Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Describing Quinn-Grayson relationship in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numerous reliable sources mention the allegation was about her cheating on him with Grayson, among others: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Add that to the four sources mentioning "Five guy burgers and fries" and that is quite a few reliable sources talking about the allegations of cheating. Beating around the bush on the nature of the relationship only serves to mislead readers when plenty of reliable sources aren't so coy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some sources: [7] [8] [9] [10].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cracked is not used on this article. It may be used at Zoe Quinn because it's a piece she wrote about herself, but nothing else from Cracked is being used anywhere on 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)

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

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

Second Paragraph

"The controversy came to wider attention due to a sustained campaign of harassment that indie game developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to after an ex-boyfriend posted numerous allegations on his blog in August 2014, including that she had a "romantic relationship"[7] with a Kotaku journalist, which prompted concerns that the relationship led to positive media coverage for her game. Although these concerns proved unfounded,[8][a]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requesting 5 sources for ingrainedness of MISOGYNY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're arguing a different point. The current situation is about the sexism and misogyny in the culture, whether from the harassment or just as it has been for sometime. Those are the five references at the end of the first paragraph. Your edit was saying because one author said otherwise, we can't say it's about misogyny but that's clearly not the case. Now on the other end of the argument, a very different one, is the claim that these have been issues for some time, and we've had this discussion before in the archives that point to several points in VG's industry past that discuss both terms ([11]), but for the purposes of establishing that it's been around, we need that one source for the word "ingrained". Your source is only one voice, and also is a clear blog piece and not a reviewed work and such is unallowable as a source. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 11 October 2014

• In the Background section, please resolve the dab link [[tropes]] to [[fantasy tropes and conventions|tropes]].

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

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

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

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

Attitudes

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

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

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

Brianna Wu

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

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

Re/Code has it now as well: [13] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku:[14]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brad Wardell interview

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

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

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

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

Ingrained misogynist and sexism in gaming community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous. Kotaku is invovled in the controversy, also video game media is GENERAL. Kotaku is one of them which is involved in it. Also it is quite clear that you are trying to discredit my words here and the word of anyone that opposed Gamergate. It's not going to fly.

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

Consensus on an issue that can be argued doesn't mean anything other than ad populum.

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

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

Again, she is involved in the organizations which is in the heart of the controversy. Therefore she was bias even before she herself was involved in it.

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

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

Irrelevant. The fact that she was involved in the controversy destroyed her credibility in the subject, using a piece of opinion as intel itself is a fallacious move and further judging is unnecessary. Explanations? An opinion which is a judgement of situations not a descriptions even if it is, it's bound to be bias.

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

Do not make ridiculous accusations of attack unless you have evidences. No one other than trolls have attacked her, generalizations and attack is unfounded for Wikipedia. Moreover is your "perhaps she would have better view of the movement" admitting that she is bias?

New article from Reason magazine

Part 1 (suggesting part 2 may be coming).

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

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

With some slight changes:

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

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

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

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

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

The difference between the Cooper piece and the Young piece, is that the former did not really make any factual claims about anything. It was pure opinion, while the latter contains many factual claims, backed by sources. Her opinionated statements should be treated as opinion, but her factual statements should be given greater consideration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we can use this for any BLP (outside of some claims that proGG have been harassed or doxxed), but her other points are reasonable for inclusion to document the proGG side. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any actual sources for the key claims about living people, just links to the same tired, accusatory conspiracy nonsense at best and argument by assertion at worst. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to go down that path, all of the articles based solely on Quinn's claims will have to be removed, as that's as good as being unsourced. Goodbye, New Yorker! Willhesucceed (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between conspiracies theories that have no sourcing to back it up at all, and someone claiming they are being issued death threats and harassment that can be verified by looking at social media to see what is happening. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see any conspiracy theories in Young's piece, nor anything significant about living people not already covered by other sources. Her characterization of "Social Justice Warriors" is no less inflammatory than the characterizations of GamerGate we find in countless sources being used in this article for factual details.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that this article makes claims about identifiable living people, which we treat significantly differently than claims about an anonymous, amorphous Twitter-hashtag group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander's "list of ethics problems"

From her own blog.

