Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

VidCon

I removed the section on VidCon again. It may be appropriate to mention something, but this amount of text is WP:UNDUE compared to the relatively few number of sources covering it. In addition, the cited source doesn't support all of the claims made in the added text. Woodroar (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It should have at least some sort of brief mention though, especially if a reliable source covers it. The situation has become quite notable. Jdcomix (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)]

Why? Vidcon let some harassers in; she called them out. It happens constantly. It's not notable in any way.--Jorm (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I said especially if a reliable source covers it. Those are the rules of WP:UNDUE. Jdcomix (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If enough reliable sources cover it, then yes you're right. One source covering is trivia at best and fringe at worst. DonQuixote (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

DUE says (among other things) that we write proportionally according to the sources. The section on VidCon was supported by one source (Vox) and it was the same length as a section supported by nine sources (including better-known sources like The Guardian, TIME, CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC). The claims attributed to Benjamin weren't even sourced! A small mention might be appropriate, but it gets to the point where events have so little coverage that we probably shouldn't bother mentioning them at all. Woodroar (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I agree with everything, and I just want to note that it seemed to me the text added to the article took a very different tack from that of the cited sources. We need to be careful about that. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My thanks as well. This was exactly why I pulled it the first time.--Jorm (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, so I saw that the article was lacking any mention of the situation that occurred at VidCon 2017. I checked the edit history and saw that a previous edit was made removing it and so I then checked the talk page to see why. Now, this article falls under WikiProject Video Games, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources lists Polygon as a reliable source for VG-related articles. That being said, this Polygon source covering the event exists and I feel like it can be incorporated into the article as a brief mention. I feel like the complete lack of even a brief mention of what happened at VidCon seems a little biased, or I feel like at the very least, it can come off as biased. So just trying to help out with neutrality and all. Have a great day :^) Soulbust (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If Polygon (a reliable source) is covering it, you can probably add a brief couple sentences in the harassment section regarding the incident. Thanks :) Jdcomix (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt this is significant enough to include, but certainly no more than a sentence or two.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:VNOTSUFF, I'd say it still doesn't belong in the article, but it's certainly getting a little bit of traction. While I would take a wait and see approach, I am not dead set against a brief mention. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, so I took what you all replied with into consideration when making my edit that added the information about VidCon. It was extremely difficult for me to unpack all of it and make it brief enough for 2 sentences, but I fit it into 3 that I hope you all feel are appropriate enough. I also added information and the reference for VidCon's and Hank Green's (co-founder of VidCon) official response as it adds broader context. As a reader, I would be confused reading just the 2 first sentences, wondering "okay? well what was the result of that situation?" So that's why I included it as well. Hope it works.

Side note: Also, about traction, I don't think it's just "a little bit," as when I went to Google Trends for the search term "Anita Sarkeesian" or even in Wikipedia's own page view statistics for this article, one could see pretty large spikes on the day that this event happened.

At any rate, I hope you have a great day :^) Soulbust (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit undue, but I am not overly upset. And just a slight note of caution -- remember, the 'traction' I mean is in the reliable sources. Neither Google Trends nor Wikipedia page views are particularly good proxies therefor. That being said, I take your point. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So, the information was expanded, with the difference being that Benjamin is now described as "one of her [Sarkeesian's online harassers]" but the edit history says "expanding as per source," even though the source itself does not refer to Benjamin as one of her harassers. The Polygon source does seem to be critical of Benjamin, and mentions:

* that he "has made his name dismissing her feminist documentary work"

* that "most" of his videos "follow standard reactionary protocols, excoriating the supposed evils of political correctness, shady liberal elites and the media" and...

* ...that Sarkeesian refers to Benjamin as one of her harassers.

Now that last point is important, because the way the article reads as of this expanded edit, makes it sound like Benjamin is no-contest a harasser of Sarkeesian. Now whether the reader thinks he is, is their opinion. But the Wikipedia article itself should reflect the credible sources included. And the Polygon source, although seemingly critical of Benjamin, does not itself refer to Benjamin as one of Sarkeesian's harassers, but instead quotes Sarkeesian calling him one of her harassers, and I feel like that distinction should be made clear in the article's text. Thanks Soulbust (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, to respond to Dumuzid, I completely understand what you mean by traction now. I was just unclear that you meant just in the reliable sources, so thank you for clearing that up :^) Soulbust (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I checked it again, and the wording is she identified an audience member, YouTuber Carl Benjamin, as one of her online harassers, which is totally accurate, and super reflective of the comments I left a few moments ago. Total flub on my part; I think it was an issue with how I read the highlighted differences between revisions (I think I might've read it too quick or smushed it together). Either way, my bad. Again, have a great day everyone :^) Soulbust (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph about VidCon says that the panel where the incident happened was "about feminism." This is not accurate. I mean, of course, everything Sarkeesian has done in public has been about Feminism to some extent, but this panel was about female representation in content creation (before derailment). The evidence can be found here. - Sleyece 00:52:33 July 6, 2017 (UTC)

