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)

What happened with this proposal? It seemed to have near-consensus, yet it has not been refined nor included in the article. Diego (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It died on the vine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Paging @Peter Isotalo:. Paging Peter Isotalo. Are you still in favor of this paragraph? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the paragraph as written, for the reasons I gave. We could work on something else if others are still interested.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 20 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)

@Yonskii: - WP:RS guides what is a "superior source". You seem to think wikipedia is about WP:TRUTH. It's not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So what you are telling me is that Wikipedia is not the place for providing the REALITY of a topic, but rather a collection of information presented in the form of articles based off sources presenting the opinions of well-known and popular people/organizations? The problem with that is that sources have an agenda, and when the agenda is mainstream, it is difficult to present WP:NPOV. You really think a mainstream news organization is going to write article criticiziing a Youtube Feminist talking about video games? They would be tarred-and-feathered. That is what makes this article and others like it so difficult. It presents only one side of the coin. yonnie (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the definition of a tertiary source. Encyclpaedias and textbooks are tertiary sources in that they reflect reliable sources rather than "reality". If you want tertiary sources to better reflect reality, then publish your original observations and original research in reliable sources so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for providing the REALITY of a topic, but rather a collection of information presented in the form of articles based off sources presenting the opinions of well-known and popular people/organizations. That's actually one of the best summaries I've read Yonskii. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it. Wikipedia's goal is to summarize what the best available sources for a topic say, wording it neutrally and weighting each viewpoint in proportion to its prominence. It's not our job to get to the "truth" or account for lapses in the sources. If something doesn't appear in reliable, published sources, it doesn't go in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 20 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)

What is the problem with what is stated here? Is there some reason to think it is incorrect? nut-meg (talk) 05:58, 21 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 agree we shouldn't strife for an artifical specified ratio, that was more to stir a discussion. As it stands there's only positive references. If her videos annoy people to the point where she gets death threads and Thunderf00t's video's about her get a lot of views and likes, it's obvious not everyone agrees with her point of view. My point isn't so much about a ratio, but rather that it seems very one-sided atm. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the people harassing her are more than "annoyed". Death threats, rape threats, and terrorist threats are not the result of being annoyed. They are the results of criminal minds. I'd love to see some real criticism that isn't just thinly veiled misogyny. nut-meg (talk) 06:05, 21 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)

There is at least one source that looks critically at Sarkeesian's videos. However, of all the points it made, only some names calling (ad hominem) was actually included in the wiki article. I tried to add her actual poiny but those were swiftly removed. Sarkeesian criticizes gaming culture and these points are a direct response to her points. I don't see why that's not a valid addition to the article. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Her general opinions on video games and video game culture aren't relevant to this article, which is about Anita Sarkeesian. Woodroar (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please watch the video. It's not general, it's a direct response to Sarkeesian's videos. PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

She shows a photo of Sarkeesian twice but doesn't even name her, doesn't name the video series or specific videos, and doesn't address any specific claims. It's a general response to general criticisms held by several people. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why two large paragraphs of positive response to her video series is relevant, and more critical response is not. PizzaMan (♨♨) 02:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the responses in reliable sources are overwhelmingly positive. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If commentary on her videos from reliable sources is relevant to this article, all of it should be allowed, not deciding to selectively filter those you deem unworthy through subjective criteria; if there are differences in weight of some kinds of comments over others, that should be reflected in having more space devoted to the former merely because there's more of them. Editors deciding that a whole arbitrary class of comments should not be covered is against NPOV.

Now I could agree that *none* of the reception on the videos is relevant to the topic of her biography, and that we could move the whole section to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. This has been suggested in the past, I think it's time to get a proper structure of articles where all the relevant aspects of the topic can be documented in due weight with respect to the page where they appear. Diego (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "subjective criteria", this is leaving out criticism that doesn't even name the subject or works being commented on. Quite frankly, I'm surprised we mention Sommers at all: though she has a somewhat-related background, Sommers admits she has only looked at gamer culture for "the last few weeks", and Polygon points this out. A few weeks to learn about decades of culture, and we include that in a BLP? Woodroar (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think @Woodroar: makes a good point here. I think I will spend some time doing a rather bold edit on the whole video section with the impression that the real info is in the other article. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Woodroar, that's also applicable to Aja Romano of the Daily Dot, Sean Collins of Rolling Stone, and Nate Carpenter of Women & Language - which is a source very similar to Sommers, both being academics specialized in feminism. None of these seem to be recognized as specialists in video game culture before, yet that doesn't stops us from using them. That doesn't make them non-reliable nor dubious, we assume that they've taken proper time to analyze the topic in the depth required to cover it, and that they know what they're talking about because of their background in fact-checking. These academics may not be specialists in video games, but surely they have some decades worth of research on the more general culture of representation of women in media of which video games form part. Diego (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The other sources all specifically address Sarkeesian and her work specifically. Hoff Sommers doesn't even name Sarkeesian, let alone discuss any specific points she makes. She just shows some images of her in her general comments about feminists criticizing what she considers a male hobby. Literally all that can be said here regarding Sarkeesian is that Hoff Sommers alludes to her in the video. The only reason we mention it at all is because other sources picked it up; the video isn't usable on its own. Perhaps this would be more appropriate for the Tropes article than here, but we wouldn't be able to say anything more there, since she doesn't say anything about the series or address its points.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the majority agrees to move the whole critical reception paragraph to the page about her video series. As for disregarding Hoff's criticism: while she is too polite or political to mention Sarkeesian by name, she's obviously referring specifically to her. She's showing her face and her videos throughout the video and what other feminist video game critics are remotely as notable as Sarkeesian? I really think that editing out all but positive criticism isn't WP:NPOV PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You consider her comments polite? All other expressed opinion is inferred (which our article states) but given pretty much all of her opinion is presented prior to Sarkeesians image (relfected by the commentary of the article) it's unclear what we could justify including without direct attribution. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing further we could possibly add; Hoff Sommers doesn't name Sarkeesian or say anything specific about her videos or arguments.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:39, 20 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)

