Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Bias in Reception section

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

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

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

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

  1. A petition for news organizations to acknowledge constructive criticisms of her reasoning:
    [link removed due to wkipedia censors, will be first result of the above search]
  2. Destructoid article:
  3. Various written blogs, including these two examples:
  4. Various videos blogs, including these two popular examples:

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

I'll take Option C - Point out which "blog" sources currently used in the article aren't reliable. --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
1. This is an article about a scholar of popular culture, not "an Internet blogger".
2. Even when talking about bloggers, which we are not, blogs do not thereby become reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Orange Mike, seriously, a _scholar_? She haven't put out anything for peer review, thus she is an internet opinion vlogger/blogger, nothing more. Yes, I agree blogs under current wikipedia rules aren't RS. Nosepea68 (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
When reliable sources appear with negative criticism of the subject, then they will appear in pagespace. Until that time (and I have exactly zero doubts that such criticism will be brought rapidly to this talkspace for assessment), I see no reason to adapt (to suit a reader or group of readers) Wikipedia's policies as they regard sourcing for BLP's for any contentious material. What "screams" at an individual reader (that reader's personal assessment of bias) must be weighed appropriately against policy and guideline intended to keep this encyclopedia sustainable. I have confidence that over time the reception section of this article will reflect the consensus of reliable sources, including significant minority views (whichever those turn out to be). BusterD (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of piling on, yes, please bring up any currently used sources that are potentially unreliable and we'll have a look at them. I'm interested to hear how this supposed sourcing issue plays out in the "reception" section, as it's easily the best cited part of the entire article. Its citations include a piece from Newsweek, an honest-to-god review from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and another review from the major newspaper Boston Globe. And of course, no, we're not inserting something from a web comic or the community blog section of just because someone somewhere doesn't like what the real sources say.--Cúchullain t/c 02:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not have any bias - I am looking into controversial internet figures as a project; whatever you may think, she fits the bill, which is why I find it weird and frankly biased to not find any negative criticisms in the Reception section. As far as the sources go, I was referring more at the sources around the article -- including a blog from an author who, looking through her post history, appears to have a bias in the subject covered by Sarkeesian's blogging -- as sources for Reception are seldom scientific or require special titles. However, if you would like a source that is at or above the same level of reliability as its would-be peers in the Reception section, I again encourage you to take a look at the Destructoid article I mentioned in the OP. It is a gaming website (akin to IGN) and the article was posted by a games journalist (again, akin to the same IGN article referenced).
Edit - Upon looking through more of the articles already used as references, Eördögh's ReadWrite article is bringing up a criticism from the crowd involving her handling of the money earned from Kickstarter. While this is already mentioned earlier in the Wikipedia article, it should also be mentioned in the Reception section as a criticism, as Eördögh herself calls it a criticism.

