Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 10

Deleting Posts

I can't help noticing that Amanda Todd's article is titled "Suicide of Amanda Todd." Why? Because that is the only reason she is notable. Why is this article not titled "Anita Sarkeesian cried about people being mean to her and she was given $150 000"? That is the only reason she is notable. The reliable sources quoted in an effort to make her look important do not mention her "work", they merely talk about her claims of abuse. The fact that, as mentioned above, she has been caught lying about her level of interest in video games should be enough for her supporters to see her as the fraud she is and turn their backs, yet here they are desperately trying to make people believe she's relevant. Strange.

After this post was deleted, I reposted it with the following addition:

The preceding was deleted outright despite the validity of the comparison. There are absolutely no reliable sources that praise her work in a general sense. All they do is talk about the abuse she claims to have suffered. Amanda Todd suffered much worse abuse (for less valid reasons) yet her article is only about her suicide. Especially given the fact that Anita is a proven liar (in regards to her interest in video games), she should not have a self promotion page.

This was again deleted with a message stating that this is not a forum for unsubstantiated claims, it is for suggesting improvement to the article. First of all, what claims are unsubstantiated? In a 2010 video Anita does say that she does not like video games and the RS only discuss the harassment she claims to have suffered. She is otherwise unknown. Second, a suggestion has been made. The scope of this article should be (if it should exist at all, which it shouldn't) the incident in which she was given $150 000 for claiming to be the victim of a massive attack campaign.

Not liking the content of a post is not a reason to simply delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You keep repeating the big lie, that Sarkeesian say she doesn't like video games. She said she doesn't like first-person shooters. I hate to break it to the violence addicts out there, but there are video games out there beside first-person shooters and GTA; and just because I don't like FPSs does not mean I don't like video games. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
No, she said "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games." Just she because she went on to say that she doesn't like first person shooters specifically doesn't change the fact that she made a general statement on her dislike of video games. (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of hard work, mathematical equations, or vegetables, does this mean that I don't work, add-up or eat vegetables and that my opinions are less valid? Her disliking video games, based on her experience of them being violent and trope filled does not mean that she is not a gamer, or play games any more than Ebert giving thumbs down to violent action movies makes him any less a movie critic. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Work and leisure are two different things. People have to do things they don't like to earn a living. Who in their spare time would engage in activities designed purely for pleasure that they don't enjoy? The obvious nature of the preceding makes me question the motivations of the previous poster. (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Me? Some games you play just to have something to do. Or just to fill in some time. The same way I might play certain maps on Call of Duty I don't necessarily like, because I know there will be gratifying elements, or competed Black Ops just to see the end of the story - in spite of being infuriated by the actual game. She also said "fan" which is different to enjoying. You can enjoy something without liking it. Final answer from me anyway - wikipedia is not a forum. Koncorde (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Great attempt at semantics play, but reasonable people can see the duplicity in her claims at different times to different audiences. Given the reliability of the sources (her mouth), and how it reflects upon her "work" and character, this should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Semantics, say you? Seriously, I'm a fan of movies and have a large VHS/DVD/HDDVD/Blu-ray collection. Other people I know aren't fans of movies like I am...that does not mean that they don't watch movies. The fact that she's not a fan of games does not mean that she doesn't play games. Big logical fallacy there. DonQuixote (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Big logical fallacy there." Her words are very clear, yet people torture logic to convince themselves (and readers) that they say something else. Is she the victim of an organized bully campaign, or the beneficiary of a promotional one?

I'd make a suggestion as to how to incorporate her clear lie, which clearly demonstrates her disingenuous nature, but the article is so glowing that I have no idea where to begin. I'd recommend a criticism section but the conversation on how stretch the definition of a reliable source to include everything laudatory and contract it to exclude everything critical has already taken place ad nauseam. And to all those who keep repeating "Wikipedia is not a forum", I firmly agree. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote irrelevant attention seekers who push extremist agendas

