Page semi-protected

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Requirement for Alternative Sources to Corroborate NPOV

This is a waste of everyone's time. --Jorm (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

While this article has been substantially improved from its former state, it still does not allow for due weight regarding the various allegations that were made against the subject. If the article is ever to represent a fair and accurate biography it must include details of the allegations made by opponents, most notably those associating themselves with Gamergate. This is not to say that the opinions of the latter must be given credence but they must at least be represented. As such credible sources must be found for these claims, and if refutations are possible these must also be given due weight. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that back up your claims, please feel free to provide them. Note that NO ONE ELSE EVER HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS BEFORE (likely because such things do not exist). We are not in the business of peddling falsehoods and artificial "due weight". Come back when you have ammunition in your gun.--Jorm (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mrspaceowl, if you have reliable sources with an underrepresented viewpoint, we can discuss including them, but if not, there's nothing to discuss.--Cúchullain t/c 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that this is a C class article at present. Note intention to find reliable sources. I am soliciting objections before they arise due to absolute good faith. Noting subject's recent statement: 'Case in Point: No matter how many times I say don't frame me as a victim....'[1] to be potentially in conflict with living person's current beliefs about herself and that there appear to be no alternative viewpoints shown even to demonstrate then refute previous alternatives to victimhood narrative. Verifiability of sources can be complex but parameters on what this will look like should be established in good faith, ideally in advance of significant research. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The best place to start are sources known for fact-checking and/or peer review (well-known periodicals or acadaemic journals). DonQuixote (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you feel that will offer a real and balanced POV on this one? I agree those sources are often best but here, it seems like we need something more. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
We will absolutely not be using less-than-stellar sources to corroborate your fantasy of attacking a woman. Period.--Jorm (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Where are you getting the backing for your statement from? It doesn't seem to be to do with anything I said, or to do with the Wikipedia article. Could you explain relevance? Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Simple answer, yes. If you have to go out of your way to find a source, then it's either fringe or not notable and the current article is already as balanced as it can get. DonQuixote (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's better than it was but it's not difficult to find sources that present significant criticism of the subject. Real parameters should be set on what we all agree are the sources of truth here, or we'll never get to B grade, let alone featured article on this one. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The sources of "truth" are sources renown for fact-checking and/or peer-review. This is why some editors jump to biting off heads--the fact that you're dancing around the acadaemic consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
We have been waiting 5 years for a reliable source for any such "criticism", and please be aware that criticism of a person is not required for a biography. Nor is a one sided controversy a reliable source of criticism or otherwise. We have ourselves looked for such sources. All content of this article is sourced and cited to the 9th degree, overly so to such an extent I went through n extensive culling program to bring it back to the relevant content a few years back as it was a laundry list of the terrible things people had done, were threatening to do, or were promoting. Furthermore it's evaluation as a "C" or anything thereof is not dependent upon presenting any more information. The article has not been re-assessed since its original evaluation.
I am also concerned as to what you intended to convey when quoting her Twitter feed, which was her referring to the fact that she is routinely framed (literally as part of her introductions on TV, in media, in bylines, or on the banners of news programs) as a victim first and foremost. This is an irrelevant statement.
Also you said a lot of words in a few paragraphs that look like you were trying too hard to sound authoritative. Plain speaking will help us understand what you mean a lot better than throwing around 'parameters' of 'sources of truth'. Koncorde (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like to avoid personal attacks on myself. That's not an attack on you but an observation that statements about conduct are rarely helpful. Instead I'd like to focus on what you said about in 5 years looking for a reliable source and finding none. It is an astonishing claim that no evidence at all exists of something that is so hotly and popularly disputed, and often by people who seem to have nothing to gain at all by contesting it. I know you'll say this is not allowable, but many are of the opinion that Encyclopedia Dramatica is largely unbiased, once you read through the layers of metaphor. I guess if they added a statement of editorial process they'd be allowed? Sorry for the sarcasm on this one, but there seems no other way to tackle. It doesn't mean I'm not taking you or your research seriously. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I made no statement about conduct. I was pointing out that you were failing to convey any meaning and not articulating well what your intention was. It was a call for clarity. This last paragraph is barely any better as it goes. I am not sure ED's content qualifies as a metaphorical, and even with editorial oversight it's unlikely a satirical / humour site would be particularly reliable, sarcasm or not. And yes, 5 years looking for reliable sources ourselves, and waiting for any single person to present a reliable source containing criticism. The closest have been self published blogs, or opinion pieces. Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Allegations" made by anonymous accounts on Internet forums and social media are generally not suitable for inclusion in encyclopedic biographies; I suggest you read WP:BLP to gain a better understanding of our sourcing requirements for biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This discussion did identify a couple of reliable, mainstream sources that discuss common criticisms of Sarkeesian, generally to refute them. The discussion didn't go anywhere because a now permabanned editor drove the discussion off the rails. All those sources are dated at this point - over four years old and it's unlikely we'll get anything out of them except to say that "some people say xxx, but according to source yyy, this is false". Unless Mrspaceowl has specific new sources in mind, that meet the threshold for inclusion, this discussion isn't going anywhere either.--Cúchullain t/c 13:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Steadmans piece remains, I think, the only piece of material that discussed the actual allegations, however it also rebuts them as Cuch points out. In fact the "X says Y about Z, but this is wrong based on absolutely every other example of reliable sources" is a great way down the SYNTHESIS and promotion of UNDUE for the sake of alleged balance. The vast majority of reliable sources just clearly indicate that any accusations are wrong, or highlight the significant and overwhelming notability of the threats against her.
As I believe I have said before; just because an opinion exists does not mean Wikipedia must represent it with equal (or even marginal) weight in the face of reliable sources saying something else unless the opinion is somehow significant. In most cases the criticism is of something specific even in her work, and we have referenced that it is relevant or valid specifically for the Tropes main article which we split out because of the blatant conflation. Koncorde (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
What is our evidence that sources currently listed here are reliable regarding this topic? Are we looking at editorial policy specifically? Mrspaceowl (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It's the same policy as any other topic. Please see WP:RS, and I find some of the essays on identifying reliable sources, while not mandatory or dispositive on anything, can be quite helpful. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────WP:RS Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mrspaceowl, per WP:DUE "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources". If you can't find noteworthy reliable sources for a claim, then we aren't going to include those claims. You are hardly the first person to make this argument, and it has consistently failed to persuade other editors in the past. Nblund talk 21:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In my country our laws derive from representative democracy, systems of precident and a (perhaps strange to you) common belief in the divine right of our monarch, The Queen of England. As such I always require a set of methodologies and beliefs before following orders. Here it seems a small number are gatekeepers given rights[2]. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In my perhaps blinkered view, Mrspaceowl -- no one is giving you orders. You can change the article as you like. It's just that everyone else has equal rights. And a bunch of us believe in Wikipedia's policies, however imperfect they may be. The most successful Wikipedians I have seen work with at least some level of collegiality--but we all must make our way in this sublunary place. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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.