Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Pieces discussing general criticism

Although not pieces directly offering criticism there are articles in The New Statesman and Bustle that provide examples of common critiques levied at Sarkeesian and her work with rebuttals for each point. Some of it more rightly belongs in the Tropes article, but certain details are more concerned with Sarkeesian herself. New Statesman is obviously a reliable source. Bustle is a relatively new outlet, but the author of the piece does appear to have experience in journalism and the outlet has a decent-sized editorial team.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are very good findings! They analyze what many editors have been complaining as missing in the article - the criticism that people from the general public outside reliable sources (like the infamous thunderf00t video) have been addressing at Sarkeesian. The Bustle.com piece largely follows the same line as NewStateman, so it should be reliable if used as a WP:RSOPINION. Diego (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe Ian Steadman's piece in the New Statesman has come up before, and yes, it should be included. I'm not familiar with Bustle.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some additional pieces concerning criticism: [1] [2] [3]. Another point of interest is all of those sources, and the New Statesman source, explicitly mention YouTuber Thunderf00t's video. There is a Bright Side of News source that might be warranted, mentioning some of the backlash against her critics including the aforementioned YouTuber being blocked on Twitter. Bright Side does seem like it may be a reliable source, though I think we could only justify a minor mention of that incident as part of a longer sentence discussing Thunerf00t's video or general backlash against critics of Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite looking pretty unprofessional, The Asian Age seems to be a fairly prominent and widely cited Indian newspaper.[4] On the other hand, the source has no byline, so we don't know anything about the author.[5] It does say at the bottom, "With inputs from Somudra Banerjee", and this person has written a lot for the site, but without more information on the author(s), I'm skeptical of this one. Nothing on WP:RS/N, either. I can't find much about Inquisitr or their editorial policies, or about this author, Joseph Medina.[6] It appears they invite anyone to join their "expanding team of authors".[7] Also nothing relevant on WP:RS/N; I'm pretty skeptical of this one. VentureBeat seems to be a fairly well regarded blog-style news site focusing specifically on "technology innovation".[8] Previous discussions on WP:RS/N have found articles from it reliable.[9] The article is by Jeff Grubb, a reporter for the site specializing in video games.[10][11] The source looks like it should be reliable to me. Finally, www.brightsideofnews.com doesn't give me any confidence at all. The author claims no particular credentials,[12] and is not listed in their professional staff.[13]

TL;DR version: VentureBeat yes, Asian Age maybe, Inquistr maybe, and brightsideofnews.com no.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Asian Age is obviously reliable as a major Indian news outlet. Not even sure why you are questioning it. With regards to Inquisitr, they appear to require applicants to have at least three previously published works before they will be considered. It is therefore not surprising that a large number of their staff are either credentialed journalists or long-time writers. Clearly they are not setting a low bar for prospective writers and can thus be seen as reliable. As far as Bright Side, the author's LinkedIn page provides a long list of previous gaming news outlets where he has worked.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm questioning the sources for the reasons I gave. For Inquisitr, it seems to be a fine source for some things, but without clearer information about its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and the reliability of the publication and the author for directly relevant topics, its status as a "significant viewpoint" on the subject can't be assumed out of hand. At any rate, it doesn't really offer much the other sources don't say already.