So, rather than trying to redefine the term "not a fan of", while ignoring the contradictory claim of being a life long gamer, does anyone have any suggestions for how to incorporate the fact that she lied to get those donations into the article? I'd love to hear them
Someone just deleted my last posts (reposted above) and left "Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" on my talk page. How are the video documented words of the subject "unreferenced" or "poorly referenced"? Including her contradictory claims in the article is a valid suggestion. Deleting this just makes it appear as though fans of hers are trying hard to make a fan page, rather than an unbiased one.
Sure enough NeilN deleted the above posts again, this time leaving on my talk page:"Accusing her of lying and calling her an irrelevant attention seeker who pushes extremist agendas is not acceptable" Seeing as how my claim is backed up by the best possible source, her videoed mouth, I can say whatever I want on this talk page. Claiming I'm making unreferenced claims is even less acceptable, seeing as how I have truth on my side. (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a misconception here; it's not that we don't believe what you're saying, it's that it needs to be easily backed up by reliable sources. A YouTube video is not considered a reliable source for a large number of reasons, but, to sum it up - we're not a tabloid. Unless reliable sources have reason to believe Anita Sarkeesian has been dishonest, we can't echo that belief.
That being said, please heed the warnings on your talk page, as allegations like the ones you've made are unacceptable under our policies. m.o.p 03:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Here (not sure how to use link functions properly)(at around the 12:30 mark) is a video in which she says "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games." Here ,years later, is a video in which she claims to have been a gamer from the age of five and that she "loves" video games, in numerous interviews and talks. (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The first video is copyrighted, and we generally don't use fair use materials unless we absolutely have to. It's also still not from a reliable source.
The second isn't produced by any official source, so it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion.
Again, I understand the point you're trying to make - a contradicting statement was made. Whether it was or wasn't isn't the thing at question here. It's not quite the truth that's disputed, it's the reliability of the sources; without a reliable source (e.g. Gizmodo, Kotaku, any big names in the field) that supports the allegation, it comes down to synthesis, or drawing conclusions from our own original research. Wikipedia's guidelines and policies want to ensure that, if our readers are getting information, it's not tabloid-level stuff that you can't verify; we want our information to be backed by solid citations, and we want to avoid drawing our own conclusions.
I apologize if the policies seem constrictive, but, especially in areas where living persons are involved (due to U.S. libel/slander laws) we absolutely cannot publish such allegations unless we're damn sure it's supported by extensive third-party sources. m.o.p 03:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sources such as YouTube are not permitted when it is just some person expressing their opinion. However, when it is a video of the subject it is a perfectly good source when used to quote them- I've seen this done plenty of times. I'm not saying she should be called a liar in those terms, but quoting her as saying one thing and pointing out that she has said something contradictory is legitimate. Perhaps copyright laws come into play for the first video. That is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that Destructoid is not allowed as a source for criticism, despite it being syndicated and award nominated. BTW, the same people who disallowed Destructoid as a RS also tried rather hard to mince words and argue the fact that Anita has indeed contradicted herself (see above). This leads me to believe that lack of legitimate, reliably sourced criticism is not the primary reason for this article being excessively laudatory. (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the last sentence is meant to imply that this is being rejected due to a hidden agenda, but I can assure you - as an uninvolved administrator, it's purely because of sourcing.
That being said, I'm unaware of Destructoid being disallowed as a source... link? m.o.p 04:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Archives 2 and 3 have extensive discussion which I believe boiled down to Destructoid being a situational reliable source. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not claiming you specifically are biased, but there have been arguments made by others that leave no doubt. As stated above, Destructoid was rejected on archive page 2 under the "criticism" and "article fails to mention criticism" sections. If Destructoid is a "situational" source, you would think that criticism of a person who fancies themselves a video game critic is just the right situation for them, right? (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that, NeilN.
Judging from a quick skim over those discussions, most of the points seemed centered on the fact that Destructoid/The Escapist are blogs and not reliable enough.
I don't agree or disagree with that judgment, but, seeing how neither of those sources have put out much new work on Ms. Sarkeesian since consensus was gained, it's safe to say the decision stands unless we can get new consensus that says Destructoid's blog pieces can be used to cite BLP-sensitive claims adequately. Which, I might add, would take quite a bit of community involvement, since prior consensus involved a few dozen editors.
One of the issues that we face in this area regularly are that blogs are generally assumed to be the opinions of individual staff that don't carry as much weight as, say, an article published in the Times (which is assumed to have the organization's backing). While Dtoid might have a bit more blog-centric approach by design, this doesn't quite help when we want to use it to source statements that could be interpreted as libelous. That's what this really all revolves around - making unsubstantiated, or weakly-substantiated, claims about living people can result in litigation due to Wikipedia's servers being hosted in the U.S. As such, we have to be very careful when dealing with such matters. m.o.p 05:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
To clarify: litigation is not the only reason we treat BLP very seriously - there are also things like academic integrity and the desire to stay an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. m.o.p 05:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Libel is making untrue, damaging claims against a person which are known by the claimant to be untrue. Quoting claims by a third party do not constitute libel, especially when the third party's claims are based on fact, which Dtoid's are (they say things like 'Anita claims x, but y is in fact true). The more opinionated portions of their articles could easily be left out. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but it is also not meant to be used to promote people. Virtually all professionally written historical biographies contain criticism of the subject, from George Washington to George W. Bush. Honesty and painting a complete picture are the objectives of a professional historian.
However, I acknowledge that the conversation regarding the reliability of Dtoid has happened- I strongly disagree with the decision, given their syndication and recognition by awards, and they specialize in video games. The problem is, critics of Anita come and go while there seems to be a few regular Wiki contributors who seem to want this article to contain no criticism of Anita. For that reason, I give up. (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have never even heard of her and honestly don't care about the criticism of her at all. However the policy on BLP is clear, and you have not in this entire argument backed it up with a single source other then your seemingly original research. --SKATER T a l k 06:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Her words aren't a reliable source? I guess because the medium used to show them was YouTube. Whatever you say, kiddo. (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Ever thought the reliable source doesn't exist because everyone else understands that "not a fan" and "a lifelong gamer" are not incongruous? What you are asking is for us to take two statements out of the context of the videos, make our own assertion that they are referring to the same things and therefore establish a contradiction, and then synthesise an argument. All of which would be Original Research. As you feel so passionate about it, why not contact some of the reputable tech blogs and push your pov onto them. Maybe a reliable source will take up your crusade. Koncorde (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a brilliant argument I desperately want to review yet again. (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The thing with Sarkeesian is that her criticism doesn't "exist" because she is blocking it everywhere. Her 'lectures' can't be recorded and she rarely allows any Q/A for the audience after them, and of course there's no reliable source but Youtube. It's well known that people with weak arguments or lack of confidence in their own arguments or something to hide can't tolerate opposition, criticism or interviews from opposing facet.
I know I can't provide any evidence but the slur she got in her Kickstarter video comments was specifically selected comments at least at the start i.e. comments were moderated, some would say she doctored the evidence of misogyny. I would also say that the comments were not sexist or misogynist, but aimed at her as a person. The comment section was also the only way that anybody could criticize her, so it was a ketchup bottle effect (squeeze, squeeze, *splat*).
I tried to add a comment on Feminist Frequency facebook page asking if she would debate anybody about the topics she's using and it briefly disappeared. After it was removed I could no longer comment there. Maybe my comment was too sexist to her taste. You can test it yourself if you have a facebook account. Just remember to take screenshots, I forgot that and it was too late.
Nosepea68 (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC) The reason that criticism doesn't exist is because no one reputable has published it in a reliable source such as a journal or book. An amateur on a comment board is not a reliable source for any type of criticism, positive or negative. See the talk page archives as this has been pointed out several times. DonQuixote (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
There actually is reliably sourced criticism of her. Anita thought Destructoid was notable and reliable (fair) enough to sit down and do an interview with. They then deconstructed her arguments in a very factual way. We could also use her own statements -when asking for money to do a series on video games she's a "life long gamer" and "loves video games", but when speaking years earlier, before hatching her plan, she says "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games." This is obvious deceit, despite what some rather odd people had to say above.
However, this will never be accepted into the article because the great Anita is above reproach. Biographers everywhere would be proud. (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be very blunt in order to illustrate a point: if someone points to an article in Home & Garden that criticizes the theory of Relativity, I'm going to laugh in his face...particularly if that article was obviously written by an amateur "physicist".
Now, back to the issue at hand, Destructoid is a reliable source when it comes to video game news and such, however it is not a reliable source when it comes to literary theory, bio-chemistry, or cultural and thematic analyses. So, please, stop whining about how an amateur work of analysis, which coincidentally agrees with your amateur analysis, isn't considered reliable in terms of cultural and thematic analysis and go out and find a reliable source written by an acknowledged expert and published in a reputable journal that criticizes Sarkeesian's work, whether it be positive or negative criticism.
Finally, please stop using the above false dichotomy. It's not an either-or. People pointing out the flaws in your arguments aren't supporters of Sarkeesian...they might just be neutral in this regard and are merely pointing out the flaws in your line of reasoning. DonQuixote (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Except Anita is making a critique of video games, and Destructoid is making a critique of her critique of video games, which, as you admit, they're a reliable source on. (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll argue that 'Anita's work is based on gender issues in video games, not about the games themselves. Destructoid is not a reliable source on gender issues, so they are not an acceptable source here.' However, their article, found here, basically says 'Anita claims character a does b, but in fact they do c and d.' The critique is about the facts of the characters' involvement in the games, not the underlying gender issues. That being the case, there is no reason to exclude them as a source for criticism. (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
An article that boils down to "I have a different opinion about this game, and this character"...? Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
An opinion about the characters from a reliable source in video games can provide a NPOV. It could be used at the reception section of the Tropes article, which is not subject to BLP rules. Diego (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You have a point if it were she claims a does b but instead c does d. It's not. It's she claims a is b, but a is not b because of reason c. In other words, analysis. I can do a little bit of amateur analysis myself. Just looking at the first example, Anita claims that the fairies in Rayman fall into the Damsel in Distress trope. The article mentions that the fairies are the most power characters in the game and goes on about other unrelated topics. And these are mutually exclusive how? That is to say, if an author chooses to created a character that is the most power being in the universe and then chooses to entrap that character, that character is still in distress in spite of his or her great powers. But that's neither here-nor-there because such analyses aren't the purview of Wikipedia editors. Similarly, the author of the Destructoid article is not an acknowledged expert. So, please, find an analysis written by an acknowledged expert. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You're being Exceptionally selective. First of all, the author of the article is an associate editor of a syndicated publication that has been recognized by awards associations. This gives him enough credibility to interpret the roles of the characters and their significance -more so than someone who admits to not being a fan of video games. But he does explain Anita's ignorance of the games and characters she talks about: he quotes Anita as saying the character in Gravity Rush should have armour or motorcycle pants because she keeps falling from great heights, but this ignores the fact that she has a force field which allows her to do so as part of her powers. There are a few examples in the short article that makes one wonder how much effort she put into analyzing these games. (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm being "exceptionally" selective because context matters. The author of the article has no qualifications in cultural studies, and his amateur analysis also belies the fact that he has no experience in it either. This is painfully obvious in the example that you quote. The force field is an excuse after-the-fact. That is, the character was created in the manner described and then the force field was used as an excuse to justify the way the character was created (not the other way around). The article is chock full of such amateur analysis. The fact that it agrees with your amateur analysis doesn't make it reliable.

