Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Censoring any criticism

Unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is it that critique of Ms Sarkeesian is immediately removed? She, like anyone, receives her fair share.... it seems Wikipedia is being monopolized by social justice warriors who want to wind the world 500 years backwards.

Why is it that pro-communism sources like the New Statesman, the kind of magazine to follow the left wing Rolling Stone method of research, are okay, whereas Breitbart is not?

Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself. It's clearly not about knowledge anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skezza (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Because Breitbart has a history of fabricating evidence and the like, and is generally considered bad to use in BLPs. When reliable sources criticise Sarkeesian's work it is noted, see the article on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games which contains criticism of her work. Brustopher (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
See, that's interesting because wasn't it Rolling Stone, the left wing, fabricating the evidence? When it comes to fabricating evidence, there's fewer more prominent examples than the ultra left, light the New Statesman, yet you recognize the NS as a legitimate source? Very fishy if you ask me. Skezza (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The Breitbart editorial makes an interesting read, but it is clearly an opinion piece, not a secondary source. Sławomir
Biały 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The hatting seems premature. There is no reason why an editorial from Breitbart can't be included, that is why WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV exists. They are a primary source for their opinion, but so are statements like " Rolling Stone called her "pop culture's most valuable critic,"". It's a primary sourced statement, it's cited to the primary source of the claim. In fact, all attribute points of view are primary sources except where a secondary source comments on the attributed POV. Second Quantization (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The hatting is appropriate. The discussion was worthless. As far as your comments, this op-ed is not a noteworthy enough voice on the subject to justify including per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Cúchullain t/c 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
By what criteria are you judging it's noteworthiness and how does that criteria compare against other opinions such as from Rolling Stone magazine? Second Quantization (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
By the criteria of WP:DUEWEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In comparison to the available sources discussing Sarkeesian, which includes academic articles and books, Breitbart is small beer in terms of WP:WEIGHT. Rolling Stone, on the other hand, is a major entertainment magazine of international significance, and so probably worth a mention.--Cúchullain t/c 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Further, Rolling Stone has a long and very strong history of reporting on art, literature, and music, with very strong journalistic credentials. Breitbart has a brief and checkered history as a highly partisan right-wing outlet, one beset by scandals. Editors should be aware that the Gamergate boards are particularly displeased with Sarkeesian at the moment -- I can’t quite figure out why -- and seem unusually eager to harass her. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart is the 201st most visited website in the USA: [1], Rolling Stone is 379th [2]. Both are about the same in terms of world ranking. Both are mentioned frequently in the media. Your criteria for calling Breitbart "small beer" applies equally well to Rolling Stone magazine. By the traffic both are bringing in, neither are particularly small outfits. "with very strong journalistic credentials" I think that's pretty hard to say with a straight face considering the University of Virginia story that was alluded to above. I'm looking now at their political lists: "10 Songs Republican Candidates Should Use in Their Campaigns ", "17 Most Offensive Social Media Fails ", "10 Dumbest Things Right-Wingers Said in 2014 ". Is this really what you'd call very strong journalistic credentials? Second Quantization (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Apples, Oranges? Rolling Stone is a magazine with a web site; Breitbart is a political operative’s web site that outlived the operative. Rolling Stone was founded in 1967, it’s employed artists from Annie Leibovitz to Hunter Thompson, it's got a paid circulation well north of a million readers. It has won numerous National Magazine Awards. Yes, that's really what you’d call very strong journalistic credentials. Thanks for playing! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's also look at some of the other parts of the "reception". An award from gamasutra is featured despite being a website no on reads (rank 8081) [3]. Breitbart has a higher alexa rank than The Daily Beast [4], the New Statesman [5] (low physical circulation). The current article even includes a link to what appears to be a self-published documentary. Is this really what you think is more noteworthy than Breitbart? You may not like what Breitbart say, but it can hardly be argued that they don't have a bigger impact than these sources, whether that be mentions within the rest of the media or its own visitor numbers. Second Quantization (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ALEXA. DOESN'T. MATTER. And I thought you would know that after being here almost nine years, but apparently not. I mean, the number one Alexa ranked site on the planet is Google. Do we allow that as a source? Of course not. Views do not constitute reliability. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If you had read any of the discussion you would know we are not discussing reliability but noteworthiness. Second Quantization (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Noteworthyness is for establishing articles. Not sourcing in those articles. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
No, notability is the policy for establishing articles, not noteworthiness. As has already been mentioned, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV allows biased statements of opinions to be presented with attribution. That is why the article currently includes primary-sourced quotes to rolling stone calling her "pop culture's most valuable critic" etc. It's the opinion of that rolling stone author. Generally, no one is expected to get a secondary source which draws attention to that quoted text. Second Quantization (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The current article does not really include any of the opinion content from the New Statesman source, merely a reference just to the existence of the source. I for one would have no problem citing the Breitbart report, without including any opinions of the author, in a similar vein, perhaps in the same sentence where the New Statesman reference appears. I don't think you're likely to win an argument if the premise is that Breitbart carries the same journalistic weight as the feature in Rolling Stone. But just including a small reference to Breitbart does seem perfectly acceptable. Spinning a fresh "criticism" section out of this one source is going way overboard though. Sławomir
Biały 23:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not proposing any criticism section, Second Quantization (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I've made my point. You're not changing its reliability status anytime soon. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've just explained how this is not a discussion about reliability. I linked to the specific part of NPOV that allows attributed POV statements. For example, it's the opinion of the author of the rolling stone article that Sarkeesian is "pop culture's most valuable critic". If it wasn't attributed, it wouldn't be in the article, because of its POV. Breitbart editorials are reliable for the existence and nature of their own opinions. If you doubt a source is reliable for its own opinion, ask at WP:RSN. Second Quantization (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's almost like you think there's a GREAT WRONG here that needs to be righted? Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yet I'm not the one who has exclusively edited about gamer-gate topics since July and whose gamer-gate related edits constitute the vast majority of their wikipedia contributions. That would in fact, be you. Second Quantization (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That's an accurate description of me! It also happens that I'm not the one insistent on including an unreliable source for baldly ideological reasons. I'll be completely behind you once you can cite to something with a better track record than Breitbart. Until then, I think you're doing yourself a disservice. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"baldly ideological reasons" Which ideology is that exactly? Enlighten me. "insistent on including an unreliable source for" Breitbart is perfectly reliable for the text I have proposed below. Go ask at WP:RSN. Second Quantization (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, really it isn't, as you will find at WP:RSN. It's why it isn't used in any BLP (maybe Breitbart and his contributors aside). Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Now that we've established that Brietbart isn't to be included as a source it's time to move on. The Rolling Stone comments were basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway. If there's an issue with the Rolling Stone material it should be dealt with on its own merits or weaknesses; its presence can't be used to justify including other material.--Cúchullain t/c 02:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. If the issue is having WP:BALANCE of sources, other things being equal, then the presence of one source can be used to argue for referencing another source, if it presents an opposing view. However, other things are not equal here. Sławomir
Biały 16:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that new sources shouldn't be weighed against one other particular cherry-picked source, but against the whole body of available sources for the topic. Considering the breadth and quality of sources now available for the subject, that Breitbart piece doesn't stack up.--Cúchullain t/c 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the Breitbart piece is not appropriate for criticism in a BLP. Also, there is no guideline saying that articles must present both praise and criticism. That would be a severe misinterpretation of NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text

