Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 19

WP:COATRACKING

The university's self-serving pablum that there was "no imminent threat" is entirely irrelevant to the subject of this article. It serves only to imply that she is chicken shit for not wanting to be in a room where she was told that people would be able to enter with loaded weapons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The "no imminent threat" assessment should be coming from independent authorities. --NeilN talk to me 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it's basically standard practice to reassure people "there was no imminent threat" after such threats... that information is not relevant to Sarkeesian's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Utah State University statement IS RELEVANT on the section "Terrorist threat at Utah State University"

I don't know why you keep reverting a statement from one of the main subjects on this section, the content is complete backed by a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier2005 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Javier2005: See the section right above this. --NeilN talk to me 13:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So there is no place for truth here, i get it, the "big editors" get their way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier2005 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct campaigns to reveal THE TRUTHTM have no place in Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And "big editors" who establish a policy consensus get their way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not downplaying the threats against Sarkeesian. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Utah State University statement is based on police information. Javier2005 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So? That the University released a self serving statement AFTER Sarkeesian made the decision. What prey tell does that have to do with the subject of this article: Sarkeesian? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a WP:COATRACK. There's no reason to mention this out-of-context fact in her biography, absent a much longer and more detailed accounting of the incident. The reliable sources covering the incident did not use USU's press-release language in their reports, which suggests that they similarly considered it to be, at best, somewhat self-serving in terms of downplaying the risk. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, the statement has police info, it is definitely worth, why hide this info? Javier2005 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What does "this info" - a post hoc standard issue self serving claim of no "imminent threat" - have to do with the subject of this article about a living person? Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Tempers seem high this morning. While I didn't insert the USU press release material, I did support its inclusion by adding context and moving a single source's first appearance. (The section is not very well sourced, considering the vast number of reliable sources reporting on this incident.) For my part, I don't have the same objection to insertion that some other editors seem to have. The USU source, while lacking independence, (IMHO) can be considered a reliable source for the purpose of describing the university's response to the threat. New User:Javier2005's repeated insertion without gaining consensus here on talk has tended to discredit that new user. That user's arguments have not convinced editors here on talk to include the quotation, and I bow to consensus, once my position is stated. But speaking as an editor who has been (at least on talk) long a defender of this page against frequent trolling by critics of the subject, I think the actions of several editors here step over a line between disagreement and reflexive dismissiveness. I for one applaud the statement of admin User:Nyttend here, while it's clear that admin's labeling of "stale" was way premature. One newbie's insistence on insertion should not cause more experienced editors to ignore rules of civility (not to bite newbies). There has been exhibited in this case a sense of urgency not warranted by the uncritical if not perfectly neutral source provided. BusterD (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, the "no credible threat" assertion should come from independent sources. --NeilN talk to me 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Newbies do not get a free pass to make WP:COATRACKS of articles to push their personal agendas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There's something revealing about the above two responses, IMHO. First, the phrase "no creditable threat" doesn't appear in the source; that's a (perhaps Freudian) synthesis by User:NeilN. The phrase used was "imminent threat", and that's inline with what's you'd expect a police department press release to say. Second, User:TheRedPenOfDoom is certainly welcome to his or her views of the insertion and/or the contributions of the inserter. I, for one, do not hold that the insertion of an actual quote from a press release offered by the law enforcement entity directly involved in the incident rises to level of coatracking. BusterD (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@BusterD: Sorry, I was looking at a later source. [1] --NeilN talk to me 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:I was not aware of that source, and I apologize for my assessment of synthesis. BusterD (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@BusterD: well then perhaps you can actually answer the question that i have asked multiple times and gotten no answer: what specifically does the post hoc press release from the police have to do with the subject of this article - Anita Sarkeesian? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The section is called, "Terrorist threat at Utah State University". It is an assessment of that threat. --NeilN talk to me 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, NeilN. @TheRedPenOfDoom: I believe that if the USU source weren't quoted, User:Javier2005 would have had much less dispute on insertion. The source accurately and properly words the official position of the responsible law enforcement agency charged with serving and protecting the USU community. When Wikipedia describes a public incident in which a LE agency is involved, it's not unusual to include a link to the official report of the agency on the subject. When I saw the inserted quote this morning, I decided the quote lacked context, and tended to give the impression that the threat wasn't credible. I chose, instead of removing the citation, to include context also given in the source which described the agency's actions taken to ameliorate the threat. In my opinion, this was the proper response to insertion of an official source concerning an incident relating to actual threats made against the subject of a Wikipedia BLP article. The incident section has very few sources about an event which has been widely covered in RS. I thought the insertion of the official record was inevitable. BusterD (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
in all of your description, you have still not yet mentioned how this is related to the subject -Sarkeesian. You have mentioned the school and the police, and the accuracy of the press release. Fine. but they are not the subject of this article. the only plausible relation is to cast doubt on her decision not to trust the polices assurances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's related because Sarkeesian wanted to attend the schoolto give a conference, but she couldn't because there was a terrorist threat. Duh. If several RSs make the connection by reporting those details while describing the incident, we don't need anything else to know that those details are significant to the topic of this article. Diego (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"It's related because Sarkeesian wanted to attend the school to give a conference, but she couldn't because there was a terrorist threat." We have covered that in the article. Now where does the post hoc "reassurances" that there was in no "imminent threat" affect the subject of the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Why should it matter how the reassurances affect the subject of the article? The significance of facts to a topic is determined because a reliable source covers them in connection to the topic, not because Wikipedia editors create a theory of how they influence each other. Diego (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, because the article is theoretically ABOUT the subject of the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And according to the Times and GamePolitics, the reassurances are part of the topic of this article. Diego (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You keep claiming this but not identifying HOW the " reassurances" are related to the subject of THIS article. The only thing i can see is an implication that Sarkeesian somehow didnt have the balls to stand up to her post hoc "non imminent threat" terrorist. Is that the connection? Or is there something else?