Per WP:RSP, we should attribute claims to NR (and this did), we need to treat opinion pieces as opinion pieces (and this appears to be one, as Maggie Gallagher is a columnist), and we need to consider due weight concerns. I think that due weight is a major factor here, as it's an opinion piece with a one-off mention about Gamergate, and it runs counter to hundreds or thousands of pieces of actual journalism. As I said, maybe we could move this somewhere else, but is it worth it? Woodroar (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Neutrality", Wikipedia, ArbCom, ban of the "Horsemen"

Can we add the stuff about the "Horsemen" and ArbCom (and the ban was lifted?)

• https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/03/the-gamergate-wars-over-wikipedia-show-that-wikipedia-s-neutrality-measure-might-be-upheld-at-the-expense-of-truth.html
• http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331
• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/29/gamergate-wikipedia-and-the-limits-of-human-knowledge/
• etc

- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Could someone fix the header about the media mentions. Out of date and dead links - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I added an archive link for the ThinkProgress source. I tried to find one for the Frontpage Mag source but couldn't find it at archive.org. The original article title doesn't show up on Google, and all that author's posts are viewable at frontpagemag.com but that date has no post. If no one else can find a copy, I might boldly delete after a reasonable amount of time.

Also, ForbiddenRocky, you have the editing rights to edit the header yourself. You may want to check out Template:Press to learn the syntax. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is there anything more... recent about that? I feel like the article is glutted with blow-by-blow details from 2015 already, and I'm not sure that this is a particularly important one. --Aquillion (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure if you're responding to me, but if you are: I support removing the Frontpage article. It looks like a blog post. I agree with your implicit point (also made by ForbiddenRocky, that some of the lower-prominence contemporaneous sources might be dropped in favor of later, prominent, in-depth treatments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Update to the above, here's some more recent academic sources:

If we do add something, we would probably want to use these rather than news articles from 2015. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this list. I think what Wikipedia did WRT to GG is too important to not mention. And as this list shows... it's entered academia as a case study. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Requested move 12 August 2021

Note: Interested parties may wish to participate in Talk:Gamergate#Requested move 20 August 2021. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a clear consensus to move to Gamergate (harassment campaign). Most editors felt the proposed title more accurately represented the presentation in reliable sources. Opposing editors felt the current title was the COMMONNAME and/or more accurately covered the full scope of the article. Some supporting editors said the COMMONNAME was simply "Gamergate". Since the Gamergate title is occupied by the ant, a WP:QUALIFIER is required for this page. That can take the form of an alternate common name (i.e. what the opposers preferred), or parenthetical disambiguation (what the supporters preferred). Both arguments are reasonable, and policy doesn't prefer one approach over the other; in this discussion the latter has a significant numerical advantage in support. Many editors also suggested Gamergate harassment campaign or taking over Gamergate; consensus for one of these can be tested in another RM. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Gamergate controversy → Gamergate (harassment campaign) – This page was subject to many move requests in 2014–2016, eventually resulting in a move request injunction. It can be particularly tough to figure out the proper name for something as it is underway, and as reporting evolves (as some other articles have demonstrated recently), but as the dust settles it sometimes becomes more clear. I think now that we are several years removed from the events that eventually came to be known as "Gamergate", it is quite clear that the proper name for this article would be "Gamergate (harassment campaign)", or possibly "Gamergate harassment campaign". It is now clear that the only "controversy", about alleged conflict of interest in games reporting, turned out to be false. This article is now unequivocal in describing Gamergate, accurately, as a "harassment campaign", introducing it as such in the lead sentence, but for some reason (perhaps move request fatigue) the article title never changed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Concur and Endorse - it should have been called this from the beginning and shame on those who fought against it. I prefer "Gamergate (harassment campaign)" as the term "gamergate" is a noun, and we're disambiguating from the ant.--Jorm (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  (For the record, I have no strong opinion about parens or !parens) Jorm (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  "shame on those who fought against it" - really? This as the leading statement chills and poisons the subsequent discussion. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  <wank emoji> Jorm (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  I fail to see what's erotic about turning a page move discussion into a moral character judgment contest. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - per all of the above. It seems pretty clear to me that this is where the verdict of history (thus far) has come down. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support the move to "Gamergate (harassment campaign)" per Jorm. Isabelle ^🔔 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. Specifically I support 'Gamergate harassment campaign' I don't really see a reason for a peranthetical—blindlynx (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support as it's beyond about time. Prefer without parenthesis version. Article could probably do with a bit of a rewrite so we are no longer pretending it was anything other than an obvious harassment campaign. Artw (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support as "harassment campaign" is the term used by the vast majority of reliable sources. I prefer the parenthetical version but I'm not opposed to dropping it. Woodroar (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons GorillaWarfare lays out; this is how the event is now well-recognized, well-understood and well-described by sources. Either "Gamergate (harassment campaign)" or "Gamergate harassment campaign" would work; the first one makes it clearer that the name of the event/campaign was/is Gamergate, the second one is natural disambiguation; on a balance I can't find a reason to prefer one or the other. -sche (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is the common name for the incident, it has been accepted as being called the 'gamergate controversy' for the better part of a decade, alternative courses of action could include, create a redirect so that 'Gamergate harassment campaign' directs to this article, or create a 'harassment campaign' category of articles and include this as one of the members of that set. Washuchan73 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC) — Washuchan73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Outside of this article, where? Artw (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"It has always been that way" is not a valid argument. ValarianB (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - As the years have passed, the smokescreen has dissipated and the truth - which was always clear to many of us - should now be apparent to all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• 'Support as reflective of president-day sourcing. No opinion on parentheticals. ValarianB (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - as per Jorm. Really there was no ethics in gaming journalism controversy. It was very much mostly harassing women. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, and move to 'Gamergate' instead  – The ant has absolutely no business being in that slot now; once upon a time, basically pre-2014, sure; but not now. The ant should be renamed Gamergate (ant) and this article should be named "Gamergate".

The arguments (which are few, so far) have concentrated on the fact that Gamergate controversy is not a good choice for the title, with which I fully agree. But after that, everything goes awry, with virtually no policy-backed statement referencing WP:AT describing why Gamergate harassment campaign (with or without WP:PARENDIS) is a better title. In fact, there is no justification for it. For one thing, it fails WP:CONCISE, and for another, and more importantly, it's not the WP:COMMONNAME, not by a very, very, very long shot. We all know what the common name is: it's Gamergate, period. If we were talking about categorization, then sure: per WP:CATDEF "harassment campaign" is certainly a defining characteristic of Gamergate, and you could totally add the article to Category:Harassment campaigns if that category existed. But WP:AT is policy, and this does not meet the requirements for the title by any measure. Before 2014, every result in Books search was about the ant, of course. After that, the reliable sources in Books about #Gamergate completely dwarf the references about ants by 100-1. After checking the first 100 results, the first (and only) book to mention ants was this one (in French), at result #87. You can start at the first ten results, and "Next" all the way through to page ten of the results, and that is the only one about ants. This is a complete wipeout; this article should be renamed to Gamergate and the other to Gamergate (ant). Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Moving the ant would be a pretty strong violation of WP:RECENT IMHO and so isn't a good move destination for this article. Artw (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of it. WP:RECENT is about "documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens" or as the nutshell says, "current news breaks." Like maybe, the evacuation of Kabul, or the fires threatening Athens. Gamergate is hardly in that category, unless you consider 6 year old stories "breaking news". Otoh, there's WP:AGE MATTERS, where sources that are more recent are preferred, as new theories are developed, and analyses change. Moving the ant article might violate some policy, but WP:RECENT certainly is not the one. Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGE MATTERS also ends with: "Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing." In the scope of the age of ants and age of the study of ants, GamerGate is recent events. And that the article itself hasn't reached maturity yet because of articles that still recent speaks to WP:RECENT being relevant. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your quote is accurate, but you're misinterpreting it. By your logic, one could say that Isaac Newton's theory of gravity is recent, given that the understanding of gravity had remained unchanged for 1900 years. But that's not how it works; policy favors more recent sources, when the preponderance of recent sources show a shift in usage or meaning, and *clearly* that has happened. The ant was only named in 1983—does that count as "recent"?—which happens to be year three of MTV, a term which for one hundred years stood exclusively for Mammary Tumor Virus, until Music Television knocked it off its perch in 1981. I don't see how this case is any different.