Result of consensus was not to include Brietbart as a source. WP:SNOW. --Jorm (talk) 20:18, 4 November 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.

Here is my proposal for text in the section "reception":

The conservative website, Breitbart, was critical of Sarkeesian's ability as an art critic.[1]

Thoughts? Second Quantization (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Let's Stop Pretending Anita Sarkeesian Is an Art Critic". Breitbart. https://plus.google.com/110812411499982071387. Retrieved 2015-11-03. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
No. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. "Venue for a conservative, sexist, ideology dislikes woman who has an opinion" is the new "Water is wet". --Jorm (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. Breitbart is not considered a reliable source, so it isn't fit to be referenced in a Wikipedia article. Lucasoutloud (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. This is undue and adds nothing to the article. Dumuzid (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. WP:BLP articles are not coatracks for views from unreliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. BB is full of opinions, none of them are worth sharing. --ℕ ℱ 01:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. Undue weight. Why should an encyclopaedia care about the opinions of an unreliable source? DonQuixote (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. What is the standing of the person making the criticism, are they notable or reliable sources for art criticism? Plus all comments above, and historically, about Breitbart being scurrilous, unreliable, with no editorial oversight of any note and is patently disgusting, filled with race baiting, and does not differentiate between journalism, blogging, opinion or "stories". Koncorde (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. The site is unusable, this is a BLP issue, and the article is an opinion by a person who is not notable, and not a recognized expert in art or art criticism. Any one of those would be a deal break, all three of them make this a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"the article is an opinion by a person who is not notable" Well it should be an opinion piece if we are going to include their opinions. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV allows for opinions in wikipedia articles, even biased ones. Sean Collins, the author of the Rolling Stone article which calls Sarkeesian "pop culture's most valuable critic" is also not notable. Collins is also not a recognized expert in art or art criticism (this is the guy: [6]) Are you applying the exact same criteria evenly to the other opinions in the reception/awards sections? If that is the criteria, we should be gutting the article. I strongly suspect that people are actually proposing criteria that only opinions they disagree with have to jump through and all the rest get a free pass (like suggesting that Breitbart is small beer but then including websites which attract massively less attention such as Gamasutra). They'll declare Breitbart unreliable as a source for figuring out its authors own opinions but then conveniently remember WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:NEWSORG sometime else. Johnuniq even cites the coatracking essay (i.e about additions that " ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely") above, despite the text indicated and the reference being completely about the topic.
I don't think a lot of people even care what the policies say or how unevenly they are applying their own reasoning. Second Quantization (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Rolling Stone has been publishing articles about artists and art criticism for nearly 50 years. It does publish on other topics, of course, but art criticism is essentially what it does and what it is known for. Woodroar (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a comparison with Rolling Stone. That periodical has a reputation for editorial oversight (fact checking and accuracy), and a long history of commenting on pop culture, with awards to show for it. In contrast, in light of the thread at RSN, Breitbart appears to lack a reputation for fact checking. Also, they do not have an established history of art criticism. I don't think the proposed text satisfies the demands of WP:WEIGHT for this reason, although that doesn't rule out some more minimal text along the lines of what I had suggested earlier. Sławomir
Biały 11:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. Not a notable opinion, so there's no reason to include it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. It is helpful to read over the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of this page and look over the talk page archives for previous discussions on this source:
Liz Read! Talk! 14:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. Breitbart is an excellent example of a non-reliable source and certainly not be used as a source in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, and speedily close the RfC. Per this and many others above. The website is not a reliable source and there is snow consensus that the proposed text should not be added to Anita Sarkeesian. Second Quantization appears to be forum shopping; after the discussion in the above section, where users disagreed that the Breitbart source should be included, they started an RSN discussion, and after that discussion re-affirmed that Breitbart's opinion is not noteworthy in the context of a BLP, they've started this RfC. Including the source in the article would constitute undue weight. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No. Let's stop pretending Breitbart is a news source. Let's stop pretending this isn't a very flawed RFC. Let's stop pretending this process will be decided any way except for identifying unreliable sources and excluding them from BLPs. We don't allow Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source and we should never allow the equally accurate Breitbart. BusterD (talk) 20:07, 4 November 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.

Game Reviews

The article is currently locked down or I would have just added this myself. Anita just tweeted this morning that Rise of the Tomb Raider will be reviewed on Monday. Take that with the review of Assassin's Creed Syndicate a few weeks ago and it would seem it is turning into a trend. So I think a one-liner added to the article as part of her activities would be appropriate. Thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While it definitely seems to be a trend, it still feels inchoate to me. Unless a review comes out that becomes notable in and of itself, I'd say it's best to wait until there's something like a body of work before adding it in. How many that is I'm not sure, but I feel like it should be more than two. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly using her tweets as sources for upcoming work would be poor sourcing practice indeed. Not to mention notta newspaper. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Jumping the gun. It'll be covered by one of the gaming sites as soon as it's out I am sure. Koncorde (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

