Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Article fails to mention criticism

This article is biased because it neglects any criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, and instead focuses on defending her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.149.244 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please point towards a reliable source which mentions some criticism and it'll be included in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you also please be more specific about which statements you feel are defending the subject? Euchrid (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Regular lurker here, I found this: http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml 64.42.240.5 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That article has already been posted and then taken down as a non-notable blog. Euchrid (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How about these: Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI) and Anita Sarkeesian Part 2: Burqa Beach Party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI). What constitutes what counts as a notable source? --31.185.24.29 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This article lays out the reliable source guidelines pretty clearly - WP:irs YouTube videos count, for the most part, as self- published sources, and hence are not reliable. Euchrid (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So, because most YouTube videos are not reliable you are not even going to review these? I guess you could always just say it is non-notable if you don't agree with the message. --31.185.24.29 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. At Wikipedia we are obligated to write from a neutral point of view using reliable sources. Generally speaking, consensus does not consider self-published video rants on YouTube to be reliable sources. If you can locate some reliable sources that support your personal personal complaints with Ms. Sarkeesian it would be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that there is a heightened need for accuracy in this article due to the fact that Ms. Sarkeesian is a living person. Thanks. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's right, we have to be especially careful with sources when writing anything negative about a living person. The biographies of living persons guideline, which User:Karimarie linked to, is very clear on this. As a new user, I'd recommend that you familiarize yourself with things like that before criticizing others. Euchrid (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the first portion of "Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate". It is an interesting analysis, but as far as I can tell, it is anonymous and self published. In order for a publication (video, blog, or print)to be considered a reliable secondary source, it at least has to be published by a recognized publisher with editorial control. --Nowa (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's absolutely one of the most cogently argued cases I've heard, and I certainly wouldn't class it with the trolling and harassment that she's received. That doesn't change the facts of the notability policy, though Euchrid (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"it neglects any criticism of Anita Sarkeesian" I don't quite understand. Doesn't the section on her Kickstarter project make it clear that there is a lot of criticism of her?--Nowa (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to ask the same question. I thought censorship was against Wikipedia's principles? It's not just "YouTube videos", one of the video game journalist sites that covered her story was critical. 95.103.4.222 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which site is that--Destructoid? As explained above, that's just one blogger's personal opinion, which is not the sort of thing we include in Wikipedia. Look, this is extremely simple: provide us some good quality reliable sources that criticize her. Then we can include the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

censorship was against Wikipedia's principle You are confusing censorship with neutral point of view. Censorship is essential to Wikipedia. Anything that is not supported by a reliable secondary source gets censored.--Nowa (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Censorship is forbidding other people from saying things. Wikipedia can't do that. Wikipedia articles likewise cannot include everything anyone has ever said about a person. The fact that Sarkessian has been criticised is very well covered in this article - the majority of the Kickstarter section lists the things that were said. I know because I wrote much of it. If you want the article to say that those things were true, well I'm afraid that that isn't going to happen, in the name of neutrality.Euchrid (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to make an article that "says those things are true." we're asking for a more fair, neutral approach to criticism of Anita. This article fails to mention all the rational, legitimate criticism of her and her videos, opting instead to only mention the immature, hateful responses she received. Nowhere on this article is there even a passing mention of any substantial criticism of her works. This article comes off more "pro-anita" than anything. --Homor242 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide reliable sources discussing said criticism? To date, no one has been able to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a very good Destructoid article that summed up the legitimate criticism she receives very nicely. To my knowledge, it was completely ignored because it was a "non-notable blog" which is an absolute fallacy, considering Destructoid is, in reality, a popular and heavily relied upon gaming news site. There's also this article by The Moderate Voice which briefly discusses the youtube videos made by the user InstigationJournalism. http://themoderatevoice.com/153578/153578/ --Homor242 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Destructoid might be great at reporting on gaming news and such, but when it comes to social criticism or women's studies and other related fields, it has no qualifications whatsoever and as such can't be used as a source in that respect. Also, both are blogs, which are basically editorials, so the most we can do is mention that such blogs exist but we can't use them as sources. DonQuixote (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not social criticism or women's studies and other related fields, it's still all about vidya (if you don't believe, go and check every single illustration in Destructoid article). If anything, it only says how AS possibly has no qualifications (not whatsoever, but that whatsoever was yours - and maybe she's spending all this time since then doing a real research, who knows) to be the one to "make a difference" as many except her to do (quote: "With this much money involved, people want to be sure that Anita is doing everything she can to truly make a difference, and not provide a face-value assessment of the subject matter, that may misconstrue the original developer's intentions."). And as of The Escapist - The Escapist article is already being used here in article, but it was another article - one was being apparently "qualified" in social criticism or women's studies and other related fields (here I must say I've never heard about "women's studies" thing before reading this article, the thing doesn't even has a Polish Wikipedia article and I still don't even know how it translates) and one was not, somehow (because I've added it myself, and it quickly got removed). --Niemti (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry there's not an article about women's studies (badania kobiet?) in the Polish Wikipedia, although there is pl:Gender studies: there has been some good work done in the former Soviet bloc on these matters that's not the same as what scholars in the West do. There are articles here, in the Finnish, Swedish and German versions: do you read any of those as well as you do English? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Context absolutely matters. I'll take DonQuixote's statement further: even if Destructoid's article content is generally reliable for video game topics, blogs and editorials posted on the site are not, they remain unusable sources. Needless to say, Homor's other personal website is unusable as well.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course editorials are also "generally reliable". What's unreliable in this article, specifically? --Niemti (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, opinion pieces, especially when they're just the author's unedited blog, aren't reliable for anything other than the author's opinion, and even then it still must pass the various other BLP and RS criteria.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Think of it this way. If MythBusters, which is a fairly reliable source for their area of expertise, suddenly started criticizing Brian Cox's works, it's not going to mean that they are going to be cited as criticism for Brian Cox or particle physics because, frankly, that's not their area of expertise. It'll be even worse if the comments are on their blog. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's "author's opinion", but video games is their area of expertise - unlike Anita's. Her area of expertise is communication studies and "social and political thought" - and here she was talking about video games (she has neither any education or academic work in game studies, all she had previously published was a couple of vlogs, which were specifically the subject of analysis by Destructoid).

(EC) Er...she's not talking about C++-type pointers or pixel shading or AI implementation or anything outside her area of expertise (so no, nothing to do with game studies). She's talking about character archetypes, tropes, etc. which was the subject of her master's thesis. So...replace "game" with "movie" or "tv show" or "novel" and we'll have the same thing. That is, nothing to do with the mechanics or grammar or whatever but everything to do with how these things are perceived by society (communication studies). DonQuixote (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, she was talking about specific games and characters (chosen by her) and how she perceives them (as in: "but I was frustrated that I had to repeatedly", "I really enjoyed Bastion, but", "I'm really loving it, though I have to say", "I really appreciate the gameplay and some of the complexities of the Assassin’s Creed series, but I've been regularly disappointed", etc.). Read the article. --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Er...yeah, communication studies and not game studies. (All following emphases mine.) "I was frustrated that I had to repeatedly save the "busty" Nymphs in Distress"...doesn't have anything to do with game studies but communication studies. "I really enjoyed Bastion, but the only female character in the game doesn’t have any depth (to put it mildly); basically, her whole characterization was "The Female.""...communication studies, not game studies. "I really appreciate the gameplay and some of the complexities of the Assassin’s Creed series, but I've been regularly disappointed with the female characters for a whole host of reasons that we don’t have the space to get into."...communication studies, not game studies. So, no, she's not talking outside here area of expertise...which would be self-evident if you didn't misquote her. DonQuixote (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

the only female character in the game doesn’t have any depth (to put it mildly); basically, her whole characterization was "The Female. - and it's there where she (not "society", only the person named Anita Sarkeesian) was flat-wrong in her perception, and her statement. Because "The Female" (Zia) is relatively very well characterized, as opposed to the male protagonist (actually known only as "the Kid", and the players never learn anything about him). --Niemti (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