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Buster, I'm confused. You applaud what I said, even though you disagree with my statement that it was stale? Clearly I'm missing something here. I wasn't sure that "stale" was the best, but because Javier had stopped warring and come here instead, I considered the edit-war over and believed that any active sanctions would be inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Note the three reverts after his first post here. So, no, the edit warring hadn't stopped in favor of talk page discussion. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I assumed that Buster meant your statement that we should not assume newbies are aware of our policies, which while true, seems bafflingly non appropriate for the situation. [2] [3] [4] [5] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and perhaps will never be, but I believe that marking an ongoing edit war report as stale a mere seventeen minutes after that user's last warring contribution seems premature, but certainly within discretion. For Nyttend's statement that a battleground mentality was developing, I'm in hearty agreement. The apparent hostility provoked by this minor inclusion seems disproportional to the response. BusterD (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I apology for the mess from a few hours ago, I wasn't sure how disputes like this resolved. I still think that the USU source is important because it gives a different point of view about this incident. Javier2005 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The facts of the episode are that there was a terror threat; additional security measures were planned; the university legally couldn't prevent licensed people from bringing in guns; and Sarkeesian didn't want to speak to room where people could bring guns right after someone threatened gun violence. Additional opinions on the subject, including the university's official line that there was "no imminent threat", aren't really necessary or relevant. The facts say enough by themselves. At any rate, there is no consensus to include additional material.--Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be necessary to repeat this, but what is relevant is determined by what reliable sources decide to say about the incident. Diego (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Not that it will convince anyone here, but the statement by the Utah State university has been covered by the independent GamePolitics.com. The assessment that there was no threat to students was made in collaboration with "the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit." Diego (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
and reliable sources also state that not appearing was a perfectly legitimate choice that is reflective of nothing other than a desire for being safe I am sure you would have had the balls to go ahead and not have an auditorium full of innocent people at risk on the post hoc assertion of the police, but that is neither here nor there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I especially admire the statement leading the Time article, and think it has equal application on Wikipedia as in other arenas of civil discourse: "Whatever you think about games, game journalism or recent critiques of the way video games treat women, you have an obligation to be respectful in debates, and it's a shame we still have to say that." BusterD (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom - great, we can add that assessment to the article as well. "Time said that not appearing..." Diego (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding a justification for the cancellation when there is no reliable source calling her judgment into question - only the implication created because Wikipedia editors thought that it was somehow necessary to include the police's denial of "imminent threat"??? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is an essay, but has a purpose in making sure that only tangentially related topics do not get covered in proportion to due weight. That's the main thing I'm seeing here. However, an official statement from the university elaborating that there was no imminent threat is absolutely crucial and fundamental to the article. It's presenting the official response of the university who was going to host her event. It's directly on topic and if omitted, the article would be presenting only the initial media reports--which tend to be sensational, especially about a figure like Anita, rather than the actual response of the university. It's not coatrack material. Coatrack material would be like adding quotes of people to response to the threat but weren't involved in any capacity. I believe it has its place due to the necessary context that it creates. Tutelary (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith on your part, but why on earth would we use such a non-reliable source as a press release from an entity which is going to go out of its way to make the threat look minor and their own efforts look substantial? If we don't have reliable third-party analysis, we don't say anything like that with Wikipedia's voice. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You're making it sound as if I'm trying to promote a product on Anita's page. The press release of the afflicted institution is incredibly valuable in an encyclopedic context. Also, more sources have picked up on the fact of no imminent threat. CNN, Escapist, BBC, Gamespot I don't believe there's much justification in omitting it now. Tutelary (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Been following this for a bit. Honestly don't think the university's press release is necessary here. It's not about Sarkeesian herself and doesn't add much. If a third-party RS went and published a piece about how there was no credible threat (not the same as imminent), then I'd say include it. But as it stands, the primary source from the university is just a PR piece. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So far all we have is the university saying it didn't believe the threat was credible, and other sources saying the university said it didn't believe the threat was credible. All well and good, but it's totally secondary to the facts of the event: that USU didn't/couldn't prevent licensed people from bringing guns, and after the threats, Sarkeesian didn't want to speak in front of a room where people could bring guns. We don't need to include every single twist and turn in the story to get the basic facts in there. In fact, Sarkeesian asked if USU could screen attendees for guns and only let them in if they had their permits, but they didn't;[6] are we to include that as well?
If this were included, it should only be as supplementary note on the precautions, not some after-the-fact attempt to downplay the threat and Sarkeesian's concerns: "the university and police did not believe the threat was credible, but scheduled enhanced security measures, and planned to proceed with the lecture.[source] However, Sarkeesian cancelled the event after learning that the university could not prohibit attendees from carrying handguns into the lecture hall.[source]"--Cúchullain t/c 20:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The way that the article is currently sitting, with that almost click bait drawn header of 'Terrorist threat at Utah State University' (which rs have reported it as, though) makes it sound as if ISIS was planning to bomb the school to prevent Anita from speaking. When in reality, the police, local, and federal have investigated the very serious threat and found absolutely no threat to students. That's a big deal. The majority of this discussion started off by only having the bit directly from the school; a primary source that may have a grey region but I think should've been included anyway, but I wouldn't fault others for excluding it based on that one source. Now that we have multiple RS saying and reporting that the university, it deserves at least a brief mention. Your sentence that you just proposed I would accept and be sated. Tutelary (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So, let's use it as a supplementary note. Your wording addresses the concerns stated, well done. Let's boldly adding it per WP:BRD, "when the discussion has improved understanding". Diego (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Good wording. Agree with Diego Moya. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I said "if". At any rate, I made the wording more along the lines of what I wrote above. Again, we don't need to give every minor detail about this to get the necessary information across.--Cúchullain t/c 03:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"She vowed to continue speaking out and called for the industry to come together in opposition to misogynist harassment." Right on! You go girl! Fight that patriarchy! *pauses* Yeah, that sentence could use some work to be a teeny bit more neutral in its phrasing. As to the overall issue, I think it should be made abundantly clear that university officials and police did not put dozens of student lives at serious risk just by following Utah state law. There are a wide assortment of reasons I could give, but I am sure you guys can figure some out.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control Edit

