This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Feminism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present.

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

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

Here are some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the gamergaters start showing actual adult interest in actual conflict of interest and not on childish prurient "drahmaz" over wild and meaningless allegations of other peoples sex lives as rationale for harassment and stop flooding this talk page with fixation of the same, then there may be reason to treat the comments here as anything other than childish lashing out by sexually repressed basement dwellers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like most origin stories, it is important and it is only natural that it be discussed. As I told Masem, if we are not going to note what many reliable sources note about Gjoni's accusations, then we cannot be using other people's characterizations of him or the blog post and still remain in accord with NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show me a reliable source that is claiming Gamergate has misogynistic streaks and actually has proof tying those people back to Gamergate, most of the "reliable" sources I've seen say that Gamergate is misogynistic but have no proof to back up the statement. Now, if you are able to link me to an article saying as such, why is this movement being defined so heavily by its outliers? Nathan905RB (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are extensive sources that say that the Gamergate movement is misogynistic ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], I could go on, but these are all in the artcle) because of the unnecessary focus on the women involved rather than any equally as culpable men. And it's defined so heavily by its "outliers" in your definition because there is no centralized movement. There is no central voice for Gamergate. There are misogynist trolls within Gamergate just as much as there could theoretically be a black lesbian transwoman who wants there to be more transparency in video games media and who doesn't care about the cultural criticism of games and just wants to know how many arbitrary points out of 10 the game received. It doesn't matter what every singular person can claim the movement is. Because there's no representative of the whole, it can only be examined from afar, and people see three women forced from their homes due to their addresses being published online against their will, an unnecessary obsession with who slept with who and when, as well as spending all of their time and energy going after people selling their games for $20 on Steam and Humble Bundle rather than the AAA publishers who have the means to actually get people fired over advertising campaigns or any other several hundred dollar drop in the bucket for a company who makes $1 billion on release day on a single title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single mention of this on the page, despite all these sources.

Pocketgamer, China Topix, tportal, Bright Side, Ars Technica, Forbes, bitgamer, recode, Erik Kain and other industry members

NorthBySouthBaranof previously claimed Chinatopix got "basic facts" wrong and should be excluded on that basis, but the coverage is a valid interpretation of events, they just haven't been reported by other places. You can double-check for yourself. Just because a publication approaches a topic from another perspective, as most of the Asian sources do, doesn't mean it's disallowable, especially when used in conjunction with other sources to note only those things relevant to the topic.

Let's decide what should be included and what shouldn't. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with GameJournoPros is that this borders on BLP (it is an unfounded claim/inference about the actions of known living persons, something I checked on at BLP/N and was told better to leave this out). It's contribution to the overall GG story is very minor since I see little of the present proGG stuff pointing to that to say that is an ethics problem. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problems can't be solved by phrasing it as perception? Diego below says there was no agreement on the issue of whether it should be omitted from the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GameJournoPros is not a person. If it violates BLP to talk about it, then why doesn't it also violate BLP to accuse Gamergate of wide, sweeping claims of harassment and terrorism? Ridiculous. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The specific people who contributed to the list are living people, and making unfounded, poorly-sourced accusations about them or their behavior does violate BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there's little attempt to keep this page neutral despite the token cries for neutrality, I sadly doubt that these multiple sources will amount to anything at all. This page is already infamous for its partiality, and is obviously one of the bigger battlegrounds of the whole thing. Especially considering pro-GG sources are constantly questioned where as long as the anti side doesn't link Gawker or something it is accepted readily.Tupin (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list was included at the article at one point, and was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then. Now that we have more independent reliable sources covering it, it should be included again. As for Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard, there was one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included, and other thinking that it could, so it doesn't set any precedent. Diego (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is faulty. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You may want to read what I wrote instead of making personal attacks. Diego (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included.' I see a lot more than one editor in that section expressing concerns about including breitbart.com's accusations. Your statement that only one editor opposed its inclusion is patently false. The sourcing for is also still weak, just as it was then: we don't seem to have any independant investigation, only a few minor industry outlets reporting on the accusations published on a site that is best known for publishing outright lies. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that there was 'one editor commenting that it shouldn't be included' in Masem's query at the BLP noticeboard. The only editor at that board against inclusion is User:John; meanwhile, User:Stuartyeates thought that it could be published if it's covered in independent reliable sources. Please consider asking for clarification when you don't understand why a comment has been made, before resorting to insulting fellow editors. Diego (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I quoted the wrong section of your post: you said the information "was later removed because one editor opposed it based on the sources available then." That's not true, and saying so minimizes the past opposition to this information's inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mandated by WP:DUE, it deserves a place in the article. Tutelary (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No actual collusion actually took place, this is a thoroughly debunked meme. There's no need to repeat every scurrilous and half-baked cover story the "pro-GG" people have concocted to cover their misdeeds here. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The collusion has never been fully debunked (but that's not saying it is true either), and for that reason, as simply a claim of it, we should really not include as per the BLPN discussion even if we could. If it was dunked, then inclusion should be apparent, just like the allegation against Quinn. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are various ways to cover this in a BLP-safe way. We have several reliable sources noting that the leak of mails happened, and that it led to several proGGs to consider it as an explanation of the early "media radio-silence", and to Kyle Orland to publish an explanation at Ars Technica. Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been fully debunked. A wild accusation was made, a person quite rationally explained that, no, this is what the e-mail list is really for, and the accuser and associated unreliable sourced that initially mirrored it went silent. This is a dead-end issue. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple high quality reliable secondary sources which present the content, then it can be added according to due weight. It would certainly help if someone interested in adding the content would highlight which are the 2-3 highest quality sources, along with excerpts covering the issue. aprock (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there aren't. We have a few articles which are relatively low-quality sources, and they're all reporting on accusations which have gotten no real traction and which originate from a media outlet best known for making things up to attempt to discredit political opponents. We need much, much stronger sources which we can rely on to evaluate the situation properly and give it exactly the credit it deserves before we give Breitbart.com's accusations a place in Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you consider an article published under the auspices of Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher to be a low quality source? Diego (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the sourcing we have here too weak to justify mentioning these accusations in the article, yes. You'll not that that is only a source for the fact that the accusations were made: it doesn't in any way indicate that they have any merit. I'm not doubting that Milo made unfounded accusations - I know he did - what I'm saying is that by including them here when they've been given only cursory attention by reliable sources we would be violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. We have decent sources for the fact that Milo made an unfounded accusation, but we have very, very weak sources that support the notion that these accusations are noteworthy enough to merit inclusion. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform us of something that is not clear from your interventions: what level of sourcing would make you accept that this incident has strong enough sources for including it? Because I definitely want to apply that very same criteria to the numerous opinions currently included in the article. Diego (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High profile mainstream sourcing is going to garner the most support; Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, LA Times, New York Times, etc. Of the sources listed above, only the Forbes one seems likely to gather broad support. Again, it's not about something being clear or WP:TRUE, it's about gathering consensus for inclusion. If you use niche publications that editors have never heard of, then the likelihood they are going be widely supported it as a source is fairly low, especially for anything which approaches WP:BLP requirements. For better or worse, that's how wikipedia works. aprock (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it is very rare for opinion pieces to be considered reliable for much beyond the authors own personal opinion (see WP:OPINION). As such, they should almost always be avoided in controversial articles like this one. aprock (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last note, the above sourcing guidelines relate to inclusion of a topic as per WP:DUE weight. Once something has been deemed of sufficient weight for inclusion (based on high quality mainstream sourcing), then other less high profile sources can be used, guided by WP:DUE weight as determined by the high quality sources. Said another way, Kotaku can't be used to establish enough weight for inclusion, but if the New York Times makes reference to a Kotaku article, then it can be used as a citation. aprock (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That leads me to conclude what other editors have already commented at this talk page, that the amount of personal opinions currently appearing in the article have been given undue weight and should be reduced.