again, that she is "flat wrong" solely your opinion (or the opinions of other non experts). You would need to find reliable sources to support that analysis.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? And what validates your own opinion about Destructoid staff member Chris Carter as "non expert" regarding video games? Well, you can check yourself - here's the Wikipedia article, and here's the Wikia article about Zia (yes, "The Female" really has the name, while the Kid is only just the Kid), and you can check just anywhere else (even go play the game yourself, if you want/need). --Niemti (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that he is not an expert in videos games. that is entirely irrel. he is not an expert in the filed of social and cultural analysis - and that is what matters when we decide whether or not his is a worthy opinion to discuss Sarkeesian's cultural analysis. Dog Fancy's opinion about economics or physics or climate change is irrel - they are only a potentially valid source about dogs.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It was not "social and cultural analysis", it was Anita stating her own opinions about selected video games in an interview with a video game publication - in response to the question of Have you played any games that you absolutely adored in spite of their failings in that regard, or perhaps some instances where you are willing to overlook such discrepancies simply because you fell in love with the game?. HELLO? --Niemti (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested edit was not anything at all about her own words from an interview. If that is what you want to be considered for addition, then make another suggestion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What? --Niemti (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested edit below was NOT her words. it was your interpretation of someonelse's analysis of her words. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you okay? --Niemti (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's all her expertise in this field in her own words - and from the interview with Destructoid, no less: Because my dad was a networking engineer I basically grew up surrounded by computers and started playing PC games at a pretty young age. I also spent a lot of time with the NES and the SNES but what I remember most is the Game Boy. At around ten years old I begged my parents to get me one, this took some serious persuasion on my part because 1) my parents believed it was a toy for boys (at the time I didn't realize how gendered the marketing was, I mean, it's called Game 'Boy' after all) and 2) my mom had heard all the nonsense about how videogames are dangerous and would rot my brain. In the end, though, they gave in and I remember the sense of victory when I unwrapped it on Christmas morning. After that, the Game Boy and I were inseparable. Today, I would describe my relationship with gaming as complex, to say the least. There are a handful of truly amazing, artistic, creative and engaging games out there that I absolutely love. On the other hand there are so many more where I, as the player, am forced to choose between the ultra violent, emotionless space marine or the male fantasy style sex object. This is especially frustrating because there is an incredible amount of potential for the industry to push the envelope and create gaming experiences which employ more immersive storytelling, complex character development, and innovative gameplay. That's all.[1] --Niemti (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

1) since when is the study video game culture not a part of modern social fabric? 2) Sarkeesian is the subject of the article. whether she is the world's premier expert on the subjects she covers or the most looney wing nut, illustrating her views are appropriate for the article content so readers understand her place. 3) the random opinions of third parties are not relevant to this article about a living person. WP:BLP / WP:SPS / WP:RS etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the article was not even about the vlogs (which were not about video games) - it was about this very interview that she gave to them (Destructoid). As in: Destructoid (area of expertise: video games) analysing specific claims about various video games that Anita Sarkeesian has made in an interview with Destructoid. WP:BLP / WP:SPS / WP:RS etc. - quote the relevant parts. I don't know where you got anything about "modern social fabric". --Niemti (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP - content about living people requires the highest quality of sources, do not use self published material

WP:SPS - self published blogs can be used for non controversial content about the publisher/writer of the blog in the article about the writer of the blog. these claims are 1) potentially controversial, 2) not about the writer of the blog but about someone else, 3) not in the article of the person who wrote the blog

WP:RS - reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, particularly about the subject under discussion. Dog Fancy may be a reliable source for content about dogs, but it is not a reliable source about physics.

WP:OR - we cannot in the article make claims that are not specifically by by our sources.

WP:UNDUE - we represent the views critiquing Sarkeesian's work in the proportion they are held and given by the academic community of those who know that subject. every yahoo on the street can have an opinion about anything, but we only care about and cover the experts opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not self-published, it's Destructoid/ModernMethod-published (and ModernMethod is a company), in association (advertising) with GameRevolution/CraveOnline (owned by Atomic Online, which is also a company). It's not a "self published blog", it's Modern Method published Destructoid editorial. I think Destructoid has a reputation of being a reliable source to discuss video games. Who wants to "make claims that are not specifically by by our sources"? No, we don't "represent the views critiquing Sarkeesian's work" at all. --Niemti (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And no, it's not like it's allegations that Anita is a Russian deep-cover agent, or anything like that. It's critical analysis of the claims that she has made in interview with them (as in: of her work, and in their area of expertise). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can host a blog site and have advertisers. in order for it not to fall in the SPS, you would need to show that the site provides an editorial oversight of the content. But even if it does have the oversight to not be a SPS, it still does not have the expertise in evaluating social and cultural critiques. Its area of expertise is games. and yes, anytime someone is charging that someone else doesnt know what they are talking about or were lying in an interview or other public statements it is controversial.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, like Bitch and YouTube who host Anita's vlogs. Proof that "the site provides an editorial oversight of the content" is that the (editorial) article by staff member Chris Carter was endorsed and prefaced with a note by another staff member, Henry Andrew Dixon. I'm pretty sure Anita would let everyone and their mother know if Destructoid "were lying in an interview or other public statements" about her, no? And everything about it you can check yourself - like about her claims regarding Bastion, where indeed Zia was much, much more characterised than the game's silent protagonist (who is actually even known only as "the Kid"), and yet Anita was complaining about the supposed lack of characterisation of... Zia (full quote: On the indie side of things, I really enjoyed Bastion, but the only female character in the game doesn’t have any depth (to put it mildly); basically, her whole characterization was "The Female."). --Niemti (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

you are failing to grasp the difference between covering what the subject of the article has done and what others say about it and are attempting to WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Come again? Maybe try with a full sentence because I really "failed to grasp" it. And about by advertising-association, I meant that GR/Crave/Atomic is handling the ads (Advertising on destructoid is available through [GR/C] Please contact them to learn more), maybe you misunderstood this part. The article was not "evaluating social and cultural critiques". It was evaluating claims made by Anita about a couple of specific video games and video game characters that were in an interview with a video game website (their own) - quote: Note that this has nothing to do with "privilege", or any sort of socioeconomic argument: this is simply a balanced view of some of the misrepresentations given for a few of Sarkeesian's examples from a gameplay and narrative perspective. --Niemti (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen so much useless white knighting. Add criticism, if you think people are smart enough to like her and see through what you deem bullshit, then what is the worst that can happen by adding it?

proposed addition

since we just seem to keep beating the same dead horse why in general your proposed source is not likely to be acceptable per policy, let's try specific. What is the content you would like to include, where, and supported by what source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably at the end of the last paragraph: Besides many negative comments that involved personal attacks against Sarkeesian, there were also some moderately critical voices that constructively addressed the perceived misrepresentations in her statements about video games, such as by Destructoid's editor Chris Carter.[2] According to The Escapist's Jim Sterling, however, "any attempt to seriously debate [with Sarkeesian] has been undermined by theats to rape her."[3] (rough draft). --Niemti (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, destructoid (or any of the youtube videos mentioned) is not a reliable source for communication studies so their criticism has no merit and shouldn't be cited. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)that Carter is a "constructively addressed the perceived misrepresentations in her statements" is entirely your personal opinion about the article, so that is right out even there were no questions of reliability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

