| Revision as of 15:14, 17 January 2015 view sourceBreckham101 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,195 editsm →We're not going to go away...← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 20 October 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,637,177 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Art historians, theorists and critics.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (949 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=7 |units=days }} |
|
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Sarkeesian, Anita|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=low |toronto=Yes |toronto-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|class=C |living=yes |listas=Sarkeesian, Anita |
|
|
|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=low|class=c}}}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| author = Beat Metzler |
|
| author = Beat Metzler |
| Line 23: |
Line 23: |
|
| date = 3 September 2014 |
|
| date = 3 September 2014 |
|
| quote = "Ihr Misplaced Pages-Eintrag wurde mit Pornobildern verunstaltet."}} |
|
| quote = "Ihr Misplaced Pages-Eintrag wurde mit Pornobildern verunstaltet."}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
{{Gamergate sanctions|brief=yes}} |
|
{{pp-blp|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
|image=] |
|
|
|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big><br /> |
|
|
This page is subject to ]; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of ''']''' (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at ].<p>Also, the article may not be edited by accounts with fewer than <big>'''500 edits'''</big>, or by accounts that are less than <big>'''30 days'''</big> old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|counter = 19 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Refideas |
|
{{Refideas |
|
|1=] |
|
| comment = {{crossref|Extended list at ].}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last=Campbell |first=Colin |title=The Anita Sarkeesian story |url=https://www.polygon.com/features/2019/6/19/18679678/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-interview-history-story |website=Polygon |date=June 19, 2019}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last1=Carpenter |first1=Nicole |title=Anita Sarkeesian is shutting down Feminist Frequency after 15 years |url=https://www.polygon.com/23814201/feminist-frequency-shutting-down-anita-sarkeesian |website=Polygon |date=1 August 2023}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last1=Pisoni |first1=Claude |title=Feminist Frequency Closing Down after 14 Years |url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/feminist-frequency/feminist-frequency-closing-down-after-14-years |website=Paste Magazine |date=1 August 2023}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
==We're not going to go away...== |
|
|
I apologize, for it seems it must be tiring for all of you to hear the same things day in day out, but I would still like to question why there is apparently no room for criticism to be allowed in this article? The references from Breitbart and Newsweek seem just as credible as the sources that support Anita. If there is any large difference in reliability and factual correctness, I'd love to hear it. Most of the references given are all news sources and the ones offering critcisms are also, and appear to be just as reliable. Please address this point. ] (]) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Our policies aren't going away, either. Breitbart is not a reliable source. ] (]) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::He's not a reliable source because you don't agree with what he has to say? How do you come to this unilateral conclusion that he is not a reliable source? ] (]) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] is dead. ''''']''''' is not considered a ] because it doesn't meet the definitions (competence, editorial judgement, reputation, etc.) for such a thing. --] | ] 05:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::His death is irrelevant--His statements were made when he was alive. I think your statement is very difficult to back up... how exactly does one gauge competence or reputation? That seems to be extremely subjective and not something that I buy on face value just because you say so. ] (]) 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Moreover, this article features lots of references to questionable left-wing sources such as Salon. Oddly enough, those are okay but Breitbart isn't. I'm not saying there's a systematic bias here, but... there's a systematic bias here. ] (]) 05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Breitbart.com gets noted for things like for , not for having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- ] 06:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't agree with the hiding behind "policy" to keep out criticism, some editors here have done their best to keep out criticism of Sarkeesian from valid sources. However, Breitbart is definitely not a reliable source. -] (]) 20:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Alright, then how come we don't have any reliable criticism on here? Misplaced Pages '''must''' remain neutral. ] (]) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Video series == |
|
== Reversion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello {{ping|Sangdeboeuf}} You used the edit summary {{green|see MOS:CAPLENGTH}}. Why do you think this is a special situation? ] (]) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