More Sources

The {{moresources}} tag was added in this edit by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. We currently have 82 sources, and all should be compliant with our policies and guidelines after seemingly endless discussions. Is there a need for the tag? Are there any unreferenced claims? Woodroar (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Every single sentence is sourced utterly and completely. This is spurious tagging. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and the talk page is active, so this tag seem especially unproductive. If there are specific points they should be raised here, or at least the rationale for the tag should be clearly explained. If that doesn't happen soon, it should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that tagging with zero explanation on talk to a well-cited pagespace is unproductive and possibly disruptive. More sources are almost always better and certainly we would like to have better sourcing over time, but this page certainly meets any minimum standard for verifiability. I also concur that if the issues aren't pointed out specifically by the tagger, the maintenance tage should be removed in a day or two. BusterD (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the tag; no need to wait a day or two. WP:BOLD and all that.--Jorm (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I just got your ping (does that sound odd?) -- everything is OK. Remove the tag if you feel it is unwarranted. I am little busy so I am removing the page from my watchlist, leaving it in your capable hands. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Radical" feminist

Currently there exists an edit war between an editor who prefers inserting the modifier "radical" next to "feminist" in the lede, and other editors who disagree with the insertion. As opposed to having a discussion in edit summary, let's have the discussion in the appropriate venue, this talk page. BusterD (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The editor has been warned about the three revert rule, and has chosen to delete the warning. BusterD (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I am unaware of any reliable sources that call Sarkeesian a "radical feminist". An About.com page (not a reliable source) that does not mention Sarkeesian is completely inadequate. Lacking such sources, it is inappropriate to insert this language into this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Besides the fact that About.com is a user-edited site and so, is not a reliable source there was nothing in the "source" that gave the information as being about Sarkeesian, so the Radical feminist source fails on two counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shearonink (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 December 2015
Yes, completely inappropriate and disruptive. Hopefully that's the end of that.--Cúchullain t/c 16:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Canadian-American

In general, most articles are moving from using X-American to the more precise "X born American", so in this case "Anita is a Canadian-born American". But is there a reliable source on her nationality? You can't really "self-identify" as being from another country. This is a precise legal matter. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship are related but not identical concepts; one is a (sometimes) precise legal matter, the other is not. That being said, I'll see if I can't dig up a reference. Dumuzid (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's already sourced: current sources 3, 4, and 5. Woodroar (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
So she was born in Canada, and now lives in the USA. She identifies as Canadian-American, but I don't think this is a nationality. Based on Canadian Americans, this probably means that she was born in Canada, moved to the USA, and got American citizenship. Right? Unless she lives in the USA but is still Canadian. In that case she has Canadian citizenship and, I guess, Canadian nationality. Right? I'm a bit confused =/ Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
She might be a citizen in both countries; I know at least when emigrating from the United States in to Canada, you are not required to actually renounce your U.S. citizenship in order to gain Canadian (though the oath still says you do). She might be a legal permanent resident of the United States and still a citizen of Canada which is sometimes (erroneously in strict legal terminology) referred to as being a U.S. 'national.' Nationality is, at any rate, generally a lesser status than citizenship (which generally carries the right to vote). The more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with the current description--since she was born in Canada but apparently lives in the United States, it seems clear she has emotional and legal ties to both, and that this is enough to use the descriptor she does. But I could be wrong! Dumuzid (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:IDENTITY, we use the term used by reliable sources, otherwise we use the term the person uses themselves. We should never resort to OR, especially on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think Woodroar has the right procedural posture here; I'd want to see very strong evidence that someone's self-identification was wrong before I fiddled with it (technical jargon there) in a BLP article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with Woodroar, saying that Anita is a Canadian-American is simply too confusing. It hides the fact that we, the editors, are actually not 100% sure of where she is from, her nationality, and/or her citizenship. If she were born in the USA from Canadian parents, she could also identify as a Canadian-American, her article would read the same, and the difference would not be apparent to a reader. It would even be the same if she was born in India from a Canadian father and an American mother; she could also identify as a Canadian-American and a reader of her article would never get the actual information. To take it to the extreme, she could be born in India from Indian parents, never traveled outside of India, and STILL "identify" as a Canadian-American because she has a bunch of Canadian-American friends and likes their culture. My point is that the term (Country)ian-American can mean so many things that it doesn't communicate as much precise information as we actually have. We KNOW she was born in Canada and we KNOW that she identifies as Canadian-American. So why don't we actually say what we know? i.e. "Anita is a Canadian-born media critic..." and then we can write something in the article like "Anita identifies as Canadian-American". That's really all the information we have. Saying she IS Canadian-American may imply to some readers that she has American citizenship. Why create confusion? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
But what do you make of Strongjam's citations below? It seems there are a number that refer to her as "Canadian-American." Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That argument is terrible Hamster. Her identification as Canadian-American is far from a contentious subject, far from confusing, and well sourced in reliable media. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
"Canadian-American" can mean different things, but here it means nationality and the article body already makes that fact clear. Per the sources, it says she grew up in Canada, later moved to America, and identifies as Canadian-American. Basically every source that mentions it says the same. If it ain't broke...--Cúchullain t/c 05:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I added "...was born in Canada..." to the Background section just to lay out everything we actually know. I guess any confusion can now be cleared with the information in that section. I still think that we should move away from the use of Hyphenated American as most other articles in Wikipedia are doing. It creates more questions than answers. As an example, check out the article on Albert Einstein. His nationality was a bit more complicated so they went with a precise solution in the lead sentence and went into detail in the rest of the article. But it really isn't that big of a deal for now. As long as it's clear that she was born in Canada, grew up in Toronto, and then moved to the USA. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Comparing a man who held 7 different nationalities with Sarkeesian is not equivalent. The lead and content is as precise as the sources outline - and anything else is only less precise (or introduces more questions). Koncorde (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, "hyphenated American" titles are only deprecated in introductions for ethnicity, not nationality. Including nationality is encouraged. As Koncorde says, Einstein is a much more extreme case to this one, which can be, and generally is, described as simply "Canadian-American".--Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The New Yorker article is unambiguous, Sarkeesian, a Canadian-American of Armenian descent, became the target of a stream of Internet harassment.... I've added the citation inline. — Strongjam (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Also National Post, CBC, Reuters, Washington Post, CTV. — Strongjam (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
What's deprecated is indicating ethnicity in the intro if it isn't relevant to a person's notability, per MOS:BIO. Nationality is included, and it's a bit different as someone can be a national of multiple places throughout their period of notability. In this case, various reliable sources refer to her as Canadian-American, and few if any call her one without the other, which effectively settles the question.--Cúchullain t/c 02:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I, like others in this thread, see that the largest set of sources identify her as an Canadian-American, many mention her Armenian extraction (perhaps for the purpose of putting her last name into some context), and few sources explicitly identify her as Canadian, American, or of any specific citizenship. Based on the discussion and points presented here, I see no compelling reason to change this; if numerous sources begin to characterize her nationality in another way, I'd see revisiting this question. Certain there's been no recent development at MOS:BIO to justify a change at this time. BusterD (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit off-topic as this discussion already seems to have reached a consensus, but as a matter of principle, just because a lot of sources say that Einstein was German-American (including Encyclopedia Britannica) doesn't mean that his article should read that. Most sources don't delve into the background of their subject as much as they could (maybe for lack of access) and probably just cite each other. Once you start digging into the original source of information for Einstein's nationality, you realize that it's more complicated and that it may not be accurately portrayed popularly. So the Einstein article now accepts that fact and has included all the verifiable information into the article without placing a misleading label on the subject at the very beginning. Just going with whatever most sources say is lazy. Those sources are being sourced by some original source, we should track it down, and update this article accordingly. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
While I am, of course, all for accuracy, you are verging here on WP:OR. Going with what most sources say might be lazy, but it is, you know, sort of the basis of how this place works. Dumuzid (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm confident that we can trust sources like The New Yorker with basic information like this. Again, Einstein is a much more complex case and not especially relevant here.--Cúchullain t/c 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I find it strange that we might look at the rationale of the Encyclopedia Britannica as if Wikipedia is somehow superior, or their statement any less factually correct (Einstein was indeed German born, and died a US citizen - and so was obviously, and most simply, German-American). Actually, it's likely that the EB came to their decision based on recorded facts in reliable sources themselves. In contrast wikipedia balances repeating reliable sources, with the POV push of people who consider Einsteins nationality a point of dispute, or can't get their head around stuff that isn't actually that complicated but that certain people treat as such. That is not to say that the EB is right or wrong or infallible, but that wikipedia can be wrong when it tries to please everyone (or in this case deny something obvious because summarising his nationality is "complicated"...no, not really, it isn't). Koncorde (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Einstein, yes it is a bit complicated because he was German born, was "forced" to flee Germany she he then became a Swiss citizen, and then an American citizen, without renouncing neither of the previous ones. Why summarize it with German-American? Anyway, we are way far off topic here. In fact, I have started a discussion in MOS talk page MOS:BIO about this. It would be great to get your views on this and I think that's a better place to do it. Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
So you didn't get your desired result by consensus here and you've decided to go to a different forum to muster another consensus. Thanks for linking the new discussion! BusterD (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Dude, assume good faith. I was confused on what "Canadian-American" meant in the context of Anita Sarkeesian. This article is now more clear by including the fact that she was born in Canada. However, this discussion raised the other question about how to properly do this and to do it consistently across biographical articles. So I brought up the question in the linked discussion. I didn't try to hide it; I even asked you guys to participate because many here seemed passionate about it. I am not trying to push a solution, just wondering what the procedure is because it was confusing to me in this article. Anyway, I would really appreciate it if you and other editors join that discussion to see if we can at least come up with Pros and Cons. Thanks. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I imagine the frustration is coming from the fact that this seems like a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist. I'm not sure anyone else has ever expressed confusion with what "Canadian-American" means at this article, except perhaps trolls trying to make an issue out of Sarkeesian's citizenship, and at this point six other editors have weighed in.--Cúchullain t/c 03:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Drive By Whine