As for brightsideofnews, I can't find anything at all about its editorial policies or its reputation, which doesn't bode well for it. They list an editorial staff, but they note they invite anybody to write for them and don't indicate how they exert editorial oversight. Again, the writer is not listed in their editorial staff, strongly suggesting he's just another one of those "anybodies", and he doesn't claim any other credentials as a journalist with a potentially "significant viewpoint".[14] This is especially an issue considering he makes potentially significant claims about living people that don't appear in the real reliable sources (that the Youtuber got booted from Twitter for his videos criticizing Sarkeesian; that Sarkeesian herself was responsible for this somehow, etc.) I don't see any way that this would be acceptable to source BLP material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I provided you with a link to Strickland's credentials above. He has worked at numerous gaming news outlets. As to allegations against Sarkeesian, Strickland does not make that allegation. Thunderf00t made the allegations and the report presents it as such with a statement that it is unclear she had anything to do with it. With regard to inviting anyone to contribute they have a page where you can send them a piece (with sources included), but it has to be reviewed by the editorial team. Inquisitr is widely cited in books and other outlets, has pieces republished by BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post, and has sufficiently stringent standards for accepting writers to where they are nearly all experienced writers. Seems to me there is no good reason to question their reliability. I see no comment from you on Asian Age and why you are so skeptical of an international Indian daily.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I already answered that in my first response. On brightsideofnews, your link further confirms the above suspicions. They'll take any submission and make no indication that they do anything as far as "fact checking or accuracy" is concerned, or even that they pay the "contributors", they merely say they'll decide whether to run it or give credit. This looks effectively like self publishing. This is more of a problem as the source makes some potentially serious BLP claims, which seem to be what you wanted to include in the article: he claims that the Youtuber was suspended for his videos criticizing Sarkeesian, and (following the Youtuber), he suggests Sarkeesian herself was responsible for the suspension. Those are big claims, but neither seems to be mentioned in reliable sources. If it's really important to the article subject, better sources will pick it up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You haven't really given a satisfactory answer on anything. It seems to me that your approach changes depending on what you need to do exclude material you don't like. Dismissing an Indian newspaper as a reliable source with little comment is honestly kind of suspicious. Your statement about Bright Side is ridiculous and wrong. Nowhere does the author of the piece actually suggest Sarkeesian was responsible, he states that Thunderf00t made this allegation, but it is not clear if this is true or not. As to their submission guidelines, your nit-picking on what they state is just absurd. Many news outlets that accept submissions do not explicitly outline how they check a submitted piece. The fact Bright Side demands sources, suggests they want verification of any claims made in a piece. What I see is you, once more, trying to come up with any excuse you can conjure to not accept material you don't like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat favorable to the suggestion of naming Thunderf00t in this article. But only in the context of descriptions of him being part of the "cloud of people who follow behind [misogynist abuse and harassment], thinking they're being so clever pointing out her 'lies'"[15], of course. Because the only media "backlash" involved here is straightforward (though stinging) rebukes by mainstream journalists of anti-feminist conspiracy theorists with zero recognition in the field of media studies. You know, the same way we would treat Sarkeesian if she began publishing YouTube rants about chemtrails or how vaccination causes autism. I assume this is what you had in mind, Advocate.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I for one would agree to mention Thunderf00t following that approach. Sticking closely to the words of the various sources we have, of course. Diego (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with including it too, and in fact it can be done without adding every random source TDA digs up. Both the Venture Beat source and the lesser Inquisitr source write that the 2014 harassment seems to have been inspired by "Thunderfoot's" video. The Asian Age source mentions Thunderfoot as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Asian Age does not attribute the harassment to Thunderf00t, nor does Bright Side, nor does The New Statesman. I find it convenient that you are suddenly not so skeptical of Inquisitr upon seeing that you can use it to serve your own POV. You have not meaningfully addressed my points about Bright Side and have completely ignored my point about the author's background in gaming journalism.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please. I've explained the issues with the sources in detail, I'm not going to repeat myself again simply because you like bickering. If you want to start talking about editors' "POVs" we can start with yours.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You haven't really explained the issues at all. What you have done is make some rather bizarre criticisms such as arguing over whether Strickland is a member of the staff, rather than discussing his overall experience in gaming journalism, or nit-picking that the site does not explicitly lay out how the editorial staff check each piece submitted to them while ignoring that they require pieces to include sources for their claims. The only thing you ever said about a major Indian newspaper is that the correspondent is not named, ignoring that it is a major Indian newspaper with editorial staff and all that jazz. With Inquisitr you were ready to dismiss it even after I pointed out the large number of professional journalists on staff and their stringent requirements for any prospective writer, but changed your tune when someone suggested the source could be used to attack Thunderf00t.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've explained the issues repeatedly and in considerable detail, you just refuse to hear it. I'm done with your personal comments and aspersions. If you have a problem with other users' conduct, quit bogging down the article talk page and take it to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Though of course that's going to bring your conduct under scrutiny as well, and someone with your edit history here really isn't going to enjoy that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Advocate, no one "attributes harassment" to Thunderf00t, but try reading Steadman's piece a bit more carefully. It's the one that has "anti-feminist nonsense" in the title. It refers to Thunderf00t's video's as "masterclasses in substituting smug for substance" and places him at the head of a group of non-notable gamers who "pander childish ideas of what debate and critique are". And he clearly states that Sarkeesian's abusers are "explicitly influenced by the crap that presents itself as objective critique". Again, no "attribution", but a clearly expressed opinion that it's about attacking Sarkeesian, not merely criticizing her ideas.

So I don't really see where you're going with this. If we ever mention obscure individuals like Thunderf00t or the "Owen/Taurini Team", it will be as bumptious crackpots who provide moral support for harassment and death threats. Because that's exactly how they're perceived by mainstream journalists.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where Thunderf00t is referred to as a crackpot or anything of the sort. The responses are more like, "So what if Sarkeesian was not really a gamer before doing this, that does not mean her points are not valid" or "This is not cherry-picking because it is pulling out examples of tropes used in games and not meant as a critique of each work as a whole." Such arguments amount to conceding the evidence, but disagreeing with the interpretation. Not suggesting we don't note the criticism of her critics, but if you are suggesting the views of her critics not be mentioned at all then that is a problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo's comment is an accurate summary of what the source says about "Thunderfoot". If we are to mention Thunderfoot based on the source, that's pretty much what we'll be saying.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither Asian Age nor Venture Beat nor The Inquisitr make any claims about the veracity of Thunderf00t's critique from my reading. The New Statesman piece is more opinionated, but the author hardly treats Thunderf00t's views as akin to conspiracy theories. He simply disagrees with them and considers them nonsense for various reasons. Bright Side is actually sympathetic to Thunderf00t's arguments. One source out of five is hardly sufficient to suggest we only treat Thunderf00t's claims as mad ravings that only serve as fodder for misogynistic harassers.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Asian Age[16] briefly mentions Thunderf00t as an inspiration and then refers to level-headed Indian critics who refer to Sarkeesian as "a necessary first step". And that's a single video game example from dozens. Then it goes on to refer to commentators that says she's basically 100% right and that video game designers are reproducing deeply problematic gender stereotypes. Venture Beat[17] points to an issue with Hitman: Absolution as "a factual discrepancy or potential mistake", but then immediately (as in the next sentence) points to the absurdity of calling her a liar and that claims like this has "emboldened" harassers. Inquistr[18] refers directly to the Venture Beat piece and draws the exact same conclusion, saying Thunderf00t's claims are used as "leverage from which to spout even more hate against Sarkeesian".

