Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Readwrite source

I've reverted Diego Moya's bold addition of text on this freelance author's "guestimation" that Sarkeesian spent $15,000 on equipment. This topic was discussed here and on my talk page here, and there's no call to break up the flow of the sentence by adding this minor point (The $15,000 is just what the author says she can easily account for; the point of the piece is that she thinks Sarkeesian should explain her plans for the rest of her money). This source and material is already included at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (and has been since it was created); in fact, this is section on the production of the video series is redundant with the fork, and probably needs be worked down into a summary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Koncorde's change works perfectly, thanks for that. Though we do need to hammer out the redundancy between this article and the fork.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the drive by edit, just saw there was an obvious solution. Also, yes, the fork is still a mess. Koncorde (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And I've restored the paragraph to the previous version that stood in place for more than a year (minus Knocorde's tweaking of the second half), now that this text has been reverted. The change was not a "bold addition", it was a relocation of content from the references section to the main text; if there was something bold, it was me trying to address the concerns you stated about the long quotes within the reference; in the same move I had also expanded the Jesse Singal's sentence to keep them at similar weight. I made this change as an attempt of compromise; as you reject the compromise, the previous long-standing consensus needs to be restored in order to keep the previous WP:BALANCE, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT. Your plain removal of the attempted compromise text leaves all the other accompanying changes in place, without keeping the payload that made them acceptable.

BTW, the problem with the version you (twice) reverted to, is that it doesn't properly represent the source. The main point in the source is not that the quality increased, but that technical equipment needed for that increase amounts to 10% of the budget; thus the need to provide a detailed financial breakdown to explain what the author perceives as a discrepancy. By mentioning that Eördögh "stated that the production quality of the videos had increased from her previous works" without describing her analysis of that increase, undue weight is given to this point, which is accessory to the core argument. Diego (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof‎, the version that you're reverting represents what the linked source says about the topic, and has been standing in the article as the WP:CONSENSUS version for a year. If you want to change it to something else, you have to discuss it here first. Diego (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that Sarkeesian spent $160,000 on a single video, and thus "needs to explain where the money went" is a weak, not to say completely exploded and worthless, argument. At this point, it's obvious where the money is going — the series is a long-term project over a number of years. There's no evidence that the author is an expert in the costs of video production, and thus the "guesstimate" is of dubious value. As previously noted, the cost of equipment is a small fraction of the cost of making a video; significant labor is involved in videography, sound, editing, etc. The author makes no attempt to quantify these costs — therefore, for our article to suggest that the true cost of production is anything remotely resembling $15,000 is misleading in the extreme. The source's analysis of video production costs is, at best, weak, and we have no need of including weak analysis. It's enough to state the author's primary argument that Sarkeesian should find a way to be more transparent with costs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No one's suggesting that Sarkeesian spent $160,000 on a single video, nor that $15,000 is the true cost of production, so that's a strawman fallacy. It doesn't matter that you think the argument is weak; estimating the costs of equipment is still the primary argument made by the source, and it should be properly represented in the text. I see that you're not addressing any of the arguments about balance, weight and consensus that I've made, and that make your last revert unacceptable. Diego (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This freelance writer's guestimation of $15k is not a significant point, as we already determined in the [discussion]. This is another example of Diego fixating on insignificant details to the detriment of accurately and clearly conveying what the source is saying. I'm sorry, but a single editor should not be allowed to force his preference or to hold up needed changes.

Honestly, this is one of the weakest sources we currently use. It's from a fairly minor tech news website and the author is not a staff member.[1] ReadWrite does have an editorial policy but it appears they invite anyone to publish and don't appear to pay their "guest writers.[2] In other words, it's a group blog. Not saying we should exclude it entirely, but it's already cited (saying basically the same thing) in the Tropes fork. We simply do not need production information on the series cited to iffy sources here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's speculation. If we're going to quote the $15k then we should quote the entire context - which is unreasonably undue weight. The crux of the issue is the request for a break down of the money and an urge for transparency. The requested break down of the money is the $160k, not $160k less $15k speculation. Koncorde (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain, this is a BLP, we have to get it right. This means discussing the details, that's what we're here to do. Participation is not mandatory; if you find this conversation tiresome, nobody is forcing you to discuss it. Yet complaining all the time how tiresome you find all the thing is not among the expected rules of behavior that you should follow.

If these are insignificant details to you, why do you keep undoing my changes and won't you simply accept them as a way to reach WP:CONSENSUS? Or maybe these details do matter, and we should be discussing them, and your actions contradict your words?

Koncorde: So we agree that the most relevant part of the piece is the request for a break down of the money? As my concern is one of weight and we cannot get an agreement on what is the second most important part, I'm removing everything where we can't come to an agreement . Diego (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And I've put it back, because you're the only person here who seems to think it should be removed. You've cited no reason for removing Singal's view that the extra Kickstarter funding was well spent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done, undue weight. The general agreement so far is that only the main point of each article should be used, and that commentary about the series production should not be too detailed. The Singal's quote you restored doesn't seem to be the main point of his article, and it's definitely about the series, not the person. Diego (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a section on the series' production. Singal comments on the production - and the video game columnist for a major newspaper is a much stronger source than a freelancer for ReadWrite. However, I still don't know why this production information is still here in the main article when it's already duplicated at the Tropes fork. But I know one thing: the article should not be held hostage to the preferences of one editor.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I remember why this material is still here: last time editors took a stab at a significant restructuring, Diego reverted it over this single issue of Fruzsina Eordogh's $15k production cost guesstimate.[3][4] I'm sorry, but it's hard to see this as anything other than obstruction.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The "obstruction" would go away much faster if you discussed my raised concerns, instead of my behavior. Diego (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed your concerns at length: no one else finds the $15k number significant enough to include, and it's certainly not so significant that it should affect how we include other material. No one else besides you has a problem with the way either the Eordogh or Singal material has been presented for many months.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And apparently, "I don't think there's a problem" is the only answer required to counter concerns about neutrality in a BLP article, when an argument is raised about the specific ways that the current content violates policy? Because that's the only consistent answer that has been given time and again.

Given that "no one had a problem with the way Eordogh or Singal were presented for many months", I take that you'd agree to restore the paragraph to the previous version as it existed on December 9th, right before Heinerj's major change? Because that would totally solve this discussion, and the current version is definitely not the same one that we had during all those months. Diego (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I don't believe that lengthy quote in the citation is necessary or useful, and it seems I'm not the only one. The only reason to include it is to get that $15k guesstimate into the article, but you're the only one who thinks it's significant.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. I find it significant. I disagree with your attempts to exclude this aspect. I can't see any rational explanation or justification for it. Bramble window (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you've just said that this exact version, the one I suggest returning to, had been completely acceptable for months to anyone involved in this page. I agree with your words, do you? Diego (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

On the text, yes, of course. On the unnecessary and distracting quote in the citation, nope.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you've now made abundantly clear what you don't like. The problem is that you won't make the tiniest effort and change your position an inch to agree to something that you don't like, in order to have a version that all can live with.