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

Destructoid has been previously discussed and dismissed as holding "marginal" and "situational" reliability in relation to video games, but lacking reliability standing to support a BLP subject. All that aside, the Destructoid article was published before the first video released in the Kickstarter-supported series, so has no relationship to series reception whatsoever. BusterD (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Your claim that Helen Lewis has a bias is neither here nor there - she is a journalist who writes for an unimpeachable reliable source. Your perception of her opinion has no relevance to Wikipedia.
We already mention Eördögh's claim regarding her handling of the money in discussing the production of the videos - "the delay led some critics to question how she was using the money" - thus mentioning it in the Reception section would be entirely redundant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Then would it not make sense to have that source placed on the Reception section, seeing as it is pertaining to some of her criticism? For a user such as myself, who is looking exactly for the reactions of a person's work, would it not be more efficient to read that criticism in the Reception section rather than potentially miss it in the Video Series section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmannospaces (talkcontribs) 04:43, 8 December 2013
(edit conflict)Ohmannospaces, please remember to sign your comments with four tildas (~~~~). It would be helpful if you'd say directly what you're talking about. You seem to be talking about Helen Lewis, who has 3 pieces here cited a total of 5 times (none in the reception section). Lewis is a professional journalist and an editor at the New Statesman, and she appears to have written pretty extensively on feminism, internet culture, and such in that and other reliable publications.
This source is being used to cite two rather obvious claims: that Sarkeesian's experience led to discussion in the media, and that media sources documented the array of harassment (the piece actually does this). The piece is listed in's blog section, however it appears to be what are called WP:NEWSBLOGs - a column that can be an acceptable source on Wikipedia, not some random yahoo's personal website. Caution needs to be used for newsblogs, but given Lewis's background and the fact that these are pretty uncontroversial claims, it looks all right to me.
This piece also from is being used to cite the (again) obvious claim that this Wikipedia article was vandalized with porn. The claim is also backed up by a source from Digital Trends and reality. Again, it's in the blog section, but looks to be an acceptable newsblog that's not being used to say anything remotely arguable.
This piece from The New York Times is used twice. It's cited for the claim that Sarkeesian was emailed images of herself being raped by game characters (again, this isn't arguable), and for the claim that Sarkeesian says that the harassers "gamified misogyny" by, well, turning their misogynous harassment into a game. The piece is in the Times' blog section but it's actually part of the paper's "ArtsBeat" feature. It should be acceptable to use by any standard.
That Destructoid piece has been discussed repeatedly before and the consensus is that it's not reliable. See archives 2 and 3 for extensive discussion. Essentially, the these guidelines have determined Destructoid to be only situationally reliable, and this isn't one of those situations. It's one guy's op-ed in his community blog - effectively a self-published source, which are not acceptable in biographies of living persons (unless written by that person). I'm sorry, but it's laughable to argue that it's remotely "at or above" the level of reviews from a peer-reviewed journal and a major newspaper.--Cúchullain t/c 04:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As BusterD alludes to, the "Reception" section is actually for the video series, not general criticism of Sarkeesian. So essentially everything I just said about the Destructoid piece is moot; it wouldn't be appropriate even if it were reliable. As for Eördögh, she's commenting on the production and costs, not anything about the videos' content; it's also not appropriate for that section. And it would be redundant to say the same thing twice. I'm actually of the opinion that that source isn't relevant or useful and should be removed.--Cúchullain t/c 05:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I apologize on the formatting - I signed up for Wikipedia to point this out, so I'm very new and did not think I'd be discussing it for this long.
Unfortunately, the sections you refered to have been edited out. I am saying that the Destructoid article is no less reliable than the IGN article, which is referenced in the same Reception section and used (in its second appearance) as a type of reaction Sarkeesian has received. This is not mentioning the fact that, while the IGN article does not explicitly say it, it is structured and told the same way a blog would, which is the reason I say it is no better than the Destructoid article.
Furthermore, I would to point out that the author of the IGN article, Paul Dean, is a freelance writer, in contrast to the author of the Destructoid article, Chris Carter, who is a "Reviews Director" and works directly for the company, as detailed in his profile and on the site's front page. This, added to the fact that Destructoid is accredited by Metacritic and the clause in the Wikipedia entry you linked to saying that Destructoid "may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such." This reaction to one of her videos, again, is from a paid employee of the organization, which I would say makes him reliable in that he's not a Joe playing Midnight Sonata on his keyboard, but instead, someone who is paid to give his opinions on everything surrounding video games.
In short: if the IGN article can be considered reliable enough to be mention in the Reception section solely for its semantics on its publishing (i.e., not explicitly calling it a blog post), then I see absolutely no reason to exclude the Destructoid article from that same section.
Furthermore, I disagree with your conclusions of the article, as it does not attack nor criticize Sarkeesian herself; the author himself says so in the early paragraphs. The article tries to offer counterarguments to some of the issues Sarkeesian presented in her tropes videos. This is not really up to interpretation, please read through a section of the article, particularly one that is preceded by a picture. The author quotes Sarkeesian and presents his argument.
And, since the money comes directly from a Kickstarter projected founded for her video series, then I think a criticism of her quietness in regards to where she is spending what is essentially the budget for the video series, is relevant to the latter.
Ohmannospaces (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Although there are concerns about the reliability of the Destructoid piece in regard to criticism of this area, if we ignore that we still have the problem raised above that the Destructoid article is not a response to the videos, but only to an interview she gave prior to the videos being released. Therefore we can't use it as criticism of the video series. - Bilby (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify - "since the money comes directly from a Kickstarter projected founded for her video series, then I think a criticism of her quietness in regards to where she is spending what is essentially the budget for the video series, is relevant to the latter" - this may be of interest to some people, but it is not of "interest" to wikipedia because it has no relevance. As and when she issues a full account of what she has used her funds on, we will include it. What we cannot include is opinion from third parties uninvolved in the process saying things like "where did the money go?". That is the dictionary definition of JAQ'ing off.
Further, when looking into the Destructoid piece - his opinion on her opinion is not valid. The most we could say is "X disagreed". This, however, would be undue weight for the Destructoid piece. Lots of people disagree every day, it doesn't make their opinions on their blogs notable for inclusion on Anita Sarkeesians wikipedia article any more than every criticism from Rush Limbaugh (a far more notable critic) should appear against Barack Obama.
If you are honestly researching why Anita Sarkeesian is controversial - you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia is not here to provide interpretative analysis. It can only report on that analysis when it is presented by reliable sources. Try RationalWiki which has a far more lax inclusion level. Koncorde (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Ohmannospaces, you're all over the place. It seems most of the many things you've brought up have been covered. We've established that (1). barring any unidentified issues, the Helen Lewis articles seem to be reliable. (2). Per previous consensus, the Destructoid piece is not reliable. (3). The "Reception" section is for the video series and thus only contains, well, reception of the video series. Even if they were reliable, the Destructoid blog op-ed and the Eördögh piece are not suitable for that section.
Of the other things, what we haven't established is whether the IGN source or the Eördögh piece are reliable. I have no opinion on IGN; for what it's worth WP:VG/RS says it's generally reliable for video game topics if the author is. I'm of the opinion that the Eördögh source is irrelevant and should be removed, as it's coming from a blog site and there's no indication why her opinion is a significant viewpoint on this topic.--Cúchullain t/c 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Editors were divided on whether to merge the contents of the Tropes article on the biographical article here. On the one hand, the series was argued to be insufficiently notable and that the articles mostly focus on the harassment of Sarkeesian. On the other hand, other editors contended that merging the content here would present a coatrack issue in that Sarkeesian's bio would mostly be derailed by content about her harassment and that the sheer amount of detail relative to the rest of the present content is inappropriate for a biography. The Devil's Advocate also presented a substantial number of articles demonstrating that the series has received coverage that focuses on the video series rather than the harassment. These sources were not challenged on that basis. While Diego Moya's "possible structures" below were not sufficiently discussed, it's clear that consensus was opposed to the merge and in favor keeping separate articles for the series and the biography. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:15, 8 January 2014 (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.