This page and its talk page is a farce. Feminists are reverting all edits that doesn't favor Anita Sarkeesian and all discussions and comments are being deleted. Wikipedia has got to do something about these activist feminists, it's hurting Wikipedia's credibility. Alas, this comment will of course be removed swiftly as well. Org.aidepikiw (talkcontribs) 17:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
And so it continues. 'Cool story bro' adds nothing to this, and neither does changing the title to 'drive by whine' (isn't changing someone else's posts against wikipedia's rules?) The irony is that you're the ones whining and ruining Wikipedia.

Org.aidepikiw

You're not going to be taken seriously unless you provide something verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
People have done that hundreds of times, but everything is swiftly removed. Wikipedia is not going to be taken seriously with pages such as this. The bias of this page has been brought up again and again, but I can't even put a POV sticker on the article because Anita's 'listen and believe' army will take it down immediately. As I said, Wikipedia is hurting their own credibility by letting pages being taken over like this.

Org.aidepikiw

Notice that you haven't provided a single reliable source to back up anything. That's why the POV tag was removed. If you don't show how or why there's a POV bias through reliable sources, then you're not doing anything constructive and you're just whining, basically. DonQuixote (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If reliable sources have been added "hundreds of times," it should be simple to show us one or two. Otherwise it starts to sound like you're arguing that the lack of any evidence for your assertions proves a bias -- which is not the most logically compelling position. I can't speak for anyone else, but bring the sources and I promise I'll consider them. It's worth a shot, no? Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


Everyone, please WP:AGF. Org, please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Sławomir
Biały 14:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Feminist Frequency Budget Breakdown

Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible to include something about the financial breakdowns provided in the Feminist Frequency Annual Reports. From the 2015 figures provided by Feminist Frequency revenues were $310,337 and $136,736 was spent on Programs, ie. 44% of revenue spent on programs. [1]

Barackaddict (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition, in the Feminist Frequency 2014 Annual Report, the Non-Profit reported revenues of $441,930 and expenditures of £64,200 of which $31,915 was spent on programs. This represented 7.2% of revenue being spent on programs.[2]

This seems like factually relevant information when discussing Anita Sarkeesian, Feminist Frequency and its critical reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barackaddict (talk • contribs)

This is indeed factual information! But this is the very definition of a primary source. Anything we said about this would be original research. I would suggest you find a reliable secondary source which uses these if you want to include them in some form. Until such time, I'd say I do not support their inclusion in this article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
And you just added it to Tropes vs. Women anyway. Please read Wikipedia:SOMEARGUE. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we should publish any conclusions based on them, simply reporting the figures is useful to a discussion. The strange thing is, the only article that I could find that referenced these figures was from a Forbes Contributor, which apparently isn't sufficient for Wikipedia citation standards. As there are no reputable secondary sources, wouldn't reporting the primary sources in a solely factual manner inform debate?

