Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Criticism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has degraded hard into BLP violations on top of not understanding policy. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 10:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Please pardon my asking but I was wondering if there should be a section in Anita Sarkeesian's wiki article regarding the criticism she has received which is a separate topic in regard to the Harassment section currently listed on her article? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand, and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources. See the talk page archives for previous discussions on individual sources." – from the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this page. Woodroar (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As it says "self-published"... That mean that I can't post something on YouTube or make my own site to be a critique of Anita, however I can point out someone else's YouTube videos with millions of views and channels and webpages not made by me that criticize Anita. Are we having double standards in regards to the definition of " self" ? As it stands this article is a mockery and an insult to the standards wikipedia has because it's clear that this article is being protected by Anita clique. Otherwise there would be a critics section. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, Choice777, but if you'd like to present some reliable sources per the Wikipedia definition, I would happily consider them. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not the correct interpretation of self published, the issue is that this is a Biography of a Living Person and you are asking us to use a Primary Source. The BLP ruleset is quite clear with regards to reliable sources. Your comments are a BLP violation for instance. Koncorde (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have redacted some of the comments above. I agree that this is a case of misunderstanding WP:SPS versus WP:OR. Neither are allowed on a BLP, except in very few circumstances, which this is not. Woodroar (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that there is no criticism of Anita ? Cause what? Because she's alive? I don't understand your point cause it's quite flipping retarded and stupid. And if you send any more messages to my page about "defamatory comments" you better start linking to them. As it stands you lot are just kissing Anita ass. Dont say no cause it's clear when such a controversial charger had no "criticism" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone's looking for a block, I think.--Jorm (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the point here that you are absolutely entitled to edit the page to include any criticism - provided that it was published in a reliable source, and that it isn't given undue weight? JezGrove (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate "criticism" sections are now discouraged. Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia articles to add information from reliable sources, allowing always for neutrality and undue weight. But of course it's not appropriate to say that another editor is "kissing Antia ass" or that their redaction, which was entirely consistent with policy, was "flipping retarded and stupid." MarkBernstein (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree 100% - my apologies for not making myself clear and I certainly don't condone the examples you give. I was simply trying to point out to Choice777 that there is no conspiracy to block criticism from the page, but that any criticisms that are included must comply with WP guidelines. JezGrove (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of the weather, the contribution history of Choice777 is quite interesting. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit history has nothing to do with the fact that there is a clear effort to hide prevent a critics section from being written on Anita's page. One muppet gives me a warning and another muppet a ban from editing "gamergate" or whatever other linked article. Like I give a shit about editing in wikipedia... Plenty of muppets to do that for me for free. Point is my first and single warning was for mentioning IT HERE that there is no critics section. This obviously prices that there's an embargo on making a critics section on Anita's page. So I got zero shits to give regarding my edit history cause I've got a life to live as opposed to you muppets AND zero shits to give reassuring bring banned here. Fact remains: there is an embargo on criticizing Anita and and embargo on adding a critics section to her article or mentioning it on her article's talk page. Me getting a warning for mentioning it on her article's talk page proves this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 September 2015‎ (UTC)

You got a warning for your unsourced BLP claims and accusations, nothing to do with "criticism" (see the archive of this page for the numerous times it has been brought up, and as yet not a single reliable source has been provided. Please, be the first. Koncorde (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Censoring any criticism

Unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is it that critique of Ms Sarkeesian is immediately removed? She, like anyone, receives her fair share.... it seems Wikipedia is being monopolized by social justice warriors who want to wind the world 500 years backwards. Why is it that pro-communism sources like the New Statesman, the kind of magazine to follow the left wing Rolling Stone method of research, are okay, whereas Breitbart is not? Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself. It's clearly not about knowledge anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skezza (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Because Breitbart has a history of fabricating evidence and the like, and is generally considered bad to use in BLPs. When reliable sources criticise Sarkeesian's work it is noted, see the article on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games which contains criticism of her work. Brustopher (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC) See, that's interesting because wasn't it Rolling Stone, the left wing, fabricating the evidence? When it comes to fabricating evidence, there's fewer more prominent examples than the ultra left, light the New Statesman, yet you recognize the NS as a legitimate source? Very fishy if you ask me. Skezza (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC) The Breitbart editorial makes an interesting read, but it is clearly an opinion piece, not a secondary source. Sławomir Biały 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The hatting is appropriate. The discussion was worthless. As far as your comments, this op-ed is not a noteworthy enough voice on the subject to justify including per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

By what criteria are you judging it's noteworthiness and how does that criteria compare against other opinions such as from Rolling Stone magazine? Second Quantization (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

