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 Second Quantization (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 3 November 2015 (→Censoring any criticism: reply. Remove attempt to shut me down.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

Several other sources confirm that Sarkeesian was born near Toronto. This is just trolling.--Cúchullain t/c 04:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cúchullain: Yeah, I noticed the G&M cite near-by supports that as well as a CBC News article. — Strongjam (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a number of sources say she was born near Toronto, and I haven't seen any that give any other location. That said, it's all well and good to keep it vague as it's more significant that she grew up near Toronto than that she was born there.--Cúchullain t/c 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has degraded hard into BLP violations on top of not understanding policy. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 10:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"Wikipedia policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand, and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources. See the talk page archives for previous discussions on individual sources." – from the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this page. Woodroar (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it says "self-published"... That mean that I can't post something on YouTube or make my own site to be a critique of Anita, however I can point out someone else's YouTube videos with millions of views and channels and webpages not made by me that criticize Anita. Are we having double standards in regards to the definition of " self" ? As it stands this article is a mockery and an insult to the standards wikipedia has because it's clear that this article is being protected by Anita clique. Otherwise there would be a critics section. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, Choice777, but if you'd like to present some reliable sources per the Wikipedia definition, I would happily consider them. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the correct interpretation of self published, the issue is that this is a Biography of a Living Person and you are asking us to use a Primary Source. The BLP ruleset is quite clear with regards to reliable sources. Your comments are a BLP violation for instance. Koncorde (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have redacted some of the comments above. I agree that this is a case of misunderstanding WP:SPS versus WP:OR. Neither are allowed on a BLP, except in very few circumstances, which this is not. Woodroar (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Separate "criticism" sections are now discouraged. Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia articles to add information from reliable sources, allowing always for neutrality and undue weight. But of course it's not appropriate to say that another editor is "kissing Antia ass" or that their redaction, which was entirely consistent with policy, was "flipping retarded and stupid." MarkBernstein (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I agree 100% - my apologies for not making myself clear and I certainly don't condone the examples you give. I was simply trying to point out to Choice777 that there is no conspiracy to block criticism from the page, but that any criticisms that are included must comply with WP guidelines. JezGrove (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the weather, the contribution history of Choice777 is quite interesting. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My edit history has nothing to do with the fact that there is a clear effort to hide prevent a critics section from being written on Anita's page. One muppet gives me a warning and another muppet a ban from editing "gamergate" or whatever other linked article. Like I give a shit about editing in wikipedia... Plenty of muppets to do that for me for free. Point is my first and single warning was for mentioning IT HERE that there is no critics section. This obviously prices that there's an embargo on making a critics section on Anita's page. So I got zero shits to give regarding my edit history cause I've got a life to live as opposed to you muppets AND zero shits to give reassuring bring banned here. Fact remains: there is an embargo on criticizing Anita and and embargo on adding a critics section to her article or mentioning it on her article's talk page. Me getting a warning for mentioning it on her article's talk page proves this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
You got a warning for your unsourced BLP claims and accusations, nothing to do with "criticism" (see the archive of this page for the numerous times it has been brought up, and as yet not a single reliable source has been provided. Please, be the first. Koncorde (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Censoring any criticism

Unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is it that critique of Ms Sarkeesian is immediately removed? She, like anyone, receives her fair share.... it seems Wikipedia is being monopolized by social justice warriors who want to wind the world 500 years backwards.

Why is it that pro-communism sources like the New Statesman, the kind of magazine to follow the left wing Rolling Stone method of research, are okay, whereas Breitbart is not?

Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself. It's clearly not about knowledge anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skezza (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Breitbart has a history of fabricating evidence and the like, and is generally considered bad to use in BLPs. When reliable sources criticise Sarkeesian's work it is noted, see the article on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games which contains criticism of her work. Brustopher (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's interesting because wasn't it Rolling Stone, the left wing, fabricating the evidence? When it comes to fabricating evidence, there's fewer more prominent examples than the ultra left, light the New Statesman, yet you recognize the NS as a legitimate source? Very fishy if you ask me. Skezza (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Breitbart editorial makes an interesting read, but it is clearly an opinion piece, not a secondary source. Sławomir
Biały 14:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The hatting is appropriate. The discussion was worthless. As far as your comments, this op-ed is not a noteworthy enough voice on the subject to justify including per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Cúchullain t/c 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By what criteria are you judging it's noteworthiness and how does that criteria compare against other opinions such as from Rolling Stone magazine? Second Quantization (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the criteria of WP:DUEWEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In comparison to the available sources discussing Sarkeesian, which includes academic articles and books, Breitbart is small beer in terms of WP:WEIGHT. Rolling Stone, on the other hand, is a major entertainment magazine of international significance, and so probably worth a mention.--Cúchullain t/c 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Rolling Stone has a long and very strong history of reporting on art, literature, and music, with very strong journalistic credentials. Breitbart has a brief and checkered history as a highly partisan right-wing outlet, one beset by scandals. Editors should be aware that the Gamergate boards are particularly displeased with Sarkeesian at the moment -- I can’t quite figure out why -- and seem unusually eager to harass her. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart is the 201st most visited website in the USA: [1], Rolling Stone is 379th [2]. Both are about the same in terms of world ranking. Both are mentioned frequently in the media. Your criteria for calling Breitbart "small beer" applies equally well to Rolling Stone magazine. By the traffic both are bringing in, neither are particularly small outfits. "with very strong journalistic credentials" I think that's pretty hard to say with a straight face considering the University of Virginia story that was alluded to above. I'm looking now at their political lists: "10 Songs Republican Candidates Should Use in Their Campaigns ", "17 Most Offensive Social Media Fails ", "10 Dumbest Things Right-Wingers Said in 2014 ". Is this really what you'd call very strong journalistic credentials? Second Quantization (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apples, Oranges? Rolling Stone is a magazine with a web site; Breitbart is a political operative’s web site that outlived the operative. Rolling Stone was founded in 1967, it’s employed artists from Annie Leibovitz to Hunter Thompson, it's got a paid circulation well north of a million readers. It has won numerous National Magazine Awards. Yes, that's really what you’d call very strong journalistic credentials. Thanks for playing! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also look at some of the other parts of the "reception". An award from gamasutra is featured despite being a website no on reads (rank 8081) [3]. Breitbart has a higher alexa rank than The Daily Beast [4], the New Statesman [5] (low physical circulation). The current article even includes a link to what appears to be a self-published documentary. Is this really what you think is more noteworthy than Breitbart? You may not like what Breitbart say, but it can hardly be argued that they don't have a bigger impact than these sources, whether that be mentions within the rest of the media or its own visitor numbers. Second Quantization (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&oldid=688939380"