Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

On the lack of criticism of this biographical article's subject

I apologize, for it seems it must be tiring for all of you to hear the same things day in day out, but I would still like to question why there is apparently no room for criticism to be allowed in this article? The references from Breitbart and Newsweek seem just as credible as the sources that support Anita. If there is any large difference in reliability and factual correctness, I'd love to hear it. Most of the references given are all news sources and the ones offering critcisms are also, and appear to be just as reliable. Please address this point. Breckham101 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Our policies aren't going away, either. Breitbart is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source because you don't agree with what he has to say? How do you come to this unilateral conclusion that he is not a reliable source? Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart is dead. Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source because it doesn't meet the definitions (competence, editorial judgement, reputation, etc.) for such a thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

His death is irrelevant--His statements were made when he was alive. I think your statement is very difficult to back up... how exactly does one gauge competence or reputation? That seems to be extremely subjective and not something that I buy on face value just because you say so. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, this article features lots of references to questionable left-wing sources such as Salon. Oddly enough, those are okay but Breitbart isn't. I'm not saying there's a systematic bias here, but... there's a systematic bias here. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com gets noted for things like [1] [2] for [3] [4], not for having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.One of the prime components of (site's like Breitbart) post-objective journalism is the understanding that the accuracy of a story is likely to be secondary to a story's impact. If the story does what it was intended to do (destroy or harm an organization, generally), it does not matter if it is later shown to have been a fabrication -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the hiding behind "policy" to keep out criticism, some editors here have done their best to keep out criticism of Sarkeesian from valid sources. However, Breitbart is definitely not a reliable source. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, then how come we don't have any reliable criticism on here? Wikipedia must remain neutral. Breckham101 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutrality is different than what you might think. We do not attempt to create a "false balance" by giving inappropriate weight to issues. If no reliable sources have provided legitimate criticism of a subject, the Wikipedia article IS NEUTRAL when it does not contain any "criticism" . It is NOT NEUTRAL if we throw in criticism from non reliable sources "for balance". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that the same people are defending a lack of criticism on this page as were defending the overt bias in the Gamer Gate article. The Wikipedia on this subject has become an exact mirror of established journalism's unwillingness to proffer alternative opinions on Gamer Gate. Which makes sense if you only consider Associated Press outlets to be reliable, which is a very, very dangerous position to take, as it takes Wikipedia from being an open-source repository of knowledge towards a position wherein it becomes a direct tool of the establishment. In this light it is flabberghasting to me that there is absolutely nothing considered a credible source that criticised Sarkeesian in any way, particularly since the nature of her critiques are in many ways highly subjective, even if one does not believe that her articles and videos contain gross mis-representations and overt contradictions. If nothing else, the one-sidedness of the media coverage should be discussed in the article, though I suppose that anyone giving an opinion outside the very media circuses that are the problem to begin with would then be considered 'not a credible source'. It's really all getting a bit 1984.Theduinoelegy (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Highly subjective critiques filled with her opinions, and criticisms of her opinions are irrelevant. Generally speaking we do not deal with her claims on wikipedia, so would not deal with criticism of her claims. Unfortunately the only evidence of "criticism" of Sarkeesian have been from bloggers and vloggers or other unreliable sources, and have almost universally been personal attacks or written by overt activists. If wikipedia does not reflect the opinions you wish to see - try any number of other websites instead. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Koncorde, your representation here seems to be considering Wikipedia as 'just another website' which we all know it is not. As a repository of knowledge Wikipedia's reach is peerless and it informs the international dialogue in a way no other website would be able to without huge funding and a considerable amount of slow growth. Perhaps I could 'try another website' but could I completely opt out of the discourse this one fosters? No, I could not. As such Wikipedia has a responsibility to represent that knowledge in line with the public discourse which is on a par, perhaps even surpassing government and scholarly institutions. The idea that Anita's opinions and criticism of them are somehow irrelevant when she is, at base, an opinion blogger is highly odd. If she had not expressed opinions on video games and the like she would not have a Wikipedia. That is literally why she is famous. Given the controversy surrounding her opinions it is imperative that alternative viewpoints are represented. I am of course not suggesting that bloggers and vloggers should be privileged