By the criteria of WP:DUEWEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In comparison to the available sources discussing Sarkeesian, which includes academic articles and books, Breitbart is small beer in terms of WP:WEIGHT. Rolling Stone, on the other hand, is a major entertainment magazine of international significance, and so probably worth a mention.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Further, Rolling Stone has a long and very strong history of reporting on art, literature, and music, with very strong journalistic credentials. Breitbart has a brief and checkered history as a highly partisan right-wing outlet, one beset by scandals. Editors should be aware that the Gamergate boards are particularly displeased with Sarkeesian at the moment -- I can’t quite figure out why -- and seem unusually eager to harass her. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is the 201st most visited website in the USA: [1], Rolling Stone is 379th [2]. Both are about the same in terms of world ranking. Both are mentioned frequently in the media. Your criteria for calling Breitbart "small beer" applies equally well to Rolling Stone magazine. By the traffic both are bringing in, neither are particularly small outfits. "with very strong journalistic credentials" I think that's pretty hard to say with a straight face considering the University of Virginia story that was alluded to above. I'm looking now at their political lists: "10 Songs Republican Candidates Should Use in Their Campaigns ", "17 Most Offensive Social Media Fails ", "10 Dumbest Things Right-Wingers Said in 2014 ". Is this really what you'd call very strong journalistic credentials? Second Quantization (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Apples, Oranges? Rolling Stone is a magazine with a web site; Breitbart is a political operative’s web site that outlived the operative. Rolling Stone was founded in 1967, it’s employed artists from Annie Leibovitz to Hunter Thompson, it's got a paid circulation well north of a million readers. It has won numerous National Magazine Awards. Yes, that's really what you’d call very strong journalistic credentials. Thanks for playing! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's also look at some of the other parts of the "reception". An award from gamasutra is featured despite being a website no on reads (rank 8081) [3]. Breitbart has a higher alexa rank than The Daily Beast [4], the New Statesman [5] (low physical circulation). The current article even includes a link to what appears to be a self-published documentary. Is this really what you think is more noteworthy than Breitbart? You may not like what Breitbart say, but it can hardly be argued that they don't have a bigger impact than these sources, whether that be mentions within the rest of the media or its own visitor numbers. Second Quantization (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

If you had read any of the discussion you would know we are not discussing reliability but noteworthiness. Second Quantization (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthyness is for establishing articles. Not sourcing in those articles. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, notability is the policy for establishing articles, not noteworthiness. As has already been mentioned, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV allows biased statements of opinions to be presented with attribution. That is why the article currently includes primary-sourced quotes to rolling stone calling her "pop culture's most valuable critic" etc. It's the opinion of that rolling stone author. Generally, no one is expected to get a secondary source which draws attention to that quoted text. Second Quantization (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The current article does not really include any of the opinion content from the New Statesman source, merely a reference just to the existence of the source. I for one would have no problem citing the Breitbart report, without including any opinions of the author, in a similar vein, perhaps in the same sentence where the New Statesman reference appears. I don't think you're likely to win an argument if the premise is that Breitbart carries the same journalistic weight as the feature in Rolling Stone. But just including a small reference to Breitbart does seem perfectly acceptable. Spinning a fresh "criticism" section out of this one source is going way overboard though. Sławomir
Biały 23:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any criticism section, Second Quantization (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made my point. You're not changing its reliability status anytime soon. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just explained how this is not a discussion about reliability. I linked to the specific part of NPOV that allows attributed POV statements. For example, it's the opinion of the author of the rolling stone article that Sarkeesian is "pop culture's most valuable critic". If it wasn't attributed, it wouldn't be in the article, because of its POV. Breitbart editorials are reliable for the existence and nature of their own opinions. If you doubt a source is reliable for its own opinion, ask at WP:RSN. Second Quantization (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's almost like you think there's a GREAT WRONG here that needs to be righted? Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet I'm not the one who has exclusively edited about gamer-gate topics since July and whose gamer-gate related edits constitute the vast majority of their wikipedia contributions. That would in fact, be you. Second Quantization (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's an accurate description of me! It also happens that I'm not the one insistent on including an unreliable source for baldly ideological reasons. I'll be completely behind you once you can cite to something with a better track record than Breitbart. Until then, I think you're doing yourself a disservice. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"baldly ideological reasons" Which ideology is that exactly? Enlighten me. "insistent on including an unreliable source for" Breitbart is perfectly reliable for the text I have proposed below. Go ask at WP:RSN. Second Quantization (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, really it isn't, as you will find at WP:RSN. It's why it isn't used in any BLP (maybe Breitbart and his contributors aside). Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text

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

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

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

References

No. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. "Venue for a conservative, sexist, ideology dislikes woman who has an opinion" is the new "Water is wet". --Jorm (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Breitbart is not considered a reliable source, so it isn't fit to be referenced in a Wikipedia article. Lucasoutloud (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. This is undue and adds nothing to the article. Dumuzid (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. WP:BLP articles are not coatracks for views from unreliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. BB is full of opinions, none of them are worth sharing. --ℕ ℱ 01:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Undue weight. Why should an encyclopaedia care about the opinions of an unreliable source? DonQuixote (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. What is the standing of the person making the criticism, are they notable or reliable sources for art criticism? Plus all comments above, and historically, about Breitbart being scurrilous, unreliable, with no editorial oversight of any note and is patently disgusting, filled with race baiting, and does not differentiate between journalism, blogging, opinion or "stories". Koncorde (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. The site is unusable, this is a BLP issue, and the article is an opinion by a person who is not notable, and not a recognized expert in art or art criticism. Any one of those would be a deal break, all three of them make this a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"the article is an opinion by a person who is not notable" Well it should be an opinion piece if we are going to include their opinions. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV allows for opinions in wikipedia articles, even biased ones. Sean Collins, the author of the Rolling Stone article which calls Sarkeesian "pop culture's most valuable critic" is also not notable. Collins is also not a recognized expert in art or art criticism (this is the guy: [6]) Are you applying the exact same criteria evenly to the other opinions in the reception/awards sections? If that is the criteria, we should be gutting the article. I strongly suspect that people are actually proposing criteria that only opinions they disagree with have to jump through and all the rest get a free pass (like suggesting that Breitbart is small beer but then including websites which attract massively less attention such as Gamasutra). They'll declare Breitbart unreliable as a source for figuring out its authors own opinions but then conveniently remember WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV sometime else. Johnuniq even cites the coatracking essay (i.e about additions that " ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely") above, despite the text indicated and the reference being completely about the topic.

I don't think a lot of people even care what the policies say or how unevenly they are applying their own reasoning. Second Quantization (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)