Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

American Enterprise Institute criticism

Okay, here we have another article about criticism, this time it is secondary reporting of it. Can we now include criticism of Sarkeesian?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is dry on details about her and criticism of her work. Since we are not the mouthpieces of think tanks (go with it) and the substance of the article is really the video by the AEI, I vote for no inclusion again. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A thought on the video anyway: "They want the male video game culture to die." I cannot facepalm fast enough at this claim. Otherwise, said video is very dry on specific criticism of the work so much as the video saying "Don't do the series" with a dash of victim blaming. Still voting no. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"The AEI argues that hardcore games are aimed at men and therefore ought to be free to feature imagery appealing to that audience. [...] Showing footage of documentary maker Anita Sarkeesian, Sommers mocks researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies," while acknowledging that they make "some valid points". This is a significant opinion reported by a reliable source (by a writer already accepted in the article!), about the topic of this article, one that is different to and of equal weight than the WP:RSOPINIONS already included. How can you justify to exclude it in the light of balancing aspects and WP:BALANCE? Given the number of times that "bring reliable sources with criticism" has been said at this talk page, now that we have them I'm taking all you at your word. Diego (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Because in this case the source really isn't Polygon so much as it's the AEI. And AEI is of questionable reliability. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

See the URL of the reference. It points to Polygon.com, a reliable source. So, not a valid reason to ignore the neutrality policy. Diego (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

By your standards that makes bing, google and facebook reliable sources when they post excerpts or share videos. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. You don't have a valid argument and you know it; search engines and networks don't have an editorial review process for fact-checking and a reputation for accuracy, and Polygon does. The good thing is, we don't even need to quote the AEI; we can use what Colin Campbell, a journalist whose articles are already used as references for this topic, has published as news reporting at his online news organization. Diego (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quote something that is his opinion on the subject and not just a variant of "she said". Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I love that when I post a dozen real sources[1][2] that deal substantively with Sarkeesian and her work it draws crickets, but the second someone dredges up something that smells like it might contain something negative, they come out the woodwork. Too typical.

This is pretty weak tea. A video game website's article, about a conservative YouTube video, about feminist responses to video game culture, that merely mentions Sarkeesian - and not by name - is not exactly multiple references in an academic book in terms of WP:WEIGHT. That said, the American Enterprise Institute is a prominent American think tank, and Christina Hoff Sommers is an academic (in philosophy, though she does write a lot about feminism), which adds important street cred. Nevertheless, citing the YouTube video directly isn't kosher, both in the spirit of WP:BLPSPS and due to the fact that appearing on YouTube does nothing to establish it as a significant viewpoint on the topic. However, assuming Polygon is reliable for news and for establishing that particular news items are noteworthy (there's not much on them at WP:VG/RS, but they're cited here already, for what it's worth), we could use the Polygon article in question. We could say something along the lines of, "In a video for the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers referenced Sarkeesian in a criticism of feminist responses to video games and gamer culture."[3]

