Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

WA Post that has the neutrality we need to emulate

Washington Post. Please note the tone of this article, specifically how:

• It acknowledges that GG is reportedly (but not factually) a movement, though in their efforts as a movement, they have engaged in behavior that is considered hostile.
• It acknowledges that there has been harassment surrounding GG, possibly even by some of its members. while other members have attempted to distance GG from this.
• It acknowledges that both sides (GG and the press) are at fault, talking past each other, and failing to find a middle ground.

In other words, this is the receipt for the neutral take on the whole GG situation that we as Wikipedia need to be using that I and others have argued for in the past. It still is highly critical of GG, but recognizes there is no one right answer to describing what GG is. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So, "neutrality" is defined as: "Masem's preferred take." Got it, thanks! And for what it's worth, welcome back. Dumuzid (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, my take has always been that there are so many unknowns and claims being thrown around that the best take for the article is to write it without the absolutes that it currently has, simply to document rather than blame. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a pretty good article, and definitely the kind of higher quality, retrospective analysis I hope to see more of as this stops being burdened by current events style coverage. Emulating that article's balanced approach is something to aim for. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What "sides"? Artw (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I thought you were against op-eds? Artw (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I was against op-eds, only when editors use op-eds to force a controversial statement made by them as fact rather than a claim, as demanded by NPOV. We're stuck with the fact that most of the coverage of GG is from op-eds from RSes, but we can still make a proper neutral article from that. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of the op-ed appears under the disclaimer that it's giving Gamergate the benefit of the doubt. While I could see why that would be aplealing to you - you've long been a proponent of a FOX news style "fair and balanced" approach over regular POV rules - I wouldn't characterize doing so as uncontroversial at all. Artw (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said I want anything like FOX "fair and balanced" (which I am assuming is being taken as sarcasm on what that term means given FOX News' reputation). First, as pointed out below, UNDUE/WEIGHT prevents anything from a "balanced" article given the weight of sources critical of GG. I don't question that at this point. Nor is the sources going to make GG smelling like flowers. It is going to come out very much negative sounding for GG. But we can avoid stating absolutes, tempering questionable facts as sourced claims instead and focusing on the fact that no one really has a good handle on what GG , only on what they perceive it is. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, per BLP, as this and other articles name people that call themselves as part of GG, to call that group factually as a harassment group is very much a problem, as this effectively calling those named people harassers without proof. BLP requires us give this the benefit of the doubt, which is the whole point of WP's neutrality policy. We do not judge the topic. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times have you beaten this particular dead horse? I suggest you go bother WP:BLPN about it rather than wasting our time. Artw (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

While its style is a tad too informal to serve as a template for coverage, its gestalt attitude is consistent with what has always been found in the most reliable sources, and has always failed to be reflected on Wikipedia. I expect to see more examples as SXSW unfolds, and hopefully the appearance of a template-quality retrospective piece. Rhoark (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing useful here, and (sigh) Masem apparently needs to be reminded again: the article is a proper, neutral article that reflects the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources -- all of which disagree with Masem. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This would make sense, if only the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources claim were true, and if only there was some sort of WP:FOLLOWTHESOURCES policy which suggested that we should write articles reflecting the slant & tone of an overwhelming consensus of sources. Rightly or wrongly, we only have the policies which actually do exist - WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - the last of which clearly prescribes that articles should be written in a tone impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. The overwhelming consensus argument is a Furphy - stick a flaming fork in it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

one of these days one of you guys are going to read WP:WEIGHT and it's going to blow your minds. Artw (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is also part of WP:NPOV, and cannot be read or understood in isolation from the remainder of that policy. The sections of WP:NPOV which deal with tone are in the introduction, the explanation at WP:YESPOV (Prefer nonjudgemental language), and at WP:IMPARTIAL. WP:WEIGHT cannot be a valid reason for us to ignore these other sections of the same policy. We must find ways to satisfy the whole of the policy - and the whole is clear that tone must be impartial.
I note also that the example presented at WP:WEIGHT, the Flat Earth theory precludes the inclusion of that theory in the Earth article, but does not preclude a fair, neutral & impartially toned explanation of at the Flat Earth article. This, the Gamergate controversy article, is the equivalent of the Flat Earth article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight has nothing to do with tone, which is the problem that this article still has. We do not adopt the tone of the popular opinion if that is a controversial opinion. The popular opinion will dominate the article, but we still must write it in a non-condemning tone. Let quotes from the popular opinion condemn GG, but neutrality demands we treat that as claims, not fact. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about where you see WP:TONE issues? Vague statements about it aren't useful; we need to know which specific sentences you object to. My reading is that the article accurately and neutrally represents the facts (as reported by the sources we have available); it feels like your objection is that these facts, taken together with the weight they have in reliable sources, don't give the overarching impression of the controversy that you believe is right -- that there is a problem in focus, in how most mainstream sources frame the discussion. But that is not a WP:TONE issue (in fact, it means we are correctly adhering to the tone rules in WP:NPOV); WP:NPOV and WP:DUE do not allow us to 'adjust' the balance of sources in order to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE between sides in a dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Masem! I'm sure I'll enjoy this proposal as much as the countless others you will surely soon make. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we going back to Masem's Daily Repetition of thousands of words of text ←←defending the same tired shibboleths? We already have three restatements of the same old discredited argument, that we need to deskew the reliable sources because they are all bias. I've already read hundreds of thousands of words of this from this one editor, as have a number of other volunteers who have worked to prevent Gamergate from using this article to punish women for pursuing careers in the software industry. No, wikipedia will not invent a tone sympathetic to Gamergate harassment beause we support it, or because we think the media are all bias, or because we have super secret insider information that's really keen. If we're returning to this old habit, let's cut straight to the chase and head direct to AE and thence to Arbcom, Congress, and the opinions of mankind. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please tone down the snide remarks and assumptions of bad faith right out of the gate? You don't have to participate if you're not willing to so collegially. The argument is not discredited, merely controversial. There are plenty of editors who feel this article needs a lot of work to more accurately match the tone of the best reliable sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is about reals and not feels, Torchiest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was essentially my point. The claim that anyone who takes issue with the current state of this article supports harassment has no basis in reality. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the endless claims that the article is biased because you or any of your friends feel offended by it has any hold, nor is it likely to ever. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on this talk page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post is an unquestionably a reliable source. The byline is a reporter subject to editorial control of WP. Generally, we take reliable sources that have the most complete take on a subject which means current sources replace outdated sources when a clearer picture emerges. --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI: It's an op-ed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's style is in the form of an FAQ. It's in the "news" section of Washington Post. It's written by a staff reporter covering a current event SXSW. He's not an editor and I don't see an opinion disclaimer. In any case, facts would still be subject to oversight. Why do you believe it's an op-ed? Our article reads more like an Op-Ed compared to a straight news piece so maybe you are confusing the two? --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think your comments and the subsequent disagreement highlight that we really at some point need to have a massive RfC to settle the two big questions that plague all discussions on this article. "Can Gamergate referred to as a movement?" and (once the first question is settled, "What should this article actually be about?" Also, genuinely good to see you back Masem. You were the only person who used to update the article with recent occurences, so with you gone it's gotten kinda out of date. Brustopher (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the core of the dispute is closer to "can we relax the usual standards WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV when some people feel that the vast majority of normally-reliable news sources are unreliable on this topic?" That is at the heart of most of the complaints about this article; the article, as it exists now, is (mostly) an accurate reflection of the overarching coverage in reliable, mainstream news sources, with weight and tone appropriate to how things are covered in those sources. There might be some minor rewordings we could go over in a few areas, but the overarching changes that some people are pushing for aren't possible without making an exception to our core content policies for this article. It would be nice to get that settled once and for all so we can move on. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that one was settled? Didn't we have a massive RfC on that issue ages ago? The 'movement' question and the, what does 'Gamergate controversy' mean questions, are the two biggest unresolved questions where there's actual room to move foward in. The movement question is a tricky one which could really go either way, and probably needs a handling which is nuanced and reads well. Also I'd say the first paragraph as it stands does not accurately reflect the sources. Brustopher (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel we need an RFC for that part; whether or not we should use the word 'movement' at all is not really the question, since we're already quoting people who do in a few places. The activities section says:

"Following the accusations against Quinn, proponents of Gamergate began to use the "KotakuInAction" subreddit and boards on 8chan to discuss and organize. Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate and, with no person or group able to speak for Gamergate, defining it has been difficult. As the threats expanded, international media focused on Gamergate's violent, misogynistic element and its inability to present a coherent message. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Bob Stuart reported that: "Gamergate has since swelled into an unwieldy movement with no apparent leaders, mission statement, or aims beyond calling out 'social justice warriors'."

That, I think, covers most of what people are requesting; the reason people are complaining is because it doesn't get very much focus in the article -- some people seem to want the entire article (or large sections of it) structured around the idea of Gamergate-as-a-movement, with a prominent place in the lead and a lot more detail than "some people have said it morphed into a disorganized, decentralized movement focused around calling out so-called social justice warriors." But that's a separate question from whether we should mention it at all; and I think that it's pretty clear just by looking over the sources that there isn't much support for structuring the entire article around that perspective -- it'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight to one of numerous ways it's been covered, especially since the sources that have gone furthest into depth on the topic tend closer to the "hard to define" formation we're using currently. We could have an RFC about that, perhaps, but I'd want to be specific that the question is about the amount of weight it should get and whether we should structure the article (or significant portions of it) around that aspect, not whether we should include things like Bob Stuart's quote in the article at all (because we already do!) --Aquillion (talk)

I don't think the general gist of that op-ed overs anything that isn't already in our article; the core conclusion is that "the incredibly violent way in which some Gamergaters have expressed their frustration with video game reporting has poisoned the well for those who honestly believe they're pointing out a problem. And opponents of Gamergate are equally justified in condemning the frothing rage to which they've been subjected", which we already cover, more or less, cited to a better source. Beyond that I don't see much in there that would be useful for rewriting the article; bigger questions about the nature of the controversy and the sides involved are better cited to sources discussing that directly (of which there are many) rather than to an aside in an article about SXSW, which was a tangential aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. But speaking of NPOV, whether Gamergate can be referred to as "a movement" is doubtful, but that is can be referred to as "a conspiracy" is certain. So, when we have that "massive RfC", let's be sure to give equal weight to each proposal.

not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's also an excellent case to be made for "terrorism campaign" -- a case which, if recent events at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies are an indication -- will soon be yet more salient. The relationship between Trumpism and Gamergate’s sense of grievance does merit a closer look, as we'll doubtless see from the coverage of sessions to which this Washington Post op-ed writer is looking forward, We'll see what unfolds.

MarkBernstein (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it's not an op-ed. Straight up background reporting for a current event. --DHeyward (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly an opinion peice of the "hey, everyone should get along and ignore the harassment campaign because these guys might have something to say, though what I will not specify", with very little in the way of background material and certainly nothing we don't have here. Artw (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I read. That seems to your POV and not supported by WaPo. There's no opinion or editorial in the piece. It's background for SXSW and the discussions that will take place. The journalist is paid reporter staff for WaPo and it's in the news section with no disclaimer. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Artw (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

?? WTF? --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As for a "Gamergate movement" page, I don't believe there's a way of creating such an article without it basically being a POV fork and so we should not do so. Artw (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is already a POV fork highlighted by your mistaken belief that the news piece in WaPo is an op-ed. In fact, the WaPo piece should be one of the most heavily weighted reliable sources due to it's straight news coverage and the benefit it has being removed from initial observations. It's beyond the fog. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. The article as it stands is not a POV fork. Possibly you need to read up on what a POV fork actually is? Artw (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

From today in The Guardian [1]: "Gamergate is a loose collection of people who believe that 'social justice warriors' are trying to politicize video games by trying to make them more diverse. The movement grew into an amorphous and persistent mob with a coordinated campaign of harassment that targeted prominent women and minorities in the technology world." That's more recent, so EVEN MORE beyond the fog, I guess! Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Routinely it has been referred to as a "movement" (about 6 months ago I went through 50% of the sources and almost all used it in some fashion). It's well established that this article would not be called "Gamergate controversy" if there wasn't an ant holding precedence. While this article is called the "controversy" there is no room for the "movement". This leaves the article accurate/NPOV for discussion of the "controversy" but of no use for actually discussing Gamergate itself. Resistance to renaming the article, which would immediately force a rethink of the content, has long been resisted by the "not a movement argument" coming from editors, rather than actual usage in sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde, I actually have some sympathy for this sentiment, though I would quibble on whether it's the primacy of the ant classification that's responsible for this being a "controversy" page. The harassment is certainly what got press coverage, and therefore made this whole mess notable per Wikipedia. But that aside, it's tough for me to imagine a "Gamergate movement (or group, or hashtag, or what have you)" page that is not merely a POV fork of this one. I confess I also don't think there's that much you could really say with any assurance. But why not try drafting an independent article? As I say, I can't envision it, but I am not omniscient (nor all that smart). Even if it just ends up as fodder for this page, it's still a positive step. Just a thought, of course. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