I removed most of the content about the video series, since we have an ]. The paragraphs didn't contain anything useful about AS herself, so I just kept the NYT reference 'cause it's about the very notable NYT and the very famous/influent Miyamoto. Every discussion about the series, its criticism and what else should be moved to the ]. In particular, I'm referring to ] and ]. Both conversations train-wrecked big time, but maybe someone will find it useful to continue them in the other page. ] (]) 21:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Per ], I've reverted your bold removal of a relevant quote which has had a longstanding place in the article. Please don't edit-war. The quote is a key and succinct explanation of Sarkeesian's views about why stereotypical portrayals of women in video games are problematic. The rest of your edit is fine, but when you make a large-scale change, it's helpful if you react responsibly to others' objections to parts of that change and not just blindly revert them. ] (]) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Keeping in mind that this is not the right section to have this discussion, I'll try to repeat my self and be concise. The quote is unnecessary, if you can paraphrase it, do it. Even after that, it's usefulness is debatable and this particular debate should include more people than you and me. If we are to have this conversation, we should start a new section. Anyway, after even that, that's clearly the wrong section to discussion her views. Last point: Something is not relevant just because it has a "longstanding place" or was said at the Colbert Report. I said it's not relevant because it's just pedantic and, with the subsequent sentence, a little bit apologetic. Lastly, thank you for your patience, but please let's stop here accusing each other of edit warring since it's really not productive. ] (]) 23:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I want to remember to everyone who'd like to contribute to the discussion how NorthBySouthBaranof ignored my previous question (it was the last, unanswered post ]) both at the time of posting and now during the three reverts, and then accused me of blindly reverting. I appreciate the advice and I see where it comes from, but this clearly isn't the case. ] (]) 23:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree it is clunky wording. Going to make some small clean-ups elsewhere as part of this whole process. ] (]) 23:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It wasn't ignored, it was lost to an archive without conclusion, and there was no evident agreement on anyone's part that the quote should be removed. Suggesting that something could be reworded or paraphrased is different than removing it wholesale. I've got no objection to efforts to better ''word'' the point Sarkeesian put across on ''Colbert'', and I've just made an attempt myself. ] (]) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It was a clear question inside a conversation about the quotefarm-ness of the article and the need of rewording the quotes. I think you were notified about it since I linked your username in the post (does it work like that? I'm not so sure now), that's why I simply considered yours a tacit consent. Anyway, let's just de-escalate.] (]) 23:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't see why we need the quote. We can just briefly summarize what was discussed. Good work on the rest of the removals; I'll take a stab later when I have some time.--] ]/] 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not Sangdeboeuf, obviously, but I was looking up the cited policy when they reverted your edit, and I would have reverted if they hadn't. You cited ], which says {{tq|In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait '''along with the name of the subject'''}} (emphasis mine). I see that Sangdeboeuf cited ], which gives plenty of examples of biographical infobox captions, all of which include the subject's name—save for ], where it mentions an iconic film and scene that he is known for. It seems to me that the MoS calls for "Sarkeesian" in the caption, both explicitly and implicitly. ] (]) 14:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Berlatsky piece == |
|
|
|
:As I said in {{diff2|1152233206|my edit summary}}, the image does not simply depict the year "2011". Per ]: {{TQ|One of a caption's primary purposes is to identify the subject of the picture ... Be as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject.}} "2011" does not tell the reader who the subject of the image is. The existing caption "Sarkeesian in 2011" does so succinctly and practically. It's normal to caption portraits of biographical subjects this way. ] gives the example {{tq|"Cosby in 2010" for ]}}. Not a special situation at all. —] (]) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Active Years == |
|
As per Heinerj's edits and previous discussions here, material specifically discussing issues related to the '']'' series belongs in that particular article. in an effort to reduce duplication between the two. Noah Berlatsky's article is a specific critique of points raised in ''Tropes'' — {{tq|In her series of controversial videos critiquing sexism in video games, Anita Sarkeesian often focuses on the way games treat sex workers.