Talk:Gamergate

Archives
This page was getting way too long, with old topics becoming stale. I archived all the old discussions that haven't been added to since November 14. If you want to continue any of them, just make a new heading and link to the old discussion. MisterSatan (talk) 02:38, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * http://gamergate.gamepedia.com/Talk:Proposed_Wikipedia_Entry/Archive1

MANDATORY READING
This article is looking like shit, less like a Wikipedia entry and more like an editorial. I'm aiming to help fix that. You can edit this post to improve it, but please sign it at the end if you do. This is NOT going to end up being favorable to Gamergate, due to how Wikipedia operates. You can call me a shill for this statement, but it's true. Wikipedia can be viewed simply as an aggregator of credible information, and imgur albums are sadly not credible. Currently the media we're going against is regarded as credible, so this is an uphill fight. I'm going to summarize policies WE MUST ADHERE TO 'Articles must not take sides, but should explain'' the sides, fairly and without bias . This applies to both what you say and how you say it. '''
 * WIKIPEDIAS MINDSET
 * WP:NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

This is a core and vital part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot take a side, it cannot condemn or condone. It cannot tell you who is right and who is wrong. It cannot repeat the opinions of an article as being true, even if that opinion is the consensus. As an example of behavior in the article that violates WP:NPOV, "Zoe Quinn has made (thus far unsubstantiated) claims of harassment", this is also a WP:BLP violation. The claims are substantiated by articles that cite them as being true, whether we like that or not. Unless a WP:RS can be found to provide a citation that it's unsubstantiated, that comment should not be there. '''Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. '''
 * WP:OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

We cannot add in examples of corruption, no matter how verifiable the content, unless a WP:RS specifically mentions the corruption. Neither can we link together statements to support views, such as how the Gamers are Dead articles all dropped on a single day, unless a WP:RS specifically says that. '''Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. '''
 * WP:V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

If we cannot prove it using a WP:RS, we cannot put it in the article, simple as that. Every single thing in this damn article is going to be challenged, from dates, times, people, etc. As an example, we cannot say @Ninouh90 started #NotYourShield, even if we can link to the damn tweet, unless a WP:RS states he started the hashtag. 'Material about living persons added to any'' Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to WP:V , WP:NPOV , and avoidance of WP:OR. '''
 * WP:BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Wikipedia has Extremely strict rules on what you can write about a living person, and we can only use extremely strong and relevant sources for a statement. Allegations of corruption are extremely serious, and we should always say that they are allegations, not proven. As an example of BLP, we know that Cheong was a neo-Nazi, but unless a debate involving his being a neo-Nazi comes up that is relevant to Gamergate, and his neo-Nazi past is well substantiated by a WP:RS, we cannot post it. As well, we know the Pinsof firing was completely unethical, but unless a WP:RS comments on it, we cannot add it, and even then we should only regard it as allegations. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources , making sure that all majority and significant minority views''' that have appeared in those sources are covered per WP:NPOV. '''
 * WP:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Wikipedia is extremely strict on sources, and we must do the same here. I'm going to make a list of what are NOT WP:RS Another thing to keep in mind is that Not All WP:RS Are Equal This is going to be a stickler for this article I think. We have to realize that In The Media our viewpoint is a minority. Even if we find a single WP:RS that agrees with us on a point, if a large number of other WP:RS directly disagree, we must acknowledge that.
 * 1) Blogs are not WP:RS except for Extremely Specific Exceptions such as professional journalists, ie Erik Kain being a Forbes Contributor, or when you're using a quote to express a notable persons view.
 * 2) Youtube videos are not WP:RS, except when using a quote to express a notable persons view, ie the Pakman interviews would be allowed to explain something that Liana K thinks, but we cannot take it like it is a proper source
 * 3) Self Published Sources are not WP:RS, this includes things like Tweets, Twitlonger, Youtube, Imgur albums, the Dossier, etc
 * WP:UNDUE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

67.188.142.154 08:09, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * I just want to add this - please check that you don't include duplicate sources. I've contracted the dupes we've had, but fron now on try to use the "existing reference" function first to see if it's in there already. Sailor Jamal (talk) 12:34, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I would like everyone involved here to take this as an opportunity to show that we are willing to follow the standards of encyclopedic integrity even when it means we don't get to completely express our position. In particular this article needs to be BETTER than WP's version in terms of RS. NoItsMe (talk) 21:16, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Should we include FemFreq as part of the lead-up to GamerGate?
My concern is this: a lot of GG supporters now consider GG to be part of a long-term fight against SJW ideology, or at least a boiled-over reaction to authoritarian leftism, of which miss Sarkeesian's work is basically the main embodiment in gaming. The femfreq things have *also* been building since 2012-ish, and they provide context for the long-term harassment and threats.