in this instance but there are smaller journalistic outlets who have been critical. It would not be too difficult to find one of these as representative of the controversy and would have no negative impact on the weight and integrity of the article. To the contrary, it would likely help immensely. Theduinoelegy (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, really, it is just another website. Sarkeesians opinions are irrelevant - they are not notable, and not even remotely what made her a notable person by wikipedias standards. In the end her notability is established by the media talking about her experience. Her celebrity is not built around what she says, but typically the platforms she has used or been given and the response to her mere existence and right to hold an opinion of her own. If she had only ever expressed opinions on games, and nobody had ever harassed her, then she likely would have just about met her Kickstarter target of $6000 and she would have been lost in the sea of other computer gamer commentators (she may have enjoyed some marginal notability a la Rebecca Watson maybe, but even she only gained significant attention for the harassment and not her achievements, if any). Sarkeesian is "literally" famous not for her opinions (she hadn't even expressed any of them when she drew initial attention, just her mere suggestion of "starting" a project was enough) and I don't know why we would as an encyclopedia give space to those opinions unless they themselves were notable (a la David Icke, and less so critics of her unexpressed opinions. We're happy to consider any articles you have for inclusion, so please feel free to link them up, or be bold and make the edits you wish to see. Koncorde (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so there was a concerted campaign which may have been aimed at harassing her, or may have been to raise her media profile, or some combination of the two. Edited to reflect this perspective. Thanks :).Theduinoelegy (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If only sources such as Breitbart publish criticism of Sarkeesian, then the neutral point of view is that there is little or no reliably sourced criticism of Sarkeesian. It is not necessary for a biography to have a "criticism" section; indeed most biographies, even of other people who receive frequent death threats, do not. --TS 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet in this case the criticism of Anita Sarkeesian is widespread and at least partly integral to her notoriety. To not represent any criticism at all under the highly subjective basis of 'not credible' is to actively misrepresent the story, to incorrectly weight the cultural significance of the criticism she has received and the various ideologies that have grown up around her. The credible source rule is not supposed to weed out alternative opinions, but to avoid the factually inaccurate. It is being misapplied in this case to the massive detriment of this article, which, in the state it's in at the moment, is a misleading article that comes very close to lying by omission.Theduinoelegy (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific edit based on an reliable source that you're suggesting? — Strongjam (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look and find one tomorrow as it's late and I have band rehearsal tomorrow. I've seen a fair few. It just seemed like this was likely to be dismissed as 'unreliable' out of hand, but I guess I was too hasty.Theduinoelegy (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Added a section on Gamergate and associated criticisms! Would welcome discussion on any of the core features. Language becoming more desiccated discussions are necessarily fragmented in their terms and signifiers, but the complexity of the issue at hand has been modeled to the lowest level of simplicity and precision possible, which still retaining all relevant information and strongly implicitly suggested information. It stands as somewhat of an invocation of Foucault at this point to suggest that some degree of power-relationship modelling be allowed into the frame-text (wikipedia) to give a sense of the constructional dynamics contained within the referenced text, but as language retains a duty to cover a linguistically pictorial symbolic landscape, in addition to purely ideational or logical system based systems, it was necessary to represent all three conceptual aspects of the media coverage. As such any comments on the translation of the ideational frameworks on display here would be most welcome.Theduinoelegy (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Just fixed up the ref tags. I'll take a look at the sources and review later. — Strongjam (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, dude.Theduinoelegy (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section. An opinion article from a "student journalist" is not appropriate for BLP criticism, or for framing such criticism. And neither is giving weight to the anonymous opinion of a non-expert, especially when that person disavows association with Gamergate but is shoehorned into a section about it. I'm not even sure why the Rolling Stone source is even there, except to avoid a SYNTH violation. There may be valid criticism out there, and a way to summarize such criticism, but this isn't it. Woodroar (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the particular significance of this new section or what else it brings to the article? Aside from which here is a dissection:

Much of the coverage surrounding criticism of Anita Sarkeesian has centered on disputes between disparate groups rallying under the banner of Gamergate. - Not really. Much of the coverage pre-dates Gamergate, your sources don't support this claim either. The Rolling Stone comes closest in remarking about the "reactionary community of hardcore gamers who've gathered under the "#GamerGate"" but this specifically doesn't mention anything to do with disparate groups. Quite the contrary - it identifies a single group - hardcore gamers.