The purpose of a talk page is to discuss how to improve the article. Not gloat about how great you think someone is with stuff like "she made it". Sarkeesian has been well-known since the Kickstarter fiasco, so User:Zero Serenity's post serves no purpose. If they were to discuss how information in the source may be used to improve the article, that is different, but that's isn't the case. yonnie (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. They were bringing up what's obviously a potentially valuable source for the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that would be great, if that is what they actually did. There is zero discussion on how the source can be used in the article. Just "Yeah, she made it" (a subjective opinion). Please give us a reason why the source should be included. Don't just post a link and gloat. yonnie (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up an obviously relevant and significant source for other editors to look at. And there's nothing particularly untoward about Zero's comments. However, there is a problem when you start talking about other contributors instead of content.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 20 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. [26] --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. [27] [28] [29] [30] -- 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;[31] 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)

Pretty much. This (sadly) isn't anything new. The only reason that this is notable is because she actually could not get any reassurances from law enforcement or the University and so she cancelled. This section should actually be titled "cancelled speech due to inaction of Police" as the actual crux of the notability is not the threat (of which she has had myriad). Koncorde (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, none of that belongs in her bio. Her BLP is not a place to shoehorn in a bunch of crap about gun control. I also am going to say right now that I will not allow anyone to try and impugn the actions of university officials or the FBI in this article either. They are far more qualified to assess the seriousness of a threat and the necessary measures needed to prevent incidents than us and Sarkeesian. No sources support such POV spin on the matter as you lot are suggesting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: I will not allow anyone... read WP:OWN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I obviously don't own this page, otherwise it would not spew all the garbage it does at present. However, I do promise that I will revert anyone who tries to engage in further POV-pushing on this article about gun control and the like. That shit does not belong here. We should remove the Salt Lake Tribune's statement as well. Saying "The threats resulted in public attention to . . . the propriety of concealed weapons on university campuses" is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:BLPSPS. Editorial + "opinion" is the URL means that this blog should not be under a BLP. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. That's literally not a thing. An unsigned editorial by The Salt Lake Tribune is not, under any definition of the word, a "self-published source." It's an indisputable reliable source for its own opinions, and the opinion of the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is indisputably relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the own wikilink which you posted. An editorial, leading article (UK) or leader (UK), is an opinion piece written by the senior editorial staff or publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or any other written document. Editorials may be supposed to reflect the opinion of the periodical It's reflecting the author's opinions, not a fact based accuracy of what had happened. It's not suitable for a BLP, unless you want to open up the possibility of using other people's opinion pieces for less desirable aspects of Anita's BLP. Tutelary (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is relevant to a major international news story which took place in the state of Utah. It is also a reliable source, having been vetted by the newspaper's editorial structure. You don't seem to comprehend that there is a difference between a newspaper editorial and someone's self-published WordPress blog. I can't help you if you don't understand that the two things are not the same, per our Reliable Sources standards. Newspaper editorials are not self-published, therefore your repeated citation of BLPSPS is non-responsive and off-point.

If there are actual reliable source opinions about Anita that aren't in the article, you can make the case separately for their inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care how big the original source was, the point is that that the editorial is an opinion piece and is not vetted for facts of BLPs, and should be excluded based on that. having been vetted by the newspaper's editorial structure. Prove it. Prove that the editorial is under the source's editorial control and I'll cease. Though there is an exception for one point only; the editor being an expert in that topic. Do you have proof of such? If not, then you should revert your edit warring. Oh, and I find it funny you keep trying to equate the editorial and the whole newspaper itself as if I'm arguing against both. Tutelary (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to "prove" that a major mainstream newspaper's editorial was written under that newspaper's editorial control. It's self-evident to anyone who understands what an editorial is.

Do you understand what a newspaper editorial is? Because I don't think you do. It is "the voice of the newspaper," an unsigned expression of the collective opinion of the newspaper's editorial board. It is backed by the full credibility and weight of the newspaper itself — the newspaper as a whole stands behind that opinion. Such editorials are vetted and fact-checked by the newspaper's editorial structure, just as anything else would be. Newspapers don't tend to want to put their name directly behind a significant factual error, you understand.