With textbook coverage of this issue becoming more common, in regards to GamerGate being a "movement" we have "Law of Journalism and Mass Communication" (CQ Press, Nov 2015) by Robert Trager PhD (Associate Professor of Political Science, UCLA) Susan Dente Ross PhD (Associate Dean of Research at Washington State Univ) and Amy Reynolds PhD (Associate Professor of Sociology, Wheaton Univ) where on page 529 it says, "In response to what some called biased journalistic coverage of video games, the GamerGate movement emerged in 2014, named after its Twitter hashtag (#GamerGate). GamerGate became an online movement accused of cyberbullying and misogynistic threats to those who sought real social change in the video game industry." (emphasis mine) Marteau (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Marteau, so, do you think a "Gamergate movement" page could be created separate from this one would which not simply be a POV fork? Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Although this article needs a lot of work and has some fatal flaws, there is no reason coverage of the movement, the hashtag, and the events and people surrounding them cannot and should not be covered in one article. Marteau (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason for this section is because WaPo did it in one news article. It's a pretty good summary and they covered more than our entire 18 month-old article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, then why not draft something so we can talk about concrete changes? It's worth a shot, no? Dumuzid (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have emerged from my WikiBreak and resumed work on the draft I started in December. The latest section, on Gamergate as an entity[2], is apropos. Rhoark (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Rhoark, I think it's a commendable effort. My initial question would be simply: is GamePolitics.com a reliable source? I don't know much about it, but it seems to mostly be described as a "blog" and I don't see much editorial control (though my investigation has not been exhaustive). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I know mainly what is at GamePolitics.com, but the key factors seem to be that it meets the non-negotiable RS requirements (i.e., not UGC) and is reputable within the specific arena of video game controversies. There's also the proof-in-the-pudding that they have actually researched the topic to a degree that is rare in GGC RS's. Rhoark (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking over WP:RS, I would suggest GamePolitics.com is easily reliable for attributed opinion (per WP:NEWSORG, WP:RSOPINION). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am obviously less bothered about clear statements of opinion (though I am not totally sold that GamePolitics meets that threshold either), but the draft as presented relies on the site for some statements of fact and for survey responses, which is an interesting issue itself. Honestly, with all due respect to Rhoark, I think the section would be stronger without paragraphs 3 and 5 and with a reworked paragraph 4. I don't mean this pejoratively towards Rhoark's writing or the information presented, for the record! Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is to give the best available information on what Gamergate the Thing is as opposed to Gamergate the Controversy. Basically, its a bunch of people yammering on social media, but describing how many people, who are the prominent ones, and what they are like gives the reader something more concrete to hang their hat on. I used GamePolitics because its where the most complete and current information is. Deadspin and CJR clearly believed the number of Redditors was a useful figure, so its not a stretch to trust Brad Glasgow that it's still a relevant number a year later and to read off what that number is. Likewise we can get the general summary that "GGers say ethics, anti says harassment" from any number of places like CNN or BBC if we need to fortify the due weight of what comes from the horse's mouth (from KiA or Valenti/Herzog respectively). Rhoark (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the purpose, but I think the numbers are a bit too primary source-ish; what they mean is really not represented in your section (probably because it's largely unknown) and I think it's better without them. As to prominent members, I again think that's misleading in a "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" way. After saying "it is a movement without leaders," it says "here are some prominent folks (read: leaders)." But even moreso, no disrespect to those listed, but they're not terribly prominent on their own. If say, Queen Elizabeth II were an acknowledged gamergater, that would be news. It feels, in short, a bit like your article (or at least the section at issue) as drafted is trying to impose order on something more nebulous--"Gamergate is a formless movement, but, here's the form." Still, thanks for getting this ball rolling. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Revised a bit. Fewer numbers, better organized, fortified with vitamin RS. Rhoark (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Another new article, from NYtimes [3], emphasis mine:

"Much of it has centered on the games industry and is associated with a grass-roots movement called “#GamerGate,” a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists.
But, paradoxically, people associated with the movement have systematically targeted and attacked women online, including women like Ms. Wu and Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist cultural critic who focuses often on video games and game culture."

This clearly establishes there is GG the movement, and there are some but not all people using the GG movement for harassment, and that harassment has been bad and a point of discussion for a long time. But it clearly differentiates this from GG as a whole being a harassment campaign, only that some in its ranks have used it as such. This remains consistent with the WAPost point above and the article collection Rhoark previously reviewed. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Quoting the paragraph before significantly shifts that though:

The experiences of Ms. Wu, who works for the gaming studio Giant Spacekat, are not an anomaly. Other women in the gaming community have faced similar online harassment, which, they say, goes far beyond name calling and has moved into the realm of violent threats and rampant misogyny.

Much of it has centered on the games industry and is associated with a grass-roots movement called “#GamerGate,” a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists.

So I don't think your point really stands. Artw (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The logic flow is: 1) Woman in the gaming community have been facing harassment. 2) Much of that harassment is around the games industry. 3) Much of that harassment in the games industry is associated to the GG movement. 4) The GG movement is a group fighting against unfair portrayals. 5) Some members of that group engage in harassment. This logic asserts that some of the harassment Wu and others face are from people that are associated with GG (which is a point we can factually state), but it does not at all say that GG is a harassment campaign, and in fact asserts differently, that it is a protest movement against a perceived problem in the industry. Just because members of a group are doing something bad does not immediately make the entire group factually guilty. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly defines Gamergate as "a term used by a group of people who are fighting against what they say are unfair portrayals of video game enthusiasts as anti-feminists and misogynists." Where's the part where Gamergate is described as a harassment campaign? Because I'm not seeing it. Your supposed rebuttal sounds suspiciously like a fallacy of composition to me. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This article by The Washington Post most certainly seems to be a good reliable source and also model template for material presentation related to this topic of the Gamergate social movement. It presents a good summary of recent events in a most WP:NPOV and WP:RS manner. Specifically, The Washington Post article states: "Put simply, Gamergate is the name of an online movement. The term "Gamergate" is also used to refer, in shorthand, to a bitter dispute between two groups that both believe they're deeply in the right." This article is a great model and a source of a wealth of information that is neutrally presented about the Gamergate social movement. — Cirt (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

SXSW Harrassment Summit

Since we're can deal with coverage from an actual event now, rather than just the dramatic lead up, we should probably look at what we need to take from it:

• SXSW 2016: Little impact from isolated online abuse summit
• SXSW sets online summit apart from main fest, sending wrong message
• SXSW's online harassment summit was a peaceful look at an ugly problem
• SXSW Online Harassment Summit: How Widespread Is Internet Hate and What Can We Do About It?
• Security Tight at SXSW Harassment Seminars
• SXSW: Online Harassment Summit Highlights Gender Bias in Media

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 March 2016‎ (UTC)

And one more from the Washington Post: SXSW: The most (and least) remarkable thing about the online harassment summit Artw (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also some coverage of the Savepoint panel SXSW panel rallies pro-Gamergate community Artw (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

SXSW's Gamergate panel was as disappointing as expected Artw (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Obama has a few words. Useful? Probably not, but you have it. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted by Liz, below, this is directly relevant to this article: "He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate." This is directly referencing the Gamergate social movement. — Cirt (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Gamergate be referred to as a movement, and to what extent?