As of now, we're giving any op-ed by a particular journalist the same weight that we give to main events, which does not make for a balanced article. The article should give more emphasis to the events that have been reflected at several independent venues, and less to the commentary on those events by single journalists in their opinion columns; unless one particular opinion has been itself collected by other media and identified as significant by other independent sources, it should be taken elsewhere. Diego (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You hit in on the nose. There are sections that are just "here's some opinions", and because opinions are going to be extensively available from one side and not from the other by the nature of this controversy, this simply is overkill on getting the point across. "GG is seen as a bad thing by numerous people" is necessary and unavoidable to state, but not to the degree that the point is hammered over and over. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm an unrepentant inclusionist, I'm not fond of completely removing content that is sourced to reliable sources; I usually prefer to find it a better place when it's deemed irrelevant to a particular topic. I was thinking that it's time to WP:SPLIT this already long article upon the axis of factual vs opinion, creating Reactions to GamerGate. I think there are enough sources describing the nature of those reactions to make that subtopic a notable one, where those single-person opinions would actually be on-topic and not too much detail, in the way they're too detailed for this main article now. The current article could be made into a timeline of sourced facts and highly influential reactions (like those by Alexander or maybe Hoff Sommers, which have other journalists commenting on them), which IMHO would be much more neutral. This would also leave place at the main article to grow from the more in-depth, long-term analysis of the significance of the whole incident that are likely to happen in the future, without requiring us to delete the current content. What do you think? Diego (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to fork anything off like this just to "eliminate the bias" on this article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the beginning attempt at a WP:POVFORK. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, "Reaciton to" articles are WP:QUOTEFARMs, and not appropriate encyclopedic material. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing undue comments it is, then. Diego (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP issue to talk about a mailing list. We have multiple reliable sources discussing this and it only seems apt to include a mention of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above, which are the 2-3 most reliable mainstream sources mentioning it? If none (or one) are, then it's difficult to see how it should be included. aprock (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Pocketgamer, Re/code, and Forbes are the best sources in the mix.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, only the Forbes one appears to be a mainstream source, and even that is a "Games" column. As it only deals with the email list, it's hard to use it to establish due weight. Based on those sources, it's hard to see covering the topic in any sort of detail. aprock (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re/code is also fairly mainstream, it's been founded by the main technology journalists of The Wall Street Journal and All Things Digital, financed by NBCUniversal, and quoted by Reuters, Time, MacWorld, NBCNews and many international outlets (El Pais, CNET, Europa Press, TeleCinco... I quote major Spanish outlets because those appear at my Google News search, but I'm sure other languages will quote Re/code too). They don't come any better in terms of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Diego (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some games journalists discussed, among other things, GamerGate, on a private mailing list." That's a mention. It doesn't say much, but that's about all there is to say about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then say just that. It's been given more weight in RSs than some of the opinions already in the article. Diego (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get a consensus to add it, let's do it. The article's hard-protected right now or I would have done it myself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional mentions in Mother Jones and Vox, as well as a response from James Fudges at GamePolitics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatCulture considers it the 5th biggest achievement of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/5 who are we kidding now that this isn't relevant? Loganmac (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Dot becomes the first source to examine the backlash-hashtag #StopGamerGate2014 that was launched in the wake of the mass-murder threats against Sarkeesian and Utah State University. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's blacklisted from Wikipedia, too. Funny how that commitment to reliable sources lapses from time to time.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, no, The Daily Dot isn't blacklisted. If it was blacklisted, the link wouldn't even show up here. We use other The Daily Dot work as sources for this article already, actually. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is a weak source. Let's wait for a better one on this. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not banned as of now. It might have been a year ago when I tried to add a link. It's still worth observing that the commitment to reliable sources espoused by the frequent editors to this page wanes in the face of tenuous criticism of the subject.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are at a point here where it is very valid to review earlier sources and consider if they are really necessary or appropriate in light of more recent, more mainstream sources (see my point about the latest WAPost above); later sources will have a better hindsight view to help balance the coverage appropriately. That's why I think going on we have to be very hesistant about using "weak" sources like Daily Dot (It's fine for less controversial topics, but not here). Note that I don't think within 48hr we'll lack a good quality source for this current hashtag... --MASEM (t) 05:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I bet this counts as a "good quality source".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, within 48hrs I figured we'd have some; that, and a new WAPost one (separate from the summary above), and a Metro.uk... --MASEM (t) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hashtag's pretty much already dead. Gamergate deniers don't seem to have much commitment to their ideals. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? How can you tell? If it is dead then maybe we can add it in that there was another counter-hashtag that died. --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sites that map Twitter hashtags. It turns out I was wrong. It was dead as of a few hours ago. It's back at the moment, and centred on New York ... and the Philippines. I'll leave that to speculation. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