We use this source not to make statements of fact, but to demonstrate that the largest newspaper in the state of Utah believes that the death threats against Sarkeesian have exposed violent misogyny in pop culture and flaws in the state's concealed carry law. Which demonstrates the significant impact on society that the issue has had. Which, in turn, is demonstrably relevant to Sarkeesian's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I already read the Editorial link to the wiki page which you wanted me to read, and I saw 'opinion piece' and how you're continuing to defend it even though it is blatantly the opinion of one person that it is somehow not a self published source. I also don't think we should take the chance or the assumption that it was fact checked, find proof that it was and present it here. We have to be ambiguous, and it's your WP:BURDEN, not mine. Such editorials are vetted and fact-checked by the newspaper's editorial structure, just as anything else would be. Citation needed for this specific circumstance. Tutelary (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the opinion of one person and I don't have to "find proof" that an editorial published by the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is fact-checked. The Salt Lake Tribune is a prima facie reliable source, anything published by it is a reliable source and the burden lies upon you to demonstrate why we should treat something published by The Salt Lake Tribune as unreliable. It's right there in black and white in WP:RS.

WP:NEWSORG is clear. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author. We use the source for statements attributed to the publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is also very clear about this. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Note the 'as long as the writers are professionals'. We can't verify that and since this is BLP, we have to err on the side of caution and exlude it. Prove that the url with 'opinion' and the title of 'editorial' is not just the opinions of one author and thereby not allowable by BLP. Clearly, it's unsuitable for BLP because it's the opinion of the author, and not vetted or proven editorial control. Tutelary (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting when certain editors suddenly start caring about BLP and self-published sources. A newspaper editorial is by no means self-published, it's published by that paper as the official stance of the editorial board. There's nothing else to "prove" here, that's what an editorial is. Reliably-sourced opinions can can be used so long they're (1) it's clearly attributed as an opinion, like this one, and (2) it's noteworthy and significant to the topic at hand. An editorial from a reputable paper is entirely different from an op-ed, an opinion column, a letter to the editor, or an opinion piece some individual submits to a blog. The only question is whether the material is really significant to this biography.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To return to my earlier point, I believe certain people may be interpreting my comment in a way I didn't intend. I see this current event only as an extension of other current events. The extended saga now being attributed to it is basically not particularly relevant to her Biography. Is the fact she cancelled notable - yes. Is anything else relevant? Not particularly. Should this receive any greater attention than any other threat? I don't think so.

I think the format of the actual article could do with some cleaning up as the harassment seems to be taking on a life of its own and at some point we need to realise that Sarkeesians Bio should not be dominated by a succession of harassment incidents and then a bunch of op-eds and talking head commentary about how terrible it is. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a threat that received coverage -internationally- in some of the most influential and respected papers in the world. yes, it is different that the "garden variety" threat that that she is subjected to every day . The impact of this threat was such that internationally people began discussing the insane scope of the Utah gun laws.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Anita Sarkeesian Utah Gun laws? I suspect not, so perhaps that international response should be in the appropriate article and not in someones bio. Koncorde (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reshuffling

I removed a lot of content from this article as it only applied to the series and not so much to Anita herself. It was an 8 kilo move, but don't panic, nothing serious has gone missing. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have decided to remove the quotation from Christina Sommers, which was included at this page through extensive consensus building, and removal of which was opposed in the thread above. This hasn't gone unnoticed, so I have reverted the change per WP:BRD. Please gain consensus on how to re-organize both articles before doing so. I think that part is also relevant at Tropes vs. Women, and have added it there. If we agree to move that section there, I will have no problem with the changes you've made, but that's still to be decided. Diego (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Summer's inclusion, at least to my reading of the archive doesn't feel like an overwhelming consensus was reached. (Then again, the thread is a lot of spaghetti, so its a little hard to follow.) Aside, the Anita article should not be going into much detail about her works since the article on said work exists. The amount of duplicate information is absurd. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a rough consensus to include this material and nothing more, though of course consensus can change and we may need to revisit the topic. The rest of the changes looked fine to me, no problems big enough we couldn't fix them through editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Zero Serenity, if you agree that the reception section belongs at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, why did you decide to drop part of it while moving it there? Diego (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would personally much rather have a different source of criticism. Surely something more substantive can be found than somebody who "alluded" to her in a video without addressing any specific points? I know it's been difficult find citicism in reliable sources, but that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel considering the other sources there are (Rolling Stone, New York Times). Cupidissimo (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

While I agree we gave TvWVG too much attention in her bio, I think there should be a summary and details correctly concerning her should be kept.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to keep it short. While it is her major piece of notability, the fact that it has its own article is enough to keep the details here about it short. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't need all the production and reception details here, but there's no reason the discussion of the series should be "short". It should be as long as necessary to give an encyclopedic coverage of the topic as it relates to the subject of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the content of the stable version, canceling Zero Serenity bold move. If the content is going to be moved to Tropes vs women, it needs to be the same content that had consensus here - selectively removing parts of it as a result of the re-structuring is not an acceptable move. Diego (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what Diego Moya is talking about. Hardly something worth derailing necessary improvements over. The content in question already appeared in the other article, without the unnecessary and distracting quote in the citation. There's no sense in replacing better wording with the worse wording.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Video by the American Enterprise Institute

On September 16, 2014, this video was published by the American Enterprise Institute. The video shows brief images of Sarkeesian, but does not refer to her or her work by name. Since publication, a number of reliable outfits have picked up on this video. Polygon, Kotaku, Gamespot, Think Progress and an Opinion Peice by Polygon. My request is based on the previous, is the allusion to Sarkeesian heavy enough or relevant enough to include in her biographical article or series article? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, as due weight is established by the coverage of the topic by reliable sources, and the sources above are telling us how Sommers' video is related to Sarkeesian:

• Polygon.com: "[Sommers] mentions that Sarkeesian and others have faced serious threats."
• Kotaku: "In [Sommers'] 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."
• Gamespot: "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series. [...] 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."
• Thinkprogress: "That logic, evidence and humor was missing in reactions to feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian, whom Sommers calls out as an offending feminist critic." "Sommers argued that Sarkeesian’s and other critics’ anonymous death threats aren’t necessarily indicative of a negative, “patriarchal pathology” in game culture". "Sommers also compared Sarkeesian’s criticisms of video game culture to hypothetical attacks on women’s magazines for not being inclusive of men..."
• Polygon again: "The person [Sommers] focuses on is Anita Sarkeesian", "To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism." "Sarkeesian's actual research is not addressed in Sommers' video, but Sarkeesian herself is an object of scorn and may now presumably be counted within the group of "women who have betrayed women," as Sommers' book is subtitled."

It is clear that these reliable sources don't agree with Sommer's analysis of Sarkeesian, but it's also clear that they do consider Sommer's video an analysis of Sarkeesian as a feminist critic. Diego (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes the video clearly is about her, even if the only reference is a video of her speaking, and every reliable source covering it has picked up on that fact. Editors seeking to exclude it are just looking for any excuse to minimize criticism of Sarkeesian. We should instead be talking about the inclusion of more criticism based on the large number of reliable sources that have touched on the matter as of late.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that reliable sources make the general connection, but we need to be careful about overuse/overquoting or using the video to make specific claims. Woodroar (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Should be included, as Diego had pointed out, WP:Weight is established. Many credible sources mentioned Sommers by name and it is obvious that Sarkeesian is the main focus of the video. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Enough sources have connected the video with Sarkeesian. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude here, include at another article like Sexism in video gaming. The video only alludes to Sarkeesian by showing her face in a discussion about "a new army of critics"; it does not refer to her by name, say anything about her series, or address any specific point she makes (it's also irrelevant to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games for the same reason). It's of tangential interest to the topic of this article at best. There is nothing else that could be said here besides the fact that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian, and we only say that much because a few reliable sources mentioned the connection. Moving the discussion to a more appropriate article would allow us to say more about it and the response to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• However, the RSs above (and below) connect Sarkeesian and Sommers, and therefore some mention is appropriate. Perhaps a sentence or two. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources only indicate that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian as part of her wider discussion. They don't say she mentions Sarkeesian by name, says anything about her series, or addresses any specific point she makes, because she doesn't. It's not encyclopedic here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude where a third party has interpreted the source material we can represent the third party as they have provided the synopsis / established the reliability. However it should be clear that A - Sarkeesian is only inferred by third parties. B - the 'other content' is not strictly associated with either Sarkeesian as a person (and personal criticism isn't particularly biopic) or her series. The quotes provided by Diego are quite clear as to what we can and cannot say / present, and synthesising content / interpreting the video ourselves outside of the comments of reliable sources is exactly what is says on the tin - synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a valid concern. We could use a wording similar to Gamespots' "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's video series".... Though we already took care that the current wording in the article is directly based on the wording at Polygon and Kotaku. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Amended my thoughts having read the opening blurb a little more closely. If we are asking to use the video as a source then it is a Primary source, from youtube, of uncertain quality. A "Think Tank" is not a reliable source, be it Conservative, Libertarian or otherwise. However its content can be used when cited with context by another party (or with according caveats).

The primary source itself does not mention Sarkeesian, it is therefore completely inadmissible by itself.

The secondary sources and comment about the video made in reliable source is admissible within the context of exactly what is said about Sarkeesian, or exactly what is said about the Trope series. Koncorde (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• do not use - per POLICY WP:OR we may not use sources to make claims that are not explicit in the source. Vague references via pictures are not explicit in the source and requires outside knowledge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• It is not OR if RSs make the connection. RSs have made the connection. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• what reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• if reliable sources say "Hoff Summers says X about Sarkeesian" we could theoretically use what the reliable sources have said HS claims, BUT if the reliable sources are saying "HS says Sarkeesian cherry picks information in her critiques, but HS herself has cherrypicked information." we would need to use the reliable sources in context as saying HS's critique is weak. And if the reliable sources are saying that HS critique is weak , poorly constructed, and not valid, we would really not have any incentive or reason to include such a weak, poorly constructed and invalid critique. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You forget that Sommers' video is itself a reliable source for WP:RSOPINION (and WP:RS/AC may be applicable for her attributed opinion, as Sommers is an academic). It reliably documents the libertarian point of view, so it needs to be included per WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS with due weight (which is proportional to the sources we have covering her video). WP:NPOV doesn't care whether a critique is considered weak by others in the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, it still requires us to show both sides. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sommers' video can't be used for any material discussing living people per WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS. The only reason we're talking about it at all is that other, reliable sources have mentioned it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sommers' video is not self-published. Diego (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a YouTube video with no credits released on the channel of a conservative think tank. What kind of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy does this have?--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a video from an academic published by a conservative think tank, an organism dedicated to creating public opinion; we can be pretty sure that it accurately captures the right-wing advocacy of ideas from the people publishing them. That's why I mentioned WP:RSOPINION as the appropiate policy. The weight is established by the news sources covering it, establishing it as a significant opinion, not by its own fact-checking - there's no possible way to do fact checking for opinions other than being sure that they really come from the people making them, which it's clear in this case. We held an extensive discussion before, the arguments in this RFC were all presented there and they led us to the version currently in the article. There aren't any real new arguments here that could change that previous consensus. Diego (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter how many reliable sources connect the original Sarkeesian, we cannot use the original because HS decided to be coy and not explicitly mention any names. We can only use what any reliable sources have said about it in the context that the reliable source talks about it. Of the links above that I have looked at vaguely come close to "reliable", they have all criticized HS's analysis and so we would need to do that as well. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me to use vaguely reliable sources at best to shoehorn in a commentary that has been discredited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not how Achieving neutrality, Attributing and specifying biased statements and Biased or opinionated sources instructs us to cover a neutrality dispute or bias in the sources. In all cases the policy is to include the relevant sources, sticking as closely as possible to their wording, and making abundant use of attribution. Diego (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. "