Ok. It's time to get this question settled once and for all, instead of arguing over it with no agreement as we have for the past few months. Greetings, soon to be very miserable uninvolved RfC commenters! This article is about a controversy that broke out over the twitter hashtag #Gamergate. A group of loosely associated people emerged on this hashtag and began coordinating all sorts of stuff. Most notably some pretty extreme online harassment was coordinated, but also email campaigns ostensibly about journalism ethics, campaigns against feminism, donations to video game fundraisers and the like. The question you need to answer is this: should we refer to these people as part of a 'Gamergate movement?' Do the secondary sources support such a description? If not what would be more accurate to refer to this grouping as? Brustopher (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No more than it already is in our article. As I mentioned above, we do have a few references to it (since the term is occasionally used), but I feel it is clearly not the main way the topic is discussed in most of the highest-profile coverage, so it would be WP:UNDUE to use it to structure significant parts of the article or to inform the article's entire tone by eg. using at every opportunity or anything of that nature. Our current "activities" section (which goes into depth using sources that have analyzed exactly what it is) strikes me as mostly ideal; there is a quote from someone who uses the term, but it is balanced with broader coverage of the difficulty journalists have had defining the scope of the debate and the people involved. --Aquillion (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment if you ctrl+f you will find we call it a movement several times. Per Aquillon I would be against any general shift in tone, since the harassment campaign is the most notable aspect of the controversy, and against a separate Gamergate Movement article since it would constitute a POV fork. Artw (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, use the word movement when talking about the movement. The term "movement" is used overwhelmingly in the reliable sources. Columbia Journalism Review,[4][5] New York Times[6] CNN,[7] The Guardian,[8] BBC,[9] TIME,[10] Washington Post.[11] For our Francophones, Le Monde says mouvement[12] These are just top-tier sources, not even stepping down to the likes of Salon or Polygon. It is hard to accept that anyone against the term "movement" could be arguing in good faith. As for how the sources talk about the movement they discuss what it is, who's in it, and what they stand for. They present harassment as a cornerstone of the controversy, but present the connections between the movement and the harassment as complicated or disputed. They do not discuss the movement only in the context of harassment. Let this put the question to rest. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted also that the reliable sources note there are people who say it should not be called a movement, and that there is nothing but harassment. These are attributed opinions embedded in RS's that call it a movement and discuss things besides harassment. These views should all be discussed per NPOV with proper weight. Rhoark (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, nobody is arguing that we should remove the term 'movement' from the article entirely; but the handful of sources you've presented do not support your assertion that it is "used overwhelmingly", and they definitely do not support your description of "connections between the movement and the harassment" as if these are clearly-defined separate things. Most devote a sentence to the concept at best, often with scare-quotes. The core issue is that the bulk of coverage in all those sources is not on the concept of Gamergate-as-a-moment; most of them use the term in passing, mentioning it as part of the numerous ways people have referred to the controversy, which is exactly how our article uses it currently. Therefore, I feel that those sources support my opinion, above, that the article as it is now reflects the way reliable sources use the term. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If no one is arguing against using the word "movement", why do we have an RFC on exactly that question? If the question is about the organization of the article, it should come out and ask "Is the article reflecting the reliable sources with neutral point of view and due weight?" The answer to that is "not by a long shot". A short list of only the best sources is dismissed as a "handful". When an exhaustive list was given last year, the response was just ankle-biting at the reliability of the lower-tier sources. A persistent refusal to actually engage with source text has derailed article improvement for over a year now. The article only reflects the reliable sources that certain editors imagine or would like to exist. Rhoark (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No. A “movement” has leaders, identifiable proponents, and a goal or manifesto. Gamergate has none of these. The term “movement” is used occasionally in the press, and we can use it where sources use it even if it is not strictly accurate. What is unquestioned, and widely attested, is that Gamergate is a conspiracy– a secret and anonymous collaboration to do things that are illegal or harmful. The notable actions of Gamergate are without doubt harmful and intended to do harm, and no one doubts that Gamergate’s membership is secret and and its leaders secretive. “Conspiracy” is the word we’re looking for. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  That's original research on your part. We follow the sources, which very often use the term movement. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to leaders, identifiable proponents, and a goal or manifesto, this would seem to be an argument based on moving the goalposts, an informal logical fallacy.[13][14][15][16][17][18]. In fact, many of the definitions highlight the diffuse & heterogenous nature of movements. Were this not sufficient, the conjecture that Gamergate has none of these is also highly dubious - it is trivial to name multiple persons who have been identifiable proponents of Gamergate, and, by reference to Gamergate websites et al, their stated goals and manifestos. Given the dearth of reliable sourcing, "Conspiracy" theories are perhaps best left to conspiracy theorists. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. The phrase is literally textbook usage. That we are really having an RfC to allow the usage of a phrase which is commonly used by many reliable sources is astounding... Rhoark's many examples alone (above) should make this an automatic accept. Marteau (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Highly preferably yes as most of the recent reliable sources acknowledge it is a movement albeit with questionable goals and ends, and acknowledging that it is a far different structure of a movement as other previous ones (such as Occupy Wall Street). I also would see it possible to make the claim that they consider themselves a movement (even though "movement" has been used by the press by the pen of the authors) and then subsequent using "movement" to simplify the language of the article and stay neutral to the controversy. Avoiding calling them a movement factually or as a claim is ignoring how this is stated by numerous sources even those that proceed to critically analyze their actions. As a side note I would not however consider changing this article to "GG movement" nor creating a "GG movement" page; the topic is still the controversy, with the movement far too intertwined to consider a separate article on it. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - Article after article refers to it as such, with plenty of caveats. We can do the same here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Both? - I'm not sure being exclusionary either way is the terms to go with. Like, the original "events" are the controversy while the resulting hashtivism is the "movement". On the subject of article naming, drop the word "Controversy" if we have to do something about it. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - Coverage of it (especially more contemporary pieces) focuses on the 'controversy' and harassment side of it, which is where our coverage should focus as well. If we were to define it as a movement, we'd have a great deal of trouble identifying notable features of a movement in Gamergate, such as goals, a leader, or any sort of structure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given the plethora of reliable sources which use the term, and that multiple, high quality dictionaries define the term "movement" without reference to goals, a leader, or any sort of structure, this would seem to be an argument based on moving the goalposts, an informal logical fallacy.[19][20][21][22][23][24]. In fact, many of the definitions highlight the diffuse & heterogenous nature of movements. Were this not sufficient, the conjecture that we'd have a great deal of trouble identifying these features is also highly dubious - it is trivial to name multiple persons who have been identifiable proponents of Gamergate, and, by reference to Gamergate websites et al, their stated goals. The question of where the article should focus is perhaps outside the scope of this RfC, but more interesting - I would respectfully suggest that it is possible to document both the harassment and the conglomeration of persons, though diffusely and with loose organisation, collectively acting in pursuit of a shared goal or interest and in doing so to maintain compliance with our policies and guidelines. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's important to note that your response here completely sidesteps the main point of my vote: Sticking to the reliable sources and not engaging in WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes It's a movement with a subset of anonymous harassers. There is nothing that ties the harassers to the movement except the unprovable association assumed by victims (even though harassment/swatting/doxxing has long preceded gamergate). Anti-gamergate activists have sought to discredit legitimate complaints raised by the movement. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That's original research on your part. We follow the sources, none of which has any idea of whether the harassers are a subset or the entire set, because none of them report any notable activities beyond harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I can name people that argue pro-GamerGate and it has nothing to do with harassment. They are named are covered in mainstream press. Anti-GamerGate critics exist as well, but their argument lacks specificity. They call themselves "anti-gamergate" but they don't categorize the named "pro-gamergate" people they debate as "harassers." It's their argument that lacks specificity. They argue against harassment and I've yet to hear anyone argue for harassment. That makes their position a straw-man argument with invisible boogeymen they associate to their perceived nemesis. Their nemesis points out that is an insane method of correlation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes The vast majority of contemporary articles from high-quality reliable sources refer to Gamergate as a movement. Gamergate fits every definition of a movement. Movement is a neutral term applied to groups with positive and negative aspects and lends the group absolutely no legitimacy. The article name should be changed to Gamergate (social movement), because the article as it stands is more about the movement and the actions of the movement than it is about the initial controversy that spawned the term. