Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Odd..

Odd how there's VERY little mention of the multitudes of ACTUAL criticism people have made towards her, and only the so called "harassment"(that every online celebrity deals with)that happened. Just saying, a little bit odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impendingdoom240 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your interest in improving this article. Do you have a reliable source or sources containing that information? Chrisrus (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Check out WP:CSECTION for notes on critcism sections and Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive_15#Section_for_Criticism for the last time this topic was brought up. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I managed to find two unbiased, albeit fairly critcal, articles about Sarkeesian. Perhaps they don't warrant a brand new "criticism" section, but perhaps a paragraph in "Reception". Here they are (apologies if I don't sign this properly; rather new to this).This article is a (mostly valid) critique of Sarkeesian's video content by Houston Press. I see no reason why we would not include this in Sarkeesian's article: http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/here-s-that-valid-criticism-of-anita-sarkeesian-you-wanted-8091012

And this other one references her speaking fees, which have been controversial. In this article, reference is made to her "usual" $20, 000 fee for speaking, although she reduced it to $5, 000 in this instance because the university involved was her alma mater: http://www.thecorsaironline.com/news/2016/02/18/anita-sarkeesian-to-kick-off-womens-empowerment-month-at-smc/ The fact that she charges $20, 000 per speaking event and then still uses Kickstarters to fund her projects do lend some credence to the whole "profiteer" argument, although I'm not sure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for research.

Honestly, the entire page for Sarkeesian here is pretty biased. How on Earth is someone supposed to point out the factual inaccuracies (and there are several), lies of omission, and stolen game footage in her videos when the topics she covers (video games) aren't usually covered by major media outlets in that manner outside of, say, Youtube? Only a gamer who's played the game she's commenting on will be able to tell you if she's portraying a game inaccurately or not, so I make the argument that Wikipedia's guidelines are entirely unreasonable in the case of evaluating Sarkeesian's content (most of which is Youtube content in and of itself, and hardly academic). I realize this is closely linked to the GamerGate controversy and we should tread lightly, but it's asinine to suggest that "there are no valid sources" critiquing Sarkeesian's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliow1 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What specific things do you want to mention from the Houston Press article? If it's about how "Unfortunately, constantly having to bring up the basics ends up making her video feel slow" or "There’s also the fact that until very recently, much of her work was very focused on white feminism", then these should probably be mentioned in Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.

And the Corsair Online only says that she reduced her fee from $20,000 to $5000--it doesn't mention anything about "credence to the whole 'profiteer' argument". See WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. DonQuixote (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that whatever criticism you might want to use from the Houston Press piece is best in the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games article. And the second article only mentions that she charged $5,000 for that one fee. (The reduction from $20,000 was retracted.) For us to tie this in any way to profiteering would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. -- Irn (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, they certainly don't warrant a "criticism" section here. Houston Press may be something we can include at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. However, we'll need more discussion before including something from this source, a local alternative newspaper in Houston, Texas. At any rate, the bulk of the critique argues that the videos don't go hard enough into feminist media theory enough, as well as rejecting some of the other criticisms that have been made.

I see no reason to include the Corsair Online material. It's a student paper for one, and it doesn't actually criticize Sarkeesian for her speaking fees (it also can't verify that the numbers it's citing are legit).

As for the other statements about the lack of real sources, well, bring some more up and we'll vet them. However, use this talk page only for discussing specific, actionable changes to the articles based on reliable sources. Disparaging living people and engaging in general discussion or editorializing about a topic are against the talk page guidelines and the living persons and WP:NOTAFORUM policies.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello I searched the keyword "criticism" in the article and I found nothing apart from "She created the site in an effort to create accessible feminist media criticism." and "When will gamers understand that criticism isn't censorship?". That is very odd since most of the things I read and viewed are criticism of her views. In the Wikipedia article I see nothing as if her work is beyond criticism. You may say that there are no "reliable" sources (academic papers or coverage of this by big mainstream media) but is it ok to hide the fact that her work generated massive response videos etc? We should create a section pointing this fact, that there was in fact critique of her work all over the internet. It is not taking a stance that these critiques were valid, it is pointing out that there was indeed criticism. It created a controversy, acting like it never happened is hypocrisy. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