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

  • Support as nominator--Cúchullain t/c 21:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the videos have not garnered any particular commentary from notable sources. Sarkeesian and the Kickstarter events are notable, the videos less so. Discussing the videos should be done in the context of Sarkeesian until they have achieved notability outside of Sarkeesians own notoriety. Koncorde (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I accepted the AFC in the hopes it would quell the controversy, but all it did was break it in half. My mistake, and a merger is appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - no notable sources have commented on the videos yet. DonQuixote (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - if the series acquires a separate notability in the future, then and only then it could be re-established. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentOppose. I have previously stated I opposed such a merge, but not wanting to seem troublesome, I'll not oppose in this procedure. I believe the series has received sufficient coverage to establish its notability; if this BLP pagespace did not exist, the series would deserve its own article. The recent arrival of scholarly review demonstrates that in at least a narrow field of study, Ms. Sarkeesian's as yet incomplete efforts are drawing the attention of the academic community. BusterD (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Further comment. 1) At the risk of sounding troublesome, I take issue with any characterization of the Tropes article as POVFORK. REDUNDANTFORK may apply, but the Tropes article is well sourced and neutral in tone, and contains detail specific to the series I think inappropriate to a BLP. While originated by a SPA, that editor worked within AfC, accepting feedback from some who are participating here. 2) I personally felt the application of semi-protection of Tropes was premature; the page had experienced exactly two edits in the previous six days. As an involved admin, Cúchullain might have taken the issue to RPP, where I suspect protection would have been declined. 3) In an article on the person, a very high standard of RS is required, but in an article on the series, a broader range of situational sources might be used. So long as the series is covered only in the BLP, sources we might consider using on the video series article cannot be applied. 4) A very cogent argument could be made that because of WP:BLP1E, we should treat the EVENT as the focus of coverage, and eliminate the BLP altogether. 5) If queried, I would prefer option 2 below. I believe we should merge information and sources (recently applied only to the reception section of this page) to the Tropes subpage. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
1). I myself didn't characterize it as a POVFORK, but it is certainly a fork, as it just copies material that's much better presented here already. 2). Not really a conversation for this merge discussion, but I was extending the protection that was placed here to the fork after the page was hit with a number of disruptive edits from new/unregistered accounts that week. I'm always open to discussing my edits and admin actions if anyone has a problem with them. 3) Material on living people is always going to be restricted by WP:BLP, wherever it's located. Material that focuses on the work itself will have different standards at either/both articles 4). True. Though this article existed before the controversy (and was part of the controversy).--Cúchullain t/c 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The NYTimes source linked by the ip editor in the thread below ([1]) demonstrates (as part of a larger trend) the impact of the video series, as opposed to focusing on the controversy or the series creator. The author Chris Suellentrop feels compelled to raise the thesis of one of Sarkeesian's videos with a notable game designer. BusterD (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. The problem this article has had in the past is that it wasn't allowed to expand, with material being removed as "too much detail for a biography" even when it was related to the videos, not the person. Everybody agrees that the main coverage from the press was about one event, the harassment associated to the Kickstarter campaign, and the videos created from it; this makes a biography article a coatrack for the incident, making it a not well balanced biography, which is problematic under WP:BLP. If the main material is about the harassment, let's focus the article on that and stop pretending it's a biography when less than 20% of the content is biographical. Diego (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    Comment - I've delineated below the alternate options we have to reorganize the articles while fixing the repetition of content that we have now. I've also expanded the merge tag (it was "merge to Sarkeesian") to cover all alternative outcomes. Diego (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I restored the hat notes so that editors can see where the discussion is happening and know what the proposal actually is. Participants can still weigh in however they want without obscuring the proposal.
Part of the problem, I think, is that there's not agreement that the videos themselves are particularly notable. Most sources continue to be about the harassment that occurred largely before there even were any videos. There are actually pretty few sources on the series itself, and none that separate them from discussion of Sarkeesian and the harassment she faced.--Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Despite being started by a "single purpose account", the webseries article was neutral and reliable sourced. The series is notable in itself, and merging its contents back here - such as the episode list, would further push the parent article into WP:UNDUE territory. This is not how summary style works. - hahnchen 05:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    Between moving everything to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and keeping two separate articles, which option would you prefer? I don't care much either way, as long as everything is not put back again into Anita Sarkeesian for the same reasons of UNDUE weight. Diego (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - it's a textbook WP:POVFORK - Alison 07:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Please, can you clarify which option for the merge do you support, Option 1, option 2 or option 3? Diego (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. For some reason, being born "circa 1984" makes me think we don't really care about her, but are really only interested in the video series and the reaction to it. A way I think we could justifiably keep both is if we did Diego Moya's option 2, but expanded this article to include her work outside of youtube: ie, facebook, tumblr, twitter, and the various speech's she's given. That would be my second choice, I suppose.--Hamilton-wiki (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hamilton-wiki, I think one thing to consider is that most sources deal with the controversy and its aftermath, which was something that happened before there ever was a video series. This article existed even before that point (and the vandalism of it was part of the controversy). There are actually only a few sources for the video series as such, and none that discuss it without discussing the harassment.--Cúchullain t/c 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Cúchullain, right now the opening section is five sentences, four of them are directly about TvW, the Kickstarter, or the reaction. The main article is 14 paragraphs and a quote block, 11 of which are about TvW, the Kickstarter, or the reaction, and of the three that are not about one of those topics, 1 is still about her youtube channel. 87% of this article is about TvW, the Kickstarter or the reaction. There was an article about her before it, and her article talks about other things, but the overwhelming majority of the article is not about her, but a specific project of hers. --Hamilton-wiki (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, but the discussion isn't really about the project, it's about harassment Sarkeesian herself faced when she started (or really just announced) the project. For example this book (which I'll add as as source at some point) discusses the harassment against Sarkeesian but doesn't even include the name "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games", and barely mentions Kickstarter.--Cúchullain t/c 18:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutrality issues can be addressed within the article. Her series is actually getting a lot of coverage in reliable sources. I think there is more than enough basis for a separate article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to ask all who oppose on the grounds of the video series being notable, to provide the notability. Currently there is no support for a separate article other than by synthesising or ret-conning commentary after the fact. Koncorde (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you see how the bulk of the Sarkeesian article is on the video series? That's how it's notable. The biography already gives strong undue weight to the series, and now editors are arguing it should be even stronger. - hahnchen 21:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
But the bulk of the material isn't about the video series, it's about the harassment Sarkeesian herself faced, largely before there even was a video series.--Cúchullain t/c 21:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The development of the series should be in the series article. - hahnchen 21:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't consider harassment the author faced before the development of the series, to be part of the development of the series, and I don't think the sources describe it that way. It's more relevant at an article on the person, I'd think. At any rate there are plenty of sources indicating she's notable for other things, such as her public speaking career.[2][3][4]--Cúchullain t/c 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Here: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. I expect more such coverage will emerge as each new video is released.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
@Koncorde And I'd like to ask all who support the merge on the grounds that most coverage centers around the harassment: if there's a single article, wouldn't it make sense to repurpose it and put the main focus in this particular event (thus following WP:BLP1E), instead of framing it as a biography? Diego (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Moving to an article on the controversy was proposed and handily rejected earlier this year. My opinion is that moving the article to one on the series isn't preferable because: (1) harassment Sarkeesian suffered after announcing the project to fund the videos is better suited for an article on her than on the videos she eventually produced, and (2) that this article already covers a lot of other, well cited things that would not be appropriate for an article on the series, such as the Femininist Frequency blog and her speaking career. Sarkeesian is definitely notable and her article already includes material on the series. The reverse wouldn't be true.--Cúchullain t/c 14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