read: the earth turns, there's timezones and now the western world is waking up to flood social media again. We'd have to wait days to determine its' "death". --MASEM (t) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So... Check back in a week then? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources for this: Kotaku, Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, Forbes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to wait 7 days, well, 6 days now, before I want to say that this thing is going to stay. I knew a fair few people who thought GamerGate was another small internet shitstorm that would blow over in two weeks, and it has lasted for over a month now. I think. Let's see whether it can keep up it's momentum for a couple of days before we add it. Is that okay with you? --86.169.65.31 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That hashtag is already dying lol http://i.imgur.com/k8NNjkB.jpg they've tried this before, but oh well it gained the attention of the totally not colluding gaming media so I guess Loganmac (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a few more days, I want to see whether it will revive or not. --86.156.85.208 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is primary source and twitter, but as a enourmous notable organization can this get a mention?

"Journalistic organisation WikiLeaks recognized GamerGate 'found out [their] media is corrupt'" [13] Or something like that? Loganmac (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't see a problem if it is posted as an opinion, it's a verified account. I'm just a n00b though. If you want a secondary source what about this? http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/09/wikileaks-wades-gamergate-says-nato-corrupt-video-games-journalism Halfhat (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Edit: It doesn't refer to that tweet in particular but does show the same sort of position.Halfhat (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't the results of the AMA been constantly thrown out because of the wispy washy nature of the question posed and the answer given? I don't see why we need to mention that the website backs them up in any fashion when it solely revolves around the claims of censorship happening when people are getting banned for violations the terms of services of the forums where they are claiming it is happening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, and read through the linked article, and found zero mention of GG. We're not going off one tweet to say there's support. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatCulture mentions that "Wikileaks commented on their twitter" about reddit "stiffling the discussion of the GamerGate scandal" in an article about the biggest victories of GamerGate http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-biggest-victories-gamergate-achieved-far.php/10 Loganmac (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard pressed to see WhatCulture as a significant source. On the plus side, that was very funny. Well, the few pages I could see before the site seemed to die, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatCulture is definitely not reliable, it's more a clickbait site. They might express points that could be discovered in other sources, but we can't use them directly. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate (sometimes referred to as GamerGate or as a hashtag #gamergate) is a controversy in video game culture which began in August 2014. Gamergate is the name of a controversy that started in August 2014 primarily over social media as a culture war between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. Aimed to capture a few issues that have been id'd above, adding in the idea this is a culture war (more than enough sources), identifying but not pigeonholing key players, and avoiding the "inherent"/"ingrained" issue with the fact that these problems have been there. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that change. Q ^{T C} 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could replace the laundry list with "a culture war in video game culture over pre-existing issues..." More concise and inclusive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with masem Retartist (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has so many clauses that it seems like it should really be 2 sentences. Also the way two different meanings of the word "over" are used in the same sentence is a bit jarring. How about this: "Gamergate is the name of a controversy over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism. The controversy first arose in August 2014 and was primarily propagated via social media as a culture war between members of the video game press, developer community, and gamer community." ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer yours, Thibbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2c Gamergate is a culture war that began on social media in August 2014 involving the video game media, developer community, and gamer community over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture. Cleaned up language, 51 words down to 36, better links. --beefyt (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it better, but I still find there to be too many qualifiers splitting the subject. At its most simple core it's "a controversy/culture war over pre-existing issues... and journalistic ethics." That's what the article should lead with. Then further qualifiers could be added to the end of the sentence. How about this: Gamergate is a culture war over pre-existing issues of sexism, misogyny, and journalistic ethics in video game culture that began on social media in August 2014 and involved the video game media, developer community, and gamer community. ? -Thibbs (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd split it up to make sure to add "members of" since not all of those groups are involved. eg "...journalistic ethics in the video game culture. The controversy started in social media in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community." --MASEM (t) 05:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate was not a "culture war", it was a lynchmob that backfired.[14] "War" implies that there were two belligerents involved. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That very article says "culture war". Also, a culture war is not always a war with two explicit sides, but can be a single group against a larger shifting tide. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. Opposition withdrawn. Kaldari (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think of the versions suggested, Thibbs' is the most readable, although I prefer the existing wording of 'ingrained' over 'pre-existing'. Kaldari (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I think that's far better. Halfhat (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources dont present it as a "culture war" - they present it as "Ostensibly a campaign against corruption in journalism but in practice a grassroots attack on feminist critics in gaming" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is a disingenuous treatment of the subject, bordering on deceptive, and I'm ashamed that an admin is actually behind it. This is ingrained sexism and harassment, long-ingrained in the gamer community that came to a boil over false allegations of impropriety against a female game developer. This is not a "culture war", unless there's a "culture" that is pro-sexual harassment in play here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be neutral as Wikipedia editor. The neutral stance, with reporters not invested in this, is that this is a culture war that has included unfortunately nasty tactics. If you cannot take the middle ground stance (proGG or antiGG side) , you should not be touching this article. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What refs will be used for the use of "culture war"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WAPost, Stuff.co.nz Metro UK, CBS News, (arguably CNN though there it is a quote from a game journalist). I believe there's a few older ones but those are all in response to the Sarkeensian shooting threat news. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should really get something on the shooting threat into the article soon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is helpful. Could we combine it with a solution to the issue 33/basic lack of explanation? It seems like both are aiming at parts of the same basic issue of providing context. valereee (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AND: in the interests of developing something that won't need nitpicky usage edits -- 'among' rather than 'between' probably, because more than two entities. valereee (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree leave the misogyny bit off Ginnygog (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot remove something that everyone has been saying exists as part of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the fact that there's no specific party to blame for the misogyny (in fact it is clearly a standing issue through all three parties listed). But Ryulong's 100% correct that since every non-gaming mainstream source has called out something misogynic about the situation (whether anti- or pro-GG), it is part of it. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When was misogyny called out on the anti-GG side though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out with the "ingrained" discussion, the industry has been dealing with internal misogyny; they may not have been called it after it started, but the statement does not belie that it was a problem. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp per opinions above: Gamergate is the name given to a culture war within the video game industry over pre-existing issues of sexism and misogyny in the video game culture, and the ethics of video game journalism with the maturing industry. The controversy occurred primarily over social media starting in August 2014 between members of the video game media, developer community, and gamer community. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