They weren't talking about "communication", they were talking about Anita's statements about video games in an interview for a video game website in relation to her project about video games. Jimquisition isn't even hosted at YT - as opposed to Anita's vlogs (that are indeed hosted at YT) - it's hosted at The Escapist's own server. --Niemti (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"My opinion"? Exuse me? Of course, it was constructive (At the very least, I hope Anita can learn from some of the above examples, and convey a more balanced view in the future. I really think that with the right material, she can make a change.). As opposed to "go back to the kitchen" or "IM GONNA RAPE U", which was surely not constructive, and which is covered quite in detail (including a quote from another article at very same The Escapist). See: constructive criticism. --Niemti (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That Carter deems his analysis "something she can learn from" is entirely irrel. and not an opinion that we can transfer into article content. that it is less insipid than "im gonna rape you" does not really establish anything other than its not as insipid. an you need to read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. that you or I might look at it and say "I think that's constructive criticism" is not an analysis that we can put into the article. there would need to be a third party that described Carter's work in that manner. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And regarding your ("irrel." or not) opinions, why do you think it's any "insipid" at all? Anyway, as I said, it's just a rough draft so maybe try and and propse a rephrase. --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, but most editors of wikipedia are non-notable. Anita doesn't have to listen to you...just like Brian Cox doesn't have to listen to me (even though I have physics degrees, it's not in particle physics) or even the cast of MythBusters (a well-known group who are considered reliable in their area of expertise but not particle physics). So, no. DonQuixote (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoever said anything about "editors of wikipedia", and what are you talking about? --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that. But the point remains, Anita Sarkeesian doesn't have to listen to Destructoid...just like Brian Cox doesn't have to listen to the cast of MythBusters. The point is that they're only required to "listen" to their colleagues in their respective fields or reliable sources of their respective fields such as journals or books. So if Carter wants to teach Sarkeesian "from some of the above examples, and convey a more balanced view in the future", then he should publish his analysis in a reliable journal rather than Destructoid. DonQuixote (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want her to do anything (maybe except her promised videos), I want to article to mention that not all response was either "I GONNA KILL U BITCH" or "please take my money". That was quite a lot of between, and I believe Carter (Destructoid), Sterling (The Escapist) and 'Men vs Tropes' (a parody project covered by Kotaku) provide some good anough examples. --Niemti (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

But Wikipedia doesnt care about "all the response". it cares about the 1) response of academics who matter, and 2) the insane death threaters whose response was covered by third parties- but we care about them only because their opinions and reactions have received significant coverage by other reliable sources. the responses of Joe Blow tangential-non-academic on the street dont matter - unless their opinions have also received wide coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

But Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. I don't know who's "Joe Blow tangential-non-academic on the street", and why are "academics" needed to respond to a Kickstarter project to make a series of YouTube videos about video games, or to analyse a related interview (still about video games) that was given by the author of the planned YouTube vlog series to their own website. The "insane death threaters" were just mostly adescelant trolls, which was never serious (as in: nobody actually wanted to kill her) and is just a part of the Internet "life" (which is not real). They're not "insane", they're just 13-year-olds being 13-years-olds (when I was this age the Internet was different back then, so me and my bros were doing rude prank calls, and leaving obscene messages on walls, and such). --Niemti (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

because ANYONE can have an opinion (and most people do) and post it on a blog. Big fucking deal. We are an encyclopedia and we use expert analysis to put things into perspective based upon the relative weight of those academic opinions. we include the opinions and analysis of people who are qualified to judge the subject. your gamer blog is not a qualified expert on social cultural expressions. he knows games. and I am done.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

HUGE "fucking deal", even. And that's where I stopped discussing anything with you (and reading, too). Bye. --Niemti (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I still dont think you are approaching this with the right perspective and it is clouding your ability to understand how to edit the article. For this article, we are NOT attempting to analyse Sarkeesian or her work. we are attempting to write an encyclopedia article about Sarkeesian based upon what third party reliable sources say about her work, and occasionally primary source materials / Sarkeesian's own words about herself and her work. We are not and cannot and will not insert our own analysis into the article nor use the analysis of inappropriate sources who are not experts int the appropriate fields to do so either. This article is not a justification of nor a debunking of her views - this is an encyclopedia article that says: This is Anita Sarkeesian and what she did/thought/wrote that people thought was worthy of notice.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, because I'm not "attempting to analyse Sarkeesian or her work" neither. The addition is to present full picture, that is that not all critical response was just "large number of negative comments, including threats of death and rape, racist abuse, and an extended attempt to have the campaign suspended" (speaking of which, what exactly was this "extended attempt to have the campaign suspended"? give me some sources talking specifically about it). Experts in the field of video games are qualified to talk about video games, including "perceived misrepresentations in her statements about video games" - they're not qualified to critically respond to her claims about films and film characters, that's what film experts could only do (and vice versa). --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Also: "Other, less-serious response to Sarkeesian Kickstarter project included a parody[4] Steam/Indiegogo project 'Tropes Vs Men' which rised $3,401, all of which was then donated to cancer charity foundations.[5][6]" --Niemti (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, your Destructoid blog piece isn't going in the article, period. You can stop going on and on about it. And we're not going to bend over backwards to include "other less-serious response [sic]" just for the sake of it. As with anything else, you'd have to show that it's both reliable and noteworthy to the topic of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's not "my" Destructoid "blog piece, period." And you've got to tell me why it "isn't going in the article", and convince me, as in some better way then the red-colored "fucking deal" person above. And no I don't except anyone to "bend over backwards", or forward for that matter. Also it was "other, less-serious response [sic]" and not "other less-serious response [sic]" - quite a difference [sic]. And also regarding "fucking dealing": curiously, I see no "academic opinions" [sic [sic]] about Anita in the article at all. How strange. --Niemti (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The piece doesn't belong in the article because it isn't a reliable source. There is nothing else to discuss here. Should a reliable source re-report on the destructoid blog, then we can consider inclusion. Here's a simple way of looking at it: until a reliable source says it, it literally does not exist for Wikipedia. Until it exists, we cannot comment about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

--Niemti (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough already

Please take a time out. Nothing new has surfaced. No new interpretations of WP:RS are going to materialize. 86 edits in under 3 hours is what I'd consider disruptive. Take this to IRC or a forum or something. WP:NOTAFORUM.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. While I have zero issues with reasonable critique of Sarkeezian's positions and expressions, I'm seeing no consensus for insertion of material based on the non-RS stuff provided. I agree with Peter's comment above some distance from this talkpage ultimately might benefit the discussion. Find some much better sourcing first. The sources which might seem acceptable in an article on a game product are woefully inadequate when used in a BLP. BusterD (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And I just found out that Niemti is subject to an RfC for disruptive behavior related to video game articles. What's particularly damning in light of the debate here is that one of the complaints (which is well-supported by links and diffs) is that Niemti has engaged in excessively emphasizing the sex appeal of female video game characters.

To me, that was really the last straw. I have endorsed the RfC and suggested that he be banned if he continues to engage in disruptive debate.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this idea to take a time out, as Wikipedia is indeed not a forum for general discussion on the article's subject, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. I have stayed clear of the above dispute, as I don't want to get involved, but I think at this point, some distance from the talk page would benefit this discussion. We have to find some better sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think this particular discussion has been a general FORUM discussion. it has been solely focused on policy application to particular content. the user has been (purposefully or not) just "not getting" how policy applies to the source and proposed content. note: comment stricken as the editor's next "reply" obviously moves into the FORUM-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It ceased being a meaningful discussion after the first couple of users were told the basics of Wikipedia policy concerning references. That was before Niemti, a fairly experienced editor, entered the fray. Anyone who can't present a relevant source by now should be told to do so or move on, not be argued with.

We can't keep treating every single upset game aficionado who pops up here with presumptuous views and zero relevant knowledge of gender studies as if was a first.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite what I call "apology". Anyway, as of unfounded allegations of the constructive criticism being "presumptuous" (synonyms: arrogant - presuming - conceited - overweening - insolent) - Carter was actually extremely polite (and also very sympathic to her personally as well to her cause), in fact more than Sarkeesian who says things like I'm going to look at the damsel in distress, the fighting f- toy[7] (with "f-" obviously not standing for "feminist"). And he specifically said this was not, quote: a personal attack on Anita in any way, nor is it meant to debate the etymology or efficacy of modern feminism. She actually seems like a cool person, I just take issue with some of the "tropes" that she has chosen to bring to light. This is meant entirely as an in-depth look into some of the games that she feels are perpetuating a negative female stereotype, and not an attack on her personal character -- as a result, I'd like to ask that your comments here also refrain from any personal attacks. His article was also not about gender studies at all, quote: Note that this has nothing to do with "privilege", or any sort of socioeconomic argument: this is simply a balanced view of some of the misrepresentations given for a few of Sarkeesian's examples from a gameplay and narrative perspective. (bolded as in original, I don't think more than "zero knowledge of gender studies" is needed for this, just like "zero knowledge of physics" despite how both of them - Sarkeesian and Carter - talk about Kat and her physics-bending powers, in a video game). Maybe you should just read it first/eventually. As of people attacking blogs, YouTube, etc, as unreliable sources. Sarkeesian is a YouTube blogger herself, but that's only her - all of those people that I brought up here are in fact not (her fellow) YouTube bloggers, even their vlogs are not hosted on YouTube, but like Anita's work as a YouTube-based vlogger for Bitch, they're being paid for their (journalistic) work. And once again, the article contains no "academic opinions" that are being demanded for (even partially/mildly) critical views, yet are not demanded for support and endorsement. As such - The Escapist is somehow okay for the opinion of The Escapist referred to the commenters as a "misogynist horde", but not for pointing out that Sarkeesian became well-known (called a story of the year even) only after that and due to what Wikipedia calls absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse (directly quoting yet another opinion, which no, was also not "academic") that undermined any attempt to seriously debate her. Only then the very same publication is suddenly totally not okay, at all, and also somehow. And maybe you go and propose something else (and better?) to eliminate this article's (quoting the official survey of Wikipedia readers) "minimal bias" and imrpove it's vastly incomplete state (the same survey)? --Niemti (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK now its clearly moved to FORUM, striking my comment above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is entirely not true, and I actually used Sarkeesian as an example of the allegations of "excessively emphasizing the sex appeal of female video game characters" (it's in the very last sentence at Mai Shiranui, and here's the proof it was me: [8]), I wonder how "particularly damning" was that. Articles created by me include, for example, Grace Nakimura, her reception being exactly what TV Tropes would call "trope averted" regarding female game characters and sexyness. And so I demand an apology from the user Isotalo. Not because it would be "particularly damning" if it was true (it wouldn't be, at all), but because he was posted a false statement about me precisely because he thought it would have a "particularly damning" effect.