All that still doesn't address the problem of neutrality we've identified because of the undue weight given to the harassment incident in her biography. The current structure is like saying "what's all that there's to know about Anita Sarkeesian? She was harrassed!!!"; you can't defend this structure - even if it was an important event in her career, this episode is not the single thing defining her life, and shouldn't be presented as such. In fact, none of the supporters has addressed that imbalance; I suspect that's because it's reinforced by your arguments about the available references being almost exclusively about the harassment, which makes this a WP:ONEEVENT article. Biographical details outside of the incident are almost non-existent; if there's not enough coverage outside of the harassment campaign to support an article on the series, there's much less to support a biography.
WP:BLP1E makes it crystal clear that in such cases the focus must be on the event, not the person; and WP:BLP, that in case of doubt you have to err on the side of caution and protecting the person - you cannot keep an imbalanced biography where a single event occupies 80% of the available content; but that's exactly what this merger proposal suggests. The only acceptable outcomes per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are having a short summary section in the biography covering the harassment and the video series, or making these the primary focus of the article. (To quote the notability guideline, "editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people.") Diego (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The article existed prior to the Kickstarter harassment as discussed in the AfD, so WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT has no bearing. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV say that we represent viewpoints proportionally as they appear in reliable sources, not that the viewpoints be neutral at all. The sources primarily focus on a series of events but the subject is otherwise notable, so of course we're going to follow the sources. We don't fork articles simply because someone gets more attention for something than they had previously. Woodroar (talk)
That's a non-sequitur that has been repeated too many times. The article that existed before the harassment incident didn't have 80% of its content dedicated to a single event. A balanced biography based on the sources not related to the harassment would be about one paragraph long. And we do fork articles whenever a subset of the content gets too large in proportion to the main topic -there's even a guideline for that, WP:SPLIT. What this article needs is a WP:summary that reduces the weight of the harassment in the BLP, not a re-join that increases it. Diego (talk)
(edit conflict) Nobody disputes that article existed prior to the Kickstarter controversy event; that the article existed doesn't automatically connote notability. If the subject article had been nominated for deletion in May 2012, it would have faced tough going (certainly not a snow keep). I (and clearly others) believe that the subject is known for the event primarily. I can certainly accept an argument that the subject doesn't meet all three exclusionary criteria as listed in BLP1E. For example, as a media critic, she seeks media attention, so she's not low profile. However, as a guiding principle, BLP1E suggests that the pedia might be better served if the page was on the event and not the person subject. BusterD (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The vast bulk of the sources focus on the controversy surrounding the Kickstarter campaign (many of those news sources in real time, as the event was occurring). As mentioned in Sarkeesian's AFD procedure, WP:NOTE says "In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering." The AFD (also held during the height of the controversy) concluded Sarkeesian was notable, the arguments largely centering on the controversy. I'd argue that the announcement of the series, negative cultural reaction to the announcement (from members of the online community), Kickstarter contributions as backlash to the negative reaction, reporting on the whole affair, most of the media coverage centers on the event, not the individual. If Sarkeesian's notability was birthed by the controversy, it would be hard to argue that series notability was NOT birthed by the same controversy. If we didn't have this BLP, we'd certainly have an article on the series. The controversy weighs so ponderously, no responsible review of the series material could ignore the controversy which drew cultural attention to it. The Carpenter review linked by Cúchullain (and generously shared via email by that user) consists of two pages, eight paragraphs; the author uses the first two paragraphs describing the controversy/backstory, but the remaining 1.5 pages are devoted entirely to Sarkeesian's assertions and views as expressed in the first video. This single source goes a long way to demonstrate that the series is being noticed by academe, and deserves its own pagespace. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose My stance on this should be bloody obvious. Sorry for my disrespect of admin authority Cúchullain, but I seriously doubt your neutrality on this subject. Nosepea68 (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll add some reasons why I oppose:
Her harassment was "on demand", just see video 27 March, 2013 [14] starting at ~1:12:48 she explains how she handles internet trolls. Prior to her Kicstarter video she had very strong anti-harassment policies in place on her Youtube channel (moderation and blocking used) and suddenly when she made a promo video to fund her video series the comments were opened for just _one_ video.
My intention was (still is) to present her "study" as it is now after all the promises she made for a mere $6,000. And I am anticipating reliable sources to tear her "study" to a million pieces.
I can see issues that would support merger, but I see issues keeping these two articles separate stronger.
I view some of the RS used in BLP article as biased, making the BLP article biased.
This BLP page should have been deleted long before she became a notable person.
I suspect the origin of the BLP is closely related to Sarkeesian.
For deleting both articles I'd strongly support it! BLP without a birth date? Even though the name of the person is somewhat unique.
Adding; See what she did? Instead of doing something constructive we're stuck on a petty debate on what can be told about a living person!
Nosepea68 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
There's so much wrong with the comment above I feel compelled to write a response. Single Purpose Account User:Nosepea68 is in no position to judge the neutrality of other editors. That Sarkeesian's harassment was "on demand" isn't proved by the source provided, is original synthesis and is entirely irrelevant to this merge conversation. What the above user anticipates and suspects is likewise irrelevant and somewhat revealing of the user's negative personal bias. User's views on bias and birth dates are also not appropriate for this narrow discussion. And the last comment about "what she did" is way over the top. We're having this discussion over something User:Nosepea68 did (created a spinout/fork), not over something the subject did. Unrelated troll-like rants like those above tend to discredit those making them and demonstrate points made by those asserting "merge". BusterD (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's on me that I should have worded "I add my motivation why I oppose". But, why call me an SPA user? Then I must ask what's required to be able to judge editor's or RS neutrality? I wrote "on demand" because if she had comments and ratings disabled on her KS promo video like she had on her other videos there would not have been any harassment, right (Anita's favourite reasoning word)? Yes, falls under category OR and synthesis, but do editors have to stop thinking when explaining their reasons/motivation? And I'm not supposing that should be put into the article. I would like to see a birth date of any person in wikipedia, not just Sarkeesian. And about the author who created the original BLP for Sarkeesian I used what you call OR and looked at that user's contribs, talk page and history. I admit I have made mistakes in my wiki editing and quite frankly will continue to do them unless I get blocked/banned, it's a learning process. I think I need to stop here before Cuchu do block/ban me with notaforum-hammer. Nosepea68 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You'd really better follow your own advice. You've been warned enough times already to stop these disparaging rants against in this WP:BLP.--Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merge to this article. It shouldn't have been split in the first place and now it's redundant: the current sources are primarily about the person, not the series. Once we have sufficient references about the series itself, then we can split it. Woodroar (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a limited series of videos, and not notable to merit its own article. --Soetermans. T / C 09:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Soetermans; the series is not notable enough on its own. Peter Isotalo 18:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per reasonings by Soetermans and Cuchullain. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Recommend option 2 below (two separate articles). There are essentially three aspects covered by the sources: her biography, her video series, and (mainly) the harassment in reaction to it. But because there's more coverage about the harassment than about the rest, putting everything into one article would create the incorrect impression that she's most notable for being harassed. Accordingly, the series and the reaction to it should be treated as a subarticle per WP:SS; there seem to be sufficient sources for independent notability.  Sandstein  09:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The first general rule of WP:Summary style is "[s]ections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles". This article is currently at 9 kB of prose. Obviously not long. Peter Isotalo 01:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That would be a size split. The second rule of summary style is that a subtopic with sufficient substance, even if closely related (see content split, WP:PAGEDECIDE), can have its own article (verbatim: "In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.") It's clear that the section about the video series is much longer than any other section in the biography article, which should trigger the "undue weight" clause that merits a split. Diego (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: clearly separate subject with sufficient texts and references. As several people mentioned, WP:Summary style is a standard way to handle content forking of overlapping subjects. - Altenmann >t 05:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - each article's subject is notable in its own right. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible structures for the content