}} — and therefore belongs in the article about ''Tropes'' — not in an entirely unrelated section of Sarkeesian's biography which discusses her Kickstarter campaign and the subsequent harassment she suffered. Accordingly, I moved the quote to the ''Tropes'' article's "Critical response" section. ] (]) 07:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, it belongs here as well as it's a personal critique. Certainly if the Colbert report belongs here and the utah stuff belongs here, the Newsweek article belongs here. It's the most reliable of all of those. --] (]) 08:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you're going to insist on the the inclusion of one negative reaction specifically to the videos, then the whole reaction section needs to come back in, otherwise you're placing ] on a single critique. Neither ''The Colbert Report'' nor ''The Salt Lake Tribune'' are critiques of the video series. ] (]) 08:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Doesn't matter how much someone insist, that's not a personal critique and clearly belongs to the series article. The current solution found by ] is terrible, since it doesn't improve either of our articles. Let's wait and see how everyone feels about it, but generally speaking: if its nature is to be considered "personal critique" then it should be included in the awards and commentary. On the contrary, if we decide it should be included only in the video series, we will simply remove it from here. Either way, the video series should be shortened once again. ] (]) 13:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is absolutely a critique of the video series. Of course there are elements discussing Sarkeesian herself, simply because it's ''her series'', but it's primarily about criticism regarding wording from that series and its aftereffects. ] (]) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed. It should be at the Tropes article. It has no more usefulness here than the rest of it.--] ]/] 16:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The article feels a little too duplicated already, no need to make it worse. I still question it's weight in the grand scheme (feels way too nitpicky to me) but if it has to go somewhere, it is best at the series. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 16:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It goes in the other article because it makes sense to go in the other article as it is criticism of the series, and its content. ] (]) 20:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
== Intel Partnership == |
|
|
|
| name = Anita Sarkeesian |
|
|
|
|
|
| image = Anita Sarkeesian headshot.jpg |
|
I wrote a bit more, but I'm unsure how I could fit into it if at all, since it seems to be a more complete list of the partners than the reference already provides. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 17:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| image_size = |
|
:There's multiple reliable secondary sources for it now, which I've added, including one which ''directly'' comments on Sarkeesian's inclusion as an unspoken rebuke to Gamergate. ] (]) 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| alt = |
|
:Heinerj is now removing information supported by multiple reliable secondary sources, and I thoroughly object to this removal. Intel's decision to partner with Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency is undoubtedly encyclopedic, particularly given the context of Intel's past and the linkage with Gamergate. ] (]) 17:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| caption = Sarkeesian in 2011 |
|
::I see how there's nothing to be discussed here since you already decided to do ] instead of discussing my main point, that you still don't understand: it may be encyclopedic, but it's too recent. I say wait to include it, we have all the time in the world. ] (]) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| birth_date = {{birth year and age|1983}}<ref name=viaf>{{cite web |url=http://viaf.org/viaf/315959796/#Sarkeesian,_Anita_1983- |title=Anita Sarkeesian |work=Virtual International Authority File |access-date=March 16, 2016}}</ref> |
|
:::I'm willing to withdraw it if you agree to stop reverting. You clearly know where you're at and there's not really any other option if you're willing to blindly revert three different editors five times in 45 minutes. ] (]) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| birth_place = |
|
::::At the second revert a discussion should have been opened, not after five. That and since you seem to know wiki policy already I'm not willing to withdrawal my collaboration. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| nationality = ]<ref name=Greenhouse13>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/how-free-should-speech-be-on-twitter.html |title=Twitter's Free Speech Problem |last=Greenhouse |first=Emily |date=August 1, 2013 |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-access=limited}}</ref> |
|
::::::As my last revert states, I will stop reverting and add the recentism tag. The three editors did the exact same thing and none of them seemed willing to cooperate. It may be a giant misunderstanding, but I can't see how my words in the summaries can be misinterpreted. ] (]) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| education = {{Plainlist| |
|
:::::::When Sarkeesian received terrorist threats that was added to the article right away as it was clearly a notable incident. Similarly, a $300 million outlay by Intel, for which sources highlight the involvement of Sarkeesian, seems notable. If you add the tag, I will revert it as unjustified. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
::::::::That's not a nice attitute NeilN. A terrorist threat is very different. This is too recent and too vague. Why can't you all wait? That's all I'm asking here! ] (]) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
:::::::::From a ] standpoint, how is it different? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::::::::I don't see the problem with this, especially now that it's been reported in all manner of reliable sources.--] ]/] 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| occupation = {{Flatlist| |
|
:::::::::::It was a non-controversial addition to the article, the whole reversion by Heinerj was unnecessary initially, and to continue reverting was bizarre and completely out of character for how they typically conducts his/her self. The rationale to remove was very weak, compared to the relevancy to include. ] (]) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Media critic |