I believe that was a separate panel. At [1] Ms. Sarkeesian says this happened at the "Women Online" panel. A description is here: [2]. While the word "Feminism" is not used, it strikes me as a decent shorthand. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Needs less granularity, that's what the sources are for, and I think we should reference the panel as it was named, as Sarkeesians attendance shouldn't define it just because she is a feminist. Koncorde (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm agreeing with the removal. Someone said a naughty word ('garbage') at a minor event, and it got a few articles in specialist press and a medium post. Not exactly big league. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus emerging that the content should be removed. Being bold doesn't mean steamrolling a discussion before it's finished. TrickyH (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@TrickyH: Being bold (B) is putting the undue section in in the first place. It got reverted (R), a discussion got started - discuss (D), let a consensus emerge, then act. Hence my linking of WP:BRD, which details this procedure. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Leave it out for now. Not a newspaper. We don't need to cover every trolling event in the subject's career until preponderance of sources require it. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to clarify, my copy-edit was based on the contribution not my stance on whether it should be included. I think when you compare it to the anonymous bomb threats etc it's very small potatoes. Might be career defining for Benjamin, but it's just an outburst at a public venue notable only for the fact of the intent of those that gathered in the front rows. I am also confused as to why "garbage human" is the line quoted, and not the "shit-head" bit if it was to be included. Koncorde (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Just saying again I agree with Peter, BusterD, Koncorde, et al. I don't think it's (perhaps yet) at a place where it belongs in the article. Also, Koncorde, not that it matters now, but of course you're right about naming the panel. I got caught up in my internet sleuthing yet again. Have a nice day all! Dumuzid (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The consistent removal of something that is properly sourced, as well as constructive to the article, seems a little counter-intuitive to what Wikipedia aims to be, which is a source of information. We shouldn't sweep this under the rug like it didn't happen. VidCon 2017 wasn't a "minor event" — VidCon is an event that has seen increase in attendance each year since it began in 2010; last year's numbers were at 25,000. The convention has loads of A-list sponsors like YouTube, Twitter, NBC, Delta. It's not just that "someone" said a naughty word, it's that the subject of this very article said something that caused controversy. You brought up the BRD policy, but in that very policy, it lists what BRD is not, which includes: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." I'm not the first or only editor that has added an objectively brief mention of what occurred at VidCon 2017. I attempted to add an edit in good-faith, and even inquired about it in this talk page to see what would be the best way to go about adding information. I followed advice to keep it brief, and explained my thought process (thoroughly, in my best judgement). The reasoning from several users behind removing all information related to VidCon 2017 seems to be that it is "undue." But one can't just apply that word just because they don't like what's being added. I included 3 sentences that used 2 references—1 Polygon source; which is completely appropriate as this article falls under WikiProject Video Games, and Polygon is listed as a reliable source for VG-related articles and 1 source that, while it was a medium post, it was also a direct response from VidCon to the situation, which in this context is also completely appropriate. And then my edit was subsequently trimmed, and that's alright. But to completely remove it seems a little odd and dismissive, and I'm struggling to see how the inclusion of 2 to 3 sentences related to this topic is "undue." Soulbust (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Because only a handful of reliable sources have discussed the incident out of the hundreds of sources available for Sarkeesian's biography, there is as yet no support for the claim that this is a noteworthy event in the subject's life, or a significant viewpoint that needs to be covered. We don't include everything that ever involved Sarkeesian that got small amounts of media coverage, and there's nothing about the incident itself that screams "must include".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So poor behauvior against Sarkeesian is due for 418 words in the harassment section, but poor behauvior by her (reported in the Polygon) is worth 0 words? Seems like we have a neutrality issue. Anyway, Sarkeesian's own view point is that she didn't do anything wrong but rightfully called out a harasser - adding this would certainly make sense in a chapter titled harassment, too. --Pudeo (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Article went through some judicious pruning by myself a few years ago because it was just a laundry list of things mentioning her name. The harassment section was considerably bigger. However not everything that mentions her name is relevant or particularly notable. The "controversy" angle is a weak argument, anyone can claim something is controversial. Calling someone a shithead or garbage human is possibly the least interesting part, actually VidCon but support of her is more notable. To summarise; "After an outburst at VidCon 2017, VidCon said "nothing to see here, carry on" and she carried on as if nothing had happened." Koncorde (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

One really has to read into these sources to conclude that they reflect poorly on Sarkeesian. They reflect poorly on the harassers, and to an extent on the event for not anticipating it, but the worst that can be said about her actions is "she violated an arbitrary policy of an event in calling out a group of people who were trying to harass and intimidate her". Not exactly the smoking gun that certain editors here would apparently like to include, and not something that calls out for inclusion in a person's encyclopedia entry.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but I'm not trying to tag a "smoking gun" on anyone. I edit a range of articles, and when it comes to BLPs, it's not necessarily about a subject that I'm a fan of or not. It's just something to edit for me, and in my opinion that's great, because I go into an article just wanting to add reliable, credible sources, without any bias (or at least, as little as humanly possible). Also, it's a little odd how you try to portray the situation as an open-and-shut case of how Benjamin (and others) were "trying to harass and intimidate her." Benjamin, to my knowledge, has publicly stated that he wasn't trying to intimidate Sarkeesian—although it seems that would be incredibly difficult to get across, make clear, or even hint at in this article, because of the actions and precedent that some editors have taken and set in relation to what references and information can be included in this article. I'm still open to hearing why anyone believes that the inclusion of even one or two sentences would be undue. This was an open panel discussion at a large conference centered on online video and the culture/community that has arose around online video, so it seems like on that merit, it would be worth mentioning in brief. My intent on adding this information was not to have it reflect poorly on Sarkeesian, Benjamin, VidCon, or any other individual/organization. My intent was just to add information that is sourced properly. In my opinion, the information is constructive to the article as it shows an example of Sarkeesian's public speaking engagements in the context of an open panel discussion (and no less, on the topic of women online, which I expect would be a topic she would be knowledgeable in). Soulbust (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Soulbust, I think it's undue, and I will try to explain why. Were we making an original research narrative of the events of Ms. Sarkeesian's life, I would be in complete agreement with your reasoning. But that's not what we're doing. Wikipedia is more like a mosaic of the reliable sources. We definitely have a couple of reliable sources here, but they are smaller, and there has been little 'traction' or 'pickup' what have you in other sources. So, as I say, verifiability does not automatically merit inclusion. When compared to other events that were covered in major newspapers, on television, etc., I just don't think this bit should elbow its way in. It's entirely possible that will change! One article in a major newspaper could do that (for me, at least). Right now, though it may be a major event for some, it's quite low profile in terms of RSes. That's my thinking, at least. As I say, I would vote that it not be included, but if consensus is against me, this won't be one where I (metaphorically) bang the table. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think bomb threats should be the threshold of inclusion for the harassment section. It seems few among you disagree this was harassment (I happen to disagree that it was harassment, but that is just my personal opinion, which I am keeping to myself. ahem...) and the press coverage of this single event has exceeded media coverage of other events covered in this article. The question shouldn't be whether this event should included in her bio, it's how much weight we should lend to it. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mark here on the issue being how much weight we should lend to it, but I also understand (and appreciate) Dumuzid's comment and perspective here. While I personally understand that as it stands [1 Polygon article and 1 Medium post] is little "pickup" (I'm more used to editing fictional characters when it comes to VG articles), I just happen to lean somewhat on the inclusion side. But I'll definitely leave that to consensus. If nothing new can be said, I do hope everyone has a great day :^) Soulbust (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let us get a few things straight here. So far we've seen a handful of reliable sources that have even covered this incident: Polygon,[3] Vox,[4] and a botched Mic citation that evidently intended this piece. The Vox piece only covers the incident as one of several things that happened "this week in internet culture". The Mic article is mostly about Patreon investigating Benjamin for his harassment, which includes but is apparently not limited to this incident. Another claimed source, Medium, is just a statement from VidCon that touches on this and other incidents (and does not name the parties specifically).[5] This is a primary source and can't be used to show that the incident is noteworthy on a wider scale, and in fact should not be used considering we have actual secondary sources. Not exactly a deep field of sources here; there are few if any topics included here already that have such weak sourcing.