And whether the article is immature or not is not relevant to this discussion; the article could be a one-sentence stub with three solid references and it wouldn't affect this move discussion one iota one way or the other because article titling policy is about how to properly name a topic, and is not affected by whether the underlying article is fully developed or not. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Artw. Jorm (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

When GamerGate the Harassment Campaign is a footnote in history, the ant terminology will still be current and in use in the study of ants. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: GamerGate is often compared to more recent harassment campaigns. I've seen parallels drawn between it and Pizzagate and QAnon. I imagine that this will continue, as GamerGate is the most well documented online harassment campaign and is seen by many as the prototypical online harassment campaign. So, unless we're thinking online harassment campaigns are going to stop, I doubt it'll ever be a "footnote in history". Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not going to outlive ants. Artw (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not going to outlive ants, that's for sure. But article titling policy doesn't depend on who wins in the long run, especially when it involves speculation about future popularity of the two topics. What's very clear right now, is that one of the topics has 99 out of 100 reliable sources in a neutrally worded search, and the other topic has 1 out of 100, and that has been stable for the last seven years. If ants are on top of the, er, antheap again in 2035, then no problemo—we can swap the article titles around again then. But for right now, that is not the case. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

We're clearly not going to change the Ant's article. You've lost this one. Time to drop the stick. Jorm (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. per Mathglot. Specially in regard to WP:COMMONNAME. - Daveout(talk) 03:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, with a slight preference against the parentheses, although I do not feel strongly about that aspect. The long view confirms that this was a harassment campaign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: I agree, it was indeed a harassment campaign. Just like the Dreyfus Affair was an antisemitic political scandal, but its name is the 'Dreyfus Affair' because that's what everyone calls it, not the 'Dreyfus political scandal' even though there are thousands of reliable sources that will verify that it was indeed a political scandal, and use those exact words. Defining characteristics are one thing, and article titles are another, and the latter are governed by WP:AT, including WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. What am I missing? On what basis are you supporting this? Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Mathglot, I support this title because Gamergate is a type of ant, and I believe this name best disambiguates the two topics. As far as I know, there were no insects, (or anything else called Dreyfus) that would interfere with determining the proper title in that particular case. What "everyone" called this topic is skewed by the harassers themselves, and we should not give harassers the power to name Wikipedia articles based on the vehemence and intensity of their harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: are you saying that the evil acts by the harassers themselves taints their self-picked name beyond repair, even if reliable sources have picked up the name and support it by 100-1? We name articles about all sorts of evil entities, political parties, militias, and regimes by their self-picked names, if that's what the preponderance of reliable sources do. The Taliban for example. Or Symbionese Liberation Army. How is this different? I don't believe policy rejects a name chosen by a bad actor, if that's what sources support. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  There is no need to disambiguate either the Taliban or the SLA, so those examples are not comparable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Mathglot, assuming moving the ant article is a non-starter what is your preference here? Artw (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Let me get back to you on that. I'll have to go through the 100 sources again, and tally what other terms they use, and see if there's a second choice. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Mathglot:, you're mixing a few arguments here.

1. Is GamerGate important because of the kind of impact? No one is disputing that.
2. Will GamerGate (the Harassment Campaign) remain the most important in the minds of people over time? Compared to the age of the ant and the study of ants, the 7 years of GG is much less. There is a great chance of gamergates being used by ant scientists in the future, than there is a chance GamerGate being well remembered. You might have heard about the Tulsa Race Massacre, until recently that wasn't even a blip on the majority of US historical minds. Consider how easily that was forgotten. Many (most?) people didn't know about the Spanish Flu until COVID-19 came around, and the Spanish flu shaped the modern world. There is a tendency of history that is close in time to seem more memorable and important. (especially recent history and 7 years is recent compared to 37 years of the first reference in the gamergate wiki entry, and no time compared to the millions of years of ants.)
3. Does it matter what GamerGaters call it, or what RS call it, or Wikipedia called? It matters what RS calls it.
4. Will GamerGate remain the singular touchstone for this kind of harassment? The Inquisition was one of the worst persecution of Jews in Europe, but it was supplanted by The Holocaust. Black History in the USA has slavery, Jim Crow, The Tulsa Race Massacre, Trayvon Martin, Killing of Tamir Rice, etc before "I can't breathe" was a big (recent) thing and many of those are little remembered now. In the history of bias harassment, GG is recent, and only time will really tell if it remains in the awareness of people looking at harassment. Gamergates among ants will remain.

The question is: Will GamerGate (the Harassment Campaign) or gamergates (ant) the foremost use of the term? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually probably simpler if we keep the question to 'do we move THIS article to "Gamergate harassment campaign", or similar available namespace?' - evicting another article from it's current namespace being a different question and one that would probably involve putting up notices there and in related wiki projects. Artw (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, nobody put up notices? That's an oversight. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Rocky, I appreciate the time you took to write this out. I don't think I'm mixing arguments, but I think you've missed a crucial element in your examples, namely, the Inquisition and the Holocaust are both in the past (ditto Tulsa, and the other examples) so we know how the usage of terminology did or didn't shift—i.e., we know how those turned out. But most of your argument, in particular point #2, point #4, and your last sentence are all about what will happen in the future. It is Wikipedia policy that we don't speculate about the future; we simply don't know what will happen in 2 years or 20 or 200. Maybe the American Entomological Society will decide in their annual meeting this October that they're sick and tired of all the snickers and tired jokes about the Gamergate ant, and decide to rename it to something else. Or maybe they won't. The fact is, we just don't know, because we can't predict the future. Per policy, we shouldn't be appealing to the likelihood of the ant name still being the same a century from now when Gamergate bullies are all long dead, nor should we guess whether the controversy will be forgotten by then, or whether it will be enshrined in history books as a turning point in social and cultural development. Speculation about the future is simply off-limits in articles, and we shouldn't rely on it in name-change discussions, which should depend on interpretation of guidelines and policies to the situation as it is now. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This sub-discussion re moving gamergate is generating vastly more heat than light at the moment, can I suggest that in order to save time and bother we table it until the current move discussion is complete, as if you get that article moved it really doesn't matter what name this article has when it is moved there? Artw (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If this isn't about the future relevance, then the guiding principles are WP:RECENT & WP:AGE MATTERS: "Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing.". GamerGate is still being examined. Gamergates are already established. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with what Cullen328 said directly above. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Gamergate This article, 7 years after the controversy began, averages around 2,000 views per day, while gamergate averages around 100 views per day. [4] The harassment campaign is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I can see why people are making the argument that the harassment campaign's lasting impact is emphemeral compared to the ant terminology, but I disagree. The harassment campaign will likely be discussed for decades for come as a quintessential example of online misogyny and harassment campaigns. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 7 years vs (at least) 37 years. WP:RECENTxWP:AGE MATTERSxWP:PRIMARYTOPIC 7 years is still recent x RS are still hashing this out x wikipedia perception of what is primary is biased a bit by the editors being wikipedians: what happens to on wikipedia is selected by a sampling bias - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: basically per GorillaWarfare's outline. Looking at the WP:TITLE, both old and new seem to roughly equally satisfy the criteria, with the new proposal losing slightly in conciseness. That said, harassment campaign wins out per WP:NDESC, being a neutral descriptor of what actually occurred. If the status quo were the proposed target, I think I and most others would oppose a move to controversy as it suggests the existence of substance in the "journalism controversy" narrative.
  I do support a move to Gamergate, though I don't think the foundations are yet laid, especially proper notification of the ant page. I see this current request target as an incremental improvement: not ideal, but better. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per nom, essentially. It is now clear that the supposed lack of ethics was merely a sham. Strongly oppose moving to primary topic due to the longterm significance criterion, same as why Apple, Inc. is not at apple._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: most of the WP:RS I've looked at describe it as a harassment campaign. I would prefer the title not to have the parentheses, but either way I support the move.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Though the most common name for this incident now is simply Gamergate, with either no explanation or explanations coming later, we must respect the ant article. The shortened Gamergate title can be used generally in the text, and included in the lead with "commonly referred to as...", as has happened with other articles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral on the current proposal (though I slightly prefer avoiding parentheticals), but strongly oppose any attempt to change the Gamergate ant article as some have suggested here per all of the archived discussions at that talk page. Nothing has fundamentally changed about the ants since all of those dicussions years ago nor the notability of this page's topic. As many others have pointed out, the ant usage will always has lasting usage as a biological characteristic across multiple species rather than just a single short event for the human species. KoA (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and everyone else above. Looks like WP:SNOW. Volunteer Marek 19:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Listed at: Talk:Gamergate
• Listed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects
• Listed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support the move to either Gamergate (harassment campaign) or Gamergate harassment campaign. oppose a move to Gamergate, as the myrmecological use of the term predates this by several hundred years, and will not be changing any time soon.--Kevmin § 22:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think booting the ant makes sense (I defer to its millennia of existence as allowing it to keep its spot), but I don't think "harassment campaign" effectively encompasses the entirety of Gamergate as the article itself covers. This is a "ain't broken" situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: FWIW, you're opposing a side proposal. The actual proposal is to move Gamergate Controversy to Gamergate Harassment Campaign or Gamergate (Harassment Campaign). The side proposal is to move Gamergate Controversy over the current Gamergate article, the one about the ant. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm opposing both. The article is fine at its current title. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Breaking my own intent to stay off this page only due to this page move (advertised at WT:VG). I would suggest reminding that COMMONNAME should be followed and only on that point, the Gamergamer stuff has recently come up in relationship to California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard (a fresh lawsuit which I have been documenting), and I've seen both "Gamergate controversy" and "'Gamergate' as a harassment campaign" in sources related to that but haven't surveyed in depth. Also, there are now a host of journal articles that have studied Gamergate, and there (a few pages of Google Scholar hits w/o digging into complete numbers) seem to show a preference for "controversy". They way I read this, it is not so much using the term "controversy" related to the claims of "ethics in journalism", but in terms of the larger picture of the broad controversy raised related to misogyny in the video game culture beyond just the actions of those harassing the developers. But "harassment campaign" is also used too. I would just caution jumping to that term without keeping in mind the common name factors that we should follow first and foremost. I also generally agree that the suggesting of moving this over the ant article is not appropriate; the ant species will have far more permanence in knowledge than this. But that's as far I intend opine on this; just the caution to make sure this move is compatible with COMMONNAME. --Masem (t) 02:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The worker ant is the primary topic for "Gamergate" (for now, but with continuing new articles on this, as recently as this month – this is gaining in long-term significance) so the current title misleadingly implies that worker ants are controversial. The parens are needed because this is not about harassing worker ants, either (I'm picturing boys holding magnifying glasses over ants). Noting that GamerGate is an option that avoids the need for disambiguation and I'd support a move to that title as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support a move to GamerGate. From my skim of the article, the word "campaign" seems at least potentially as misleading as "controversy". Srnec (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support a move to GamerGate per Wbm1058 and Srnec. The most natural name is "GamerGate", used as it was by the GG itself and by Adam Baldwin before it. GG has never been given the expression Gg or G. -Thibbs (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Move to Gamergate: The fact that Gamergate sends readers to the ant is, I believe, motivated by the fact that editors really do not like the conduct at issue in this article (which I likewise find abhorrent). The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of users searching for "Gamergate" are not looking for the ant, they are looking for this controversy. While I have great respect for the ant, it simply is not the thing that most users are looking for by any objective measure. Adding "(harassment campaign)" is unnecessary if we move to "Gamergate" directly. Let's sidestep the discussion of whether "harassment campaign" is appropriate and simply follow the objective evidence showing that this occurrence, as terrible as it is, is the thing users are looking for, and not the ant. The past arguments about recency bias have grown weaker as the years have passed. If, 10 years from now, the ant has more page views/searches than this article, we can move it back. But right now, it is silly to keep insisting that readers will be looking for the ant instead of this topic. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding the harassment campaign parenthesis does not meet the requirements set forth in Wikipedia:POVNAME for a non-neutral name, as the subject at hand is best known as "Gamergate", rather than "Gamergate harassment campaign". Pidey (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Pidey: It is very interesting that your first edit in years is to this conversation. Were you directed here? Jorm (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - this article is already sufficienly biased - a conflict between two sides, out of which one (accused of dishonesty and producing false narratives) - the corporate entities of gaming press, is considered a viable, reliable source by Wikipedia policies, and the other - a leader-less grassroot movement of gamers - which has no representation in any form which Wikipedia wouldn't consider Original Research or unreliable sources - automatically skews the representation of the issue at hand. The move would only solidify the inherent weakness of the article, which already yields the field to one side of the conflict, granting dishonest journalists complete immunity from criticism by treating everything they say, no matter how dishonest, as valid. This article is the quintessential case of "Verifiability, not Truth" really hurting the truth. No need to push it even more. Sharpfang (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