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, funnily enough, I don't have strong feelings on using the term "movement," but using "social movement" strikes me as very wrong. I suppose it's because there's no focus on social change, but I have some thinking to do. Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree here: I have not seen anything calling it a "social movement". It is considered part of an ongoing social and culture war, but that doesn't make it a social movement. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just trying to clarify the type of group action at play here. Just calling it a "movement" without some kind of identifier seems far too ambiguous. It's certainly not unheard of to call Gamergate a social movement, as has been done in WaPo (and again), Salon, Gawker, The New Yorker, The Daily Beast, and Business Insider. From what I can tell it's a neutral term, assigned to both positive and negative group actions (mostly negative in the case of Gamergate). The focus of Gamergate seems to be a reaction to progressive (social) concerns. Most sources don't consider it a true consumer movement, and social movement is used as more of a catch-all. It certainly fits the definition: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity". For this change to take effect we'd need to answer the question: "What kind of movement is Gamergate?" A hate group? A hashtag movement? A leaderless movement? An online social movement? I'd like to weigh the sources pointing to each of these options to see which one fits best, and is used most often by the most reliable sources. Movement, on its own, doesn't really mean that much. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I would also second ColorOfSufferings comment regarding an actual contextual review of the sources to properly qualify the movement. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy with this particular terminology (which of course should not and does not trump the reliable sources!). Many of those citations, even while using "social movement," qualify it in a way that makes it seem not quite appropriate without the qualifier. "Ersatz social movement," or "freewheeling catastrophe/social movement/misdirected lynchmob," or even "not your grandmother's social movement." To use the term without qualification just feels misleading and wrong -- but of course that's nothing but my subjective opinion! So it goes. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. As Rhoark has pointed out numerous times, sources calling it a "movement" are ubiquitous. Let's put this issue to rest indeed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - It makes sense to call GamerGate a movement. GamerPro64 06:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - But let us be clear that this RFC is not asking the question "should this article be renamed as Gamergate movement" which is a whole new kettle of fish. However the "movement" inasmuch as it can be defined through reliable sources should clearly be discussed and have due weight (even if that due weight is "it's 100% a campaign of harassment and intimidation" or whatever - that's up to the editors and RS's). Arguments regarding NPOV fork and the fact that the harassment is the only notable feature are clearly mistaking the fact that within the context of an article solely about the harassment that is likely to be the case. The existence of an article solely about the harassment does not preclude the existence of an article discussing the movement if RS's support it. Other things existing isn't a strong argument. Koncorde (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per the reasonings given by GamerPro64, Rhoark and Starke Hathaway. "Movement" has been used in reliable sources and we should use that word in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• We already do refer to GamerGate as a movement, both quoted and in Wikipedia's voice. Should we always use the term, especially when many reliable sources expressly reject it and use other names or phrases? Of course not. And likewise, should we remove the term, when reliable sources use it without a problem? Again, not at all. Like anything having to do with GamerGate, it's complicated. NPOV has to guide us here, not an RFC. Woodroar (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources expressly reject the term, i.e. explicitly say that the Gamergate should not be called a movement? If those are prominent, we should say that the term is controversial, and attribute that rejection to those sources. Diego (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Its more nuanced than just a weight/undue issue. There's a combination of many claims of what the group of people in GG should be called beyond just "movement", including "harassment campaign", some which are being stated as fact in WP's voice in the present article. Because many of these are claims or other aspects that meet cautions outlined at WP:LABEL, we need to figure out the best factual term to refer to the group in writing the structure around the facts that are being stated in WP's voice that meets NPOV. This might mean going against what might be the perceived weight in sources for what is being said in WP's voice. "Movement" appears to be the best term that is a neutral word nor a LABEL, and can be factually sourced and well-repeated in the RSes, even when it is pointed out by the same sources that what GG behaves is very atypical of other movements, they still use that word to simplify their discussion. It is clearly okay when discussing the claims of what GG is, such as labels like "Harassment campaign", to still use those terms there when stated in the sources' voices or similarly claimed. --MASEM (t) 12:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Masem has made this argument on this page many, many times before. It has attracted little support outside the bevy of Gamergate fans that daily coordinate their plans to take control of Wikipedia. That it has no support is unsurprising, as the principle it advances is deeply incompatible with the project. Adopting this view would allow tendentious editors to "reskew" reliable sources to compensate for what they believe (in this case wrongly) to be bias or to take advantage of information they believe (in this case, again wrongly) they possess but which has been withheld from or ignored by the biased main-stream media. Incessant repetition of the same argument is disruptive. This page’s infamous history AN, AN/I, AE, ArbCom, and in widespread coverage of Wikipedia's humiliating appeasements of Gamergate, can largely be traced to the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of words this editor has dedicated to this precise point. We have already spent thousands of hours of volunteer time to no useful effect, lost many dedicated and useful editors, and exposed the project to ridicule and derision. Let’s stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Mark, every single word you just levied at Masem can be applied to yourself. You are equally motivated, and have produced equal sums of content any time someone has expressed an opinion you do not agree with. This is not about you or Masem, this is about a carbuncle of an article. If addressing Masems concerns opens the door to "reskew" then perhaps the article edifice is more of a facade. Koncorde (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A cursory review of the hundreds of thousands of words of the archives will disprove the silly assertion that I have produced "equal sums of [talk page] content". MarkBernstein (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, I was referring to the point - counterpoint balance. I have seen Masem hold several threads of conversation which will cause his total volume to be exponentially higher, but I am reasonably confident that your own responses to Masem are relatively equal. However, and I may be wrong, I don't think I have ever seen someone be so specifically vindictive as to lay all blame at one users feet as you did here. How long are you going to keep the axe to that grindstone? Koncorde (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm confused by your response here, Masem. Of course it's more nuanced than WEIGHT/UNDUE, which is why I wrote "it's complicated" and "NPOV" (and not "WEIGHT/UNDUE"). This is about accurately summarizing and attributing what our sources say. I agree that "movement" is a generic label and I've said so in the past. But some sources explicitly reject the term, and referencing "movement" to such sources is misleading. Remember when ArbCom stressed that "[f]ailure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia"? That's why we need to follow NPOV. An RFC doesn't let us misrepresent sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Woodroar, W.r.t. But some sources explicitly reject the term, and referencing "movement" to such sources is misleading and many reliable sources expressly reject it and use other names or phrases, would it be possible to provide details of those sources? It would be helpful to editors to be able to weigh the quantity and quality of those sources against those which do use the term. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, quantity has nothing to do with it. This isn't purely an issue of WEIGHT. Look at The New York Review of Books and The Christian Science Monitor, for example. Both sources are currently being used in the article. TNYRoB avoids using the term "movement" for GamerGate, even though it uses that term for other movements. TCSM goes one step further, not only avoiding "moveement" but instead using words like "online horde". The issue here is that an RFC doesn't give anyone carte blanche to find-and-replace "Gamergate" with "Gamergate movement", because we still have to consider what the referenced sources say. Woodroar (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarifications: TNYRoB did not 'avoid' using the term 'movement'. A "contributor" to TNYRoB avoided it. Here's a page of the contributors to TNYRoB... just the M's look to number close to a hundred. In addition, "The Christian Science Monitor" did not 'avoid' using the term movement. Fruzsina Eördögh, a "Correspondent" there did in a piece she wrote. She's not even on the masthead where they list their reporters. Please do try to be more precise in your attributions and don't make it look like a style guide issue for a publications when it's the preferences of individual contributors. Marteau (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Avoiding the use of the term is not the same as "expressly rejecting" it. If a few reliable sources prefer to use a different term, but a significantly higher number use it, that's not enough to support the idea that the term is controversial nor that using it is a failure of NPOV. IMO this RFC is not about using "Gamergate movement" every time it is used as you suggest, only for defining the term when it is being described as a whole. Diego (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