Looking at what the sources do say, regardless of what individual editors happen to think, the sources are unambiguous that it was an example of harassment, and so that's how Wikipedia would frame it if it were included. The sources do not make much of the fact that Sarkeesian violated a Vidcon policy, so this would not be included. The sources also write that the situation has emboldened alt-right and anti-feminist people on the internet. We are left with the point that one of Sarkeesian's frequent critics organized a group of people to harass her at Vidcon, she called him some names, the situation emboldened the harassers' allies, and a couple of media sites talked about it. Is that really something that should go in a biography?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In full agreement with Cuch. This is barely notable even for Benjamin, I am struggling to see what is encyclopedic about the content people want to include, or what it addresses. Koncorde (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly more than Polygon and a Medium post. We have: Forbes (blog), PJ Media, Mic, The Daily Caller, The Daily Dot, Vox, The Mary Sue, The Inquisitr, Heat Street, and lately, The Sun. Of those, Vox is still the most reliable, but maybe this will bring over the fencesitters who may have believed Vox was an outlier? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Those sources are mostly irrelevant for our purposes.

• Forbes (blog): Not a reliable source; Forbes blogs are effectively self-published, as established both on this talk page various times, and as a general principal.
• PJ Media: This is an op-ed from an advocacy site that is not a reliable source.
• Mic: I already covered this one; it's fine, but is mostly about Patreon's investigation of Benjamin for activities that include, but apparently aren't limited to, this incident.
• The Daily Caller: This is the same thing as the PJ Media op ed; The Daily Caller is a tabloid and not a reliable source.
• The Daily Dot: Daily Dot is a usable, but not especially strong source.
• Vox: Already covered this. It's fine, but its coverage of Vidcon is as one of various things "this week in internet culture".
• The Mary Sue: Blog.
• The Inquisitr: Op ed from a news aggregation site.
• Heat Street: Op ed from a partisan source, which is perhaps usable for its own opinions but certainly not for WP:BLP material.
• The Sun: A tabloid, not a reliable source.

Ie, the 3 sources I already mentioned and maybe Daily Dot, which is probably behind those three in its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Dammit, beat me again. Also, the Sun article is a "we pay you" for your story thing by the looks of it. Koncorde (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times also published an op-ed about the VidCon incident, which must count for something. I don't think we should be using Mic's reporting for contentious facts, but since these outlets agree on the material facts (i.e. there was a spectacle, Sarkeesian and Benjamin disagree on Benjamin's motivations for being there, VidCon is sorry), even shaky sources for these incontrovertible facts ought to count toward notability of the event. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You probably should have opened up with the New York Times ;). It's an opinion piece, but yes, there is a level of coverage of this incident. Does it rise to the level where it should be included? I don't think so; there's neither the runaway level of coverage that followed certain other events, nor does it seem to be a significant factor in subject's life. If it hadn't been for the harassment I doubt we'd even consider the fact that she spoke at Vidcon for inclusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The NYT piece, though an op-ed, is the first compelling source presented which IMHO meets the standard for reliable sources in a BLP. Add the Vox source and we have something to anchor a mention if this discussion leads to inclusion. This is just another minor incident in the life of the subject. In a book-length biography of the subject the incident would get a bare mention in the chapter about continued harassment. I generally agree with the analysis of sources in the list above. The question becomes, as Cúchullain has stated, does it rise to the level of inclusion? When I see more and better sourcing (say periodicals putting some perspective on the incident), I might be swayed. BusterD (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I really think we should avoid op-ed pieces on BLP content, even if they're published by reputable sources like The New York Times. Woodroar (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but of the sources brought forward so far, the op-ed is by far the most reliable source presented. I'm still looking for multiple reliable sources independent of the subject directly detailing the topic (aren't we always?). Short of that standard, I'm still against inclusion. BusterD (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm truly finding it hard to justify how to cover this or why we need to. It seems impossible to delicately cover both the literal facts of what had happened (Anita did a VidCon panel, people she doesn't like sat in the front row and asked some questions, she yelled at one of them) and the way that opinionated articles from places like Polygon reported it (Anita was harassed a VidCon panel, and fought back against her oppressors). How would one go about combining those two sentences in a way that didn't sound goofy? Really, all of the reliable sources that we've bundled together have barely focused on the situation itself, instead going after relative tangents.

Surely a page about Sarkeesian does not need any information from an article by the NYT which merely discusses the supposed nuances of the freedom of speech, ending with the sentence "The right cannot lay claim to the First Amendment when its own president is actively hostile to it." At most, there appears to be one sentence in the NYT op-ed piece that even describes what happened at the thing. The main takeaway is that the incident most likely isn't heavily notable for Sarkeesian herself, as most articles seem to focus on anything but her actions at the event. OttselSpy25 (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"~most articles seem to focus on anything but her actions at the event." I'm not saying that I agree or disagree on notability, but a correlation is not causation, as the saying goes. NYT attempting to further polarize the incident by connecting it to broader political concepts and/or the President, do not serve as a proof that the incident is not notable. Sleyece (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the burden of proof is on the incident being notable. DonQuixote (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct - the only pressing question is whether the incident is noteworthy enough to include in a biography of a living person. The idea that it's "impossible" or even difficult to cover the incident is pretty strange. Of course we can summarize what the sources say, in fact, it's rather easy: "In June 2017, Sarkeesian participated in a panel on women in gaming at VidCon, during which her frequent critic Carl Benjamin and his supporters occupied the front three rows of seats in what Sarkeesian and various media reports described as an attempt to intimidate and harass her. Sarkeesian angrily noted Benjamin's actions during the discussion; VidCon subsequently apologized to Sarkeesian for the incident". The only question is whether this is noteworthy enough to include. I do not think so, for the reasons given above (and in sections now archived).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems I'm a little late to the party but I wanted to say this anyway. If this incident isn't noteworthy enough for this page, perhaps we should question whether it's noteworthy enough for the Vidcon article as well, since it is mentioned there. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that the incident is more significant to the history of VidCon than it is to Sarkeesian, but either way, the present text at the VidCon article does not accurately represent what the sources say about the subject and needs to be rewritten if it's kept. In a few days I'll have more time to deal with this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Officeholder