The next question we need to ask at this point is the question of WP:WEIGHT. No matter how you look at this, it's a pretty low bar for inclusion. Are we going to include every passing reference to Sarkeesian in a reliable source? There are a ton of them that are at this level or better, so that would be a ton of mostly trivial material to add to the article. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on the matter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Treading into WP:NOTFORUM for the first one but I'll bite. Fending off what is useless tends to be easier for me than transposing or writing off the cuff (see my other pet projects). So when I see something that looks suspicious, it is very easy to put down. Aside, I'm not sure WP:SPS applies here since it is produced by AEI as opposed to just...whatever her name is (man that passed out of general memory fast). Again, I'm following with it hardly being about her since the article is mostly just a "she said" rather than having any depth. Polygon not being on VG:RS is a bit peculiar. I'll head over and try to rectify that. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain, it only makes sense that negative criticism draws more attention, precisely because none has been used yet. Other sources that are in line with the content already reported don't require significant debate; they can be included at a gentle pace without much opposition and without altering the balance of the article, which is quite imbalanced. When a piece by a reliable source presents a new point of view that hasn't been covered so far, neutrality policy -which is about diversity of viewpoints in case of disputes, not mere relative volume of coverage- requires us to present that point of view. With adequate weight, yes, but so far negative commentary has been given *zero weight*, which isn't due weight either. A simple quote like the one you suggested would therefore be enough to comply with the requirement to describe the existing dispute without engaging in it nor taking sides. Diego (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The source is perfectly reliable for a criticism attributed to the American Enterprise Institute, Second Quantization (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, the issue is how much this can be considered a "significant viewpoint" for an article on this subect. The video barely touches on Sarkeesian herself and doesn't even bother to name her. The Polygon article just mentions Sommers shows footage of her when she makes a complaint about feminist video game critics. If we're setting the "significant viewpoint" bar as low as "things that passingly refer to the subject", then per WP:BALANCE we'll be adding dozens more trivial additions. And there's quite a lot of "diversity" in viewpoints found in sources sources (including much more substantial sources) that hasn't been added, though of course there's no clamoring for it since it largely isn't negative.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Now reported in GameSpot as well. I should note this is in addition to the rather lengthy criticism offered by Mytheos Holt. We also have the Escapist piece about the fan-art controversy with an even better piece provided by Zero Serenity on that issue. At what point does criticism of Sarkeesian stop being "undue" in your eyes exactly? Do we need lengthy tirades against her in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, before you would consider allowing any reliably-sourced criticism into this article? For the record, I looked at your additional sources when you posted them and just now and note that they all seem to be solely concerned with the harassment. We already have plenty of information about that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE if you're confused about what undue weight means.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Gamesided again. Also, we settled the fan art peice MONTHS ago. I'd just wrap this up as "Late to the party". Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It does seem poorly advised to bring up sources previously rejected by consensus here, as it's only going to be a distraction from discussing the source at hand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You can reject reliable sources with shrill cries of "it's a blog" that have no basis in policy when said "blog" has editorial control and the author is an experienced journalist with greater academic credibility than pretty much every person included in the article at present, including the subject, but you have not achieved "consensus" just by having the greater number of shrill voices shouting the same invalid arguments. Only point that had any basis in policy was that the criticism may be undue, but now we have another example of reliably-sourced criticism so it is looking a bit less undue to include Holt's criticism. As far as the fan-art bit, I did not see this source that Zero so graciously provided today get mentioned in that discussion, so it seems that is a legitimate basis for renewing discussion of the matter. The more you reject these reliable sources the more obvious it becomes that this has less to do with policy and more to do with your personal POVs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Lectures about not editing based on "personal POV" is unlikely to persuade coming from someone with your track record. And yes, driving the discourse off on tangents about other material that previously failed to find consensus makes it more likely that discussion about the source at hand will be derailed before achieving consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My track record is not one of editing based on "personal POV" but it is clear that is what you are doing. A neutral observer would conclude that there is enough reliably-sourced criticism to include it in the article now, but you still cry bloody murder at the thought of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please. For weeks you've made few if any edits here that weren't devoted to trying to insert negative material, generally based on flimsy sources, and then you fly off the handle whenever you're challenged.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing flimsy about my sources, only your arguments against them. As to why I want criticism in the article, well, shouldn't you want criticism in the article? I would think any devoted Wikipedian would be incensed at the lack of criticism of the subject in this article and want there to be some inserted once reliable sources were found.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you really trying to defend the creepy deleted personal website and PR releases that didn't discuss the subject[4] as solid sources for a BLP?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are valid sources for a BLP since they are either from her or associated with her and considering all I really added was "Sarkeesian worked for x" and nothing more, it was hardly some horrific negative attack. It was simply an accurate statement about her prior work experience.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Right...--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As editors, we strive for a balanced article. Do we think that the article is focusing too much on the criticisms, or is it fair? Seems somewhat repetative. In responding to The Dvil's Advocate, who has done a fantastic job covering a lot of the discussion here, I think a great point is raised. There's absolutely a point in which there's too much criticism. It feels a little like beating a dead horse. At the same time, though, it's criticizing and outspeaking critic, which is ironic. That aside, the largest part about sourcing criticism is the reliability, right? How are we going to agree on what is critical in being factual yet balanced and fair, and isn't just outright flaming? Is a variety of authors better than only a few credible ones? I'm talking the Kevin Morris article vs the Mary Elizabeth Williams article. There's a lot of defense and a lot of hate. It's critical a balance is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your post seems...off-topic. Sorta a swoop in and endorse one side before bringing up something irrelevant. We judge reliable sources based on WP:RS and use WP:VG/S as an additional guide. Said articles you mention do not pose any of your claimed controversies. And quantity does not bring up quality. Conspiratorial movies may have millions of views on youtube, but that doesn't make them any more correct than one guy with less than 100 views. Editors, policies and track records dictate reliability, not view count. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that Hoff Sommers doesn't identify Sarkeesian by name; Colin Campbell does that connection for us, noting how Sommers is "mocking" her -among others- but at the same time acknowledges some of her points as valid; points that have been included in this article, including the analysis of the Damsel in distress and womens as sex objects. This is not a passing mention, it's critical analysis of Sarkeesians work as reported by an independent reliable third party. Now if your point is that Polygon is not reliable to establish the objects of their articles as significant topics, we should be talking about removing most of the Continued harassment and GamerGate section, of which two thirds are sourced by this very same source. But of course if we go with that revision of the current standards for inclusion, it should prompt a review of all the sentences that have been included in the article based on opinions published by gaming websites, which are less reliable than the opinions of scholars. Diego (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. To move the discussion forward, does anyone have a suggestion for content to discuss? Second Quantization (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is most certainly a "passing mention", at most. Sommers flashes a shot of Sarkeesian as she goes on about "a new army of critics" and all the various things "they" supposedly say, which includes little if anything specific to Sarkeesian (she does allude to Sarkeesian later in discussing the death threats, but Polygon doesn't pick up on that). As for suggested additions, I've already made a suggestion above, in the event that there's consensus this is significant enough to include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the reference with more detail, it's there in the second-to-last paragraph. Also, everything she says about "critics" is aimed at Sarkeesian; when she uses the word "critics" her image is introduced as the object of the sentence, so she is clearly one of the critics alluded. We even have Polygon confirming that point. Diego (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right that Polygon does mention the second allusion to Sarkeesian. As for the rest, yes, it's a passing mention at most, and again, little if anything is specific to Sarkeesian (Sarkeesian is hardly the only one to discuss "damsels in distress", and I highly doubt that she's called video games a "hetero-patriarchal capitalist pursuit"). If Sommer intended "Anita Sarkeesian" instead of "new army of critics", she could have said that, or in the very least engaged with things Sarkeesian says.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The bobbing and weaving you are doing here is sad. She puts this out now, puts up footage of Sarkeesian and only Sarkeesian up on the screen when talking about critics, and multiple reliable sources caught that (now Kotaku as well), yet you talk as though the video has nothing to do with Sarkeesian at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to respond to my actual comments.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussing content

(edit conflict) ::How about this?: "Christina Hoff Sommers, from the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank, acknowledged Sarkeesian's analysis of damsels in distress and objects of sexual gratification as "valid points", but mocked her and other researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies". (source: Colin Campbell, Polygon.com).(I've partly based it on Cúchullain's suggestion above). We could either include or exclude the other point that Campbell notes about the video, that Sommers acknowledges both the "serious threats" faced by Sarkeesian and the "logic, evidence and humor" of those who disagree with her as a feminist critic. (See? There was some in-depth content to write about after all). Diego (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, although I wouldn't include the suggested extra point, and I would replace mocked with criticised: Christina Hoff Sommers, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, acknowledged Sarkeesian's analysis of damsels in distress and objects of sexual gratification as "valid points", but criticised her and other researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies". Second Quantization (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested "mocked" because that's the term that Campbell uses, but I'm ok with replacing it by "criticised" if you think it sounds more neutral. I think the AEI should be described just by "conservative" for the same reason - it's both the most neutral term and the one used by the reference. Diego (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's policy to write in a dry neutral tone (while it is not required of reliable sources), also over adherence to a source is plagiarism; digest a source and write the point in your own words. Second Quantization (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers has her own page, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Several problems with the suggestion. Neither Polygon nor the video itself single out "analysis of damsels in distress and objects of sexual gratification" as "valid points" by Sarkeesian or anyone else. Sommer merely touches on women being portrayed as "damsels in distress or sex objects" as one of various points raised by "these critics" (plural). What she does say re "valid points" is, "Now, these critics have made some useful points about sexist tropes and narratives". It appears Polygon got the "useful points" quote wrong, and at any rate it doesn't elaborate on what they are. In other words, Sommer neither calls the "damsels in distress or sex objects" bits "valid points", nor attributes them particularly to Sarkeesian.

