Jump to content

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

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:
— 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)

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)

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)
[redacted].Theduinoelegy (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop making unfounded accusations about other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Completely founded but resolved. Thanks for bearing with us. Time is needed for investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theduinoelegy (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 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)
@MarkBernstein: and feminism. But let's discuss the edits themselves. Personally I don't see a need to qualify the statements regarding harassment as it's called that by nearly every RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Intention was to show that whatever the intentionality of the 'harassment', millage may vary on how term harassment is applied. It's a difficult idea to convey within Wiki rules and I'm trying my best. Criticism of my personal editing history seems relevant. Will edit another article to show my perspective on wiki rules and NPOV on a less emotionally charged subject... Theduinoelegy (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Theduinoelegy please discuss your edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question about the use of names. Hold on. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see this problem in the article. Is it just our conversational tone? I keep spelling Sarkeesian wrong, so there's my excuse. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
MOS says we should just use the person's surname. It also can be seen as overly familiar or diminutive to refer to someone just by their given name. — Strongjam (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The diff that introduces the "Anita" as victim of harassment appears to be here: [1]. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The above link is actually the prior edit. The diff you were looking for is here. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The chage was very poorly written and not really an improvement, considering the wording was pretty unintelligible before. "There followed a campaign of harassment..." from where? Out of the ether? I've taken a stab at a rewrite.--Cúchullain t/c 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced your change is an improvement Cuch. Second sentence seems largely redundant as it's repeating everything you say in sentence 1 apart from mentioning wikipedia. Will update and let everyone else comment. Koncorde (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And your edit introduced some confusing wording and passive voice, and botched some tenses and verb agreement. But that's why this is a collaborative effort, eh? I've taken another stab.--Cúchullain t/c 03:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, just re-read my comment - didn't mean for it to come across dismissively. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries! I think we're working toward something good here, which this article has needed for a long long time.--Cúchullain t/c 00:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

lead

Don't know if this is the right place to continue the discussion, but to me the last sentence in the lead looks unclear and confusing. What does "study gender representation" even mean? What are the "problems in the industry and culture"? I think this specific part has no place in the lead, since the current article focuses mainly on her successful kickstarter and the harassment, not her engagements. What do you think? Heinerj (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

does this [2] address your concerns? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's see what the craftsmen themselves think about it. @Koncorde and Cuchullain: you were talking about that, didn't you? Heinerj (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really bothered, I left it in there as it didn't say anything I strictly disagreed with. It's possible we should change that second paragraph to be more inclusive of subsequent events as it's 2012'centric so perhaps a little out of date, or of less relevance. Koncorde (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Commentary section

Since 50% of the paragraphs in the "Commentary" section refers to her own words, shouldn't we find a more suitable name? I can't think of anything right now, have you got any ideas? Heinerj (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I toss out Reception and public appearances as reflecting the content, feel free to revert to something more appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a non-native speaker so it may be that, but I'm not so sure about the words "Reception", "Awards" and "Nomination". They make her look more like a movie than a person. Is it just me? I mean, the awards are just that, awards, but still... Heinerj (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The commentary section in the end was just the crufty bits I stripped out of the original "Harassment", "Awards & Commentary" sections. I didn't think it was the right name, but couldn't think of anything more appropriate. I didn't think reception was necessarily right when it is an ongoing process. None of it is strictly essential, but all of it qualifies as notable for her bio (possibly, maybe). Koncorde (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

TowerFall character

I've reverted the insertion of the release of a TowerFall character in the 'Awards and Nominations' section, on two grounds: First, it doesn't seem like an award or nomination as such; and second, it was sourced to the game's Tumblr feed, which doesn't really count as an RS. Please discuss here, and find a reliable source for it, before reinserting the claim. GoldenRing (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: - whether it is true or not, sourcing a BLP claim to a Tumblr feed is not good enough. GoldenRing (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, just spotted that it's not a straight revert and you've added better sourcing. GoldenRing (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
As per Strongjams revert, not quite sure it meets any notability for Sarkeesian per se (at least not the limited sourcing / discussion). It's probably more notable for the TowerFall article at the moment and see if it becomes more rounded, rather than just a passing reference by the designer. Koncorde (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Time Magazine Top 100 Most Influential People

Looks like more to come. Anyone want to take a stab at integration? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GX3

http://gamepolitics.com/2015/05/27/anita-sarkeesian-anthony-burch-named-bosses-honor-gx3-everyone-games-event#.VWarwM9VhBc ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't quite do anything with this yet but if her panel/speech/whatever goes online, I think we could make note of it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Another accolade