The point is, is the author an acknowledged expert in cultural studies?--no. Is the publication a reputable journal of cultural studies?--no. Again, context matters. I would no more trust Destructoid as a source of cultural analysis than I would trust Home and Garden as a source for General Relativity. In fact, even at WP:VG they don't trust Destructoid (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources: "Like other blog sites, some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such."). DonQuixote (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"The force field is an excuse after-the-fact. That is, the character was created in the manner described and then the force field was used as an excuse to justify the way the character was created (not the other way around). The article is chock full of such amateur analysis." Who's the one providing amateur analysis? No, Anita just didn't get how the character worked. Besides that example, Anita is quoted as saying no female characters have been featured in Assassin's Creed. Dtoid points out that a female is "arguably the most complex, and strongest character in the entire series to date."
When a historian is writing about a period in which economics were significant (The Great Depression, The Long Depression), they consult an economist. When an economist does a study on the economic conditions of a historical period, they often consult a historian for context. Anita lied about her interest in video games for credibility and simply went on a rant about them without consulting video game experts, which Dtoid is, for context. Dtoid is trying to correct that mistake, and their authority is both recognized and relevant. BTW, I have not made any analysis, amateur or otherwise- I don't even play video games. (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DonQuixote that the Destructoid piece isn't very good criticism. But be that as it may, it is only criticism of some brief statements made by Anita Sarkeesian in an interview, so its value is limited. It isn't criticism of her, her videos, or her stance, so it would be difficult to use. If we discussed the interview it would be of more value, but there isn't much call to do so. - Bilby (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Except it is a good critique that demonstrates Anita's lack of knowledge when it comes to video games- both generally as well as women's roles within them. A proper gender roles study would work with video game experts to examine them fully, not falsely claim expertise and simply express opinion. A study of that nature should be published in a peer reviewed journal to meet notability standards. Why is Anita's "academic" work ignored by such publications? Maybe because she thinks her mouth is all the source material she needs.
I knew before I started that this would go nowhere, but it has been interesting to watch double standards being played and curious excuses being made. Although the great patriarchy can oppress women in every way fathomable, apparently it cannot insert valid criticism into the great Anita Sarkeesian's Wikipedia page. Strange. (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
A - it is your interpretation of two different statements, out of context of the time and place, discussing different things, that are not incongruous. A lifelong gamer need not be someone that has played every game, or even like a lot of games. From this point forwards any attempt to dress up criticism of these two statements is going to fail miserably without criticism being laid in in the same context. Quote mining is not the same as constructive criticism from a reliable source.
B - the article isn't a good critique of either her knowledge (which isn't relevant to her claims as per point A - she doesn't have to know the entire history of Rayman for her point about their presentation to be valid criticism, just as she doesn't have to understand the complex history of how they organise childrens' toys to have an opinion about how it enforces gender stereotypes as she presented in an earlier video). It is one man's opinion. A point of view can be different to another persons without the other being wrong or in fact either of them being correct. Who are we, as wikipedia, to trust Chris Carters opinion on gaming? You are asking us to present Chris Carter as an expert, when he is a blogger with no formal qualifications or expressed suitability for the role - which doubles down on the issue of claiming Sarkeesian has any special knowledge of gaming. i.e. they both fail at the first step.
C - The wikipedia article does not claim special knowledge of computer games for Anita Sarkeesian. It does not attempt to validate her knowledge or understanding of the industry. Wikipedia reports on her actual expressed cause, and the subsequent aftermath as reported by reputable sources. Anything else is fluff and would need to be the standard of Wikipedia BLP to be included. Koncorde (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I will also point out that not all gamers are video gamers. I go back to the days of PBM Diplomacy and three-booklets-in-a-box D&D, I wrote for Dragon professionally (at Gygax' invitation): yet because I don't do FPS, just an occasional game of Civilization, I'm somehow not a "gamer" as our anonymous grievant defines gamers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I never said that I was an fact, I admitted to being an amateur. The point being, you and I are amateurs in this field of study. The author of the above article is an amateur. The commentators on comment boards and forums are amateurs. Our amateur analyses will never ever make it into this or any other article because we're not recognized experts.
That being said, the consensus is that the above article is not a reliable source (see talk page archives). You clinging to this one article is not doing you any favors. Get over it and go out and find a source written by an acknowledged expert. That criticism, positive or negative, will be cited in this article because it's from an expert. DonQuixote (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating108.181.113.148 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Okay, enough's enough. We're well past the point that this discussion will lead to any improvements to the article. There's nothing left to discuss: the Destructoid piece is not a reliable source for this subject and it's not going in the article. And once again, users' personal estimations of Sarkeesian and her work have no place on the talk page, and these continued violations of the talk page guidelines and the WP:NOTAFORUM policy have gotten to the point of being disruptive. Time to move on, there's nothing more to see here.--Cúchullain t/c 18:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Readwrite source