In fact, Sommer never attributes anything at all particularly to Sarkeesian (who, again, she never names). Nor does Polygon say that she does. As such, it's not accurate to claim that Sommer "mocked her and other researchers". Rather, Sommer just alludes to Sarkeesian as part of a wider criticism of feminist video game criticism. The most we could say would be my original line, she "references Sarkeesian in a criticism of feminist responses to video games and gamer culture" (or possibly "alludes to Sarkeesian").--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We have another source that says more now from Kotaku. Your argument that not mentioning Sarkeesian by name means we can only mention a "reference to Sarkeesian" is patently ridiculous. She deliberately calls out Sarkeesian in the video by showing footage of Sarkeesian in the same breath as her criticism of "gender activists" so we can reasonably use the mention of Sarkeesian as a basis for including the other critiques about said activists.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't say she "acknowledged Sarkeesian" or "mocked Sarkeesian" without, well, misrepresenting the sources. She doesn't say anything about Sarkeesian at all, she just shows an image of her when she talks about the wider group she's criticizing (and references her more directly later when talking about the death threats). Saying she "referenced Sarkeesian in her criticism of feminist responses to video games" is accurate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation of the source. Multiple reliable sources picked up on her criticizing Sarkeesian. You seem to not want her criticism included for some reason despite it being noted by multiple reliable sources. Stange . . .--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed out why Diego's suggestion is flawed. Now, is there a problem with my suggestion, or are you just going to continue venting?--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is giving your personal interpretation of the video (rooted in your personal POV on the subject), ignoring what the reliable sources say about it, and saying we should make an edit according to what you think of the video. Sorry, but that is not valid policy-based reasoning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You're really not helping your position with your personal comments and battleground mentality.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you do not want personal comments then you should use arguments that aren't just your personal feelings regarding the source and give some actual policy-based reasoning. Your opinion that Sommers herself only makes a passing reference to Sarkeesian and that thus we cannot use what multiple reliable sources say about her video and how it concerns Sarkeesian is not policy-based reasoning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather, you should stop making personal comments and drop the battleground mentality, period. Especially if you're going to presume to deliver lectures on policy and behavior. My suggestion is based on what the video actually covers, and what the other sources actually say about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be helpful to show what the sources actually say.

In the video, Hoff Sommers shows footage of Sarkeesian while she says "Well, now, gamers are dealing with a new army of critics: gender activists and, I don't know, hipsters with a degree in cultural studies." Later, she shows Sarkeesian again while she refers to the death threats.
Polygon says, "Showing footage of documentary maker Anita Sarkeesian, Sommers mocks researchers as 'gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies,' while acknowledging that they make 'some valid points'" (this is a slight misquote). Later, they say: "She claims that those who disagree with feminist critics have used 'logic, evidence and humor' to state their case, although she mentions that Sarkeesian and others have faced serious threats."
GameSpot notes the "gender activists" and "hipsters with degrees in cultural studies" bit (correctly quoted), but doesn't mention Sarkeesian in this context. Ruh roh! On the death threats, they say, "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series. Sarkeesian recently made headlines after she published Twitter posts and emails that documented threats to her life as a result of her criticisms about gender issues in video games. Sommers says the 'new culture critics' have latched onto these attacks, using them to prove that there exists a "patriarchal pathology" at the heart of gamer culture, when in fact this is not the case."
Kotaku says, "In her new video, she snarks about 'gender police' and presents the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos about female tropes in video games as an attack on male gamer culture." That's it; nothing on the death threats. In other words, it's a breezier version of what I said.

The wording can be tweaked, but saying Hoff Sommers "referenced Sarkeesian in her criticism of feminist responses to video games and video game culture" is a perfectly reasonable summary of what the sources say about this video.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's another, fuller suggestion: "Philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers of the conservative American Enterprise Institute included [referenced, alluded to, referred to, etc.] Sarkeesian and her series in a video criticizing feminist responses to [analyses of, etc.] video games and video game culture, which she regarded as an unfair intrusion [attack? though let's not get too close to plagiarizing Kotaku] on a male-dominated hobby."--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. It neatly avoids including any of the actual criticism of Sarkeesian that is explicitly mentioned in those reliable sources. At the same time, seeing as Sarkeesian is obviously one of the people Sommers is criticizing, all the comments in the video about gender activists and feminist critics are reasonably open to inclusion in this article on that basis.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, Cúchullain, you have already accepted (twice) that when Hoff Sommers says "critics" and shows footage of Sarkeesian she's referring specifically to her; this is how identifies Sarkeesian and Quinn towards the end. This doesn't mean that Sommers is talking about some other generic feminist critics receiving death threats, now does it? :-P Your latest suggestion looks better though. "Alluded to" is a good way to describe how Sarkeesian is mentioned in the video; if we say that she was "alluded as part of new media critics, gender activists and hipsters", then the summary will be capturing the gist of the reference more closely. Diego (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Alluded to" is fine, hence why I included it. However "alluded as part of new media critics" doesn't really work as a sentence. How about "alluded to Sarkeesian and her series in a video criticizing..."--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have still much work to do with my phrasal verbs. We have to include how Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian so "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies" has to be there in some way or another, as that's the main connection existing between both video-bloggers, i.e. the light in which Sommers is presenting Sarkeesian; this is what Sommers is saying during the whole seconds when Sarkeesians is on the screen. How about following Polygon more closely and paraphrasing it as Sommers criticized new media critics as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies", in an allusion to Sarkeesian? Diego (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That phrasing is still pretty clunky. But either, we don't need to have a quote (which is actually "...a new army of critics, gender activists and, I don't know, hipsters with degrees in cultural studies"; that's clunky in its own right). We can paraphrase it, or alternately we can follow Kotaku and not worry about the specific moment she alludes to Sarkeesian (GameSpot doesn't mention Sarkeesian at all in that regard). That way we can talk about the whole thrust of the video. The issue with something like:

"In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of 'a new army of critics, gender activists and, I don't know, hipsters with degrees in cultural studies'."