Anita Sarkeesian was included in Cosmopolitan's list of the 50 Most Fascinating People on the Internet. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Already included. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks for letting me know. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 14:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

the doom stuff

I unaccepted the revision with the readdition of the doom material, not because I have any opinion about the content, but because the editsum was incorrect and accusing someone of vandalism when they have not committed WP:VANDALISM is often taken rather offensively. In general, please reach consensus re: material on this talk page, and if you redo your edit, please use a valid editsum. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Gorman, I agree with your reasoning, and even if the particular DOOM critique is worthy of inclusion, the second half mentioning comparisons to Jack Thompson is at best poorly phrased, at worst intentionally misleading. It seems odd that an article from January of 2015 would be remarking on comparisons provoked in June of 2015. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Doom stuff seems minor, unless it extends to other issue/controversy later on. Fjaoaoaoao (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
1) My understanding is that the 500/30 rule was to be extended to BLPs of Gamergate targets. If so, this edit should be summarily rejected.
2) The edit was originally proposed with a deceptive edit summary, and was not accepted. It was then re-proposed with a deceptive and aggressive edit summary. The editor in question is an SPA, arriving on the heels of Gamergate and seldom editing outside the area. A cursory inspection of previous edits to BLPs shows few substantive contributions -- most seem to be attempts to wedge borderline BLP violations into the article.
3) This should be rejected on its merits -- it's undue and irrelevant -- and on procedure: whatever the intent, it's clearly being inserted into the article under false pretenses. (I acknowledge that issues 1 and 2 address editor behavior, but do we really want to or need to trek to AN/I or AE to handle this trivia? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Lots of wisdom in what the editors have said above. Since the discretionary sanctions were imposed this page has been comparatively stable. We're starting to get better mainstream sources and the subject has gotten a fair amount of coverage and acclaim. What do you think about beginning an overhaul and improvement collaboration? Maybe getting this up to B or GA level status? The subject deserves a more worthy page. I think this is the time to start. For my part, I was waiting for a time of stability like the present. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
What's the 500/30 rule? (A simple link will suffice.) -- Irn (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It's over at the Gamergate controversy talk page, to wit: "the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals would not be subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)" If Mr. Bernstein is right above that this applies beyond that discrete article, I'd hope it could be more clearly indicated for lowly editors like myself! Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To break down why its a terrible edit, one only needs to look at sources. The first source says nothing apart from republishing a couple tweets about the audience reaction to Doom. That's...of no merit and doesn't support what was said. The second one? From the opinion pages from an author with only two articles on the site and it says "there is no comparison between Anita and Jack". That's why I axed the first edit. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 01:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to a ping from Ryk72 on my User Talk page, the 500/30 restriction is, at this time, applied only to the Gamergate controversy article itself, its Talk page and its subpages. In case there's confusion as to what a "subpage" is, see Subpage, which has the definition I'm talking about. Linked or related pages aren't included in the 500/30 restriction, as of yet, so it is not applied here at this time. But, if convincing evidence can be brought that shows that a related page is having chronic problems from a series of low-experience accounts, it can be applied to those pages too. Zad68 14:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    At this point I don't think any other page needs the 30/500 treatment. The volume of problematic edits or discussions is not high enough to cause a burden. The edits that do come, however, require revdel fairly often. That's a different problem. I expect that most issues can be solved with semi-protection.--Jorm (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
With the removal of specific problem editors, there haven't been many problems here. I don't think we need to do anything globally here, when the individual solutions have worked well.
As for the edit itself, it's not an improvement. This isn't a catalog of everything the subject has ever written about (or tweeted about). Thus far, the notice her Doom comments have received hasn't gone any further than here comments on the dozens of other games she's critiqued. As for the Thompson comparison, which I suspect is the reason the whole thing was added to begin with, it's just one element of the story the Guardian piece comments on, and flatly rejects. There's no call to single it out here.--Cúchullain t/c 14:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: I would note that, while this page has been comparatively stable, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu have each required frequent attention Brianna’s (semi-protected) talk page shows visits from Oversight on 19 June, 17 June (twice), and 9 June. Zoe’s recent over sightings include 29 June, 27 June, 20 June (3 edits), 16 June (twice), 11 June, and 8 June. In addition, there's a fair amount of loose discussion that might not quite rise to the level of require rev-del. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not fully familiar with the GG ruling, I simply took what I thought was appropriate based on the posts alone. I would welcome any admin to take greater appropriate action than I did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Very carefully. DonQuixote (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, it's nice that things have calmed to the point where the drive-bys feel like big events. Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Just strange that the page chooses to neglect to mention any source of legitimate criticism... Fjaoaoaoao (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, just read the archive and seen this has been discussed ad nauseam. Even though I have no experience editing on Wikipedia, I would seriously consider adding a more full perspective on the issue, though perhaps it is more appropriate to relegate this discussion to the Feminist Frequency page rather than this one. Fjaoaoaoao (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Fjaoaoaoao: this might sound sarcastic, but I honestly don't mean it to: thank you for engaging here. You're quite correct that this has been discussed quite a bit, and I can understand your perspective on criticism. The problem is that Wikipedia exists not to create what we ourselves consider to be a "balanced view" of this (or any other!) subject, rather we try to present, in as neutral a manner as possible, what the reliable sources (often abbreviated RS) say. We both know there are many small outlets, YouTube videos and the like who criticize Ms. Sarkeesian personally or Feminist Frequency. Until they are noticed by the larger RS, however, there's not a lot we should do to change the article. I hope you can see how if this weren't the case, this article could be millions of words long describing every last reaction to the subject, positive and negative. If you have proposals for changing the article, by all means, bring them up here, and we'll be happy to discuss. Thank you! Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Harassment and Stephanie Guthrie