There are several alternative ways to structure the existing content that avoid the current duplicity.

  • Option 1: put everything at Anita Sarkeesian
    Everything from Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is merged to the corresponding section here.
  • Option 2: keep two separate articles
    At Anita Sarkeesian place "Background" and "Feminist Frequency" sections (about 280 words), and a short section for "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" written in summary style (keeping it under 300 words to make the biography balanced overall).
    The current "Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment" and "Video series" sections (about 1150 words) are moved to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.
  • Option 3: put everything at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games
  • "Background" and "Feminist Frequency" sections are moved to a short "Anita Sarkeesian" biographic section.

Let's discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each option. If you have more options to suggest, put them right below this comment. Diego (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The merge proposal is to merge Tropes vs. Women in Video Games into Anita Sarkeesian (your option 1). The other options aren't part of the proposal and can be discussed if there's no consensus for the actual proposal.--Cúchullain t/c 14:30, 12 December 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.

Another source

I'm not sure if this source will be useful to this page or not but I saw this woman and her video series mentioned in Sunday's New York Times print edition. The article was entitled "In the Footsteps of Lara Croft" by Chris Suellentrop. Here is the web link: -- (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the good eyes. The article has refers to the impact of several 2013 events, one of which is the release of Sarkeesian's first four videos, plus one paragraph summarizing the history and recommending the first four videos. This is another source which puts forward the significance of the video series, as opposed to the controversy (which gets one sentence). Suellentrop asserts the videos: "are essential viewing for anyone interested in video games"... BusterD (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I found a way to work it in. Thanks for your catch. Zero Serenity (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Online Harassment Campaign

Harassment Campaign ? Is there possibly a better way to word this ?Scatach (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's accurate. About the only way it could be more accurate is removing "Online" from the title. What did you have in mind? Zero Serenity (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was just asking the same thing. What do you object to in the phrase?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Campaign indicates a coordinated effort whereas what she got was a bunch of individual trolls mixed in with legitimate criticism. Stop making a martyr out of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
So what do you propose, @ So far we have two editors who seem to object to "harrassment campaign" and two editors who don't know what the alternative phrasing should be. Now's the time for suggestions, not criticism about martyrdom. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Asking for an alternative phrasing is not the same as not knowing what the alternative should be. In any case, there's nothing wrong with "campaign" here. From the OED: 5 a. fig. Applied to any course of action analogous to a military campaign, either in having a distinct period of activity, or in being of the nature of a struggle, or of an organized attempt aiming at a definite result. Note the disjunctive nature of the definition. Like a military campaign "in being of the nature of a struggle." This is a normal use of the word. Besides, trolls are self-organizing, like flocks of birds. Also, your claim that the criticism was "legitimate" more or less undermines the validity of your opinion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
When the trolls start piling on like that, you don't have to see their IM logs or 4chan posts to know that a de facto campaign has begun. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess we're going to have to go over this every couple of weeks. This same issue has been discussed repeatedly, and as ever, there's nothing wrong with the word "campaign" in this context. The term is accurate, it's used by the sources, and there's no reason whatsoever to avoid it.--Cúchullain t/c 05:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, kicked off harassment part...

From the the video series 'fork'. As per putting the information where it should be. Harassment has no encyclopedia value in the `fork` of the video series, of which I hope to only to collect data from the video series. I would also rise an attention to perhaps make a possibility to show YT views without them hindering encyclopedia view. That's just to put accurate view count on the page.

Nosepea68 (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What?--Cúchullain t/c 06:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It was reverted. Skype anybody? Nosepea68 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
My bad about this talk! I can (will) admit. What I said should be stated in the TvWiVG- article. Nosepea68 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Going forward

The merge discussion has closed with the result that Anita Sarkeesian and the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork will be kept as separate articles. While I'm disappointed with this result, being as a shoddy fork created by a disruptive single-purpose account will remain on Wikipedia, it's more important we move forward to give the best encyclopedic coverage we can at both pages. In fact, I think even those of us who preferred keeping the material at one article will see there are some advantages to the approach. At this point, it's time to get to work on the fork - it needs a lot of it.
The first step will be improving and updating the the Tropes... article, as again, it currently just repeats information that's already in the main article, but in a noticeably worse, out of date fashion. The reception section needs to be entirely overhauled and some material, such as on Sarkeesian's speaking engagements, don't need to be there at all. After that we can determine whether rewrites to the relevant sections of this article (or others) would be useful. Hopefully everyone who argued that the fork should be kept separate will devote some of their time to cleaning it up.--Cúchullain t/c 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to follow the approach of WP:SUMMARY and move to the other article most of the content directly related to the production and description of the video series - thus merging the content that was updated here with the outdated version there, and eliminating the redundancy. I don't know what to do exactly with the content about the Kickstarter campaign and harassment - it could either be split between the two articles, or kept here and reorganized in several sections (one for the harassment, another one for the reactions of the press). Diego (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That will probably be a good approach. I think we should keep the bulk of the harassment material here, and include as much of it at the fork as necessary to give a good encyclopedic background for the series. More sources on Sarkeesian and her experience have appeared, including at least two books and several journal articles that discuss her in some detail. These sections, as well as the response by the media and academics, is due for an overhaul. Additionally, I think ultimately there will be a separate section here for such things as the media response to the harassment and Sarkeesian's speaking career, and perhaps some additional sections at the other article depending on what is published for the video series.--Cúchullain t/c 21:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Shockingly, the people who wanted the fork kept separately haven't been falling over each other to improve it. I've collected some good sources and hope to do some work to that end this coming week. As I said above I plan on moving most of the material on the production of the series to the fork and expanding the info on the reception - which is still worse than the coverage here after three months.--Cúchullain t/c 05:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Shockingly"? Really? Is it shocking that other Wikipedians don't edit in the exactly the same way or at the same pace? Is it shocking that some of us hold several jobs and find ourselves swamped? Is it shocking that some Wikipedians may have important things going on in their own lives? Is is shocking that some of us don't believe we have a deadline here? All the above apply to me, at least. Please consider restraining your judgement of others' behavior. Such insults ill befit someone trusted to uphold pillars, policies and guidelines. BusterD (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, calm down, it was tongue in cheek. I haven't edited it either. But yes, it's disappointing that all that discussion hasn't led to improvements to the articles.--Cúchullain t/c 06:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I got testy but my last two months have been exhausting and stressful. I've been with this article since the Kickstarter event, and have no intention of going away, but just haven't made many edits other than watchlist stuff this month. Wanted to do more but just haven't had the hours or the energy. I even forgot I'd applied a new page to DYK until the first reviewer pointed out I hadn't finished the work. After reverting Nosepea over there last night, I agree we should discuss a format whereby most series related material goes to the Tropes page and most harassment material comes over here. BusterD (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I certainly didn't mean to offend with my attempt at humor. In working on the harassment material, I don't think it should be totally excised from the other article, as Nosepea attempted to do. It needs enough of a summary to give a good encyclopedic background for the series.--Cúchullain t/c 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Master thesis

Collapsing general discussion of the article subject per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG. "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

Hey all,

the document says on it's page 75 CC BY NC as described in and you can read the whole thesis in . Sorry, can anybody clarify me what she means? Nosepea68 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don;t understand the question. What is the issue that needs clarification? - Bilby (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Article for Deletion, whole article.