As the dispute involved issues of media coverage, particularly the media of Anita Sarkeensian, such disagreements have been framed within a narrative involving the media itself. - aside from this just being a terrible sentence I also have no idea what it's trying to say, to what purpose, or what it has to do with the citations provided.

As such - not really as such if we can't even work out what the initial two sentences were trying to say.

criticism of Anita Sarkeensian's media-expressed views tend to be vocal among those media outlets who represent the issue as evocative of Men's Right's Groups - Again, I have no idea what this sentence is actually saying or how the single reference at the end even serves as a citation for content.

with articles often associating concepts like "professional victimhood" and utilising phrases such as "men are the ones subject to genuine oppression" when representing Gamer Gate protagonists' views, and associating these criticisms with Sarkeesian's presentations of her ideas. - these are two very distinct quotations from a very long article, about two wholly different groups. It's also a subjective analysis of the language used rather than from the actual content of the piece used as a citation.

This whole thing is plain awful. It's synthesis, and I would say blatantly original research if I could fathom out what it was trying to say. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the edit involves any original research as no research was done except the reading of the articles; if you consider this to be research the necessary logic would be that you are suggesting that all of Wikipedia is in violation of its own policy on original research. All the information is drawn from the three articles present. All Encyclopedia articles are a synthesis of a topic. It appears that my invocation of Foucault was not heeded in that you have attempted to substitute the societal power-relationships between the writer and his employer or institution with a sign vouching for the validity or 'reliability', or otherwise, of a source. You will note that I have an upper-degree in English Literature, including critical theory and a Master's Degree in Life Writing. If you consider the grammatical structure of my sentences to be an issue, I suggest we discuss these in linguistic terms, and you cite the relevant philosophical systems from which you form your opinion. As you are saying you don't understand the first two sentences I would you suggest you defer to someone of a higher hierarchical position within the scholastic system, or conversely, that you withdraw your dismissal by status denial, which is a whole other philosophical can of worms. If you can clarify this contradiction one way or the other I should be able to re-write the article to suit your tastes.Theduinoelegy (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lots of words, very pretty, still irrelevant, nice argument from authority, try it with someone that cares. If you haven't already, please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Quit talking about each other; and no more WP:SOAP please. Dreadstar ☥ 15:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
EDIT: Dear lord, how many edits do you need to actually make something coherent? Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC) It's pretty solidly proven that my Dyslexia does not impede my ability to form a coherent thought, but rather that the thought may appear more as a tapestry and have to be cut back by a process of editing. If multiple edits are the issue, perhaps you could suggest which edits these are, and in what manner they might be fixed to improve the article? No argument was made on my part as to the status of your authority. It was simply inferred on your part. Also, which is the relevant section of the text you cited, by your understanding?Theduinoelegy (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC) The issue isn't so much your use of language—though I would strive for simplicity at least on the Talk page, if you're not already—but that the sources you've chosen are inappropriate for the claims. Woodroar (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC) I would suggest "As you are saying you don't understand the first two sentences I would you suggest you defer to someone of a higher hierarchical position within the scholastic system" this is quite clear in what it is attempting to do within the context of your previous sentence, res ipsa loquitur. Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Yet Koncorde, the information was presented in the form of a question with two necessary or apparently necessary conclusions, only one of which was an argument by authority. The intention was to draw your attention to the conflict within your own reasoning and to respond to that with either an outlining of which of the two possibilities was the case, or the giving of a third. Either of these outcomes would facilitate my writing of a new section that meets all critical criteria.Theduinoelegy (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Tedious and dishonest. I'm having nothing more to do with you. Koncorde (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC) In what sense do you find the article dishonest, Koncord? Is tedium relevant to Wikipedia standards?Theduinoelegy (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC) It is my intention to rewrite this article in accordance with the views expressed thus far and to facilitate that, I will post a critical commentary in the talk section as I post. If that will be acceptable to those with issues with the original amendment.Theduinoelegy (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC) If you can make constructive contributions, so much the better. But you're going to have to start (1) using actual reliable sources, and (2) accurately reflecting what they actually say, instead of what they reveal about "constructional dynamics contained within the referenced text" or whatever. This means no cherry-picking and being substantially clearer in your phrasing. If you can't do this, it's probably better you find other things to do. Also, per the Per the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing specific and actionable article improvements, so knock off the tangents.--Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't TotalBiscut and the Escapist critics of Anita?--Craigboy (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