While I think you are correct that it is difficult to capture the nature of diffuse movements through Wikipedia's lens, I think the fact that the central tenet of this one was harassing women tends to lead to the state of the article as it is. Just one old man's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I also want to note that what remains of the group over on reddit are posting about this move request, so I expect that is where the new socks and reactivated dormant accounts are coming from. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, after thinking about it for a few days. Either with or without parenthesis, but I have a slight preference for the parenthesis because I think they satisfy WP:POVNAME better. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Time to call a spade a spade. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Absolute Oppose This is a brazen attempt to shift an already skewed narrative even further away from the truth. If anything, the "harassment campaign" conspiracy theory should redirect to this page.Innican Soufou (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense to me. Masterhatch (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, without prejudice against moving it to the non-parenthetical spot some time in the future. I just read the first line of this article for the first time in years and my copyeditor brain just BSODed over the gobsmacking contortions it undertakes to keep the subject of the sentence as "Gamergate controversy" (rather than simply "Gamergate"). The first verb is "concerned"! In addition to not matching any lay definition of controversy, it's just awkward phrasing. Move. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per the current owners this article, though honestly I feel like it doesn't go far enough in telling the readers how they should feel about the subject. Are there additional adjectives we can add to the title to ensure that everyone who visits this page knows how bad Gamergate is? Perhaps "Gamergate (vile, despicable, and sexist harassment campaign)" is possible? The only question is if it looks better with or without the parenthetical. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Trolling comments such as this one are not helpful. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think ColorOfSuffering makes an excellent point. Perhaps they don't go far enough. Innican Soufou (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - In this case (and in others) the term "controversy" is too vague to be neutral. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Proposed name is more accurate and neutral. --Jayron32 12:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support It now seems that harassment was the most significant part of gamergate. Yleventa2 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support Louisbeta (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, along with Gamergate → Gamergate (ant) and Gamergate (disambiguation) to Gamergate. The ant has long-term significance, but the harassment campaign gets far too many hits to justify keeping the ant as primary topic. Meanwhile, the long-term significance of the ant should preclude the harassment campaign from being primary topic. (But as a second choice, I would prefer the harassment campaign over the ant to be primary topic.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose prefer moving the ant to Gamergate (ant) and the other one to Gamergate given the hit rate on both. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If gamergate fulfilled their promises of pursuing ethical reform in journalism, then the title might not have had to change. But it is way too late at this point... Yleventa2 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2021 (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.

Brianna Wu, Gamergaters, and Forgiveness

Interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/05/gamergate-threats-brianna-wu/

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's also worth noting that this is a national RS saying: "GamerGate was a campaign of vicious online harassment against women in the gaming industry, as well as women and liberals in general." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Really our lede should just be that. Artw (talk)

  Hard agree.--Jorm (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Jorm: A paraphrase of it, (given WP:COPYVIO,) was recently accepted as the lead, see § Lead sentence. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Our lede is currently still an unwieldily four paragraphs so no, it wasn't. Artw (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

which of the multiple named blocs is "the bloc"

Gamergate became associated with the "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" during 2015 Hugo Awards for science fiction writing. These groups organized voting blocs that dominated the 2015 Hugo Awards. The campaign was described as a backlash against the increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in science fiction. Members of the bloc said[...]
I found this confusing: reference is made to two blocs, but then to "the bloc": which one is "the bloc"? Unless you're already familiar with the subject, it's also not that clear from our text that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are aligned rather than, for example, opposing groups (since this article says "the bloc [singular] said that they sought to counteract what they saw as a focus on giving awards based on the race, ethnicity, or gender", leaving unclear whether the other named bloc also wanted this or was the opposition. If by "the bloc" the Sad Puppies (only) are meant, I suggest changing to "the Sad Puppies" or "the Sad Puppies bloc"; if the combined Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies bloc(s) are meant, I suggest changing to "the blocs" or "these groups". -sche (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

-sche, I took a stab a clarifying by noting that the blocs/slates overlapped. MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've also changed "the bloc" to "the blocs" to address the number-agreement issue. -sche (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure why the article really needs to get into the various subtypes and factions of the Sad Puppies campaign, we should probably just say Sad Puppies and leave it at that. Artw (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Of the four references the paragraph cites, the only one which directly connects either the Sad Puppies or the Rabid Puppies to Gamergate is The Atlantic, and it only connects the Rabid Puppies : it says the Hugos haven't "been free from the kinds of culture wars embodied by last year's Gamergate controversy", and "this year, Sad Puppies, buoyed by Beale’s more extreme, Gamergate-affiliated campaign Rabid Puppies, managed to secure the extra votes". So, I suppose our article mentions the Rabid Puppies because they're the only aspect that the currently-provided sources connect to Gamergate. In fact, I notice that the reference cited for the final sentence, By 2018, the Sad Puppies had diminished visibility, and Quinn's 2017 memoir Crash Override was nominated for the 2018 Hugo Award for Best Related Work (for non-fiction works related to science fiction or fantasy)., seems like it only verifies that Quinn's memoir was nominated, and doesn't verify By 2018, the Sad Puppies had diminished visibility. Perhaps someone can add sourcing that verifies that, and that connects the Sad Puppies to Gamergate, and reduce the size/complexity of the paragraph, but it should probably still name both blocs. -sche (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Internet-based activism revert

I reverted [edit] because I'm not seeing how GG was about internet activism. It was a harassment campaign. Please feel free to revert, but please leave a note explaining how GG is related to activism. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure the title is neutral

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.