Basically I really think we should include it, but I dont know where or how extensively.TheStrangeOneR (talk) 07:16, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Like DoritoGate and everything else, it feeds into it, but I don't think requires a specific mention except maybe in the history section like the other things. The whole FemFreq Tropes video series controversy probably deserves its own page, which is outside the scope of this exercise. So, my opinion is maybe a paragraph in the history. Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 08:26, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't feel as if we should be giving FemFreq more attention in the article than it is already receiving. The fact that we already mention corrupt media and collusion as what led to it meants that we've already included FemFreq under such a banner by anything but name. Nikolaz72 (talk) 12:42, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * FemFreq is just as irrelevant as any other random person spouting off their opinions on twitter. Mentioning the fact that Anita received a threat is OK, but FemFreq literally has nothing to do with the scandal other than having an opinion about it. PonytailMagoo (talk) 00:46, November 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * Leave them out, she's called Literally Who for a reason. RashBeast (talk) 06:22, November 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * Vital. Absolutely vital. If this is going to be a GamerGate article that stands a cat-in-hells chance of ever seeing the public, it needs to be impartial. It needs to be accurate. It needs to cover both sides of the story. Stand back a foot... note how GamerGate was the coming together of the anti-sexism issues that have been making mainstream news since 2012ish as TheStrangeOneR says - and the GG anti-corruption in journalism. The two topics smashed in to one another, leaving us where we are today. To do an accurate GamerGate article, without covering the feminist "sexism in gaming" angle in the run-up, is to do the whole project a massive disservice. Primarily because it will simply be deemed "hopelessly pro GG", and consigned to a scrap heap. If we want our side of the story recorded, we also need to fairly cover their side of the story. Shemmie (talk) 04:11, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

The Background Section is too long and off-topic
The Background section takes too long to get to the point. IMO other scandals prior to the Quinnspiracy should be mentioned only in passing, with links to their own pages wherever possible. We need to bring it down to one paragraph at most, and the background might not even be the best place for the list of other scandals. If we can bring it up somewhere in a 'list of grievances' when talking about the main complaints of Gamergate, that would probably be the best place to mention the other scandals and still maintain neutrality. 71.231.189.208 07:57, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have cut down the gaming journalism ethics part already.TheStrangeOneR (talk) 08:34, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * And now trimmed the Gjoni/Quinn section. Can someone look that over critically and help out with some more sources, plus cutting out what's stricktly unnesary?TheStrangeOneR (talk) 09:17, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good place to join in. I'm going to start with adding citations to what you've already got, if I think of anything that seems bad or needs cutting I'll let you know. The Colour Of Heartache (talk) 12:03, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, first thought - drop the bit that says "The attacks have been criticized by a number of commentators as being unfounded and sexist in nature." (I've put a strike through for now). It's not particularly clear what you mean, and given the number of major sites that reported on the harassment trying to downplay the harassment received by anti-Gamergate or explain that it wasn't us would be a bad idea. It would be better to find balance focus on adding harassment against pro-gg The Colour Of Heartache (talk) 12:03, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, GamerGate has been a long time coming and there have been lots of little controversies building up to a general distrust of gaming journalism, publishers and developers. We need to give some examples that illustrate that. How about a 'prelude' section for the Quinnspiracy stuff and the background section can be for less recent and less related events? There is a lot of background information for GamerGate and I don't think that should be left out, it is relevant to GamerGate. SirBoodle (talk) 20:44, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The background should provide the reader with specific and pertinent information for the article head. Jeff Gerstmann and Doritogate do not fit into this since they add nothing required to read the rest of the article. The Mass Effect 3 part is largely unrelated. In all I would suggest that "Historical Tensions" are not of particular relevance, the rest of the (finished?) article should stand without them. For example of a background I would suggest something like Cablegate, note that it does not discuss the past history of diplomatic leaks, WikiLeaks, intelligence leaks, climate of trust, or anything else. 46.193.131.178 17:47, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Harassment section
This was on the main page, moved it to talk:

guys can you stop saying they calimed they were harassed, to wikipedia this is not a claim, it's a fact. it was said they were harassed by MSNBC and other reputable sources, therfor it's not a fact they were harassed. we don't have to like it. it doesn't have to be true, as far as wikipidia was concerned it's true. if every news site said GG if full of pink rhinos the wiki will say GG is full of pink rhinos, being balanced on this issue is actually biased, they have the media you gotta give up on this and realize it's facts. Whatever541 (talk) 00:24, November 14, 2014 (UTC) I can agree to this. The harrassment claims shouldn't be contested, even subtly. Lordeldor (talk) 04:53, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Where does it say "claimed" anywhere? I've been using *stated* in my edits which is accurate. "stated" is unbiased and a statement of fact. Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 16:02, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

''Do you think we should include Cernovich's case too? It's pretty obvious his dox was posted by an anti-GG and the whole situation seems to have spawned out of the controversy. This is absolutely an important issue to include if any mentions of harassment should even be humored to begin with. He is a man that had to leave his home because of the filing of false police reports against him, creating a situation where he was under a clear danger of being swatted''.

Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 08:04, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone is "only" doxxed, I don't think it makes the bar. I removed Felicia Day (for now) for the same reason.  If we list everyone who was "just" doxxed, the BWC doxing alone would be 50+ people.   I think if we name names, it should be people who clearly stated (and can be sourced) that they were threatened with their well-being, bodily harm, death etc.  Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 08:06, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * He did have a SWAT team called in though - even though they didn't arrive due to his preventive actions (?). Again, no reputable sources I know of have reported on this... 90.191.73.23 09:34, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Without reputable sources I think we should just hammer down and say that the article is long enough as it is without us needing to put stuff in that cannot be justfied with reliable sourcing. Nikolaz72 (talk) 12:39, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * shoudn't we split this section into "pro-GG", "anti-GG" and "neutral"? I believe it would deliver a better message than just gathering everybody together.
 * also, wasn't? Pakman was victim of harassement, too? though I can't find the specific tweet.


 * We don't want to "deliver a message" - that's the problem with the article on Wikipedia already. What we want to do is write an accurate encyclopedia article. The reality is people have been harassed (or stated they have been including to the police), and the other reality is no one is claiming responsibility except for that Brazilian link spammer. So, all these people are kind of in the same boat - harassed for their positions by unknown people. I think leaving them together is OK. Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 16:13, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Moved from main page: ''okay guys i know this is sensitive stuff but i feel like Wolf got a really raw deal, that forbes is a reliable source and that people should know he WAS harassed. i tried to make sure i didn't represent his claim as true or false but only that it was made then retracted.''


 * I don't think this belongs here. It was way before gamergate, and isn't relevant to the type of harassment we're talking about in this section. I vote for deletion.Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 16:02, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Moved from main page:

(Like it or not, we need a section that elaborates on her harassment beyond what is stated in the Quinnspiracy summary; the WP:RS have reported on it far too extensively to omit. We can't just whitewash it like it didn't happen, or Gamergate didn't do it, because Wiki doesn't work like that. If the WP:RS report we did it, sadly we have to write it that way) (Agreed but, this a convoluted enough topic that there should be extensive discussion about it. What's to be done about the whole "the doxxes are fake" "no they're real!" thing? Do we state on wiki that the doxx is correct, thereby letting everyone know that her information is available? Media coverage hasn't questioned the legitimacy of the doxxes, meaning, if they are correct, then we risk harming the friend's and family members of Quinn, who would likely much rather people be uncertain as to the legitimacy of the doxxes, so fewer people try to contact them.) Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 02:29, November 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should have doxing in this section on a per-person basis. I think on a per-person basis threats of bodily harm and such are relevant. The reason being is that BWC did a fine job of doxing > 50 people and this section would be unwieldy; while doxing is a form of harassment, it is much less so than threatening to kill someone. Maybe instead add a paragraph on overall doxing and in there name significant figures by name. E.g., "Among those doxed were several significant figures such as Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Margaret Gel, Sargon of Akkad" and so forth. We should, however, put under Zoe Quinn mention of threats she received. That definitly needs to be in here. Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 02:39, November 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Something like "Public figures on both sides of the issue, including [list of people here] were subject to harassment, most prominently through having their private information released; receiving threatening phone calls, post, and online messages; and having false police reports filed against them." If a reader wants specifics with regard to who got threatened with what, they can check the sources.  I don't think it deserves its own section, maybe better suited for an introduction PonytailMagoo (talk) 23:40, November 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * "while doxing is a form of harassment, it is much less so than threatening to kill someone." I strongly disagree. I realise it's a subjective thing, but half of these "death threats" are just someone getting mad on twitter and of those, alot of them aren't even threats, they're just general "go kill yourself" expressions of distaste. The ones where things were physically sent to someone's house are a little more serious of course (since they're deliberately revealing that they know where they live). It might also be useful to distinguish between "doxxing" (revealing private information) and collating information which is already in the public domain (like publicly listed phone numbers and addresses). You can't leak something if it's already public.

Is The Dossier A Valid Source?
It's pretty high-quality. Can we use it directly, or only it's own sources? Has anyone checked with Wales? 71.231.189.208 08:13, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Only the sources can be used, nothing written directly in the Dossier. Read the above section. 67.188.142.154 08:20, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * someone tell me how to do this little jumpy-in thing TheStrangeOneR (talk) 08:30, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Visual editor sucks, use Source/Classic mode 67.188.142.154 08:35, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

TechRaptor's host dropping them after GG, TFYC funded by /v/, not explicitly GG
As a note, TFYC should be part of the quinspiriacy, also worth pointing out, /v/ was credited with raising $20,000 not gamergate, even though the movement did become gamergate. <span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;white-space:pre-wrap;">Has anyone spoken about techraptor? Who were taken down for posting unbiased (or contraflow) articles on gamergate. It is commonly believed thier host dropped them because of the site's veiws on gamergate. The same thing may of happened to gamernosh, i'd need to go look up the appropriate materials to comfirm this, it all happened so very long ago. Would be usefull for the censorship section. Posted by an anon on /gg/ - https://www.8chan.co/gg/res/499602.html#505271, I'm just reposting here Sailor Jamal (talk) 12:05, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey that was me, i'll be going through materials about this soon, as a reminder of wiki rules which i am unfamiliar with, is social media qoutes good to represent a person's perceived point of view, not necessarly fact but a point of view of an important party, such as TFYC tumblr where they tend to make statements or techraptor's twitter since i remember techraptor being of the feeling that gamergate was the reason why they got dropped, even if it was never explicitly stated in a publisized text, as in, the tech raptor site. Or will i need to find other sources reporting on these incidents? Triarii (talk) 12:39, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, nice job. To indent a paragraph, put a ":" at the very beginning of it. The amount of colons makes for the size of the indent.


 * Now, for your question, I believe that personal blogs are viable sources when citing the relevant person's expressed opinion. They aren't considered good enough for anything else. See the first post on the talk page for more details, and maybe as the guy there. He seems to know it a whole lot better than I do (I don't really)... Sailor Jamal (talk) 12:53, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, essentially we can cite Techraptors opinion on the situation IF we have a secondary WP:RS that also reports on the specific situation. HOWEVER, there may be an exception IFF the Techraptor writer is a professional journalist, see the two sections here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources These exceptions are easily arguable, so use them Extremely Sparingly. 67.188.142.154 14:17, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism IPs
Sorry if that's not the way, but I think we should have a list of vandalising IPs and users to be wary of. Feel free to remove this if it's against some rules.