Barackaddict (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No. If secondary sources aren't covering a point, it's not significant enough to include. And yes, Forbes blogs are not usable, especially for WP:BLP material, as they're essentially self published.Cúchullain t/c 22:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
But publishing conclusions is sort of what Wikipedia does, that's why it relies on reliable secondary sources. This is something more akin to the mandate of wikidata. As for a discussion, that's what we have here, rather than in the article proper. It's all well and good to inform debate here on the talkpage, and there's no problem referencing the data for the purpose, but as far as including them in the article, they really should be couched in some sort of secondary source interpretation or else they're really of no use. It's entirely possible other people disagree with me, but for the moment, I'd say no without some secondary source. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Without seeing the details of a proposed edit, it's hard to say. But I note that this edit, which asserts "some critical reception has referred to the use of funds by Feminist Frequency" is referenced just to the budget data. The budget data does not support the claim of "some critics" (and if it did, we should be more specific than that). So, this is indeed drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the source. Just reporting the raw data would probably be a misuse of primary sources, as others have noted. If the alleged budget irregularities are a noteworthy criticism, then they should be discussed in reliable secondary sources: for example, news sources that summarize what various bloggers have written about Sarkeesian. Presenting raw data in a way to lead to an otherwise unpublished conclusion is not allowed under the no original research policy. Sławomir
Biały 11:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dumuzid, Wikipedia also reports from primary sources all of the time. List of countries by firearm-related death rate is a prime example of this. No analysis is being provided so it complies with the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia uses primary sources all of the time and this is not controversial.

Barackaddict (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

But there's a serious difference between an article like that and a biography of a living person. Again, I think given the policies on original research, this is a no for me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I can see no reason to pick this one bit of data out of the annual report. Especially as it's highly liable that it's being misused or misinterpreted - the revenues clearly fluctuate considerably quarter to quarter. I can see that the annual reports might be used for some general information on how Feminist Frequency has developed. But if no real sources are making the claim that it's somehow significant that xx% of revenues were spent on programs in the xx calendar year, it's not appropriate for the article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sarkeesian, Anita. "Feminist Frequency 2015 Annual Report" (PDF). feministfrequency.com. Feminist Frequency.
  2. ^ Sarkeesian, Anita. "Feminist Frequency 2014 Annual Report" (PDF). feministfrequency.com. Feminist Frequency. Retrieved 17 April 2016.

Lede

Can I just ask -

  • 1. do we agree that "In 2012, Sarkeesian was targeted by an online harassment campaign following her launch of a Kickstarter project to fund the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series. Supporters donated almost $160,000 to the project, far beyond the $6,000 she had sought. The situation was covered extensively in the media, placing Sarkeesian at the center of discussions about misogyny in video game culture and online harassment." is still more notable than the actual speaking engagements she has since had? I'd like to see that part moved as I'm not sure the significance for her is really that high. It was the initial flashpoint, but there's been so much since then that we should consider knocking it off and including some of the actual notable content from the last couple of years.
  • 2. is Tropes actually still the most relevant thing about her career?

I'd like to argue that maybe the lede should be more representative of what has happened in the last 4 years, rather than still very much in 2012 mode. Koncorde (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead (ideally) should just summarize what's in the article. For better or worse, a significant proportion of the article and sources on Sarkeesian deal with the harassment campaign, which continues today. Other than that, they mainly talk about her series and/or Feminist Frequency. Honestly, I'm not sure speaking engagements are nearly as significant as those points.--Cúchullain t/c 00:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, to be clear I am not on about removing the harassment - I am on about making it flow within the broader context of the last 6 years as she is now (arguably) notable outside of the Kickstarter campaign, and the harassment that continues is as much to do with Feminism and her other activities than the fact of how much money she got. Koncorde (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, feel free to take a stab at it or propose something here. I'll try as well when I get a moment.--Cúchullain t/c 13:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that Ms Sarkeesian has more recently used her speaking engagements to (putting it kindly) refute some of the criticism she has received, as can be seen from various YouTube videos. It might also be worth considering that her volume of speaking engagements may have significantly increased since 2012 as a result, though evidence of this I would not know where to obtain! CynicalNurse (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Extremely pro AS

And he's been blocked. Conversation over. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased.

What about mentioning how much she earned thru donations to make 12 videos (her baseless claims about video games) and how she has done only 3 in 4 years?--Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kkkkkk8888: If you're looking for criticism of her video series, check out the article Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. If you're looking for criticism of Sarkeesian, check the discussion on the section right above this one. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 09:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


no not looking for either of them, looking for the article to be unbiased and reference these articles would be fine--Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean, there are 13 videos listed on the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games page. Is there a reliable source which says there are only 4? I'd like to see that. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Transcribed request from WP:RFPP

Closing because this is a case of WP:EVADE. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

***The following is an anonymous editor's edit request for the article + my reply; I'm adding it here per an attempt to assume good faith. For obvious reasons, if any editors who have more experience with this article/area think my assumption is inappropriate, feel free to vaporize this on sight. RunnyAmiga (talk) ***

I wanted to suggest something in the talk page for Anita Sarkeesian, however it's locked so here it is. I'd like to see the question discussed in the talk page:

I've examined all the provided references and I find the sentence:

The Tropes vs Women project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment against Sarkeesian

problematic. There is no doubt that she was subject to harassment, but the term 'sexist' is inappropriate and implies motive which has not been established. The sources themselves make the assumption that it's gender based ... but we've seen numerous examples where men with the same views as Sarkessian have been subject to similar harassment (if not at the same level) and it isn't because of their gender.

210.84.13.17 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. Do we have a reliable source saying that the project caused the campaign of sexist harassment? I'm not asking if those sources are accurate; I'm asking if the sources are reliable and make that claim. You seem to indicate the answer to this question is "yes" when you say, "The sources themselves make the assumption that it's gender based..."
  2. If we were to remove the word "sexist" because of your claim that there are "numerous examples where men with the same views as Sarkessian have been subject to similar harassment (if not at the same level) and it isn't because of their gender," that might be a violation of Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. Have you reviewed that policy?
  3. Although my second question there would be moot if we had a source backing up that claim. So: do you have a reliable source claiming that there have been attacks on male editors, these attacks weren't gender-based, and (most importantly) these attacks were comparable to the ones that were levied against Sarkeesian? RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
[B]ut we've seen numerous examples where men with the same views as Sarkessian have been subject to similar harassment (if not at the same level) and it isn't because of their gender.
That claim is purely your say-so unless you can back that up with a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
And even if it were letter-for-letter true and reliably sourced, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot a little bit with the tacit admission of "if not at the same level"? If it's not at the same level, what motivated a higher level of harassment against Sarkeesian than against "men with the same views?" RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a block evader. Will file SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@DonQuixote and RunnyAmiga: SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Comet_Egypt. Will hat this if you don't mind. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Anita Sarkeesian