|
:::::::::::*I don't have a problem with it being "too recent". The coverage prompts inclusion. ]] ''']''' 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* public speaker |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
The reasoning behind my first revert () still stands and no one tried to provide theirs. I suggest again to read ], and see how it has nothing to do with ] or ]. There was just a distinct lack of etiquette from other editors and, because of my insistence, a purely punitive block. |
|
|
|
| website = {{URL|http://www.anitasarkeesian.com}} |
|
Of course, now it's pretty useless to talk about this, so I'll focus on something else: the Wired UK part it's out of context (we didn't introduce the topic before and the phrase doesn't do it itself). Personally I think it doesn't belong here since an entire different article is devoted to discuss that mess. ] (]) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| module = {{Infobox YouTube personality|embed=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
| logo = |
|
:You're better off not throwing stones about a "lack of etiquette". Moving on to the content matter, clearly others think this item is significant enough to include, considering how much press it's gotten. IMO this should have ended as soon a secondary sources were brought into the discussion. I don't think the line about Gamergate is necessary, especially not before Gamergate is even discussed.--] ]/] 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| logo_caption = |
|
|
|
|
|
| pseudonym = |
|
::You're right, this is not the place to discuss editors' behaviour. I was simply trying my explain my frustration since it was discussed by you and {{User|Koncorde}}. If someone has to say something more about it, everyone is welcome to do so in my talk page. ] (]) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| channel_name = feministfrequency |
|
:::I'll try to fix this once the article comes unlocked again. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| channel_display_name = Feminist Frequency |
|
|
|
|
|
| years_active = 2009–present |
|
== BoobFreq == |
|
|
|
| genre = Commentary |
|
{{hat|Discussion is closed.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
| subscribers = 213 thousand |
|
Note: please do not hat this important section until '''after''' the discussion has concluded. At the time of writing, discussion is ongoing. Respect that. This section is not owned by anyone, per WP rules. It is extremely rude and aggressive to hat it while it's being teased out. ] (]) 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| views = 33.7 million |
|
|
|
|
|
| network = |
|
This appears to warrant inclusion in this article as it clearly concerns Sarkeesian: |
|
|
|
| associated_acts = |
|
|
|
|
|
| catchphrase(s) = |
|
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/media/gamergate-anita-sarkeesian-princess-kora/ |
|
|
|
| silver_button = |
|
|
|
|
|
| silver_year = |
|
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/sarkeesian-princess-kora-sex-workers/ |
|
|
|
| gold_button = |
|
|
|
|
|
| gold_year = |
|
http://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/sex-worker-parodies-gamergate-figure-anita-sarkeesian/story-e6frfrt9-1227178990503 |
|
|
|
| diamond_button = |
|
|
|
|
|
| diamond_year = |
|
It is about a sex worker who is using parody videos about Sarkeesian to criticize her views regarding women who work in the sex industry. Seems this warrants inclusion of other material criticizing Sarkeesian's views regarding sex workers that has been recently removed as it ties into the criticism.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| stats_update = August 1, 2023 |
|
::'''Yes!''' Excellent quote for inclusion here, really captures the essence of what Sarkeesian's critics focus on as the chief principle objections to her: “''People who are sick and tired of what Feminist Frequency stands for came together and enjoyed the exact opposite — a sexually liberated, libertarian-leaning, pro-freedom-of-speech woman delivering the product that she promised''”. Really brings to light the very reason why Sarkeesian is notable: the passionate outrage caused by the antics of the political pressure movement Sarkeesian belongs to. ] (]) 14:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:No. ] is the most obvious reason. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::Just because this reliable source doesn't have a heavy pro-Sarkeesian bias doesn't make it an "obvious" candidate for exclusion. ] (]) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::How is that an "obvious reason"? One is a major Australian news outlet and the other is a professional online news outlet where both writers involved are professional credentialed journalists.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:There are a great number of people who have parodied or impersonated ]. Can you point to where in his encyclopedia biography we mention in detail those parodies or impersonations? ] (]) 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have tried telling this to people before, but Anita Sarkeesian is not, in any way, comparable to the President of the United States. Parodies of Obama tend to get their own pages because of his insane notability as the leader of the free world. Sarkeesian is, despite all the hullabaloo, a feminist Youtuber. A parody of her that has received reliably-sourced coverage, is going to be much more noteworthy in relation to her than people impersonating the guy in the most powerful position on the globe.