Your interpretation of these texts as you present them is hopelessly biased towards whitewashing virulently anti-Sarkeesian opinions from amateurs who mostly lack notability. Steadman's piece[19] is likely the most detailed and has the most clout as a source, but you choose to overlook a barrage of comments that portray Thunderf00t as part of a group of ranting fools.

The piece in BSN[20] that actually supports Thunderf00t is the real "one in five" here. It's focsed on sympathy because of perceived wrongdoing by Twitter and raises some very iffy speculation about Sarkeesian's involvement in a supposed "retaliation". This is pure, unsubstantiated editorializing about facts, not levelheaded commentary regarding media criticism. It only has a thin veneer of "not saying I have any kind of proof, but you have to wonder"-arguments. Otherwise it's actually hinting at conspiracies. Even if you factor in this source, which is an obvious gray area of reliability, it's clear that Thunderf00t can never be included here as a serious commentator. And, yes, it is quite likely he will also be mentioned alongside hateful clowns like Jordan "[I don't think] her labia probably looks like roast beef sliding off a plate"[21] Owen.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have very strong opinions regarding this subject. Right in this comment you are misrepresenting Asian Age by singling out the "necessary first step" line regarding the opinion of two gaming journalists, ignoring that the preceding paragraph consisted of one of those gaming journalists essentially agreeing with Thunderf00t's arguments. Here you say it goes on to have people saying she is "basically 100% right" despite the journalist I mentioned and another who merely said "most" of her statements were correct. Stating that his criticism fuels hateful individuals or harassers, does not mean we attack him or treat him like a fringe voice when the sources do not really portray him that way. In fact, he is saying things that are very similar to Christina Sommers. We cannot present these as fringe voices.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is it you want to include here? You aren't being at all clear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my first comment when mentioning these sources was clear enough and I am also making it clear what I think should not be included.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not, and this isn't going anywhere. Please suggest some specific wording, or we can move on to something else.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Content suggestion

I tried writing up a summary of Ian Steadman's piece in the New Stateman:[22]

Sarkeesian has been the target of extensive criticism from vocal members of the online gaming community through self-published YouTube editorials, posts on forums like Reddit and a crowdfunded documentary-style exposé. The gaming community criticism has focused on accusations that Sarkeesian has been profiting personally from her Kickstarter campaign, exaggerating or even encouraging documented abuse or that she lacks understanding of video games by not being a genuine gamer. This has been described as "anti-feminist nonsense" and has been closely associated with the outright harassment and abuse and that "most violent and dangerous threats are explicitly influenced by the crap that presents itself as objective critique".

Not sure if this is the best wording, but I believe something like this would be a pretty relevant addition to the article. The gaming community's views on this are obviously considered about as credible as those of truthers regarding 9/11, but it seems worthy to mention this. Especially if we include the not-overly-notable response by Christina Hoff Summers.
Peter ^Isotalo 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

wikt:IFYPFY [23]. -sche (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty good, though I think it needs a little work. Steadman goes through three major points that Sarkeesian's critics typically fall back to:

• That she was "dishonest" about her intentions, and uses, or even encourages, her abuse in order to gain money (for the Kickstarter project) or sympathy
• That she isn't a "real" "gamer"
• That she exaggerates or cherry-picks episodes from games to make her point.

Steadman criticizes each of these points in turn:

• The first he regards as "classic victim blaming"; writes that there is overlap between those who make this claim and those who cause the abuse in the first place; and notes that men rarely have to face this type of thing while women do
• The second point he regards as baseless and irrelevant
• On the third point, he writes that the critics miss the point entirely, as she is talking about tropes within and across games, not making wider judgments of individual games: she "only presents sections of games as sexist because she's only talking about the sexist bits of games, and how, of the tropes developers choose to put in their games when designing for female characters, they frequently fall back on sexist ones. Seriously, she couldn't be clearer about this..."

The Bustle article by Chris Tognotti mentions the same three points of criticism, and offers similar critiques of each of them. He also adds a fourth about critics that claim they're not misogynous (he thinks they really are mostly misogynous). Steadman touches on this as well, but this one's a little less clear. I think we can do few sentences about how the criticism comes out (youtube, blogs, Reddit and social media, etc) and the main things it focuses on (that she dishonestly uses the abuse to garner money for her series and sympathy; that she's not a "gamer"; and that she exaggerates or cherry-picks evidence). Then we can add Steadman's, and perhaps Tognotti's responses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How usable is Bustle? I actually wanted to integrate it in the suggestion above, but I couldn't actually determine how established the site is.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bustle appears to be a fairly-reputable site targeting a female audience and I think the article is acceptable here as proposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think Bustle is okay. When it launched, the content was all written by unpaid community bloggers (like other sources discussed and rejected here before) and the site was mocked by other media. However, its reputation and writing seem to have improved dramatically since then.[24][25] Now they list an editorial staff. They accept pitches from freelancers, but they list editorial procedures for how they would include the content. But either way, this writer (Chris Tognotti) isn't a freelancer, he's part of their writing staff, meaning this article should have at least that level of oversight. Before Bustle, he seems to have been on the staff of the erstwhile The Daily. And of course, it's a site that focuses on women's issues and interests, so if it's taken as reliable generally it should be reliable for this topic specifically.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this paragraph will have the intended effect. It reads a bit too much like it is lending credence to her (admittedly false) accusers instead of damning them. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would have merit with quotes like "most violent and dangerous threats". I don't believe it lends credence as much as underlines that the only strong criticism against Sarkeesian comes from people who are out to destroy her. Except they're not doing it through outright abuse. But I'm not adamant about inclusion. I'd be happy to wait until it surfaces in more notable publication. If ever...