Understanding she's involved, etc. etc. , that this is an SPS, etc. etc. I will point out that I've seen this linked now from a few other RS places (eg [15]) to show that there is legit ethical concerns in the industry above and beyond the current GG issue. I know there's other sources that are by VG journalists that affirm that there are self-recognized problems with how the current VG journalism industry is being run. I'm just not 100% sure how to include it or if it needs including. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

And no, showing that concerns about journalistic ethics in games journalism exist does not support the claim that GakerGate has ever addressed them, in fact per the source they have not. Artw (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that she made that blog post purely in reaction to the GamerGate thing. [no citation] No idea how it's relevant, just putting it out there. --86.140.193.247 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, could we get a couple of those mentioned source in here as well? Would be nice to substantiate the points she makes in her blog with other sources. --86.140.193.247 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinn picture

Given that the picture on Zoe Quinn got switched out for a cropped headshot, should the picture here get replaced as well? Also, since it's still a crummy picture either way, has anyone asked her if she'll release a better photo of herself into the public domain or licensed as CC-BY-SA? --PresN 22:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the uncropped picture on both articles, it shows Quinn at an industry event. Whereas the crop just shows a face. I thought about cropping it originally, but couldn't get it a size I liked without including too much of the guy on the right, so just left it as is. By chance, I spotted Quinn commenting on the photo in a Reddit thread and directed her to Wikimedia Commons[16] - hahnchen 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest? Were there any?

With a couple of snips for brevity, the opening now reads:

Gamergate ... concerns ... journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest between video game journalists and developers.

I've snipped out the bits I don't see a problem with, in order to focus on what remains.

Do we have any actual evidence from reliable sources of de facto conflicts of interest? Obviously the Zoe Quinn allegations won't wash there. Anything else mentioned under the Gamergate tag? I do notice that we state that the initial assertions of conflict of interest were proven unfounded.

I'd suggest changing this to:

Gamergate ... concerns ... journalistic ethics in the online gaming press, with a primary focus on alleged conflicts of interest between video game journalists and independent developers.

This drills down a bit to the original unfounded allegations which are still, alas, circulating.

We don't want the opening section to promise more than the article body can deliver. --TS 23:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have journalists themselves recognizing that they have conflicts of interest with AAA publishers (as well as indie devs) - eg [17], [18] (from 2012), [19], and I could get more. It is not limited to the indie devs here, and is one of those problems they do recognize. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Collosal misuse of sources there. Artw (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To date GamerGate has uncovered nothing that would reasonably be described as a conflict of interest, corruption or an infraction of journalistic ethics. Nor do they actually show any interest in any of those things, despite claims to the contrary. Artw (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've heard pro-GGers scream about the GameJournoPro email list/group. Would it be considered a breach of journalistic ethics for said journalists to talk amongst themselves about whether or not to cover a story, or would the fact that the story would cause unneeded harm actually support journalistic ethics? --86.140.193.247 (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Every profession has back-channels for talking amongst themselves, socializing, sharing ideas, discussing issues, etc. While there could theoretically be concerns if literally every journalist on the list agreed about everything... the leaked e-mails actually revealed that there was widespread disagreement among list members about the issue, that the idea of putting out a group support letter was generally rejected and that nothing remotely resembling "collusion" occurred. What ended up being leaked were long e-mail threads of journalists arguing with each other. Which is why the "story" was a fat nothingburger that never went beyond Breitbart. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, JournoList wasn't a thing at all. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If this had been covered by anything remotely resembling the reliable sources that covered JournoList, your comparison might have merit.