And this is not a "disruptive behavior", because I'm not alone in this, and I didn't even neither started nor re-stared this thread. In case if you din't notice: the article's objectivity rating is exactly 3/5 (which stands for "minimal bias" on Wikipedia's own scale), with "complete" being only slightly above 2/5 - that's how general public feels about it (and I didn't even rate it, myself - but nearly 200 people did; for a comparison, the sameMai Shiranui, where I created most of the content, "excessively emphasizing the sex appeal" or what not, has the objectiveness rating of 5/5 and actually it's rated 5/5 on all points). Trying to fix this (according to the readers) deeply flawed article by constructively proposing (without engaging in edit wars or personal attacks or "even" swearing in style of "big fucking deal", see above) is not "disruptive" at all. It's exactly what the talk pages are for.

Destructoid, being far from "just a blog", is actually a reliable source about video games, and the article was about video games - and Sarkeesian's planned vlog (which is covered by this article, very prominently so, and which is about video games). It is being used as a source in more than 2 thousand Wikipedia articles. Same with Kotaku, for that matter. And The Escapist is even already used here, for an opinion (even quoted directly), and yet I don't see anyone complaining about it, saying "it isn't a reliable source". And again: I don't see any "academic opinions" in the article. --Niemti (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Escapist

While I don't agree with adding any other blogs, I do agree with Niemti that the Escapist article is not a reliable source and should be removed. Does anyone object to that? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me and it's not a blog. It's just about double standards of when it is and when it's (allegedly) not okay in the very same article, in the very same section, about the very same subject. I think it's this (to quote Wikipedia survey about the article) "minimal bias" at work. --Niemti (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As the person who added the reference to The Escapist, I don't mind it being removed. I put it there in the early days, before there was much coverage to draw on. Now we have sources like Wired I suppose that it's not necessary to rely on the lesser sources. I'll see if I can find something more reliable to replace it, but in the meantime go for it. Euchrid (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, maybe I phrased that badly. What I should have said is, "In the process of trying to explain to Niemti why one source s/he is suggesting is not appropriate per WP:RS, another source has been raised which also probably doesn't meet WP:RS. As such, the correct solution is to remove the other source, not add a second one that is inappropriate." So, I guess it's not that you called for that one to be removed, but your discussion has sparked further checking and now I think that removal is definitely correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And it won't change anything and the article will still be regarded as both "minimally biased" and very incomplete (pretty much correctly so). --Niemti (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It will remain that way to you. One editor. Who hasn't yet produced reliable sources. Look, if you're absolutely certain we're wrong, start an RfC. If not, then there's really nothing more to be done wrt your suggested addition. I'd rather concentrate on the issue that I think we might be able to get consensus on--removing another non-RS from the article. Anyone else care to provide an opinion, either way? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Niemti has been warned many times about misusing this talk page as a platform for his disruptive rants. It seems unlikely he'll be responsive to his RfC; at this point an article ban, if not a topic ban, is in order.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, duh, I had naively assumed Niemti was a new user who unaware of how Wikipedia works and was just slow in "getting it"; however, it appears that was a mistake, and this discussion has just been trolling. That'll learn me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're both wrong. While I agree that Niemti is not getting the underlying problem (the need for RS), I don't believe he is a troll, I don't believe he is using this page as a forum (every discussion has been explicitly related to changing the article), and, in fact, consider both of your comments to be personal attacks. I recommend you strike them, as they only embolden those who oppose Sarkeesian for unfounded, misogynistic reasons. Given the extreme hatred and vitriol that's been aimed at Sarkeesian, calling a good faith editor (albeit one who is wrong) a troll and "ranter" is misplacing blame.

In the meantime, I'm removing the Escapist piece, as no one has justified how it rises up to meet WP:RS, or, even if it does meet RS, how their opinion is important enough to meet WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to bring some perspective to this discussion, but the fact is that Niemti has repeatedly disrupted this talk page with off topic rants, much of it quite disparaging to the subject. There are examples in this very thread. At such a sensitive BLP this is unacceptable, and he's been warned enough times already. This is beyond his refusal to get the point that poor sources and material aren't going in the article.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and good move on the Escapist source.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Since Niemti has caused disruption on this talk page with off-topic, disparaging rants to the subject, this is clearly not acceptable and he has been warned enough times already. Also worth noting that he is User:HanzoHattori, who has recently returned from a ban and indefinite block for incivility and an inability to work with others. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Find yourself a different hobby already. --Niemti (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with all due respect, please drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. You have made your point, and I have already moved on. This article is a sensitive BLP, and by disrupting this talk page by using it as a forum for disparaging others or the subject of the article, this is seriously unacceptable behavior. The Escapist source has been removed by Qwryxian, as no one has justified it rises up to meet reliable source guidelines or how their opinion is enough to achieve undue weight per his concerns, and I agree with this removal. At this point, I think it's time to move forward. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Close this discussion?

At this time, I think it's time we should simply move forward. Destructoid and Escapist are not considered reliable sources and should not be in this sensitive BLP. May we close this? Votes below:

1. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion: not a voting matter. This discussion will be closed when everyone involved stops coming back to add their criticisms of other editors etc. No further action will be needed, beyond maybe archiving the thread some day. -Pete (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. I guess that's fair enough. With that said, no further action is needed, and I think it's pretty safe to assume that we should archive the thread. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Modern Feminism and Anti-Sex positivism