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that we use the video as a source here, or are you suggesting we use the sources which link the video to Sarkeesian. aprock (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we keep the exact same content we have now from the previous consensus. The video might have not been enough if used all by itself, but that's not how it's being used. All the content in the article is directly sourced to independent reliable sources, as you and Konkorde are suggesting. The various RSs covering it are signaling it as an argument significant enough to be taken into account, if only because they thought it was relevant to the topic to the point they feel the need to discredit it, instead of merely ignoring it as irrelevant. Diego (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude here, as Cuchullain said. Needs to be more explicitly about Sarkeesian. Could mention that secondary sources assumed it was about her, but only if there's a place for it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion here and at the Tropes page. Like User:Cuchullain and User:TheRedPenOfDoom above, I can't see inclusion if the source doesn't specifically critique the subject or her work. TRPoD points out that WP:OR doesn't allow us to use sources which don't explicitly cover the subject. If a reader must use inference or outside knowledge to understand the source, the source can't be applied per synthesis. The Sommers video covers the broader subject matter, but doesn't address the subject of this pagespace. For my part, I'm disappointed the Sommers video DOESN"T critique the subject; we've been needing negative critique and Sommers is the closest thing to an expert who has approached coverage of video blogs like Sarkeesian's. I'm hoping for better. BusterD (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The source specifically critiques the subject, as recognized by Polygon, Kotaku, Gamespot and Thinkprogress. Actually the opposing arguments are contradicting each other - one argument says that the video is not about Sarkeesian; the other says that, according to RSs covering the video, its depiction of Sarkeesian's arguments is wrong. Both things can't be true at the same time. Diego (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude on this, and of course both can be true. When applied to Sarkeesian, the arguments are nonsensical so it's not necessarily contradictory to then assume that the arguments weren't meant directly for her. It is relevant however that the video is only ever mentioned in the context of criticising it. I'd much rather hold out for something more substantive than "this one lady said something once that may have been in part about the subject".Cupidissimo (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude, as it has really nothing to do with Sarkeesian herself. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude. The video isn't specifically about Sarkeesian or her work. Should be in CHS's own article or, as suggested above, Sexism in video gaming or other similar, general articles. DonQuixote (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I should note a number of the parties pushing to exclude this material now previously agreed to include it, but apparently now are reneging on that earlier consensus, which is a fairly good sign that they never wanted to compromise in the first place. The editors trying to keep out criticism always tell those of us who want to include criticism that we need multiple reliable sources covering criticism of her and here we have it in spades, yet now they resort to using their personal analysis of the video to push their own POV. Even though Sommers shows video of Sarkeesian when talking about gaming critics and makes a bunch of references that are clearly about Sarkeesian and her video series, the fact Sarkeesian remains "she who must not be named" in the video is being given as a reason to exclude this, even as numerous reliable sources got who and what she was talking about and explicitly note this as criticism of Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tut tut. Consensus can change, after all. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• It is not a change in consensus so much as two people deciding they no longer wish to compromise as they see an opportunity to push their POV and other POV-pushers hopping on board. None of you are citing anything in the reliable sources themselves or in policy. You are just using your personal assessment of what you think about the video. Unfortunately, there appears to be far too many of you who like to substitute your own biased opinion of the issue for policy and reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Pssst, Tarc, you've linked to a policy that says "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Diego (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The material shouldn't have been added in the first place for the reasons given above. The exceptionally rough "consensus" to include it before was based on a much narrower participation than this RFC has attracted. Making serious allegations about other editors without evidence is unlikely to swing the debate in your favor; please stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Only one person pushing for exclusion cites any policy and it is an irrelevant policy. We have numerous reliable sources directly attesting to the video's relevance to Sarkeesian. People voting to exclude are basing it on their own personal opinion that the video has nothing to do with Sarkeesian. For fuck's sake there are only two real people shown in that video. One is Sommers and the other is Sarkeesian. I doubt anyone here honestly believes the video is not about her and reliable sources generally agree the video concerns Sarkeesian. The reality is that you want to minimize criticism of Sarkeesian as much as possible and are using any excuse you can muster without any regard to policy or sources. It is POV-pushing plain and simple.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Arguing from the position that policy is irrelevant is nonsensical. As noted above, the sources don't say much more than footage of Sarkeesian was included in CHS's video. Is that really what this is all about? Including content that says footage of Sarkeesian was in a youtube video? aprock (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am arguing from the position that the policy on original research is irrelevant here as multiple reliable sources state the video concerns Sarkeesian. No original research is required to connect this video to Sarkeesian as multiple reliable sources have already handled it. Please review all the sources Aprock. Many of them say much more than what editors pushing to exclude mention of the video are saying. It is not lost on anyone familiar with the subject that Sommers posted this video at the time she did, showed footage of Sarkeesian speaking and only Sarkeesian as she criticized feminist gaming critics, and reiterated several common criticisms of Sarkeesian's work. Reliable sources do recognize that this video was really about Sarkeesian and note several of the critiques directed her way. When she talks of feminist gaming critics, this is clearly a catch-all term meant to include Sarkeesian as Sarkeesian was shown when she was saying it. Sommers never utters her name as though Sarkeesian were Candlejack, but that is neither here nor ther- --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hoff Sommers merely alludes to Sarkeesian in the video, and the reliable sources discussing it just reiterate the fact that she alludes to Sarkeesian in the video. The source that contains the most about the Sarkeesian connection (the op-ed) argues that what Hoff Sommers does imply about Sarkeesian is wrong. That's what we're dealing with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There has to be some word for starting your argument with "original research is irrelevant here", and then launching into extensive WP:OR with statements like "It is not lost on anyone familiar with the subject that Sommers posted this video at the time she did" and "When she talks of feminist gaming critics, this is clearly a catch-all term meant to include Sarkeesian". What is "clear" to "anyone familiar with the subject" is precisely the kind of original research we don't need here. aprock (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't need anyone familiar with the subject to make the connection, the reliable and notable sources mentioned above do that for you. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As noted several times, the sources say little more than that footage of Sarkeesian was in the video. That's really it. aprock (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the quotes Diego provided. The sources clearly say more than that. I only mention the rest because the editors pushing to exclude it understand what the video is about and know that reliable sources confirm as much, but they still express a position that the video has nothing to do with her.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they don't. I've read the sources multiple times. Even Diego's quotes highlight this. The only source which goes beyond the fact that Sarkeesian is shown in the videos is the ThinkProgress source. What you have is a single dubious source (the web front for a liberal think tank). Is that really your idea of a reliable source? aprock (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude here - As the material is not about Sarkeesian personally, but part of a broader debate about video game culture, it would make sense to include somewhere like Sexism in video gaming or maybe Video game culture#Gender issues, but not in Sarkeesian's biographical article. This article is for describing Sarkeesian's life and work; it's not an appropriate forum for debates about the merits of her viewpoints, especially when such criticisms barely (or don't at all) mention Sarkeesian herself. Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude After reviewing the sources, only one of them discusses Sommers views as relating to Sarkeesian. That source (ThinkProgress) is critical of Sommers' views, citing evidence that they are not correct. It's difficult to see adding the video based on that source. Additionally, it's not at all clear that ThinkProgress (an outlet for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress) is a suitable source for a WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• ORLY?