DagonAmigaOS, show us the reliable sources you think should be represented, and I, at least, am all ears! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the New Statesman good enough as a reliable source? "The New Statesman is a British political and cultural magazine published in London. Founded as a weekly review of politics and literature on 12 April 1913, it was connected then with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and other leading members of the socialist Fabian Society. The magazine has, according to its present self-description, a left-of-centre political position.". link It lists most of the criticisms she received, if you and the others accept this source as reliable then I may proceed to write them down here in the talk page. Thank you. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine a universe in which that article will be accepted as a "reliable source". You don't even have to read further than the first paragraph to see that it's an opinion piece and written like one. Protip: Real journalistic articles don't use the phrase "God forbid" as part of their hyperbole.--Jorm (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jorm that the article is a bit hyperbolic, but if you'd like to propose an edit sourced to it here on the talk page, you're certainly welcome to do so. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Well you don't have to imagine, it is already a source of this page (it's source 60), so it is already an acceptable reliable source, now the only thing that remains is to create a Criticism section and list the criticisms that her work received. Any objections before I proceed my proposition here? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, you can't actually do that. You need 500 edits to make changes to articles under extended confirmed protection. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides, it's clear that this source finds the available contentions against Sarkeesian to be faulty, because it sets each one up and then counters or debunks it. Using this source to uncritically present such contentions–let alone affirm them–would run counter to our core content policies. Woodroar (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that there is something fishy going on in this page, first of I see no criticism section which is somehow suspicious of itself after all these years, now I see excuses of why an already accepted source is not reliable etc. I'm not saying I will edit the page, I will present my proposition here in the talk page, we will discuss it and if it is acceptable then someone who can do it will edit the page. The source lists most of the criticisms of Anita's videos and since it is a reliable source I see no reason why not use it. The fact that it lists them in order to counter them does not matter in a Criticism Section. That section is simply to show that there was criticism of her work and what what were the arguments. You can use the same source in the Support section. To pretend that her views were unchallenged is very odd. Wikipedia already has a page with information taken from a rebutal, Celsus was a Greek philosopher and an opponent of Early Christianity, his work was destroyed by the Christians but we got to know what was his critique of Christianity by the rebutal of a Christian guy called Origen which reproduced Celsus' arguments and replied to them. DagonAmigaOS (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read the New Statesman article? As mentioned above, it ridicules the criticism that you're trying to insert. So, no, listing quack responses isn't the function of an encyclopaedia, unless the title of the article itself is "List of quackeries". DonQuixote (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the series should go under the series article in any case. Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If this source faithfully represents "most of the criticisms of Anita's videos" as you claim, then I think the problem is that there is not much legitimate criticism of her videos out there. As the source you provided concludes: "Calling the derision of Anita Sarkeesian rational debate is an insult to both her and the idea of debating ideas." -- Irn (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That New Statesman piece and this one from Bustle have been discussed several times before as sources that could be used to explain what the harassers' "criticisms" of Sarkeesian are. I think we could use them for that purpose, so long as we're clear one what the articles actually say (they reject most of the criticism). It should be noted that none of the previous proposals went anywhere, largely due to the fact that the biggest proponents were primarily interested in inserting negative material, rather than figuring out how to best represent the sources. That may happen again if we don't stay on topic and come up with actionable proposals for additions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Criticism Section serves a purpose, the reader can see why some people believe x is wrong. It does not prove x is wrong just as the Support section does not prove x is right. Anita's Wikipedia page has only praises, awards etc, but no criticism. Criticism did happen though regardless if you think it was right or wrong, hundrends of response videos to her videos etc. It is a fact that it is not mentioned here. The New Statesman piece contains some of the arguments and some rebuttal videos, it has enough information to list what was that criticism, and if you think that the criticism of Newstatesman to the criticism to Anita is valid you can use it too as a source in the Support Section. It seems to me that there is an attempt to censor any criticism to her in this wikipedia page. I will test this with another article, let's see what excuse will come up in order to dismiss that source. "Why sex workers have criticized the way feminist Anita Sarkeesian talks about women's agency". So is it ok to use this criticism in the criticism Section? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of her work goes in the relevant Tropes article. This is her biography, it is therefore about Sarkeesian and her achievements. What would you expect to say from that article exactly? "Some people don't agree with her opinion"? Or "Some feminists have interpreted her use of a particular phrase as sex negative"? Not much of a criticism is it? Koncorde (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In the Tropes article we can make more in depth research and presentation of the criticism. Here we have to mention that her work did not receive only praises like this «Chris Suellentrop of The New York Times referred to the first four videos of the series as "essential viewing for anyone interested in video games"» but also criticism like this «Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs. Women videos, which feature prominently in the debate about videogames, feminism and sexism, are full of selective and skewed analysis—one that neglects positive female images, ignores examples of male characters getting the same treatment she considers sexist for women, and attacks games for encouraging deadly violence toward female characters when killing those characters is actually the "bad" option that causes player to lose points.». DagonAmigaOS (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Koncorde, this strikes me as something much more apt for the series article rather than the biography. Moreover, I am not sure it is really due weight, as it seems to represent (from what little I know) a minority opinion amongst the reliable sources. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