I had read a lot of criticism of her in various articles and forums so I came to wikipedia to get a more balanced point of view. But it seems like there is not reference to any of the criticism that is often mentioned about her. Is there a reason why? i.e. is this article truly neutral? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Read the previous talk page topics above yours such as Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Extremely_pro_AS and use the search up above to see why there isn't a criticism section, and read this page. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Your link is dead, Fenix. And I guess you were embarrassed to give a short summary why Anita Sarkeesian is beyond criticism. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The link was now in the archive Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive_18#Extremely_pro_AS. But there are innumerable prior discussions. The split of her work o another article was opposed by several of us here as a fork, but that was over two years ago now. If you have criticism of her work then please provide examples. We have been waiting now over 4 years for significant examples. Koncorde (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

The fact that an article on this woman exists without mentioning criticism of her work is extraordinary. She has shown absolutely no statistics in her research that can even resemble causality. Numerous people have called Sarkeesian out on this, but apparently, on Wikipedia they get swept under the rug as "online harassment". Is this the product of "Feminism Storms Wikipedia"? It is truly sad that it has not been fixed. It undermines Wikipedia's credibility. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Does anyone read the other talk page sections? If you have a reliable source you'd like to discuss though, please link to it. — Strongjam (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I see a long list of people providing links which for some reason get dismissed. But here's one more for your consideration [7] --SVTCobra (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well that's better suited for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Critical reception, although I'm not seeing how it would really add to that, seems most of the authors criticism is covered there. This page is just a biography and doesn't currently have any coverage about the critical reception of Tropes vs. Women, positive or negative. I suppose we could add a paragraph covering both in the "Feminist Frequency" section, however it seems a bit undue and better just to direct the reader to the article on that topic where it is covered. — Strongjam (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
"She has shown absolutely no statistics in her research that can even resemble causality." This strikes me as an odd way to assess Ms. Sarkeesian's work, but reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
To avoid repeating myself yet again on the Houston Press piece, I'll copy and paste what I wrote the last time it was discussed two weeks ago:
Houston Press may be something we can include at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. However, we'll need more discussion before including something from this source, a local alternative newspaper in Houston, Texas. At any rate, the bulk of the critique argues that the videos don't go hard enough into feminist media theory enough, as well as rejecting some of the other criticisms that have been made.
No one responded then, so it went nowhere, and it's likely to go nowhere again if there are no further responses explaining why and how this source should be included.--Cúchullain t/c 13:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I see no particular content in that article linked that would be an issue for inclusion, however most of it is actually supportive of her position and only passingly criticising the delivery (and depth of coverage), so I am not sure quoting something like "Jeff Rouner in Houston Press said her videos are not to everyones' taste" actually achieves anything. It is definitely more suitable Tropes Vs Women article, but even there it only really echoes Cathy Young and few other 'I have a personal dislike' type comments. Is there something in particular you hope to include? EDIT CONFLICT: Which is largely what Cuchullain said above. Koncorde (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that Houston Press article says what you think it says. Of course, if you want us to add that "any “valid criticism” of her is going to be the same old collection of conspiracy theory nuttery because it always is", feel free to suggest a paraphrase. Or we could just go with the broad thrust of the Houston Press article - that Sarkeesian is only making very basic statements, based on widely academically accepted research and that the best criticism available would be that there's nothing particularly ground-breaking, let alone radical about any of it. There's a reason why "criticism" of Sarkeesian only exists in the sewers of the internet - this Houston Press article is trying to tell you why that is so. CIreland (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anita Sarkeesian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Odd..

Odd how there's VERY little mention of the multitudes of ACTUAL criticism people have made towards her, and only the so called "harassment"(that every online celebrity deals with)that happened. Just saying, a little bit odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impendingdoom240 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your interest in improving this article. Do you have a reliable source or sources containing that information? Chrisrus (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Check out WP:CSECTION for notes on critcism sections and Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive_15#Section_for_Criticism for the last time this topic was brought up. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I managed to find two unbiased, albeit fairly critcal, articles about Sarkeesian. Perhaps they don't warrant a brand new "criticism" section, but perhaps a paragraph in "Reception". Here they are (apologies if I don't sign this properly; rather new to this).This article is a (mostly valid) critique of Sarkeesian's video content by Houston Press. I see no reason why we would not include this in Sarkeesian's article: http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/here-s-that-valid-criticism-of-anita-sarkeesian-you-wanted-8091012

And this other one references her speaking fees, which have been controversial. In this article, reference is made to her "usual" $20, 000 fee for speaking, although she reduced it to $5, 000 in this instance because the university involved was her alma mater: http://www.thecorsaironline.com/news/2016/02/18/anita-sarkeesian-to-kick-off-womens-empowerment-month-at-smc/ The fact that she charges $20, 000 per speaking event and then still uses Kickstarters to fund her projects do lend some credence to the whole "profiteer" argument, although I'm not sure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for research.