I changed the infobox to more accurately and encyclopedically represent the subject. Any thoughts? Sleyece (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer the older version -- while it's certainly true that the subject holds the office you say, that strikes me as not the reason she's notable. She's famous as a commentator rather than an executive. That being said, not the end of the world to me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was just going to start this discussion and revert the change, actually. Directing a nonprofit isn't a form of elected or appointed political office. If you believe that it is, you'll need a source. In addition, Sarkeesian's ethnicity has been covered by numerous reliable sources and it should probably be included in any infoboxes. Woodroar (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC) (Struck part of my comments. I guess we don't include ethnicity tags in infoboxes anymore. Who knew? User:Strongjam, that's who! Woodroar (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC))

Yeah, I just looked at the office holder template, and it certainly seems to be for political office. On that basis, I'll revert if it's still live. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Yeah, the ethnicity= param doesn't even render anything anymore, so no point in keeping it. — Strongjam (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunate

WP:NOTFORUM Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whenever Wikipedia places a banner on the front page asking for money, I always tend to come to this particular talk page to see whether the band of bullying sentries patrolling the article have been successfully tackled. Sadly, I see that this has not yet happened, and we're still, after many years, left with an article that does not reflect reality or truth because an ideological clique consistently and 'summarily' decree reality and truth 'unworthy' of inclusion, according to their own subjective biases and metrics. This is why I cannot, in all conscience, donate to a project that increasingly does very little to protect neutrality in articles, and has forced some extremely good and impartial editors to throw their hands in the air and leave permanently rather than spend fruitless years chipping away at the iron curtain of biased thought that has infused itself into Wikipedia. The lack of neutrality in this article and how it got to be and continues to be this way represents the unfortunate state of affairs. Bennycat (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC) If there are reliable sources you believe are not included that would help us expand the article, you're welcome to bring them up here. You're also welcome to suggest any changes (supported by reliable sources, of course) that you think would make this a better article. Cheers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Medium post

Has this source been discussed in the talk page? I looked at the archives but couldn't find it. Can it be considered as a valid reference for the article?--Jamez42 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for the opinions of the author of the post; those opinions are about Feminist Frequency, not Anita Sarkeesian, and so should not be placed in this article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not here. Probably not anywhere. It's self-published and, as far as I can tell, the author is "notorious for his own #hottakes" (according to Vice Media) rather than an "established expert on the subject matter". But that's just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Chmielarz himself might be notable enough an opinion in its own self published right (he is a well known designer, and Indie game developers tend not to have the media traction someone at a larger organisation has, which may mean this is an underrepresented opinion within Wikipedia). But in any case it should be on the Tropes wiki, and should be in context without UNDUE. Whether he is loved or hated by Vice or others is basically irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Not an appropriate source for either article. Medium.com is (in this case as with similar ones) a blog host and thus falls afoul of WP:SPS. The author isn't an expert source on media criticism or video game criticism, unless he's got some other expertise on video game criticism beyond being an indie developer.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Woodroar's link further suggests that others in the field don't regard his voice as authoritative.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing Harassment by Anita Saarkeesian

Nonsense

"If you Google my name on YouTube you get shitheads like this dude who are making these dumb-assed videos," she says. "They just say the same shit over and over again. I hate to give you attention because you're a garbage human. These dudes just making endless videos that go after every feminist over and over again is a part of the issue of why we have to have these conversations." Source: https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sarkeesian-garbage-human-vidcon-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrant (talk • contribs) So what you have given us here is what we call a primary source; that is, words purported to be by the article subject herself. We are careful with these! Please see WP:RSPRIMARY. It would be best if you could point us to a secondary source's interpretation. But, even failing that, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing here. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @Skyrant: So Benjamin (who repeatedly and persistently harassed Sarkeesian) was subjected to a one-off verbal rebuke and that makes him the victim of harassment? If you want to discuss this absolute nonsense further, bring a reliable secondary source calling her actions harassment. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @ChiveFungi: and you should bring a source calling Benjamin's actions harassment. wumbolo ^^^ 17:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @Wumbolo: Thank you for reminding me of WP:BLPTALK. Here are some citations: "many are wondering how this seemingly progressive gathering dropped the ball and let a YouTuber’s harasser [Carl Benjamin] into the front row" "Benjamin, who regularly makes videos criticizing Sarkeesian and her views, organized a targeted harassment campaign" --ChiveFungi (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC) References

Claim that Sarkeesian "improves gender inclusivity"