North did a bold edit, got reverted (partially) in that respect, and has now been reverted. The single source editorial is not sufficient enough for a single mention on the page, even if given due weight. Also, it should be noted that there are discretionary sanctions relating to gun control and all edits related to it are subject to 1RR. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The editorial doesn't call for gun control, it calls for restrictions on guns in a particular public place.
The debate here focuses on regulation of firearm possession in a certain place, not regulation of firearm ownership. That does not fall under the definition of gun control used by ArbCom, so no, this isn't covered by the discretionary sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tutelary: I don't see it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Final_decision. Am I missing something? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have reinserted and expanded the section with global sourcing, including Associated Press, Irish Independent, The Guardian and there are plenty more if you'd like to me to add them. An editorial writer for the Salt Lake Tribune has specifically written a reported blogpost focusing on how the death threats have brought attention to Utah's gun laws. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
We need to determine exactly how much of this is important for the article. We really should figure this out before we decide to include what the school considers to be a "credible" threat.--Cúchullain t/c 03:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to make the point that I don't actually think the terrorism threat should be differentiated from any of the other harassment. It looks tabloid at the moment, and surely reflects more about the University than Sarkeesian - which appears to be the crux of this entire discussion anyway. Koncorde (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't actually think the terrorism threat should be differentiated from any of the other harassment death threat. Fixed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much. This (sadly) isn't anything new. The only reason that this is notable is because she actually could not get any reassurances from law enforcement or the University and so she cancelled. This section should actually be titled "cancelled speech due to inaction of Police" as the actual crux of the notability is not the threat (of which she has had myriad). Koncorde (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, none of that belongs in her bio. Her BLP is not a place to shoehorn in a bunch of crap about gun control. I also am going to say right now that I will not allow anyone to try and impugn the actions of university officials or the FBI in this article either. They are far more qualified to assess the seriousness of a threat and the necessary measures needed to prevent incidents than us and Sarkeesian. No sources support such POV spin on the matter as you lot are suggesting.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@The Devil's Advocate: I will not allow anyone... read WP:OWN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I obviously don't own this page, otherwise it would not spew all the garbage it does at present. However, I do promise that I will revert anyone who tries to engage in further POV-pushing on this article about gun control and the like. That shit does not belong here. We should remove the Salt Lake Tribune's statement as well. Saying "The threats resulted in public attention to . . . the propriety of concealed weapons on university campuses" is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it per WP:BLPSPS. Editorial + "opinion" is the URL means that this blog should not be under a BLP. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, no. That's literally not a thing. An unsigned editorial by The Salt Lake Tribune is not, under any definition of the word, a "self-published source." It's an indisputable reliable source for its own opinions, and the opinion of the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is indisputably relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Read the own wikilink which you posted. An editorial, leading article (UK) or leader (UK), is an opinion piece written by the senior editorial staff or publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or any other written document. Editorials may be supposed to reflect the opinion of the periodical It's reflecting the author's opinions, not a fact based accuracy of what had happened. It's not suitable for a BLP, unless you want to open up the possibility of using other people's opinion pieces for less desirable aspects of Anita's BLP. Tutelary (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The opinion of the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is relevant to a major international news story which took place in the state of Utah. It is also a reliable source, having been vetted by the newspaper's editorial structure. You don't seem to comprehend that there is a difference between a newspaper editorial and someone's self-published WordPress blog. I can't help you if you don't understand that the two things are not the same, per our Reliable Sources standards. Newspaper editorials are not self-published, therefore your repeated citation of BLPSPS is non-responsive and off-point.
If there are actual reliable source opinions about Anita that aren't in the article, you can make the case separately for their inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I really don't care how big the original source was, the point is that that the editorial is an opinion piece and is not vetted for facts of BLPs, and should be excluded based on that. having been vetted by the newspaper's editorial structure. Prove it. Prove that the editorial is under the source's editorial control and I'll cease. Though there is an exception for one point only; the editor being an expert in that topic. Do you have proof of such? If not, then you should revert your edit warring. Oh, and I find it funny you keep trying to equate the editorial and the whole newspaper itself as if I'm arguing against both. Tutelary (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't have to "prove" that a major mainstream newspaper's editorial was written under that newspaper's editorial control. It's self-evident to anyone who understands what an editorial is.
Do you understand what a newspaper editorial is? Because I don't think you do. It is "the voice of the newspaper," an unsigned expression of the collective opinion of the newspaper's editorial board. It is backed by the full credibility and weight of the newspaper itself — the newspaper as a whole stands behind that opinion. Such editorials are vetted and fact-checked by the newspaper's editorial structure, just as anything else would be. Newspapers don't tend to want to put their name directly behind a significant factual error, you understand.
We use this source not to make statements of fact, but to demonstrate that the largest newspaper in the state of Utah believes that the death threats against Sarkeesian have exposed violent misogyny in pop culture and flaws in the state's concealed carry law. Which demonstrates the significant impact on society that the issue has had. Which, in turn, is demonstrably relevant to Sarkeesian's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I already read the Editorial link to the wiki page which you wanted me to read, and I saw 'opinion piece' and how you're continuing to defend it even though it is blatantly the opinion of one person that it is somehow not a self published source. I also don't think we should take the chance or the assumption that it was fact checked, find proof that it was and present it here. We have to be ambiguous, and it's your WP:BURDEN, not mine. Such editorials are vetted and fact-checked by the newspaper's editorial structure, just as anything else would be. Citation needed for this specific circumstance. Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the opinion of one person and I don't have to "find proof" that an editorial published by the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is fact-checked. The Salt Lake Tribune is a prima facie reliable source, anything published by it is a reliable source and the burden lies upon you to demonstrate why we should treat something published by The Salt Lake Tribune as unreliable. It's right there in black and white in WP:RS.