Honestly, the entire page for Sarkeesian here is pretty biased. How on Earth is someone supposed to point out the factual inaccuracies (and there are several), lies of omission, and stolen game footage in her videos when the topics she covers (video games) aren't usually covered by major media outlets in that manner outside of, say, Youtube? Only a gamer who's played the game she's commenting on will be able to tell you if she's portraying a game inaccurately or not, so I make the argument that Wikipedia's guidelines are entirely unreasonable in the case of evaluating Sarkeesian's content (most of which is Youtube content in and of itself, and hardly academic). I realize this is closely linked to the GamerGate controversy and we should tread lightly, but it's asinine to suggest that "there are no valid sources" critiquing Sarkeesian's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliow1 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What specific things do you want to mention from the Houston Press article? If it's about how "Unfortunately, constantly having to bring up the basics ends up making her video feel slow" or "There’s also the fact that until very recently, much of her work was very focused on white feminism", then these should probably be mentioned in Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.
And the Corsair Online only says that she reduced her fee from $20,000 to $5000--it doesn't mention anything about "credence to the whole 'profiteer' argument". See WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. DonQuixote (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that whatever criticism you might want to use from the Houston Press piece is best in the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games article. And the second article only mentions that she charged $5,000 for that one fee. (The reduction from $20,000 was retracted.) For us to tie this in any way to profiteering would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. -- Irn (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, they certainly don't warrant a "criticism" section here. Houston Press may be something we can include at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. However, we'll need more discussion before including something from this source, a local alternative newspaper in Houston, Texas. At any rate, the bulk of the critique argues that the videos don't go hard enough into feminist media theory enough, as well as rejecting some of the other criticisms that have been made.
I see no reason to include the Corsair Online material. It's a student paper for one, and it doesn't actually criticize Sarkeesian for her speaking fees (it also can't verify that the numbers it's citing are legit).
As for the other statements about the lack of real sources, well, bring some more up and we'll vet them. However, use this talk page only for discussing specific, actionable changes to the articles based on reliable sources. Disparaging living people and engaging in general discussion or editorializing about a topic are against the talk page guidelines and the living persons and WP:NOTAFORUM policies.--Cúchullain t/c 17:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello I searched the keyword "criticism" in the article and I found nothing apart from "She created the site in an effort to create accessible feminist media criticism." and "When will gamers understand that criticism isn't censorship?". That is very odd since most of the things I read and viewed are criticism of her views. In the Wikipedia article I see nothing as if her work is beyond criticism. You may say that there are no "reliable" sources (academic papers or coverage of this by big mainstream media) but is it ok to hide the fact that her work generated massive response videos etc? We should create a section pointing this fact, that there was in fact critique of her work all over the internet. It is not taking a stance that these critiques were valid, it is pointing out that there was indeed criticism. It created a controversy, acting like it never happened is hypocrisy. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

DagonAmigaOS, show us the reliable sources you think should be represented, and I, at least, am all ears! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the New Statesman good enough as a reliable source? "The New Statesman is a British political and cultural magazine published in London. Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, it was connected then with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and other leading members of the socialist Fabian Society. The magazine has, according to its present self-description, a left-of-centre political position.". link It lists most of the criticisms she received, if you and the others accept this source as reliable then I may proceed to write them down here in the talk page. Thank you. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't imagine a universe in which that article will be accepted as a "reliable source". You don't even have to read further than the first paragraph to see that it's an opinion piece and written like one. Protip: Real journalistic articles don't use the phrase "God forbid" as part of their hyperbole.--Jorm (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jorm that the article is a bit hyperbolic, but if you'd like to propose an edit sourced to it here on the talk page, you're certainly welcome to do so. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Well you don't have to imagine, it is already a source of this page (it's source 60), so it is already an acceptable reliable source, now the only thing that remains is to create a Criticism section and list the criticisms that her work received. Any objections before I proceed my proposition here? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI, you can't actually do that. You need 500 edits to make changes to articles under extended confirmed protection. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides, it's clear that this source finds the available contentions against Sarkeesian to be faulty, because it sets each one up and then counters or debunks it. Using this source to uncritically present such contentions–let alone affirm them–would run counter to our core content policies. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that there is something fishy going on in this page, first of I see no criticism section which is somehow suspicious of itself after all these years, now I see excuses of why an already accepted source is not reliable etc. I'm not saying I will edit the page, I will present my proposition here in the talk page, we will discuss it and if it is acceptable then someone who can do it will edit the page. The source lists most of the criticisms of Anita's videos and since it is a reliable source I see no reason why not use it. The fact that it lists them in order to counter them does not matter in a Criticism Section. That section is simply to show that there was criticism of her work and what what were the arguments. You can use the same source in the Support section. To pretend that her views were unchallenged is very odd. Wikipedia already has a page with information taken from a rebutal, Celsus was a Greek philosopher and an opponent of Early Christianity, his work was destroyed by the Christians but we got to know what was his critique of Christianity by the rebutal of a Christian guy called Origen which reproduced Celsus' arguments and replied to them. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually read the New Statesman article? As mentioned above, it ridicules the criticism that you're trying to insert. So, no, listing quack responses isn't the function of an encyclopaedia, unless the title of the article itself is "List of quackeries". DonQuixote (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of the series should go under the series article in any case. Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If this source faithfully represents "most of the criticisms of Anita's videos" as you claim, then I think the problem is that there is not much legitimate criticism of her videos out there. As the source you provided concludes: "Calling the derision of Anita Sarkeesian rational debate is an insult to both her and the idea of debating ideas." -- Irn (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That New Statesman piece and this one from Bustle have been discussed several times before as sources that could be used to explain what the harassers' "criticisms" of Sarkeesian are. I think we could use them for that purpose, so long as we're clear one what the articles actually say (they reject most of the criticism). It should be noted that none of the previous proposals went anywhere, largely due to the fact that the biggest proponents were primarily interested in inserting negative material, rather than figuring out how to best represent the sources. That may happen again if we don't stay on topic and come up with actionable proposals for additions.--Cúchullain t/c 21:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Criticism Section serves a purpose, the reader can see why some people believe x is wrong. It does not prove x is wrong just as the Support section does not prove x is right. Anita's Wikipedia page has only praises, awards etc, but no criticism. Criticism did happen though regardless if you think it was right or wrong, hundrends of response videos to her videos etc. It is a fact that it is not mentioned here. The New Statesman piece contains some of the arguments and some rebuttal videos, it has enough information to list what was that criticism, and if you think that the criticism of Newstatesman to the criticism to Anita is valid you can use it too as a source in the Support Section. It seems to me that there is an attempt to censor any criticism to her in this wikipedia page. I will test this with another article, let's see what excuse will come up in order to dismiss that source. "Why sex workers have criticized the way feminist Anita Sarkeesian talks about women's agency". So is it ok to use this criticism in the criticism Section? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of her work goes in the relevant Tropes article. This is her biography, it is therefore about Sarkeesian and her achievements. What would you expect to say from that article exactly? "Some people don't agree with her opinion"? Or "Some feminists have interpreted her use of a particular phrase as sex negative"? Not much of a criticism is it? Koncorde (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. In the Tropes article we can make more in depth research and presentation of the criticism. Here we have to mention that her work did not receive only praises like this «Chris Suellentrop of The New York Times referred to the first four videos of the series as "essential viewing for anyone interested in video games"» but also criticism like this «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.». DagonAmigaOS (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Per Koncorde, this strikes me as something much more apt for the series article rather than the biography. Moreover, I am not sure it is really due weight, as it seems to represent (from what little I know) a minority opinion amongst the reliable sources. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
First the Sullentrop comment is part of wider element introducing Miyamoto, and is particularly part of a very brief view of the main Tropes article reflecting the weight of sources. Secondly, Cathy Young's piece is literally just what I described it as "I have a different opinion of her videos". Just because someone has a different opinion or comment to make does not immediately make it notable or particularly pertinent to someone's biography. It is suitable for the main Tropes article, but would be undue in a bio to present it as if the media or weight of reliable sources was 50:50 on such matters (false equivalence). Third, Sullentrop talks about it being essential viewing. Essential viewing is not the same as "omg this is the best". It is intended to impart the meaning that regardless of your stance this is essential viewing. As the public recognition and awards received suggests, this opinion is largely reflective of wider public discourse. Koncorde (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
"Just because someone has a different opinion or comment to make does not immediately make it notable or particularly pertinent to someone's biography." How about when the video responses you receive have 1.260.944 views like one of thunderf00t videos? 818.906 views like one of the Amazing Atheist videos, 404.549 views like one of Chris Ray Gun videos, 279.848 views like one of Sargon of Akkad videos, 91.607 views one of Undoomed videos. To name just a few. With exception of her first two videos (her second video has 1.278.441 views) Thunderf00t's video has more views than any other video Anita made. Isn't it that noteworthy? The amount of criticism she received in the youtube alone? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Youtube is a self-published source, they aren't usable on a biography. Besides none of those commentators are noted academics, researchers or experts on feminism and the media. — Strongjam (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