---

I think the title of this is a little non-neutral.CycoMa (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that it was a harassment campaign. If you can provide any reliable source that says the contrary, please bring it to our attention.

We've had extensive discussions about this and there's a moratorium on it now. Please come back in the future after you've read those discussions and the moratorium has expired.

Thank you for your participation, I am going to close this thread as un-actionable. Jorm (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2021 (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.

Lead sentence

Now that the article title has changed, it only makes sense that the lead sentence change.

Current
The Gamergate controversy concerned an online harassment campaign, primarily conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that centered on issues of sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture.
Proposed
Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, primarily conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that centered on issues of sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture.

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A question here: "was" or "is"? it never really ended so much as metastasized. Artw (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I went with "was" to match the tense of "centered", but I also wondered about that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably easiest if we go with "was" since the name is so heavily tied to the initial phases of harassment, though it should be made clear that the aftermath of this thing extends to the present day and the same people are still active. Artw (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2021‎ (UTC)

As much as I feel like it never went away, I think was is best here. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support more encyclopedic summary, proper for a lead.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support (belatedly). I never liked the phrasing "X concerns Y" that doesn't tell readers what X actually is. New phrasing is much more clear and concise. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm still not convinced the current title is neutral.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Martin IIIa, GorillaWarfare, and ForbiddenRocky: let's work this out! ForbiddenRocky, I don't think the guideline section you quoted applies, as 'Gamergate' does not redirect to this page (it goes to the disambiguation page). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect Rocky was referring to the fact that GamerGate redirects here (note the caps). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly this needs a hatnote of some kind. I like the "Template:other uses." I don't mind the "Template:about" I get why you wouldn't want an overly long one, like the about. But I think some kind of hatnote is necessary, as there is a disambiguation page. This page is not the PTOPIC, as determined in the Gamergate (ant) RM discussion. We must ensure that our readers are able to find what they're looking for.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a WP:NOTAMB-based argument against having any hat note on these two articles. See this diff from Martin IIIa. I think I get the idea here. Economy of the LEAD is important. That's prime real estate, and I understand the impulse to remove extraneous templates as much as the next guy. But, personally I don't find the NOTAMB argument all that convincing. For one, the guideline says directly: "The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other."

These are two topics that have been linked quite a few times to each other, and both have lots of hits, and are extremely unrelated. There's also GamersGate, the online shop, which is similar enough to the other two that it would probably help to have a way to get from one article to the other without having to go back to search. Example scenarios where I, an anonymous reader, would be confused and need a hatnote:

• I type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GamerGate into my browser, thinking I'm going to find the ant. I find the harassment campaign. I know one might say this is a stupid move, because the ant article is all lowercase. However, we don't build wikipedia exclusively for smart people.

• I type "gamergate" into the Wikipedia search, looking for the harassment campaign, and accidentally click the first thing that comes up on the DAB page, gamergate (ant). Now, I have to go back to the DAB page, and find what I'm looking for. Again, we don't build wikipedia exclusively for smart people.

• I type "gamersgate" into the Wikipedia search, looking for the ant, because I'm an 85 year old entomologist and I can't type very well. I instead end up in the article about the online store. Now, if there's no hatnote, I have to go back to search to find what I'm looking for. we don't build wikipedia exclusively for young, able bodied, scoring-30-on-their-MoCA 24 year olds.

None of these are preferable scenarios. Why are we okay with them happening?— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking just about this article: I think the scenario presented is vanishingly uncommon. By my pageview math, it's reasonable to assume that it might affect less than 1 in 3,000 readers looking at the articles involved here; half that is probably more reasonable. It's not that it's a stupid move, it's just that it's an unlikely one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Typo squad alert: I think you meant,

• I type GamerGate into my browser, thinking I'm going to find the ant...

Nobody types the entire wikipedia url into a browser; maybe they paste it, but if they got it from Google, they'd just click, not paste; so where did it come from? Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, I would say that I have known a surprising amount of 80-90 year old bird/reptile ecologists (not entomologists, but in this case close enough) who yes, specifically type entire URLs into their browser on a regular basis. That's where I got that point and why I put the entire URL. Again, people don't always act the way you think they do, and I don't see why that would preclude these hatnotes. I think I'm likely outnumbered here, but I think 10px is a small enough amount of space that it is worth having an hatnote. We lose extremely little in this case! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Shibby here. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike and Shibbolethink:, Wow, I'm flabbergasted... I don't have an opinion on the hatnote; was only trying to (wrongly, as it turns out) help you not leave what I thought was a typo in place. Trying to conjure up an image of how many tries an 85-y.o. ecologist needs to type a url on their laptop before they get it right. Naturally, they're all aware that it's case insensitive up through the end of the domain name, and case sensitive thereafter, so at least they'll never make that mistake, right? Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, haha! I'm sorry, I interpreted your comment and Firefangledfeathers in the same kind of vein. But I see that you were just correcting a typo, so my bad! --I did that thing we humans so often do where we assume anyone who isn't agreeing with us is disagreeing.-- I should have answered in two comments instead of one.

As an aside, I will be endlessly surprised by the things some people think about how the internet works... Like the person I know who believes that when she types something into the browser, and it comes up as a DNS error (because she typed it in wrong) it's because google is saying that thing is down. She literally believes no matter what she types in, the computer will know what she's trying to type. "Because computers are so smart!" And she's 36.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If only she knew that was Mama Google telling her "Do Not Search"... maybe they should add, "try again in 30 minutes" so she won't misunderstand. No wait, I think it actually stands for "Damn that New Server!"; no, wait, it's ... Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

if you type "gamergate" into Wikipedia's search you end up at the DAB. If you click the wrong thing, leaving a note explaining what's going on is useful. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Headcounting suggests that GorrilaWarfare, Shibbolethink, Orangemike, and ForbiddenRocky have supported a hat, Mathglot is neutral, and Martin IIIa and I oppose. 2:1 against me. I think the guideline supports removal, but I acknowledge the potential loophole in GamerGate. I want to repeat my point from above: pageviews suggest that a practically insignificant number of readers will unintentionally find their way here via that redirect or by typing in the full url of the redirect into their browser. As the rough consensus stands, I don't intend to revert the addition of the hat, and I suggest that Martin IIIa should stop unless consensus here shifts. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Major oversight here: No one provided a link to this discussion in any edit summary, and I am one of the many editors for whom pinging does not work for some reason. I only happened to come here just now by luck, and then there's the potential for additional, unpinged editors getting involved. Failing to properly advertise a discussion like that often leads to editing conflicts being needlessly prolonged and even escalated.

The obvious way to address the GamerGate redirect is to change the target to Gamergate, which I believe WP policy indicates anyway.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Martin IIIa, What wiki policy would indicate that the redirect should be changed to the DAB? I believe you, I'm just not aware of the policy. Re: oversight, my apologies! I referred to "talk page" in my edit summaries: [5] [6]. I don't usually provide an exact link, as the section title is "hatnote."— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"GamerGate" with twin capital "G"s refers solely to the harassment campaign as far as I know. Redirecting here is sensible. Since there's already a disambiguation link hatnote, I'll add "GamerGate redirects here" for clarity. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC) edited 16:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Harassment campaign?

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.

---

Was this not an internet movement which grew more complex over time? Tisthefirstletter (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that it was a harassment campaign. If you can provide any reliable source that says the contrary, please bring it to our attention.

We've had extensive discussions about this and there's a moratorium on it now. Please come back in the future after you've read those discussions and the moratorium has expired. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 9 October 2021 (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.

Proposed edit to introduction

Current content: Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, initially conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that promoted sexism and anti-progressivism in video game culture.

Proposed content: Gamergate was an online harassment campaign, initially conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that opposed progressivism in video game culture.

Reasoning: I think this article would need a pretty good citation to prove that the harassers were reactionaries. Sure, there was a fair share of them shouting "back to the kitchen". But the majority of them likely didn't believe in that. The goal of such statements is not to convince others of the virtues of sexism, but to piss people off. Trolling, in other words. It's impossible to tell what the political beliefs of a troll are from their statements.