First one fails WP:RS and the second one didn't pass that until after the episode of No Right Answer aired. In other words, they are not useful. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They're both prominent figures in the gaming community. Should be fine if you list them as critics.--Craigboy (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

hmmmmm no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Updates:

I have a couple of recommended amendments for the article, but your feedback is appreciated as to how to best frame the information.

• The lede is still referring to Anita only in terms of her as a blogger / vlogger, critic. I think we should add or re-compose the lede to include mention of her activism (as she's a little more than just a producer of videos on the tubes) and public speaker (as she is now fulfilling that aspect also).
• Feminist Frequency is a non-profit organisation, I'm not sure if she's the founder, president or whetever the term may be for such an organisation (or what we can accurately cite) but it would seem to me that with the release of her recent company profile outlining 2015 goals, we should probably give mention to this significant organisation that is now operating behind the FemFrequency blog, Tropes video series, and other activities she undertakes.
• I think we drop the Utah mention from the lede, it's notable, but it's also last years news so not sure if it still warrants a prime spot (although I may be bias as I would never have put it in the lede as I don't differentiate it from other harassment).

Next suggestions are to re-work some of the sections:

• Background - seems relatively solid.
• Feminist Frequency - needs updating with information released January 2015 regarding 501 status. Hopefully this will also gain us some decent citations and maybe even some criticisms. There's also a significant absence of any activity between March 2012 and 2015 as it currently stands (because a lot of it is parsed into the next section), I think we can find sourced information for activities (speaking engagements etc) that are notable for her bio (this would also help the next contextual movement of information I'm going to recommend) and then re-locate some of the stuff currently in the Tropes section accordingly.
• Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment - should be a subsection of Feminist Frequency, with a link to "main article" as it was done in its name (also rename to just "Kickstarter campaign for Tropes vs Women Video Series" for reason to come). I would suggest I would advocate we split this into the Campaign, and a subsection about Harassment as a whole including the Terrorist threat in order to give proper focus.
• Terrorist threat at Utah State University - this should become a sub-section of Harassment. By properly including it with her other activities this wont seem like such a big leap. I'd also remove the bold heading. It just seems a bit tabloid / headline grabbing in its current form.
• Video Series - don't want to step onto the toes of the main article too much, but I think this should be its own section distinct from the Feminist Frequency and be treated in a similar vein as the awards section. Perhaps this may make it easier to include any criticism of the videos, and notable commentary.
• Awards & Commentary - seems fine.

I'm happy to make most of the changes as they only re-sort the data rather than remove or exclude, but any additional thoughts are good. Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I take it everyone was happy with my changes to this point, so would like to raise the potential for removing some of the unnecessarily detailed harassment stuff and compressing each paragraph down where possible. No sources will be removed, it's just the unnecessary portions of sentences I'm looking at. Koncorde (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Changes made, hope they make sense. "Commentary" section may need renaming, but couldn't think of anything better right at that moment when the idea popped into my head. Koncorde (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Describing Anita Sarkeesian as controversial

Describing a figure as controversial doesn't appear to violate Wikipedia:BLP. Furthermore there seems to be bias in what is being treated as a "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". So can we please work to get this back into the article?--Craigboy (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL, Wikipedia articles should avoid vague, disparaging labels, especially when we're talking about a living person. Your addition isn't appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's have some fun. She is only controversial among people who oppose her on principal, so that is really all I can say. Let's break down the sources though:

• Forbes. This is a blog with no editorial oversight. Instant failure.
• Kotaku. This would pass, but the article's context says she is not controversial, but the response to her kickstarter is. Failure.
• Joystiq. Its a blog again. While there is some oversight, the article provides no context to the word controversial, so it isn't useful. Failure.
• KUTV, a local news station. Pass, but again, no context as to why she is controversial. Failure.
• Gawker. For the third source, there is no context. Failure.
• Destructoid. As much as I like Jim Sterling (son) this was written before he really got into journalism. And since the source is described as situational, Fail.
• Global News. Fourth source absent of context.