After (re)considering my comments above, I'm not sure that bringing sources here or debating the extent that they "reject" the term is productive. If a source doesn't use the term "movement", then we shouldn't use "movement" when referencing that source. For the same reason, we wouldn't write "the harassment campaign known as Gamergate did [this]" and reference it to a source that doesn't, in fact, call Gamergate a "harassment campaign". It's really that simple. As far as I'm concerned, "movement" is widely used and WEIGHT suggests that we can use that term generally and even specifically when supported by a reliable source. But neither WEIGHT nor this RFC can direct us to always use the term "movement" or "harassment campaign" or any other label. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's still more nuanced than that. There are actually two different "areas" in our writing where we have to figure out how to address the group of people that support GG. The first area is speaking in the non-WP voice, documenting what others have said about GG, and here is where WEIGHT has to remain king. We can't flip anything on its head to bury the negative and critical take that GG has gotten, so claims that GG is a "harassment campaign", "misogynistic trolls" or whatever other similar language, quoted or paraphrased and attributable to sources, will be more predominate than things like "consumer revolt".

The second part, and where the nuance comes in, is how to refer to the group in WP's voice, made all the more difficult by the fact that "Gamergate" can refer to the controversy, the hashtag, and/or the group of people, depending on what you read. If there was zero ambiguity about what "Gamergate" meant without any other context, this might be less an issue, but instead we have a term with at least three possible definitions in context. We need, to write with clarity for the reader, a term that describes what "the group of people that support GG" should be called, providing the reader with a legend to help understand what aspect of GG we are speaking about. And to that end we need a consistent term in WP's voice, a fully separate issue from the non-WP voice aspect. And that is where comprehension takes more value than WEIGHT; if we use 20 different terms in WP's voice to maintain equal balance with the weight in source, no reader is going to understand this article. So we have to identify the term that is most commonly used and reflects a neutral stance that we can always rely out in WP-voice prose, which "movement" seems to be the best fit based on recent sources and the previous analysis Rhoark has done. It may not be universally used, but it is far and away the most often used term. Note that the sourcing aspect Woodroar raises is not an issue here. If we have a line "'XYZ News' reporter John Smith says the movement is "most clearly a harassment campaign"", even if the source does not use the word movement but clearly speaking to the group of people that support it, we are not introducing any bias, OR, or weight problems - it is using the WP-voice selected word to normalize out how the group has otherwise been referred to, but still keeping their opinion aspect sourced to them. This is, in essence, about figuring out the common name to refer to the group, which does ignore WEIGHT in favor of readability as determined by consensus. (But please note by no means do I support changing this article's title to "Gamergate movement"; just for the same reason "movement" is the common name for the group of people, "controversy" is the common name for the entire mess.). --MASEM (t) 00:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Masem's has made this argument on this page many, many times before. Here's another 3000 characters worth. The quality of Masem's is not strained. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks are personal attacks Mark. Koncorde (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Complaining about how someone says a thing, rather than addressing what that person says says, is a logical fallacy and a common debating tactic with those who have no other defense. Marteau (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, as most sources refer to Gamergate as a movement. Per WP:UCRN: Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above. sst✈ 04:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a neutral term commonly used in the sources. The definition of "movement" doesn't imply that there should be leaders and central coordination, in fact our references for Social movement describe the term as a "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity". Usage of this term doesn't preclude also including at appropriate points in the article some other terms like "harassment campaign", which has also been used by reliable sources. Diego (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - generally throughout the article as a short descriptor for the group of persons collectivising under the #Gamergate banner; with inclusion in the lead section. Whether we regard this group of persons as collectivising against progressive cultural imperialism, against diversity/women in video games, for misogyny, or for ethics in video games journalism, movement is a neutral term for such a collectivisation - a term used not only by high quality, independent sources (links as provided by Rhoark, above), but also by proponents and opponents alike, by observers making casual, passing mention or deeper analysis/comment alike.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. Use of the term in these instances is in the overwhelming majority unqualified by adjectives or "scare quotes".
  Goalpost shifting arguments as to "leaders, goals, manifestos", above, are as uncompelling as they are logically & factually unfounded. Arguments that notability should determine content are similarly unsupported by policy (see WP:NNC). Claims that sources reject the term movement are, as yet, unsubstantiated, and in any case would be a small exception to the general usage of the term.
  It is clear there is a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people ... tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal[43], and that the overwhelming preponderance of sources use the term "movement" to describe them; we should be unafraid to follow such usage. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- I agree fully with the comment for "Yes" as given by Koncorde, here, above. Specifically, the comment that: "the "movement" inasmuch as it can be defined through reliable sources should clearly be discussed and have due weight (even if that due weight is "it's 100% a campaign of harassment and intimidation" or whatever - that's up to the editors and RS's)." -- this analysis by Koncorde is most appropriate per Wikipedia site policy. I did a search through reliable sources and we have hundreds that refer to this social movement phenomenon as the "Gamergate movement", verbatim. Per numerous reliable sources, it is most certainly a form of social movement. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: per Rhoark. Plenty of reliable sources call it a movement, and one should reflect this. One should also reflect the sources which call it nothing but a harassment campaign. There are plenty in the former category, and it should be emphasized more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• I was summoned by the bot. I would prefer "campaign", as used in this article from The New York Times, this article from The Guardian, this article from The Washington Post, and this article from the BBC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As a note, three of those sources are from the first few months of the GG situation (starting in August 2014; those are from Oct 2014), and reflect the reactionary WP:RECENTISM of the news cycle when they were first covering the situation. The same sources (and in some cases, the same authors) today more commonly use "movement". (The BBC one uses both, incidentally) --MASEM (t) 14:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Eh. There should be no problem referring to it as a movement so long as the sense is clear. But the questions Woodroar raises above are the appropriate ones. Clearly we shouldn't bend over backwards to work the phrase "movement" in there, nor should we allow the decentralized nature of this "movement" be downplayed. And we certainly shouldn't replace other phrasings used in the reliable sources, such as "campaign" or even "harassment campaign" if they more accurately follow the sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The whole reason I raised this issue is because the word movement was systematically removed from the article a few months back (including from quotes until someone noticed). I feel Woodroar's "we already use it" argument is merely a half-truth in this scenario. Brustopher (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of how it looked a few months back, the article now uses the term "movement" several times, including in quotations. Woodroar's questions are good ones - we shouldn't feel obligated to either insert the phrasing or remove it, we should follow NPOV and what the sources say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Woodroar has a very valid point relating to UNDUE, but as I note in my comment at 00:18, 22 March 2016 above, you can break the issue between what sources say or claim and how we'd quote those outside of Wikipedia's voice, which must follow UNDUE/WEIGHT issues as per Woodroar, and how we refer to the group in a neutral, Wikipedia-voice, which should be overall consistent for sake of reading comprehension. The long-standing issue has been broadly on the latter aspect, how to refer to the group in a neutral Wikipedia voice when trying to summarize information- basically, finding a neutral term that is different "the group" or "they" to word sentences that refer to the people that support GG. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Voting no in response to Masems comments above. I was going to remain neutral on this, since we use the term and we should probably continue to use the term, but I am fully in opposition to the use of this RFC by underhand or sloppy editors to push through sweeping changes to the article and currently it is worded in such a way that would allow that. So no, "movement" should not be the primary thing we refer to Gamergate as. Artw (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Battleground tactics not based on policy. Rationale such as this infests this article, and is a perfect example of why this article needs special treatment and attention at the highest levels... perhaps selecting ten trusted editors who have never touched the article or any of the ancillary articles, and re-write it from scratch. This is getting ridiculous, though, and something must be done. 23:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Battleground tactics are precisely why I oppose this RFC becoming part of the arsenal of sticks that never get dropped. Artw (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The President Of The United States, on Gamergate

The President himself has now referred to Gamergate’s harassment of women.