WP:NEWSORG is clear. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author. We use the source for statements attributed to the publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is also very clear about this. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Note the 'as long as the writers are professionals'. We can't verify that and since this is BLP, we have to err on the side of caution and exlude it. Prove that the url with 'opinion' and the title of 'editorial' is not just the opinions of one author and thereby not allowable by BLP. Clearly, it's unsuitable for BLP because it's the opinion of the author, and not vetted or proven editorial control. Tutelary (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting when certain editors suddenly start caring about BLP and self-published sources. A newspaper editorial is by no means self-published, it's published by that paper as the official stance of the editorial board. There's nothing else to "prove" here, that's what an editorial is. Reliably-sourced opinions can can be used so long they're (1) it's clearly attributed as an opinion, like this one, and (2) it's noteworthy and significant to the topic at hand. An editorial from a reputable paper is entirely different from an op-ed, an opinion column, a letter to the editor, or an opinion piece some individual submits to a blog. The only question is whether the material is really significant to this biography.--Cúchullain t/c 03:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
To return to my earlier point, I believe certain people may be interpreting my comment in a way I didn't intend. I see this current event only as an extension of other current events. The extended saga now being attributed to it is basically not particularly relevant to her Biography. Is the fact she cancelled notable - yes. Is anything else relevant? Not particularly. Should this receive any greater attention than any other threat? I don't think so.
I think the format of the actual article could do with some cleaning up as the harassment seems to be taking on a life of its own and at some point we need to realise that Sarkeesians Bio should not be dominated by a succession of harassment incidents and then a bunch of op-eds and talking head commentary about how terrible it is. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a threat that received coverage -internationally- in some of the most influential and respected papers in the world. yes, it is different that the "garden variety" threat that that she is subjected to every day . The impact of this threat was such that internationally people began discussing the insane scope of the Utah gun laws.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Is Anita Sarkeesian Utah Gun laws? I suspect not, so perhaps that international response should be in the appropriate article and not in someones bio. Koncorde (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