However, who their targets are tells a story. The campaign clearly formed in order to oppose progressivism perceived as being "forced". Many of the members admit to that. But not to trying to undo social progress. The article should therefore not imply that the harassers were reactionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieknon (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• generally oppose I think the sentence could be refined, but sexism was a large part of the harassment campaign. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This topic is nearing the 8-year mark, the "we're concerned about ethics" boat sailed a long time ago. ValarianB (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't deny that this was a harassment campaign perpetrated largely by sexists. However, the phrase "promoted sexism" implies that they wanted to turn others into sexists. I can assure you, that is not the reason people issue death threats to journalists. Gamergate was the result of an opposition to progressivism in games perceived as "forced". Nothing more. Dieknon (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

...implies that they wanted to turn others into sexists, no, that is not what is being claimed here. Example, one of the targets of the harassment was Anita Sarkeesian for her "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" series, which called out games with overtly-sexist and misogynist content. The Gamergaters double and tripled-down on the sexist content, memes, insults, etc...that they threw at her. Hence "promoted sexism". ValarianB (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

how about something like: "Gamergate was an sexist online harassment campaign, initially conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate, that promoted anti-progressivism in video game culture." or break it into smaller sentences "Gamergate was an sexist online harassment campaign. It was conducted through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate.. It promoted anti-progressivism in video game culture." -ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that "promoted sexism" sounds weird. But we do need to mention it in some context somewhere in the lead - I believe that this part of the lead summarizes the Misogyny and sexism section of the body, which says that Gamergate has been described as an expression of sexism and misogyny within gaming culture; its main themes are criticism of feminism and so-called "social justice warriors", who are perceived as a threat to traditional video games, ie. it was an expression of sexism and misogyny rather than promoting it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that the attempt by Gamergaters was to stifle criticism of sexism, I'd say "promotion of sexism" is apt. They weren't simply expressing it, they were attempting to reinforce the status quo & oppose any reform. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

gamergate 1RR

is the article not 1RR anymore? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: it appears to still be 1RR, according to the DS notice at the top of this page. It also says so in the edit notice of the article. Firefangledfeathers 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

misogyny is not a criticism of feminism

@Yodabyte: Acts of misogyny are not a criticism of feminism. Category:Misogyny & Category:Sexual harassment are included, is that what you're trying to get at? Otherwise, please show RS the shows that the harassment campaign was a criticism of feminism. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree Gamergate was about gross sexism and misogyny but it was also about criticism of feminism as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm clueless or missing something related to the GG issue). Here are two sentences from the article that support inclusion of the feminism criticism category: "its main themes are criticism of feminism" and also "gamergate has been described as being driven by antifeminist ideologies". Also other editors have not given any reasons to exclude this specific category, just strange vague edit summaries e.g. "not at all" or "bitches should shut up and make me a sandwich". Yodabyte (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the article and the articles to which it is linked, Gamergate had no substantial intellectual content, no actual criticism of feminism, just the kind of misogynist sexism for which "bitches should shut up and make me a sandwich" became a non-obscene shorthand. It's the difference between actual criticism of Joe Biden and "Let's go, Brandon!" --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Themes, but no actual criticism of feminism. Have you looked at the RS, per Orangemike? Anti-feminism here manifested as misogyny and sexism, not criticism. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Orangemike has the long and short of it. The "critique" of feminism given by GG was effectively "it's bad." Nothing of substance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the general trend here that the "critique" of feminism was basically, null, Yodabyte had a point insofar as "criticism of feminism" was listed in the article as a main theme. I have therefore changed this to "opposition to feminism" to try to smooth over that issue, if that makes sense. I will not be offended if someone reverts! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

gamergate was not a movement

@X-Editor: gamergate was not a movement. provide RS saying it was a movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_%28harassment_campaign%29&type=revision&diff=1066610217&oldid=1066546888 - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: See citations 34, 111, 161, and 252. ––FormalDude talk 10:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

* Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#cite_note-TeleStuart-38 should be removed per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail

* Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#cite_note-Alt-right_precursor-165 the movement referred to here seems to be the broader alt-right

* Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#cite_note-Poland-115 the movement here seems to be less a movement and general misogyny

* Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#cite_note-256 this one might arguably go toward calling GG a movement. also, a bit of side-eye for the source; adding movement on the strength of this rehashing and undersourced article is questionable. also, "unhinged online conspiracy movements". we add movement on the basis of this article, we had better use "unhinged", too.

The general consensus so far has been: " Gamergate proponents ("Gamergaters") have stated that they were a social movement, but they had no leaders or manifesto, and statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent or unfounded. Gamergaters falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson, and more generally claimed there was unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These claims were widely dismissed as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in gaming. Gamergate supporters have frequently denied the harassment took place or falsely claimed that it was manufactured by the victims."

Speaking to the inclusion of movement, should "movement" be added, it should be clear that is not a movement as is commonly expected, ie it is not about justice, equality, or kindness. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: Movements are not "commonly expected" to be about "justice, equality, or kindness". A movement is simply a campaign undertaken by a group of people working together. That campaign can be unjust, unequal, or unkind, and it is still a movement. ––FormalDude talk 05:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If I remember previous discussions correctly, some sources do call Gamergate a movement but plenty of sources don't. Not as in "they don't mention the word 'movement'"—because we obviously can't read into that—but that they reported on the struggle of defining Gamergate. So they used words like "hashtag" or "amorphous" instead. Woodroar (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This page was not what it seemed...

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.

---

Remember when GamerGate movement criticized poor state of gaming journalism? It was Kickstarted by the controversy of Zoë Quinn's Depression Quest, a game that tried to tackle depression, but failed miserably. This page looks biased, it says that the movement promoted sexism and misogyny in gaming, which is biased, even sources don't help either. GamerGate, by neutral POV, is an online backlash criticising the corruption of games journalism (IGN, Kotaku, PC Gamer) for it alienating gamers themselves. I hope this article and its "reliable" sources will be investigated. I'm sorry if I was pro-GamerGate, but this page was borderline pro-political correctness and accusatory of sexism and misogyny in gaming community complete with caricatures. Hope you'll learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxkatsur (talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maxkatsur, this article reflects the consensus of reliable, independent sources, that "ethics in games journalism" was debunked as the cover for a sexist and misogynistic harassment campaign. The current article is based on 281 sources, many of them from publishers like The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Guardian, not to mention scholarly sources and journalism reviews like the Columbia Journalism Review. You're welcome to review them. Woodroar (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you ever heard of Qualitipedia and Lolcow Wiki? They are reliable too. Maxkatsur (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Gamers have criticized Depression Quest for its overall quality, and Zoë Quinn covered the criticism as "harassment". This controversy kickstarted GamerGate.

Sources: https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Quinnspiracyhttps://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Depression_Quest

https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Depression_Quest

https://crappygames.miraheze.org/wiki/Corruption_in_game_journalism Maxkatsur (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

If you consider wikis which literally anyone can edit to be reliable then you have some severe WP:CIR issues. Dronebogus (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty hopeless battle you’re fighting to right these wp:GREATWRONGS and push a wp:POV so if “crappygames.miraheze.org” is your best source then I’d just give up now. If you continue I’m going to regard your complaints as wp:BLUDGEONing and collapse the thread as WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but consider me unlearned, I guess. Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2022 (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.

"Reliable sources" aren't reliable and plenty has happened that they don't cover

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.

---

Just a reminder that this page is full of absurdities on account of how this page is handled by a handful of editors and their interpretation of the rules. Any time any body tries to suggest a change to show information that could potentially make this page actually more neutral and factual is immediately shut down. The conversations are deleted from the Talk page and closed. Often, "reliable sources" are invoked as justification for the rigid gatekeeping of the page. And you'll get told to "fuck off" to boot (literally happened to me when I suggested changes here).

Just a couple of problems with the "reliable sources" circle-jerk, for people who are about the truth and evidence. Much of the "reliable sources" aren't reliable, and so much has happened within the GamerGate controversy (ethics in games journalism, ideological conformity among the press) that aren't covered by those sources.

A couple of examples.

Under 'Legacy', many things are claimed. With a quote from Brianna Wu, it's claimed that if only the FBI did what Wu wanted about GamerGate (2014), then the Capitol Hill riot (2021) wouldn't have happened. That's absurd. There's no evidence to support such an insane proposition. There's nothing there, no reasonable justification to believe there's a tenable connection or cause, between GamerGate and the Capitol Hill riot. Just because Wu says it doesn't mean it's reliable, and just because Wu's words get published by an outlet on your pre-approved "reliable" list, doesn't make it reliable. The Capitol Hill Riot is completely off topic to GamerGate.

"Joan Donovan, research director at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, said that key figures in Gamergate worked to raise online fury ahead of the attack.(290)." That's not what source 290 said, so somebody really ought to fix that, number one. Number two, again, just because a talking head said it, doesn't make it reliable, even if she's a research chair. We need data. Where is the data? It's also not enough that it's CNN. Evidence, where is the evidence? Meanwhile, one of the actual few examples of a data study into the beliefs and attitudes of GamerGate supporters, published in the journal Psychology of Popular Media, won't get posted on the page. The study which flies in the face of the "alt-right" narrative. https://www.christopherjferguson.com/GamerGate.pdf (quick addition - Brad Glasgow who co-authored this, has also publicly called into question Joan Donovan's methodology). https://twitter.com/Brad_Glasgow/status/1523377742548324353

So, Capitol Hill Riot - wildly off topic, has an entire paragraph dedicated to the utterly batshit proposition. Actual data study into attitudes of hundreds of GG supporters, nowhere to be seen on the wiki page.