18.101.24.217 - http://gamergate.gamepedia.com/Proposed_Wikipedia_Entry?diff=prev&oldid=5617

82.135.236.159 - http://gamergate.gamepedia.com/Proposed_Wikipedia_Entry?diff=next&oldid=5523

130.245.225.92 - http://gamergate.gamepedia.com/Proposed_Wikipedia_Entry?diff=prev&oldid=5435

I'm not sure if we can ban them or something, but just be wary of edits made by them. Sailor Jamal (talk) 12:49, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Got a new one 24.5.110.187 http://gamergate.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Proposed_Wikipedia_Entry&diff=6126&oldid=6119 67.188.142.154 22:37, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Adland is not a reliable source
Due to recent updates to the wikipedia page for Adland, it cannot be considered a reliable source anymore. It is instead referenced as an advertisorial group and not an editorial source. Either remove all citiations from Adland or find alternative sources to back them up. Dirty Old Boots (talk) 22:12, November 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you like to elaborate on why they are not a WP:RS? I could see not using them for WP:BLP, but they are not a WP:SPS. 67.188.142.154 23:30, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * At a minimum, the Adland cites need to report what the website actually says. There's a lot of reading between the lines and original research going on in that section, which looks like it's being trolled regardless. Right now the article says "Intel confirmed to adland at the second of october that they have pulled advertising support from Gamasutra due to its attack on the gamer identity," which is a seriously interpretive take on what the linked citation says. That section needs FACTS, not editorial. Obviously, a different source would be better entirely (not only is Adland suspect, but the linked article doesn't look remotely neutral, which raises suspicion regarding whether it's telling the full story - it is, but it looks sketchy.) If we're stuck with Adland until someone else writes about it, whatever, but stick to literally what the source says. Ggramma77 (talk) 09:16, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Good parts of the original article?
I'm trying to survey the original Wikipedia article to identify any good parts that it has. As much as a lot of people want to hate the original, there are some parts that I find to be reasonable. While many of the popular oppinions are heavily anti-gg biased, some of the documentation of events is pretty damned accurate (whether we want to admit it or not). For example, the first paragraph of the NYS section doesn't seem that bad.

I also think that the organization isn't horrible on Wikipedia. While the titles of some of the sections are rediculous (see "False Allegations against Quinn and Subsequent Harassment"), I think that the organization of the "Gamergate hashtag" section is pretty good. Gunzu (talk) 22:43, November 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this is a proposed article for the same article on Wikipedia, I think it makes sense to bring in non-biased and sourced information from it. I don't see why we wouldn't. Sleepinginrlyeh (talk) 22:15, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

"Supporters state" but "detractors allege"
The first paragraph is already comically non-neutral. "Supporters state" their view of things, but "detractors allege" theirs. Pick a neutral verb: "say" or "claim"


 * I tend to agree in basic principal. Perhaps something more like this:


 * Supporters of the Gamergate movement have alleged corruption, collusion and negligence in video game journalism. Detractors have alleged that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women, feminism, and the diversification of gaming culture.


 * In my opinion both parties are making allegations and there is little need to subtley push one POV over the other. Particularly not in the lead. Lordeldor (talk) 04:05, November 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead is still biased. Supporters "oppose", but detractors "allege". Moreover, everyone would oppose the things the current article claims supporters oppose - the disagreement is whether those things exist in the way Gamergate supporters claim they do, and if the supporters' actions are actually consistent with their stated opposition to them. The lead currently assumes those things.\
 * And what do you think of the changes to the lead I suggested above? It was changed to reflect both parties have made allegations. Lordeldor (talk) 15:04, November 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * "Allege" is fine for both.


 * "Argue" is a better word to use than "allege" because it doesn't imply accusation PonytailMagoo (talk) 00:26, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

The Quinnspiracy Scandal
I've done a fair bit of editting inside this section (including the TFYC bit) and it looks like a fair few other people have been editting it as well, so thought we should have a talk page section to discuss changes. Mostly cause I feel some of the recent edits aren't too good and I don't want to just delete them. Here's my thoughts:

Paragraph 1: Is Arnott relevant to GamerGate?

"The Zoe Post was quickly picked up by a loosely-organized group of gamers, mainly centered on anonymous sites, such as 4chan (citation needed, preferably archive link dated close to Aug 15th), as proof of the misbehavior of Quinn in specific and, later, collusion between game developers and journalists in general. Accusations of ethical violations against Quinn included blame for the failure of GAME_JAM, a reality show produced by Polaris/Maker and sponsored by Pepsi" - is any of this relevant or not just repeating what is said right after/before? Maybe the 4chan bit, but good luck finding a good source for that.