...is that, apart from including an awkwardly phrased quote, it doesn't get into why she's going on about these "activists" in the first place: because she thinks they're unfairly criticizing the male hobby of video games.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I wrote my previous one before finding Kotaku. Your new wording doesn't look bad to me at all, though if you want to include her basis for , you can get some from Kotaku too: "she snarks about "gender police" and presents the likes of [Sarkeesian's videos...] as an attack on male gamer culture". Diego (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, but the sentence doesn't say anything about what the actual criticism is (ie, that she's criticizing them for criticizing video games), or mention video games at all. Plus the quote is extremely awkwardly phrased.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost there

Let's see how the whole thing runs together: "In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists and [...] hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' [ref:Polygon] and describes the likes of Sarkeesian's work as an attack on male gamer culture [ref:Kotaku]".

These are the significant ideas pertaining to Sarkeesian in the sources, right? How would you word it differently? Diego (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that works pretty well, especially with the ellipses. Well done. We'll need to paraphrase the last bit to avoid plagiarism. How about: "In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists and... hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' she believes has unfairly attacked masculine video game culture.[refs go here]".--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We almost have a deal, though the second half is hard to parse; does "she" refers to Hoff Sommers, Sarkeesian or the army? I had problems making sense of it even though I already knew what it's saying. Also, "believes" is a bit strong; I can't tell if Sommers would agree to say "I believe this army has unfairly attacked male game culture", not from the references. Something like this is closer to the source: "...cultural stucies', and said many of these critics want the male game culture to die".

And, new development: see Kotaku's updated note at the bottom - Hoff Sommers self-identifies as "Libertarian-leaning and is a registered Democrat". Do we have evidence the video was made on behalf of the institute, and not presented on her own? If not, it's best to present her as "[Libertarian] Philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers [of American Enterprise Institute ] released a video were she alluded...". Diego (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We could go with In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists and... hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' whom she believes has unfairly attacked masculine video game culture", which makes clear the "whom" (the army of critics) is separate from the "she" (Hoff Sommers). As for the videos, they're produced by the AEI.[5] We don't need to say she's a libertarian; the "philosopher" part is what gives her the street cred, such as it is".--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, "whom" is right. Though we don't need to say the AEI is conservative either, then; given that we don't WP:LABEL any other source in that way, and it's "likely to create confusion" (to the point that Kotaku had to amend their article title), we can leave guessing her ideology as an exercise to the reader. So, can it be "In a video for the American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists' and 'hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' whom she believes has unfairly attacked masculine video game culture" the final version? (We can avoid the ellipsis entirely, or keep it if you prefer). Diego (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine, though there's no question the AEI itself is conservative, even if Hoff Sommers doesn't identify herself as conservative herself. I think it's better to leave in the ellipses. And finally, looking at it again I think the line should be "have unfairly attacked" rather than "has". Otherwise it's good to go, though I suppose we need to figure out where to put it now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no question The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Guardian also have known political biases, and we don't deem relevant to mention those. I've placed it at Reception, chronologically, where it's used as analysis of her work; it could be moved also to GamerGate, though if we did that we should then explain the connection with the incident. Diego (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW I've changed 'believe' to 'said', as the references doesn't use 'believe' either and it looks a little weasel-y. Should it be 'says', 'say' or 'said'? (Or we could use 'described'...) Please copy-edit as needed. Diego (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Conservatism is part of the AEI's entire MO and identity - it's a think tank. I'd think it would help readers identify who they are and why we care about their video. On the other point, I think "said" works just fine. Again, well done, Diego. I'll respond to the placement question below.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

...then we can say "think tank" rather than "conservative", just like we often say "online newspaper" or "magazine" for other sources; that's enough to identify those as originators of public opinion, without leaning the sentence over the political axis. The ideology is not particularly relevant here, and highlighting it seems undue weight, as it reads like an attempt to sway the reader according to their prejudices; it just doesn't feels neutral to me. Diego (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Think tank" could work, though the name already indicates it's an institute of some kind. But again, promoting conservatism is the entire reason they exist, it's not inaccurate or leading. We can remove it unless others think it should stay put.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer "conservative think tank" or "conservative American Enterprise Institute". A news source occasionally may reveal a tendency toward framing assertions in a liberal or conservative way; AEI is an organization dedicated to promoting their institutional conservative/corporatist bias unapologetically. IMHO, Sommers is a fringe specimen of the category of thinkers we call "feminists". Unlike most feminists (who have day jobs) she's a professional spokesperson backed by a huge money machine which gives her no responsibility other than making fringe assertions and writing fringe screeds. My opinion seems well-founded, based on the sources in her Wikipedia article and a reasonable online search for other sourcing. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty slim pickings, and there'd be no way it would ever be included if reliable sources hadn't mentioned it. It really ought to be identified for what it is: the product of a conservative think tank (who would likely have no problem being labeled as such; "conservative" isn't a slur to be avoided). All three of the sources make note of that, even Kotaku, who updated the article to avoid calling Hoff Sommers herself conservative, as that's apparently not how she identifies.