You know what would be on topic? The fact that Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448. I can't link directly to kickstarter, but if you google Zoe Quinn and Kickstarter, her project is the first result, the info I just relayed is all there.

Wow, it's about ethics, it's about a video game, it's about one of the original controversial figures.... and there's no mention of it anywhere on the wiki page. I believe I had suggested an older kickscammed article as a source before here, this one https://kickscammed.com/project/project-tingler-kickstarted-in-the-butt-zoe-quinn-chuck-tingle-fmv-game/ But I believe it was dismissed because of a spelling mistake, and because it's not CNN... but it's a fact that Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448.

Why isn't that information anywhere on the GG wiki page? When you figure that out, you'll figure out what I think of your usage of "reliable sources".

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the wikipedia page on GamerGate is so biased as to actually be uninformative. Confusing, even. It really pokes the holes in the problems with the entire format. No original research like deepfreeze.it allowed (can't recommend deepfreeze.it enough for people who actually want original sourcing and data to back up claims).

A lot has been published about GamerGate but truth is, most people don't know what they're talking about, most of what's published isn't well informed. There's a lot of myth making and bias. It's not "consensus" or "reliable".

I'll be archiving and screenshotting this commment.

Kainedamo (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it sounds like Wikipedia just isn't what you are looking for. It seems that you are already aware of other outlets that better suit you, and good luck with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448. Why is this information not conveyed anywhere on the GamerGate wiki page?

Kainedamo (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can show that this is information that is covered in reliable sources, and therefore WP:DUE, then it might be. Again, you seem to dislike the entire architecture of Wikipedia--which is fine--but saying "I don't like the Gamergate page, so the site should have entirely different policies" is not particularly persuasive to me, at least. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I dislike the architecture of Wikipedia because it doesn't prioritize facts and evidence. Off topic absurdities will get put on the wiki page ("gamergate led to capitol hill"), because it's published by PBS for example, but simple facts are entirely missing because those same sources don't cover it. "Gamergate led to capitol hill" is gibberish that doesn't have data to support it. Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448, is a simple fact that can be checked just by looking at the kickstarter page for the project.

Reliable definition: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.

I think able to be trusted is key there. For a journalism source to be trustworthy, it ought to correspond with reality, truth, facts, evidence, data. That's what reliable means to me.

Reliable seems to mean something completely different to you guys.

I don't find your sources "reliable" because there's big honking gaps of missing information. To say the least. I could go on all day.

This page is one of the first things people will find when googling the topic. The conformity-special of "reliable sources", demonizing swathes of strangers and blaming them for everything wrong across the entire decade.

Kainedamo (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Kind of amazing people try and make this sort of thing fly in 2022, when 4chan trolls are pretty much a known quantity amongst the most normie of folks. Anyway, suspect this whole section is going to need to go due to massive and deliberate violations of WP:BLPTALK. Artw (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2022 (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.

172 is spurious, unscientific nonsense and should be removed

HATing pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A new section was added to the Talk page, 171 and 172. Adding the Glasgow/Ferguson study is a big step, 171. It was much needed and a long time coming for providing a bigger picture. Right now it reads as, ' it's A December 2015 to January 2016 survey of Gamergate supporters on Twitter suggested that they were "more left-wing than the general population."[171] However, a 2020 review analyzing ten discussion boards on r/KotakuInAction suggested a connection between Gamergate and right-wing extremism (RWE), finding that the three main themes in these discussion boards were "RWE bigotry", "always anti-left" and "hate speech is free speech".[172] ' Let's examine 172 - Right Wing Extremism in a Video Game Community? A Qualitative Content Analysis Exploring the Discourse of the Reddit GamerGate Community r/KotakuInAction by Ashley Peckford. Ashley Peckford herself says in the essay, "the blatant use of dogwhistles is probably the most concrete and concerning evidence of a connection between GamerGate and RWE". The most concrete, as in the most solid evidence, right? She also reminds us several times that "dogwhistles" are subtle phrases. Her essay is based on ten threads from KiA. What are some examples of "dogwhistles" provided? "honk honk" "clown world" (which has its own wiki page, first result when I googled the essay) "globalism" "anti-racism means anti-white" Could it be possible that there are innocent reasons other than RWE that people would use these phrases? This whole "fear the meme" mentality leads people to bad conclusions about swathes of people, when you have reason to just assume innocence with over assuming guilt. I'm sure you've heard about the okay hang signal as an example of RWE dogwhistling, the ACLU is probably cited on wikipedia somewhere on this. It's essentially hogwash. When you look at the origin of the hand signal meme, it's so blatantly obviously a joke at the expense of the sort of neurotic person that'd take it seriously. Next thing you know, people are getting into trouble for posing in photographs with the okay hand signal. It's absurd. Why assume a malicious motive when you can assume an innocent motive? Memes are funny. They communicate many ideas and feelings. It's incredibly subjective. I am not going to assume someone means "heil hitler" if they said "honk honk", I'm not going to assume someone is alt-right because they share images of pepe dressed as a clown, and I'd be a moron for making such assumptions about online strangers. This methodology is no better than throwing darts blindfolded and only serves to obfuscate, confuse nuanced conversations, and stir moral panic. Occam's razor comes to mind. I know which position is more safe from getting cut on those blades. The Ferguson/Glasgow study was based on data from a 55-item PEW based survey of 725 GG supporters, for comparison. 171 should stay, 172 should go. One more thing. The section on 'hate speech is free speech'. Freedom of speech is a liberal principle. To stand for freedom of speech by necessity means supporting the freedom of speech you do not like. Why assume RWE when you can assume the basic standard of liberal values? Similar goes for many examples of comments used from Peckford. I can't guarantee that I'd agree with every comment, but I've definitely seen a number where you could easily apply a consistent enforcement of liberal principles over assuming RWE motives. Anything else? Should I provide more or is this enough for discussion of removal of 172? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainedamo (talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Removal of a source is, in fact, a concrete suggestion, but for me you still miss the mark. This is fine as personal analysis, but you and I are both pseudonymous internet randos, to use the parlance of the time. If you had a reliable source that said some of these things, you'd be on to something. But your ipse dixit has the same value as mine: almost nil. I wouldn't expect you to believe me over a published paper, and I hope you understand why I am not willing to make that leap. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC) This is one long post of WP:SYNTH, as well as your own personal opinions. Neither of which is convincing as an argument for changing the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC) And for the record, there is no "innocent" reason to say "anti-racism means anti-white". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Context matters. There's a lot of identity based attacks today from people who call themselves progressive and "anti-racist" and in that context, calling it out would be more liberal principled than anything. Kainedamo (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC) I can't even tell what you're trying to say here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC) I've often seen examples in which calling out identity based attacks against white people is an example of consistent liberal principle. The phrase "anti-racism means anti-white" without any context doesn't mean anything, the context could easily be innocent. I recently made this thread on KiA, https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/vfz3gk/dr_danna_young_asserts_millions_upon_millions_of/ Archive link of the tweet I'm referring to https://archive.ph/Qb6v9 This is an identity based attack that is not uncommon today. It's an academic, no less, assigning moral characteristics to race, plus applying it to swathes of innocent boys. That's regressive. I'm going to assume people calling this out for the evil, twisted nonsense it is are actually good people and not RWE. So; if the context of "anti-racism means anti-white", is calling out a hypocritical 'progressive' that engages in moral judgements based on race, that's easily consistent with classic liberal principles. Kainedamo (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC) The phrase "anti-racism means anti-white" without any context doesn't mean anything, the context could easily be innocent That is just utter nonsense. There is nothing innocent at all about that statement. I recently made this thread on KiA Oh, that explains a lot. You're here to defend KiA. No point engaging with you further, you're WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Both points you made were just intellectual cowardice. You do in fact require context, otherwise you have an incomplete picture. I just provided you with context that would show a more liberal principled intent. I do in fact have a different point of view from you. That was always allowed. Kainedamo (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC) And your context seems to be mostly based on original research and some random person on Twitter. X-Editor (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Tell me what the context is of the original quote in question. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think one was provided. The quote could be in context in regards to standing up to a 'progressive' hypocrite that judges others by race, calling such a thing out would fit with liberal principles, or at the very least a motive more innocent than RWE is more than possible. Kainedamo (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC) a more liberal principled intent No, you're deflecting for people who spout far-right talking points. It's transparent. Oh, also I see /r/SocialJusticeInAction just got banned from Reddit. And /r/TumblrInAction too. I'd say KiA is next on the chopping block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Many examples beg the question. Like the 'hate speech is free speech' portion of the essay, standing for freedom of speech is a liberal principle. If someone says "free speech", and you hear a "dogwhistle", I'm going to go ahead and say that this is a you problem. Congrats, you think RWE talking points are so subtle, so tricky, that you can't distinguish them from someone expressing a sincere view point that freedom of speech is good, which is a liberal principle. Kainedamo (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Oh please. I've seen this argument dozens of times over decades. You're absolutely defending far-right bigotry in the name of "liberalism." It's not new, and it's not going to work. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC) You've heard the argument 'dozens of times' but the best you can do is just call support for free speech "far right bigotry". Again; I'm going to go ahead and say that this is a you problem. If you're going to respond try to make an actual argument instead of painting with such absurd broad-strokes. Kainedamo (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC) That's the problem: you reduce every person disagreeing with you to "absurd broad strokes." There's no argument you would be persuaded by, so I think there's no point engaging you further. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "People supporting free speech are defending far-right bigotry" is pretty much as dictionary perfect a usage you're gonna get in regards to broad strokes, dude. Kainedamo (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC) That's called original research, which isn't allowed on WP. X-Editor (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Much of your analysis of ref 172 is original research, which is not allowed anywhere on WP. X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Just to note that X-Editor has now removed the relevant section, noting that there was no consensus, and it had been removed before. My recollection is that there was consensus for inclusion, but that's just a dim memory, so I very well might be wrong. I am in favor of inclusion, but thought we should tee it up for actual discussion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC) I remember someone saying that ref 172 was an undergrad paper, and thus, not necessarily a reliable source for inclusion. I still think that some content from ref 171 deserves a brief mention in the WP article, since that study has been peer-reviewed and was published in a respectable journal. However, it should only be a short summary of the findings that I previously edited into the article, as anything more would be giving undue weight to a single source. X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Yes. Quoting the preface: welcome to this book that has been produced by the Criminology 862 class of Spring/2020. I don't think the conclusions are wrong, but I don't see any evidence that this has gone through the sort of editorial review we usually insist on for sources. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC) It was edited by the class's professor, T.S. Palys, who is widely published if not always directly in this field. While the text contains the aggregate work of an undergrad class, it required the oversight and editorial input of a professor who would likely be considered reliable if this were a piece he had published. I can certainly see the argument that it's not a WP:RS, but it fits the bill as far as I am concerned. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Tbh if it were I shouldn't be able to drive a dumpster truck through the holes of the work, which I just did. (See previous comment on how many examples of "dogwhistles" are begging the question. Freedom of speech, a RWE dogwhistle, or something more innocent like a liberal principle position? Occam's Razor.) If you want another source in an attempt to undermine the Glasgow/Ferguson study in the same sentence it's mentioned on the wiki page, find a stronger one. Kainedamo (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Kainedamo, I don't know how many ways I can put this, but no one cares about your independent analysis, just as no one cares about mine. There's certainly an argument that Peckford is not a reliable source, but it has precisely zero to do with anything you just did. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Bear with me, in the long run this place will be better for it. Kainedamo (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC) I am willing to hear you out, but you really need to tailor your arguments to Wikipedia rather than engaging in polemic broadsides--that's not meant as a pejorative. Polemic pieces have their place. It's just not on Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Tailoring the arguments to wikipedia is next-to-impossible, and that does not at all reflect on the facts. I'll keep going in my own way, but my next idea is more "wikipedia reliable source" friendly. Kainedamo (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) I don't mean this as a threat, but a good faith warning: if you continue in the same manner you have been, you will find yourself on the receiving end of a block from this page or broader sanctions. Just try to keep your arguments within Wikipedia bounds. Beyond that, your best bet is to try to influence reliable sources as a way to change the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