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."

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.

-Polygon

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.

-Kotaku

To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism.

In her ugliest moment during this video, Sommers goes so far as to question who might be behind threats against Sarkeesian, asking "if it was indeed gamers who sent the threats."

-Polygon

• Per NPOV, there is no way you can justify excluding material about this video without disregarding policy and sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not serious are you?

• Your first quote says "showing footage of Sarkeesian", then doesn't address her at all afterward.
• Your second quote says "the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos", which is specifically not Sarkeesian.
• Your third quote is from an opinion piece and only usable for what Colin Campbell thinks, not Sommers.

Your continued inability to represent sources properly is nothing short of disruptive. aprock (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the issue is not the sources about the video. The sources about the video are fine, but when their strongest point are allusions only it's weak sauce. I mean take a look at the quotes you picked out to support your case? They're the concrete links? Again, that's some serious weakness. The video itself, by itself, on its own, we could maybe say "An image of Sarkeesian was used in a video by Hoff Somers while she said stuff about feminists and gamers" which is pretty much what we said originally - and that was a stretch in order to try and expand the criticism. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't bring your "misrepresenting sources" crap here too, please, especially when you can only claim it by cherry-picking and misrepresenting the quotes I give out. Those sources explicitly connect the video to Sarkeesian and thus warrant mentioning it here. How does it look when a bunch of editors blatantly supportive of Anita Sarkeesian try to suppress reliably-sourced criticism of her and her work by misrepresenting or outright ignoring reliable sources? It looks like POV-pushing and that is because it is POV-pushing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of reliable sourcing is horribly misinformed. Just above, you tried to use an opinion piece for establishing due due weight. You've been around long enough that you should know you cannot do that. aprock (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How are opinion pieces not relevant? This is an opinion piece by a staff member at a major gaming media outlet. If they think Sarkeesian is relevant enough to the Sommers video to publish that piece then I think that is important.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? Now you're actively advocating for WP:RSOPINION pieces to be used for establishing due weight and to introduce content beyond the author's personal opinion. aprock (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact..." The information being introduced isn't factual, it's the authors opinion on the subject of the article. Due weight is established because notable sources have felt it important enough to mention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite. And as such, it is a WP:PRIMARY source, and cannot be used to add content to a biography of a living person per WP:BLPPRIMARY. aprock (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a joke. The primary source is Sarkeesians videos on her opinions. The secondary source is the AEI published video that critiques Sarkeesians videos. The other sources are tertiary sources that recognize the AEI video as a critique of Sarkeesian's video. The POV pushing of this article isn't even trying to be disguised anymore. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't match wikipedia policy. That there are so many policies and so much jargon is one of the downsides of wikipedia. If you are interested in seeing how policy defines those terms, the best place to look is WP:PSTS. The basic version is that the first source to make a claim is the primary source. Sources which discuss the claim are secondary sources. Depending on the claim, a source can be both a primary and a secondary source. aprock (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed in BLPs, especially when it is an opinion piece from a reputable outlet written by a member of the staff. Certain primary sources are not allowed, but this is not one of those sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. aprock (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to justify my own proposal, but I just went with the sources that had been posted before. I welcome more if they pass RS. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Exclude Here - here from RfC. This video belongs at Gamergate controversy - if anywhere. Watched the clip; it's an editorial on #Gamergate - not Sarkeesian - from what appears to be a conservative think-tank. The flash of Sarkeesian's face doesn't make it about her. This is BLP, stringent rules apply. EBY (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude here A video which does not mention her by name, or engage with her specific arguments by name, simply cannot be used in her BLP. Throwing images of her face into this video falls far short of any reasonable standard for including mention of an advocacy video into a BLP. By the way, Legobot asked me to take a look here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Young on Anita Sarkeesian