Do you want to revisit the prospect of including it in the first place?--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

On the merits, I think the Sommers critique small beer, and it doesn't address the sorts of issues often raised in this talk space by concerned game community defenders. Correctly characterizing Sommers's employer as conservative helps identify the fringey aspect of her critique per WP:DUEWEIGHT. For my part, I'm very glad to see ANY negative criticism of the subject which meets WP:IRS, since this is something we've been missing for quite some time and is one of the points upon which page critics harp incessantly. I believe I can identify with some frustrated editors who want to see more critique of the subject but can't find anything outside of YouTube videos. While I understand WP policy on verifiability, the policy seems to some to employ an unfair "double standard". Subject can say pretty much whatever she wants on YouTube, and we occasionally post it, per WP:SELFSOURCE. A multitude of non-notable critics say lots of stuff on YouTube and we're prohibited from reporting on any of it, per WP:NOYT and WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Only if the video gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources (as it happens to be in this case) are we allowed to use the video critique. I suspected that the corner had been turned (that we'd soon be seeing negative critique meeting IRS) the day we started discussing the bomb threats. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree that "conservative" should be added to clarify who they are and why we care. As for the rest, I'm much less concerned about appeasing trigger-happy editors than I am about making sure the very first search engine result about a living person contains the most accurate, neutral, and well sourced information possible. I agree, however, that we're likely to see a variety of additional sources coming out now, which means we can start to phase out the weaker ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree to put "conservative" if we also include that Christina Hoff Sommers is "libertarian-leaning" or "self-described libertarian"; otherwise you'd be implying by WP:SYNTH that she's conservative. Don't forget that Sommers is a living person too. Diego (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to say she's a libertarian, since that's not why she's noteworthy. She's notable as an academic in philosophy, and as a critic of conventional feminism. The Institute, on the other hand, is at its core a conservative think tank. It's a matter of fact that the institute is conservative and that she works for them. None of the 3 sources have any trouble describing it as such.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, and I don't think it's necessary to say the AEI is conservative. We know she went our her way to correct the implication that she is it too, so Kotaku had a problem for implying that she was conservative, to the point that they had to retract what they published; if we repeat the same mistake here it will be a WP:BLP violation so it has no place in the article. Diego (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Kotaku originally said that Hoff Sommers herself was a "Conservative Critic", that's what they changed. They still say the AEI is conservative (in the very footnote where they explain Hoff Sommers doesn't identify personally as conservative). So do both other sources and very many other sources on the AEI in general. Again, it's a matter of fact that the AEI is conservative and that Hoff Sommers works there. Stating those facts is no more suggestive than the reality of the situation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, stating an institution as conservative first within an article not about said institution would strongly imply as such of the person as well, which is not the case. I doubt the right wing leanings of Fox News are always mentioned when quoting a person. That being said, everything else so far so good. Frankly Man (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever suggestion there is about Sommers' politics comes from the fact that she works for a conservative institute, not from us accurately reporting the fact that she works for a conservative institute. It isn't something we can control. Fox News isn't a good comparison; its identity is a media outlet, it just happens to have conservative editorial leanings. The AEI, on the other hand, exists for the sole purpose of promoting conservative philosophy and policy. We wouldn't have a problem saying the Anti-Defamation League was a Jewish organization that fights antisemitism if the context called for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing - the context doesn't call for it. This is just an attempt, conscious or not, to frame negative criticism as antagonistic. If knowing the ideology of people who comment on her was so important, you would have done it for the sources already in the Reception section - as in "progressive feminist Aja Romano from the Daily Dot"[6], "Chris Suellentrop of Liberal-leaning The New York Times"... mentioning that all these came from media with the same ideological line. This didn't happen, so don't tell me that suddenly knowing that her critics are conservative is the most important thing in the world to point out. Using WP:IMPARTIAL tone is critical for neutrality, and double-so for BLPs. Diego (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically Diego's concerns is what I was leaning towards. It seems oddly selective, particularly considering it would technically be the first critical line. Frankly Man (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you continue to miss the point entirely, Diego. The political leanings of the other writers and publications are secondary (at most) to their other qualifications. The New York Times is the paper of record in the United States. Aja Romano is a contributor to the Daily Dot. Hoff Sommers is an academic in the field of philosophy. The AEI, on the other hand, exists entirely as a conservative think tank. "Conservative" is not some kind of slur or "impartial" term we need to fall over ourselves to avoid or hide away, especially considering that every single one of the sources describes it as such. If it was a liberal institute, or a feminist institute, or whatever, it would be the same deal.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I totally understand the point you're making, I simply don't agree with it at all. If you don't believe that mass media publications, and "papers of record" more than anyone, have a vested interest in propagating a particular ideology as a primary goal that tints their whole editorial line, there is very little I might do to convince you; on a totally unrelated note, I'm selling this nifty bridge really close to where you live, may I get you interested in buying it? Diego (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cute, but no, you're apparently not getting it. I'm not saying the other sources don't have biases, I'm saying their biases don't matter for our purpose, which is to briefly indicate who they are and why we care. For the New York Times the "who we are" is "prominent newspaper"; for Hoff Sommers herself it's "academic in philosophy", and for AEI, it's "conservative think tank". It isn't a bias so much as their entire purpose for existing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither I'm saying that you don't believe they're biased. I do understand your point, you think their bias is not relevant, and the one from the think tank is, as if there was some practical difference, and this justified reporting about one kind and not the other. You don't believe the purpose of mass media for existing is biasing their readers in favor of the editorial line (and making a bunch of money in the process). Fine. Let's agree to disagree. Diego (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't understand that comment, but it seems that you're still missing the point. I'm sure we can agree to disagree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

More sources

Sommers video is getting traction in more news sites, see Salon, Kotaku who mention Sarkeesian in their coverage. Diego (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, given the inclusion of the video and notability of the person in question, a mention of Sommers does appear valid however the wording and weight of it must be considered further. While I understand some of the concerns here over the lack of any criticism so fa far for a controversial figure, I am however still concerned with the constant insistence for such content, even though I will assume good faith nonetheless. EDIT: So far after watching the video and the suggestions presented so far seem like a good starting point. Frankly Man (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with including it if that's the consensus, so long as it's 100% accurate. But you're right, the insistence on including any and all negative material is troubling. We also have a wider conversation to get into about due weight: if we include this, what about all the other items, negative or otherwise, that have this level of sourcing or better. Are we really going to include every source that ever mentioned Sarkeesian in passing?