JournoList was explicitly, if not admittedly, ideological; limited to liberal and liberal-leaning journalists only; and a number of the leaked e-mails showed behavior that was, charitably, open to interpretations that it represented bias. GameJournoPros had none of the above features. The e-mails were leaked... and everyone yawned because they showed nothing more than journalists arguing with each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A number of sources have mentioned the Patreon problems, especially in Asia, and every time I bring them up editors waffle and hum and haw. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the allegation that was considered unfounded was specifically the claim of Quinn having sex for a positive review of her game. There is no indication that actually happened and Grayson did not write any such review. We have nothing addressing a broader claim of a conflict of interest on Grayson's part based on his relationship with Quinn. As to conflicts of interest that have been noted in reliable sources, you can check in the legitimacy of concerns section where some are noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no such broader claim, because for a conflict of interest to exist you have to have two conflicting interests. Absent a review by Grayson, there's no interest to conflict. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no there was an article written about her and, per Kotaku's disclosure, it was right before the relationship started. Reliable sources have not really touched that angle of the story, though, hence why we should make it very clear what allegation we are saying was proven unfounded.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The story wasn't about her, it mentioned her. It was before the relationship started, by anyone's timeline. Any allegation about that article is, at best, totally-unprovable speculative gossip seeking literally anything with which to attack its target. Which is likely why no source has touched it or is likely to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So could we switch to saying alleged? I'm not seeing any Gamergate-derived conflicts. Doritogate was ages ago and, besides, the Gamergate people really haven't gone after the AAA developers the way they did Zoe Quinn. --TS 02:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd have to chew through a few sources, but first - while alleged, some journalists and devs specifically in response to the GG side have stated they have connections with others, and have discussed this is norm for the industry - as to a point admitting part of the proGG complaints (the other aspect, that journalists have specifically favored these people, are unfounded to the best I know). As such, if we want "alleged" we'd have to reword the statement. Second, it has been established that these past issues with the journalistic press has been part of the complains of GG (though far from the current ones), that before GG went down, there was already distrust of the system. Add that there are people on both sides that want to open a discussion of game ethics. (Mind you, there's a lot you can read into why the GG side has not gone after AAA developers which has been discussed above, but would be OR for this article). --MASEM (t) 02:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen the gaming media pointing out possible problems, and I've seen the gamergate email campaigns against media outlets whose views are too progressive for their liking, but I've seen very little in the way of sourced, specific criticism about any genuine conflicts of interest coming out of gamergate (as opposed to out of the gaming media). They exit, but with nothing to connect them to gamergate, presenting these sources as examples of the 'corruption' that gamergate claims to be attacking would be original research, because the fact is these are not the issues that the movement is focusing on. In fact we've had several occasions now of people saying 'hey, why hasn't gamergate mentioned this very real, concrete and obvious example of conflicts of interest in games journalism instead of, you know, setting off another harassment campaign of yet another relatively minor indie dev?' The most recent (though I don't think it's made any RS yet) being the question of why Escapist's vehemently pro-GG editor who published their recent article about 'what Game Devs think' about gamergate (that is, the *real* game devs, the male ones, to contrast with their previous article about what the *female* game deves think) didn't disclose his financial interest in one of the devs selected to represent 'game devs.' Sauce for geese isn't sauce for ganders, I suppose. I think at this point it's past time to stop taking gamergate's word for the 'corruption' angle in absence of any source other than gaters saying 'gamergate is about corruption.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There were a whole pile of problems with that Escapist piece - it wasn't their finest moment. :) Other than the false allegations about Quinn and Grayson, I'm aware of two claims about COI emerging from GamerGate. One was the Patreon issue, with at least two journalists supporting a developer through Patreon. That, however, is questionable in regards to COI, as I don't think a solid case has been made as to why that should be regarded as a COI. The second was with a journalist who was close to a developer, and I believe it was claimed that they shared a house at some point. That one was more substantial, in that the relationship was of close friends, and did lead to some clarification of the ethics policy from one of the gaming sites. Beyond that, the various allegations of COI from the GG-side of things have been unproven, as far as I'm aware. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)