You wonder why opposed the changes to restructure the content between articles? It's because you've rejected all possibilities and offers to reach consensus, even when adopting consensus involved agreeing to what you've said - in this case accepting that the previous version stood there for months becasuse it was acceptable to all involved, including me. Diego (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You've been told to stop abusing the talk page by making comments about other contributors. Please do not do this again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've been told to stop abusing the talk page by making comments about other contributors. I already implored you not to do it, just like I had already appealed to all users in this page not to do it, and again, and again, and again. I hereby pledge to do it only when you do it, just like it happened when you started this thread, and again, and again, and again. Diego (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[redacted]I'm disengaging from this unproductive line of discussion. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Stepping away from the quotation for a moment - the section shouldn't exist. This is an article about Anita Sarkeesian, not the video series, production of it or otherwise. Pretty much anything to do with "Tropes Vs Women" should not be in this article (Despite the fact that I opposed the original fork because it was an excuse to try and push POV by long gone single purpose astro turfing account). Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, nearly identical versions of this material are already included in the other article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, can we settle this affair in a way that doesn't completely rejects my concerns by moving the whole section in the version that existed for months to the other article, or there's no hope that we can reach an agreement by having everyone yielding a little? Diego (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've made my position clear on whether the $15k guesstimate is a significant point bearing inclusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So is mine. Diego (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I'm lost. What are Diego and Cúchullain discussing? Does it concern the fork of Tropes vs. Women? Would it be easier if we decided once and for all to remove most of the content regarding the TvW series from this article and focus on the other one? Because I'm up for it and I think it will resolve the issue about Steinberg's article too. Heinerj (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Forks, Yes, and Yes. About 4 months ago a single purpose account (Nosepea68) prompted a fork, which resulted in a lot of duplication of content and half quotes suspended across two largely similar wiki-pages. I'm still not convinced the video series particularly requires its own wikipage and almost all the content still refers to Sarkeesian. Koncorde (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Heinerj: Yes, now that we're stuck with the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork, all the content on the production and reception of the video series that's included here is a duplication of material that's really more appropriate in the fork. We need to figure out how to improve both articles, but instead we quibble over insignificant details.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain we are not stuck with it, we can decide at any moment to merge the pages. Personally, I'm opposed because it will create too much confusion now, but it looks like it should be discussed. Perhaps you could create another section? Talking about the content, I think I'll try something one of these days. Heinerj (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to merge the pages back last year after this discussion, but was reverted. Then we went through a merge discussion and the consensus was to keep the articles separate. It does appear we're stuck with the fork, at this point it will be better to try and improve them both as much as we can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's like 1 years old! Anyway, you're right, we should stop talking and just focus on improving both of them. I too am tired of quibbling like you and as I said I'll try some edits in the near future. We'll see if it'll work.Heinerj (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty amazing ...

... the pitch battle that's been going on here ever since the "Tropes" incident, where folks are battling day after day to add/remove criticism of Sarkeesian. You'd swear it was almost political, and that it was more about something bigger than the just the person involved here. Like a cultural war of sorts. Gotta protect her BLP / gotta dish out the dirt. Day after day after day. A war of attrition on all sides - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The " Gotta protect her BLP " is , you know WP:BLP one of the primary obligations of Wikipedia editors and is given such high priority that it is for example specifically called out in other policies WP:3RR and for which WP:General sanctions have been created. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Alison is decrying BLP policy, just lamenting that yet another Wiki-war has to be waged over something that by all rights should have been governed by common sense from the outset, and that the notion of crowd-controlled pseudonymous biography writing has probably been the singularly worst aspect of the Wikipedia. It's also possible that some of this has become bigger than what it was in the beginning; that despite being yet anther culture war front, that there are living, breathing people at the core here who have been through a public wringing that no one here can really at the end of the day relate to. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Tarc is, of course, correct; BLP is always paramount. What bothers me here is that we have a bunch of pseudonymous 'warriors' on all sides of this culture war, who are playing fast and loose with a very real, clearly-identified person here. And all this has real-life ramifications for the subject, but not for those here doing the warring - Alison ^❤ 01:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of a pitched battle between believers in telepathy and skeptics of telepathy. A bunch of people writing for newspapers and magazine have decided they are telepathic and are printing that people who dislike Ms Sarkeesian also dislike all women. Problem is, their telepathy is unproven. They don't know the deep motives of anonymous tweeters, and neither does anyone else. The battle is currently being won by the people who say "well, if these newspaper and magazine writers say they can read the minds of tweeters, who are we to be objective? If the papers say the specific psychological motives of people they know nothing about are X, then by golly they are X!". There's a tiny group on the battlefield saying that a million journalists claiming to be mind-readers isn't proof of the successful reading of even one mind.Bramble window (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You have the believers in telepathy on the wrong side. There are a group of editors following the mainstream reliable sources, and a group of true believers that there is something out there that should make her look bad and if we keep concentrating hard enough, a fork will bend sometime somewhere that we can then poke her in the heart. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As an example, from Newsweek (which is also linked in the section just above)

Newsweek asked BrandWatch, a social media analytics company, to dig through the more than 2 million tweets about GamerGate since September 1 discover how often Twitter users tweeted at or about the major players in the debate, and whether those tweets were positive, negative or neutral. BrandWatch sampled 25 percent of tweets—what it considers a reflective amount of data—on the hashtag #GamerGate from Sept. 1 to Oct. 23...The discrepancies [in who is targeted] seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women.

It's called research. Far from what you're claiming. DonQuixote (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I noted before, the overwhelming majority of those tweets you refer to were labelled neutral. The research doesn't support the claims. When I read the research last week, I didn't see any part of the research that claimed to distinguish between tweets where people civilly disagreed and tweets where people simply made personal attacks. From my recollection, tweets were simply "positive, negative or neutral". The results weren't fine-grained enough to distinguish a misogynist attack from an attack on some unrelated basis. The vast majority of tweets in your cited study were not aimed at "women" and were not negative. It is an immense leap to move from these banal findings (short version: a small minority, much less than 10%, of tweeters were nasty, the rest were not, and didn't appear to target anyone) to the frankly laughable assertion that wikipedia "knows" that Gamergate is all about misogyny. Again, if you assume that journalists have no telepathic powers, and if you actually read the Newsweek research with a little care, the support for misogyny being the driving force in Gamergate simply doesn't exist. To push the Gamergate = misogyny meme you need to misread the research and credit journalists with powers from the DC universe, not reality. Bramble window (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