I think we need to reword the sentence about the criminal harassment. It makes it sound as though the complaint Ms. Guthrie filed was about harassment related to the Anita Sarkeesian game, when the source seems pretty clear to me that the two were unrelated (the source says of the criminal defendant: "After declining his offer to design the poster, Guthrie said the harassing tweets started, and only became worse when she and her friends requested that the tweets stop.") I can give it a go if no one else wants to, or perhaps, take out that particular sentence as the relevance to Ms. Sarkeesian is a bit attenuated. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Easy fix, just removed the sentence. If it wasn't referring to the harassment following criticism of the game, then it really has no point in this article. At this stage the article could do with a spring clean to check the cited links. I last gave it the once over 6 months ago but clearly missed that one. Koncorde (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This section needs significant revision to account for the latest developments and better adhere to NPOV about an ongoing criminal trial.

Rhoark (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rhoark. The sentence referring to the criminal case was removed by my previous edit. Koncorde (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As they say, lack of information is better than misleading information. The additional sources establish the case is connected to the punching game, though. It's what provoked a falling out between Guthrie and the defendant. Rhoark (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Haven't followed the case so your links are the first I have seen on the subject beyond the original Sarkeesian comment (which is what drove the linkage to Guthrie in this article if I recall correctly).
I culled a ton of harassment content in Feb for repetition, but left the significant incidents. However as nothing has since really come of those incidents the Harassment section could probably do with a tidy / condense. Koncorde (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Metaleater source

Recently this source was introduced to the page by an account with less than 50 edits over over nine or so years. The user didn't do him- or herself any favors by blanking the page prior to introducing the Metaleater material. Both edits were reverted, the second by a page watcher with an edit summary recommending the source be brought to talk. Thusfar, this hasn't been discussed (unless I've missed it in archives). For several reasons, I'm intrigued by the inserted source. The source arguably appears to meet our standards for reliability and the critique to reasoned and somewhat balanced in approach. I realize this isn't a scholarly source, nor a mainstream one, but it's a professional website, not a blog. I'm intrigued by the points the author makes, and I believe she has standing to make the comments. Ignoring the issue of the troublesome editor who introduced this material, I'd argue for some degree of inclusion. Strictly on the merits, what do others think? BusterD (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@BusterD: I am not at all familiar with the source, so I don't know how it shapes up as an RS, but the link is quite prominently labeled an opinion piece, so I'd be hesitant to use it pursuant to WP:RSOPINION -- but if you think there's good reason, let us know. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! That was me. Sometimes I do weird and experimental things to see what will happen. I also haven't seen a need to edit much of anything on Wikipedia in the past since most of the things I have wanted to edit have been trivial. However, I think this is an interesting article series since the author cites the problematic negativity of the criticism towards FF, yet also feels there are a lot of issues with FF, so it offers a different take on feminism. Of course, there really hasn't been much media coverage from a reliable source on the issue that offers a different perspective, so it can be difficult to find something more reliable at the moment. Fjaoaoaoao (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Metaleater was discussed at Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games/Archive 2#Criticism, where editors mentioned their lack of editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking. Because of this, the source is not used in the Tropes article. It is used at Gamergate controversy, along with three other sources, to reference a single sentence. That seems like an appropriate use, as the claims made by Metaleater are rather UNDUE. Any use here would have to remarkably limited. As a comparison, the previous sentence (to the now-deleted Metaleater statement) is supported by two Guardian sources and was half the length. Woodroar (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
As above by Woodroar, in addition the opening statement of the piece is "Editor's note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, nor should be attributed to, Metaleater Media as a whole" so it's actually reduced below any obvious op-ed piece with editorial oversight. The piece is suitable for Liana K herself (her opinion is her opinion) and appears to be quoted over there for the same purpose, but isn't suitable for an Anita BLP (although it's a possible contextual quote for Feminist Frequency or Tropes series). Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input and I appreciate being pointed to the correct archive. I'm satisfied that the piece is linked on the Liana page, so it's available if Liana were to be linked one day on this pagespace as a critic. The interest I have is Liana's examples of how she felt mistreated by Feminist Frequency supporters (especially in part four). This narrative can be considered reliable about Liana's own experiences, though I'll concede her experiences clearly constitute primary sourcing. In any case, Liana's opinions seem well grounded in Anita's actual theories, not merely personal attacks. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a heck of a floodgate you'd open if we started linking BLP topics to peoples unqualified opinions because of accusations about unidentified third parties that may or may not have said something mean to them (particularly when using Primary Sourcing) and are only allegedly related to the BLP in question via a series of video's. That's like inserting criticism on Christian Bale's BLP because fans of Christopher Nolan movies criticised self identifying Christopher Reeve move fans opinions. Koncorde (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No disagreement. I've already conceded the point. BusterD (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A few points:

  • Even with disclaimer about not representing the views of Metaleater, the piece is still independently and verifiably published.
  • It does not take much reputation for fact checking to be reliable for an author's opinion.
  • Tropes vs. Women is not a living person

I think a sentence noting at least the existence of Kerzner's criticisms is warranted in the reception section of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Rhoark (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Kerzner a notable person of some reputation? If not, then her opinions mean nothing to a tertiary source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this piece should be excluded, for the following reasons:
  • There is no mention of Metaleater.com at WP:VG/RS or the reliable sources noticeboard. We haven't established their "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" on video game topics or other relevant fields, let alone that they represent a significant viewpoint that should be included here per WP:WEIGHT.
  • The site does claim a writing staff, suggesting there's some editorial oversight, but their editorial process isn't clear (no staff member is even listed as an editor).
  • Liana Kerzner appears to be a relatively established video game writer, and she's listed as a "writer & video producer" on the site (meaning she's ostensibly not just a community blogger or freelance contributer). However, the piece in question is explicitly marked as Kerzner's own opinion, not something endorsed by the publication: "Editor's note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, nor should be attributed to, Metaleater Media as a whole." This distinguishes it from other pieces, even those with a lot of editorializing, which carry no disclaimer.[3][4] The fact that the piece appears in (or is hosted by) Metaleater.com does not establish it as a particularly significant viewpoint on Sarkeesian (or her series), as it's little different than if Kerzner had published the piece on her own blog or other self-published source. While the piece may be reliable for citing Kerzner's opinion, it does not establish that that opinion is significant to this topic.
  • Neither Kerzner nor Metaleater are such established authorities on media studies that they should be included despite the above issues, per WP:FALSEBALANCE.--Cúchullain t/c 20:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Considering that we have various high quality sources, with clear reputations for fact-checking and accuracy and established authority in relevant topics, including a piece like this would seem to be setting the bar awfully low.
--Cúchullain t/c 20:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of the points you raise are inapplicable for reasons I've already given. This is a question that hinges on weight rather than verifiability. I agree the weight due Kerzner is low, but I think it represents a "significant viewpoint". It was widely discussed on social media and is on the first page of Google results for "feminist frequency criticism" - as the highest ranked result that is a reliable source that actually criticizes Feminist Frequency. (confirmed using an IP proxy in case of tailoring by Google) Rhoark (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick question- why isn't this being discussed on the talk page for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Bit weak that Rhoark. Can't see how Kerzner having an opinion on the internet is considered weight. Social Media discussion is not weight either, and coming top of a google result when the reliable source that confers that weight contains a significant disclaimer on that opinion. This a blog piece. Per my original comment 2 weeks ago (and Woodroar and PeterTheFourths comments) it might be contextual quote for Tropes article, but certainly isn't reliable enough for a BLP to shape any criticism. Koncorde (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark: all the points I raised are applicable. Bottom line is that neither the author nor the publication have such a reputation for expertise in a relevant field as to establish this op-ed as a "significant viewpoint" on the subject that should or must be included. Being "widely discussed on social media" and having a high Google search ranking for a tailored search term counts for even less.--Cúchullain t/c 02:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is MetalEater established as a reliable source? If not, is Liana K established as somebody whose opinion of feminism or feminist critique is considered weighty? These seem to be quite useful questions in deciding whether this material should be used as a source. A lot of people have opinions on this topic, but most of those people are, to be kind, not representative of informed opinion. --TS 01:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, neither of those things is the case.--Cúchullain t/c 02:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Even though I brought up the source, I think the source (not Liana, but Metaleater) is not significant enough, though I don't really know how Wikipedia works. The disappointing part from my standpoint is that there doesn't seem to be any mainstream sources that analyze Anita's videos on more than a shallow level, which in some ways reveals the limited nature of Wikipedia. While Anita's boldness and bravery in facing criticism and advocating for more diversity in gaming deserves media attention, many of her arguments in the FemFreq videos that support her overall goal (in my opinion) often fall so flat under any degree of serious scrutiny. Ignoring the overwhelmingly high number of comments across various sources - even many of the mainstream sources (ie TIME, Verge) - that actively criticize her methodologies (even if many of the criticism seems to go way too far) seems to be rather limiting, as a mainstream social media driven viewpoint is ignored. In some senses, it almost plays into Anita's format of controlling the narrative through censorship ~ she proposes a narrative, most people agree with her primary narrative, mainstream media supports primary narrative and thus does not dig deeper, she limits active criticism of her arguments through social media, and so as a result, criticism can easily be relegated to being fringe. It's almost as if she is figuring out how to improve her arguments as she goes along - which is great - but ignoring the issues with previous bits that have been published is problematic with Wikipedia imo. I think this is partially why she irks some people; she receives praise for notions that many liberal gamers or academics have known for years, generalizes, and then uses arguments that many find lacking or erroneous. Perhaps some other sources which support Anita yet recognize limitations and/or other voices than the two primary ones may be good http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/30/gamers-criticism-censorship reputable sources but blog-like: http://kotaku.com/how-anita-sarkeesian-wants-video-games-to-change-1688231729 http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/ Even a mention of an article such as this one http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/has-anita-sarkeesian-been-silenced would help broaden the view of this Wikipedia article. Fjaoaoaoao (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there some language or a point you think should be included in the article? If you could formulate your request this way, it would make it much easier to discuss. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On how the polarizing nature of the environment, furthered by the media, distracts from discussion of Sarkeesian's actual work. "But the portrayal of Sarkeesian and other feminist writers, designers and academics as pantomime villains, allows the gamer communities involved to avoid disucssion and analysis. It allows them to more easily rally against her. Frustratingly, this environment disallows discussion about what the Tropes vs Women videos are actually arguing. “There are clearly valid critiques to make of Sarkeesian’s work [...] we tend not to see those,” says Ian Bogost, game designer and academic. “Instead we see way out of line Internet abuse.” Anthropy agrees. “It’s tough, because how do you open a nuanced discussion of someone’s work when another group is loudly shouting for her head?” While some gamers may demonise and abuse Sarkeesian for her attempts to address a broad audience and to highlight the fact that games aren’t as inclusive as they could be, there are other gamers who want to critique her work for not going deep enough, for failing to be intersectional and for presenting a sex negative perspective. But this is all lost amid the white noise of online hate." In http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/30/gamers-criticism-censorship
  • On how Sarkeesian examines tropes under a particular worldview/lens "Moreover, it's worth bearing in mind the obvious, that she's a feminist and that her view is that men and women are perceived very differently in society. "Equal opportunity sexual objectification is not the answer here," she said. "It actually isn't equal." Her view of how women are seen in much of society and culture is fundamental to her arguments: "Women are thought of and represented as sexual objects to be used by and for the sexual pleasure of others in society, and men are not viewed that way. There's no long-standing oppressive construct of men being seen as sexual objects and reduced to that in real life." If you agree with her worldview, you're likely with her on many or all of these eight things. If not, well, you're unlikely to see much here you can back." "As easy as she had suggested some of the changes in gaming could be, so much of this is likely to be controversial—and not just because someone might be sexist. How do you balance creators' freedom with the need or desire to open a game up to a broader audience? How do you assess which portrayals of women in games attract or repel male or female gamers? How do we truly determine the impact of the characters we see or control on how we relate to those characters or view the world? Sarkeesian didn't lay out those questions, but those are the ones implicit in her critique. Those are the ones that supporters and critics of her views on women in games are likely to debate for a long time to come. " In http://kotaku.com/how-anita-sarkeesian-wants-video-games-to-change-1688231729
  • The following is maybe too specific and no good summary quotes. But it elucidates how Sarkeesian frames the real life applications of sexism from video games: "Sarkeesian’s critique is much more interesting, though still wrong-headed, belying a deep misunderstanding of the role of fiction and fantasy fiction in particular. She tweets about the character Ciri, who is playable at points in the game, and notes that “The Witcher 3 does to Ciri what Arkham City did to Catwoman. Thugs yell “bitch” and “whore” and sexually harass both women as you play them.” In response to people pointing out that NPCs hurl insults at Geralt, too, about his freakishness (he’s a mutant) she observes, “Enemies call Geralt “freak” & “mutant’ due to fictional prejudice against magic. When they call Ciri “cunt” it’s rooted in real life sexism.” Now, I’m not sure that “mutant” is an actual insult hurled at Geralt. He’s called a “freak” because he’s a mutant (not because of magic, which has its own system of prejudice in the game world, including witch hunting and burning at the stake…) But why quibble?Sarkeesian’s core critique of how Ciri is treated, boils down to: “Also the “it’s realistic for enemies to sexually harass female characters” excuse is nonsense in fantasy games filled with ghouls & wraiths.”" "Sexism is something women actually confront in their jobs, at home. Why is it off limits to actually address that with fantasy fiction? The answer? It’s not. Art is not supposed to serve a political agenda. That’s what propaganda is for. Art does and should deal with real world issues, make us think, challenge us. What it shouldn’t do is simply confirm our biases. Fortunately, The Witcher 3 does no such thing. Yes, it’s depressing to see all the vitriol hurled at Sarkeesian. It’s immature and stupid. But I do wish she’d come up with better arguments than this. It feels like little more than preaching to the choir rather than examining something honestly. Surely she can do better. Surely we should always hold our own beliefs under just as critical a magnifying glass when we set out to critique others." http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/ Fjaoaoaoao (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
These are all interesting and valid points to make about Ms. Sarkeesian and her place in the broader video game debate, but extended quotes aren't helping me understand how you propose to change the article. Do you think these should be included wholesale? If so, where? I confess, I'd be a bit dubious about that, but perfectly willing to discuss it. I would just ask that you be cognizant of WP:RSOPINION. Opinion pieces, even where occurring in reliable sources, must be used with great care. I have done no great analysis, but the second and third sources here give me pause along those lines. Thanks for your work on this. Dumuzid (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In the above long comments I see very little that would be appropriate to include here in the biography of Sarkeesian. Individual passages critiquing the videos may be useful at the fork article, but the first two given hardly represent the pieces as a whole.
The Guardian piece is easily the best of the lot for what is being proposed. It's the only one that gives (or rather, it references) a general commentary of Sarkeesian's work: that there are valid critiques, such as her work being insufficiently intersectional or giving a supposedly "sex-negative perspective", but that the harassers effectively silence such evaluations. However, the main arguement of the piece is that many gamers don't understand that "criticism isn't censorship".
The Kotaku quotes strike don't seem to me to represent the main sense of this very substantial piece. And either way, they're discussing eight points in a speech she gave on how to change games. I don't see how this could be effectively added to either article.
On the third source, we've discussed Forbes blogs before (and that writer, I believe), and in general they're not usable. Items from Forbes' blog section are effectively self-published sources, and those can't be used in a WP:BLP.
As Dumuzid says, perhaps specific changes could be suggested for vetting.--Cúchullain t/c 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Reception