Peter ^Isotalo 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be all right to include, with the caveat that these journalists specifically challenge the claims. We'd need to be careful to cover what they're saying accurately, both concerning the criticisms, and their criticisms of the criticisms.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

Destructoid has a writer who criticised some ideas she threw out in an interview. I'm not sure how relevant this is.

"I agree that game writers shouldn’t be so quick to call everything sexist, that the message should be more positive rather than negative. But I think people are too riled up over cultural critics and commenters like Anita Sarkeesian, who are just one voice among many." Forbes

Basically half of this article is criticism of Anita Sarkeesian.

Willhesucceed (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The Destructoid piece has been discussed numerous times here and it's not an acceptable source for this article. The Forbes source is from the site's blog section, which is a venue for writers to publish their own material with little if any editorial oversight.[26] It's not an acceptable source for any material on living people per WP:BLPSPS. As for viralglobalnews.com, as I said at Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, I don't know anything about the site, but the fact that they recently ran an article on the "Purge" hoax as if it were real doesn't speak very well about their op-eds criticizing other peoples' journalism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about VGN's unreliability. How embarrassing. As for the other sources, I see where you're coming from. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Always feel free to bring new sources for the community to vet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of Phil Mason's criticisms is now warranted by virtue of the reliable sources which have been mentioned in this talk page so far. Sentences relating to Wikipedia's restrictions on self-published material are also warranted in order to alert the reader that prominent material exists that Wikipedia is at present unable to cover.Bramble window (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are never mentioned in articles in that manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not a cogent argument against properly informing the reader about the topic she has chosen to inform herself on. I request you link to wikipedia policy sources explicitly barring mention of wikipeida policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Fight Club. I proposed that entirely relevant information be included in the article. You have made no case whatsoever to the contrary.Bramble window (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to cite a self-published source's opinions on a living person per WP:BLPSPS, nor are we going to explain internal Wikipedia policy in the content of an article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Again I request you link to wikipedia policy sources explicitly barring mention of wikipeida policy. I question the policy basis for such a ban.Bramble window (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bramble window, there are some legitimate problems with the article that could be remedied with discussion on this talk page. General sources involving criticism would be that mark. But what you're asking for will not happen, and for good reason. Imagine on the Communism page is there were a note saying 'We'd discuss more about how Communism is literally pure evil, but we're confined to Wikipedia's due weight policy on the matter'. It's POV and it's basically trying to say that 'We know that Wikipedia policy doesn't support it but we want it in the article anyways'. Reason why there's no absolute guideline or policy to disallow it is because it's adequately covered under WP:NPOV. Now, there is a discussion to be had about Phil Mason's criticism in this article. (Though honestly, why it would go in Anita's article I'll never know. This is a Bio and should only gently touch upon Tropes V Women, it should be discussed on that page instead.) But I assume it's because Anita's page is patrolled by a hawk and more participation will be held here. You're welcome to participate on the talk page here on the section above. Tutelary (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For starters, per the verifiability policy, you'd need a reliable, published source indicating that internal Wikipedia inclusion criteria are somehow significant to the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I did mention that in my 'General sources involving criticism' would be that mark. There have been a select few and those should be examined and purused to find more. Tutelary (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That communism talk is a false, strawman analogy. Reference to Mason's work is not in any way comparable to a blatantly non-neutral stance such as "XYZ is pure evil".

As we know, enough reliable sources have pointed to the existence of Thunderf00t's work and its significant input into causing/heightening the wave of negative commentary against Sarkeesian, some of which crossed the line into harassment.

The importance of Phil Mason in this story is established merely by looking at the reliable sources.

The reliable sources are weak on the detail or even sketchy outline of Mason's criticism and the absence of such an outline is going to be very weird to a reader uninformed as to the finer points of what's permissible in Wikipedia. It is entirely normal for an encyclopedia to say "XYZ is largely beyond the scope of this article, though its relevance to the article's subject is undisputed". It is good academic practice to be upfront and honest about the limitiations imposed on you. What's more you appear to be misrepresenting the content of the NPOV article you linked.

The issue here is that Phil Mason's videos are an integral part of the controversy, but they are so poorly described in the reliable sources that the only honest, neutral course is to refer clearly to their existence while being clear with the readers why the sources don't allow us to give the needed detail. Bramble window (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to get into an explanation of internal Wikipedia policy in an article, unless reliable, published sources have said it's somehow relevant to the subject. Which they haven't. And we certainly aren't going to say anything about anyone that doesn't appear in reliable published sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that mention of policy to the reader needs an external source. I'd like to hear a specific quote that permits such a dramatic interpretation. Quite a lot of editors are making surprising claims about the contents of policy documents that, once perused, prove not to say anything of the kind. Bramble window (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is moving away from discussing the actual article. If you're confused about Wikipedia policies, please visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. Also read WP:BETTER and WP:NDA. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bramble, the guideline covering mentions of policy within articles is MOS:SELFREF. Diego (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, Diego. Finally someone has a cogent, policy-based argument in opposition to my point, I appreciate well-founded criticism. If only there were more of that. However, having read your link it is clear that while a direct reference to Wikipedia is indeed specifically barred, self-reference is assuredly not banned. I quote directly from the policy link: "References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable. For instance, in the article on the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, before the alleged victim's identification, it said that "Due to concerns over privacy, the name of the alleged victim is not being included in this article or at this time." That is a reference that makes sense on mirrors and forks and in print, and makes sense in a copy of Wikipedia that contains only the article space. Examples also include disambiguation links and "See also" links." In that vein, we can say to the reader something along the lines of "Criticism of Sarkeesian exists (give links, name Mr Mason). Due to concerns over the self-published nature of Mr Mason's work, a detailed description of the content of his criticism is not being included in this article or at this time". This fully satisfies the actual policy as described in the article while informing the reader of the critic's existence and giving an explanation for why the criticism is not being described. I repeat, this is within the boundaries of what wikipedia has seen fit to place in its policy documents.Bramble window (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The absence of content from an article does not imply that the information does not exist. There's no need to inform users of information's existence. Moreover, WP:EL prohibits use of external links within articles and those links would fail WP:ELNO anyway. Also WP:BLPEL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the ELNO link you just posted? Let me point out the exception therein: "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." Regardless, a simple reference to Mason/Thunderf00t with the Wikipedia-approved caveat of "Due to concerns over the self-published nature of Mr Mason's work, a detailed description of the content of his criticism is not being included in this article or at this time"Bramble window (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying the Thunderf00t link is "[a]ny site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"? Because that's the first part of the section you quoted. In any case, no matter what ELNO loophole you feel applies, per WP:BLPEL we will not be including the link, with or without a caveat message. Woodroar (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Feminist Frequency