So yeah. It needs to be explained WHY she is controversial before we even consider inclusion. I'll give you an analogy. Barack Obama is considered a controversial president because of his signature legislation called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. My source? On the Daily Show (Tuesday of this week) David Axelrod describes him pushing it as it will cause controversy and lose the president a lot of political capital. There. Its easy. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd accept "x called her controversial" but it'd have to be with context - even then what someone else "calls" her is not headline material for a biography. Koncorde (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Law and Order: SVU

As this seems to be rather poorly received among the gaming community, is this really appropriate for the article on her bio? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First, non sequitur. Secondly, it is both apropos and properly cited. kencf0618 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources you cited. To me it reads poorly received. Also, calling it appropriate does not justify it being appropriate. Does her fictional portrayal in Iron Sky warrant inclusion into the article of Sarah Palin? Of course not. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the reference. A TV programme covering events in popular culture drew a broad brush characterisation that unsurprisingly seems similar to real life people in similar situations. This doesn't tell us anything about the people it was based on. I think it was particularly dumb to put the paragraph into the harassment section of this article.

Remember, folks, this is a BLP. It isn't enough to say "hey, this seems to be about this person, do let's add it to the Wikipedia page with her name on it." You can't just write some tripe on the basis of some "popular culture" notion of what a person is. --TS 02:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: Seems fine to me. Both RS clearly say it's about her and the main character looks like her. But the part about an "amalgamation" isn't supported by the sources. Both sources say she resembled Sarkeesian. Nothing about Quinn. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph must be removed per BLP, as it describes violence done to someone like Sarkeesian. It doesn't matter how well-cited it might be. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Can you point to where in BLP it says that? There are quite a few articles that describe fictional violence to unambiguous references to blps. Describing it does not "sponsor" it. (Pinging HJ Mitchell, active admin overseeing GG issues, for opinion as well) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Per BLP, I was taking a very "conservative" approach, especially with regard to "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." If we suggest violence to Sarkeesian she could be in greater danger than she is already. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

But in no way did the content you removed suggest anyone act violently toward Sarkeesian. Nor did it further her victimhood. It merely described a crappy SVU episode. We have this which was an episode depicting this man's violent murder. Surely we can mention that Sarkeesian was the inspiration for a character in a tv show. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Paul Watson example is satire, not a dramatic depiction using human actors. In our article about Watson we don't say or even hint that he was murdered in the episode, yet in the text I removed from the Sarkeesian biography we say that the character is kidnapped and raped. I consider our mention of the SVU episode violence to be endangering Sarkeesian to a greater extent, because of the likelihood of copycat crime. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the part about the violence in the episode (at least for now) since that appears to be your main concern. I gotta go to bed, but I hope that's a good compromise for now. Perhaps we can add back in a part about harassment since that's what the section is about, but leave out the fictionalized stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Bink - you may with to trim at Gamergate controversy as well in the pop culture section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of the BLP problem was that the paragraph appeared under the section header "Harassment", as if the fictional portrayal was seen as harassment of Sarkeesian (it was not). Another part of the BLP problem was the incendiary style of writing, for instance "ripped from the headlines". I removed the fiery wording and I put the paragraph into its own section, knowing full well that pop culture sections are deprecated. I still do not think this fictional portrayal rises to the proper level of importance to Sarkeesian's biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Haven't read any articles on it, but unless there was explicit acknowledgement by Sarkeesian, I'm not sure fictional depiction of a person or persons similar to her are really BLP suitable. The work would be more relevant for cultural criticism (i.e. as part of the Women in Video Game wiki page or something). Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Predictably this week's Law & Order SVU was sickening. They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment." Closest thing. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a bad case of recentism to me. Suddenly we have a whole new section devoted to trivia. --TS 01:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the Pop Culture section is unnecessary bloat. SVU should be included in the same vein as the Colbert Report appearance - it's still on about the harassment. Koncorde (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure that a fictional character on TV is part of the harassment of Sarkeesian? Let's see some support for this in reliable sources. Please show some third party observer saying that the TV show was part of the harassment campaign. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between being "part of" and "on about" so before you go off on one please read the context around my comment (i.e. prior comment a few lines above). I was basing my comment on her own response provided by Zero Serenity i.e. Sarkeesian acknowledged the actual episode. If it was to be included then the format would be "following an episode of L&O:SVU, Sarkeesian said "Predictably this week's Law & Order SVU was sickening. They trivialized and exploited real life abuse of women in gaming for entertainment" or similar. However, as per previous comment, I don't actually think it should be included, and certainly not as its own section. Koncorde (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You think the SVU episode should be entirely removed? Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't really see what it is adding, or its notability. It's maybe notable pop culture for Video Game Culture or some other wiki (where Sarkeesians comments may even be relevant) but I don't think we should be including every comment Sarkeesian utters just because it might be notable elsewhere in some other context. Koncorde (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm torn. It's quite notable that a popular show dedicated an episode and created a character that intentionally resembles Sarkeesian. But it belongs more in the Gamergate controversy page than here. But I don't see how a single sentence about it would hurt either. Not often that someone gains enough fame/infamy to be the the subject of a TV show like this. It is recent, but it is quite notable, especially given that Sarkeesian herself isn't a mega celebrity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