For the sake of objectivity, the whole Harassment section should be included in the Reception and public appearances section. Jeandeve (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of objectivity, please don't vandalize the page. Citobun (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That's cute, but you don't have to duplicate your message on two different pages, especially since you wrote it on my talk page first, and that you're not exactly addressing the topic I'm bringing here. Jeandeve (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeandeve -- While harassment is a 'reception' of sorts, in that it is a reaction to Ms. Sarkeesian's public thought, it is clearly notable enough to deserve its own section. Moreover, your behavior both on the article and associated talk page do not instill confidence in either your objectivity or your desire to build an encyclopedia. While Citobun did not strictly address the point you raised, neither did you apologize for or at least acknowledge a clearly inappropriate edit. We welcome your help building this page and this encyclopedia, but it must be done within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"While Citobun did not strictly address the point you raised, neither did you apologize for or at least acknowledge a clearly inappropriate edit." Oh really? Jeandeve (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, allow me to apologize for not realizing you had made that statement at ANI. However I must confess that ending with "but it's still a fact" gives me pause. Dumuzid (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing objective about including rape and death threats as part of a reception section, especially as much of the harassment started before she had actually published any of the work she was being attacked for. Koncorde (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's nothing objective about excluding it from the reception section, either. Jeandeve (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Harassment is not critical reception. Therefore your argument has no bearing. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 09:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't use your opening gambit of "objectivity", and then 6 lines later say "nothing objective about excluding it from the reception section, either". So where was the objectivity in your original claim? You introduced an immature, uncited, and clearly subjective comment expressing a personal opinion - but have the gall to claim objectivity when it suits? Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The user has been blocked for 24 hours and warned of the Gamergate sanctions. Presumably this issue, such as it is, is resolved.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)
It could just be a poorly disguised attempt at a bit of doxing... Lklundin (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should ask it to be buried then? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I've redacted per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Information seems fairly innocuous, but BLP policy is clear. — Strongjam (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)

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

Glory Man United. Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

Redaction added per WP:BLPPRIVACY — Strongjam (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
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)

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)

Several other sources confirm that Sarkeesian was born near Toronto. This is just trolling.--Cúchullain t/c 04:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@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)
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)

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)

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)

"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
Speaking of the weather, the contribution history of Choice777 is quite interesting. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.