I find myself sceptical of the line "and improving gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media" at the end of the second paragraph. This is a claim that does not appear to have any basis or reference. How do we know she is actually improving gender inclusivity? By what metric? Certainly I am sure that she hopes and tries to improve gender inclusivity, but saying that she actually does so without any sources takes things a bit further. I realise this is hardly a major issue and is one of syntax rather than substance, but changing it may nevertheless help with WP:NPOV. I am apparently too inexperienced/untrusted to edit what is clearly a controversial page, but perhaps it could instead read "and appeared on The Colbert Report discussing her experiences of harassment whilst attempting to improve gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbe46 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Go away, little troll.--Jorm (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, I do think there's something to this and I've removed the last part of that sentence for now. Cbe46, the lead section is really just a summary of the article itself. It doesn't necessarily need sources because everything should be referenced properly below. The fifth paragraph of the "Reception and public appearances" goes into her Colbert Report appearance in greater detail, and it's sourced to The Verge. So, we should be good, right? Except I don't think we are. The Verge doesn't really say anything about her "improving gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". It verges (sorry) on that topic but only in the context of what Colbert said ("separate but equal games"), not Sarkeesian. I bet she does say this in the video itself, but I feel that we should let third-party sources show us what to highlight, especially in the lead section. Anyways, anyone should feel free to revert me with another source that talks about these specific claims. Or just revert me because reasons. Woodroar (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It should have read something like "and appeared on The Colbert Report discussing her experiences of harassment and the challenge of attempting to improve gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". I somewhat object to the complete removal of the quote by Woodroar. The specific words do not need to appear in the reliable source for the statement of her intent to be addressed (a full transcript is available). For additional sources in any case: Kotaku, [6], WashingtonPost[7], LA Times [8], MotherJones [9] referring to the sentence from the show "I think women are perceived as threatening because we are asking for games to be more inclusive,” Sarkeesian said. “We’re asking for games to acknowledge that we exist and that we love games.". Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted but changed it to your verbiage, I like that much better. I also added what I think are the 2 strongest sources, but (of course) I don't mind at all if we add the others. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I find myself marveling at how rarely these days we have controversy on this talk page, how clearly constructive the suggestion by User:Cbe46 was, and how quickly this modest request led to page improvement. This IS the article about the lady gamer who's trying to burn the entire male-dominated gaming community down right? Can't anyone dredge up some old YouTube comments or archival Reddit threads which say something offensive? Is it possible the imposition of discretionary sanctions coupled with the semi-protection have allowed this place to cool down? We may be forced to allow this article to get even better if someone doesn't start a scene here... BusterD (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

DELETED. Lucien86 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Define "willing", and then question why that word is being used in a disingenuous way. When there are news sources proudly declaring that putting children in detention camps is moral, or justifying the shooting of medics during protests, or standing with right wing nationalists, what suggests that they would be un-"willing" to go speak out about Sarkeesian? Then define "truth", and then question why you don't think the content is true and what is being missed that would be more true. Koncorde (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DELETED. Lucien86 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

According to your Talk page, you've already been told about WP:V and WP:NOR. You should also read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and probably WP:NOTFORUM as well. In short, none of that material will be added to the article without reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood administrator Woodroar. No offence or deliberate breaking of rules intended. Lucien86 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Soraya Murray piece

The book and its content seems significant for this and other related articles, but the way it has been inserted in this article is a bit odd so I have tried to split out the additions. Just mentioning "Murray" without identifying her significance or the work she featured Sarkeesian in seemed an obvious oversight. I am not sure how much of the book is dedicated to Sarkeesian or Gamergate in general. Maybe more content exists to expand upon and give Murray more context? Koncorde (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Date of Birth

How is it possible that an article about a figure this notable does not have a more accurate birthday? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Because nobody has cited a reliable source for it. Such a source must be from a reliable outlet and cannot be a primary document, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Without a good source, this information cannot be added to the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I know the policy. What I was saying is that a figure this notable on the internet must have a birthday out there somewhere. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sure her birth certificate exists. But someone must supply a reliable source for it. Felicia Day is in the same situation, as are many others. Many notable people in media actually lie about their DOB via official publications in order to prolong acting careers etc. Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Day's birthday isn't listed as a range of potential dates. The subject of this article isn't trying to "prolong [an] acting career" It's bad editing, is all -- Sleyece (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

If it's "out there somewhere", then please go find it. Once that's done, then we can cite the reliable source and include it in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I will do my best to find the date over the next couple of days. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a range of dates. I see a year, and then that gives the two possible outcomes for that year. Plato has a range of years in addition to a "circa" so bad editing is not the case. And I was providing examples of why birthdays are often not provided, or are rough, estimates, or are outright fabrications. Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And having just read the edit summary of your reply... that is a ridiculously petty, juvenile and insulting thing to do with editors who actually try to be constructive. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, Koncorde, I did not realize you were being sincere. I should have WP:AGF. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As always, if we can find the reliable source I have no objection to any content being added that is relevant. However I don't believe it has even been self published (which in Felicia Days' birthday case various people have tried to retcon in several ways through the years using OR and SYNTH of things like High School records and University attendance; that sort of stuff we want to avoid). Koncorde (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't unusual or uncommon. What we have are sources that stated what age she was in a particular year but not her exact birthday, which lets us determine the year she was born in. Unless I'm missing something I don't see a "range of dates", just 1983. This happens at a lot of articles, and many (like the one mentioned above) don't have a year at all. If there's a source that gives Sarkeesian's birthday, of course it could be included, but I wouldn't be surprised if none exist. She certainly has no incentive to give out personal info like that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone made the comment that Sarkeesian's birthday is listed a similar way to Plato. That's the problem. Plato died thousands of years ago, and the subject here is VERY active in the Internet Age. There is a disconnect with regard to our presentation of information across time periods. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you know of sources that include the information, I don’t know what the problem is.—Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this good enough? -- Sleyece (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Not remotely. If you think that "famousfamilybirthdaysbiofacts.com" is an acceptable reliable source for use on Wikipedia, you should probably review WP:BLP and WP:IRS before editing any other biographies. User-generated anonymous content farms are never acceptable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

All right, all right, I knew that wouldn't fly. Don't policy bomb me. It's somewhere to start, and at least it's a potential DoB for the subject. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If you "knew that wouldn't fly," why did you bring it up here at all? Don't complain about "policy bombing" when you just demonstrated that you either don't know or don't care about those policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, WP:AGF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs)

Look, if you know of any reliable sources with this information, bring them up here. Otherwise, it's not worth worrying about.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Likely Placeholder 032A $S##$a1983-01-01$clived$2VIAF -- Sleyece (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata has the DoB listed as 1984. All other sources I've found list 1983. Can a user please clarify this discrepancy? -- Sleyece (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