• Sarkeesian is the creator of the video blog "Feminist Frequency"

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement anymore. FF has morphed into a 501(c)(3) and has turned into a bit more than a blog on an obscure corner of the internet. What would work here? Should we replace video blog with 501(c)(3)? Should we mention it later in this paragraph as (I think) it is a new thing for this? Anyone got relevant information handy? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still a kind of vlog. If you want to point out that it's now also a non-profit organization, add "and nonprofit organization". The US tax code jargon isn't particularly reader-friendly.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No reliable sources discuss it as a non-profit organization as far as I know. Feminist Frequency is really only known for the video blog and Anita Sarkeesian's involvement with it. She only registered it as a non-profit because she relies on donations to run her video blog rather than advertising.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You complain about no RS, the spout your mouth on speculation without a source. Your statement is so hypocritical I wonder if you noticed. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you upset about exactly? It is clear that Feminist Frequency is really just the video blog and associated website and is known as such rather than as some non-profit organization. There do appear to be a very small number of sources that briefly note it is registered as a non-profit organization so maybe we can mention that in the article body. If you are suggesting that we replace every instance of "video blog" with "non-profit organization" then I oppose that particular change. Maybe we can justify calling it a "non-profit video blog", but calling Feminist Frequency a "non-profit organization" is stretching it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a bigger focus on the critism rather than just the harrasment

This article comes off a little biased. I'm not talking about the character assassination stuff, just the critism of her content. The article includes praise for her work, and rightly so, but I think it's wrong to exclude the negative opinions of her work too. There are example in gaming media, I remember a video by the Escapiest (No right answer) for example. As it is it paints it as just praise and harassment which is inaccurate. Halfhat (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed No Right Answer from the Escapist and the consensus was not to include. So, if you can find something that passes WP:RS for general criticism, we welcome it. Sofar, none have passed that test. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What about this? http://gamesided.com/2014/09/08/sarkeesian-truth-part-1-straw-feminist-trojan-horse-censorship/ I really don't have time for a proper search now. Halfhat (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We also discussed that and basically dismissed it as complete nonsense. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to dismiss sources you don't like as "complete nonsense" because there are standards. Holt is a professional journalist with significant credentials and pieces on GameSided are subject to full editorial control. One of the main arguments is that the piece was "undue", but with all the sources we have discussing and mentioning criticism from various other prominent figures it is clear that is no longer the case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And you don't get to insert sources there's no consensus for, because there are standards. The source was discussed here, and there was no consensus to include it based on WP:IRS and WP:WEIGHT.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this source either as I am dubious in regards to its notability and weight. However I don't think we should call other views "complete nonsense". Frankly Man (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge number of websites that offer criticisms of her thought and approach which should certainly warrant a general criticism section. The criticisms shouldn't have to come from only once source only, a collection of sources should be appropriate. As of the right now, it appears from the article the only people have disagreements with Anita are crazed psychopathic misogynists. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Xcuref1endx. After reading the article, I came to the impression that anyone who criticizes Sarkeesian is actually just "harassing" her. Plenty of journalists and scholars have found legitimate reasons to disagree with her and rebut her arguments. Some editors here need to stop nitpicking what goes into certain articles while not caring about what goes into other articles. yonnie (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Complain all you wish, until somebody produces a reliable source, there is no reason to change anything. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources or there's nothing to discuss.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is complaining? I am beginning to suspect bad faith amongst some of the editors here who are trying to insure a specific POV of this article. Suggesting that there should be a criticism section isn't unwarranted. Anyone who makes their name known by providing analysis and opinions are bound to have detractors. There are hundreds of articles like this http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/08/tropes-vs-anita-sarkeesian-passing-anti-feminist-nonsense-critique, are they responding to non existent complaints? --Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, suggesting there should be a "criticism section" IS unwarranted. We do not give undue weight to minority opinions for the sake of false "balance", particularly calling them out in a stand alone section -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are "hundreds" you should have no trouble presenting them. That one source you've provided has been discussed before (please check the previous threads before starting a new one) and it would be useful for explaining what the criticism is, and moreover, for the author's opinion that it's all "nonsense". This source is similar. There are also several sources already for the Hoff Sommers video.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

yeah that is my point. These people are responding to criticism. Criticism you are saying does not exist. What are they responding to then? --Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying it doesn't exist or that those sources shouldn't be used. You're grasping at straws.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

