Jump to content

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Run n Fly (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 20 May 2021 (→‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.


Neutrality Infraction

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

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

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

Well, since the claims were false, it is, indeed, the correct word. We will be going with what reliable sources say. --Jorm (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's five yards for a neutrality infraction? I forget. Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the claims were true or false, and in fact, I agree they were false, but I cannot prove they were false. If you are saying there are "reliable sources" that say this, then they should at least be cited. Jimithing1980 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put cites in the lead section because it's just a summary of the article body. If we added citations, we'd have about 280 sources for 4 paragraphs, which is both ridiculous to read and also tedious to edit. The sentence in question is a summary of the Coordination of harassment section (which is sourced), but virtually all reliable sources covering Gamergate in general do characterize the claims as false. Woodroar (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Woodroar and Jorm. The issue always boils down to one side, with no evidence, or reliable sources, claiming false flag and making No True Scotsman claims despite the abundance of reliable sources otherwise covering the content. Koncorde (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Jan 2021 Capitol riot paragraph in the Legacy section

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

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

The direct cite specifically calls GamerGate as a precursor to the movements which led to the attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
direct site calls GamerGate as a precursor to the movements which led to the attacks
Nowhere is that present is the cited article. The article merely quotes Mx. Wu's sentiments that "it's not inconceivable that many of these people were probably caught up in GamerGate". While entitled to their opinion, this article does not assert, nor has it been proven elsewhere, that any of the same GamerGate perpetrators played any role in the Jan 2021 riot. I would agree that Mx. Wu's comments belong in an article about them or perhaps even the Jan 2021 riot, but not in the GamerGate article. --- VeritasS (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wu was a major target of Gamergate, so it makes sense to include a quote from her that reliable sources thought was relevant enough to quote in a news article. That said, it's easy to find additional sources that go into more depth, so I'll add a few. Also, can you explain what you mean by "Mx. Wu?" --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had read elsewhere that Wu had indicated they were NB and per this, "Mx." is the appropo title to use. If I am mistaken as to the NB, please let me know. --- VeritasS (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of (and I double-checked just now to be sure before saying anything so I didn't put my foot in my mouth, haha.) You may be mixing her up with Zoë Quinn, another Gamergate target. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - my understanding is also that absent a clear indication of one's desired pronouns, it is strongly urged to not presume and go with "they\their". Extending this to titles, my feeling is that it is probably best to go with gender neutral as well especially when juxtaposed against the more parochial standard of "Mr." in reference to someone regardless of that person being male or female. Of course the option always exists to just use the full or last name and skip the formality - perhaps I will choose this going forward. --- VeritasS (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Add these parameters to reference #264: (currently this: [1])

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

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

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-is-the-gamergate-of-republican-politics/. Archived from the original on February 13, 2021. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
 Done Run n Fly (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)&oldid=1024173633"