Hey all,

we are missing some major information about Anita Sarkeesian as per her 'whole life'. Date of birth for an example. Please link any other BLP or any other biography that has a subject and life built up without even a birth date.

Also the stuff she is built on is saying nothing. Any video she makes, any stuff she breaks all come down she ignores all the criticism, no matter how valid.

Also she is one behind a paywall. All her "fame" is just one single event w/o any reviww.*

So okey, remove the whole article,! Nosepea68 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As much I hate to say, she is one event famous. Wikipedia has rules on that too. Single/one occasion is not enough to hold whole article. She is famous because she made herself a victim. And there is NOTHING for her LB outside her videos. And Cuchlululllleeloo keeps calling me4 spa. A thing I do not expect from an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talkcontribs) 14:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. You proposed this before (see talk page archives) and consensus was against you. DonQuixote (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
@Nosepea: perhaps you should propose these biographies for deletion as well: Category:Year of birth missing (living people). BTW: there are currently 49,892 articles categorized as such. Jim1138 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it's prudent to suggest such a thing to a user with the moniker "nosepea," but do as you will, of course.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, let's delete Jesus! Your delete rationales are becoming more and more ridiculous, Nosepea68. --NeilN talk to me 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
For the interested, the article has been been up for AfD and RM before and it's been handily rejected. Sarkeesian easily passes the notability threshold for biographies, as anyone can see. Please stop wasting the community's time with these pointless and disruptive suggestions.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to include criticisms

Please include criticisms of Anita's behavior and arguments. The blanket acceptance of anything someone says under the umbrella of feminism is compromising the already tarnished reputation of wikipedia's accuracy and legitimacy.

Honey Badger radio criticism of Anita's arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaghard (talkcontribs) 22:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

YouTube is not considered a reliable source. Please see, Wikipedia reliable source examples. Regards, AnupMehra 22:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
And even beyond just Youtube's general unreliability, Swaghard, Wikipedia isn't in the business of picking any old internet grumblings and publishing them as legitimate criticisms. That's why we typically don't include angry racist comments from HuffPost commenters, fan responses to movies (unless the response is significant enough to gain the attention of the media), or other non-notable content. If you want criticism of the subject to be presented, you need to find criticism from people who are qualified to issue the criticism, or criticism that becomes notable enough to be reported by a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly "qualifies" Anita to discuss any of this? I fail to see how feminist frequency (a youtube channel and where these videos are published) is taken into account, yet criticisms published on the same site are ignored. Thunderf00t for example has a huge following and his video responses get huge positive ratings. I could go on and on listing if you'd like. This page on Wikipedia currently has ZERO criticisms but just a cursory search on the internet reports a torrent of disagreement. For you to leave it off, assumes there is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note, 92, that we only reference Anita's own Youtube account twice, and both cases are to quote her video titles. For the most part, we don't reference Youtube videos from Anita or individuals like Thunderf00t because they are primary sources, and we prefer reliable, secondary sources for content in an article. Novusuna talk 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm being dense here but can you explain the largest section on Anita's page: "Tropes vs Women in Video Games"? This entire video series is published primarily on YouTube? Why then is this seen as somehow as different to "any old internet grumblings"? I don't see how Anita is any more "qualified" to create this video than those that offer fair criticism on the same internet site. I'd be happy to collate the views and positive rating of the top ten rebuttals against the 'Tropes vs Women' series. Trying to be fair here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that the section about her video series does not rely on her videos as a source. Rather, the information in the article comes from a variety of independent, secondary sources. Simply collating the opinions expressed in rebuttals on YouTube would be original research, which is not permitted. Novusuna talk 19:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Would this be seen as an independent, secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Independent? Yes. Secondary? Definitely Not. Reliable? Dubious at best. If there are criticisms that are worth examining, they'd be published by groups like The Escapist, IGN, Kotaku, etcetera (The first of this group I know has articles about her) or prominent gaming persons, such as Shigeru Miyamoto or John Carmack. Since you seem to be noting a bunch of complete unknowns (comparatively), they are easy to dismiss. Zero Serenity (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
"a bunch of complete unknowns" - so this deems a criticism easy to dismiss? No matter how well it might be written or well argued, being an "unknown" means you're "easy to dismiss". I don't buy it personally but I'm fighting a losing battle here. I come from a scientific background where the validity of an argument stands on it's own merits. Being 'known' has no relevance. I don't understand this system you guys use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Er...if you really do come from a scientific background then you would know about peer-reviewed journals. These so-called criticisms are "easy to dismissed" because they haven't gone through the process. You should know that. It's the same reason that quackery is "easy to dismiss". Find a reliable source that contains criticism (peer-reviewed journal or anything similar), and those will be cited here. DonQuixote (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── If you honestly don't understand our system, then try this on for size:

These contain enough information for you to understand how Wikipedia is done. Zero Serenity (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A colleague of mine authored a clinical audit in the BMJ last year and I was the third name due to helping collect patient data. By your colleagues own definition, I'm an "unknown". Yet I've been published in a peer-reviewed journal. My point was to illustrate that in science an "unknown" is listened to if the point stands on it's own merits. It wasn't brought up to illustrate peer-reviewing. I could go on that NONE of Anita's work is peer-reviewed at all but being "somebody" according to Wikipedia means your voice is valid and should be heard. (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Look, it's been explained to you multiple times that Wikipedia articles rely on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy regarding that subject. We're not in a position to determine whether some random person's views in a blog or on YouTube are "valid" or "well argued", and we're not going to change or ignore the usual practice in this one case.--Cúchullain t/c 21:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No need to get tetchy, I'm simply trying to beat out how your system works in my head. Don't kid yourselves, "Wikipedia articles rely on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy regarding that subject." - this is terribly subjective and open to bias from yourselves. You'd be intellectually dishonest if you disagreed with that. I not expecting, nor expected, you to change your system. I only wanted to get a better feel of how you came to your conclusions on what is deemed 'reliable', 'accurate', etc. Interesting to say the least - suffice to say I won't be donating again. Bye. (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, just like any other area of academia, all that stuff should be published in a reliable source (such as a journal) before being cited in textbooks and encyclopaedias. Journals and such can accept unknowns because they vet it through such things as peer review. Textbooks and encyclopaedias rely on journals and such doing that, and only after that's done can textbooks and encyclopaedias cite them. This is basic stuff that you should have learned in undergrad. DonQuixote (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry if it sounds blunt, but I don't know how many times you can pose the same question and be surprised to get the same answer.--Cúchullain t/c 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Don't be. Sometimes things need to be repeated to drill home the point. Zero Serenity (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