His point is that even though those articles exist, as does this article, also this, and this, and this too, other editors continue to disregard them using adjectives such as "nonsense", "minority opinion", "false" or "weak", all of which are entirely subjective on editor's part. Even suggesting things like " I suspect open carry rights activists will now be antagonistic to the subject and her works" as if trying to paint her objectors AND open carry rights activists as violent or crazed. Totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. There is a lot of bad faith to be found among this talk page. yonnie (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody brought up open carry activists until you did. We only stick to what follows as WP:RS for WP:BLP. You have brought up two sources that have yet to show reliability. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see this section and read User:BusterD's comment. This is who brought up open carry activists. How do you decide "reliability"? yonnie (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is pretty clear. We don't give views from lower quality sources the same WP:WEIGHT as views found in superior sources, and if the sources aren't reliable and noteworthy, like those, they don't get included at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Who decides what is a "superior" source? This is why I have become less active on Wikipedia over the years. The "reality" of a subject can be manipulated by whatever is decided to be the "superior" source of information. Do you not understand how dangerous this is? The true reality of the situation, as with most situations politically and philosophically, is that it is not black and white. We as editors should be striving to present reality, not what the best known, trendiest online news outlets and journalists (essentially glorified bloggers) have to say. You're suggesting that information should not be included until a website with a lot of traffic writes something about it. yonnie (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Original research

This article fails to bring out all of the research is original and not peer-reviewed, no statistical analysis, nothing, just opinion. Please add that part to the article othervice its misleading as it makes her look like an expert on the subject matter which she is clearly not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well. The irony is strong with this one. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Welp i am dumb i found some of her sources (just some, she leaves alot out, like saying "the more you think it wont effect you the more it effects you". Sry for bringing it up. Part is still original research for her (Redacted), but there is no wikipedia standard sources for that so i can see why its not in here (Hitman). Admins feel free to delete this if they see it neccesary, i apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Terror threat

In the news today: she cancelled an event because of a terror threat (link). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Have another. I'd let the wind blow a bit more before including this information though. Maybe wait until 20:00 GMT or so. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent sources. And Sarkeesian thought she'd been treated roughly up until now by some of the male gaming community; I suspect open carry rights activists will now be antagonistic to the subject and her works (but that's just my opinion). BusterD (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Me thinks there's a lotta overlap between those two and between them and MRAs... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the SLT source linked by the LAT article. Here's CNET, Deseret News, Washington Times. We now have several solid sources, including several major newspapers. I suspect this is about to get much more political. BusterD (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A threat of domestic terrorism is of course gonna get more media attention. I do agree we should wait until this "matures" more before adding it. Want to avoid WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

here's a link to the guardian article on it. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

missing source

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

The above comment reminds me of birtherism. In other words, I shall not be entertaining you. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIO states that the facts do matter, no matter what they remind you of. 97.117.183.196 (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

All that matters is what the sources say. There are several giving this information and it's cited perfectly well in the article already. There's nothing more to do here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources do not. 97.117.183.196 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Just double checked, and the sources do indeed indicate she's a Canadian-American of Armenian descent, and identifies as such. Unless there's somehow a source that contradicts this trivial information, there's nothing more that can possibly be said here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Why? WP:NPOV does not nor will it ever require such an artificial ratio. We attempt to gather the best information available from the most reliable sources, then let the reader reach their own conclusions. We are under no obligation whatsoever to go out and find things that don't exist or are quite rare. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

These recent edits removed a clear rebuttal to the "stealing Kickstarter money" claim (in effect softening that rebuttal) and also introduced an unsourced claim that Sarkeesian was somehow slow in contacting the police. (I'm not sure why this matters, but perhaps User:PizzaMan can advise us.) I reverted the edit but the editor reverted back. While I feel these are BLP claims, I'd rather not risk a block on an article under discretionary sanctions.

To answer your question, no, we do not attempt to maintain a false balance, especially on BLP articles. Woodroar (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no reason to remove said information as it is well sourced, I have put it back. Pizza, take your bias and leave. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Determining balance is done by considering all the available reliable sources for a topic and giving them each proportionate weight. Material from stronger sources receive more weight, material from weaker sources gets less weight, and material that doesn't appear in reliable sources gets no weight at all. Removing reliable, noteworthy sources is not an acceptable course of action, please do not do it again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Front page of the New York Times

Yeah. I guess that means she made it? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What relevance is this to the article? yonnie (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is largely about her and the whole controversy nonsense around her. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously asking how coverage of the subject by the New York Times could be relevant to the article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACKING

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

Agreed. The "no imminent threat" assessment should be coming from independent authorities. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's basically standard practice to reassure people "there was no imminent threat" after such threats... that information is not relevant to Sarkeesian's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Correct campaigns to reveal THE TRUTH^TM have no place in Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And "big editors" who establish a policy consensus get their way. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not downplaying the threats against Sarkeesian. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