According to this article, she was 31 in late November 2014, which indicates 1983 (or very late 1982).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Does that mean 1983-01-01 is a viable date? -- Sleyece (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the viability for Wikipedia purposes depends entirely upon the source you have which gives that date. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the organization I got the date from. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't help that this info is behind a paywall. Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If the birthdate is not readily available in multiple WP:RS then does it matter. How about just leaving the birthdate parameter blank... Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with leaving the DoB parameter blank until a more definitive answer can be obtained. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of the organisation. No clear source for their information. 01/01/83 is probably the default if they don't know the exact date within a year. I've read 15th August 1983, but that is also from a source of no reliability. Koncorde (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also read November 15, 1983, also from an unreliable source. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we call a vote on leaving the DoB parameter blank absent a verifiable date? -- Sleyece (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You're asking us to ratify the propriety of non-existence? That's too deep for a weekday, if you ask me! (No actual objection!) Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the weekend, now. Can we "ratify the propriety of non-existence?" -- Sleyece (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sleyece -- my honest apologies if my flippant comment offended. I just meant to comment on what seemed like an unusual vote. I certainly have no problem leaving it blank. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with including the birth year.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Cuchullain, is that your vote? -- Sleyece (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, changes are made through consensus and discussion, not through simple voting. We have a source for her approximate age, so why would we remove it? The current information is accurate, it's just not as precise as we would like. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Much ado about nothing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with listing just the year. Per WP:DOB, precise dates are often omitted when not widely publicized, even if known. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is also relevant in this case. Better to err on the side of incompletion here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No way WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies to a DoB. That's nonsense. If we live in a world where an accurate date prolongs victimization in any way, then civilization has devolved to a point where an encyclopedia is no longer relevant. Is that what we're saying here? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What? We’re saying we can’t add a birthday without a reliable source. We do have a reliable source for the year so we can just include that. There’s really no more to say here.—Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sleyece: Oh, I'm sure none of the anonymous horde who have been harassing Sarkeesian for years would think of weaponizing a bit of personal data like a birth date. No, no chance of that at all. In any case, it hasn't been "widely published by reliable sources", so the question is moot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, Sangdeboeuf, explain how one goes about "weaponizing" a DoB. Take your time, I'll wait... -- Sleyece (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a fairly common step with identity theft. Or breaking password reset systems. Or lots of other things. Seems fairly obvious to me. You don't have to be smarmy about the fact that you're ignorant of such things, but yes. Dates of birth can be weaponized.--Jorm (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not only common, it's policy: WP:DOB. Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"Smarmy Ignorance" is a new one, thank you. So, even if we are able to retrieve an accurate DoB, would we not put it in the article? Why put accurate personal data about any living person if that is the case? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I just wanted to improve an info box. I can see now that even if I found a reliable source it would not be published without being widely publicized in multiple sources. So, my efforts would be fruitless anyway. Please don't insult users (Even though I was amused by the "smarmy" comment.) My original goal in this section has now become circular due to WP:V, so I will no longer post in it. Woodroar, additional precautions due to WP:ARBGG are noted. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Seconding Sleyece's comment that users should not be insulted. This is against the spirit of wikipedia. Bennycat (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is just to say that I may be insulted with impunity. I think, in my case, it is very much in concert with the spirit of Wikipedia, and, if I may say so, is usually deserved. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Please, Sangdeboeuf, explain how one goes about "weaponizing" a DoB. Take your time, I'll wait..." - that's not being smarmy? It's totally being smarmy. It's also wrong. So being smarmy about your own ignorance. If you think that's an insult, you dumb motherfuckers have never been insulted.--Jorm (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Fourth-wave feminism

There's some dispute about Category:Fourth-wave feminism and whether Sarkeesian belongs in it. She is mentioned twice at Fourth-wave feminism, but both are unsourced. I did a Google search and read the first few pages of results, but no reliable sources come close to saying "Anita Sarkeesian is a fourth-wave feminist". I've removed the claim again per WP:BLP and I invite Samantha Ireland, Zero Serenity, Marie Paradox, and others to discuss potential sources here. Woodroar (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of the relevant policy is that we do not need to find a source in which Anita Sarkeesian is a fourth wave feminist (and note that the category is "Fourth-wave feminism" and not "Fourth-wave feminists"), but we need to be explicit about whatever relationship we want to say Anita Sarkeesian has to fourth wave feminism, and we do need to use reliable sources to support the claim. So far the only two sources I have found supporting the view that Sarkeesian is associated with fourth-wave feminism are a dissertation cited by none and an article in VT. I do not feel that these are great sources, and in any case they leave the relationship between Sarkeesian and fourth wave feminism implicit. Until I find something better I will refrain from adding the category "Fourth wave feminism" to the article. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Requirement for Alternative Sources to Corroborate NPOV

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.

---

While this article has been substantially improved from its former state, it still does not allow for due weight regarding the various allegations that were made against the subject. If the article is ever to represent a fair and accurate biography it must include details of the allegations made by opponents, most notably those associating themselves with Gamergate. This is not to say that the opinions of the latter must be given credence but they must at least be represented. As such credible sources must be found for these claims, and if refutations are possible these must also be given due weight. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that back up your claims, please feel free to provide them. Note that NO ONE ELSE EVER HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS BEFORE (likely because such things do not exist). We are not in the business of peddling falsehoods and artificial "due weight". Come back when you have ammunition in your gun.--Jorm (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mrspaceowl, if you have reliable sources with an underrepresented viewpoint, we can discuss including them, but if not, there's nothing to discuss.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that this is a C class article at present. Note intention to find reliable sources. I am soliciting objections before they arise due to absolute good faith. Noting subject's recent statement: 'Case in Point: No matter how many times I say don't frame me as a victim....' to be potentially in conflict with living person's current beliefs about herself and that there appear to be no alternative viewpoints shown even to demonstrate then refute previous alternatives to victimhood narrative. Verifiability of sources can be complex but parameters on what this will look like should be established in good faith, ideally in advance of significant research. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The best place to start are sources known for fact-checking and/or peer review (well-known periodicals or acadaemic journals). DonQuixote (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you feel that will offer a real and balanced POV on this one? I agree those sources are often best but here, it seems like we need something more. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

We will absolutely not be using less-than-stellar sources to corroborate your fantasy of attacking a woman. Period.--Jorm (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Where are you getting the backing for your statement from? It doesn't seem to be to do with anything I said, or to do with the Wikipedia article. Could you explain relevance? Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simple answer, yes. If you have to go out of your way to find a source, then it's either fringe or not notable and the current article is already as balanced as it can get. DonQuixote (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's better than it was but it's not difficult to find sources that present significant criticism of the subject. Real parameters should be set on what we all agree are the sources of truth here, or we'll never get to B grade, let alone featured article on this one. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources of "truth" are sources renown for fact-checking and/or peer-review. This is why some editors jump to biting off heads--the fact that you're dancing around the acadaemic consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

We have been waiting 5 years for a reliable source for any such "criticism", and please be aware that criticism of a person is not required for a biography. Nor is a one sided controversy a reliable source of criticism or otherwise. We have ourselves looked for such sources. All content of this article is sourced and cited to the 9th degree, overly so to such an extent I went through n extensive culling program to bring it back to the relevant content a few years back as it was a laundry list of the terrible things people had done, were threatening to do, or were promoting. Furthermore it's evaluation as a "C" or anything thereof is not dependent upon presenting any more information. The article has not been re-assessed since its original evaluation.