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::But how does this woman contribute to the biography of Anita? You're failing at justifying this. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 23:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How is this relevant for an encyclopedia article? What would this add? "A parody of her exists."? Also: BLP. This is just not suitable. The drive to add every little possibly disparaging detail to this article is certainly not getting any less ridiculous. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, you see, when people get a bit notable they tend to have critics. Sometimes those critics do or say things that are worthy of notice. In the instance that happens, we should include details about what these critics are doing or saying with regards to the person as it allows our article to give a neutral portrayal of that person's life and work. An article on a frequently-criticized person that contains no actual mention of that criticism, despite it being present in reliable sources, is not abiding by NPOV.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Show me any other article on the wiki that has what you are proposing. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::].--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sometimes critics do or say things that are worthy of notice, and sometimes they produce things like this parody. ] (]) 23:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If it were not worthy of notice then a major Australian media outlet would probably not have covered it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::And if this parody has received Sarah Palin/Tina Fey levels of notoriety, we will add it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::That doesn't logically follow in any way. '''Parody and mockery of Sarkeesian is the primary internet response to her'''. Whether it's cartoons caricaturing her loop earrings and check shirts, or Phil Mason's forensic deconstructions of the contradictory, incoherent mish-mash that is her output. The media pieces that wikipedia calls "reliable sources" generally portray her as a saint, and they are sharply at odds with the output made by people who have no editorial team to report to. Those people are usually excluded from this article, and this has created a stupid article: this woman is only notable for the criticism she has received, and the trolling harassment that is included was itself obviously inspired by that very criticism. Wkipedia finds itself in the idiotic predicament of reporting in moronic detail about the smoke, while being banned from even mentioning the fire! So now we have a reliable source covering an example of the waves of non-harassing criticism that Sarkeesian deservedly receives for her confused, extremist polemics. It is our duty to cover it. ] (]) 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}As Sarah Palin is a national level politian and frequently appears on TV vs. Someone who has been on TV three times (MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry, Democracy Now! and The Colbert Report). There is no comparison! Just like for the president. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 23:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Whatever you may think of Sarah Palin, the first female Vice-Presidential nominee for one of the two leading political parties in the most powerful country in the world is still far more noteworthy than a feminist YouTuber. If this parody were to actually get Tina Fey levels of notoriety, it would be more noteworthy than Anita Sarkeesian herself. What we have here is more than enough coverage given the relative weight of coverage regarding Sarkeesian to justify a mention in her BLP.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::People seem to disagree with you on that one. ] (]) 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, you two apparently disagree with the idea that Anita Sarkeesian is not nearly as important as the potential leader of the third-most populous country in the world.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah you have perfectly summarized our objections. That is *exactly* our point. ] (]) 23:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::]...] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Whatever you may think of Sarah Palin, the first female Vice-Presidential nominee for one of the two leading political parties in the most powerful country in the world is still far more noteworthy than a feminist YouTuber." I think the first female VP nominee would be ]. --] (]) 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::My phrasing was poor because I rephrased it from saying Republican Party. It is meant to say she was the first for one of them, not the first for either of them.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I can see this now, up in lights, pride of place in a wikipedia article "in 2015 an amateur cam girl and self professed sex worker parodied Sarkeesian for money"...and that would be stretching the "weight" quite a bit. ] (]) 00:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your denigration of a sex worker is noted and irrelevant.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Denigration? Please, you don't know me from Adam so don't even attempt to project such bullshit. I am quoting her self description and her activity. She is paid to satire Sarkeesian. She is profiting from satirising Sarkeesian. She is a cam girl. She is a sex worker. This is as close to being a paid for opinion as you can get, and of such little gravitas that it only gains traction via the notability of the person she is mocking. |
|
|