sorry, but you are not a social media data analyst whose opinions about what percentage of what is a meaningful measure. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with TRPoD, you're not an expert. I would no more trust your analysis on this than I would trust it on evolution, relativity, or literary analysis. Besides, we're not obligated to trust your analysis over other experts unless you publish in a reliable source. Seriously, you're painting yourself more and more as fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, no friend of GG, says that the tweets are actually, in data terms, "undetermined". I just checked and no dictionary lists "undetermined" as a synonym for "misogynist". So your cited research does nothing to refute my point. There is no research or any other evidence for generalised misogyny among sympathizers of Gamergate. Some journalists have a hunch that GG hates women, and WP is repeating this hunch as if it's a solid established fact. Like I said, a widely-held hunch as to the nature of the thoughts and feelings of an anonymous internet movement has a place on WP, provided it is labelled as opinion. If you want such thoughts and feelings to be labelled as facts by WP, then actual evidence and expertise, specifically psychological expertise, needs to be cited. It would need to represent a random sampling of Gamergaters and would need a mountain of context to support the conclusion that each individual is personally anti-woman rather than simply unsympathetic to the views of Brianna Wu, for example. Not every man who hates Michael Vick is a racist. Bramble window (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? The fact that someone has to point out the exacting wording of the article (ie "undetermined") puts that into question.

Combined, these two women have gotten more tweets on the #GamerGate hashtag than all the games journalists Newsweek looked at combined. And, again, neither of them has committed any supposed “ethics” violations. They’re just women who disagree with #GamerGate...Tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian. But Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian were on the receiving end of more negative tweets overall than Grayson, Totilo and Kotaku, which suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites.

And, yeah, unless you publish your analysis of why this particular analysis is wrong in a reliable source, we have no obligation to note your analysis. DonQuixote (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No need for me to re-hash the original analysis which says that the vast majority of tweets were either positive or neutral/undetermined (pick your favourite adjective). It's right there in what you linked. Also, the three women you name are unapologetic proponents of feminist viewpoints, and it's not yet demonstrated that the negative tweets they have received is for their views or for their sex. Bramble window (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't say what you're saying. Learn to read. And you're going off on a tangent in terms of your analysis. That requires you to be published. DonQuixote (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I have cited accurately the content of the article. You seem to be accusing me of lying, which I will not tolerate. Withdraw that and it will go no further. Bramble window (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that the "vast majority of tweets were either positive or neutral/undetermined"? In fact, in the graphs the positive tweets (green) were fairly small. Also, if you read the article, its point is that "[A]n analysis by Newsweek found that Twitter users tweeting the hashtag #GamerGate direct negative tweets at critics of the gaming world more than they do at the journalists whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." DonQuixote (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You saw the graphs, right? Green for positive, red for negative and grey for undetermined/neutral. The latter constituted the vast majority of tweets. That's the fact given in the article. A fact that is not mutually exclusive with the other fact you cite, which relates to the minority of tweets that were not neutral. Are you sticking with the accusation of me lying? Because I didn't lie at any point, or quote inaccurately. Bramble window (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

From just above, you said the vast majority of tweets were either positive or neutral/undetermined (emphasis mine). And now you're saying what I just said, which was the graphs the positive tweets (green) were fairly small and claiming that you've been saying that all along. And, as I've also said, if you read the article, its point is that "[A]n analysis by Newsweek found that Twitter users tweeting the hashtag #GamerGate direct negative tweets at critics of the gaming world more than they do at the journalists whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." That is to say, of the negative tweets, most of it is directed towards critics of gaming rather than journalists "whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." That's what the article is saying is the result of its analysis. To say anything else is to misquote them. And if you think that their analysis is flawed--publish it in a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Either you start discussing something vaguely related to this article and its possible improvement or you stop right now. Come on, Zero Serenity already pointed out WP:NOTFORUM. Heinerj (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. As the article points out, the tweets that the reporter called "neutral" were actually, in data terms, "undetermined" — that is, the algorithm couldn't determine whether they were positive or negative. That does not imply any sort of conclusion about the content of the tweets, which is one of the limitations of an algorithmic approach. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost as if there's some sort of external campaign going on to influence Wikipedia articles or something...--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

did you see that in your tea leaves? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I almost deleted this section on WP:NOTFORUM. Seems I should have. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Video series

I removed most of the content about the video series, since we have an individual article. The paragraphs didn't contain anything useful about AS herself, so I just kept the NYT reference 'cause it's about the very notable NYT and the very famous/influent Miyamoto. Every discussion about the series, its criticism and what else should be moved to the talk page. In particular, I'm referring to this and this. Both conversations train-wrecked big time, but maybe someone will find it useful to continue them in the other page. Heinerj (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I've reverted your bold removal of a relevant quote which has had a longstanding place in the article. Please don't edit-war. The quote is a key and succinct explanation of Sarkeesian's views about why stereotypical portrayals of women in video games are problematic. The rest of your edit is fine, but when you make a large-scale change, it's helpful if you react responsibly to others' objections to parts of that change and not just blindly revert them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this is not the right section to have this discussion, I'll try to repeat my self and be concise. The quote is unnecessary, if you can paraphrase it, do it. Even after that, it's usefulness is debatable and this particular debate should include more people than you and me. If we are to have this conversation, we should start a new section. Anyway, after even that, that's clearly the wrong section to discussion her views. Last point: Something is not relevant just because it has a "longstanding place" or was said at the Colbert Report. I said it's not relevant because it's just pedantic and, with the subsequent sentence, a little bit apologetic. Lastly, thank you for your patience, but please let's stop here accusing each other of edit warring since it's really not productive. Heinerj (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to remember to everyone who'd like to contribute to the discussion how NorthBySouthBaranof ignored my previous question (it was the last, unanswered post here) both at the time of posting and now during the three reverts, and then accused me of blindly reverting. I appreciate the advice and I see where it comes from, but this clearly isn't the case. Heinerj (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is clunky wording. Going to make some small clean-ups elsewhere as part of this whole process. Koncorde (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't ignored, it was lost to an archive without conclusion, and there was no evident agreement on anyone's part that the quote should be removed. Suggesting that something could be reworded or paraphrased is different than removing it wholesale. I've got no objection to efforts to better word the point Sarkeesian put across on Colbert, and I've just made an attempt myself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a clear question inside a conversation about the quotefarm-ness of the article and the need of rewording the quotes. I think you were notified about it since I linked your username in the post (does it work like that? I'm not so sure now), that's why I simply considered yours a tacit consent. Anyway, let's just de-escalate.Heinerj (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we need the quote. We can just briefly summarize what was discussed. Good work on the rest of the removals; I'll take a stab later when I have some time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Berlatsky piece