I feel like the article should work in how she has consistently opposed other feminist movements and sex positive movements. She is much more conservative and pro-censorship and I feel the article needs to mention this in addition to accurately describing her worldview she puts forward. 74.70.148.40 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that? Euchrid (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I found one but I'm not sure if it's a RS. Would a comment from Anita on youtube be considered a reliable source since it is from her?174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be considered a primary source. Secondary coverage characterizing what she said on the video (in a reliable source) would be acceptable. Visit WP:IRS to find out what constitutes independent reliable sources. BusterD (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just reading through that now and I'm seeing "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" so would an article on her blog where she comes out against SlutWalk which is a sex positive movement be allowed because it is a self-published source about herself? Sorry if that sounds slightly convoluted. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be your personal interpretation of the primary source, and that's never acceptable. Clearly she's not describing herself as "pro-censorhip" or "opposing other feminist movements".Cúchullain ^t/c 02:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From her Slut Walk Article: "I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk, for the name and for the unstrategic organizing which sadly, seems to ignores the systemic and institutional issues of rape culture, victim blaming and well, radical feminism." I'm not sure how I could be interpreting that wrong as she clearly states her dislike of SlutWalk. I never mentioned "pro-censorhip" or "opposing other feminist movements" so I'm not sure why you're thinking I'm saying that she has those views. From my understanding (which I admit is limited) it should be allowed because it meets all 5 points of criteria for a Self-published source. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/05/link-round-up-feminist-critiques-of-slutwalk/ - Thought I should provide the article so it could be reviewed. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The initial poster certainly did use the terms "pro-censorship" or "opposing other feminist movements", and you responded directly to a question posed to them. If you want to say something different, please indicate what it is so we can determine whether the use is appropriate. To reiterate, primary sources may be used in some circumstances, sparingly and with great caution, but interpretation of primary sources is never acceptable.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I responded here since the OP and the header also indicate that this discussion is about potential Anti-Sex positivism views Anita may hold. I don't think any interpretation was made, her direct quote is "I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk". Since not many third party sources will likely be found on this topic but she herself admits it I think in this circumstance it should be allowed. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's important to fully capture Sarkeesian's position in the Wikipedia article, but I don't think that the Slutwalk source is useful, for two reasons. Firstly, it's primarily a round-up of other sources, which aren't all saying the same thing, and as such aren't useful in an article about Sarkeesian, except to infer that she agrees withi them to some degree. Secondly, she doesn't elucidate her own reasons for being against Slutwalk to any great detail - it seems like an off-the-cuff comment, rather than a fully developed position, and not a sufficently prominent part of her broader argument / worldview to merit inclusion. Euchrid (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it's a roundup does not mean that it cannot be used, because the part being referenced is her personal opinion. And we cannot insist that she provides reasons for her position. The only grounds on which this can be opposed is WP:UNDUE--that is, whether her opinion on this random subject is important enough for inclusion. On that point, I'm not sure; I'd lean towards keeping it out, since I'm sure Sarkeesian has expressed lots of opinions in her blog and vlog, and we certainly don't want to list every single one of them. But we need to follow policies when we decide what to include or not include. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The source could, if we determined it necessary, be used to indicate that Sarkeesian is critical of Slut Walk. It cannot be used to indicate that she is "Anti-Sex Positivism", "Anti-Modern Feminism", or anything else that the source doesn't say directly. As to what it does say, we'd still have to have some reason to include it, and I don't see one. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a list of all the things the subject has ever said or written about. The fact that no secondary sources mention it is probably a good indication that it's not noteworthy enough to include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In the case of YouTube videos, I'm not sure we'd want to use these to establish any fact concerning a BLP without a reliable secondary. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This MS Magazine article may be a useful reference.--Nowa (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But on reading it, you learn that Sarkeesian has said some nuanced things about SlutWalk that don't fit the tidy sound-bite description of her which started this section. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Should this article include the nuanced things?--Nowa (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sarkeesian is a commentator, which means that she has expressed opinions on a wide variety of things. Trying to list every single one of them would bloat the article and violate WP:UNDUE. Only the core points of her position need to be in the article, and I don't feel like her stance on SlutWalk is one of them. Euchrid (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the original post in this section--Cuchullain and BusterD are absolutely right--even if we do use this source, we can only state exactly what it says, which is that she disagrees in part with the term "SlutWalk", not to say that she generally is anti-sex positive or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It must be pointed out that being against slut-walks doesn't make someone sex-positive *or* sex negative. Slut walks don't have anything to *do* with sex positivity or negativity; they're protests against rape culture. 24.67.68.81 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the anonymous commenter immediately above. I'm not even sure that ill-defined neologisms like "sex positive" or "sex negative" help the article at all. -Pete (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Interview with Global News