For my part, I don't think mention of this TV episode has any place in this article at all, per recentism, trivia, blp, routine. What we have is a number of ordinarily reliable sources speculating that the episode character is based on Sarkeesian. In each case, these are commentators of popular culture giving their opinion. We have exactly no reliable sources which actually connect the human being to any fictional portrayal. IMHO, the only place on Wikipedia this material belongs is in List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

its not many people who get a character modeled on them on TV where the press is covering it as part of the main coverage of the show.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

More reliable sources

Here are some more reliable sources that have appeared recently:

• Danielle Keats Citron (2014), Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674368290. Pages 153-155, 236 and 253 discuss Sarkeesian, the harassment, and legal issues surrounding it.
• Sarmista Das (2014), "Leveling (Up) the Playing Field: How Feminist Gamers Self-Identify and Learn in Online Communities". In Educational, Psychological, and Behavioral Considerations in Niche Online Communities, pp. 81-100. Edited by Vivek Venkatesh, Jason J. Wallin, Juan Carlos Castro, and Jason Edward Lewis. IGI Global. ISBN 1466652071. Page 82 talks about Sarkeesian, the harassment, and her work.
• Matthias Kemmer (2014) "The Politics of Post-Apocalypse: Narrativity, Interactive Framing and Ethics in Fallout 3", in Politics in Fantasy Media (pp. 97-117). Edited by Gerold Sedlmayr and Nicole Waller. McFarland. ISBN 0786495103. P. 101 discusses Sarkeesian and her work in the context of gender stereotyping in video games.
• Lauren Janik (February 3, 2015) "Video Games Were Never a ‘Boys Club,’ and Never Will Be", Time. This is an opinion piece, but from a major publication.

--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That reminds me. I'm not sure if it has been linked to here before, but the third section of this ACM paper talks about the responses and harassment that Sarkeesian has gotten:

• Heron, Michael James; Belford, Pauline; Goker, Ayse (2014). "Sexism in the circuitry". ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 44 (4). Association for Computing Machinery: 18–29. doi:10.1145/2695577.2695582. ISSN 0095-2737.

— Strongjam (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice find, Strongjam. I'll add it here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

2012 Harassment Campaign

Why are we removing "harassment" from the lede? It's an accurate summation of the article body, and it's not neutral to try and cast it as something other then what it was. — Strongjam (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This reads as POV pushing to cast doubt on what events transpired. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Further, why are we suddenly referring to the subject by her first name? We are not her intimate friends nor her family. I suggest reverting to a yesterday's stable version. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the editor who appears to be POV-pushing edited briefly in 2013, then vanishes from Wikipedia until returning to edit (a) GamerGate and (intriguingly) (b) false accusations of rape. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)