Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Replace feminist with misandrist

Collapsing repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG, and responses to them. --Cúchullain t/c 03:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's an insult to feminists everywhere to be associated with Anita's views. All mentions of feminism should be replaced with misandry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.71.92 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Same old, same old. No reliable sources provided calling her that = no changes. --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Well, at least they're trying to be funny.--Hamilton-wiki (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Actually it's not "being funny", it's quite the backlash you get from being pseudo/radical feminist and stopping your critics by just calling them (with "feminist" buzzwords) misogynistic patriarchal chauvinists. If feminism means equal rights to all genders (see I include transgender persons) then modern day feminists fail, miserably. This equal rights (and treating) must include that female whatever can be criticised like any other specialist of a field. That just doesn't seem to be the case. Critique a "feminist" like Anita Sarkeesian and you are called what I mentioned before. Also see FemTechNet and you might get a bit of an idea why article's person got "harassed". And also watch a video about her talk at Humber University she given pre-kickstarter advertising and you might wake up to the reality. Link there http://mediaservices.humber.ca/lect_series/2012_03_27-PLS-Sarkeesian.html And by the way, online female only club FemTechNet is basically saying that male contributor's can't be neutral just check [[1]] . Nosepea68 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC) And by the way, WP:NOTAFORUM. Kindly stop giving your opinion on feminism/feminists. --NeilN talk to me 02:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC) And of course, Nosepea proves that Hamilton was wrong, they are quite incapable of being funny (or formulating a cogent argument, either.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Closed and Collapsed Sections The following was deleted because it points out that people are trying to introduce legitimate criticism to this article and, rather than engage in a discussion, editors are telling these people to just go away. This is fair because? What's been going on here is people pointing out that there is legitimate and notable criticism of her knowledge of video games, that Anita does not meet notability standards as no credible sources (nothing even close to a peer reviewed journal) have praised her work, and a bunch of long time editors have said "No criticism allowed because she awesome! Go away!" The reason her work will never find its way into a psychology journal is because it is complete BS. There is a huge difference between toys made for boys and toys made for girls because corporations have done extensive market research and design to taste. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy against women that has been successful for thousands of years across every culture known to history. The fact that Anita wants girls to play games made for boys doesn't make her relevant, it makes her a fighter of reality, as well as a hypocrite. She recently expressed her anger at video game makers for including female characters but used a bow on their heads to distinguish them, even though old school graphics left few options, and ignored the fact that modern video games are able to make females distinct in many ways. Yes, bows were used to distinguish females, because women are into accessories. They could have used, I don't know, giant hoop earrings. If Anita is as adamant as she claims, she needs to free her ears of the great patriarchy's brand and shave her head. What about little boys who want to play with dolls and My Little Pony? They get teased much worse than girls who want to play video games made for boys. I guess that's because they're not manly enough, so it's still girls who are being oppressed. The idea that men and women should be treated equally in the workplace is one thing but the idea that men and women don't have fundamentally different tastes, and are the victims of an ancient conspiracy to convince us all that we do, is a bunch of BS that will never be taken seriously by any professional journal. This is why Anita is an irrelevant nobody (and proven liar: "I love video games." I'm not a fan of video games") and doesn't deserve a page beyond the incident where she played the victim and was given a bunch of money. I know, "go away!"209.89.84.174 (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Deleting Posts Again Once again a post was deleted because editors don't like the facts that legitimate and reliable criticism of Anita's knowledge of video games exist, that no academic journals accept anything she has to say (psychologists recognize that men and women are fundamentally different and no conspiracy to create this illusion exists), and that she is a proven liar ("I love video games." I'm not a fan of video games"). Rather than explain themselves, editors prefer to just tell people raising these objections to go away. The fact that this article exists in its current form proves everything she says is wrong.209.89.84.174 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias in Reception section

I'm in the middle of looking into controversial internet figures, and this is one I had in mind. I was surprised to see no negative criticisms mentioned in the Reception section of the page, which screams bias to me.