So? That the University released a self serving statement AFTER Sarkeesian made the decision. What prey tell does that have to do with the subject of this article: Sarkeesian? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a WP:COATRACK. There's no reason to mention this out-of-context fact in her biography, absent a much longer and more detailed accounting of the incident. The reliable sources covering the incident did not use USU's press-release language in their reports, which suggests that they similarly considered it to be, at best, somewhat self-serving in terms of downplaying the risk. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, the statement has police info, it is definitely worth, why hide this info? Javier2005 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What does "this info" - a post hoc standard issue self serving claim of no "imminent threat" - have to do with the subject of this article about a living person? Keep in mind that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Tempers seem high this morning. While I didn't insert the USU press release material, I did support its inclusion by adding context and moving a single source's first appearance. (The section is not very well sourced, considering the vast number of reliable sources reporting on this incident.) For my part, I don't have the same objection to insertion that some other editors seem to have. The USU source, while lacking independence, (IMHO) can be considered a reliable source for the purpose of describing the university's response to the threat. New User:Javier2005's repeated insertion without gaining consensus here on talk has tended to discredit that new user. That user's arguments have not convinced editors here on talk to include the quotation, and I bow to consensus, once my position is stated. But speaking as an editor who has been (at least on talk) long a defender of this page against frequent trolling by critics of the subject, I think the actions of several editors here step over a line between disagreement and reflexive dismissiveness. I for one applaud the statement of admin User:Nyttend here, while it's clear that admin's labeling of "stale" was way premature. One newbie's insistence on insertion should not cause more experienced editors to ignore rules of civility (not to bite newbies). There has been exhibited in this case a sense of urgency not warranted by the uncritical if not perfectly neutral source provided. BusterD (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the "no credible threat" assertion should come from independent sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Newbies do not get a free pass to make WP:COATRACKS of articles to push their personal agendas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's something revealing about the above two responses, IMHO. First, the phrase "no creditable threat" doesn't appear in the source; that's a (perhaps Freudian) synthesis by User:NeilN. The phrase used was "imminent threat", and that's inline with what's you'd expect a police department press release to say. Second, User:TheRedPenOfDoom is certainly welcome to his or her views of the insertion and/or the contributions of the inserter. I, for one, do not hold that the insertion of an actual quote from a press release offered by the law enforcement entity directly involved in the incident rises to level of coatracking. BusterD (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@BusterD: Sorry, I was looking at a later source. [27] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:I was not aware of that source, and I apologize for my assessment of synthesis. BusterD (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@BusterD: well then perhaps you can actually answer the question that i have asked multiple times and gotten no answer: what specifically does the post hoc press release from the police have to do with the subject of this article - Anita Sarkeesian? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is called, "Terrorist threat at Utah State University". It is an assessment of that threat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. @TheRedPenOfDoom: I believe that if the USU source weren't quoted, User:Javier2005 would have had much less dispute on insertion. The source accurately and properly words the official position of the responsible law enforcement agency charged with serving and protecting the USU community. When Wikipedia describes a public incident in which a LE agency is involved, it's not unusual to include a link to the official report of the agency on the subject. When I saw the inserted quote this morning, I decided the quote lacked context, and tended to give the impression that the threat wasn't credible. I chose, instead of removing the citation, to include context also given in the source which described the agency's actions taken to ameliorate the threat. In my opinion, this was the proper response to insertion of an official source concerning an incident relating to actual threats made against the subject of a Wikipedia BLP article. The incident section has very few sources about an event which has been widely covered in RS. I thought the insertion of the official record was inevitable. BusterD (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

in all of your description, you have still not yet mentioned how this is related to the subject -Sarkeesian. You have mentioned the school and the police, and the accuracy of the press release. Fine. but they are not the subject of this article. the only plausible relation is to cast doubt on her decision not to trust the polices assurances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's related because Sarkeesian wanted to attend the schoolto give a conference, but she couldn't because there was a terrorist threat. Duh. If several RSs make the connection by reporting those details while describing the incident, we don't need anything else to know that those details are significant to the topic of this article. Diego (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"It's related because Sarkeesian wanted to attend the school to give a conference, but she couldn't because there was a terrorist threat." We have covered that in the article. Now where does the post hoc "reassurances" that there was in no "imminent threat" affect the subject of the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should it matter how the reassurances affect the subject of the article? The significance of facts to a topic is determined because a reliable source covers them in connection to the topic, not because Wikipedia editors create a theory of how they influence each other. Diego (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, because the article is theoretically ABOUT the subject of the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And according to the Times and GamePolitics, the reassurances are part of the topic of this article. Diego (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming this but not identifying HOW the " reassurances" are related to the subject of THIS article. The only thing i can see is an implication that Sarkeesian somehow didnt have the balls to stand up to her post hoc "non imminent threat" terrorist. Is that the connection? Or is there something else?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Buster, I'm confused. You applaud what I said, even though you disagree with my statement that it was stale? Clearly I'm missing something here. I wasn't sure that "stale" was the best, but because Javier had stopped warring and come here instead, I considered the edit-war over and believed that any active sanctions would be inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the three reverts after his first post here. So, no, the edit warring hadn't stopped in favor of talk page discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that Buster meant your statement that we should not assume newbies are aware of our policies, which while true, seems bafflingly non appropriate for the situation. [28] [29] [30] [31] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and perhaps will never be, but I believe that marking an ongoing edit war report as stale a mere seventeen minutes after that user's last warring contribution seems premature, but certainly within discretion. For Nyttend's statement that a battleground mentality was developing, I'm in hearty agreement. The apparent hostility provoked by this minor inclusion seems disproportional to the response. BusterD (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I apology for the mess from a few hours ago, I wasn't sure how disputes like this resolved. I still think that the USU source is important because it gives a different point of view about this incident. Javier2005 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The facts of the episode are that there was a terror threat; additional security measures were planned; the university legally couldn't prevent licensed people from bringing in guns; and Sarkeesian didn't want to speak to room where people could bring guns right after someone threatened gun violence. Additional opinions on the subject, including the university's official line that there was "no imminent threat", aren't really necessary or relevant. The facts say enough by themselves. At any rate, there is no consensus to include additional material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to repeat this, but what is relevant is determined by what reliable sources decide to say about the incident. Diego (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that it will convince anyone here, but the statement by the Utah State university has been covered by the independent GamePolitics.com. The assessment that there was no threat to students was made in collaboration with "the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit." Diego (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