Responding to this "epidemic of online harassment", President of the United States Barack Obama said that "We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes." [44]

The discussion proceeds at some length. When an obscure right-wing pundit finds an arguably-reliable publication (or Breitbart) to praise Gamergate, we fall over ourselves to include it. The rest of the time, we listen to Gamergate recruits ring the changes here about how this page "is bias".

Why are the President's observations thought to be of no interest to readers of the encyclopedia, when we are so endlessly fascinated by obscure right-wing columnists? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(Transferred from my own section which was edit conflicted!) Hi all, recently Dr. Bernstein added a quote by president Obama, which Rhoark removed and transferred to the cyberbullying article. I understand why Rhoark thinks the reference irrelevant, but I think it certainly belongs in this article as well. Couched as it is by "last week I was at SXSW...." it seems to me there can be little doubt that gamergate is at least tangentially implicated in his thoughts. As such, I would reinstate it, though I am not sure where best to do so. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a sentence not about Gamergate that was a brief aside in a set of remarks not about Gamergate. SXSW is hardly sufficient connection, since it had a whole day of panels about harassment and not Gamergate. We have several reliable sources saying even Brianna Wu's panel was not about Gamergate, and that the Gamergate panel was not about harassment. Making this connection is pleading special insight into President Obama's thoughts. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the noble Gamergate movement for great ethics has always been against the harassment of female gamers, how silly of me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely the behavior we have come to expect here. If an unknown right-wing pundit says that some anonymous Gamergater claims, off the record, to have opposed the harassment campaign, that’s cause to declare Gamergate a movement (see above) and met with trumpets and cheers. The President deplores, in the context of a "summit" panel about Gamergate, the way gamers have been harassed, threatened, and driven from their homes -- activities clearly documented here -- but we pretend otherwise. Brianna Wu’s panel was not only about Gamergate, but of course Brianna Wu is among the women driven from their homes to whom the President was referring. To echo Dumuzid: this is an example right here of what Gamergate considers to be ethical journalism. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The remarks don't mention Gamergate, but does talk about "gamers" and SXSW. It seems plausible to assume that the remark was about about Gamergate, even if it wasn't mentioned by name (perhaps some sources can be rustled up?). This was just a brief aside in general remarks over treatment women in online world, and no specific action was suggested by Obama. I don't really see what makes it newsworthy, but the page already has a lot of useless material, so I don't think it does much harm. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate. Can you think of another incident or sequence of events that he could be referring to? I'd be interesting to hear about another incident where women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes that had NOTHING to do with Gamergate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Silly Liz! Of 'course' it has nothing to do with Gamergate! All those women doxxed and harassed 'themselves'! There are a couple blog posts that prove it, and if there aren't, we can make some.--Jorm (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the snark at the door and use the talk pages for their intended purpose, Jorm. Marteau (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Pew poll found 4.4% of women sampled had been harassed in an online game. Extrapolating that to the population of US women, that would be 6.9 million individuals. So, yes, there is apparently a lot of harassing women in games that has nothing to do with Gamergate. Here's a specific one.[45] Rhoark (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You've opined on many occasions on how Gamergate is connected to just about everything that crosses your mind, but I don't think you've thought through how such an approach to editing would impact the article. Shall we just get done with it and transclude Brianna Wu, Dylan Roof, and Margaret Sanger? Rhoark (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe Gamergate harassed Margaret Sanger. Of course, the connection to Brianna Wu is obvious, and the connection to Dylan Roof is attested by Dylan Roof, who ought to know. But you know what? My editorial stance here has earned praise from newspapers and journals all over the world, and Rhoark's taunts are sanctionable. AE is thataway--> MarkBernstein (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

While still extraneous, its inclusion is acceptable when its contextually clear that its relation to the topic is completely transitive by way of SXSW. I've made that change, and no one seems to have objected so far. Rhoark (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I ctrl F'd gamergate and got 0 results. Original research is clearly afoot. This obviously should not be in here (per the whole no original research thingamabobam, so I'm removing it. Brustopher (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't described a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research, you have just described a violation of Brustopher's policy on magic words. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

M8, my magic word policy is the definition of original research. People in this talk section through analysis (dare I say research) of a primary source have concluded that it is about Gamergate. The source in question never mentions gamergate, just video game online harassment, a phenomenon endemic since the time online vidya began. We have no secondary sources provided saying that Obama is talking about Gamergate. To quote directly from the WP:OR policy Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. In conclusion: you are wrong, my magic word policy is amazing and I should be made godking of Wikipedia. Brustopher (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Brustopher is right. Not all on-line harassment of women is "Gamergate" and the linking of Obama's words with Gamergate without a reliable source to do it is indeed original research. Marteau (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

So President Obama is a primary source for gamergate? This is fascinating to me. But clearly I am wrong about much. Dumuzid (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

President Obama is a primary source for President Obama's words. Interperation of those words requires a secondary source or else it is original research. Brustopher (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see. By the same token, the New York Times must be a primary source for the New York Times's words. So those have to be filtered through a secondary source. So much revision to do! Dumuzid (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the source being used was the Whitehouse website. We need an independent secondary source connecting his speech with this article's topic. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

God-king Noticeboard is -> thataway Rhoark (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

While I am not in favor of the content, as a principle I think relatedness can be established transitively, that is to say if reliable sources establish Topic A is related to Topic B, then claims about Topic B may appear in Article A. That's assuming the claim improves understanding of Topic A; otherwise its a WP:COATRACK. Rhoark (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we really trying to say Obama was talking about GamerGate in his speech? At least Justin Trudeau actually said it in an interview. But this is the basic definition of grasping at straws, people. Not everything is about GamerGate. GamerPro64 04:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Per my edit summary: We include opinions where notable. I think the President of the United States is a bit notable (maybe? I might be overreaching? xXGameDude420Xx may have a more notable opinion on his youtube channel?) PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here, of course, is not the notability of everything Obama says (because Obama says it, naturally) but the linkage of his words with Gamergate. There was plenty of harassment of women on-line prior to 2015, and linking harassment to Gamergate, without a reliable source doing the linking, is clearly original research. Marteau (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