DonQuixote, missing the point for a second time. Your colleague Zero S. stated that if the likes of "John Carmack" or "Shigeru Miyamoto" gave their opinion on the 'Tropes Vs Women' videos then that would qualify as 'accurate' and 'reliable' in the world of Wikipedia. Fortunately the same cannot be said in science. If the likes of Dr. Mark Porter stated that the MMR vaccine caused autism as an opinion (based on nothing other than his being 'known'), then nobody in the scientific community would take it as 'accurate' or 'reliable'. It would require peer-reviewed evidence. So, tell me DonQuixote, is Wikipedia less reliable or was your colleague wrong? (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Who's missing the point? If Brian Cox gave his opinion on the recent discovery of laboratory magnetic monopoles, then his opinion might be worth quoting. If he published a peer-reviewed article, then it would definitely be worth citing. Note the difference. Seriously, this is basic undergrad stuff. DonQuixote (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Working out what is reliable is a really difficult problem. :) To a large extent, it depends on what the source is being used for. In medical articles, the standards for sourcing are very high (see WP:MEDRS), and generally peer reviewed articles in respected journals are required. But if Wikipedia required the same standards for all articles, the project would be very limited in its coverage. Thus for information which is less critical or controversial, content that has undergone independent editorial review becomes acceptable. In some cases, policy lets us use self published sources, but in those cases the information needs to be uncontroversial and the author needs to be an expert in the topic.
Because Wikipedia relies on contributions by anonymous authors, it needs to have a strict policy on sourcing, as we can't know if the contributor has expertise in the topic or not (and there have been a few high profile cases where the contributors have claimed expertise that later proved to be false).
In regard to criticism, what we've been hoping for is criticism that has been published in a source that has good editorial review, and where the author and the editorial process has expertise in the subject. I have my ideas as to why such criticism isn't available for Sarkeesian, but perhaps it will emerge in the future. - Bilby (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the opinions of Miyamoto and Carmack wouldn't necessarily be usable here - they're noteworthy for making games, not for media criticism. Especially if they just put it up on their personal blog or whatever. If they had their opinions published in a reliable source we could possibly talk about it, but it's a moot point, since no one is trying to cite them here., if you have some specific sources you'd like vetted or specific changes you want considered, bring them up, but otherwise this discussion isn't going anywhere.--Cúchullain t/c 00:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I dare you all to look through this video .
Here's editors who call only reliable sources and then people who demand criticism. Now, to be duped you can be even very high intelligent person, but you are duped. The more intelligent you are the more you explain to yourself that the dupe you fell for was true. It's a basic function of our brain called cognitive dissonance. Now, here we have people who call out criticism and then we have editors calling for reliable sources. The big thing is who is duped? Editors or the "retractors" who call for criticism. If it is the latter then this article is fine and we have a solution to all gaming explained to us by a one voice, Anita Sarkeesian. If it is the first, then we have an article that is biased and the editors keeping it up white knight any criticism and ignore it because their cognitive dissonance says so.
Also I like to remind that many of the "reliable sources" used in this article are from "feminist" editors. As per definition they should be for gender equality, but at least one of the sources have made a public appearance to promote female preference.
Anyway, criticism for a critic to be non exist is absurd. Was it a well made video or blog it should account for criticism as per what BLP subject does is blog and videos. We all know she hasn't put up any study for a peer review and because that there should not be such a scrutiny toward her criticism. But hey blame the patriarchy, it's a proper escape-goat.Nosepea68 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
By the use of the term "white knight" and your previous editing behaviour, I think we can quite categorically state that the "cognitive dissonance" is not on "our side". We're ot asking for much - just a single reputable newspaper or relevant source of note - of which there are thousands of qualifying brands - to make valid criticism. What wont work is blogs about personal opinions of Anita, her Kickstarter or subsequent videos. They just aren't notable. By the same token we exclude these same types of things when reflecting other aspects of the Sarkeesian (and rest of wikipedia) articles.
What you don't seem to understand is that this policy is applied across Wikipedia to all biographies. All the editors here contribute to multiple articles. There is no "white knight", at the lamest you could call it "wiki knight" in reference to our defence of wiki's tenets. Koncorde (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@Nosepea68: Here's a video that you should watch [21] (from 1:05:05 to 1:06:45). It's not a direct one-to-one analogy, but the main point is at [22]. An encyclopaedia is on the same level as textbooks. Find a reliable source and cite it, especially if you think the current ones are too "feminist"...that is, go do the work and stop making soapbox speeches. DonQuixote (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Cheers matey! That video really nails it. "What we expect people to do is to do _real_ _research_ to back up these scientific claims, to submit them to peer review and to engage into give and take of scientific argument to win a scientific consensus and eventually if the evidence is on the side of these ideas no matter how goofy they sound at first and no matter how much scientific community opposes them at first they will eventually find their way into classroom and textbook." The thing here is that all the research material is behind a paywall, subject of the BLP ignores all her criticism playing the Victim-Mastercard and even claims some of her "detractors" liars on the basis they are conspiracy theorists. So, until the research material becomes public, the subject of the BLP should be taken as a specialist and her word to be trusted. I doubt the material will ever surface, so she could be peer reviewed. Nosepea68 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
You've been told again, and again, and again, to knock it off with these disparaging rants. Here it is again: stop making comments that aren't connected to specific article improvements, and especially stop making baseless, pointless accusations about living people.--Cúchullain t/c 05:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
She can sue me, any day. One word from her to accuse me for any accusation, I will face her in a court of law.Nosepea68 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you're ignoring the fact that the community doesn't care to hear your disparaging rants or your macho bravado. Talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article not for ranting and challenging people who don't know you exist. Stay on topic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I care only about what's said/done with EVIDENCE. There's TONS OF MATERIAL READY about media making the mind. ALL STATING THERE IS NO CAUSALITY. In the scientific community all the knowledge is built on the shoulders of the predecessors. To that point I must give you a focus, this is a POLITICAL shyte, not scientific. And that is the main reason I [sort of loudly] disgagree with. Nosepea68 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Continuing to go off on tangents that have nothing to do with article improvements, despite repeated warnings, is disruptive. If you won't stop you'll find yourself blocked or banned from editing.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I would really love, appreciate, and prefer if someone would at least put shes subject to constant criticisms or something, because like someone said before, this page looks like its doing nothing but praising her when she would take scenes from video games out of context to support her point, pretty much stole that $140,000 (atleast mention this for the love of god, it doesnt take that much to make 3 videos and is been i think 3 years now) had no evidence to back anything she said up, the games she would review would also be from a variety of cultures (jap and us games are very different in storyline), made people think sexual harassment exists in video games (only if your bad at the game, if your not you'll get the opposite) and failed to mention a single female main character that is just a normal girl (doesnt have provocative clothing and an oversized chest) These are all facts, I don't see why they would need a source to begin with its like asking us to source where we got the fact strawberries are red. Sorry if this got a little ranty she's just a horrible person... (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't agree with anything you just said. Out of context? Not from what I can see. Stole Money? The delay question is brought up then destroyed here. Your sense of time is off since it took one year to make four videos. Yes, sexual harassment exists in video games. While the rest of your nonsense can be dismissed as "The series isn't done yet." While I rebut everything you just said, I'm more pissed off at you using racial slurs to make a point. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
what? i didnt use any racial slurs, if you mean ranty i meant rant-like, didnt even know thats a racial slur, i didnt say everything was out of context but i play quite a bit of video gamess and i can tell you that she did, and im talking about online games, people dont care as logn as you can play the game well, unless your talking about the chat part of a game then yes your right, unless im reading your link wrong it doesnt say where all the money went. and do you really think video game developers are sitting around thinking how they can sexually harrass women in their games? (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
OED: As n. and adj. the word Jap has strong derogatory connotations and is now falling into disuse.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
oh i was just using it short for japanese.. ive never heard that word used in a racial way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think you were, just clarifying for you what Zero Serenity might have been talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any RS to actually improve this article? If so, bring them. I'm not even sure whether to even comment on the rest of your ranting. Please, if you have anything substantial to contribute, do so. --SK (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
For reference, the article, and now the fork, do note that after the influx of donations caused Sarkeesian to delay production, that "The delay led some critics to question how she was using the money," cited to these sources:[23][24] It then cites two writers who bring up that point and determine that the production value has increased (this and the Eordogh piece). This source, also discussed previously, mentions it and dismisses it out of hand. Since the videos started being released, few real sources have bothered to mention it even to dismiss it, as it's become laughable on its face. Anyone can see that the new videos are substantially longer and have better production quality than the old ones. The only ones still hanging on to this point are the trolls who'll blindy accept anything negative about Sarkeesian.--Cúchullain t/c 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The production quality rise is highly subjective. If I could write a RS article about it, I'd say it was not risen by [very] much. Nosepea68 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Speak of the devil.--Cúchullain t/c 05:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I have never denied or claimed I am impartial in this. I see the sources you call RS not really doing their fact check part and the subject of the BLP being dishonest. Really, I am a liberal humanist. Also I'm a sceptic, but I do not deny or belittle scientific consensus of the facts.Nosepea68 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Once again, your personal opinions are irrelevant.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a heavy element of people trying to use simply what they can get. While valid criticism is warranted on most Wikipedia articles for the sake of neutrality, criticism for the sake of criticism regardless of reliability is not useful at all, more so if the subject itself is controversial to some, so do try and have good faith in edits. However, for the sake of disucssion for those who are inquiring into the need for criticism, the only immediate article I have located is a piece by an editorials and reviews director at Destructoid here, a valid widely used source of video game journalism and criticism. Of course I would also have to ask how said piece would be included (if it was). Stabby Joe (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stabby Joe. That Destructoid piece has been discussed repeatedly over the last year and a half, for example here, here, here, here, and here for starters. The consensus has been that it's not a reliable source for this topic. As one writer's unedited blog entry it's a self-published source and not usable in a BLP. In general Destructoid is characterized as only "situationally" reliable for video game topics by WP:VG/RS, so not everything that appears there is assumed to be reliable for video games, let alone media criticism.--Cúchullain t/c 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The another thing _only_ standing is the absence of [negative] criticism of her work.Nosepea68 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Haha, so I see. Well then, if such criticism is warranted, all I can really say is keep searching. Let's just hope it can remain as civil so far. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Bud, really? I can have a discussion about this subject, if you want to. Even with sound recording. Nosepea68 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The Destructoid piece is not going in the article. I'm sure many editors will be happy to vet other potential sources, but that one is out.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I would happily add a critical source under the wiki criteria. Contrary to what some on the internet may feel given her controversial image, this article is not biased in her favor absolute. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mild Inconsistency?