Link

The problem is that criticism focused on the sexualization of female characters often hinges on subjective perception—one feminist’s sexually empowered woman is another’s sex toy—and can easily turn to sex-shaming. Bayonetta, featuring an over-the-top, deliberately hypersexualized female super-fighter, has been slammed as exploitative by critics including Sarkeesian. Yet in a 2012 article on ThinkProgress.org, left-wing feminist Alyssa Rosenberg defended the game as an exercise in exuberant girl-power and wrote that its detractors were “wrapped up in a confining vision of the liberated female: one where sex needn’t define any part of a woman, and flaunted sexuality is inherently a concession to the male gaze.”

Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs. Women videos, which feature prominently in the debate about videogames, feminism and sexism, are full of selective and skewed analysis—one that neglects positive female images, ignores examples of male characters getting the same treatment she considers sexist for women, and attacks games for encouraging deadly violence toward female characters when killing those characters is actually the “bad” option that causes player to lose points. (A fairly detailed three-part discussion of the flaws in Sarkeesian’s critique was posted a few weeks ago on Gamesided.com; for upfront disclosure, the first part quotes from an old column of mine criticizing radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin, on whose theories Sarkeesian sometimes relies.) It should go without saying that the biased shoddiness of Sarkeesian’s arguments does not in any way excuse the online harassment toward her, let alone violent threats. But the harassment should not preclude a critical examination of her critique—instead of the largely unquestioning adulation it has received from the elite gaming media.

While it is commonly argued that feminist criticism seeks only to examine “problematic” media, not to deny anyone the right to enjoy them, the language employed by the critics often suggests otherwise. Sarkeesian ... refers to videogames depictions of women being “harmful,” “dangerously irresponsible,” and related to real-life negative attitudes toward women and possibly even violence.

This article will also shortly appear in Reason. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Remind of what WP:UNDUE says

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Key points here are published by reliable sources and proportion to the prominence in those sources. If the most reliable sources are giving prominence to the harassment issue when talking about Sarkeesian and later filling in readers about GamerGate, then the article should give more weight (i.e., space) to the harassment issue. My understanding is that the majority of reliable sources do (especially the most reliable sources such as mainstream news outlets), in fact, follow this pattern.

There are so many single-purpose accounts and point-of-view pushers swarming to these articles, it's important to remember Wikipedia's policies. UNDUE is not an essay or suggestion. It's required. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary contribution, the wikilawyers guarding this article have already referenced it a million times. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xcuref1endx: Apparently necessary as none of the zombie accounts and SPAs heed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The LFB, reliable or not?

[32]

The author Todd Bowes says that he's a professor and freelance writer, but I'm not sure of the notability of the LFB, which says its a series of blogs based in Boston.

I also take issue with the description of Sommer's critique of Sarkeesian, since A) She's not commonly described as a philosopher, but an author, former professor, and critic of third wave feminism B) She's not noted for any scholarly research into any feminist theories or academic studies, but the author of some mainstream books. The particular quote about hipsters with cultural studies degrees is inflammatory and poorly chosen to reflect what she stated, when in fact Sommers did acknowledge that feminist critics made some useful points.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Todd Bowes, I don't think this would be useful. While it doesn't seem to be much of a self published source since there is an editor in chief there are no editorial policies that I can see. Somewhat questionable and not all that useful. I would vote against inclusion at this time, baring any other editor on here with something to say. On the other hand, thank you for being courteous about this as there is a lot of hot blood that seems to flow around here.