But even if Obama was thinking of some other instance in which female gamers were driven from their homes, I believe the quote still belongs in the article. The reason is simple: Obama is decrying an effect which we have lots of secondary sources linking to gamergate. He need not be referring to any specific instance in order to make it relevant to this article. I'd be fine with a qualifier like "Without mentioning Gamergate, president Obama decried harassment...." or such. I don't want to delve in to the debate over how endemic harassment is to gamergate, but the secondary sources tell us gamergate is strongly associated with harassment. President Obama went out of his way to mention (if not gamergate) the specific form of harassment with which gamergate is associated. Even if the president has never heard the term, that strikes me as a relevant bit of information to include here. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/troll-busters-online-harassment/ MarkBernstein (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd. Countless reverts of this addition because 'Obama's not talking about Gamergate, he's just talking about some other contemporary campaign of harassment against women that is totally unrelated to our ethical harassment campaign', and now that MarkBernstein has found an RS that explicitly links it to Gamergate... Starke Hathaway reverts it anyway, just because. Great. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is reliable and the article MarkBernstein links does seem to provide linkage between Gamergate and the President's words. I've restored his version. Marteau (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I did revert "just because" the Daily Dot article does not state that the President's remarks pertained to Gamergate. The linked sources discusses both the president's remarks and Gamergate in the larger context of online harassment. If there is an "explicit link" in that article, as you say, perhaps you could do us the kindness of quoting it here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I concur with Starke Hathaway on this point - while the Daily Dot source[46] mentions both Gamergate and Obama's comments on online harassment - no link is made between the two in that article. If editors opinions differ, I support and also make the request for an explicit link to be quoted here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Torchiest, I would politely ask that you self-revert to restore the reference to the SXSW discussion. While you may be right that the secondary source doesn't make a direct connection, the President himself does. He says "Last Friday, I was at South by Southwest, where the epidemic of online harassment was a topic of discussion." We certainly don't need a secondary source for the context of an opinion when the opinion itself provides it. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. done. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I agree strongly here with Liz, above, who wisely commented: "He doesn't say the word "Gamergate" but what he describes is exactly what happened in Gamergate. Can you think of another incident or sequence of events that he could be referring to? I'd be interesting to hear about another incident where women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes that had NOTHING to do with Gamergate.". This statement by Liz is a most apt analysis, unfortunately, of historical behavior patterns relating to the Gamergate social movement, online. — Cirt (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, prior to Aug 2014, there were several documented cases of harassment in the video game industry, including women; Zoe Quinn had been harassed prior to this on the original release of Depression Quest, which only intensified with the start of GG, and there's a name of a female video game journalist who's name I can't immediately recall but who was chased out of that field because of harassing statements to her opinions prior to GG. These problems have been known in the industry has been known for several years. It simply wasn't documented to the degree GG has been and put into the spotlight, forcing the industry to deal with it. I would agree that it is highly likely that the President's words are in relation to GG, but it is not 100% obvious that it is if the term never came up. Take in contrast to Rep. Clark's proposed legislation which while it doesn't mention GG, she's been extremely clear that her proposed measures are needed to fight harassment from GG, so it's reasonable to tie these legislative actions acts to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Carolyn Petit maybe? There was quite a bit of noise about her review of GTAV. — Strongjam (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That might have been it (I also recall Jenn Frank, but her departure was due to her comments at the start of GG). The point is that harassment and misogyny were not isolated events and never existed before GG, but something the industry knew about but hadn't really taken proactive steps to deal with. Also another point: nothing about the harassment attributed to GG is directed at a broad range of gamers, but only to people in the game journalism and development side (who are game players obviously, but are not whom one would normally called "gamers" in this context here). Female gamers get harassed and threatened in general: there are plenty of articles on the "boys' club" that the video game community negatively propagates including the use of harassment, and there are clear ties of the misogyny between those attitudes and the perceived attitudes of GG supporters, but I have not seen any reliable source demonstrate that that the average non-notable gamer that has been directly harassed through Gamergate. So it's still doing a bit of coatrack to attach the President's statement to this. One can say that the SXSW panels on harassment were organized in part due to GG (that can be easily sourced), and the President spoke to the challenge of combat online harassment in the gaming community (which clearly includes the GG controversy), but to say he was speaking directly about GG is a coatrack. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

But Masem, because the President was specifically referencing the SXSW panels, can't we say his words reference gamergate to the extent the panels themselves do? Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We know the panels at SXSW were scheduled in part to address the situation from GG but were not only reason these panels were planned. The President clearly spoke to online harassment in the gaming community but that doesn't logically connect his words to GG. I think it would be fair to say something like "The 2016 SXSW event included a summit featuring panels related to the problems with online harassment, including panels related to the GamerGate controversy. President Obama, speaking to the summit and responding to this "epidemic of online harassment", said "We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they’re attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes."" I feel that's a tiniest bit of a coatrack but acceptable, and far from directly saying the President's speaking about GG. This is appropriate in the context that GG has heightened awareness of online harassment in the gaming community. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right: "Female gamers get harassed and threatened in general." And if they complain, we will organize to use Wikipedia, among other channels, to publicize their sex lives. So sad, too bad. When the President of the United States deplores this harassment, our resident Gamergaters invent a wall of text because the President didn't actually use the hashtag, although the meaning of his remarks is unmistakable. (This is the same logic, by the way, that argued that sending rape cartoons to female software developers could not be described as Gamergate harassment because no static image can unambiguously depict rape. Funny coincidence, isn't it?) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc! for dragging that hoary old chestnut out of the annals of vague misrepresentation to which it should have been permanently assigned (See [47][48][49]; ctrl+f "piccolo").
To be clear, the argument is that the colours green and purple, either singularly or in combination, do not in and of themselves, as an inate property, covey, act or serve as a rape threat or harassment. That a cartoon image of a red-haired woman clothed in those colours does not covey, act or serve as a rape threat or harassment, simply by virtue of being so enhued. That this is so despite those colours being chosen due to the cartoon character's association with the 4chan image board "/v/"; and those colours being associated with "/v/" due to repeated "daily dose" postings on that board of an animated image of one purple clothed, green skinned, male alien character vigorously embuggering another male character (See [50]). That the quality of buggery is not transitive.
> [redacting] Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[redacting] PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's about time we stop bringing up "sex lives of female gamers" on the talk page. No one's proposing that we put it in the article. It's not a topic we're going to debate. If that's the reason you're here, you should probably find another hobby or reread all the times it's been mentioned in archives and never been put in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Put an end to this, and all the other forms of arguing against things that no one here is arguing for. Rhoark (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• A suggestion from an infrequent editor of this page: If President Obama made comments about protests of police shootings of African Americans, but somehow didn't say "Black Lives Matter," it wouldn't require several pages of debate to decide whether the comments belong on that page. Wikilawyering and pedantry aren't helpful to making an encyclopedia.--Carwil (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a different situation though: the number of "protests of police shooting of African Americans" is small, and the only one that is widely known is Black Lives Matter. So if he state that, it's very likely the words were specifically in reference to BLM, though there's still enough vagueness that it could be a coatrack issue. For this specific situation, "harassment of female gamers" is a very broad statement, and what direct relationship that is to GG is very weak (as the harassment that is attributed to GG is stated to be at female members of the industry/press side of video games, and not to the average game player). As such, saying that the President's speech was directly related to GG is definitely a coatrack, and careless inclusion just because it seems to be about GG is not neutral. But as I mentioned above, the fact that SXSW had session panels dedicated to discussion the growing situation about harassment in the gaming community, which includes what has resulted from GG, and that the President commented on that factor, is far less a coatrack and could be included as long as it is tied to SXSW's panels. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Carwl: More directly, try to add "Obama supported the acquittal or George Zimmerman when he said he respected the rule of law." Or infer condemnation of BLM for speaking out against riots in Baltimore based solely on the inference that BLM was somehow responsible for riots. Ain't going to get that far so there isn't endless debate. So the question here is "Why does that inference crap keep trying to get added here?" --17:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)