I question whether this source by Fruzsina Eördögh at ReadWrite should be included. The ReadWrite article describes it as "a Web technology blog launched in 2003" while the site calls itself a "respected tech news site".[1] If this is just a tech blog, it's a BLP issue, as the piece talks about Sarkeesian herself beyond her videos (commenting on what she's done with her Kickstarter money). Additionally, the author is a freelancer, not a staff member. Some of the statements are pretty dubious (for instance, Eordogh notes that Sarkeesian has "hired a producer", but doesn't account for paying them in her little breakdown of how much money she thinks Sarkeesian "should" have spent). This isn't a reason to avoid the source necessarily, but it doesn't inspire confidence. Considering that we have coverage in actual professional publications, this doesn't strike me as a significant viewpoint on the subject that needs to be in the article, particularly the way it's presented. Barring good justification otherwise, I plan to remove the source.--Cúchullain t/c 16:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Being a blog does not mean it is an unreliable source here as many major blogs nowadays have some form of editorial oversight. She was a staff writer for The Daily Dot so it is not as if she is strictly a freelancer.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The site describes her as a "freelance digital culture writer"[2] and she's not listed as a staff writer;[3] she's definitely a freelancer in this context. We really need to know what oversight there is, because if this is self-published it's immediately out per WP:BLPSPS. There's nothing at WP:RSN about Readwrite, but it doesn't look much different than other group blogs that feature guest writers.
And even if the site itself were reliable for some things, there are still other questions. Does this piece represent the official stance of the publication or just that of the freelance writer? Is ita reliable source for this subject, and does it represent a significant viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT? Considering how flawed the piece is, I don't see it as useful.--Cúchullain t/c 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If she is a guest contributor and not a staff writer then it seems this is the relevant consideration. The important part: "We reserve the right to edit the post as needed for style, content, length, etc. Our policy is to give guest authors a chance to review our edits before posting when possible, but ReadWrite retains final editorial control." Even if she is not staff, she is a professional writer and ReadWrite has editorial control over the piece.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Cúchullain edits of that sentence are specially worrisome, as they're making it look as the opposite of the sources position; the writer is clearly aligning herself with the monetary criticism, calling them "the only legitimate point" made by stalkers. Including the praise of the quality upgrades and leaving out the part when she estimates its cost in 10% of the Kicstarter is hardly a fair representation of the source. Diego (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
She does seem to be aligning herself with that position, but she is leaving Sarkeesian a big out. She estimates the cost of the equipment to be $15k, but acknowledges that there would also be other costs associated with the production. So the statement "estimated the costs of these production upgrades in less than $15,000" is misleading, as she only estimated one portion of the production costs to match that. It is, though, pointless criticism - Sarkeesian was never under any obligation to spend the full amount on production, or, indeed, any amount more than what was required to meet her obligations. Kickstarter's approach to overfunding doesn't require the projects to use all (or indeed any) of the extra funds on the project itself. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Both of my edits were far closer to what the source says than your versions, Diego (though to your credit, your recent change was somewhat better). But this is besides the issue of whether we should include it at all. Please answer the questions about the source you introduced. How is this reliable for BLP content? Why should we include these points when the author undermines them within the article? How is this a significant viewpoint on the subject?--Cúchullain t/c 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You know, we use a lot of blogs in this article and someone could probably challenge any one of them for commentary of questionable accuracy, but it seems the concern here is because this source contains criticism. Of course, it is very light touch, just raising a legitimate question about how she budgeted the money she got. ReadWrite apparently has editorial control over the piece and the author has been a staff writer at another major publication, so it is a reliable source. Plenty of seemingly reliable sources make quite egregious errors and, in this case, you are basically just criticizing her piece for asking questions without already having all the answers.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
My hassle with Eördögh's criticism is that it isn't really legitimate. Sarkeesian wasn't under any obligation to spend all of the money on the video production - that's not how Kickstarter works. So criticising her for failing to do so is largely meaningless. So we end up with a blogger raising questions which may or may not be able to be answered to the blogger's satisfaction, but either way don't point to any substantive problem in Sarkeesian's work. - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the article contains no blog sources so far as I've seen, other than NEWSBLOGs from reliable publications and websites with editorial oversight that have been vetted, like Wired and Daily Dot, which are acceptable. If you see another potentially problematic source please bring it up, though obviously other poor sources getting in under the radar is not a justification to include this one.
If others accept this source as "not a blog", that's cool with me. But the other questions still stand. As I said, the dubiousness of some of the statements are not necessarily a reason to keep it out, but they're definitely a red flag. Why are we including it - especially the dubious parts? How are this site and author a significant viewpoint on this topic that should be included?--Cúchullain t/c 03:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No one said that there can't be other legitimate costs, nor that the ReadWrite article stated so. But summarizing this article as "she confirmed there have been improvements" with no more explanation as you did of the big, big But with which she qualifies the improvements, that's a huge misrepresentation of the source; as that big But is the core of the article. The source is no more nor less significant that all the other reliable sources that have been already included, and therefore excluding it is against WP:NPOV. The "dubious parts", as you call them, are the essence of the piece; wanting to exclude any sort of even light criticism is quite POVish. Diego (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem with saying that the author estimated production costs to be $15,000, is that Eördögh didn't estimate production costs to be $15,000. She estimated that the cost of lighting, computer, camera and software to be $15,000. So by saying "but estimated in less than $15,000 'how much could Sarkeesian's production upgrades have possibly cost'" you've merged two separate claims. She starts by asking that question, then she goes into the cost of the hardware and software. Then she starts to ask where the rest of the money went. The thing is, the rest of the money might have gone into other productions costs, which is the question that the article raises. For one thing, Sarkeesian hired a producer, which is going to take a chunk of the funds. It might also, as the author said, have gone towards "research or licensing fees for game footage". The author links to Freddie Wong's breakdown [4] as an example of how costs can be explained, and there only a very small portion went to equipment.
The author can easily account for $15,000, but the author is unsure where the remaining money was spent, and is asking for that to be explained. - Bilby (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. Of course, the way to solve the discrepancy in the previous version of the statement is not to remove it, but to clarify it as you did. Thanks for the improvement. Diego (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Diego, what's frustrating is that you keep inserting these seemingly random and often questionable web sources that you continually have trouble representing accurately, and then get bent out of shape when anyone makes slight changes or questions them. You flying off the handle about this and casting aspersions is especially tiresome considering how much you lecture others about "civility" around here.
It's standard procedure for people who introduce challenged material to defend it. You say the source is "significant", so show your work. What is its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? How is it a reliable and significant viewpoint in this context? In what way is it "no more or less significant" than our other sources, which include the Boston Globe, New York Times, New Statesman and Wired? Why is it worth including this source, especially the most dubious things in it?
Bilby, what is your take on using this source?--Cúchullain t/c 16:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Cuchullain, being civil doesn't mean agreeing with everything you have to say. You'll count on the fingers of one hand the times I've had outbursts with irrespectful personal remarks on you in this pages, if any. Disagreeing with Bilby has been a delight, and his version of the text is the one that remains in the article. He has stated his reasons for the disagreement, provided a clear description of the problem he found with my version, and improved the text to mend its shortcomings, while respecting my work on it at the same time.