As per Heinerj's edits and previous discussions here, material specifically discussing issues related to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series belongs in that particular article. Both positive and negative material was removed in an effort to reduce duplication between the two. Noah Berlatsky's article is a specific critique of points raised in Tropes — In her series of controversial videos critiquing sexism in video games, Anita Sarkeesian often focuses on the way games treat sex workers. — and therefore belongs in the article about Tropes — not in an entirely unrelated section of Sarkeesian's biography which discusses her Kickstarter campaign and the subsequent harassment she suffered. Accordingly, I moved the quote to the Tropes article's "Critical response" section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it belongs here as well as it's a personal critique. Certainly if the Colbert report belongs here and the utah stuff belongs here, the Newsweek article belongs here. It's the most reliable of all of those. --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on the the inclusion of one negative reaction specifically to the videos, then the whole reaction section needs to come back in, otherwise you're placing undue weight on a single critique. Neither The Colbert Report nor The Salt Lake Tribune are critiques of the video series. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how much someone insist, that's not a personal critique and clearly belongs to the series article. The current solution found by NorthBySouthBaranof is terrible, since it doesn't improve either of our articles. Let's wait and see how everyone feels about it, but generally speaking: if its nature is to be considered "personal critique" then it should be included in the awards and commentary. On the contrary, if we decide it should be included only in the video series, we will simply remove it from here. Either way, the video series should be shortened once again. Heinerj (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely a critique of the video series. Of course there are elements discussing Sarkeesian herself, simply because it's her series, but it's primarily about criticism regarding wording from that series and its aftereffects. Woodroar (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be at the Tropes article. It has no more usefulness here than the rest of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The article feels a little too duplicated already, no need to make it worse. I still question it's weight in the grand scheme (feels way too nitpicky to me) but if it has to go somewhere, it is best at the series. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It goes in the other article because it makes sense to go in the other article as it is criticism of the series, and its content. Koncorde (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Intel Partnership

I wrote a bit more, but I'm unsure how I could fit this into it if at all, since it seems to be a more complete list of the partners than the reference already provides. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There's multiple reliable secondary sources for it now, which I've added, including one which directly comments on Sarkeesian's inclusion as an unspoken rebuke to Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Heinerj is now removing information supported by multiple reliable secondary sources, and I thoroughly object to this removal. Intel's decision to partner with Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency is undoubtedly encyclopedic, particularly given the context of Intel's past and the linkage with Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I see how there's nothing to be discussed here since you already decided to do this instead of discussing my main point, that you still don't understand: it may be encyclopedic, but it's too recent. I say wait to include it, we have all the time in the world. Heinerj (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to withdraw it if you agree to stop reverting. You clearly know where you're at and there's not really any other option if you're willing to blindly revert three different editors five times in 45 minutes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

At the second revert a discussion should have been opened, not after five. That and since you seem to know wiki policy already I'm not willing to withdrawal my collaboration. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As my last revert states, I will stop reverting and add the recentism tag. The three editors did the exact same thing and none of them seemed willing to cooperate. It may be a giant misunderstanding, but I can't see how my words in the summaries can be misinterpreted. Heinerj (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When Sarkeesian received terrorist threats that was added to the article right away as it was clearly a notable incident. Similarly, a $300 million outlay by Intel, for which sources highlight the involvement of Sarkeesian, seems notable. If you add the tag, I will revert it as unjustified. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not a nice attitute NeilN. A terrorist threat is very different. This is too recent and too vague. Why can't you all wait? That's all I'm asking here! Heinerj (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

From a WP:NPOV standpoint, how is it different? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this, especially now that it's been reported in all manner of reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a non-controversial addition to the article, the whole reversion by Heinerj was unnecessary initially, and to continue reverting was bizarre and completely out of character for how they typically conducts his/her self. The rationale to remove was very weak, compared to the relevancy to include. Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being "too recent". The coverage prompts inclusion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reasoning behind my first revert (edit summary) still stands and no one tried to provide theirs. I suggest again to read WP:RECENT, and see how it has nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:RS. There was just a distinct lack of etiquette from other editors and, because of my insistence, a purely punitive block. Of course, now it's pretty useless to talk about this, so I'll focus on something else: the Wired UK part it's out of context (we didn't introduce the topic before and the phrase doesn't do it itself). Personally I think it doesn't belong here since an entire different article is devoted to discuss that mess. Heinerj (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're better off not throwing stones about a "lack of etiquette". Moving on to the content matter, clearly others think this item is significant enough to include, considering how much press it's gotten. IMO this should have ended as soon a secondary sources were brought into the discussion. I don't think the line about Gamergate is necessary, especially not before Gamergate is even discussed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, this is not the place to discuss editors' behaviour. I was simply trying my explain my frustration since it was discussed by you and Koncorde (talk · contribs). If someone has to say something more about it, everyone is welcome to do so in my talk page. Heinerj (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to fix this once the article comes unlocked again. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

BoobFreq

Discussion is closed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: please do not hat this important section until after the discussion has concluded. At the time of writing, discussion is ongoing. Respect that. This section is not owned by anyone, per WP rules. It is extremely rude and aggressive to hat it while it's being teased out. Bramble window (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This appears to warrant inclusion in this article as it clearly concerns Sarkeesian:

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/media/gamergate-anita-sarkeesian-princess-kora/

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/sarkeesian-princess-kora-sex-workers/

http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/sex-worker-parodies-gamergate-figure-anita-sarkeesian/story-e6frfrt9-1227178990503

It is about a sex worker who is using parody videos about Sarkeesian to criticize her views regarding women who work in the sex industry. Seems this warrants inclusion of other material criticizing Sarkeesian's views regarding sex workers that has been recently removed as it ties into the criticism.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Excellent quote for inclusion here, really captures the essence of what Sarkeesian's critics focus on as the chief principle objections to her: “People who are sick and tired of what Feminist Frequency stands for came together and enjoyed the exact opposite — a sexually liberated, libertarian-leaning, pro-freedom-of-speech woman delivering the product that she promised”. Really brings to light the very reason why Sarkeesian is notable: the passionate outrage caused by the antics of the political pressure movement Sarkeesian belongs to. Bramble window (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No. WP:RS is the most obvious reason. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because this reliable source doesn't have a heavy pro-Sarkeesian bias doesn't make it an "obvious" candidate for exclusion. Bramble window (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How is that an "obvious reason"? One is a major Australian news outlet and the other is a professional online news outlet where both writers involved are professional credentialed journalists.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a great number of people who have parodied or impersonated Barack Obama. Can you point to where in his encyclopedia biography we mention in detail those parodies or impersonations? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have tried telling this to people before, but Anita Sarkeesian is not, in any way, comparable to the President of the United States. Parodies of Obama tend to get their own pages because of his insane notability as the leader of the free world. Sarkeesian is, despite all the hullabaloo, a feminist Youtuber. A parody of her that has received reliably-sourced coverage, is going to be much more noteworthy in relation to her than people impersonating the guy in the most powerful position on the globe.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