New section suggestion: Johnny Depp/Amber Heard Trial

HATing pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Johnnny Depp v. Amber Heard defamation trial took place between 11 April to 1 June, 2022. On May 20th, 2022 Aja Romano wrote "Culture critic Ella Dawson has a Twitter thread compiling reporting on the myriad ways in which this trial is not only destroying years of progress made against domestic abuse in the US, but also laying the groundwork for a culture in which bots and bad actors harass, vilify, and eviscerate all other prominent women who publicly name their abusers — like Gamergate, but times tens of millions of participants, and gleefully endorsed by people all across American culture." {{|title=Why the Depp-Heard trial is so much worse than you realize |url=https://www.vox.com/culture/23131538/johnny-depp-amber-heard-tiktok-snl-extremism}} Amanda Hess from The New York Times, "It’s tempting to ignore all of this — to refuse to feed the machine with even more attention. But like Gamergate, which took an obscure gaming-community controversy and inflated it into an internet-wide anti-feminist harassment campaign and a broader right-wing movement, this nihilistic circus is a potentially radicalizing event. When the trial ends this week, the elaborate grassroots campaign to smear a woman will remain, now with a plugged-in support base and a field-tested harassment playbook. All it needs is a new target." {{|date=May 26, 2022 |title=TikTok’s Amber Heard Hate Machine |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/arts/amber-heard-tiktok-johnny-depp.html}} Katherine Denkinson writing for The Independent states there were coordinated attacks against Amber Heard as well as those who testified on her behalf. "This coordinated anger against Amber Heard has also been taken up by some publications. Website The Daily Wire spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads, while Fox News, published an article using the tweets of a GamerGate proponent that was mocking Heard’s appearance. Coverage of the case by alt-right pundits has primarily focused on Heard as the woman who (supposedly) broke the #MeToo movement."{{|date=27 May 2022 |title= From Gamergate to AmberTurd: The alt-right is hijacking the Depp v Heard trial |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/depp-heard-trial-gamergate-amberturd-altright-b2088919.html}} Michael Hobbes for Slate, "Officially, it was the conclusion of a six-week defamation trial between two celebrities. In reality, it was the culmination of the largest explosion of online misogyny since Gamergate—and a chilling vision of the future of the internet." {{|date=June 03, 2022 |title=What Really Happened at the Amber Heard–Johnny Depp Trial |url=https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-verdict-evidence-truth.html}} Ashley Bardhan for Kotaku, "You can’t do anything online without seeing him smiling, seeing unwarranted hate for her. It feels inescapable, and I feel that people hate imperfect women more than they’re able to state clearly." She further elaborates, "But then there are darker times in pop culture, like when the world laughed as a broken Britney Spears lashed out at swarming paparazzi with an umbrella, or when GamerGate sneered and drew an ugly line in the sand: Women, especially complex women, aren’t welcome here."{{|date=22nd June, 2022 |title=Vilifying Amber Heard Shows We Learned Nothing From GamerGate |url=https://kotaku.com/amber-heard-johnny-depp-trial-gamergate-me-too-twitch-1849095122}} This could all fit as a new part of the Legacy portion of the page. Aja Romano has been used as a reference six times already, Amanda Hess has already been used as a reference, Slate has been used as reference a number of times, and Kotaku has also previously been used as reference. The Denkinson Depp/Heard article is already on the page but as you can see there's a lot more coverage from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources so shouldn't the section have a broader range with all these articles included? Maybe it can be tidied up, but I really think the section should be more broad in order to convey the sheer consensus on the GamerGate comparison to the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial.Kainedamo (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Gamergate was referenced as a cultural touchstone during the Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp trials" seems about as much as is warranted. Koncorde (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I tend to agree. A sentence or two, and two or three sources seems about right. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC) The January 6th section is longer than that. A whole series of articles are placing emphasis on GG and Depp/Heard trial, do you really want to leave most of it out? Kainedamo (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC) The January 6th section is two sentences (though one of them contains an extended quote). Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Doesn't seem consistent considering the sheer number of RS. Kainedamo (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC) There's like 4 or 5 sources, making varying degrees of association with Gamergate, from comparing to alluding to inferring a relationship between them. But they're not actually saying anything. If you hadn't quoted two paragraphs either side of most of them to pad it out, the relevant content is often very fleeting and of no particular significance. Koncorde (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Tbh it's pretty much standard with the rest of the article. Kainedamo (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC) The rest of the wiki page. It's interesting that they see these parallels, I wonder what parallels others would draw. But hey, you're the experts. I don't mind either way. Kainedamo (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Like Gamergate but worse" is all they say. Most other Legacy items are two or three sentences backed by a half-dozen sources specifically about Gamergate - when these new sources talk about the harassment, "nihilistic circus" and so on they're largely just saying "this is worse". Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC) It's sort of like a boogeyman they can project anything onto. Depp/Heard trial is a strong example of how the general public comes to different conclusions than much of the media filter. GamerGate similarly, can be defined as a group of people coming to different conclusions than journalists. Anyway, commentary over. Thanks for being patient every body. I think this is probably the last you guys hear from me for a while. Kainedamo (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists - Merge or delete?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Artw (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

---

The Fine Young Capitalists, a GamerGate spin-off article that's a bit of a weird fossil from back of the time of peak GamerGate activity, is seeing some edits again. It basically went nowhere and did nothing of any notability outside of GamerGate so I'm wondering if, with that historical perspective, we should look at merging or deleting it? Artw (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of value there - it's largely the sort of blow-by-blow minutiae that we've been trying to trim on this article now that we have the benefit of hindsight - but we could merge what there is and redirect it here. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge the TFYC. Most all the details are already in this entry: missing the porn star angle (if it's noteworthy). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Belatedly added the merge templates, since this has settled on being a merge discussion. Shouldn't be too controversial but this article being this article it seems right to see if anyone objects. Artw (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with merging. Woodroar (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2022 (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.