By contrast, when working on content from a source that you don't like your edits tend to be destructive reverts, accompanied by vague descriptions like "this doesn't represent the source", "it doesn't look noteworthy", "I don't see the need" (well clearly others did, if you don't see it you should step aside or enquire the reasons for its inclusion, unless you have something explicit and concrete against). These remarks are not actionable, and can't be used to work towards a middle ground consensus, which is how we're expected to proceed. Also you won't address my own concerns - I find that you routinely ignore whatever problems I've described with the article (typically about neutrality), not even recognizing them to say that you disagree with them, merely deleting or reverting the whole thing without attempts to create a version that includes my recommendations in a way that you can live with. In successive edits I try to provide alternative wordings that migth address your concerns, but without reading your mind it's like throwing everything to the wall to see what sticks. Without better feedback, I can't do better than that.

Rewriting the text yourself to your liking as you did with this one where you provide the source is useful. Reverting other people's whole edits with "I don't like what you wrote" edit summary is not; and you rarely rewrite when you disagree with the contents.

As for the reliability of web magazines, I usually check that it's a professional news company with a review process, and that the writer regularly writes for them; I'll look further if there are signs of problems, but here there were none. I don't care under what kind of contract they decide to pay the work if ever. This is what I did this in this case, but for your extra posture to doubt of the writer I'll use the excellent work above by User:The Devil's Advocate that shows the exact procedure that the magazine published to review guest authors (making it ReadWrite's voice rather than the writer's), and the extended career of the writer as an expert for several reliable media in the past. With this credentials, reliability is more than established, and the burden shifts back on you to describe something that could cast doubts on it. Merely working as a freelancer is on itself no basis to doubt of her work. Diego (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Diego, I don't know how else to say this, but you've repeatedly had trouble representing your sources. You say we should just clean it up, but in this case, you just reverted us when we tried.[5][6][7] Trying to hammer it out on the talk page took 13 paragraphs before you even recognized there was a problem. This should be necessary for one line of text, especially when you haven't explained why it should be there in the first place. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this isn't the first time this has come up.
As for the source, we've established that it isn't self-published, which is a start. But that doesn't mean that we must or should use it. We've already established via Daily Dot that some critics have questioned her use of her money, and we have the Boston Globe confirming that the production quality has improved. How does this source add a prominent viewpoint among all the available sources, and how is it balanced appropriately? As written, the piece is cited twice and gets more space than the Boston Globe and Daily Dot combined.
And why are we including the $15k figure, which she undermines right in the piece? As we've said multiple times, Eördögh gives it as a detailed "guestimation" of how much Sarkeesian might have spent on equipment specifically, but she doesn't mention any cost at all for a producer despite specifically noting that Sarkeesian has hired one. The bit doesn't have anything to do with the main claim, that Sarkeesian should be open about the money (to shut up the critics and guide other video bloggers). Even if we use this source, the sentence is effectively the same without it.
And on civility, not a big deal, your comments were hardly beyond the pale. Just something to think about before you get on others about their decorum.--Cúchullain t/c 19:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

campaign vs campaign

As explained in my edit comment on 24 October, the term campaign is used redoing to both the kickstarter and the harassment, making it a bad choice. As discussed on Archive 4, "campaign" implies a coordinated effort with "people behind it" orchestrating the attacks; that is an exceptional claim that would require an exceptional source. Diego (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