First the Sullentrop comment is part of wider element introducing Miyamoto, and is particularly part of a very brief view of the main Tropes article reflecting the weight of sources. Secondly, Cathy Young's piece is literally just what I described it as "I have a different opinion of her videos". Just because someone has a different opinion or comment to make does not immediately make it notable or particularly pertinent to someone's biography. It is suitable for the main Tropes article, but would be undue in a bio to present it as if the media or weight of reliable sources was 50:50 on such matters (false equivalence). Third, Sullentrop talks about it being essential viewing. Essential viewing is not the same as "omg this is the best". It is intended to impart the meaning that regardless of your stance this is essential viewing. As the public recognition and awards received suggests, this opinion is largely reflective of wider public discourse. Koncorde (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Just because someone has a different opinion or comment to make does not immediately make it notable or particularly pertinent to someone's biography." How about when the video responses you receive have 1.260.944 views like one of thunderf00t videos? 818.906 views like one of the Amazing Atheist videos, 404.549 views like one of Chris Ray Gun videos, 279.848 views like one of Sargon of Akkad videos, 91.607 views one of Undoomed videos. To name just a few. With exception of her first two videos (her second video has 1.278.441 views) Thunderf00t's video has more views than any other video Anita made. Isn't it that noteworthy? The amount of criticism she received in the youtube alone? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Youtube is a self-published source, they aren't usable on a biography. Besides none of those commentators are noted academics, researchers or experts on feminism and the media. — Strongjam (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

yeap they are self published sources but TheNewStatesman that published one of those videos is not so we have a reliable source that says she received public criticism and it is a fact that it is noteworthy. What about the Reason article that I presented? According to Alexa Reason has a global rank 9.996, Anita's Sarkeesian feminist frequency site has a rank 400.837. Is it still just an opinion? DagonAmigaOS (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, still just an opinion to me. Alexa rankings and YouTube views are not particularly compelling to me for Wikipedia purposes. Reasonable minds can differ. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

DragonAmigaOS, you're beginning to go all over the place. As noted, there's a separate article on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, which does have a criticism section, and already includes a lot of the sources we've discussed. It would be the logical place to include criticism of the series as such. Steadman's New Statesman piece (and the Bustle piece I mentioned) will probably be better suited there. However, it's possible that nothing will happen if you don't make some actionable suggestions on wording to include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been over a week, this is likely to die again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring in lede

In the last few hours, three different editors have reverted lede insertions by User:Apollo The Logician. Apollo is in WP:3RR territory and we might be better discussing this as opposed to seeing that user blocked for edit warring. Would anyone care to discuss this? BusterD (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I just mentioned this on the user's talk page. The article is still under 1RR restriction according to the warnings. I am personally happy with where we currently are; "verbal" strikes me as an overly reductive adjective. That's all. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

My recollection of the events as they were happening is that virtually all the critique was coming from facebook, youtube and kickstarter comments, not vocalized words. I believe the sources match my memory. For this reason the use of "verbal" seems an inaccurate descriptor. New user Apollo seems to be involved in multiple edit war situations right now; some lessons might be best learned the hard way. That said, I appreciate engagement here. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Article has been largely unchanged, and each word and phrase well sourced, for the last 3 years at least. Koncorde (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that amazing in itself? Considering where we were just a few years ago? Page stability is a wonderful thing. It might be possible to improve this page to B or even GA class using what are now numerous reliable sourced profiles, interviews and articles. Never could have happened without a group of level heads helping out. Thanks ladies and gentlemen! BusterD (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the harassment is better characterized as "sexist harassment" than "sexual harassment". Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anita Sarkeesian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618232555/http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/lara_croft_battles_male_jerks/singleton/ to http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/lara_croft_battles_male_jerks/singleton
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325191643/http://news.sewanee.edu/events/2011/02/15/conference-on-women-keynote-talk to http://news.sewanee.edu/events/2011/02/15/conference-on-women-keynote-talk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting thread closure

I reverted this closure of an earlier thread by Sleyece; it was unnecessary (as the closer said, the thread has been dead for months), and the closing statement was, frankly, bizarre. Several of the things expressed there are simply not true. Specifically, vandalism as such has been mostly handled through page protection and the efforts of editors, and it absolutely *is* possible to write a neutral article on the subject so long as the real sources are followed. There are no problems here that aren't problems for every other article on Wikipedia; the only difference is scale.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand, Cuchullain. The hat was not intended to contradict or impede the work of any other user. - Sleyece 16:59:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some automatic archiving here? Having a thread from last October which hasn't archived seems a bit inappropriate... BusterD (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It was undated, which I believe stops auto-archiving. I went back through the history and found the date. Let's hope that helps! Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Why no mentions of her vicious slander of Sargon?

There are dozens of videos about her feminazi behavior.StjJackson (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)