Requested move 3 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved
It appears that consensus points to this article not being a primary topic. Moreover, frustration has been expressed by many editors about the regular occurrence of such RMs even though nothing has changed since the last RM in 2021. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate – There are two topics under the name "gamergate". According to Wikipedia Disambigation rules, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed." Therefore, this page should be renamed as simply gamergate and the disambiguation page should be removed. --Madame Necker (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You will need to establish that this is the primary topic, a question that has been the subject of considerable discussion in the archives of this talk page and elsewhere on-wiki. I'd recommend coming up with an argument regarding that before beginning a RM discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Link to the last major discussion for convenience: Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And the other discussion around that time: Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any clock that prevents another of these wastes of time? Can we just hat this for now? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

We had a ban on move requests for some time. Can that be reinstated? Woodroar (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support The activism/harassment/cultural battle of Gamergate is by far the most prominent meaning of the term. I agree that the title should just be Gamergate, with the term directly linking to the article. The disambiguation page can remain for ants and such, just put a "for other uses" byline at the top, as in other articles. Alternatively, you can change the title to Gamergate (controversy), which is much more neutral and avoids RGW. Xcalibur (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support I didn’t know there were even multiple meanings to begin with, obviously this one is far more prominent. The average user isn’t going to be looking for an obscure entomology term when they search this. Precedent isn’t dogma, and GG has cooled enough that we can talk about something uncontroversial like this without breaking out into flamewarring. Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has been argued to death over the years, and I don’t see any good reason to change the articles. The ant has scientific studies behind it & a history much longer than the harassment campaign. In addition, I believe it is important to identify the social issue as as harassment campaign within the name. Therefore, we should maintain the status quo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think the part about “identifying as a harassment campaign” runs afoul of WP:GREATWRONGS, let’s stick to objective reasoning. Dronebogus (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  Read the previous discussions which led to the current name. This is not RGW, it’s calling a spade a spade. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What about renaming this article to just “Gamergate campaign”, it’s more precise and clean looking. Dronebogus (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose that. It's certainly not more precise, and it makes it sound like a military campaign (see search for campaign, where nearly every result in the format "[noun] campaign" refers to an armed conflict). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

No. As GorillaWarfare points out, just calling it a ‘campaign’ is more confusing & imprecise. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I would also oppose this, for the reasons above--and also because in my own subjective experience, simply "campaign" without the modifier carries with it a sort of expectation of more organization than is to be found. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, no indication that this is the primary topic. Even today, identifying it as such seems to risk WP:RECENTISM given that the term for the ant is likely to remain equally significant forever, whereas an event will fade in importance as time passes. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The harassment campaign ended in 2015, around 7 years ago, according to the article's lead. The fact that it had lasting effects is in favor of its genuine significance. Nxavar (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. No indication that anything has changed since the last time this was discussed (less than a year ago, at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021 and Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021) that would make one or the other the primary topic. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the reasons above; I tend to stink we should favor scientific nomenclature over what is essentially slang, but I recognize that is not based in policy and is basically a personal quirk. I actually think the case is somewhat less compelling now than in the last go-round, when I also opposed. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• The last two times this specific move was proposed (in 2014 and 2015), it was WP:SNOW closed/withdrawn. From what I can tell, the discussion that resulted in the current setup with no primary topic is at Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021. Even moving the disambiguation page and changing the ant from the "primary topic" was a contentious process creating well over 100Kb of text, so I do not think there is much chance that there will be an agreement that this is the primary topic only a year later. Dekimasuよ! 04:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While I admit it is up for debate whether there is a primary topic here, the harassment campaign certainly does not lay claim to being the primary topic for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Move to GamerGate per WP:DIFFCAPS, WP:CONCISE, and usage in a number of high-quality sources, e.g. Aghazadeh et al. (2018), Kidd & Turner (2016), Lee (2014), Mortensen (2016), and Shaw & Chess (2016). (See also several of the reference ideas at the top of the talk page.) Per WP:COMMONNAME, When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Names used in reliable sources include "Gamergate", "GamerGate", and "#GamerGate". "Gamergate" is ambiguous, and we can't use "#GamerGate" for technical reasons, which leaves "GamerGate" as the most concise yet unambiguous title. The unique capitalization should avoid any primary topic concerns without the need for Wikipedia users to agree on a label ("campaign", "movement", etc.). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Support that Dronebogus (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Same. As before. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  The name "Gamergate" in this context is clearly based on Watergate scandal, which is not capitalized. Therefore, capitalization would not be obviously expected to be used by most people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable sources regularly (perhaps almost universally) call Gamergate a "harassment campaign", so it's an appropriate disambiguation title. In addition, I wouldn't call the harassment campaign, a subject that has existed since 2014, a primary topic over Gamergate (ant). Woodroar (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This was rejected previously and the arguments and logic of prior decisions still stand. The only other valid naming convention for this page would be "Gamergate Movement" (or similar) but this has been rejected in prior discussions despite large quantity of our sources referring to it as such (far more than call it a harassment campaign, the harassment is conducted by the movement when discussed in such terms). I don't agree with that, but I disagree with this even more strongly. The Gamergate (Ant) and no primary topic is a travesty of separate issues. Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose move, again. WP:RECENTISM. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. A move request that needed to be filed at WP:RFPP by a brand-"new" user should have been denied. There's a reason both talk page and article are protected. ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - the harassment campaign seems to have had a positive effect on myrmecology! 😂  Tewdar  17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Somebody please ping me for the 2023 Requested move, when the ant name celebrates its 40th anniversary. Thanks, @Mathglot: (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC) - It's an annual event now, it seems...  Tewdar  08:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose nothing has changed. Though, i still support getting rid of the parentheses and making it 'Gamergate harassment campaign'—blindlynx 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the total lack of evidence that anything has changed vis-a-vis this topic becoming the primary one. I also disagree with the idea that "GamerGate" would be appropriate; so much meaning should not be hung on a single choice of capitalization. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support The YTD views for "Gamergate (harassment campaign)" are 222,731 while those for "Gamergate (ant)" are 16,625. Nxavar (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I opposed moving the ant article - this compounds the problems. Artw (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also point out that while "Gamergate" was the rough banner these people gathered under it's not really any kind of official title or organisation name for it. "Gamergate harassment campaign" is equally valid, as would be "4chan misogyny op of 2014 and subsequent events". Artw (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - GamerPro64 23:37, 8 July 2022 (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.

How to access Trolls and Hacktivists in Oxford Handbook

This article seems like a really useful source, but I haven't been able to find a way to access it. X-Editor (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• can you provide more breadcrumbs? I can find info on the Oxford Handbook, and on Trolls and Hacktivists, but nothing together.- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• They're after the chapter Trolls and Hacktivists: Political Mobilization from Online Communities, from the Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Digital Media, I think. What do you want exactly, a "yaar maties!" 🏴‍☠️ hyperlink or something? 😂  Tewdar  10:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• The outstanding Wikilibrary has it, if you have access...here. Just search "Trolls and Hacktivists" and there you go!  Tewdar  11:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky's major revert of X-Editor's trimming of the Legacy section

I reverted a long string of @X-Editor:'s edits to trim the Legacy section, not because I disagree entirely, but because with so many edits it became difficult and confusing to make the several small changes I wanted make. We can discuss this here in more detail, or if X-Editor could make edits that don't both rearrange the article as a whole and edit blocks of texts in major ways, then I might be able to address just the parts I think need to be retained. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC) - WP:BRD - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: What are your suggestings? X-Editor (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't, at the same time,:

1. rearrange multiple sections of text
2. massively edit a block of text
3. delete/adding large amounts of text

and/or

• talk about the ideas and suggestions for your desired WP:BOLD edits

also, IMHO, I think you may have missed the mark on WP:COATRACK. When I did my coatrack removal it was: Gamergate to TFYC to comment about 4chan. You seemed to have removed Gamergate to result of Gamergate.

- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)