missing source

citizenship: please bring source, remove it, or place [citation needed]. merely "identifying as" doesn't make it so. thanks. 97.117.183.196 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The above comment reminds me of birtherism. In other words, I shall not be entertaining you. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BIO states that the facts do matter, no matter what they remind you of. 97.117.183.196 (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
All that matters is what the sources say. There are several giving this information and it's cited perfectly well in the article already. There's nothing more to do here.--Cúchullain t/c 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources do not. 97.117.183.196 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Just double checked, and the sources do indeed indicate she's a Canadian-American of Armenian descent, and identifies as such. Unless there's somehow a source that contradicts this trivial information, there's nothing more that can possibly be said here.--Cúchullain t/c 20:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
What is the problem with what is stated here? Is there some reason to think it is incorrect? nut-meg (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reception part strife for 50-50?

Without referring to a specific reference, I'd like everyone's opinion on the following.

Obviously the tropes vs women series led to a lot of controversy and discussion. There are many sides to this, but such a large debate indicates that opinions on the series are not unanimous. Yet the references in the critical reception are all positive except for one.

Considering this is a heavily debated subject, wouldn't it be fair to strife for a 50-50 ratio of positive and critical reviews? PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? WP:NPOV does not nor will it ever require such an artificial ratio. We attempt to gather the best information available from the most reliable sources, then let the reader reach their own conclusions. We are under no obligation whatsoever to go out and find things that don't exist or are quite rare. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't strife for an artifical specified ratio, that was more to stir a discussion. As it stands there's only positive references. If her videos annoy people to the point where she gets death threads and Thunderf00t's video's about her get a lot of views and likes, it's obvious not everyone agrees with her point of view. My point isn't so much about a ratio, but rather that it seems very one-sided atm. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the people harassing her are more than "annoyed". Death threats, rape threats, and terrorist threats are not the result of being annoyed. They are the results of criminal minds. I'd love to see some real criticism that isn't just thinly veiled misogyny. nut-meg (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