TedX uses the phrase campaign [8], RawStory [9], Daily Dot [10] Toronto Standard [11], TheStar [12], Boston Globe [13], The Escapist [14], Gamespot [15], IGN [16], The Globe & Mail [17], CGM Magazine [18] (qualifying it as a campaign to report her social media). The usage of the word campaign can be such as "An operation or series of operations energetically pursued to accomplish a purpose", or "a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose", I believe those articles set out the details in far more words than I should need to repeat. A person can wage a one man campaign, and a multitude of people can wage simultaneous campaigns (a "wave" of campaigns if you like). If there is honestly a concern that people may conflate a kickstarter campaign with a campaign of harassment then woe betide the english language. Koncorde (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
My thinking too. It's pretty inarguable that the sources describe this as a harassment campaign, and there's no particular reason to avoid that word. "Wave", however, is so vague as to obfuscate the actual situation, that's not neutrality, that's just equivocation.--Cúchullain t/c 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive 4#Reliable sources; "campaign" in English means a planned effort to achieve an specific goal; there was consensus that "campaign" as used by the sources is hyperbolic without evidence that the efforts were coordinated or had a common goal, and to look for a better word. If you don't like "wave", a better neutral wording without WP:LABEL problems is needed. Diego (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Haha, so if the word is so hyperbolic, should we change the phrasing to "Kickstarter wave"? Seriously, there is nothing wrong with the word or the sources that use it. It's not hyperbolic, it's not inaccurate, and there certainly wasn't consensus in that discussion otherwise; the only support came from you (sort of) and the same single-purpose account that told you to make the recent edit.--Cúchullain t/c 12:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It should say Kickstarter project. Any fundraiser at Kickstarter is a project. Nosepea68 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Diego, a campaign - as stated - can be waged by one person. A person may plan and coordinate their singular efforts. Their goal may be singular (harassment, annoyance etc). Attempting to define campaign as solely to mean a coordinated attack a la a military force is obfuscating (and a red herring, as it would require us to make a special claim that the campaign was not coordinated which would take a source that refuted the claims of a campaign taking place). As per the archive - as I said at the time the word would be hyperbolic IF there was absolutely no evidence of harassment. As people went to the length of creating games, media, uploads and continue to troll forums (and even wikipedia) this is independenelty reported in multiple sources described as a campaign there can be no "IF". Koncorde (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
If this is a campaign, what are its stated goals? Diego (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Harassment campaign pretty clearly indicates what the goals are. It's all in the sources.--Cúchullain t/c 16:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. A manifesto is not required. We do not need to cite intentions, aims or goals when the campaign details are held within attributed sources. We could quote them verbatim, but that leaves you open to synthesis and original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koncorde (talkcontribs)

───────────────────────── Could it be rephrased loosely coordinated harassment campaign? There is no reliable source of any plans outside Sarkeesian's word. Most of the sources mentioned above use the word campaign told them by Anita herself. Nosepea68 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no more evidence (or corroboration) for the campaign being loosely, tightly, massively etc coordinated than any other verb. Inserting it there would not be based on objective evidence (i.e. the actual sources saying so). The articles do not use the word campaign because Anita told them, any more than Anita told them to use the word "the", or "and" - we do not interpret origins without foundation. If the word campaign was in inverted commas (thereby quoting Sarkeesian) then that would be different. Koncorde (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
They didn't? If we go verbatim for some of your talk page links...
RawStory Thursday, April 18, 2013 21:14 EDT

“A lot of time when women talk about online harassment they’re told, ‘Well, it can’t be that bad,’ or, ‘You’re just exaggerating,’ or, ‘You need to grow thicker skin,’” she said. “And what I wanted to do or what I hoped to do by telling my story is to create a space were people take online harassment more seriously, so the next woman who talks about herself being attacked by this kind of cyber mob, this kind of large scale harassment campaign — or even smaller levels of harassment — that she’ll be taken serious.”

, The DailyDot (origin By Lauren Rae Orsini on June 08, 2012 [1])

“The intimidation and harassment effort has included a torrent of misogyny and hate speech on my YouTube video, repeated vandalizing of the Wikipedia page about me, organized efforts to flag my YouTube videos as ‘terrorism,’ as well as many threatening messages sent through Twitter, Facebook, Kickstarter, email and my own website. These messages and comments have included everything from the typical sandwich and kitchen ‘jokes’ to threats of violence, death, sexual assault and rape. All that plus an organized attempt to report this project to Kickstarter and get it banned or defunded.”

, Toronto Standard July 10th, 2012

It's important that individuals who engage in hateful behavior and threats of violence don't go unchallenged and do face some measure of accountability - that said, its also critical to remember that this 'game' is a symptom of our deeply misogynist culture (both online and offline). In far too many online and gaming spaces, sexist behavior is still unfortunately considered normal, acceptable or expected. This particular domestic violence 'game' is just one of the more extreme manifestations of the sustained cyber mob style harassment campaign directed at me which has been perpetrated by hundreds if not thousands of (mostly) anonymous Internet users over the course of several weeks.