But how does this woman contribute to the biography of Anita? You're failing at justifying this. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How is this relevant for an encyclopedia article? What would this add? "A parody of her exists."? Also: BLP. This is just not suitable. The drive to add every little possibly disparaging detail to this article is certainly not getting any less ridiculous. Cupidissimo (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you see, when people get a bit notable they tend to have critics. Sometimes those critics do or say things that are worthy of notice. In the instance that happens, we should include details about what these critics are doing or saying with regards to the person as it allows our article to give a neutral portrayal of that person's life and work. An article on a frequently-criticized person that contains no actual mention of that criticism, despite it being present in reliable sources, is not abiding by NPOV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me any other article on the wiki that has what you are proposing. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Palin.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes critics do or say things that are worthy of notice, and sometimes they produce things like this parody. Cupidissimo (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If it were not worthy of notice then a major Australian media outlet would probably not have covered it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And if this parody has received Sarah Palin/Tina Fey levels of notoriety, we will add it. Cupidissimo (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't logically follow in any way. Parody and mockery of Sarkeesian is the primary internet response to her. Whether it's cartoons caricaturing her loop earrings and check shirts, or Phil Mason's forensic deconstructions of the contradictory, incoherent mish-mash that is her output. The media pieces that wikipedia calls "reliable sources" generally portray her as a saint, and they are sharply at odds with the output made by people who have no editorial team to report to. Those people are usually excluded from this article, and this has created a stupid article: this woman is only notable for the criticism she has received, and the trolling harassment that is included was itself obviously inspired by that very criticism. Wkipedia finds itself in the idiotic predicament of reporting in moronic detail about the smoke, while being banned from even mentioning the fire! So now we have a reliable source covering an example of the waves of non-harassing criticism that Sarkeesian deservedly receives for her confused, extremist polemics. It is our duty to cover it. Bramble window (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As Sarah Palin is a national level politian and frequently appears on TV vs. Someone who has been on TV three times (MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry, Democracy Now! and The Colbert Report). There is no comparison! Just like for the president. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you may think of Sarah Palin, the first female Vice-Presidential nominee for one of the two leading political parties in the most powerful country in the world is still far more noteworthy than a feminist YouTuber. If this parody were to actually get Tina Fey levels of notoriety, it would be more noteworthy than Anita Sarkeesian herself. What we have here is more than enough coverage given the relative weight of coverage regarding Sarkeesian to justify a mention in her BLP.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

People seem to disagree with you on that one. Cupidissimo (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you two apparently disagree with the idea that Anita Sarkeesian is not nearly as important as the potential leader of the third-most populous country in the world.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you have perfectly summarized our objections. That is *exactly* our point. Cupidissimo (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also...Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Whatever you may think of Sarah Palin, the first female Vice-Presidential nominee for one of the two leading political parties in the most powerful country in the world is still far more noteworthy than a feminist YouTuber." I think the first female VP nominee would be Geraldine Ferraro. --Jorm (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My phrasing was poor because I rephrased it from saying Republican Party. It is meant to say she was the first for one of them, not the first for either of them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see this now, up in lights, pride of place in a wikipedia article "in 2015 an amateur cam girl and self professed sex worker parodied Sarkeesian for money"...and that would be stretching the "weight" quite a bit. Koncorde (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your denigration of a sex worker is noted and irrelevant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Denigration? Please, you don't know me from Adam so don't even attempt to project such bullshit. I am quoting her self description and her activity. She is paid to satire Sarkeesian. She is profiting from satirising Sarkeesian. She is a cam girl. She is a sex worker. This is as close to being a paid for opinion as you can get, and of such little gravitas that it only gains traction via the notability of the person she is mocking.

I, meanwhile, am mocking the belief that the unsolicited opinion of a for-profit (and otherwise anonymous) talking head is worth including in a biography. Koncorde (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Breaking News; someone says something, and someone else disagrees with it. A non-notable critic doesn't get facetime in the subject of their criticism's bio, sorry. Tarc (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not accept that assertion that criticism that is significant enough to get into reliable sources gets excluded. Plenty of nobodies who praise Anita to high heaven get "facetime", so her detractors should too. Bramble window (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What you personally accept or not has no real bearing on the matter. A non-notable individual doesn't like something that Ms. Sarkeesian said is not a big deal at all. If there are "plenty of nobodies" giving praise in the article, as you assert, then by all means start a new section below to discuss them. Vague hand-waving without examples just creates drama, not results. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarc you stay stop with the drama, but you're just adding fuel this way. I think the consensus about this newsweek article was to discuss it in here. The news.com.au may not be relevant per se, but surely can be used as an example. I think the whole thing is a little bit silly, but both articles should be discussed (and maybe used) together. TDA and Bramble window, if you want to push for inclusion, why don't you restart from scratch and discuss about content this time? Perhaps you may be able to do so in the Tropes page, without walls of nonsense about Obama or dramatic exits. Heinerj (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I instructed this person to provide concrete examples of things that they feel are wrong in the article, rather than make vague assertions and WP:OTHERCRAP-style arguments to support inclusion of this non-notable critic. If you do not like that, then you're being just as disruptive as that editor is. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't "instruct" people, avoid calling anyone disruptive and try to be nice to them. This whole discussion is already a train-wreck of WP:OTHERCRAP, let's not add more crap, shall we? Heinerj (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if you deem it necessary, feel free to talk about my disruptive behaviour in my talk page! Heinerj (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should address this to Mr. Bramble, who reopened a concluded discussion. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

When she is touching on a critique of the subject that is outlined in other sources then that is another matter entirely.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe we are actually talking about this. Can we please hat this and move on?--Jorm (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

Why has there been no DOB in this article for several years now? How can there not be a source out there for Sarkeesian's birthday? I watched the recent Nightline segment which mentions "online attackers published her Social Security number and her home address". So hackers dox her and publish her home address and SSN but not her DOB? I realize that can't be used as a source on WP but there must be a reliable secondary source out there for her date of birth. Serinne (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Extra criticism

there are videos up on youtube of Anita, several years ago, proclaiming she "[doesn't] even like video games" (direct quote). Surely this must be considered as controversial and subject to criticism since she makes her living doing this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.186.63 (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Except they are not only unreliable sources but the video in question is an out-of-context quote mine only brought up when there is no legitimate case against her. Please read the FAQ sometime. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is also an "appeal to hypocrisy" logical fallacy. Fedor (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nightline

Here is the transcript of ABC Nightline's piece tonight on Gamergate and Anita Sarkeesian:

When Jumping into Gamergate Turns into Fearing For Your Life -By JUJU CHANG (@JujuChangABC) and KATIE YU.

--TS 07:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

This is a request to edit the article in such a way as to inform the reader that, according to the following WP:RS, http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180, the alleged threats at USU, but were not credible but that they were intended to get the event cancelled, on the grounds that this would seem an important fact for the reader to know.

As you can see by checking this situation, http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180 says "Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."

The purpose of the edit would be to inform the reader that the authorities investigated the USU threats and that they found there to be reason to believe that the danger was real.