As for the sources, the Salon article doesn't mention this video, and Kotaku has been discussed above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly Man, the insistence is because NPOV urges us to take great care to report all significant points of view, and BLP encourages to adhere strictily to NPOV. We know that a negative POV exists, the argument is to what degree we can form consensus that it's significant. Therefore, each time a new point of view receives coverage in RSs, we are bound to review it and assess its relevance, lest we breach neutrality by omission of significant coverage. This article should withstand scrutiny of conservative readers too, so if there's a chance that a conservative POV is reliably sourced and relevant, our due as encyclopedians is to report it with due weight. There's no honor in enforcing neutrality when you agree with the content, the whole point is defending it even when you despise what has been said. Diego (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What I mean by insistence is rather more "stretching of sources" so to speak. I strongly agree that more critical sources are needed, nonetheless I still prefer to approach this article with scrutiny given the controversial subject matter. That being said everything seems to be on the ball in this instance so far nor have I any qualms with you. I always want to find common ground. Frankly Man (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We also have another issue to hammer out: if we include this, where the hell do we put it? This article's structure has never been hammered out ever since we got stuck with the unnecessary Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork. We have a reception section for Tropes here, but it's basically just an outdated version of the reception section in the fork. Should this be moved to the Tropes article? Included in both places? Why? And where? There's also a "Continued harassment and GamerGate" section here, which could be the right fit, but that's structured as just another subsection of the Tropes section. Do we create another whole section for this one triviality? This article is in a horrible state, in spite of (or because of) all the attention things like this receive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

WRT that concern, here WP:NPOV meets WP:NOTPAPER. If a lot of sources cover the topic from the same angle, the proper thing to do is create a WP:SPLIT article and move those minor details there as a notable angle to cover in more detail, not to reject significant points of view that differ from the more popular one. That a significant, different viewpoint reported in reliable sources, receives less views than a majority one can not be a reason to omit all coverage for it - that's squarely against neutrality; what we do is find the right structure to report it, balancing their relative weights. We do cover fringe and minority views after all if we have reliable information for them, even if it requires that we create new articles to find room.

We had some talk about trimming this article down to an overall introduction and moving details about TV Tropes to its dedicated article, where we can asses the relevance of a reference with respect to the series instead of to the person. That would allows us to let our coverage expand in a natural way from what reliable sources have published, without having to reject some sources only because some other sources exist and we're running out of bits. Diego (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you have brought up the structural issues with the article. Given that the reception section for both articles are directed at the show rather than the person, I would suggest one idea (for now until others are made) that the wording be more about the person or at least separated from the Tropes portion, perhaps merged with the awards/recognition part? Frankly Man (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Now in ThinkProgress as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the structural issues and duplication of the "reactions"/"reception" section: if it is felt that the two articles need to remain separate, and that each article needs to retain a "reactions"/"reception" section, perhaps we could still centralize the content in one article and then wp:transclude it into the other article (see e.g. the "operation timeline" section of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). That would prevent one article from being more out-of-date than the other. -sche (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The guide of style recommends a simple summary in one of the articles, that links to the other. Both articles don't need the same level of detail, and a summary with just the essentials is less likely to become outdated. Diego (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're stuck with the Tropes article for the foreseeable future. I really don't know what to do with this, though it's obviously not optimal that it's in the reception section for the Tropes series here, but not at the actual Tropes article. We definitely need to cover the basics of Tropes here, since it's directly relevant to her bio, but there certainly doesn't need to be a lengthy section on its reception, especially not to cover things not covered over there.

We might could move the line over to the Tropes article, and finally get serious about rewriting this article. I also suppose we could expand the "awards and recognition" into a longer "influence" or "legacy" section, that would include stuff like this, among other things.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A response from Colin Campell at Polygon with many references to Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss the references to Sarkeesian in there:

(in Campbell's view), she 'has provided some of the most detailed, arresting and convincing documentary work ever produced on the cultural role of video games.' This could be added to Reception.
'To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism.' We have this already covered with the previous Polygon article.
'Sarkeesian herself is an object of scorn [by Sommers] and may now presumably be counted within the group of "women who have betrayed women'. This is a new one, could be used if preceded by 'Campbell said'.
Toward the end, something more in-depth: "Anita Sarkeesian's work is compelling and persuasive. More women are playing games, working in games, writing about games and making demands on the people who make games. More feminist commentators are taking the game industry to task. Feminists have made the effort to point out the current crassness of some games, and I find it hard to imagine this will fail to leave a deep impression on game makers and game consumers in the years to come." Maybe it's worth a one-sentence summary, though I can't see how we can work it into the article.

Diego (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This may be okay to use, assuming we clarify whether Polygon itself is generally reliable for the topic. The source is obviously just an opinion piece, which according to the site's editorial policy are not endorsed by the publication (as opposed to, say, a news story or a review). As such, just having an "opinion" put online by Polygon does not establish this is a significant viewpoint. On the other hand, Campbell is a senior reporter for Polygon, ie, not just a freelancer, blogger, or even just a regular reporter, and he seems to be quite widely published in the field. I'd like to hear other opinions on this.

If this were used, it could be to say something to the effect of, "Polygon senior reporter Colin Campbell criticized Hoff Sommers' video and her depiction of Sarkeesian, writing that she mischaracterized Sarkeesian's critiques". He also goes after Hoff Sommers for downplaying the death threats, which may be something we could use. The more in-depth stuff Diego mentions may be something for a reception section, if we take this to be a significant viewpoint.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't adding a critical line right after one other be undue weight considering the reception section is for the article, not Sommer's piece? Like the issue with the conservative mention, it seems odd that out of all of the quotes in the reception, a bulk of criticism and or downplaying is required for this reference and this reference only. Frankly Man (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, not really, this is just the first individual viewpoint we've seen that has drawn critical response of its own in (ostensible) reliable sources. Such responses don't appear to exist for the others, but could perhaps be included if they did. But either way, adding this source at all assumes that it (an opinion piece from Polygon) is even something we can use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I could see the concern of the article being an opinion piece not reflective to cite the website, although I would argue an older Destructoid piece that argues some point but not related to her Tropes work falls into the same category but we decided not use that in the end for similar reasons. Frankly Man (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same. If we use the article, the parts of it that we could use are those saying something about Sarkeesian, not those that analyze Sommer's critique of her. The bits directly about Hoff Sommers would be relevant at Christina Hoff Sommers or GamerGate, or maybe indirectly at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, if we ever find they have enough weight for those topics. In fact most of the Video series section would make more sense moved to Tropes vs Women, and only summarized here. Diego (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot better than that Destructoid piece, in that it was at least published by the site as an opinion piece, and as of now WP:VG/RS lists the site as "generally reliable" for video game topics. So that clears up one of the main concerns about Polygon. As for how to use it, it could potentially be cited for multiple things. But obviously the piece's focus is to criticize Hoff Sommers' video, including her implications about Sarkeesian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Fanart issue revisited