Sarkeesian was recently interviewed by Global News. Not sure if there's anything useful in there, but here's the source: http://www.globalnews.ca/16x9/video/dangerous+game+tropes+vs+women+bullying/video.html?v=2299118976&p=1&s=dd#video. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that it's at least worth mentioning that it happened. Euchrid (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's just another interview, one of dozens. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge it's the first time that she's been interviewed on TV news, so it represents a new level of exposure and recognition. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, though. Euchrid (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Being interviewed = "a new level of exposure and recognition"? More like a new level of scrapping a barrel (the program was really stupid anyway, because people trolling on the Internet and 13-year-old gamers is not "news" and surely is not reserved to harrassing women). And hey, where's this web series of hers? Even her blog had no other updates for over 3 months since August 1 after posting a pic of posing with a pile of random games (which included LittleBigPlanet 1 & 2 for "research the sexism" in the games with no human beings or even organic life forms, and which is like her "playing a game" with a controller turned off in the trailer - she's such an expert). Also, a RS view on all this from a different perspecive: [9] (back from September, and of course over 2 months later the series is still "upcoming", forevermore). --Niemti (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you try to be more coherent? Once again, this is not the place for your personal criticisms of the article's subject. And there's nothing about that Escapist editorial video indicating it's a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia article, not a random assemblage of every internet commenter who has ever said something about the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sterling's a long-time professional video game critic and journalist with a lot of reviews, editorials and interviews (as in: conducted by him, mostly) for The Escapist, Destructoid and GamesRadar (at least, possibly also elsewhere). I'd actually turn what you said around and say there's nothing about Anita Sarkeesian indicating she is a reliable source for anything video game related. All she got was a lot of trolling/hate (mostly from 13-year-old boys who got a short break from calling each other a "faggit" and insinuating sexual realtions with each other's mothers over Xbox Live) and then exposing it and getting famous and a lot of money, for some reason (Sterling's also getting a lot of flak, for him being fat and includimng on Wikipedia, too, but he's just ignoring it, which is what most people do). Literally all her work she did on the subject was a May 2012 (which was half a year ago already) 03:54 vlog series trailer that she made for a Kickstarter bid, and which included her "playing" with a controller that was turned off. The rest was a moral panic over Internet trolls, and people giving her $158,922 to fund her self-described feminist fight for pixels' rights and for facing obviously 100% fake "threats", in the world where real women face real problems like that. --Niemti (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be seriously confused about appropriate article content and acceptable talk page dialog. Sarkeesian's reliability or otherwise on video game matters is totally irrelevant - notability as an article subject and reliability as a citeable source are totally different things. And please knock it off with your personal rants about the subject, they do absolutely nothing productive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Jim's Sterling opinion about Anita Sarkeesian's sudden rise to fame might be a valuable improvement of her Wikipedia article. --Niemti (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I watched the video by Sterling and pretty much agreed with his points. He can deal with a bit of controversy. To me, however, User:Niemti hasn't grasped Sterling's essential point. And based on the comment posted at 16:53 above it seems that user is unhappy about what is in pagespace here. We need reliable sources which back an assertion. Sterling might actually qualify, but what he said was that we're way past the point of arguing with her on the merits when we let our resentments get in the way. Heat has generated light. Like Niemti, I've been expecting any sort of activity on her blog or her YouTube channel. I've shown her stuff to my teenaged daughter to help her understand the challenges women go through in gaming culture. She's been getting media interviews, justifying her place as a media critic, but I expect a voice like hers to be more active. However, as it regards the article, I'm not seeing any reliable sources bemoan her raising $160K. I'm not seeing reliable sources complain her blog and channel have been largely inactive since the controversy. I'm not hearing any static from reliable sources that her entire public work on the subject was a trailer video. I'm not seeing reliable sources moan and groan about her fame and exposure. I am seeing gamers do so. I'm appreciative of the very reasonable points Sterling makes in the video Niemti linked, and appreciate that user linking it. I'm with Cúchullain here. What course does Niemti want us to take?BusterD (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Use it. --Niemti (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You want it; you do it. Just cite what you use. BusterD (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also all the time Wikipedia has been claiming that this video series actually exists, while there's no proof for this and for sure not a single episode was released yet. Which is really kind of like a reverse Innocence of Muslims situation (where the film itself was presented as a "trailer", while here an announcement trailer automatically became a "video series"). --Niemti (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff does exist, but we're discussing this stuff. The page makes zero such claims of existence; what we've documented is based on an announcement and an extremely successful Kickstarter campaign to fund the project (both of which were covered in a multitude of reliable sources). If you were trying to contend the series doesn't deserve its own article, you would find puny argument here. But as a page subject, the lady certainly passes the WP:NOTE and WP:BIO bars. To discuss her well-verified next project is a normal part of any artist's BLP. BusterD (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Really. --Niemti (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How can you claim that Tropes Vs Women is only 'announced' when there are six episodes available on YouTube? [10] Euchrid (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this one. Is she "best known for" this really? No, she wasn't known for this (and just look at this article). Btw: one of my own YT channels has nearly 3.5 million of views (since 2006), and yet I don't think it's notable (the old article was saying she had more than 1 million views, like if it was some kind of actual accomplishment). One of my other channels has over 2 million hits. But it's nothing. PewDiePie (no article, of course) has currently 736 million.[11] She was a nobody, before becoming notable due to being trolled for her Kickstarter project and turning this into a huge scandal and herself into a poster girl for every woman being harrassed on the Internet (or at least mass media portray her as such). Tl;dr: she wasn't and isn't "best known" for some old vlogs she did. --Niemti (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you please try to be a bit less sarcastic? It's actually kind of obscuring the point that you're trying to make, I'm honestly not sure what changes you're suggesting for the article. If you're trying to argue non-notability, I think that the sheer number of third party sources demonstrate that that's not the case. Euchrid (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I also don't know what User:Niemti wants. This page is for discussing improvements in the article, not for complaints about her (arguable) success. Say what you mean, please. If you want to make changes in pagespace, edit boldly. BusterD (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sarcastic. Contrary to what Wikipedia has been claiming (for last several months?), AS is not "best known for ... her video series Tropes Vs Women" (the old one). She is actually not "best known" for her blog, neither. She is "best known" precisely for the controversy related to her Kickstarter project (for which only the announcement trailer and a few thank-you type photos were released in almost 6 months now). Which is also what Sterling said (and obviously he was right, as Anita's pre-controversy Wikipedia article on a non-notable blogger testifies). --Niemti (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the need to change the 'best known for' reference, fine. But can you please correct your grammar? "She is best known for her announced video blog series "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" to examine tropes in video game depictions of women" is a mess. Euchrid (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw (notability): Jennifer Hepler was a target of similar attacks earlier that year, that were also reported in the media (less in non-gaming media, sure, but she has some actually notable work as a writer for her credits), and yet she never had a Wikipedia article. Anita's article was created in late 2011, and the content until the controversy was: "a blogger for Bitch with over 1 million views on YouTube who has earned some degrees". Like Sterling said, just making this Kickstarter bid, getting trolled for this (and it was very Hepler-style trolling), and publicizing it, gained her a sudden rise from a total nobody (who surely didn't deserve a Wikipedia article, back then) to "one of the biggest stories of the year" (besides the wild success of the bid, of course). Which is what she is "best known" for. --Niemti (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, for the last time, quit with your incoherent personal rants about the subject. They make it near to impossible for anyone to decipher any actual points you have. As to that, you can add a line about the kickstarter debacle to the intro if you want, but stop removing the other material. The lead should summarize the *whole* article, and your personal opinion notwithstanding, that stuff is verified and relevant.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That was not a constructive edit (-172 and removing all the improvements that I did recently) and the intro was never "summarizing the *whole* article" anyway. Now, where was "that stuff" "verified and relevant"? She was basically unknown before the controversy (she was known only in some feminist circles). If there was AFD for this article from April 2012 would be surely deleted for the reason of lack of notability (it was rather listing things she was "best unknown for"). Btw: PewDiePie's account apparently made 18 million NEW views just since yesterday (he also has nearly 3 million subscribers) and yet he's still not notable - Anita with her "accomplished" vlog of (according to Wikipedia) mere 1 million views was not notable even more. Now she has over 4 million views, which is a huge leap (relatively), despite not publishing any new videos since then - these 3 million new views, and a big fame (especially among gamers), and the notability (also on Wikipedia), and the money (from donations), all of it was only due to the massive trolling response to her trailer video for a Kickstarter project, which she then media-savy way used to start a huge moral panic (a smooth move, I'll admit) instead of just ignoring it, or do things like counter-attack literally using her vagina, which is what Hepler did, and so this is what she is "best known for" (note: best). Or just see how much of the currently article is discussing that (most of the article). Nothing's there just my "personal opinion", that's facts, and so stating she was "best known" for the old Tropes Vs Women series is absolutely incorrect, it's misleading, and confusing (it even confused me). Also I'd not call it "the kickstarter debacle", it was actually a huge success, at least for her, and on so many levels. --Niemti (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That was not a suggestion. This is a WP:BLP. Do not post any more of these disparaging, inscrutable rants. The next time you post anything about this subject that isn't tied to a specific, actionable article improvement, you'll be reported for repeated BLP violations and disruption and will very likely find yourself blocked from editing.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, I hope my recent changes to the introduction provide a satisfactory summary of what the article discusses. I am more than happy to discuss other changes.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be "more than happy" if you actually answered the points raised by me, regarding this biography of a living person alright, instead of calling it "disparaging, inscrutable rants". See also the section below, where I point out to some very dubious claims in this BLP, appearantly not supported by the cited references. It's also really silly of accusing me of things that I repeatedly fought right here, like just yesterday. --Niemti (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "accusing" you of anything, I'm telling you that, whether or not you see it, your posts contain very serious problems and preventative measures will be taken if you continue. Stick to discussing article improvements and all will be cool.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

How is "This is a free event. Refreshments by Natural Bridge will be provided." at "The Women's Center's 36th annual Conference on Women" now "utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses"? Yes, it was the cited source - besides her own blog's "About" section. And in the blog, she claims that she "facilitated classroom discussions about online video making for women at Occidental College and Hunter College." and "Feminist Frequency videos are often included on course syllabi and screened in traditional classrooms and by educational organizations." which may or may not be reliable claims (no proof of that, and no details at all, and how often is "often"?) and I don't see any specific mention of her "work" (the Feminist Frequency videos, presumably) having "been utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses" in these claims anyway. --Niemti (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: "and she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture" - backed only by her blog post where she only claims she "will be giving a presentation on March 15 in the Stevenson Union". What is "Stevenson Union"? It's a campus area at Southern Oregon University that contains four resource centers, student program offices, a food court, meeting and banquet rooms serving groups up to 275, an alcohol and smoke free nightclub, a bookstore, a convenience store, and administrative offices" holding "over 1,200 meetings annually, with over 400 special setups". And even if it counts as "at university", it's not a plural "universities". --Niemti (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Er...you answered your own question: sewanee.edu and sou.edu. DonQuixote (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote. And yes, "This is a WP:BLP." (All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. And here I'm just notyfing other editors, instead of getting it removed immediately and without waiting for discussion as I should have done actually, and what I get here in return is some silly threats to intimidate me, as seen above.) --Niemti (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The statements about her "work" (specify this) being used as "material for university-level women's studies courses" and that "she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture" must be either sourced by references confirming exactly all that, specifically "university-level women's studies courses" and a plural "universities" (BLP: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.), rephrased to actually reflect what the references say, or removed (which I should have done myself and immediately, according to Wikipedia rules). It would be even better if it was being sources to something more than just her own blog where she gives out no details. --Niemti (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and random Blogspot blogs are in fact not good sources. At all. --Niemti (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Just quoting you: "she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture" must be either sourced...http://news.sewanee.edu/events/2011/02/15/conference-on-women-keynote-talk "This is a free event. Refreshments by Natural Bridge will be provided." at "The Women's Center's 36th annual Conference on Women"].

So yeah, answered your own question.

As for WP:BLP..."Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:...4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;". DonQuixote (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I told you to read. "A free event" conference (which not organized by the university) has nothing to do with the claim of her work being "utilized as material for univuniversity-level women's studies courses" (which is not present in her blog neither and appears to be an invention of some Wikipedia editor). It actually belong to just "also a presenter at various conferences and workshops". --Niemti (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Er...are you serious? "If you have any questions regarding this talk or other events for the Conference on Women, please contact Sarah-Jane Huskey, huskesj0@sewanee.edu"...organized by the university. Most university events are organized by faculty and/or university clubs. DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. Her giving a lecture ("talk") at a "free event" at the "Conference on Women" =/= "Her work has been utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses". I told you to read, didn't I? --Niemti (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And, again, I quote you: "she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture" must be either sourced..."This is a free event. Refreshments by Natural Bridge will be provided." at "The Women's Center's 36th annual Conference on Women".

And you go on to mention: which not organized by the university.