Just started reading this and am troubled by the "ingrained" piece, solely because the source reports opinion just as much as fact. Is there a suitable replacement, preferably from a more standard RS? Otherwise that really should come out, especially since it is made in Voice.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless sources that use various other synonyms for "ingrained". "Ingrained" is a compromise over every other synonym out there that says that misogyny and sexism are part of the gamer DNA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cover story of this week's East Bay Express is about Gamergate.[15] It's a pretty long and detailed piece. Interestingly, it includes discussion of a topic not mentioned in our current article: harassment of trans and queer game developers. It might be worth integrating some mention of this issue into our current article. Kaldari (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's finally talk about Patreon, shall we? Link to other sources in the archive. Also Reason. Gamergate's discovering Patricia Hernandez's conduct seems noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's been a major part of discourse. How briefly can we summarize it? Halfhat (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Willhesucceed: the East Bay Express article downplays those quoted examples, though, even including this rebuttal:

Polygon editor Christopher Grant, meanwhile, published a blogpost reminding readers that "like Kickstarter, these contributions aren't investments. There is no equity to be gained, there is no market to capitalize on."

And at the same time they are contrasted with the

common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles.

So I'm not sure it's as damning as you would make it appear. Multiple editors above had also expressed concern with using Reason for BLP statements, which would include Patreon or any ethics claims about journalists. Woodroar (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's damning or not, it's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's noteworthy, but you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. The pull quotes you mentioned are given as examples of minor ethics violations, and they are contrasted with major ethics violations of the AAA title developers. We could say something like this: Sarah Burke of East Bay Express mentioned often-cited concerns within the GamerGate movement, such as a reporter being "friends and former roommates" with a developer, or donations from reporters to developers via Patreon accounts. Burke contrasts this with the "common practice for big-budget video game companies to wine and dine press at fancy events and give away free products like new game consoles" in order to influence positive reviews, a concern which GamerGate has not expressed. Just a thought. Woodroar (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make this less emotive, removed some redundancy, removed a couple parts that implied small pieces of unsourced information and tried to make it flow better.

The controversy came to wider attention due to the sustained harassment indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had "romantic relationship[s]"[7] with members of the gaming media which prompted concerns that the relationship led to positive media coverage for her game. Although the concerns of at least one of these proved unfounded,[8][a] allegations about journalistic ethics continued to clash with allegations of harassment and misogyny.[10] The rising popularity of the medium, and greater emphasis on games as a potential art form, has led to a commensurate focus on social criticism within gaming media and indie works.[9][12][13] This shift has prompted opposition from more traditional "hardcore" gamers who view games purely as a form of entertainment.[6][9][12][14] Other topics of debate have included perceived changes or threats to the "gamer" identity as a result of the ongoing changes to the gaming industry.[2][3][4][5]

Allegations of impropriety in gaming media have prompted policy changes at several outlets, and commentators generally agree that systemic problems in the gaming media need to be discussed; however, the harassment and misogyny associated with GamerGate is seen as having poisoned the well.[10][12][15] Furthermore, the focus of the movement on a heretofore relatively obscure independent developer rather than AAA publishers has led to questions about its motivations.[14][15]

Halfhat (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations which have been widely reported in reliable sources (which are the only ones we care about) have been shown to be false, and we have no interest in any of the others. You've also removed extensive discussion of the threats against Quinn and others and how they are seen as being responsible for the fact that mainstream sources have focused on the movement's misogynistic, harassing and trolling elements. Those parts of your proposal are not acceptable.

We can get rid of the word "allegations" before harassment, though — it's well-sourced in reliable sources that such harassment has happened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as per NorthBySouthBaranof. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would discussion did I remove? It was just repetition. Halfhat (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph should be a succinct and thorough summary of the article. There's nothing in the first paragraph about the harassment campaign that counts as repetition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What sourced facts have I missed out?Halfhat (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "just repetition" and you didn't address the issue of raising unsourced and irrelevant claims about Zoe Quinn. You won't get any consensus for that version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What sourced facts did I miss? Halfhat (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look If I've actually missed out sourced information say what I've actually missed out. Halfhat (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only doing this to get local consensus first, then will tag w/ edit request to get someone to do that.

At the end of the para that starts "The harassment expanded to include renewed threats against Sarkeesian...", we should add the following:

In mid-October, Sarkeesian cancelled a lecture she had planned to give at Utah State University after the school received a shooting threat attributed to Gamergate supporters that referenced the École Polytechnique massacre; Sarkeesian stated she only cancelled the engagement after the school could not assure her safety at the event due to state laws, but will continue to speak elsewhere.<ref name="nytimes asu"/>

<ref name="nytimes asu">{{cite web | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html | title = Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign | first = Nick | last = Wingfield | date = October 15, 2014 | accessdate = October 15, 2014 | work = [[New York Times]] }}</ref>

Note that I do not think we should even get into any issue on the state law gun laws (allowing for concealed carry that the school could not interfere with), just that they couldn't assure she would be safe. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Utah State University, not Arizona. Also I think we can use all of the references provided when it first came out like the one from CNN and such.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as stated before