and reliable sources also state that not appearing was a perfectly legitimate choice that is reflective of nothing other than a desire for being safe I am sure you would have had the balls to go ahead and not have an auditorium full of innocent people at risk on the post hoc assertion of the police, but that is neither here nor there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I especially admire the statement leading the Time article, and think it has equal application on Wikipedia as in other arenas of civil discourse: "Whatever you think about games, game journalism or recent critiques of the way video games treat women, you have an obligation to be respectful in debates, and it's a shame we still have to say that." BusterD (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom - great, we can add that assessment to the article as well. "Time said that not appearing..." Diego (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding a justification for the cancellation when there is no reliable source calling her judgment into question - only the implication created because Wikipedia editors thought that it was somehow necessary to include the police's denial of "imminent threat"??? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Tutelary, I'm perfectly willing to assume good faith on your part, but why on earth would we use such a non-reliable source as a press release from an entity which is going to go out of its way to make the threat look minor and their own efforts look substantial? If we don't have reliable third-party analysis, we don't say anything like that with Wikipedia's voice. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making it sound as if I'm trying to promote a product on Anita's page. The press release of the afflicted institution is incredibly valuable in an encyclopedic context. Also, more sources have picked up on the fact of no imminent threat. CNN, Escapist, BBC, Gamespot I don't believe there's much justification in omitting it now. Tutelary (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Been following this for a bit. Honestly don't think the university's press release is necessary here. It's not about Sarkeesian herself and doesn't add much. If a third-party RS went and published a piece about how there was no credible threat (not the same as imminent), then I'd say include it. But as it stands, the primary source from the university is just a PR piece. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So far all we have is the university saying it didn't believe the threat was credible, and other sources saying the university said it didn't believe the threat was credible. All well and good, but it's totally secondary to the facts of the event: that USU didn't/couldn't prevent licensed people from bringing guns, and after the threats, Sarkeesian didn't want to speak in front of a room where people could bring guns. We don't need to include every single twist and turn in the story to get the basic facts in there. In fact, Sarkeesian asked if USU could screen attendees for guns and only let them in if they had their permits, but they didn't;[32] are we to include that as well?

If this were included, it should only be as supplementary note on the precautions, not some after-the-fact attempt to downplay the threat and Sarkeesian's concerns: "the university and police did not believe the threat was credible, but scheduled enhanced security measures, and planned to proceed with the lecture.[source] However, Sarkeesian cancelled the event after learning that the university could not prohibit attendees from carrying handguns into the lecture hall.[source]"--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The way that the article is currently sitting, with that almost click bait drawn header of 'Terrorist threat at Utah State University' (which rs have reported it as, though) makes it sound as if ISIS was planning to bomb the school to prevent Anita from speaking. When in reality, the police, local, and federal have investigated the very serious threat and found absolutely no threat to students. That's a big deal. The majority of this discussion started off by only having the bit directly from the school; a primary source that may have a grey region but I think should've been included anyway, but I wouldn't fault others for excluding it based on that one source. Now that we have multiple RS saying and reporting that the university, it deserves at least a brief mention. Your sentence that you just proposed I would accept and be sated. Tutelary (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So, let's use it as a supplementary note. Your wording addresses the concerns stated, well done. Let's boldly adding it per WP:BRD, "when the discussion has improved understanding". Diego (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good wording. Agree with Diego Moya. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said "if". At any rate, I made the wording more along the lines of what I wrote above. Again, we don't need to give every minor detail about this to get the necessary information across.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"She vowed to continue speaking out and called for the industry to come together in opposition to misogynist harassment." Right on! You go girl! Fight that patriarchy! *pauses* Yeah, that sentence could use some work to be a teeny bit more neutral in its phrasing. As to the overall issue, I think it should be made abundantly clear that university officials and police did not put dozens of student lives at serious risk just by following Utah state law. There are a wide assortment of reasons I could give, but I am sure you guys can figure some out.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control Edit

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

The editorial doesn't call for gun control, it calls for restrictions on guns in a particular public place.

“ For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. ”

The debate here focuses on regulation of firearm possession in a certain place, not regulation of firearm ownership. That does not fall under the definition of gun control used by ArbCom, so no, this isn't covered by the discretionary sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I don't see it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Final_decision. Am I missing something? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reinserted and expanded the section with global sourcing, including Associated Press, Irish Independent, The Guardian and there are plenty more if you'd like to me to add them. An editorial writer for the Salt Lake Tribune has specifically written a reported blogpost focusing on how the death threats have brought attention to Utah's gun laws. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We need to determine exactly how much of this is important for the article. We really should figure this out before we decide to include what the school considers to be a "credible" threat.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make the point that I don't actually think the terrorism threat should be differentiated from any of the other harassment. It looks tabloid at the moment, and surely reflects more about the University than Sarkeesian - which appears to be the crux of this entire discussion anyway. Koncorde (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually think the terrorism threat should be differentiated from any of the other harassment death threat. Fixed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)