So...question, answer to said question, and mistake which I corrected by pointing out huskesj0@sewanee.edu.

So, no, you're right it's not the same thing as "utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses", but rather the issue of "she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture". Sorry I didn't address the "courses" issue here...which I addressed separately below (which, I must admit, was unfortunately due to an edit conflict which I should have compensated for). (continued below) DonQuixote (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's only "various conferences", really. And yes, this link (to "a free event at the Conference on Women") was a supposed source for the "Her work has been utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses" claim - for months. Until someone (that's me) actually started checking these references. --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't address that bit but rather the "Also: "and she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture"...And even if it counts as "at university", it's not a plural "universities".". And sorry that I didn't make that clear in my first response (and didn't address your first query until much later in a separate response below)...yep, my mistake. But really, "sewanee.edu and sou.edu" did answer your second query "spoken at universities", conferences or otherwise. DonQuixote (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC)And with just a few minutes of research, here's video proof (lecture at Santa Monica College) that there is no reasonable doubt. DonQuixote (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't give me "video proof", go either source properly or rephrase the dubious claims (that should have been removed immediately and without waiting for discussion due to not being confirmed by sources) in the article. --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a very "reasonable doubt" after veryfying the sources given for the Wikipedia article and finding that both statements explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation are not confirmed by the source(s). Now, The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material (whoever it was, but you might volunteer - either way, it's not my problem) or else Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion so either someone properly sources these claims, or rephrase them to actually reflect the information contained in these or any other reliable sources, or they're gone (and they should have been removed immediately for being so poorly sourced). Oh, and your "video proof" (which I checked, too) had nothing to to with the rather audicious claim of Sarkeesian's work being "utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses" (which is not about how "Sarkeesian once visited a class of her friend Melanie Klein of Feminist Fatale at Klein's invitation and 'spent the hour talking'", and it implies that her writings/videos have been approved and used as educational material at multiple "university-level women's studies courses"). That's all. --Niemti (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that that section needs a lot of work and the sources need to be reviewed.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "are not confirmed by the source(s)"

As I've pointed out, the source is [12] which, following WP:BLP, "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:...4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;". The video clip above, this course assignment schedule, and this course syllabus shows that there is no reasonable doubt as to its (or her) authenticity. DonQuixote (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And as I already said, there's nothing about it in "the source is [13]" (or just cite the fragment that you think is related to the claim of her "work" being "utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses" - because I can only see Her videoblogs and remix work have been featured at conferences and festivals including at the Open Video Conference, the Festival International du Film Lesbian & Féministe de Paris, and the Athena Film Festival and on countless blogs and websites including Jezebel, The Mary Sue, The Daily What, Boing Boing, Roger Ebert’s Journal, SFGate, The Star and After Ellen. which I really don't think is "university-level women's studies courses"). Wordpress is a poor source just as Blogspot (also: there was NOTHING about Sarkeesian in this link, anyway), [14] demands a registration so you should cite a fragment that you think it is revelant, too.--Niemti (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

From her link "Feminist Frequency videos are often included on course syllabi and screened in traditional classrooms and by educational organizations."...so "university level" can be changed to "classrooms and educational organizations". From the woodbury link "Class 018 – Assignment 1 – “Feminist Frequency”" and from the course hero link "Unformatted Document Excerpt:...Video clip: The Straw Feminist (Tropes vs. Women #6), Feminist Frequency (United States, 2011)", which shows that "Feminist Frequency videos are often included on course syllabi and screened in traditional classrooms and by educational organizations." DonQuixote (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and about the woodbury link being a blogspot, it's a blogspot mirror of assignments assigned in a course at woodbury university, so that argument is invalid. DonQuixote (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Or she can be just described in the way that the mass media (that are practically always sympathic to her, so worry not if you're a fan) introduce her as. There is quite a plenty of independent reliable sources that don't require anyone to dig through the Internet to find out how accurate her claims of being "often included" are. (Also "blogspot mirror of assignments assigned in a course at woodbury university" contained no word "Sarkeesian" anywhere.)--Niemti (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: did she ever get any awards? Did anyone other than Bitch publish her articles/videos? Any actual academic and/or educational work after graduating? Or just any other stuff more notable than the stories about how she showed up at a friend's class and "spent the hour talking". Because it's not in the article, and never was. --Niemti (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

15 seconds of inspection found this in the Woodbury list of assignments: [15] Glaucus (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So, Write a 250 word reaction to the video on your student blog on how it relates to video games. has still nothing to do with the original claim of Her work has been utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses. --Niemti (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Woodbury is a university. Feminist Frequency is the material being covered by this assignment. It's a minor assignment, sure, but it still supports the statment made in the article.Euchrid (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? How is game design now "university-level women's studies courses"? Isn't it something, like, entirely different? And no, even this (as trivial and unrelated, and only from this month, Nov 2012) was not a source. For months, the only source was this: [16] (also unrelated, even to teaching anything at all, besides the info copy-pasted from Anita's own blog's "About" section). --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

[17] and [18]. Many courses these days use blogs, in particular blogspot, to organize course materials. Course materials should not be dismissed simply because they are hosted at Blogspot, particularly when the dispute is over the content of those courses. Perhaps Niemti is right: her materials are used in courses more broadly than just women's studies. The sentence should reflect that breadth. Glaucus (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

First link can be used to source the claim that her presentations were used for teaching. Other than that, those are perfect examples of unreliable sources that are frequently used to "establish" notability of someone who is not really notable. Speaking about source by Niemti [19], it could be used, but I do not see how this information might improve the article. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Anita's notability's clearly estabilished now. Just for different reasons, namely the Kickstarter bid and reactions to it (and so even this Write a 250 word reaction to the video on your student blog on how it relates to video games was about this). Regarding the remaining refs, they seem to be fine. Also one can always say "according to Sarkeesian" to relay what she claims about her own achievements and that's too fine (but even she didn't really say anything about "material for university-level women's studies courses"). --Niemti (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• According to BLP, "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

This places any living person with controversial views/opinions on a very different footing compare to someone who does not create any controversy. A lot of claims made in sources that are essentially self-published or otherwise unreliable can not be used because they are indeed "self-serving" or make "claims about third parties" or generalized categories of people (e.g. based on their gender), as this author obviously does. Let's follow BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That might be a convincing argument if Sarkeesian was actually "a person with controversial views/opinions". Being the victim of harassment doesn't make you controversial, it makes you, well, the victim of harassment. The claim is also not "self-serving", and it's laughable to argue it somehow constitutes "claims about third parties". This said, the section certainly needs better sourcing than it has now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Image

Why was the image changed to a smaller one? That sort of change really needs to be discussed first.Euchrid (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's from 2012. And it's 915 × 915 which is quite enough I think. --Niemti (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I like the 2011 image better. It's not as washed out and it's a full front as opposed to a 1/4 right. BusterD (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason to update to a more current picture is if the person's appearance changes, which it hasn't. I'd be in favour of switching back to the original image.Euchrid (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually like the new one, except that it's smaller than the old one. Glaucus (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Both photos are crap (overexposure, wrong colors), none of them is iconic, this one is just up to date. --Niemti (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for the 2012 photo here. Objection was raised immediately after the change, and the change was not discussed prior. I see two for and two against. Since the 2011 image looks more like a bio photo and the 2012 looks like a candid snap, I'm switching it back the way it was before it was replaced. Newer doesn't equal better, especially when we're discussing a single year. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the 2011 portrait, instead of the 2012 candid shot. It's true that neither is very high resolution (more of an issue for printing than web viewing) or high quality. But the 2011 shot is a portrait, i.e. in a style that I think is more typical of a lead photo in an encyclopedic article. There's no significant difference in how "up to date" the photo is, as Euchrid says. I don't see any reason the other one couldn't be included further down in the article. (An example of this kind of use might be the Ron Wyden article; the main photo is a more formal portait, and the candid shot with his wife in her bookstore is further down in the article.) (Also, a side note -- the 2012 photo is not smaller, it just has different dimensions.) -Pete (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