Why is not allowing to link to the original artist who filed the public complaint against Anita allowed, but linking to Feminist Frequency's blog in citation #6 allowed? Can someone elaborate? Ging287 (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources (such as Anita's blog) may be used as sources about themselves, so long as it meets the criteria listed in the policy. As a primary source, it can only be used to cite straightforward statements of fact, such as the title of Anita's master's thesis. Novusuna talk 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So what's the problem about adding it as the sole source for the Fair Use controversy? Ging287 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that an encyclopaedia is not a newspaper. We don't create stories (see above comments and WP:NOTNEWS). DonQuixote (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right. We don't create stories. However, I believe that the Fair Use Controversy qualifies as a notable event, and, the website of the person making the claim is notable. Ging287 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Notability isn't determined by Wikipedia editors. See WP:NOTABILITY, particularly WP:NRV. DonQuixote (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. We're on the same page. The source is reliable per WP:RS and has received a ton of attention from the Internet at large. Also this on NRV: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Ging287 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC) stated above, please provide the reliable sources that have provided "significant coverage", otherwise, not notable in the least. DonQuixote (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC) is the original source of the complainee, directly from the horse's mouth. Explain how that is not a reliable source. Ging287 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" refers to secondary sources, such as newspapers--please provide some of those. The link you keep referring to is a primary source, and using it means that we're creating a story and acting like a newspaper, which an encyclopaedia is not supposed to do. DonQuixote (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say that? Can you quote the bit I'm specifically violating? Linking me to an entire page and expecting me to find the relevant passage is unreasonable. Ging287 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Er...WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NRV, WP:PRIMARY...all of which I have specifically linked above. Please pay attention. DonQuixote (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."...second paragraph of the section WP:NRV.
"Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories"...bullet #1 of section WP:NOTNEWS.
And you have to read WP:PRIMARY yourself as that explains everything you need to know about primary, secondary and even tertiary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous section, so far I can only find The Escapist (magazine) story: otherwise self published sources is really scraping the barrel. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)