Jump to content

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RVDDP2501 (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 9 September 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reception

For the sake of objectivity, the whole Harassment section should be included in the Reception and public appearances section. Jeandeve (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of objectivity, please don't vandalize the page. Citobun (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's cute, but you don't have to duplicate your message on two different pages, especially since you wrote it on my talk page first, and that you're not exactly addressing the topic I'm bringing here. Jeandeve (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeandeve -- While harassment is a 'reception' of sorts, in that it is a reaction to Ms. Sarkeesian's public thought, it is clearly notable enough to deserve its own section. Moreover, your behavior both on the article and associated talk page do not instill confidence in either your objectivity or your desire to build an encyclopedia. While Citobun did not strictly address the point you raised, neither did you apologize for or at least acknowledge a clearly inappropriate edit. We welcome your help building this page and this encyclopedia, but it must be done within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"While Citobun did not strictly address the point you raised, neither did you apologize for or at least acknowledge a clearly inappropriate edit." Oh really? Jeandeve (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, allow me to apologize for not realizing you had made that statement at ANI. However I must confess that ending with "but it's still a fact" gives me pause. Dumuzid (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing objective about including rape and death threats as part of a reception section, especially as much of the harassment started before she had actually published any of the work she was being attacked for. Koncorde (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's nothing objective about excluding it from the reception section, either. Jeandeve (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment is not critical reception. Therefore your argument has no bearing. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 09:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use your opening gambit of "objectivity", and then 6 lines later say "nothing objective about excluding it from the reception section, either". So where was the objectivity in your original claim? You introduced an immature, uncited, and clearly subjective comment expressing a personal opinion - but have the gall to claim objectivity when it suits? Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been blocked for 24 hours and warned of the Gamergate sanctions. Presumably this issue, such as it is, is resolved.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dear people

Ok people, as a gamer i'm going to say this. Let's only ad sourced information to this page. Harassment is terrible, and unwanted. I don't entirely aggree with Anita Sarkeesian myself but I recognize that information has to have a good source.

Maybe this article is a lesson for Wikipedia, to always double-check or tripple-check all of its information. Even if an article is a good-standing one, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be reviewed every month or so. Hopefully this talkpage shows other people that no matter what they ad, be it related to sarkeesian or not has to be sourced. For example, I have no source that states that (Redacted), other than accounts from people I know from her family. As such, I don't add, (Redacted) Am i sure my inside source is correct? yes. However, there is no other source that I' mcorrect, so i could for all you know be lying through my teath. So i hope that people learn from this talk page about what happens when an article gets edited too much without sources. I've spent the past 12 years proving this point, and nobody has learned it. So yeah, just because you think you have a good edit, whether it be pro or against anita Sarkeesian, please make absolutely sure that it's sourced. PS, (Redacted) PPS, no reliable source for (Redacted) other than the family member that's my close friend. Name will not be disclosed out of respect for him. have a good long-weekend.

PPPS Please don't send a Mancunian after me for this message, i'm not dealing with that at the moment.

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...okay? Do you have anything to say about the article or are you just rambling here? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could just be a poorly disguised attempt at a bit of doxing... Lklundin (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should ask it to be buried then? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've redacted per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Information seems fairly innocuous, but BLP policy is clear. — Strongjam (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like how it is implicitly understood here that all edits are pro or con; attempts to be objective are not even on the radar. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adherence to WP:BLPPRIVACY takes precedence over normal attempts to improve the article, so given the initial posting I see little that could be done differently here. Feel free to elaborate. Lklundin (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to dox a friend's family member. The point of this is that we need to learn from what has ahppened with this article so we don't make this mistake again.

Eric Ramus. PS, Edith, calm down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Also, If i wanted to doxx Anita i'd have done it already. I have no bone to pick with her, pluss I don't want to risk my friendship with this person. The only people I've ever doxxed in my 21 years of life all come from liverpool, as i hate liverpool. The only reason i didn't publish this info is because I felt that it wouldn't do justice for what Anonymous LIverpool did to me. so dox Anita? dream on LK, my friendhip with my friend is way more important than what his family member says. I just came here to make a point of that this article's history shows us one of Wikipedia's flaws - not double-checking sources every once in a while. Thanks[reply]

Glory Man United. Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per the redaction, there is no harm in statnig a date of birth. If i'm wrong then an administrator based in Manchester England will do a 24 hour block on me with a good reason why Anita is an exception to the rule. (Redacted) is her birthday, so what? it's also many other peoples' birthdays too. It's paul McCartney you should be worrying about me going after, he's from Liverpool, not Canada.

Eric Ramus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction added per WP:BLPPRIVACY — Strongjam (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that rationale a bit, WP:BLPPRIVACY says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private" and requires that a reliable source have been published for us to talk about it in Wikipedia. This is a particularly sensitive subject area and it's always best to err on the side of caution; please don't reveal any personal information about Anita Sarkeesian that hasn't been discussed widely in reliable sources. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user was in a bit of a round-a-bout way trying to draw attention to two issues. The source for her birth year just said her age, not the year, and the source for where she was born didn't say she was born near Toronto, rather that she grew up near Toronto. I've fixed both issues in the article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&oldid=680141821"