Thank you for your kind attention to the matter of improving this article in this way, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we'll take a pass on this sort of "warning", thanks. Bomb scares are no less threatening or serious than a literal bomb being placed at an event, for example. The same threshold applies here. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the fact that the threats were judged by authorities not to be credible is already in the article, here: The university and police did not believe the threats were credible inasmuch as they were consistent with others Sarkeesian had received, but scheduled enhanced security measures nonetheless, a sentence which is cited four times. So the edit request is to include reference to this fact in the lead section of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I also vote no. Its not important. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As written, the fact that the USU threats were investigated and judged not credible is important enough to be in the body of the article. Without reference to this fact in the lead, readers of the lead section might come away with the impression that she and attendees would have actually been in some danger. Danger to human life and limb is obviously important. Are you suggesting this be removed from the body as well? Chrisrus (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Also a no. The credibility is that there was a threat, and that the event was cancelled. Sarkeesians notability is her commentary relating to the unwillingness of the University or campus police to take any action further to ensuring her safety or any other. Their opinion on the credibility of the bomb threat is not particularly relevant. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just want to understand your point clearly. When you said "the crediblity is that.." did you mean that "there is no question whether..." or some such? If so, I think this fact is agreed, but then your point about that fact remains unclear.

Let me also make sure I understand the intended meaning of your phrase "Sarkeedians notability is that...". Do you mean that her notability stems from that cancelled event, at least in part? If so, then that would seem all the more reason for the lead to include who cancelled the meeting. If the cancellation is so important, then shouldn't the reader know who cancelled it? It wouldn't be much of edit. It could be simply phrasing it as something like "She cancelled a meeting" vs. something like "the meeting was cancelled".

But more to the point, given that it's agreed that the cancellation is important because that why she's notable, so therefore it's important the reader of the lead understands who cancelled it, Anita, or the authorities? As it reads now the effect on the reader might well be the impression that the university or police, or state or federal authorities cancelled the event, instead of Anita. According to the more detailed description in the body of the article, it seems that they wanted the event to go on because the authorities thought the threats weren't credible, but she said no. Chrisrus (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Both the lede and body state that Sarkeesian cancelled the event. We can't put everything in the lede, so it's entirely appropriate to leave out minor details. Woodroar (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I concede but will continue to look for ways to improve this article. Chrisrus (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A week of harassment posts

I was sitting on this idea since it was just on Tumblr (failing WP:RS before even the word go), but now Mother Jones has picked it up. Suggestions for inclusion? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This should be included. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The source of these screenshots is Sarkeesian itself; Cohen/Mother Jones don't clearly claim to be vouching for their authenticity by having investigated and traced them, they are just taking her at her word, or as Sarkeesian puts it "Listen and Believe". On the other hand, Mother Jones do say that the FBI opened an investigation into these tweets, so it's clear that the authorities are aware of them. If/when the authorities authenticate these tweets as real, they could be included. A healthy skepticism is in order. These tweets could be fake. We don't want to be taken in, it could be a hoax. Chrisrus (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants any inclusion, it doesn't really expand on the article we have. However Chrisrus comments are irrelevant. A. again the opinion of the FBI is irrelevant (as is their taking part in any investigation). The credibility is the reliable source making the statement. B. It's not skepticism to deny the tweets exist, C. nor is it our role to deny what an authoritative reliable source states. The article name is "Here Are the 157 Hate Tweets a Feminist Faced in One Week" which shows that they are presenting such content with their editorial authority. The question is one of reliable sourcing, relevance and notability. The comments in the article about A Voice For Men is the first time I have seen such a group mentioned in conjunction with her name, but the relevance is minor nonetheless. The mention of the 9th of Feb engagement with the additional security measures is maybe notable as a passing comment in terms of reflecting on the refusal of Utah to take similar precautions. Koncorde (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of the FBI cannot be irrelevant! If they say that the tweets are credible, that would be powerful evidence. That the FBI has investigated these tweets must have seemed relevant to Cohen, the author of the Mother Jones article, because she saw fit to include this information in the article, so for what reason can we conclude that it is not? If the FBI said that the tweets are real, and that is reported somewhere WP:RS, we could say so, but Cohen simply presents them as real without mentioning how she knows this; she simply accepts them as fact. We might rightly state that Cohen believes that they are, but we can't say so ourselves. Certainly if the FBI concludes that they are, that will be relevant. The question is how reliable is this source on the authenticity of the tweets. Chrisrus (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If and when reliable sources report that the FBI has commented about the threatening tweets, then that will be relevant. I think the Mother Jones piece is sufficient for us to say that Sarkesian reports that she receives a constant barrage of obscene and threatening tweets. However, we are not in a position to discuss their authenticity or lack thereof, unless a reliable source does so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of the FBI is routinely irrelevant when it comes to wikipedia. We don't have to wait for their authorisation to use a reliable source for wikipedia. We don't need their opinion of the credibility of vulgar tweets on the internet, and any legal action that they do or do not take is unlikely to be particularly relevant to wikipedia either. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I repeat - the FBI have no say in what is a reliable source for a BLP. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Chrisrus, the appropriate restraint we should use in relating this story to the reader will be met by being brief, by not spending too much time talking about it in detail. We don't have to wait for a more authoritative source than Mother Jones. If the FBI chimes in later, we can add that information. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

Find sources for this or leave it be, no WP:SOAP. Dreadstar ☥ 02:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been no date of birth in this article for several years. How can there not be a source for Sarkeesian's birthday? I watched a recent Nightline segment which mentions "online attackers published her Social Security number and her home address". So hackers dox her and publish her home address and SSN but not her DOB? I realize that can't be used as a source on WP but there must be a reliable secondary source out there for her date of birth. Serinne (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No matter how often you repeat this; if there is no obvious source we're not about to magically produce the content you desire from thin air. Koncorde (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serinne: Because, as you mentioned, the info must come from reliable sources and none have been presented yet. If you know of any, please feel free to mention them here! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The people who responded are missing my point. What I can't understand is how there can be ZERO sources out there (RS or not) that have published Sarkeesian's DOB. That just seems strange. Also the Nightline segment mentions that she was doxxed - her SSN and home address were published, yet her DOB doesn't get published. I'm no hacker but how can that be, why would they leave out her DOB? Serinne (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Her being doxxes does not mean her DoB was published by RS. But if you can't believe there are no sources, look for yourself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Describing Anita Sarkeesian as controversial

Describing a figure as controversial doesn't appear to violate Wikipedia:BLP. Furthermore there seems to be bias in what is being treated as a "verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people". So can we please work to get this back into the article?--Craigboy (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, Wikipedia articles should avoid vague, disparaging labels, especially when we're talking about a living person. Your addition isn't appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's have some fun. She is only controversial among people who oppose her on principal, so that is really all I can say. Let's break down the sources though:

Forbes. This is a blog with no editorial oversight. Instant failure.
Kotaku. This would pass, but the article's context says she is not controversial, but the response to her kickstarter is. Failure.
Joystiq. Its a blog again. While there is some oversight, the article provides no context to the word controversial, so it isn't useful. Failure.
KUTV, a local news station. Pass, but again, no context as to why she is controversial. Failure.
Gawker. For the third source, there is no context. Failure.
Destructoid. As much as I like Jim Sterling (son) this was written before he really got into journalism. And since the source is described as situational, Fail.
Global News. Fourth source absent of context.