Seeing as this is an article about an internet blogging personality and taking into consideration that more than a handful of the sources in the article come from blogs, then I think it would be appropriate to mention the criticisms she draws from other bloggers. Blocking any negative criticism on the section seems to be extremely one-sided considering the way the information was gathered: blogs, Youtube videos, etc. and contradicts Wikipedia's neutral stance on its articles.

Two possible solutions I can think of to this are: A) remove all blog material from the references section and their respective material or B) add the criticism from other bloggers to the Reception section. The first option may leave a stripped page, again, since this is an article about an internet blogger. So, I believe the second option to be the most viable. To cut it short, the criticisms could be lumped together as generalized criticisms towards her material, in the same style as many articles concerning video games or movies. Sources for these can be found easily, as this is a very controversial person.

Some examples I came up with through a Google search of "Anita Sarkeesian criticism":

 1. A petition for news organizations to acknowledge constructive criticisms of her reasoning: 
    [link removed due to wkipedia censors, will be first result of the above search]

 2. Destructoid article: 
    http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml

 3. Various written blogs, including these two examples:  
    http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2013/08/05/another-critique-of-anita-sarkeesians-ongoing-tropes-vs-women-video-series-with-focus-now-being-placed-on-the-third-damsels-in-distress-episode/
    http://www.pixlbit.com/blog/3652/with_regards_to_anna_sarkeesians_white_knights
    
 4. Various videos blogs, including these two popular examples: 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I  

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmannospaces (talk • contribs) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take Option C - Point out which "blog" sources currently used in the article aren't reliable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

1. This is an article about a scholar of popular culture, not "an Internet blogger".

2. Even when talking about bloggers, which we are not, blogs do not thereby become reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

When reliable sources appear with negative criticism of the subject, then they will appear in pagespace. Until that time (and I have exactly zero doubts that such criticism will be brought rapidly to this talkspace for assessment), I see no reason to adapt (to suit a reader or group of readers) Wikipedia's policies as they regard sourcing for BLP's for any contentious material. What "screams" at an individual reader (that reader's personal assessment of bias) must be weighed appropriately against policy and guideline intended to keep this encyclopedia sustainable. I have confidence that over time the reception section of this article will reflect the consensus of reliable sources, including significant minority views (whichever those turn out to be). BusterD (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, yes, please bring up any currently used sources that are potentially unreliable and we'll have a look at them. I'm interested to hear how this supposed sourcing issue plays out in the "reception" section, as it's easily the best cited part of the entire article. Its citations include a piece from Newsweek, an honest-to-god review from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and another review from the major newspaper Boston Globe. And of course, no, we're not inserting something from a web comic or the community blog section of Pixlbit.com just because someone somewhere doesn't like what the real sources say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any bias - I am looking into controversial internet figures as a project; whatever you may think, she fits the bill, which is why I find it weird and frankly biased to not find any negative criticisms in the Reception section. As far as the sources go, I was referring more at the sources around the article -- including a blog from an author who, looking through her post history, appears to have a bias in the subject covered by Sarkeesian's blogging -- as sources for Reception are seldom scientific or require special titles. However, if you would like a source that is at or above the same level of reliability as its would-be peers in the Reception section, I again encourage you to take a look at the Destructoid article I mentioned in the OP. It is a gaming website (akin to IGN) and the article was posted by a games journalist (again, akin to the same IGN article referenced).

Edit - Upon looking through more of the articles already used as references, Eördögh's ReadWrite article is bringing up a criticism from the crowd involving her handling of the money earned from Kickstarter. While this is already mentioned earlier in the Wikipedia article, it should also be mentioned in the Reception section as a criticism, as Eördögh herself calls it a criticism.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmannospaces (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Destructoid has been previously discussed and dismissed as holding "marginal" and "situational" reliability in relation to video games, but lacking reliability standing to support a BLP subject. All that aside, the Destructoid article was published before the first video released in the Kickstarter-supported series, so has no relationship to series reception whatsoever. BusterD (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that Helen Lewis has a bias is neither here nor there - she is a journalist who writes for an unimpeachable reliable source. Your perception of her opinion has no relevance to Wikipedia.