yeap they are self published sources but TheNewStatesman that published one of those videos is not so we have a reliable source that says she received public criticism and it is a fact that it is noteworthy. What about the Reason article that I presented? According to Alexa Reason has a global rank 9.996, Anita's Sarkeesian feminist frequency site has a rank 400.837. Is it still just an opinion? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, still just an opinion to me. Alexa rankings and YouTube views are not particularly compelling to me for Wikipedia purposes. Reasonable minds can differ. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
DragonAmigaOS, you're beginning to go all over the place. As noted, there's a separate article on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, which does have a criticism section, and already includes a lot of the sources we've discussed. It would be the logical place to include criticism of the series as such. Steadman's New Statesman piece (and the Bustle piece I mentioned) will probably be better suited there. However, it's possible that nothing will happen if you don't make some actionable suggestions on wording to include.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's been over a week, this is likely to die again.--Cúchullain t/c 18:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring in lede

In the last few hours, three different editors have reverted lede insertions by User:Apollo The Logician. Apollo is in WP:3RR territory and we might be better discussing this as opposed to seeing that user blocked for edit warring. Would anyone care to discuss this? BusterD (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I just mentioned this on the user's talk page. The article is still under 1RR restriction according to the warnings. I am personally happy with where we currently are; "verbal" strikes me as an overly reductive adjective. That's all. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
My recollection of the events as they were happening is that virtually all the critique was coming from facebook, youtube and kickstarter comments, not vocalized words. I believe the sources match my memory. For this reason the use of "verbal" seems an inaccurate descriptor. New user Apollo seems to be involved in multiple edit war situations right now; some lessons might be best learned the hard way. That said, I appreciate engagement here. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Article has been largely unchanged, and each word and phrase well sourced, for the last 3 years at least. Koncorde (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that amazing in itself? Considering where we were just a few years ago? Page stability is a wonderful thing. It might be possible to improve this page to B or even GA class using what are now numerous reliable sourced profiles, interviews and articles. Never could have happened without a group of level heads helping out. Thanks ladies and gentlemen! BusterD (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the harassment is better characterized as "sexist harassment" than "sexual harassment". Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anita Sarkeesian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting thread closure

I reverted this closure of an earlier thread by Sleyece; it was unnecessary (as the closer said, the thread has been dead for months), and the closing statement was, frankly, bizarre. Several of the things expressed there are simply not true. Specifically, vandalism as such has been mostly handled through page protection and the efforts of editors, and it absolutely *is* possible to write a neutral article on the subject so long as the real sources are followed. There are no problems here that aren't problems for every other article on Wikipedia; the only difference is scale.--Cúchullain t/c 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand, Cuchullain. The hat was not intended to contradict or impede the work of any other user. - Sleyece 16:59:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some automatic archiving here? Having a thread from last October which hasn't archived seems a bit inappropriate... BusterD (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It was undated, which I believe stops auto-archiving. I went back through the history and found the date. Let's hope that helps! Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The archiver was set to leave four threads behind. I'm changing it back to zero so we can have a clean page. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 08:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Probably myself that set it to 4 threads. At one point it was archiving constantly and the same content was being re-raised repeatedly. Koncorde (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be set to 0. It does appear the reason that thread wasn't archived is because it wasn't dated, since subsequent threads have been archived.--Cúchullain t/c 13:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The archiving problem appears to be fixed. At the time of this comment, it is the only one remaining without archival. Thanks all! - Sleyece 03:00:20, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

WP:REPEAT. — Sleyece 04:05:21, July 3, 2017 (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.

This article seems to be heavily biased in support of Sarkeesian's viewpoints, with her viewpoints not saying that she "claimed" them, but her opponents have this label applied to almost all of their statements in the article. Help would be appreciated to make the article more neutral. Jdcomix (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

From the header: Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting. DonQuixote (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw that, and was just going to ask: can I get some help with finding some reliable sources (possibly new ones), that provide criticism for her behavior? Just trying to help out here :) Jdcomix (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There aren't any, or else the gamergate alt-right would have made sure they were plastered all over the place. --Jorm (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you at least help me to try to find some? There has to be at least a couple of them. Saying that there aren't any doesn't help, we don't know that. Jdcomix (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
No? People like Sargon of Akkad are garbage people. I'm not going to help anyone do anything to defame her any further or try to create false equivalences about "sides". And we do know that; this has been going on for years. I'd revert your reversion of my revert but we're under 1RR here.--Jorm (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah boy, here we go. I'm not trying to "defame" her, I'm trying to help this article in the future to prevent future disputes regarding neutrality. And if you think Carl is a bad person, cool, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jdcomix (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It's neutral as possible in that it reflects the views of reliable sources. See WP:NPOV. DonQuixote (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Correct, I just hope that the biases in some of our sources goes away and we can all benefit from a better article. Have a nice day, everyone. :) Jdcomix (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive_18&oldid=1136521246"