As for Sommer, if you want to vote in the above RfC, please do. Just because you don't have an account doesn't mean you are excluded from making comments on it. Cheers. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think this is usable - I don't know how we determine editorial policy, but the listed editor in chief is having a discussion about the article with the author in the comments. That seems to point to a non-traditional job description so I would also say it's not reliable. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not something we can use. The site appears to be a blog and the editorial oversight isn't clear.[33] Self-published sources can't be used for any material on living people per WP:BLPSPS. It may be usable at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as an WP:RSOPINION piece, considering the author's credentials, although we now have a wide array of published sources on the topic. However, if Bowes has published on Sarkeesian or her work, that would likely be usable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement about Utah police position on handguns seems inaccurate

This quote: "The university could not prohibit attendees from carrying handguns into the lecture hall under state law." Seems inaccurate to me. I believe it should say "would not" not "could not." In cases where the police find a serious or imminent threat in Utah they are perfectly capable of screening for guns in public places. For example, The President of the US would not speak in Utah (or anywhere else) without a thorough screening of the audience. So in this case Utah police "would not" screen attendees, but they certainly could have if they had found a legitimate reason to do so. Any objections to making this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemidgley (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Original research unless we can find a source that criticises the University for its stance. As such "could not" is what is generally used in the sources (as a direct quote from the University admittedly). Koncorde (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Stevemidgley makes an interesting point, though we're edging into WP:FORUM here. From the first day of this incident, it appeared to me that USU police chose (my word, not intended to sound pejorative) not to believe they had a legitimate need to screen for all weapons. As Steve points out, officials would be required to screen for all weapons by the secret service if the any POTUS was to speak in that same hall. This would cast Sarkeesian's refusal in quite a different light, IMHO. Am I misunderstanding? Someone enlighten me. Does Utah state law prohibit the Secret Service from preventing licensed concealed-carry gun owners from bringing their handguns into a venue where the president is speaking? BusterD (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (that's FBI), which some may consider to have a bit of experience in dealing with these kinds of things, determined there was no imminent or serious threat. Sarkeesian very plainly said that she cancelled the event because they would not prohibit attendees from bringing guns, but Utah law is very clear that public universities cannot prohibit attendees from bringing guns. There is no "would not" here as state law is explicit on this point. What they would do if the President visited is a very different matter as the Secret Service is a federal entity and federal laws set up to protect the head of state of the entire country trump any state law considerations. That's called federalism and its enshrined in a little document you may have heard of known as the Constitution of the United States. If you really want to compare the non-existent dangers faced by feminist gaming YouTuber Anita Sarkeesian to the ever-present dangers faced by the President of the United States and Leader of the Free World then be my guest.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian also said in numerious articles that at the time she would have been fine with just confirming that attendees with a gun had a permit, which was something that could have been done but security decided not to. Cupidissimo (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to suss out her true meaning and then use our interpretations of her statements to defame university officials by implying they don't really care about the lives of women or their students. She stated explicitly that she did not attend because guns would be allowed into the event to the point that she declared a boycott on Utah events until the law is changed and the allowance under the law is what the university officials said was her concern. They say they could not comply with her requests because it would violate state law. I see no justification in the sources for suggesting the university had a choice in allowing guns on the premises. The law in Utah is very clear on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. I hope you will apply your reluctance to "suss out" the truth to all sources under discussion. Cupidissimo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with "could not" in that Utah state law would make it extremely difficult for universities from keeping (licensed) people from bringing guns on campus. At the same time, that was only part of the issue.

For one thing, Utah's laws are very unusual; Utah is one of only seven states where concealed weapons are generally allowed at state universities, and is the only state that specifically prohibits universities from taking measures to keep out concealed weapons. [34] This is why Utah has gotten so much flak about this including from the Salt Lake Tribune.[35]

Second, the problem wasn't necessarily with the guns, but with the University's handling of security given that they weren't going to keep people from bringing guns. Initially, Sarkeesian asked the police to screen the audience and let them in if they had their permits, but the police decided that would be "needlessly invasive". She then decided to cancel the appearance, and said in hindsight that she didn't want to speak to an audience where people could bring guns. None of this would have been an issue in nearly any other state (even other states that generally allow concealed weapons.)

In other words, there's probably a better way to say this, along the lines of "Sarkeesian cancelled the event, however, feeling the planned security measures were insufficient given that the state law prohibited the university from barring handguns."--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain sums this up well I think - balancing positions expressed on both sides here. I took their proposed quote which satisfies my initial concern and balances it against the questions of bias and legal issues of federalism raised by others. It's a neutral encyclopedic position, and it improves/clarifies the original statement in the article. Since this talk section appears inactive, I've moved the quote into the main article. Thanks all for considering this topic! Stevemidgley (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Two more academic sources

I've found two new academic sources that discuss or mention Sarkeesian:

• Trammell, Aaron; Gilbert, Anne (November 2004). "Extending Play to Critical Media Studies". Games & Culture. 9 (6). Sage Publications: 391–405.: Page 393 note 1 cites Sarkeesian's videos and experience as one of the real-world effects of video gaming that demands critical approach.
• Han, Hye-Won (November 2004). "Characterization of Female Protagonists in Video Games: A Focus on Lara Croft". Asian Journal of Women's Studies. 20 (3). Ewha Womans University: 27–48.: This one cites and responds to Sarkeesian's videos directly. The author cites Sarkeesian as one of the recent critics applying gender theory to video game criticism. According to Han, Sarkeesian gives a "macroscopic and genealogical perspective" of characters and traits, which Han wants to apply to Lara Croft specifically. She later cites Sarkeesian on the Damsels in Distress trope in games.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)