:::I, meanwhile, am mocking the belief that the unsolicited opinion of a for-profit (and otherwise anonymous) talking head is worth including in a biography. ] (]) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Breaking News; someone says something, and someone else disagrees with it. A non-notable critic doesn't get facetime in the subject of their criticism's bio, sorry. ] (]) 00:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I do not accept that assertion that criticism that is significant enough to get into reliable sources gets excluded. Plenty of nobodies who praise Anita to high heaven get "facetime", so her detractors should too. ] (]) 14:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::What you personally accept or not has no real bearing on the matter. A non-notable individual doesn't like something that Ms. Sarkeesian said is not a big deal at all. If there are "plenty of nobodies" giving praise in the article, as you assert, then by all means start a new section below to discuss them. Vague hand-waving without examples just creates drama, not results. ] (]) 16:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] you stay stop with the drama, but you're just adding fuel this way. I think the consensus about was to discuss it in ]. The news.com.au may not be relevant ''per se'', but surely can be used as an example. I think the whole thing is a little bit silly, but both articles should be discussed (and maybe used) together. ] and ], if you want to push for inclusion, why don't you restart from scratch and discuss about content this time? Perhaps you may be able to do so in the Tropes page, without walls of nonsense about Obama or dramatic exits. ] (]) 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I instructed this person to provide concrete examples of things that they feel are wrong in the article, rather than make vague assertions and ]-style arguments to support inclusion of this non-notable critic. If you do not like that, then you're being just as disruptive as that editor is. ] (]) 17:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Don't "instruct" people, avoid calling anyone disruptive and try to be nice to them. This whole discussion is already a train-wreck of ], let's not add more crap, shall we? ] (]) 17:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Of course, if you deem it necessary, feel free to talk about my disruptive behaviour in my talk page! ] (]) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Perhaps you should address this to Mr. Bramble, who reopened a concluded discussion. ] (]) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pinging {{yo|Sangdeboeuf|JeffSpaceman}} I saw your reversions and figured we should ] especially since this page has Contentious Topics measures in place. The "Years active" section in the infobox (copied here for reference) specifically refers to the YouTube channel feministfrequency and is under the "YouTube information" section of the box. Its "About" page links to the official Feminist Frequency websites and social media only, not Sarkeesian's personal website or social media. The channel is specifically part of the FF organization, not Sarkeesian's personal channel (I don't think she has one of her own that I can find, unlike other social media where there is one for her and one for the organization). |
|
::When she is touching on a critique of the subject that is outlined in other sources then that is another matter entirely.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I can't believe we are actually talking about this. Can we please hat this and move on?--] (]) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
==Nightline== |
|
|
Here is the transcript of ABC Nightline's piece tonight on Gamergate and Anita Sarkeesian: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|The Wordsmith}} I think that we should remove YouTube from the infobox, given that as you note, it is not directly used by Sarkeesian. Thus, we can keep the years active as running through the present. I don't know if I was looking right at the YouTube information section, I merely thought it was talking about her activity in the world of media criticism, hence why I changed it to "2009-present." I think removing YouTube from the infobox would probably be our best bet here. ] (]) 16:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
: . |
|
|
|
:Agreed, "years active" is ambiguous in a biography of a person, since it could seem at first glance to refer to the person {{em|or}} their website, blog, YouTube channel, etc. I understood "years active" to refer to Sarkeesian herself. In any case, the was posted a little over a month ago, so it seems premature to call the channel inactive. —] (]) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ref talk}} |
|
--] 07:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Date of birth == |
|
== English templates == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a general question: should we consider using either the {{tl|Use Canadian English}} template or the {{tl|Use American English}} template in this article, since the subject was born in Canada but identifies herself as Canadian-American? ] (] - ]) 05:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Why has there been no DOB in this article for several years now? How can there not be a source out there for Sarkeesian's birthday? I watched the recent Nightline segment which mentions "online attackers published her Social Security number and her home address". So hackers dox her and publish her home address and SSN but not her DOB? I realize that can't be used as a source on WP but there must be a reliable secondary source out there for her date of birth. ] (]) 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? The Wordsmith 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Sarkeesian in 2011