So yeah. It needs to be explained WHY she is controversial before we even consider inclusion. I'll give you an analogy. Barack Obama is considered a controversial president because of his signature legislation called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. My source? On the Daily Show (Tuesday of this week) David Axelrod describes him pushing it as it will cause controversy and lose the president a lot of political capital. There. Its easy. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd accept "x called her controversial" but it'd have to be with context - even then what someone else "calls" her is not headline material for a biography. Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On the lack of criticism of this biographical article's subject

I apologize, for it seems it must be tiring for all of you to hear the same things day in day out, but I would still like to question why there is apparently no room for criticism to be allowed in this article? The references from Breitbart and Newsweek seem just as credible as the sources that support Anita. If there is any large difference in reliability and factual correctness, I'd love to hear it. Most of the references given are all news sources and the ones offering critcisms are also, and appear to be just as reliable. Please address this point. Breckham101 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Our policies aren't going away, either. Breitbart is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source because you don't agree with what he has to say? How do you come to this unilateral conclusion that he is not a reliable source? Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart is dead. Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source because it doesn't meet the definitions (competence, editorial judgement, reputation, etc.) for such a thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

His death is irrelevant--His statements were made when he was alive. I think your statement is very difficult to back up... how exactly does one gauge competence or reputation? That seems to be extremely subjective and not something that I buy on face value just because you say so. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, this article features lots of references to questionable left-wing sources such as Salon. Oddly enough, those are okay but Breitbart isn't. I'm not saying there's a systematic bias here, but... there's a systematic bias here. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com gets noted for things like [5] [6] for [7] [8], not for having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.One of the prime components of (site's like Breitbart) post-objective journalism is the understanding that the accuracy of a story is likely to be secondary to a story's impact. If the story does what it was intended to do (destroy or harm an organization, generally), it does not matter if it is later shown to have been a fabrication -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the hiding behind "policy" to keep out criticism, some editors here have done their best to keep out criticism of Sarkeesian from valid sources. However, Breitbart is definitely not a reliable source. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, then how come we don't have any reliable criticism on here? Wikipedia must remain neutral. Breckham101 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutrality is different than what you might think. We do not attempt to create a "false balance" by giving inappropriate weight to issues. If no reliable sources have provided legitimate criticism of a subject, the Wikipedia article IS NEUTRAL when it does not contain any "criticism" . It is NOT NEUTRAL if we throw in criticism from non reliable sources "for balance". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that the same people are defending a lack of criticism on this page as were defending the overt bias in the Gamer Gate article. The Wikipedia on this subject has become an exact mirror of established journalism's unwillingness to proffer alternative opinions on Gamer Gate. Which makes sense if you only consider Associated Press outlets to be reliable, which is a very, very dangerous position to take, as it takes Wikipedia from being an open-source repository of knowledge towards a position wherein it becomes a direct tool of the establishment. In this light it is flabberghasting to me that there is absolutely nothing considered a credible source that criticised Sarkeesian in any way, particularly since the nature of her critiques are in many ways highly subjective, even if one does not believe that her articles and videos contain gross mis-representations and overt contradictions. If nothing else, the one-sidedness of the media coverage should be discussed in the article, though I suppose that anyone giving an opinion outside the very media circuses that are the problem to begin with would then be considered 'not a credible source'. It's really all getting a bit 1984.Theduinoelegy (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Highly subjective critiques filled with her opinions, and criticisms of her opinions are irrelevant. Generally speaking we do not deal with her claims on wikipedia, so would not deal with criticism of her claims. Unfortunately the only evidence of "criticism" of Sarkeesian have been from bloggers and vloggers or other unreliable sources, and have almost universally been personal attacks or written by overt activists. If wikipedia does not reflect the opinions you wish to see - try any number of other websites instead. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Koncorde, your representation here seems to be considering Wikipedia as 'just another website' which we all know it is not. As a repository of knowledge Wikipedia's reach is peerless and it informs the international dialogue in a way no other website would be able to without huge funding and a considerable amount of slow growth. Perhaps I could 'try another website' but could I completely opt out of the discourse this one fosters? No, I could not. As such Wikipedia has a responsibility to represent that knowledge in line with the public discourse which is on a par, perhaps even surpassing government and scholarly institutions. The idea that Anita's opinions and criticism of them are somehow irrelevant when she is, at base, an opinion blogger is highly odd. If she had not expressed opinions on video games and the like she would not have a Wikipedia. That is literally why she is famous. Given the controversy surrounding her opinions it is imperative that alternative viewpoints are represented. I am of course not suggesting that bloggers and vloggers should be privileged in this instance but there are smaller journalistic outlets who have been critical. It would not be too difficult to find one of these as representative of the controversy and would have no negative impact on the weight and integrity of the article. To the contrary, it would likely help immensely. Theduinoelegy (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, really, it is just another website. Sarkeesians opinions are irrelevant - they are not notable, and not even remotely what made her a notable person by wikipedias standards. In the end her notability is established by the media talking about her experience. Her celebrity is not built around what she says, but typically the platforms she has used or been given and the response to her mere existence and right to hold an opinion of her own. If she had only ever expressed opinions on games, and nobody had ever harassed her, then she likely would have just about met her Kickstarter target of $6000 and she would have been lost in the sea of other computer gamer commentators (she may have enjoyed some marginal notability a la Rebecca Watson maybe, but even she only gained significant attention for the harassment and not her achievements, if any). Sarkeesian is "literally" famous not for her opinions (she hadn't even expressed any of them when she drew initial attention, just her mere suggestion of "starting" a project was enough) and I don't know why we would as an encyclopedia give space to those opinions unless they themselves were notable (a la David Icke, and less so critics of her unexpressed opinions. We're happy to consider any articles you have for inclusion, so please feel free to link them up, or be bold and make the edits you wish to see. Koncorde (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so there was a concerted campaign which may have been aimed at harassing her, or may have been to raise her media profile, or some combination of the two. Edited to reflect this perspective. Thanks :).Theduinoelegy (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If only sources such as Breitbart publish criticism of Sarkeesian, then the neutral point of view is that there is little or no reliably sourced criticism of Sarkeesian. It is not necessary for a biography to have a "criticism" section; indeed most biographies, even of other people who receive frequent death threats, do not. --TS 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet in this case the criticism of Anita Sarkeesian is widespread and at least partly integral to her notoriety. To not represent any criticism at all under the highly subjective basis of 'not credible' is to actively misrepresent the story, to incorrectly weight the cultural significance of the criticism she has received and the various ideologies that have grown up around her. The credible source rule is not supposed to weed out alternative opinions, but to avoid the factually inaccurate. It is being misapplied in this case to the massive detriment of this article, which, in the state it's in at the moment, is a misleading article that comes very close to lying by omission.Theduinoelegy (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit based on an reliable source that you're suggesting? — Strongjam (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look and find one tomorrow as it's late and I have band rehearsal tomorrow. I've seen a fair few. It just seemed like this was likely to be dismissed as 'unreliable' out of hand, but I guess I was too hasty.Theduinoelegy (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Added a section on Gamergate and associated criticisms! Would welcome discussion on any of the core features. Language becoming more desiccated discussions are necessarily fragmented in their terms and signifiers, but the complexity of the issue at hand has been modeled to the lowest level of simplicity and precision possible, which still retaining all relevant information and strongly implicitly suggested information. It stands as somewhat of an invocation of Foucault at this point to suggest that some degree of power-relationship modelling be allowed into the frame-text (wikipedia) to give a sense of the constructional dynamics contained within the referenced text, but as language retains a duty to cover a linguistically pictorial symbolic landscape, in addition to purely ideational or logical system based systems, it was necessary to represent all three conceptual aspects of the media coverage. As such any comments on the translation of the ideational frameworks on display here would be most welcome.Theduinoelegy (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Just fixed up the ref tags. I'll take a look at the sources and review later. — Strongjam (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, dude.Theduinoelegy (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section. An opinion article from a "student journalist" is not appropriate for BLP criticism, or for framing such criticism. And neither is giving weight to the anonymous opinion of a non-expert, especially when that person disavows association with Gamergate but is shoehorned into a section about it. I'm not even sure why the Rolling Stone source is even there, except to avoid a SYNTH violation. There may be valid criticism out there, and a way to summarize such criticism, but this isn't it. Woodroar (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the particular significance of this new section or what else it brings to the article? Aside from which here is a dissection:

Much of the coverage surrounding criticism of Anita Sarkeesian has centered on disputes between disparate groups rallying under the banner of Gamergate. - Not really. Much of the coverage pre-dates Gamergate, your sources don't support this claim either. The Rolling Stone comes closest in remarking about the "reactionary community of hardcore gamers who've gathered under the "#GamerGate"" but this specifically doesn't mention anything to do with disparate groups. Quite the contrary - it identifies a single group - hardcore gamers.

As the dispute involved issues of media coverage, particularly the media of Anita Sarkeensian, such disagreements have been framed within a narrative involving the media itself. - aside from this just being a terrible sentence I also have no idea what it's trying to say, to what purpose, or what it has to do with the citations provided.

As such - not really as such if we can't even work out what the initial two sentences were trying to say.

criticism of Anita Sarkeensian's media-expressed views tend to be vocal among those media outlets who represent the issue as evocative of Men's Right's Groups - Again, I have no idea what this sentence is actually saying or how the single reference at the end even serves as a citation for content.

with articles often associating concepts like "professional victimhood" and utilising phrases such as "men are the ones subject to genuine oppression" when representing Gamer Gate protagonists' views, and associating these criticisms with Sarkeesian's presentations of her ideas. - these are two very distinct quotations from a very long article, about two wholly different groups. It's also a subjective analysis of the language used rather than from the actual content of the piece used as a citation.

This whole thing is plain awful. It's synthesis, and I would say blatantly original research if I could fathom out what it was trying to say. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the edit involves any original research as no research was done except the reading of the articles; if you consider this to be research the necessary logic would be that you are suggesting that all of Wikipedia is in violation of its own policy on original research. All the information is drawn from the three articles present. All Encyclopedia articles are a synthesis of a topic. It appears that my invocation of Foucault was not heeded in that you have attempted to substitute the societal power-relationships between the writer and his employer or institution with a sign vouching for the validity or 'reliability', or otherwise, of a source. You will note that I have an upper-degree in English Literature, including critical theory and a Master's Degree in Life Writing. If you consider the grammatical structure of my sentences to be an issue, I suggest we discuss these in linguistic terms, and you cite the relevant philosophical systems from which you form your opinion. As you are saying you don't understand the first two sentences I would you suggest you defer to someone of a higher hierarchical position within the scholastic system, or conversely, that you withdraw your dismissal by status denial, which is a whole other philosophical can of worms. If you can clarify this contradiction one way or the other I should be able to re-write the article to suit your tastes.Theduinoelegy (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lots of words, very pretty, still irrelevant, nice argument from authority, try it with someone that cares. If you haven't already, please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Quit talking about each other; and no more WP:SOAP please. Dreadstar ☥ 15:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

EDIT: Dear lord, how many edits do you need to actually make something coherent? Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty solidly proven that my Dyslexia does not impede my ability to form a coherent thought, but rather that the thought may appear more as a tapestry and have to be cut back by a process of editing. If multiple edits are the issue, perhaps you could suggest which edits these are, and in what manner they might be fixed to improve the article? No argument was made on my part as to the status of your authority. It was simply inferred on your part. Also, which is the relevant section of the text you cited, by your understanding?Theduinoelegy (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much your use of language—though I would strive for simplicity at least on the Talk page, if you're not already—but that the sources you've chosen are inappropriate for the claims. Woodroar (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest "As you are saying you don't understand the first two sentences I would you suggest you defer to someone of a higher hierarchical position within the scholastic system" this is quite clear in what it is attempting to do within the context of your previous sentence, res ipsa loquitur. Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet Koncorde, the information was presented in the form of a question with two necessary or apparently necessary conclusions, only one of which was an argument by authority. The intention was to draw your attention to the conflict within your own reasoning and to respond to that with either an outlining of which of the two possibilities was the case, or the giving of a third. Either of these outcomes would facilitate my writing of a new section that meets all critical criteria.Theduinoelegy (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Tedious and dishonest. I'm having nothing more to do with you. Koncorde (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In what sense do you find the article dishonest, Koncord? Is tedium relevant to Wikipedia standards?Theduinoelegy (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is my intention to rewrite this article in accordance with the views expressed thus far and to facilitate that, I will post a critical commentary in the talk section as I post. If that will be acceptable to those with issues with the original amendment.Theduinoelegy (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can make constructive contributions, so much the better. But you're going to have to start (1) using actual reliable sources, and (2) accurately reflecting what they actually say, instead of what they reveal about "constructional dynamics contained within the referenced text" or whatever. This means no cherry-picking and being substantially clearer in your phrasing. If you can't do this, it's probably better you find other things to do. Also, per the Per the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing specific and actionable article improvements, so knock off the tangents.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't TotalBiscut and the Escapist critics of Anita?--Craigboy (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

First one fails WP:RS and the second one didn't pass that until after the episode of No Right Answer aired. In other words, they are not useful. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They're both prominent figures in the gaming community. Should be fine if you list them as critics.--Craigboy (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

hmmmmm no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)