Possible expansion

I hope that no one objects to me briefly speaking my mind, but I find it entirely shocking that this article is in this state. We're meant to be a non-biased website, used to teach people about topics without bringing opinions on one side or the other into it -- yet here we have a page dedicated to one of the most controversial figures in feminism and gaming (and I mean that from an objective point of view) and we refuse to have any negative info on her page, and actually form a wall around her to avoid adding any of the criticism of her which is widespread. It is really so bad to have a section dedicated to people who have argued against her, or people who disagreed with anything that she's ever said? Do we really need to argue the validity out of every publication that says anything bad about her? I don't feel one way or another about her, but it's clear that the reality with others is not the same at all, so why attempt to play a game of categorizing all comments to attempt to remove everything but the belief held entirely by one side? That we can't even have one sentence dedicated to saying that someone once said something a little negative about her without that being deemed highly extreme? To not allow any self-published criticisms about a self published video maker that stem even slightly off the overall narrative approved of by some? Surely to at least mention that some of her comments have come under criticism or questioning is not an issue that would be questioned on any other page -- but on this one it certainly does.

The reason we're in this state is that Anita only discusses criticism when it's blatantly in the wrong, or worse when it's threatening her or being sexist to her. By doing this, she elevates the comments which are insane and covers over the ones which bring up solid questions in a polite way. The problem here is that in doing this, Anita is choosing which criticisms are valid for us to discuss, because she is the only self-published writer we allow to be used as a source on the page. The problem with writing the page like this is that we're driving a clear narrative here -- Anita is right about everything, and anyone who disagrees with her is a sexist violent misogynists -- a feeling which is not true and highly biased, yet the only point of view that we have allowed ourselves to highlight because of arbitrary rules applied to this page.

Again, sorry if I've put anyone off by voicing my opinion. It's just odd to see a Wikipedia article break it's own rules in cases like this. OttselSpy25 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ at the top of the page answers all of those concerns.--Cúchullain t/c 05:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not trying to attack any editors or the woman herself -- but this article is clearly heavily biased and needs to be cleaned up. As simple as that. It needs to have a clean up template added at least. OttselSpy25 (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Then by all means, show us your points in the reliable sources and they will be incorporated in the article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, please follow the the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines and keep your comments tied to specific and actionable article changes. Talk pages are not for general discussion of a topic and disparaging living people can lead you to be blocked or banned from Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 05:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well what about the pages cited for "critisism" on her show's page? One article cited there (whose host cite is now gone, which may eliminate it from further additions) questioned Sarkeesian's use of illustrating the gaming industry as male-centered, or that the majourity of sexism comes from men. It also brought into question if Anita used selective arguments in her videos. Is this source too small for Anita's page, yet large enough for the page on her web series?

I get the decision to not include Youtube rants and random blog posts, it's an obvious decision to make, but surely articles like these are fine? Just a few discussions of articles like these seems like they would flesh out the article very nicely.