The section in this article about the Kickstarter campaign would benefit from a few words about what the project actually did to result in the extensively reported backlash. The article currently says, "a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games" followed by three hundred words on the negative response to this, "short series of videos" about which we are told nothing. As such, the article comes across as being about internet trolls and misogyny in the online gamer community rather than being about Anita Sarkeesian and her series of videos.
Topics that might beneficially be covered are among but not limited to the following: Were the videos actually produced or merely planned; what conclusions if any did the videos arrive at concerning gender tropes in video games; were there any responses that did not consist of death threats and hate campaigns; did Sarkeesian take up the invitation to visit the video game developer Bungie and did anything come out of that meeting? Cottonshirtτ 03:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but the fact is that there isn't much more to say. The videos haven't yet been made, and what conclusions they might come to are as yet unknown. The outrage and hatred was directed entirely at a short video announcing the plan to make them and soliciting donations. The coverage in the article is disproportional because, at the risk of veering into opinion, the response was disproportional. I understand the concern about spending more time talking about online misogyny than Sarkeesian herself, but at this point the topics are pretty inextricable.Euchrid (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The series doesn't exist and there were not even updates about any kind of progress since August 1. Sarkeesian's actually cut all the communication regarding the supposed project, including blocking her own supporters (backers) that have been asking for updates on twitter.[20] (Up until a week ago, there had been no updates since the pledges were closed. However, she - or at least Feminist Frequency staff members - frequented Twitter (@femfreq), Facebook, and Tumblr regularly. While there is no doubt that such a project is difficult and time consuming to produce, she still had plenty of time to discuss Doctor Who with fans, promote other feminist blogs, and post pictures of herself with gaming memorabilia. Despite all of this activity, she was unable to provide any sort of update regarding the Tropes vs Women production. - The link is from early September, but it didn't really change since then.) --Niemti (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As of "were there any responses that did not consist of death threats and hate campaigns" - yes, of course, such as [21] (ignored by Sarkeesian, and by the media) or even someone (actually, and for free) making a polite and quite-well argumented counter-vlog about the same subjects: [22] (ignored as well). --Niemti (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for those two videos, I found them both very interesting, well argued in cogent sentences and they made some coherent and logical points. Very relevant stuff. On the face of it they should get a mention in the article as balance to the stuff about trolls. However, I think doing so would only exacerbate the current tendency for the article to be about this one issue rather than about the subject of the article. It might be that this issue does in time become genuinely article-worthy, especially if the videos get produced and they result in one of these many threats turning into a court case of some kind, but I don't think we're there yet. So, on balance, and considering your two responses above, I think the correct approach is to trim back the current paragraph about the reaction so that it is approximately equal to the two or three sentences about the videos. I think it might also be worth noting that the Kickstarter appeal raised much more funding than requested; I found this link in New Statesman that says she was pledged over $50k. What do other editors think? Cottonshirtτ 20:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that they (as I said) have been ignored by the mass media (who only listened to Anita Sarkeesian complaining about trolls, got their story and did not "investigate further") and so they fail N & RS. Unfortunately. And she got $158,917 in fact. --Niemti (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti's comments were off topic. This is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion of the topic or disparaging gossip. He has been warned about this before; let this stand as yet another warning to stick to discussing article improvements only.

Those links to personal blogs and YouTube videos are inappropriate for the article and can't be included. In response to Cottonshirt's on topic comments, I don't think we need to trim back the material. What we could do is condense the material discussing what all the harassment consisted of, and instead focus on the media response, which is really what makes the whole debacle noteworthy. We need to say that the harassment led to significant media coverage, which of course decried the abuse, and led to a general discussion of misogyny in video game culture. The article does say that the Kickstarter campaign drew far more support than anticipated, though that can be said better. But I don't see anything that needs to be removed entirely.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you'll eventually learn to read what I wrote. Which is quite exactly what you wrote ("are inappropriate for the article and can't be included", and that's for the reason they have been totally ignored by AM and mass media alike, because they were unlike the stupid douchebag who's made the Beat-up-AM "game", as only bad stuff counts as a story and only either abuse or uncoditional praise have been reported by AM herself, and "so they fail N & RS" and now I'm quoting myself). And my comments were "discussing article improvements only", responding to the questions (suggestions) about "improvement" (only) and explaining everything. So stop patronising me so ostentatiously. And her work is also "YouTube videos" - the meritum of N is elsewhere, not just in something being posted or not being on posted YT. It's a question of being reported by mass media, or at least being acknowledged by AM, but every attempt to engage her in constructively critical ways were all totally ignored, which is yes, quite unfortunate (as I said). And all really in mass media was only JS talking how it's too late for anything like that now, and that's because of trolls (or maybe I should rather say flamers), and precisely because of the unintended effects of the harassment attempts: [23] (as to post this again). Myself, I have no suggestions for improvement of the article, because pretty much all of my ideas I've already implemented myself - maybe except of using Jim's commentary, which actually I did but it was then removed for some reason by someone, and of course the photo got reverted, but everything else's already done. --Niemti (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Like you've pointed out yourself, this has nothing to do with article improvement. And since you're now aware that this is not a forum, take your beef elsewhere.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, you comments brought up material you yourself admit can't be used in the article, and you admit you have nothing more to add. I'm not going to tell you again. Do not use this talk page for anything not tied to a specific improvement to the article.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I answered in detail the question regarding a specific improvement to the article. --Niemti (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Cúchullain said: "...and instead focus on the media response, which is really what makes the whole debacle noteworthy." I am going to have to disagree with you there. On Wikipedia we use the fact that something has been reported in the press as evidence that it is notable. The event is notable first, and gets reported in the press for that reason. Therefore, reporting an event in the press is not what makes it notable but a reflection of its pre-existing notability. Wikipedia articles are about the events themselves, not about the press reaction to them. This part of the article needs to be about the response to Sarkeesian's Kickstarter campaign, not about the press response to the response to the Kickstarter campaign. At least that's the way I see it, and I freely admit that I might be wrong. Cottonshirtτ 12:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The media response was part of the response to the event, in particular when it became part of the wider discussion about misogyny in video games. We already get into a bit, but it can be said better than it is currently.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Standard reply-time

Can we please add a disclaimer that we're not going to include anything in the article on the basis of "neutral" criticism of Sarkeesian on YouTube or whatever other video game forums there might be out there? There really is no point in constantly filling the talkpage with "do you have a source for that"-type replies.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It won't make a difference. Take a look at the talk page for List of social networking sites. There is an edit notice on the article (a big notice that appears when you try to edit), one on the talk page, and information at the top of the talk page. We still get requests every couple of days that ignore the advice. Similarly, Talk:Muhammad regularly gets requests to remove the pictures of the subject (for religious reasons), despite edit notices, a sub-page for image discussions, an arbcom case, etc. New users simply don't see those notices, or don't understand our rules well enough to know that "their" evidence is not special, or simply believe that we are wrong and that we should listen to them anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's probably worth doing anyway. At least it gives us something to point to when it inevitably comes up again, and again, and again...--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a case of anti-feminist gamer nerds who keep hammering the exact same claim over and over: "I don't agree with Sarkeesian, why haven't you taken my particular POV into consideration?" I'll be damned before I compare this with issues as important as social networks and Islamic blasphemy.

I see no reason to keep any further posts asking us to take forum discussion into consideration.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as people will continue to interpret the neutral description of Sarkeesian's views as an endorsement of them by Wikipeida. The same fire gets fought every few months with regard to the homosexual interpretations content on the Batman page.Euchrid (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have created an edit notice for this talk page; trying editing it and you'll see it at the top. Let me know if you think it should be changed in any way. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Makes the point without being as aggressive or threatening as some similar notices I've seen on other pages.Euchrid (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As an uninvolved user, I like the edit notice as well. It makes a good point without being aggressive or threatening towards any user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Very good notice. Short, concise, to the point. I'm seeing duplicates, though. Is that just me?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I only see the one, might be something on your end. Euchrid (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

i am only seeing 1 - using both firefox and IE8. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I agree, very well done edit notice. Would it be worthwhile to put one on the page itself, as well? (Of course it's semi-protected now, but hopefully that is a temporary condition, and a notice might help set the right tone with new contributors.) -Pete (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be very useful to put one on this article as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up - I've added the note at the top of the article about sourcing. Hopefully, this should stop many new users from doing so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)