I was going to start my own section, so instead I'll put this here

These recent edits removed a clear rebuttal to the "stealing Kickstarter money" claim (in effect softening that rebuttal) and also introduced an unsourced claim that Sarkeesian was somehow slow in contacting the police. (I'm not sure why this matters, but perhaps User:PizzaMan can advise us.) I reverted the edit but the editor reverted back. While I feel these are BLP claims, I'd rather not risk a block on an article under discretionary sanctions.
To answer your question, no, we do not attempt to maintain a false balance, especially on BLP articles. Woodroar (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Since there is no reason to remove said information as it is well sourced, I have put it back. Pizza, take your bias and leave. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Determining balance is done by considering all the available reliable sources for a topic and giving them each proportionate weight. Material from stronger sources receive more weight, material from weaker sources gets less weight, and material that doesn't appear in reliable sources gets no weight at all. Removing reliable, noteworthy sources is not an acceptable course of action, please do not do it again.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is at least one source that looks critically at Sarkeesian's videos. However, of all the points it made, only some names calling (ad hominem) was actually included in the wiki article. I tried to add her actual poiny but those were swiftly removed. Sarkeesian criticizes gaming culture and these points are a direct response to her points. I don't see why that's not a valid addition to the article. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Her general opinions on video games and video game culture aren't relevant to this article, which is about Anita Sarkeesian. Woodroar (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Please watch the video. It's not general, it's a direct response to Sarkeesian's videos. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
She shows a photo of Sarkeesian twice but doesn't even name her, doesn't name the video series or specific videos, and doesn't address any specific claims. It's a general response to general criticisms held by several people. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please explain why two large paragraphs of positive response to her video series is relevant, and more critical response is not. PizzaMan (♨♨) 02:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Because the responses in reliable sources are overwhelmingly positive. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. If commentary on her videos from reliable sources is relevant to this article, all of it should be allowed, not deciding to selectively filter those you deem unworthy through subjective criteria; if there are differences in weight of some kinds of comments over others, that should be reflected in having more space devoted to the former merely because there's more of them. Editors deciding that a whole arbitrary class of comments should not be covered is against NPOV.
Now I could agree that *none* of the reception on the videos is relevant to the topic of her biography, and that we could move the whole section to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. This has been suggested in the past, I think it's time to get a proper structure of articles where all the relevant aspects of the topic can be documented in due weight with respect to the page where they appear. Diego (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't "subjective criteria", this is leaving out criticism that doesn't even name the subject or works being commented on. Quite frankly, I'm surprised we mention Sommers at all: though she has a somewhat-related background, Sommers admits she has only looked at gamer culture for "the last few weeks", and Polygon points this out. A few weeks to learn about decades of culture, and we include that in a BLP? Woodroar (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think @Woodroar: makes a good point here. I think I will spend some time doing a rather bold edit on the whole video section with the impression that the real info is in the other article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Woodroar, that's also applicable to Aja Romano of the Daily Dot, Sean Collins of Rolling Stone, and Nate Carpenter of Women & Language - which is a source very similar to Sommers, both being academics specialized in feminism. None of these seem to be recognized as specialists in video game culture before, yet that doesn't stops us from using them. That doesn't make them non-reliable nor dubious, we assume that they've taken proper time to analyze the topic in the depth required to cover it, and that they know what they're talking about because of their background in fact-checking. These academics may not be specialists in video games, but surely they have some decades worth of research on the more general culture of representation of women in media of which video games form part. Diego (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The other sources all specifically address Sarkeesian and her work specifically. Hoff Sommers doesn't even name Sarkeesian, let alone discuss any specific points she makes. She just shows some images of her in her general comments about feminists criticizing what she considers a male hobby. Literally all that can be said here regarding Sarkeesian is that Hoff Sommers alludes to her in the video. The only reason we mention it at all is because other sources picked it up; the video isn't usable on its own. Perhaps this would be more appropriate for the Tropes article than here, but we wouldn't be able to say anything more there, since she doesn't say anything about the series or address its points.--Cúchullain t/c 14:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the majority agrees to move the whole critical reception paragraph to the page about her video series. As for disregarding Hoff's criticism: while she is too polite or political to mention Sarkeesian by name, she's obviously referring specifically to her. She's showing her face and her videos throughout the video and what other feminist video game critics are remotely as notable as Sarkeesian? I really think that editing out all but positive criticism isn't WP:NPOV PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You consider her comments polite? All other expressed opinion is inferred (which our article states) but given pretty much all of her opinion is presented prior to Sarkeesians image (relfected by the commentary of the article) it's unclear what we could justify including without direct attribution. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing further we could possibly add; Hoff Sommers doesn't name Sarkeesian or say anything specific about her videos or arguments.--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reshuffling

I removed a lot of content from this article as it only applied to the series and not so much to Anita herself. It was an 8 kilo move, but don't panic, nothing serious has gone missing. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have decided to remove the quotation from Christina Sommers, which was included at this page through extensive consensus building, and removal of which was opposed in the thread above. This hasn't gone unnoticed, so I have reverted the change per WP:BRD. Please gain consensus on how to re-organize both articles before doing so. I think that part is also relevant at Tropes vs. Women, and have added it there. If we agree to move that section there, I will have no problem with the changes you've made, but that's still to be decided. Diego (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Summer's inclusion, at least to my reading of the archive doesn't feel like an overwhelming consensus was reached. (Then again, the thread is a lot of spaghetti, so its a little hard to follow.) Aside, the Anita article should not be going into much detail about her works since the article on said work exists. The amount of duplicate information is absurd. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There was a rough consensus to include this material and nothing more, though of course consensus can change and we may need to revisit the topic. The rest of the changes looked fine to me, no problems big enough we couldn't fix them through editing.--Cúchullain t/c 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Zero Serenity, if you agree that the reception section belongs at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, why did you decide to drop part of it while moving it there? Diego (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I would personally much rather have a different source of criticism. Surely something more substantive can be found than somebody who "alluded" to her in a video without addressing any specific points? I know it's been difficult find citicism in reliable sources, but that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel considering the other sources there are (Rolling Stone, New York Times). Cupidissimo (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
While I agree we gave TvWVG too much attention in her bio, I think there should be a summary and details correctly concerning her should be kept.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to keep it short. While it is her major piece of notability, the fact that it has its own article is enough to keep the details here about it short. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't need all the production and reception details here, but there's no reason the discussion of the series should be "short". It should be as long as necessary to give an encyclopedic coverage of the topic as it relates to the subject of the article.--Cúchullain t/c 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the content of the stable version, canceling Zero Serenity bold move. If the content is going to be moved to Tropes vs women, it needs to be the same content that had consensus here - selectively removing parts of it as a result of the re-structuring is not an acceptable move. Diego (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what Diego Moya is talking about. Hardly something worth derailing necessary improvements over. The content in question already appeared in the other article, without the unnecessary and distracting quote in the citation. There's no sense in replacing better wording with the worse wording.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Young on Anita Sarkeesian