Side notes: Current 16x9 link redirects to totally different content. [2]
And now painfully going through the sources of section Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment. And I couldn't find but one source that says campaign. Editor's _not_ using word campaign (outside quoting Sarkeesian)
  • Amanda Marcotte (Online Misogyny: Can't Ignore It, Can't Not Ignore It )
  • Helen Lewis (Game Theory: Making Room for the Women, Dear The Internet, This Is Why You Can't Have Anything Nice )
  • Amy O'Leary (In Virtual Play, Sex Harassment Is All Too Real)
  • Molly McHugh (Kickstarter campaign leads to cyber-bullying)
  • Stephen Totilo (She’s Not Hiding From The Hate She’s Getting For Examining Video Games. She’s Exposing It.).
The only one I found using the word campaign is the TEDx.
When I have time I'll organize "harassment links" here chronologically and I'm pretty sure I'll find out that this usage of word campaign stems from Sarkeesian herself.
Nosepea68 (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
That's really parsing it. Look, whether you like it or not, sources do describe it as a "campaign". It's also a campaign by the definition of the word in the English language. There's no reason to avoid it.--Cúchullain t/c 20:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
(Parsing is easy when you press CTRL-F) And you look, this article should be in "Publicity stunt 101" article, not an article of its own.
Okay, then maybe remove word campaign with harassment altogether because it is absurd to say harassment campaign and then say its purpose is harassment, simple harassment is enough. Look, lets be clear I don't condone harassment in any form and I'm not trying to say that she wasn't a target of harassment. And as you have noticed not _all_ sources even use the word campaign only some of them. Now there could be added the motive behind the game, because some of the sources tell us the _motive_ behind Beat up Anita Sarkeesian game (and the harassment?, no RS). So, he (they) believed she's scamming and it is not mentioned in this article. Articles referring to Bendilin Spurr, man behind that game.
  • 'Creator calls Anita Sarkeesian's Kickstarter a "scam."', John Funk, 6 July 2012, The Escapist
  • "(which, of course, led to complaints that she’d somehow “scammed” backers into ponying up so much cash)", Jesse Singal, June 22, 2013, Boston Globe
  • "Ontario resident Bendilin Spurr accused her of using her gender to scam people out of money and reacted by creating a game where players punched her in the face, causing lesions and horrifying bruises.", Sheena Lyonnais, July 10th, 2012, Toronto Standard
  • "The gamer claimed that Sarkeesian had scammed thousands of people out of money.", Katherine Fernandez-Blance Staff Reporter, July 10 2012, The Star
  • "He had said online that he created the game because Ms. Sarkeesian had “scammed” donors to her project and was using complaints of sexism to shut down criticism.", Oliver Moore, July 11 2012, The Globe and Mail
Also it has been pointed out she's a hypocrite when it comes down to violence as when she's the protagonist in a fan-fiction piece and kills a man in remorse she thinks she kinda likes it. [3]

"Apparently this Fanfic a la carte tumblr creates short 1000 word stories based on user submissions. Someone seems to have requested a fanfic about me and while it’s certainly both surreal and bizarre (and written in the hyperviolent style typical of all Gearbox Software game narratives), I think I kinda like it. "

Side note:
16x9 link still redirects to
Nosepea68 (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
In the RawStory article alone I count 3 uses, only 1 of which is Sarkeesian. There is no suggestion that the writer is quoting Anita when saying the word campaign, or qualifying it as a claim by Sarkeesian - they are in fact stating that it was a campaign. DailyDot says campaign (and describes other attacks in a related article as a campaign also). TheStar says campaign in the headline and makes no other reference to anyone else claiming the word is from Sarkeesian. Boston Globe makes no mention of the word coming from Sarkeesian - and commonly none of these news articles have any issue using "campaign" for both Kickstarter and the Harassment so far. Escapist also says campaign without referring to anything else. Same got Gamespot. The Toronto standard I will grant is a direct attributed response by Sarkeesian, I missed her name at the bottom. So, not parsing at all - just dishonest attempts to undermine the article to suit your goals.
Related, but valid comment - mentioning the forms of harassment and Bendelin by name would be legitimate for building a case of harassment and is significantly notable because of the subsequent threats against a female politician. Koncorde (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. Our sources use "campaign" and "campaign" is a perfectly accurate word to describe these actions as per any English dictionary. Stop parsing, stop filibustering, and certainly stop going off on tangents, it's time to move on. Koncorde, you may have something in that last comment, what would you suggest doing?--Cúchullain t/c 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough Cúchullain and Koncorde. Now, put the sources saying campaign in the appropriate section where you start to use "harassment campaign". Nosepea68 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

New article Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

A single-purpose editor recently created a fork article on the video series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. The article now been cleaned up from its initial state, but at this stage it just duplicates what's already at this article. Please weigh in on whether the fork should be merged back here.--Cúchullain t/c 19:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As I proposed in its talk page, what it needs to be done is move there the content that is being removed from this page as undue weight for the biography, per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:SUMMARY. Diego (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There wasn't enough "weight" to create an article in the first place, never mind now cleave information from this wiki in order to strengthen another needlessly. If anyone wants a list of episodes they can go to her website, youtube, or google it. Until the videos have achieved notability outside of her personal controversy (which I am not convinced that they have been) then we're creating needless stub articles that sets a precedent for anyone with a video blog. Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. If we don't see more support (outside SPAs) after a few days we should go ahead and merge it back.--Cúchullain t/c 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As I have pointed out on the other talk page, there hasn't been enough time for this video series to gain any notability and thus they're not really notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I agree that it should be merged back. DonQuixote (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
After several days of no additional input or activity at the page, I've merged it back here. More users preferred the material be dealt with here, where we already have better coverage than at the fork.--Cúchullain t/c 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
And it's been reverted without comment by Diego Moya. Thanks a lot, Diego.[19]--Cúchullain t/c 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm on mobile, you could show a little bit of patience before jumping to my throat. Diego (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
And per WP:BRD I've reverted the changes. The merger was disputed and there's no consensus for it. Diego (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Then I guess the next step is to create a formal merge discussion for this redundant fork that shouldn't have been created in the first place. What a wonderful use of everyone's time.--Cúchullain t/c 20:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Neurality of the whole article plus do we need an article at all?