Para 2: Could someone help me with sourcing the last bit? I don't even know what would be considered an acceptable source for that bit.

Para 3: We are really heavy on the 'claims' and 'alleges', I think we need to just state some things as fact to get this section accepted. Surely the thing to take someone's word on is that she was harassed, the important thing to defend is accusations of who was doing the harassment/was it coordinated. I've never seen any evidence that Quinn was actually harassed, but I think it's hard not to believe some troll or just someone pissed off didn't send her some offensive tweet/email/whatever. SirBoodle (talk) 00:34, November 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * I liked a lot of the streamlining that 66.30.248.39 did, but they took out almost all the references so I put them back in. I also kept the changes that 213.185.28.60 made. I reworded some stuff and got rid of the cracked reference. Also replaced an archive link of an imgur to the actual page the imgur was showing, which still listed Nathan Grayson as the IndieCade chair.


 * I found a reference for Grayson featuring Depression Quest on Indiecade night games, but I haven't found anything about an award, if you can find info on that we can say she got an award, but for now all we can prove is that she was chosen to be featured. SirBoodle (talk) 09:47, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to put Zoe's harassment in the harassment section fine, I think it's better to put all her stuff together, make a note and an in-article link in harassment back to the Quinnspiracy, but either way I don't think you should just delete all of the stuff already there, so I have put most of it back. Moving it is fine, but I think you need more justification for deleting it than saying it belongs somewhere else - that would be some justification for moving it.
 * There have been a lot of edits here making minor changes that change the tone, let's discuss some of them:
 * Activist Zoe Quinn? I can't find what activism she has done and it certainly isn't what she is known for.
 * 'One of Quinn's games' - as far as I can tell she's only made one game so far, even if she has made more the sentence that this replaced was still accurate and I think more neutral than this one. Saying 'Blizzard's Starcraft' is just as accurate as saying 'one of Blizzard's games, Starcraft,' and is easier to read in my opinion (because there are less commas).
 * 'Considered' ethical breaches? Unless he has announced/we have a source which says that he no longer thinks what she did was ethically wrong then we can't say he no longer thinks what she did was ethically wrong.
 * I've changed the bit about what Totilo said, it wasn't backed up by what was in the source at all, what I've written now is mostly direct quotes.
 * 'Alleged romantic encounter' - I don't think anyone has denied Quinn and Grayson were in a relationship, Totilo says that Grayson confirmed they were in a romantic relationship (the Kotaku Editor's note is a source for this) so I don't think we need 'alleged' or 'encounter'. It's my understanding that Grayson and Quinn were straight up boyfriend and girlfriend, the only thing in doubt is when the relationship began and were they really just professional acquaintances when the article was written?
 * In terms of removing the bit about prominently featured, I think it's worth a mention, this was about half a year (IIRC) before they were confirmed going out, but he definitely gave it a prominent position in his article, it was the header and he described it very positively and more than any other game. For now I've just described what he wrote using direct quotes, I think that constitues featuring it prominently, but if that is disagreed then I think we should just describe how he mentioned it (as I have now done).
 * Also I'm putting the Arnott bit back in, I was never happy about 'responsible for featuring' so I have kept that out, but he's definitely worth a mention. He was an alleged partner, he was the chair of the the indie nights festival and she was featured on there whilst he was the chair. Maybe there was nothing to it and maybe there was, until we know we can't say either way, but we can and should present those facts. SirBoodle (talk) 10:26, November 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * This will probably be a great deal of trouble on our end because of the way that hands have been hidden. It's extremely hard to make any kind of marked statement on the situation without seeming biased, yet at the same time, it's looking like folks are all too ready to defend against the allegations by editing the article to seem so ambiguous that it's as if nothing matters at all. Chamomileable (talk) 02:26, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Shadow of Mordor section.
For further clarity on the timeline in this section we can reference the original release of the brand deal details. This actually came from John (Total Biscuit) Bain by way of Jim Sterling and his "Jimquisition" entitled the Shadiness of Mordor. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social

Total Biscuit later came forward and identified himself as Sterling's source as confirmed in Erik Kain's post:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/08/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-paid-branding-deals-should-have-gamergate-up-in-arms/

Lordeldor (talk) 04:36, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Immediate Social Media Response
The second paragraph onwards (I'm ignoring the first for now) is a mess. Propose the following basic structure/points, the detail can be filled out as/when reliable sources can provide:

Banning of Discussion
Many websites banned discussion of the controversy and related topics including: 4chan, IGN, Reddit, NeoGAF, Kotaku, The Verge, and The Escapist.