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats [UPDATE]|last=Schreier|first=Jason|date=October 14, 2014|work=Kotaku|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/14/6979071/utah-state-university-anita-sarkeesian-threats|title=Utah State University threatened with school shooting over Sarkeesian appearance (updated)|first=Megan|last=Farokhmanesh|date=October 14, 2014|work=Polygon|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp|title=Feminist cancels USU talk after guns allowed despite death threat|last=Alberty|first=Erin|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Salt Lake Tribune|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/10/14/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-speech-after-school-shooting-threat-at-utah-state/|title=Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech After School Shooting Threat At Utah State|first=Paul|last=Tassi|date=October 14, 2014|work=Forbes|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/10/death-threat-forces-cancellation-of-sarkeesian-university-speech/|title=Death threat forces cancellation of Sarkeesian university speech|first=Sam|last=Machkovech|date=October 14, 2014|work=Ars Technica|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/blogs/newmedia/2014/10/14/17424/feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-receiv/|title=Video: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian receives latest in series of death threats - 89.3 KPCC|last=Roe|first=Mike|date=October 14, 2014|work=Southern California Public Radio|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.hjnews.com/news/threat-of-deadliest-school-shooting-in-american-history-leads-feminist/article_0eb29ed0-5404-11e4-a274-3334768d75c3.html|title=Threat of 'deadliest school shooting in American history' leads feminist to cancel USU lecture|last=Cannon|first=Kelly|date=October 14, 2014|work=The Herald Journal|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/index.html|title=Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah State speech after threat - CNN.com|last1=Ahmed|first1=Saeed|last2=Marco|first2=Tony|date=October 15, 2014|work=CNN|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/|title=‘Gamergate’: Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah lecture after threat|last=McDonald|first=Soraya Nadia|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Washington Post|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk|title=Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat|first=Alex|last=Hern|date=October 15, 2014|work=The Guardian|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31957809&nid=148&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-1|title=USU receives threatening email; feminist speaker cancels speech - KSL.com|first1=Natalie|last1=Crofts|first2=McKenzie|last2=Romero|date=October 14, 2014|publisher=[[KSL-TV]]|accessdate=October 16, 2014}}</ref>

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We only need one source to explain the cancellation, and the NYTimes is considered the best quality source for news like this. These other sources may be useful elsewhere but we don't need much on this. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The NYT source cites the fact that the anon used the name of the killer in his e-mail, rather than mentioning École Polytechnique by name, not sure how crucial that difference is.
2. The message being conveyed to Sarkeesian was; "I will kill people at that school because you are a woman", that is why the anon signed the threat "Marc Lépine". I don't know if the NYT is making that IMO critical point, don't have time to read top to bottom right now unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTimes and most of the other mainstream articles don't mention the Ecole Poly shooting by name, but they mention Lepine and the threat in reference to "a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989" (this in NYTimes), which is clearly the Ecole Poly shootings; there's no question what that reference is. That's not OR to connect that up for purposes of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources directly mention GamerGate like our WP:NOR requires them to? Sure it was tragic, but is it related to Gamergate? Tutelary (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did the fact that the NY Times story at the top of this section is titled "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign" escape your purview? Tarc (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of meaning how do they make it about GamerGate, and wasn't wanting to read through about 11 just to see or figure a consensus on how they all treat it; whether it's apart of the larger story, or something like, 'A pro GG person just threatened Anita' or related. Tutelary (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they say it's about Gamergate then we can say its about Gamergate. Last I checked, several of the sources that are in the "Utah State shooting threat" section higher up on the page that I've formatted ito these references, several of them mention Gamergate as related to the shooting threat. And IIRC, there is also discussion here or in one of the sources that Sarkeesian said the email referenced Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Tutelary's point, there is no clear indication this was specifically a GG related action, which is why the wording I chose said that the implication by officials and the press is that it is (as opposed to saying that GG issued the threat, which cannot be proven) --02:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If these sources are linking the threat to Gamergate then we can say it's related to Gamergate. Stop being soft.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are linking the threat but they do not say with 100%, fact checked assurety that is was GG, so we take the same approach Huge difference in how this is written, and basic fundamental WP policy. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this interview with RS, we might want to note that Sarkeesian has previously spoken after her harassment at events that had received potential bomb threats, only here where they could not affirm her or the audience's safety due to state law did she back down. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

from the Guardian criticizing the recent NYtimes article for, all purposes, giving the GG the time of day. Opinions aside, there perhaps might be enough to talk about how the coverage of GG in mainstream has led to some issues (an extension of the "Death of games"-type of thing) in terms of swinging the matter. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol the Guardian thinks media is biased towards GamerGate. At this point this article it's just impossible to get neutral. And I admire your efforts Masem. But it's like the Wikileaks/Snowden/Julian Assange page were 80% mentions of them being terrorists and traitors. A movement about journalism corruption is bound to be misrepresented by media Loganmac (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol ahhh the conspiracy of the media. do you have enough tin foil for your hats? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you I got my collection of tin foil hats ready sir, you're absolutely right, the media doesn't get defensive when a movement attacks them, they're just pure and neutral as it gets! Loganmac (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly a conspiracy theory. News media are not keen on reporting fairly about criticism of themselves. I think it is quite possible to keep this article neutral even with that being a factor, but it will only happen if both sides in this content dispute are willing to be reasonable. Unfortunately, only one side is showing a desire for neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's not even a conspiracy it's just getting defensive. Yeah definitely add this, it's a decent source, and will help get this a bit more neutralHalfhat (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if someone already linked this (if so, I missed it) but the BBC is running an article on the background issues complete with a link to our article which they describe as "what looks like a factual account". Link. CIreland (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"looks like a factual account" ... *anguished Wookiee cry*

This is the fourth? fifth? sixth? article to now focus on internet culture as it relates to the controversy. It deserves inclusion. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better than I expected, it has a lot of flaws and some neutrality issues, but this is a very hard topic to cover. Halfhat (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/ Willhesucceed (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://time.com/3512862/fixing-gamergate/

"The university deemed the presentation safe to proceed after consulting with local law enforcement" Noteworthy, I think. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • uhhh noteworthy because ... Sarkeesian 's decision not to appear shows that shes a chicken shit girl, a real man would have showed up and brought his own gun? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this harassment has gone on for three days now. Odd how few have noticed.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I realise this suggestion would be an uphill struggle. But I'm starting to wonder if 'GamerGate controversy' is the most appropriate title for this article. True, 'GamerGate' is probably the most common description of this kerfuffle, if only because it's short and pithy. But that doesn't mean we should use it ourselves. Using the hashtag catchphrase of an activist group for an article about a broader issue is implicitly endorsing that group's position on that issue. (That is to say: using the name 'GamerGate' for this article implicitly endorses the view of one side that it's really all about criticism of 'gamers' as a group.) Yes, some articles are titled after hashtags, but only when the article is actually about the hashtag campaign, whereas the subject of this one has grown into something broader.