I am also concerned as to what you intended to convey when quoting her Twitter feed, which was her referring to the fact that she is routinely framed (literally as part of her introductions on TV, in media, in bylines, or on the banners of news programs) as a victim first and foremost. This is an irrelevant statement.

Also you said a lot of words in a few paragraphs that look like you were trying too hard to sound authoritative. Plain speaking will help us understand what you mean a lot better than throwing around 'parameters' of 'sources of truth'. Koncorde (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to avoid personal attacks on myself. That's not an attack on you but an observation that statements about conduct are rarely helpful. Instead I'd like to focus on what you said about in 5 years looking for a reliable source and finding none. It is an astonishing claim that no evidence at all exists of something that is so hotly and popularly disputed, and often by people who seem to have nothing to gain at all by contesting it. I know you'll say this is not allowable, but many are of the opinion that Encyclopedia Dramatica is largely unbiased, once you read through the layers of metaphor. I guess if they added a statement of editorial process they'd be allowed? Sorry for the sarcasm on this one, but there seems no other way to tackle. It doesn't mean I'm not taking you or your research seriously. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I made no statement about conduct. I was pointing out that you were failing to convey any meaning and not articulating well what your intention was. It was a call for clarity. This last paragraph is barely any better as it goes.

I am not sure ED's content qualifies as a metaphorical, and even with editorial oversight it's unlikely a satirical / humour site would be particularly reliable, sarcasm or not. And yes, 5 years looking for reliable sources ourselves, and waiting for any single person to present a reliable source containing criticism. The closest have been self published blogs, or opinion pieces. Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Allegations" made by anonymous accounts on Internet forums and social media are generally not suitable for inclusion in encyclopedic biographies; I suggest you read WP:BLP to gain a better understanding of our sourcing requirements for biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion did identify a couple of reliable, mainstream sources that discuss common criticisms of Sarkeesian, generally to refute them. The discussion didn't go anywhere because a now permabanned editor drove the discussion off the rails. All those sources are dated at this point - over four years old and it's unlikely we'll get anything out of them except to say that "some people say xxx, but according to source yyy, this is false". Unless Mrspaceowl has specific new sources in mind, that meet the threshold for inclusion, this discussion isn't going anywhere either.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Steadmans piece remains, I think, the only piece of material that discussed the actual allegations, however it also rebuts them as Cuch points out. In fact the "X says Y about Z, but this is wrong based on absolutely every other example of reliable sources" is a great way down the SYNTHESIS and promotion of UNDUE for the sake of alleged balance. The vast majority of reliable sources just clearly indicate that any accusations are wrong, or highlight the significant and overwhelming notability of the threats against her.

As I believe I have said before; just because an opinion exists does not mean Wikipedia must represent it with equal (or even marginal) weight in the face of reliable sources saying something else unless the opinion is somehow significant. In most cases the criticism is of something specific even in her work, and we have referenced that it is relevant or valid specifically for the Tropes main article which we split out because of the blatant conflation. Koncorde (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

What is our evidence that sources currently listed here are reliable regarding this topic? Are we looking at editorial policy specifically? Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the same policy as any other topic. Please see WP:RS, and I find some of the essays on identifying reliable sources, while not mandatory or dispositive on anything, can be quite helpful. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mrspaceowl, per WP:DUE "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources". If you can't find noteworthy reliable sources for a claim, then we aren't going to include those claims. You are hardly the first person to make this argument, and it has consistently failed to persuade other editors in the past. Nblund ^talk 21:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In my country our laws derive from representative democracy, systems of precident and a (perhaps strange to you) common belief in the divine right of our monarch, The Queen of England. As such I always require a set of methodologies and beliefs before following orders. Here it seems a small number are gatekeepers given rights. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In my perhaps blinkered view, Mrspaceowl -- no one is giving you orders. You can change the article as you like. It's just that everyone else has equal rights. And a bunch of us believe in Wikipedia's policies, however imperfect they may be. The most successful Wikipedians I have seen work with at least some level of collegiality--but we all must make our way in this sublunary place. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

References

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.

Concerning the infobox

Hello. I'm thinking about merging the alma mater parameter in the infobox into the education parameter so that the education parameter may look something like this:

• California State University, Northridge (B.A., 2007)
• York University (M.A., 2010)

Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense to me! Funny how you don't notice the obtuseness until someone points it out. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

"These events helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in video game culture to mainstream media attention."

Could this be written in a more neutral way (e..g paraphrasing sarkeesian herself)? It seems to suggest what Anita is saying is correct, when it really should be completely neutral. TheMickyRosen-Left (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Neutral" means representing what's stated in the reliable sources with due weight. Sorry that you hold a minority viewpoint. DonQuixote (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. No need to assume my views however, or attack it by calling it a minority viewpoint. TheMickyRosen-Left (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request 2

Also, it would also be nice if some extended confirmed editor could change the {{Official website}} template link for the actual official website, since the FeministFrequency website appears to be a separate proyect from her other works such as Mixed Flour.--Mayimbú (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The website linked above, anitasarkeesian.com, is listed at the article subject's verified Twitter account, https://twitter.com/anitasarkeesian; so indeed looks to be an official website. Unless there are any objections in the next day or so, I will update the article accordingly. - Ryk72 ^talk 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to wait. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ryk72 ^talk 13:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

On the Harassment section, there's a citation that quotes a book. Did a book ISBN search and couldn't find any but mention of it anywhere. Looking throught the article's history, found that the reference was added by Cuchullain on February 18, 2015 as a URL link to a blog. The citation was removed by Apollo The Logician (who was banned on August 2017 after being identified as an abusive sockpuppeteer) after being marked as deadlink but it was later reinserted as a book citation by Koncorde on August 2017.