Okay, this got sort of lost in the above and it was not worth hashing out in a broader discussion, but Zero Serenity added this source regarding the fanart matter to the reference page. It does not appear to me that the source was ever brought up in previous discussions. The only reliable source raised previously was an Escapist piece. Given the high quality of this previously unknown source, particularly the fact that it is a rebuttal to the fanart claims, I think it warrants including this matter in the article now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like a minor blurb on what is essentially a non-notable aspect of Sarkeesian's activities. And it was pretty obvious from the start that it fell under fair use. How does this differ from any other peripheral complaints aimed at Feminist Frequencies?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Of the sources presented so far on this issue, this author is by far the best qualified to discuss the subject, and the journal is certainly qualified to host such material. Though a blog, I would agree that this would meet IRS, at least in this situation. The discussion itself seems well-founded and well-considered. However, the source concludes that the artist's claims had virtually no chance to succeed in court. Newman's first determination: "Tammy’s fanart is ineligible for copyright protection under §103(a), and Sarkeesian may copy it at will." Newman then (for the sake of "fun") extends his argument into the hypothetical, just to further discuss relevant issues surrounding fair use. His discussion points out that even had Tammy had any legitimate claim on her derivative images of Daphne, she had no standing to dictate specific ways Sarkessian could use the work as fair use. "Tammy’s rights should not allow her to limit the scope of appropriate discourse about the broader social themes and implications inherent in her work." Newman implies the only people who ever took Tammy's claims seriously (as legitimate legal issues) were themselves seriously mistaken. The source points out this was a non-issue, a tempest in a teapot, from the get-go. Sarkeesian might have contacted Tammy as a courtesy, but was under no legal compulsion to do so. Newman's legal analysis hardly recommends the game community's reaction to Sarkeesian's minor misstep as an episode worthy of inclusion in an online encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not determine inclusion of a claim based on whether someone says they agree with a claim. The existence of such a response in itself goes towards establishing weight. If it is considered a claim worthy of addressing then it suggests it is a claim worthy of inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The complaint itself is insignificant outside the world of die-hard critics of Sarkeesian, though. Nothing has actually come of it, except this minor retort.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

For one thing, it's worth pointing out this isn't some new source previously unavailable to us, in fact it was brought here way back in May;[7] Zero just added it to a page of potential sources. It's an interesting perspective, but it really just gives the author's take on the fan artist's (lack of) legal standing at the time the issue was still unresolved; it doesn't add any new facts. Finally, it was written before the entire issue was mooted and nothing else came from it. The matter already went through an extensive RfC discussion, which found decisive consensus against including the fair use issue in the article. It shouldn't be added without another equally strong consensus in favor of it; that would presumably take some much stronger evidence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion had already been closed at the time the source was added and it does not appear that it was ever discussed, which is what matters. It certainly adds something in that it offers the perspective of a highly-qualified commentator on the matter for a rather significant law journal. We give significant space to a positive review from a low-grade academic, why should someone who graduated in intellectual property law from one of the highest-ranking law schools in that field not be given even just a little space in this article? Incorporate Sarkeesian's response to note how she responded and we have point, counter-point, and resolution. There is a good holistic mention of the issue based on reliable sources and it could be done in one, maybe two, sentences.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't change my opinion from before, especially if this blog post is the best source for the material. The disagreement got barely a mention from reliable sources back when people thought it might come to something, which it never did.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you please stop using the term "blog" as though that means something? The term is only valid policy-wise if you are referring to something that is self-published by a non-expert. Otherwise, shouting "it's a blog" is nothing more than a distraction and appeal to emotion. It was published by a reputable law journal and the author of the piece is clearly qualified to be offering a perspective on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems I overlooked a source mentioned in the previous discussion from The Daily Dot. We also don't seem to need to use Feminist Frequency as a source at all for the removal since there was a second article in the Escapist on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to stop using the well established and perfectly accurate term "blog" for blogs simply because you've decided you don't like it. Especially when the source calls itself a blog, like this one does.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly using the term to suggest a given source is unreliable, even though blogs can be reliable sources so long as any such blog meets our standard criteria. As such it is merely a distraction and appeal to emotion for you, rather than a policy-based argument.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm using accurate terminology used by the source itself. I'm sorry you're allowing it to distress you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So to recap we have four separate pieces from three different reliable sources. One is the Cardozo law journal piece, another is the Daily Dot piece, and then we have two pieces in the Escapist. That seems to be enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

To recap, it's too trivia to include in an encyclopaedia article, as discussed here. If you want to start a new RFC on the matter, please do so. DonQuixote (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