GamerGate supporters claim to have been censored on major forums and their complaints were being ignored by the press.

Representatives of the forums and GamerGate opponents stated that the banning of discussion was to prevent harassment [citation needed] and deny that this is censorship.

There is no doubt much more detail that can be added, but email campaigns, further discussion of censorship, DDoS many weeks later, etc. are largely not "initial media response", they fit in later sections. 46.193.131.178 18:10, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Stylization and spelling, "doxing" vs doxing
There are several things we must decide on. Firstly, should we write "dox" in quotation marks, or not? The Economist uses it without those, after establishing the meaning of the word. I suggest we do the same.

Similarly, we should decide how to capitalise GamerGate. Both "pro-GamerGate" and "anti-GamerGate" should start with a lowercase letter, IMO, unless you have a reson to suggest otherwise. Also, please remember to capitalise the second "G" in GamerGate - unless, again, you have objections. Sailor Jamal (talk) 22:07, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think the word "doxing" should only be used once with quotes to acknowledge its common use as an informal term for releasing and publicising private, personal information. Until it's printed in an official dictionary, it's an example internet slang and it's poor form stylistically to use informal language when writing entries in an encyclopedia. PonytailMagoo (talk) 00:55, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think "dox" needs to be used in a formal setting. It's a slang term rooted in the word "documents" and should be treated as such. If there's a quote that contains the word, keep it, but otherwise just connect it with the actual meaning "so and so had their personal information in cluding home address posted online(a form of intimidation often known as doxxing)" Chamomileable (talk) 02:22, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Max Temkin
Ok I've been looking into this Max Temkin thing for a few hours now and I don't think this should be included in the article. Basically it looks like several Gawker sites went after him because he was accused of raping someone. That's shitty, but he doesn't seem to be complaining about it and no one has written about him complaining about it. He just defends the allegations and for some reason doesn't seem that unhappy that people were attacking him for having the gall to claim he was innocent. Well whatever, we could say he received a lot of harassment from Gawker sites, but that doesn't have much business on the GamerGate page, the only link to GG is because it was Gawker and Rock Paper SHotgun doing it. If someone really wants to talk about it I think it should be on a separate page or Gawker's page. For now I'm removing the subheading from the GG article (the section was not filled in). SirBoodle (talk) 22:38, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "GamerGate"
Creating a separate discussion because it deserves one.

Here is a nice point: http://gamergate.gamepedia.com/Talk:Proposed_Wikipedia_Entry#Article_Structure Ctrl + F "Definition."

However, just to raise a point to perhaps use later - what is it exactly? One thing both sides can agree on is a hashtag. Shouldn't we then say that GamerGate is a hashtag, which is claimed by its users* to represent* a consumer revolt, while those in opposition to it state that it's a way to organize harassment of women. I know it's rough, the wording sucks (especially "users" and "represent"), but I just wanted to throw this out there for you to consider. Sailor Jamal (talk) 23:02, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

If I may offer some suggestions
One of the biggest problems this article is facing is it needs to start focused and remain that way. We open with this background discussing that gamers have had contention with corruption in journalism. That's fine and all but the problem is you could just easily say "harassment has a history of coming from the gaming community", with citable examples therein. Both can be given the same level sourcing, but the biggest problem is WP:UNDUE: it's an aspect of the matter being given undue weight within the article and tneds to slant it one way or another. All we'd be doing here is trading proof that someone was harassed by someone for proof that the industry is full of assholes. That's not to say that we shouldn't bring up things like what happened to Gertsmann, but we have to show the direct significance in statements from reliable sources from gamergate supporters or people commenting on GamerGate to make it work. Otherwise they'll shoot it down.

