Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Claim that Sarkeesian "improves gender inclusivity"

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

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

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

It should have read something like "and appeared on The Colbert Report discussing her experiences of harassment and the challenge of attempting to improve gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". I somewhat object to the complete removal of the quote by Woodroar. The specific words do not need to appear in the reliable source for the statement of her intent to be addressed (a full transcript is available). For additional sources in any case: Kotaku, [1], WashingtonPost[2], LA Times [3], MotherJones [4] referring to the sentence from the show "I think women are perceived as threatening because we are asking for games to be more inclusive,” Sarkeesian said. “We’re asking for games to acknowledge that we exist and that we love games.". Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of Birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soraya Murray piece

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

Category:Fourth-wave feminism

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

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