Link

The problem is that criticism focused on the sexualization of female characters often hinges on subjective perception—one feminist’s sexually empowered woman is another’s sex toy—and can easily turn to sex-shaming. Bayonetta, featuring an over-the-top, deliberately hypersexualized female super-fighter, has been slammed as exploitative by critics including Sarkeesian. Yet in a 2012 article on ThinkProgress.org, left-wing feminist Alyssa Rosenberg defended the game as an exercise in exuberant girl-power and wrote that its detractors were “wrapped up in a confining vision of the liberated female: one where sex needn’t define any part of a woman, and flaunted sexuality is inherently a concession to the male gaze.”

Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs. Women videos, which feature prominently in the debate about videogames, feminism and sexism, are full of selective and skewed analysis—one that neglects positive female images, ignores examples of male characters getting the same treatment she considers sexist for women, and attacks games for encouraging deadly violence toward female characters when killing those characters is actually the “bad” option that causes player to lose points. (A fairly detailed three-part discussion of the flaws in Sarkeesian’s critique was posted a few weeks ago on Gamesided.com; for upfront disclosure, the first part quotes from an old column of mine criticizing radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin, on whose theories Sarkeesian sometimes relies.) It should go without saying that the biased shoddiness of Sarkeesian’s arguments does not in any way excuse the online harassment toward her, let alone violent threats. But the harassment should not preclude a critical examination of her critique—instead of the largely unquestioning adulation it has received from the elite gaming media.

While it is commonly argued that feminist criticism seeks only to examine “problematic” media, not to deny anyone the right to enjoy them, the language employed by the critics often suggests otherwise. Sarkeesian ... refers to videogames depictions of women being “harmful,” “dangerously irresponsible,” and related to real-life negative attitudes toward women and possibly even violence.

This article will also shortly appear in Reason. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Remind of what WP:UNDUE says

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Key points here are published by reliable sources and proportion to the prominence in those sources. If the most reliable sources are giving prominence to the harassment issue when talking about Sarkeesian and later filling in readers about GamerGate, then the article should give more weight (i.e., space) to the harassment issue. My understanding is that the majority of reliable sources do (especially the most reliable sources such as mainstream news outlets), in fact, follow this pattern.

There are so many single-purpose accounts and point-of-view pushers swarming to these articles, it's important to remember Wikipedia's policies. UNDUE is not an essay or suggestion. It's required. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary contribution, the wikilawyers guarding this article have already referenced it a million times. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@Xcuref1endx: Apparently necessary as none of the zombie accounts and SPAs heed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The LFB, reliable or not?

[7]

The author Todd Bowes says that he's a professor and freelance writer, but I'm not sure of the notability of the LFB, which says its a series of blogs based in Boston.

I also take issue with the description of Sommer's critique of Sarkeesian, since A) She's not commonly described as a philosopher, but an author, former professor, and critic of third wave feminism B) She's not noted for any scholarly research into any feminist theories or academic studies, but the author of some mainstream books. The particular quote about hipsters with cultural studies degrees is inflammatory and poorly chosen to reflect what she stated, when in fact Sommers did acknowledge that feminist critics made some useful points.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Todd Bowes, I don't think this would be useful. While it doesn't seem to be much of a self published source since there is an editor in chief there are no editorial policies that I can see. Somewhat questionable and not all that useful. I would vote against inclusion at this time, baring any other editor on here with something to say. On the other hand, thank you for being courteous about this as there is a lot of hot blood that seems to flow around here.
As for Sommer, if you want to vote in the above RfC, please do. Just because you don't have an account doesn't mean you are excluded from making comments on it. Cheers. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I also don't think this is usable - I don't know how we determine editorial policy, but the listed editor in chief is having a discussion about the article with the author in the comments. That seems to point to a non-traditional job description so I would also say it's not reliable. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not something we can use. The site appears to be a blog and the editorial oversight isn't clear.[8] Self-published sources can't be used for any material on living people per WP:BLPSPS. It may be usable at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as an WP:RSOPINION piece, considering the author's credentials, although we now have a wide array of published sources on the topic. However, if Bowes has published on Sarkeesian or her work, that would likely be usable.--Cúchullain t/c 13:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Two more academic sources

I've found two new academic sources that discuss or mention Sarkeesian:

  • Trammell, Aaron; Gilbert, Anne (November 2004). "Extending Play to Critical Media Studies". Games & Culture. 9 (6). Sage Publications: 391–405.: Page 393 note 1 cites Sarkeesian's videos and experience as one of the real-world effects of video gaming that demands critical approach.
  • Han, Hye-Won (November 2004). "Characterization of Female Protagonists in Video Games: A Focus on Lara Croft". Asian Journal of Women's Studies. 20 (3). Ewha Womans University: 27–48.: This one cites and responds to Sarkeesian's videos directly. The author cites Sarkeesian as one of the recent critics applying gender theory to video game criticism. According to Han, Sarkeesian gives a "macroscopic and genealogical perspective" of characters and traits, which Han wants to apply to Lara Croft specifically. She later cites Sarkeesian on the Damsels in Distress trope in games.