Something I was trying to do on my end was to focus on three core parts of the article: establish a timeline, establish what direction results of the movement have occurred and its goals, and establish its reactions in the public be it good or bad. Writing this isn't much different from writing a character article on there for the same reasons, and lord knows I wrote plenty of those. We're going to look like shit from some angles, saints from others. That's good. Quinn will look like the victim at some points, but she's just as much an aggressor in a lot of this as well.

For what I was writing on my temp page on wikipedia I got as far as Origins of the movement, but the basic skeleton of the timeline, in relation to what we have to go with, was thus:


 * Quinn vs Wizardchan, then Quinn vs. TFYC


 * Thezoepost, direct reactions.


 * Mundanematt's DMCA hit, reactions to it from TotalBiscuit & Fish stepping in.


 * Internet Aristocrat made vid in regards to Matt takedown, pools in the above issues and calls for a higher standard of ethics in video game journalism, compares matters to Watergate scandal.


 * Adam Baldwin coins "GamerGate", things pick up.

Pretty straightforward from there. THings like Gamejournopros, "Gamers are Dead" etc all seemed to have come off after there, but this establishes to the reader what gamergate is in a means a reader can understand, which is the SECOND most important part: we need to realize that these readers may not be gamers, and need to be able to understand what they're looking at and the signficance of it.

Anyway, sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to take over...I've got a lot of time under wikipedia under my belt and two front paged articles, so when it comes to them I know how they work. If you guys are interested I can take what I was building there and implement it here. Whatever the case thank you for your time.Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:47, November 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * You have my vote, that section badly needs to be restructured and clarified 80.111.44.31 14:52, November 20, 2014 (UTC)

Brietbart Sources
There's a big problem with the number of times Brietbart has been referenced on here. It sucks, but Wikipedia have said repeatedly that Brietbart is not WP:RS. We need to either find other sources for the statements, or scrap them. MisterSatan (talk) 02:20, November 19, 2014 (UTC) Fuck off shill

Order of sections (specifically harassment)
Maybe it's just a chance consequence of how the article was written, but why is the harassment section the first thing to pop up after the summary and origin? Encyclopedic articles are supposed to focus on their subject, then deal with any related side effects and controversies. Placing harassment first is like making an article about the olympic games and spending the first few hundred words talking about alleged human rights violations in the host country. 80.111.44.31 14:48, November 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll give this another week, but unless someone's responded by then I'm moving this section further down in the article. Gamergate is about corruption in the games industry, whatever other scandals might have accompanied it are secondary.RashBeast (talk) 15:00, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

New Section: Definition of Gamergate and general reordering of sections
I've posted above about how the order of sections needs to be changed, but even apart from that the article is a confused mess right now. We have a (sort of) summary, then a hash of a background piece, after that it starts jumping all over the place from harassment to boycotts... if you didn't already know what gamergate was this article would be unreadable. I'd like to propose the following structure:


 * Summary (for the moment cut what's there and paste it into the comments section for later editing)


 * Contents section (automated)


 * Inciting events/Prelude/Background: Small and concise background section clearly outlining the Quinnspiracy revelations, TFYC and subsequent censorship. We shouldn't go into detail on those since, whatever Tarc and Ryulong might say, that's the subject of another article.


 * Origin and meaning of Gamergate: Hashtag first tweeted by Adam Baldwin, consumer revolt, smokescreen for harassment, anti-authoritarian uprising, anti-SJW culture war. All definition stuff should go here.


 * Demographics of gamergate: There has been alot of commentary on the makeup of gamergate. Angry white men, #notyourshield, all that kind of stuff goes here


 * Evidence of ethical breaches brought to light by GG: This section isn't awful, it just badly needs rewriting and sourcing.


 * Email Campaigns and Advertiser Pullouts: Again, not terrible, could use some love


 * Industry Response


 * Allegations of Harassment: Section is already pretty solid, it can go here.


 * Sources etc.

If you think it should be otherwise please leave your suggestions below, but no matter what it ends up looking like it badly needs fixing RashBeast (talk) 14:18, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

In the main article "doritogate" was said to be on the talk page, but then I didn't see it have its own place to talk about it, so I thought I'd add something here. Only source I could find, the lovely kotaku: https://archive.today/S1VRk181.160.200.67 11:21, December 9, 2014 (UTC)