By analogy to a previous case: there was another big Internet controversy a few years ago which one group of activists called 'Climategate'. But even if that may have been the most widely used nickname, our article on the subject is not called that, but rightly goes by the more neutral and descriptive title Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I'm thinking we should do something similar here.

I don't know what the best alternative name would be; my personal preference would be for something like 2014 harassment of women in gaming controversy, but I recognise that may also have neutrality issues. I'm open to better suggestions. Robofish (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME - Gamergate is the right word on that alone; in contrast to "Climategate", which bore out as the issues expanded, it was GamerGate from the start for all practical purposes. And keep in mind that it is the proGG that promoted that term even though I would argue it is a negative connotation by just name alone towards them (in that "X-gate" implies a todo over X"). --MASEM (t) 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, I think the initial title was Quinnspiracy, and then it branched out and became GamerGate.Halfhat (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested title has couple of problems. Firstly it'd cover a whole lot that GamerGate does not, and it ignores the whole journalism side. Ignoring that, GamerGate is what people will look up, it's what it's called. The problem is GamerGate is very hard to define, it does include harassment, but also more sincere concerns. Halfhat (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy this made me laugh, please tell us you're joking Loganmac (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link

I could basically quote the whole thing. It notes that what's going on is the result of a moral panic. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an unreliable source, and the author is a consultant at a PR firm. Woodroar (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unreliable? About Allum Bokhari is a political consultant. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Tech Crunch piece he wrote, it's a blog: "spiked has an open door policy on contributors". When a reliable source hires him to write about video games or cultural issues, or when he is recognized as an expert in the area, then we can discuss it. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially usable as an opinion piece, but we already give this writer's opinions an entire paragraph and I don't think they particularly deserve more space than that. His declarations that this is a "moral panic" and that linking Gamergate to harassment is a "bizarre belief" are verging on WP:FRINGE territory anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I'm looking into it, I wonder why we're using this source at all. The discussions about Tech Crunch at WP:VG/RS have been mixed because of concerns about it being a blog. Of course, blog posts written by staff members or experts can sometimes be reliable, but that doesn't appear to be the case here: it's a one-off post written by someone not on the Tech Crunch staff. I don't see a history of articles about video games or culture from the bio blurbs at Tech Crunch or Spiked, and searches for his name in the WPVG Google "reliable" search turn up 0 results (and 2 forum posts in the "situational" search). He works at a PR firm. I mean, I think his statement in the article is similar to other random opinions I've seen expressed online, but we don't include opinions just because someone has one. I hate to say this, but imagine the hate we would get if we sourced anti-GamerGate opinions to someone working at a PR firm, not to mention someone without a background in video games at all. Woodroar (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. We should also remove Ryan Smith, Lianna Kerzner, Erik Kain and Christina Hoff Sommers. It'll improve the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're being facetious, but at least they have some kind of background relevant to the issue at hand. All I'm saying is that our bar for opinion sources shouldn't be as low as "do they have an opinion?". Woodroar (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested earlier that we raise the bar for anybody's opinions to "has it been quoted by a separate reliable source"? IMO removing those opinions that a journalist has published in their column, and keeping only those that have had an impact on someone else, would have a large effect toward improving neutrality and proper weight to the article. Diego (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, a political consultant has no business commenting on what's being described as a culture war. Willhesucceed (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gamergate-leads-death-threats-women-gaming-industry/

I just saw this on TV tonight. Maybe usable. Maybe just reiterative. You be the judge. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stardock CEO, League of Legends Devs, Others Support #GamerGate.

Selected quotes:

Diego (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So basically this is a few developers saying they don't like video game journalists criticizing their games for perceived issues of sexism, homophobia, etc., and they support GamerGate because they want video game journalists to stop criticizing their games.

Such a commitment to journalism ethics I have never seen in my life. And by that I mean it's literally the opposite of a commitment to journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that [League of Legends] guy is sooo right . I have NEVER played a game that was any good at all that did not involve buying an alien prostitute for my friend. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum, we're not here to discuss the legitimacy or lack there of GamerGate, only how to best cover it. The questions are, are their opinions worth covering, and the reliability of that site (I'm not familiar with it). Just because you don't agree with some opinions doesn't mean you shouldn't cover it.Halfhat (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're making me uncomfortable.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dont tell me the social justice warriors have gotten to you too? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is that, plus a RS quoting them and analyzing their words and placing them in context. I thought you said we cover what reliable sources write about, and it doesn't matter what we think of it? Diego (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can put in the article that some video game developers support Gamergate because they don't want video game journalists criticizing their games. If Gamergate wants to hoist itself on its own petard, who am I to stand in its way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a decent source. I'm far from the best to judge that though. Here's job information http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Cinema-Blend-Jobs-328.html Halfhat (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also on The Escapist - here and here. Diego (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can also note the response to this line of thinking, as expressed by Kyle Wagner:

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Deadspin a sports blog? Diego (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't CinemaBlend a movie blog? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Despite its name, it describes itself as an "entertainment site. Reporting on movies, television, video games, and pop culture". Diego (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be mostly about movies, with perhaps one writer working on video games and republishing thinly-repackaged press releases. Deadspin also has some video games coverage.