Someone should fix that.--Mayimbú (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Searching a little, I find that the ISBN does relate to a book published (in digital form only), which appears to no longer be available. (See: [10]) That book, according to the publishers, the MacArthur Foundation, contains articles, blog posts, videos, and interviews published between 2009 and 2013 at the MacArthur-supported Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning, an online publication that explored the intersection between technology and education. (Per: [11]) The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people, effective institutions, and influential networks building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.
In the article, the source is used as a reference for a series of factual statements (along with 5 other sources). Given that:
a) we have the other 5 sources;
b) the MacArthur Foundations does not appear to meet the standard of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (per WP:RS);
c) the source is a blog, which even if reliably published would need to be attributed;
d) the source content directly supports only parts of the paragraph for which it is a reference,
I suggest that it be removed; but would like to hear from other editors (particularly Koncorde &/or Cuchullain). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me; if the source is dead, the source is dead, and it's backed up by others, as you say.--Jorm (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ryk72 ^talk 13:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Link to Feminist Frequency’s website should be HTTPS

Since this page is protected, I can’t fix it. DemonDays64 (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

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.

---

I believe that this page could use a criticism section. Sarsath3 (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You would need a reliable secondary source that you can cite. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. You want a criticism section for someone who was last relevant in 2016. What has happened in your life to bring you to this point? Also, no, per WP:CRITS. Koncorde (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (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.

Feminist Frequency changes

For how very active this page has been, I'm amazed that almost a year after feminist frequency (which redirects to this page) went bankrupt, (june 2019) there's no mention of it yet. Sarkeesian laid off her staff and stopped taking salary herself. Here are some sources: article in a reliable source where Sarkeesian confirms it herself, some more background, one of her staff asking for money or work FF's 2018 financial report.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Article 1, no mention of the word "bankruptcy" or "bankrupt" probably because they didn't go bankrupt in the sense of having debts that outstripped their income. They just spent all their raised charitable money and she couldn't be bothered trying to raise more in that same way. Chapter 3 explains this thoroughly in the first 3 sentences. Anything else is your POV. Daily Wire meanwhile is not a reliable source]. Article 1 explains your final two articles, which are also original research. About the most that can be made out of the articles claimed is something like "Feminist Frequency later changed its working operations to become a volunteer only organisation." Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right. They're not officially bankrupt. Still it's a little more than just going volunteer only. It's also a major scaling down of their operations in areas like PR and production. And it's not like their former employees were replaced by (equally productive) volunteers. They basically went from a company with several employees and contractors to an amateur youtube channel with ~2K viewers per video, occasionally ~10K, out of 220K subscribers. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

And? "In 2019 Sarkeesian scaled back Feminist Frequency to focus on other projects citing bla bla bla" is about the most coming out of that. This isn't a multinational company, this is a small network of less than a dozen people working for a charity. Bearing in mind she started out with a request for a few thousand dollars, just where exactly do we want to take the Streisand Effect today? Koncorde (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Feminist frequency is at the heart of Sarkeesian's notability. By your logic we might as well drastically shorten Sarkeesian's entire WP entry. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That isn't how articles work, and it isn't true. Koncorde (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Feminist Frequency is a first person source. It would be like making an entire article based on an autobiography. Also, FF is not "at the heart" of the subject's notability. It is merely a product of that notability. You have flipped the order of facts in order to prop up your argument because you don't have one. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Links in opener

As with most articles, I think the job titles in the opener should be linked to their relevent articles. "media critic, blogger, and public speaker" should be changed to "media critic, blogger, and public speaker RobotGoggles (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Becomes a bit of a wall of blue links. I think media critic makes sense as it's not very clear what one of those is - but a blogger and public speaker are self explanatory. I think the "blogger" bit actually could do with being removed. I am not sure it is what she is associated with, or ever really was. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I can dig it. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

VidCon incident

Would Sarkeesian's 2017 confrontation with Carl Benjamin at VidCon be worth a mention? Besides a contemporaneous story in Polygon, I see the incident covered in the academic work Online Harassment by Jennifer Golbeck, as well as several mentions on Google Scholar. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think so, since it was A Thing among the types that make this A Thing.--Jorm (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I see this was discussed three years ago, but the retrospective coverage produced since then is probably more useful anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Did anything Encyclopedic happen between them at that VidCon? -- Sleyece (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Per Sleyece. My stance stays the same from last year really, although suitable reliable sources containing reasonable content may change my mind. Not simply a retelling of the event, but an actual secondary opinion on the event with perspective and / analysis.

The event itself is a not particularly notable moment of someone calling someone else a bad name. That in and of itself is basically an irrelevance to this biography. We have tried to keep this article more about her, and less about the number of times Mr Irrelevant or a.n.other has done another youtbe video which is why the harassment angle is weak also. Mentioning each time someone is a dick at an event might be fun, but it's not encyclopedic as a standalone event (I would be happy to accept a secondary source saying that Benjamin was a shithead for a long time before she said it though).

To sum up "man turns up at a panel to antagonise someone, gets called a shithead" is neither noteworthy nor particularly controversial. Its sole notable feature is the fact that she actually said something before he did (not that he hadn't spent 3 years building his channel off her back). For inclusion the event itself is fundamentally small, so we would need to see significant coverage from secondary sources doing more than just telling the story verbatim. Koncorde (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Reception and public appearances" and Mandalorian Armor Controversy

The whole "Reception and public appearances" section doesn't mention any "reception" of her from anyone besides people who harass her or people who support her. For example, the controversy over her 2020 criticism of Bo-Katan Kryze's armor on the show The Mandalorian... even though the armor has always been that way from her debut in Season 3* of Star Wars: The Clone Wars. https://insidethemagic.net/2020/11/the-mandalorian-controversy-kj1/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpbjSmZx3m4

I get that this is a minor controversy and I do have a horse in this race as a fan of the character, but I think that it is an example of the type of legitimate criticism that should be listed under the "Reception and public appearances" section. --Dolphinjamez (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Season 4, Episode 14 "A Friend in Need" is her debut. --Dolphinjamez (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. Also, read reliable sources, due weight, and notability. DonQuixote (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)