Also note that I will not be adding anything to the page or removing anything without discussion because I get that it's a tough issue. OttselSpy25 (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The other article cited by her Web show's page can be seen here. Again, I am not saying that we act as if these criticisms are true, but rather that we acknowledge that they exist. OttselSpy25 (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that article is just fine on the Tropes vs. Women page, but how exactly do you want to include it here? You need to be especially careful of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Ms. Young's opinion may be valid as to the videos, but it may not pass muster to be included on the biographical article. Dumuzid (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello OttselSpy25. To quote your words, I find it "entirely shocking" that any person would be subject to the torrents of violent, sexualized threats, abuse and harassment that Anita Sarkeesian has been forced to endure. You, instead, are shocked by what you perceive as the lack of criticism of her in her Wikipedia biography. It is always interesting to learn what shocks certain people, and what doesn't. I know that you are inexperienced, just recently autoconformed for example, but you could propose some scrupulously neutral language, sourced to the highest quality reliable sources, so that we have an actual basis for discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's shocking that women and men who are Youtubers or who discuss issues in media often get threats online, I comprehend that, and agree that it's a horrifying problem that comes with putting yourself out in a medium that questions people's beliefs. But that's covered on the page, very well in fact. Yet we see that non-sexist discussions about Anita and her work are not covered, which is my qualm. You don't see a lot of pages on this site discuss people's positive influence and popularity without bringing up the other side, and while it's certain that we should discuss her history with abuse, not discussing the criticism which doesn't come attached to that does add a good deal of bias to the page. In short: two wrongs don't make a right. And yes, I'm new, sorry if it causes any concerns. OttselSpy25 (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
First, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for engaging in discussion on this topic. As several editors have said in the sections above, Wikipedia has a standard for reliable sourcing and wikipedians are by necessity unforgiving on the subject of improperly cited material inserted into a biography of a living person. I and others invite you to give us here on talk a sample of the sort of text you'd like to insert, anchored of course with sources which meet the standard for reliability. If you need help formatting found sources I'm sure several editors could help with that. If you'd simply like to give us examples of sources you'd like to use, I and others would be happy to walk you through how the source may or may not meet the standard. BusterD (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I should add that many of us here likewise bemoan the dearth of reliably sourced criticism of this topic. It's clear many individuals disagree with the subject's opinions and don't like her work, but in the arena of criticism which meets the standard, we just haven't seen that much. On the other hand, in the last year the subject has appeared on several impressive lists of high achievers, and those appearances have made it into her biography as appropriate and correctly sourced. Please find us some critique which we can discuss. BusterD (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Tell me when I'm pushing myself too close to the wall here. I've done Wikia editing before but I don't really know when you're meant to stop doing the "colons before your post" thing on this site.
I could try and pull something out of the sources I could find, if I could get any of them approved. It seemed to me that at least one of the articles used on her gaming page more closely looked at her point of view in gaming, and more than just her single video or series. The issue is that I don't know if I'm excessively confident in writing about a person's point of view without sounding like the person is right or wrong. It is more difficult to recap things like that without coming across with a bias -- it's something I don't have a lot of practice on at the usually in-universe workings of Wikia sites (I don't do gamer wikias, before someone pulls that card on me). But I could look into it I suppose. OttselSpy25 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Before I do look into this tho, would anyone argue that both of the links above only pertain to her show and do not discuss her ideology. OttselSpy25 (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Occasionally we use Template:Outdent. BusterD (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And it's safe to say the two sources mentioned above and used on her "tropes" page have been discussed here and discussion concluded they were fine for the tropes page but not for this one. Find something we haven't already discussed if you want to get someone truly interested. Sources we have discussed can be found in talk page archives both of this talk page and the tropes talk page. Again, nobody is saying we shouldn't have material critical of the subject. It's just that none has been presented that meet the RS standard, measured by talk page consensus. The folks who unanimously asserted no to Breitbart above weren't trying to keep critique out, IMHO. They were trying to keep malicious unreliable drek from being considered a reliable source for art criticism in a BLP. BusterD (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I've looked into the archives, and I can't find any reference to 'realclearpolitics' or 'Cathy' in a discussion where a conclusion was came to. Instead I found a few users referencing a decision I had trouble tracking down. The logic, as far as I can tell, about not including info from this article is that it is already used on the page for her web show (which is extensively relevant, I've never heard of a source being rejected because it's been used before on a different page) or because it's not about Sarkeesian or her point of view, but rather a straight review of her series... A belief which is show down when she begins to go into extreme detail about the concepts of "Gamer Gate" and sexism long before she mentions the web show. OttselSpy25 (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm half way through the piece and I've not picked up on a reference to her show: instead she talks about the history of the controversy surrounding games and of Sarkeesian's complaints about sexism in video games. But now that I've hit the info, I can see why it would certainly be problematic, as when she does get to the game series and Sarkeesian, she dedicates only a brief few sentences to her specifically. Probably good journalism, but not good Wiki basis.
I suppose at most you could work out "Political journalist Cathy Young criticized Sarkeesian and other gaming feminists for using double standards in games, where complaints about females in games also held true to the men in those cases.", but that's really stretching it. I'm also presuming that the article that Young links to is not a valid source ironically.
So I'm gessing the problem is that we don't accept sources that react only to Anita's videos or shows, and few legitimate sources will discuss the discrepancies with her otherwise? OttselSpy25 (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop posting until you have an actionable proposal for a change to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll move on to other articles if that's how the convo is gonna swing. OttselSpy25 (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

OttelSpy25, with all respect, it seems that you're missing the crucial difference between a biographical article and an article which is not biographical in nature. Moreover, the article you seem to be hanging your hat on is very much focused on the Tropes vs. Women series; it's doing its work there. Think about it this way--it's easy to imagine a negative review of "Jaws" that merits mention on the movie's page, but is not notable in a biography of Steven Spielberg. As Johnuniq says, it would help if you were to propose concrete text. At this point all I could see was something like "Cathy Young of RealClearPolitics was critical of the Tropes vs. Women series." That strikes me as giving that opinion undue weight with regard to this particular article. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
For the interested, Neil Steinberg was discussed at this article here; there was no consensus to add the material. Cathy Young was discussed previously here and here; consensus flatly rejected including it.--Cúchullain t/c 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive_17&oldid=878015027"