More to the point, it doesn't really matter what the blog is about; it's a valid opinion piece, just like the opinions expressed by video game developers. Kyle Wagner's opinion has been referenced approvingly in a wide variety of reliable sources, which I'm pretty sure is more than you can say from anything from CinemaBlend. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, despite the shape of the arguments, this looks like an agreement to cover the opinions of pro-GG developers from the sources in this section, in the terms discussed. Let's see if we can write something down with them. Diego (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have two writers for video games, actually. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change the photo of Zoe Quinn in the article from File:Zoe Quinn - GDC 2014.jpg to File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg, as it is preferred by the subject and slightly more flattering than the candid photo where she's holding a bottle of beer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidebar, while these photographs have been uploaded with the express permission of the subject, is there some way we can request that she provide a simple portrait photograph of herself rather than these expressive and artistic selfies?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She posted the pictures + permissions on Twitter, so it might be possible to ask her via Twitter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to make my Twitter private because the Gamergate hordes were angry at the shit I was writing here and as of 12 hours ago they still are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/gamergate-personal-attacks-and-threats-have-to-stop-say-e3-organisers-9798264.html

I thinks E3 organizer's comments warrant mention. And some other opinions. Halfhat (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spectator, New Statesman, Week, Times, Metro, Spiked, Verge, RealClearPolitics and Reason, Vulture, Stuff, Inquisitr, Washington Post, Metaleater, Forbes, CNN, Recode, Chinatopix, Ars Technica, Forbes again, Bit-tech, pocketgamer, tportal, Totalbiscuit and video games publications EICs Janelle Bonanno and Greg Tito

I think this makes a clear case for notability. Particularly, there seems to be a focus on how Breitbart / Yiannopoulous got involved early in the controversy and spread the tag, and on the leaked emails of the GameJournoPros list. Both of these topics should be in the article. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannopoulos and his role in GameJournoPros seems fair to mention but given how little impact that had on the resulting situation as well as still being an unfounded accusation (there's a big gap of logic from a mailing list of game journalists discussing their work, and purposeful collusion to censor the story as the claims have made) we can't give it a lot of weight. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't it been established that the GamesJournoPros list doesn't mean jack squat in the long run and Yiannopoulos was acting just as he always does on Breitbart which is to say making shit up for publicity?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As some of the more mainstream summary reports of late have mentioned the discovery of this list which set some in motion some other aspects, a sentence or two mention is fine, but we don't need to dwell on it. (This arguably is also true now of TFCY issue too, it's a minor point in the larger narrative). --MASEM (t) 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's noteworthy. Willhesucceed (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What they say about Breitbart/Yiannopoulos: "Yiannopoulos of Breitbart London published an article containing emails ...(in which he) suggested collusion between these journalists ... (He later) also published the full exchange of emails, which provided a more nuanced look at the situation ... All told, (the full collection of e-mails) appears to be a largely civil conversation between professionals." and "he leaked a trove of basically anodyne emails between game journalists -ironically, Yiannopoulos had little but sneering contempt for gamers before he spied a chance to make some right-wing converts.)" and "Truly odd, fascinating headline there: “Feminist bullies tearing the video game industry apart.” The mainstream response to B/Y is pretty much "yawn, nothing there", "hmmm, some presentation out of context -not exactly what you would expect from a journalist purportedly expounding on journalistic ethics" to "someone saw an opportunity to strike gold and get a rabidly tech savy audience by only reversing his opinion of them" to "yowsa! can you believe he is blaming the victims of the death threats????? " I am not really sure how you wan to fit that into the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like Kain wrote in Forbes in September: "Some are crying for more ethical journalism while embracing completely biased and one-sided coverage of the event so long as it conforms to their own biases". Mr. Y seems to fit this to a T.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is this It is also worth pointing out that Delingpole tells his readers to search for a number of - abysmal and hateful - pieces on GamerGate by a man he employs as a columnist at Breitbart, without disclosing their relationship. The irony is noted.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest at the top of "Role of journalists" we place:

Milo Yiannopoulos is credited with early news coverage of the controversy, in which he criticized the politicization of video game culture,^{[1] [2]} and with leaking correspondence from GameJournoPros, an email list where members of the video game press discussed industry matters.^[3][4] Kyle Orland, the creator of the list, responded to the leak on Ars Technica, admitting that he had acted unprofessionally in some correspondences.^[5] Most members of the press saw the list as largely benign.^[6][7]

Willhesucceed (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kind of missing the major points of all the reliable sources coverage of his "work" , aren't you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are really cherrypicking the content that sheds the positive light on Yiannopoulos's writing when TRPoD has pointed out that everyone else doesn't think anything he's revealed is worth much in the long run and also how he previously referred to gamers as "nerd rapists" and "dorky weirdos".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve it, suggest changes. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, like your whole proposed addition is just singing praises and casting the whole of the list in a bad light. Yiannopoulos may have inserted himself into the debate, but it does not seem like this proposed addition accurately depicts what has happened.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is a bit POV there. It makes it sound like Orland copped to what Yiannopoulos was saying, when the truth is that he defended the list and said he felt it wasn't a big deal. Many commentators agreed on that front. We should note that Fudge weighed in as well, with Ryan Smith being more on the other side. We also have sources agreeing with the concerns about the list, so that should be mentioned as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orland did admit he acted improperly on the mailing list in some instances. I don't know quite how to phrase it. If somebody has a better way to write the paragraph, or things they want to add, I encourage them to do so. I changed it a bit. Is it better now? Willhesucceed (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[16] seems to confirm that Milo has completely moved out of the role of "journalist" into the position of participant/advocate and toss any charade out the window. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is she in the article? She's mentioned in all of two pieces. Willhesucceed (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because she had something to say about it and she's a notable individual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Baldwin is a notable individual and he's been covered much more than her, and he barely gets a mention. She shouldn't be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penny is an award winning, third party analyst and Baldwin is an involved party who is an actor. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case we should have no problem using Milo Yiannopoulos' personal blog for information, too. Willhesucceed (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yianopoulos's personal blog is full of things that Wikipedia cannot publish per WP:BLP. Laurie Penny's blog does not have that same stigma.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it can't be sourced for non-BLP issues. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other. Most other content about Adam Baldwin will probably violate BLP considering most people have to say about him in the media is that he's right wing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Adam Baldwin and Laurie Penny have as much coverage on this article as each other." And they clearly shouldn't. Penny is given undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your fucking posts. And AFAIK, Adam Baldwin doesn't have anything to add to the discussion here that would not be violating BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Adam Baldwin. This is about Laurie Penny. She doesn't deserve mention. Willhesucceed (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if this is not about Baldwin, why did YOU bring him up? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was contrasting her with him for notability. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, he is more famous probably but famous actors are not where we go for content, other than maybe about acting. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't she deserve mention though? This mentions she had a bomb threat and this vaguely references some other harassment she received, all long before Gamergate and in regards to her stances on feminism rather than video games. She's a mainstream journalist who had an opinion on this matter and not at all involved in video games. She's an external voice on the matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. "long before Gamergate" This article is about Gamergate. 2. Again, only two articles. Look above at how many Yiannopoulos / Breitbart have and we're only going to be including a sentence or two.