We already mention Eördögh's claim regarding her handling of the money in discussing the production of the videos - "the delay led some critics to question how she was using the money" - thus mentioning it in the Reception section would be entirely redundant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Then would it not make sense to have that source placed on the Reception section, seeing as it is pertaining to some of her criticism? For a user such as myself, who is looking exactly for the reactions of a person's work, would it not be more efficient to read that criticism in the Reception section rather than potentially miss it in the Video Series section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmannospaces (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ohmannospaces, please remember to sign your comments with four tildas (~~~~). It would be helpful if you'd say directly what you're talking about. You seem to be talking about Helen Lewis, who has 3 pieces here cited a total of 5 times (none in the reception section). Lewis is a professional journalist and an editor at the New Statesman, and she appears to have written pretty extensively on feminism, internet culture, and such in that and other reliable publications.

This source is being used to cite two rather obvious claims: that Sarkeesian's experience led to discussion in the media, and that media sources documented the array of harassment (the piece actually does this). The piece is listed in newstatesman.com's blog section, however it appears to be what are called WP:NEWSBLOGs - a column that can be an acceptable source on Wikipedia, not some random yahoo's personal website. Caution needs to be used for newsblogs, but given Lewis's background and the fact that these are pretty uncontroversial claims, it looks all right to me.

This piece also from newstatesman.com is being used to cite the (again) obvious claim that this Wikipedia article was vandalized with porn. The claim is also backed up by a source from Digital Trends and reality. Again, it's in the blog section, but looks to be an acceptable newsblog that's not being used to say anything remotely arguable.

This piece from The New York Times is used twice. It's cited for the claim that Sarkeesian was emailed images of herself being raped by game characters (again, this isn't arguable), and for the claim that Sarkeesian says that the harassers "gamified misogyny" by, well, turning their misogynous harassment into a game. The piece is in the Times' blog section but it's actually part of the paper's "ArtsBeat" feature. It should be acceptable to use by any standard.

That Destructoid piece has been discussed repeatedly before and the consensus is that it's not reliable. See archives 2 and 3 for extensive discussion. Essentially, the these guidelines have determined Destructoid to be only situationally reliable, and this isn't one of those situations. It's one guy's op-ed in his community blog - effectively a self-published source, which are not acceptable in biographies of living persons (unless written by that person). I'm sorry, but it's laughable to argue that it's remotely "at or above" the level of reviews from a peer-reviewed journal and a major newspaper.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As BusterD alludes to, the "Reception" section is actually for the video series, not general criticism of Sarkeesian. So essentially everything I just said about the Destructoid piece is moot; it wouldn't be appropriate even if it were reliable. As for Eördögh, she's commenting on the production and costs, not anything about the videos' content; it's also not appropriate for that section. And it would be redundant to say the same thing twice. I'm actually of the opinion that that source isn't relevant or useful and should be removed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize on the formatting - I signed up for Wikipedia to point this out, so I'm very new and did not think I'd be discussing it for this long.

Unfortunately, the sections you refered to have been edited out. I am saying that the Destructoid article is no less reliable than the IGN article, which is referenced in the same Reception section and used (in its second appearance) as a type of reaction Sarkeesian has received. This is not mentioning the fact that, while the IGN article does not explicitly say it, it is structured and told the same way a blog would, which is the reason I say it is no better than the Destructoid article.

Furthermore, I would to point out that the author of the IGN article, Paul Dean, is a freelance writer, in contrast to the author of the Destructoid article, Chris Carter, who is a "Reviews Director" and works directly for the company, as detailed in his profile and on the site's front page. This, added to the fact that Destructoid is accredited by Metacritic and the clause in the Wikipedia entry you linked to saying that Destructoid "may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such." This reaction to one of her videos, again, is from a paid employee of the organization, which I would say makes him reliable in that he's not a Joe playing Midnight Sonata on his keyboard, but instead, someone who is paid to give his opinions on everything surrounding video games.

In short: if the IGN article can be considered reliable enough to be mention in the Reception section solely for its semantics on its publishing (i.e., not explicitly calling it a blog post), then I see absolutely no reason to exclude the Destructoid article from that same section.