Done here --NeilN talk to me 19:54, 12 November 2013 (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.

If I knew how, I would ask for this page to be deleted; Simple reason; Anita Sarkeesian is only known because of the attack made against her after she announced her Kickstarter project. And that is the only reason she is even remotely "famous", making the article about her redundant. She haven't sued any of her harassers to be convicted in a court of law. For her 15 minutes of fame we should stop here, there's nothing more to tell about her but: Anita Sarkeesian, born at 80's, [claims to be] a feminist, was harassed and that's about it.

1) Not famous enough to have a wikipedia article to start with

2) Not enough scientific work done outside political thought, to remain neutral, say it's political **** <add word>

3) She is NOT a feminist, that title does not come along when you say you're one

About the neutrality; Sarkeesian have NOT debated anybody about the issues she brings up. If her arguments hold ones against them, then there would be no controversy about her work. So, wikipedia should NOT promote her, but make an article when she has produced something of a value in scientific community.

Sorry folks, when I know how to, I shall dispute this whole article.

If however, you come to the conclusion that a wikipedia page can be used as a tool to have a wikipedia page, no matter how it is vandalized (pornographic in this case was an image used from wikipedia), sexually or asexually. That will leave a strong biased stigma on the editors voting for keep. I would ask please anybody with a half brain to say delete, wikipedia should not be a site for money making, unless of course you can stay impartial.

Nosepea68 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I must add that if you make this article look more of one that explains that AS is ONLY famous because she was harassed. You don't need a source for that do you? If editors can't brush up this much integrity, then the only way I have [it seems] is the option to claim this article is biased in any way I can.
Nosepea68 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This article was created back in 2011, and at that time already had four footnotes plus an external link to her blog. Your statements are either false, such as the first one, or nonsensical (such as the third). You don't get to define a feminist, Nosepea. Feminists get to define ourselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

She is NOT a feminist, that title does not come along when you say you're one
... Go on.--Hamilton-wiki (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The last time this article was nominated for deletion the result was a snow keep (i.e., it had a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted). Can you please go away and edit something else [20]. Your constant attacks on the subject are bordering on being disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 04:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
To summarize this article, it is about a woman who was notable for a few minutes because she claimed extreme harassment and was given a huge amount of money, despite this harassment being nothing more than a few nasty comments over the internet. No reliable source has recognized her for making advancements in our understanding of gender roles. The only reliable sources to have mentioned her limit the scope to the supposed harassment (and are not reliable sources in the genre of gender roles anyway). Sure, a couple of small colleges have allowed her to speak in their classrooms, but this falls well short of her work being published in peer-reviewed journals and being recognized as an expert worthy of note. A reliable source has given a valid critique of her understanding of video games, but that is not allowed in the article, despite her "work" being about video games and her not being a recognized expert of any sort. It has been stated many times that YouTube is not a source and YouTubers are not notable. But the fact of the matter is that all she has done (other than complain about harassment) is make YouTube videos. Her own words about "lov[ing] video games" and being "a life long gamer" are not allowed to be contrasted with her earlier words: "I'm not a fan of video games." Despite the reliability of the source (her), the reason for it being excluded is the same as the reason for the Destructoid article being excluded, as well as the reason for this being a "snow keep": a few long time editors love her. (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The procedures to nominate an article for deletion can be found at WP:AFD (though you'll have to be logged into your account to do it, as IP editors can't start an AfD since it requires the creation of a new page). If you feel that the process is too difficult, you can provide a concise summary here (1 paragraph, no more than 3-5 sentences) of how this article does not meet WP:N, WP:GNG, or some other notability rules. If you format the argument in terms of Wikipedia policies, I will start the AfD on your behalf. If you simply state your own opinion (as you have done so far), then I will not, and you'll have to figure out the process on your own. I strongly suggest, though, that you read WP:AFD and WP:GNG first, because it seems to me like you don't understand what our rules are for having articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
For the reason stated above, this article will not be deleted. However, also for the reasons stated above, there is no justification for the scope being expanded beyond the supposed harassment of Sarkeesian. Alternatively, criticism of her knowledge (or lack there of) of video games, as well as her contrasting statements, could be included. (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
She is arguably the most prominent sociologist working on the subject of video games right now. Her name gets mentioned in every other article about online harassment. A recent Escapist article called her "the most dangerous woman in video games"[4] (hyperbole, but telling). If she isn't notable, then quite frankly I don't know who would be. And as much as people have asked for critical voices to be added to this article, there have been precisely none so far that were of the same caliber as the ones that are used as the base for this article. No reputable journalist or expert has ever made the sort of criticism of her critiques that you would like to add to the article. So please, give it a rest already.Cupidissimo (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
" Her name gets mentioned in every other article about online harassment." And that makes her a prominent sociologist how? It makes her a great professional victim but those are two very different things. And, as has already been mentioned, reputable and valid criticism has been made of her video game project. The problem is that everyone here demands it be ignored. (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Sarkeesian is WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia's criteria because she has been discussed in various reliable sources. So far, no source with any credibility has been found that criticizes her work, so criticism is not included. Find something else to do.--Cúchullain t/c 18:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
These ridiculous 'because I said so!' arguments are exactly what I was talking about, so I will take your advice. The great patriarchy strikes out again. (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The only thing you were talking about is your own ignorance of Wikipedia's notability and sourcing criteria. You're welcome to either learn about them and contribute productively, or else go away.--Cúchullain t/c 19:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
What a brilliant summation of all my posts. I have no idea why I bothered to take on the great matriarchy. (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Great, now run along.--Cúchullain t/c 19:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
All arguments can be trumped by telling people to go away. The fact that having the last word is more important than the quality of all previous arguments doesn't make me inclined to use this website. (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2013 (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.

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 (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
And by the way, online female only club FemTechNet is basically saying that male contributor's can't be neutral just check [[21]] .
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!" (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. (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)