ICYMI, not all of these sources were discussed at the time so the description as "trivial" based on that prior discussion is not valid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We're going in circles. As has been suggested several times in the above discussion, if an editor believes the previous RFC inadequately measured consensus based on available sources, that editor can commence a new request. Since User:The Devil's Advocate's arguments here don't seem to be persuading many, and since the Newman source conclusion seems in line with the outcome of the RFC (that this was a non-issue), I don't see how the outcome of any new process would differ from the old. But that user is welcome to try. BusterD (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If a dozen reliable sources discussed an issue in detail and then said, "this isn't a big deal" it would not mean that we do not mention it. The fact the concern was considered worthy of addressing at all is what matters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering the decisive consensus against including this material before, it shouldn't be added without an equally strong consensus that things have changed based on the "new" material. I don't see that here, in fact quite the opposite. We can either move on to the article's various other needs, or the proposer can take it to dispute resolution, though it seems unlikely the result will be any different.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the source I added was just a source we already had. We discussed this already, and unless you have a new source that even comes close to shining new light on this, it is not even worth our time. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where the Cordozo source was discussed previously, on that page or any other page. Why did you provide the source if you did not support using it?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. For the third time, Zero didn't "provide" the source, it was here for months before they added it to the "sources" list. But regardless, we're discussing it now, and there clearly isn't consensus for adding the fan art dispute to the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I see now it was mentioned on the Tropes talk page, but there appears to be no actual discussion of the source. Rather, I just see you and a few others citing the previous RfC and acting as if nothing new was provided. Still doesn't explain why Zero added it to a list of suggested references if he thought the issue does not belong here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"...But regardless, we're discussing it now, and there clearly isn't consensus for adding the fan art dispute to the article."--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Handwriting University

The sentence "She worked as a seminar coordinator and media contact for Handwriting University." cites

I see some issues with this. Two of the links are press releases and one is self-published, and they just list someone named Anita Sarkeesian in passing. This seems like WP:OR assuming that any mention of "Anita Sarkeesian" is plausible/reliable and referring specifically to the subject of this article. (I haven't checked, but it is conceivable that there's someone else with the name.)

Second, if this is indeed the same Sarkeesian, how is it relevant? Is it really necessary or appropriate to list all the "details of her life"? Trivialist (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If we had some reliable sources commenting on the fact that she'd been there and done that, a weak case might be made that it belongs in a proper warts-and-all bio. But so far, as Trivialist says, that case hasn't been made. Given the unfavorable opinion of most people about handwriting analyst, the insistence on putting in ill-sourced stuff like this seems like you're determined to make her look bad. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is her, no doubt. Neon and Chrome is her old site, which includes the same phone number as the press releases and mentions her involvement in coordinating handwriting analysis seminars. Being self-published is not really a problem since it is just citing her and her employer to prove that she had these jobs. We are allowed to use primary sources for these kinds of details. It is just one sentence. TheRedPenOfDoom has now removed it as "self-promotional", but that is misguided. Nothing within the sources provided is unduly self-serving and the material added to the article is not unduly self-serving. It is literally just noting that she worked for Handwriting University.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Allowed to" doesn't mean "must". This is really going to need some justification to even be considered for inclusion. Assuming this is even the same "Anita Sarkeesian", at most this is just some place that she happened to work; it's not like it's a WP:BLPSELFPUB source she personally wrote, giving encyclopedic biographical information about herself. It's just press releases and whatnot that very tangentially mentioned that someone of this name worked there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I can't even fathom how someone could think this was appropriate for inclusion, let alone to revert it back in multiple times when it had been removed in good faith. They don't even mention Sarkeesian other than to list someone of the name (or just "Anita") in the contacts. Sorry, but this is a ~~WP:BLPPRIVACY~~WP:BLPPRIMARY violation and has no place in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cuch, it's not particularly significant. Koncorde (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a BLPPRIVACY issue. Where she used to work is perfectly valid information to include in a BLP per policy, even when citing her or her employer. Have you even read that policy or do you just like reciting it when you see something you don't like? I am curious why people are so resistant to this rather meager sentence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Typo. I meant WP:BLPPRIMARY and this is a clear cut violation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think this is important enough to include? Is Sarkeesian a handwriting expert? Has she been involved with anything related to handwriting? Are reputable secondary sources saying that this is anywhere near notable? Frankly, this is far more trivial than any of the other trivial matters that were brought up (and those were negative bits of trivial--see this and this). DonQuixote (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently negative about the information, however. Prior work experience is not trivial either, at least when it is of such duration. It is important because it is part of her professional background.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How is it important to her professional background? Again...is Sarkeesian a handwriting expert? Has she been involved with anything related to handwriting? Are reputable secondary sources saying that this is anywhere near notable? Saying that you think it's important doesn't make it so, you have to show that it's important, otherwise it's trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of that in the case of disagreement, WP:BURDEN is on the editor intending insertion to make a case, and that page consensus as mustered on talk determines whether that editor has met the burden of appropriate WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I don't see anything even vaguely approaching that threshold here. BusterD (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I intended to make the concluding point that "I am curious why people are so resistant to this rather meager sentence" is a very poor argument, since nobody here is required to indulge that curiosity. On the other hand, per BURDEN, inserting editor is compelled to make a case convincing to other editors, and so far hasn't done it. BusterD (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources written by the source may be useable, in some circumstances, when they provide material of some encyclopedic interest about themselves. Releases by employers don't cut it, especially when they give no information about the subject beyond including them (or someone else of the name) in the contacts. But yes, even if this did fall into the category of self-published sources we could potentially use, the burden of evidence is on the one introducing it to find consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Her old website, which I included in the External Links, notes her role as a seminar coordinator as well: [8]. Given that seminars are a big part of the work she does for her site Feminist Frequency it is actually related to her notability in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

you are suggesting that we build her CV for her? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You didn't link that page before, for one thing. For another, perhaps I'm not seeing everything, since that's just an archive of a defunct site, but I don't see anything about Handwriting University, just coordinating seminars. You seriously want to use a defunct website as evidence that this information is noteworthy?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All the handwriting and forensic document examination seminars were associated with Handwriting University. What makes it noteworthy is that it is part of her professional background and is relevant to what she does today, which is not too dissimilar.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When my mother was about 19, she got a secretarial job for the cult group Psychiana, which was headquartered in her home town of Moscow, Idaho. When I think of my mother's life, her association with that cult is utterly insignificant to her real life story. It was just a teenage job. We need real evidence that this handwriting analysis is a significant part of Sarkeesian's life story. I am just not seeing it here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:SYN. If you can find a reliable secondary source which references that page, we could build content using the secondary source, and possibly linking to the page. As it stands, you are beating your own drum without regard to policy. aprock (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)