Furthermore, I disagree with your conclusions of the article, as it does not attack nor criticize Sarkeesian herself; the author himself says so in the early paragraphs. The article tries to offer counterarguments to some of the issues Sarkeesian presented in her tropes videos. This is not really up to interpretation, please read through a section of the article, particularly one that is preceded by a picture. The author quotes Sarkeesian and presents his argument.

And, since the money comes directly from a Kickstarter projected founded for her video series, then I think a criticism of her quietness in regards to where she is spending what is essentially the budget for the video series, is relevant to the latter.

Ohmannospaces (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Although there are concerns about the reliability of the Destructoid piece in regard to criticism of this area, if we ignore that we still have the problem raised above that the Destructoid article is not a response to the videos, but only to an interview she gave prior to the videos being released. Therefore we can't use it as criticism of the video series. - Bilby (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify - "since the money comes directly from a Kickstarter projected founded for her video series, then I think a criticism of her quietness in regards to where she is spending what is essentially the budget for the video series, is relevant to the latter" - this may be of interest to some people, but it is not of "interest" to wikipedia because it has no relevance. As and when she issues a full account of what she has used her funds on, we will include it. What we cannot include is opinion from third parties uninvolved in the process saying things like "where did the money go?". That is the dictionary definition of JAQ'ing off.

Further, when looking into the Destructoid piece - his opinion on her opinion is not valid. The most we could say is "X disagreed". This, however, would be undue weight for the Destructoid piece. Lots of people disagree every day, it doesn't make their opinions on their blogs notable for inclusion on Anita Sarkeesians wikipedia article any more than every criticism from Rush Limbaugh (a far more notable critic) should appear against Barack Obama.

If you are honestly researching why Anita Sarkeesian is controversial - you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia is not here to provide interpretative analysis. It can only report on that analysis when it is presented by reliable sources. Try RationalWiki which has a far more lax inclusion level. Koncorde (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ohmannospaces, you're all over the place. It seems most of the many things you've brought up have been covered. We've established that (1). barring any unidentified issues, the Helen Lewis articles seem to be reliable. (2). Per previous consensus, the Destructoid piece is not reliable. (3). The "Reception" section is for the video series and thus only contains, well, reception of the video series. Even if they were reliable, the Destructoid blog op-ed and the Eördögh piece are not suitable for that section.

Of the other things, what we haven't established is whether the IGN source or the Eördögh piece are reliable. I have no opinion on IGN; for what it's worth WP:VG/RS says it's generally reliable for video game topics if the author is. I'm of the opinion that the Eördögh source is irrelevant and should be removed, as it's coming from a blog site and there's no indication why her opinion is a significant viewpoint on this topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the fork Tropes vs. Women in Video Games be merged back into the main article here. It shouldn't have been created in the first place; it was initially created by a single-purpose account for the purpose of introducing negative material about Sarkeesian. It was subsequently cleaned up, however now it's entirely redundant with the relevant sections in this article and there haven't been any substantial changes in over a month.
As of today, there simply isn't enough coverage of the series itself in reliable sources to justify keeping a separate article. In a vacuum, the coverage that exists for the video series may be sufficient to scrape by the notability threshold, but at this point it says nothing that isn't covered here. Literally every source for the video series discusses it in the context of, or along with, coverage of the harassment. Even the two best ones ( this and Nate Carpenter's scholarly review) both devote substantial space to the harassment.
Tellingly, the Nate Carpenter review isn't even included in the fork. Keeping the fork just results in duplicating what's covered here, in an inferior way. I previously suggested a merge here, which seemed to have consensus, but it was reverted. Hence this discussion. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support the videos have not garnered any particular commentary from notable sources. Sarkeesian and the Kickstarter events are notable, the videos less so. Discussing the videos should be done in the context of Sarkeesian until they have achieved notability outside of Sarkeesians own notoriety. Koncorde (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I accepted the AFC in the hopes it would quell the controversy, but all it did was break it in half. My mistake, and a merger is appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)