--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement about Utah police position on handguns seems inaccurate

This quote: "The university could not prohibit attendees from carrying handguns into the lecture hall under state law." Seems inaccurate to me. I believe it should say "would not" not "could not." In cases where the police find a serious or imminent threat in Utah they are perfectly capable of screening for guns in public places. For example, The President of the US would not speak in Utah (or anywhere else) without a thorough screening of the audience. So in this case Utah police "would not" screen attendees, but they certainly could have if they had found a legitimate reason to do so. Any objections to making this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemidgley (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Original research unless we can find a source that criticises the University for its stance. As such "could not" is what is generally used in the sources (as a direct quote from the University admittedly). Koncorde (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Stevemidgley makes an interesting point, though we're edging into WP:FORUM here. From the first day of this incident, it appeared to me that USU police chose (my word, not intended to sound pejorative) not to believe they had a legitimate need to screen for all weapons. As Steve points out, officials would be required to screen for all weapons by the secret service if the any POTUS was to speak in that same hall. This would cast Sarkeesian's refusal in quite a different light, IMHO. Am I misunderstanding? Someone enlighten me. Does Utah state law prohibit the Secret Service from preventing licensed concealed-carry gun owners from bringing their handguns into a venue where the president is speaking? BusterD (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (that's FBI), which some may consider to have a bit of experience in dealing with these kinds of things, determined there was no imminent or serious threat. Sarkeesian very plainly said that she cancelled the event because they would not prohibit attendees from bringing guns, but Utah law is very clear that public universities cannot prohibit attendees from bringing guns. There is no "would not" here as state law is explicit on this point. What they would do if the President visited is a very different matter as the Secret Service is a federal entity and federal laws set up to protect the head of state of the entire country trump any state law considerations. That's called federalism and its enshrined in a little document you may have heard of known as the Constitution of the United States. If you really want to compare the non-existent dangers faced by feminist gaming YouTuber Anita Sarkeesian to the ever-present dangers faced by the President of the United States and Leader of the Free World then be my guest.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Sarkeesian also said in numerious articles that at the time she would have been fine with just confirming that attendees with a gun had a permit, which was something that could have been done but security decided not to. Cupidissimo (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We are not here to suss out her true meaning and then use our interpretations of her statements to defame university officials by implying they don't really care about the lives of women or their students. She stated explicitly that she did not attend because guns would be allowed into the event to the point that she declared a boycott on Utah events until the law is changed and the allowance under the law is what the university officials said was her concern. They say they could not comply with her requests because it would violate state law. I see no justification in the sources for suggesting the university had a choice in allowing guns on the premises. The law in Utah is very clear on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Excellent point. I hope you will apply your reluctance to "suss out" the truth to all sources under discussion. Cupidissimo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree with "could not" in that Utah state law would make it extremely difficult for universities from keeping (licensed) people from bringing guns on campus. At the same time, that was only part of the issue.
For one thing, Utah's laws are very unusual; Utah is one of only seven states where concealed weapons are generally allowed at state universities, and is the only state that specifically prohibits universities from taking measures to keep out concealed weapons. [9] This is why Utah has gotten so much flak about this including from the Salt Lake Tribune.[10]
Second, the problem wasn't necessarily with the guns, but with the University's handling of security given that they weren't going to keep people from bringing guns. Initially, Sarkeesian asked the police to screen the audience and let them in if they had their permits, but the police decided that would be "needlessly invasive". She then decided to cancel the appearance, and said in hindsight that she didn't want to speak to an audience where people could bring guns. None of this would have been an issue in nearly any other state (even other states that generally allow concealed weapons.)
In other words, there's probably a better way to say this, along the lines of "Sarkeesian cancelled the event, however, feeling the planned security measures were insufficient given that the state law prohibited the university from barring handguns."--Cúchullain t/c 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Cuchullain sums this up well I think - balancing positions expressed on both sides here. I took their proposed quote which satisfies my initial concern and balances it against the questions of bias and legal issues of federalism raised by others. It's a neutral encyclopedic position, and it improves/clarifies the original statement in the article. Since this talk section appears inactive, I've moved the quote into the main article. Thanks all for considering this topic! Stevemidgley (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Works for me.--Cúchullain t/c 21:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive_13&oldid=1145869324"