She's just not noteworthy for this article. It doesn't make any sense to include her. Willhesucceed (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly your opinion and not held by the other editors of this article. Harassment she received before Gamergate does not mean that she cannot say anything about Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If giving two sentences to a wide variety of sources is the norm, then by that norm, she'll be left out under due weight; if that's the type of numerical sourcing we require. It's also interesting to see Ryulong's thoughts on different people and due weight. Tutelary (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope a media outlet mentions this, but this is as huge as the Intel thing.

It has just been confirmed a few minutes ago, obviously still no news, I'll just wait Loganmac (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also seen this, but i do not think its directly correlated to Gamergate as such. This was an, excuse my language, an idiotic statement from a senior official at Gawker, where he litteraly tweets that we wants to bully some nerds. This happened on bully awareness day(month?). I do not think it will be many people supporting this, gg or anti-gg as such.--Torga (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, nah, it is definitely related to GamerGate. They were invoking it towards GamerGate and GamerGate supporters drew attention to this and bombarded advertisers with screen-caps of those tweets and those by other staff at Gawker Media.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not directly related. Mercedes is pulling out because of the tweets promoting bullying. I'm fairly certain that even if those tweets didn't mention GamerGate at all, Mercedes still would have pulled out, provided it was brought to their attention. 24.192.67.45 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets attributed then it can be discussed in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mainstream note of yet, just Adland.tv: http://adland.tv/adnews/mercedes-pulls-advertising-gawker-network/1636503170 2601:B:3100:5E9:5134:24FA:9465:A107 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannopoulus seems to have confirmation. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this but I'm not sure if it's admissible. Hope I did that right. AnyyVen (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not usable. And Milo is still questionable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me Erik Kain will be among the few covering this soon, it's hilarious that the guy saying bring back bullying kept on mocking people yet when Mercedes pulled of he gave a half-apology Loganmac (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's not hilarious is that you feel the need to discuss living persons as if this is a forum. Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources have turned up to verify this, and Max Read, the current editor-in-chief of Gawker, seems to be pouring cold water on the issue, as he belives that Mercedes may not have been an active advertiser in the first place. Eventually we'll get independent confirmation one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Jalopnik writer has stated on Twitter that Mercedes hasn't advertised on Gawker in four years. Either way, as Bilby noted, we can wait for reliable sources to comment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who handles some of their digital campaign states that Mercedes has ordered Gawker to be blacklisted. I wish it weren't the weekend. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be "pulling advertising" if such ads haven't existed in years. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://adland.tv/adnews/gamergate-moral-panic-resembles-90s-which-directly-affects-womens-career-choices/1629488701

Another person noting moral panic, like Allum Bokhari did, and reiterating that the controversy is hurting the industry, as Digitimes did. She ultimately puts the blame on the media. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly establishing that the issue of why GG started have been lingering in both VG and the general entertainment industry for a while.

Slate speaking to a cyberthreat investor on how the tactics the GG side has used makes them difficult to prosecute.

Another New Yorker piece.

Guardian speaking to B. Wu. Note that I think I can pull from other sources that aren't just more from Wu to explain that one element that critics of GG point out is that these are people that do not appear to have an idea of the value of the human lives they are harming to make their opinion known.

New York Magazine that can be used to source out the games-as-art trend as part of the issue leading to GG, and the stuff around DQ.

WAPost on the ESA fully stating their opposition to the GG side (someone linked E3's organizers saying the same).

Just as a thought on my head, we are definitely going to refocus much of the structure of this - there are elements that were "important" early on but really no longer matter too much to the narrative representing by these newer sources. Also now that Polygon has offered its statement on GG, there's talk other major sites will follow and this will likely lead to more media coverage towards that. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this was covered already, but despite WaPo's title, the ESA never actually spoke out against GG, but rather condemned "threats of violence and harassment?" AnyyVen (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your head has to be deeply buried somewhere if you are insisting that the threats of violence and harassment are not being attributed to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And even if we want to be that pedantic, we can clear state that the ESA spoke out about threats of violence and harassment shortly after the Sarkeenian shooting threat. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice new pretty graphs from WaPost about gamer demographics in light of the GG demographic switch issue. We can't use those directly but we can easily recreate them as free images, and I think the one showing the male gamer as the minority now is a good one to include in conjunction with discussing this as a culture war. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone interviews Anita Sarkeesian in the wake of the Utah State University death threats.

Mother Jones on prominent voices speaking out against GamerGate (Seth Rogen, Patton Oswalt, Joss Whedon, etc.)

The Week says "GamerGate has backfired spectacularly."

Jack Shafer, Reuters' staff media critic, says Internet anonymity is partly to blame for the viciousness of GamerGate's trolls.

The Irish Times says that "more than anything else" GamerGate proves "the continuing prevalence of violent misogyny in popular culture."

No shortage of RSes on this now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be easily corrected by simply saying what Kotaku said - that they found no evidence that the relationship started before the article in question was written, because that's exactly what they said. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A synonym for an allegation with no evidence is "unfounded," and the words "unfounded," "false," "untrue" or "unsubstantiated" have been repeatedly used by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/thanks-deadspin/ Willhesucceed (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've indicated above, save for Kotaku's statement about the Quinn/Grayson stuff, I am pretty confident we can avoid requiring any VG site sources, as well as avoiding Gawker sites (at least as sole sources), though not because of the above article, just that we can pretty much put this article on mainstream sources. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with leaving the Deadspin article out. We've got 80 million indisputable others that can say the same things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]