| Revision as of 02:02, 1 February 2015 view sourceDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits →Date of birth: again find RS← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 20 October 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,636,958 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 |
| (910 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=10 |units=days }} |
|
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Sarkeesian, Anita|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|class=C |living=yes |listas=Sarkeesian, Anita |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging |importance=low}} |
|
|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=low |toronto=Yes |toronto-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=low|class=c}}}} |
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{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 = 0 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
| Line 35: |
Line 44: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{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__ |
|
==On the lack of criticism of this biographical article's subject== |
|
|
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) |
|
|
::::::::::Misplaced Pages's Neutrality is different than what you might think. We do not ]. If no reliable sources have provided legitimate criticism of a subject, the Misplaced Pages article IS NEUTRAL when it does not contain any "criticism" . It is NOT NEUTRAL if we throw in criticism from non reliable sources "for balance". -- ] 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: If only sources such as Breitbart publish criticism of Sarkeesian, then the neutral point of view is that there is little or no reliably sourced criticism of Sarkeesian. It is not necessary for a biography to have a "criticism" section; indeed most biographies, even of other people who receive frequent death threats, do not. --] 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit Request == |
|
== 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) |
|
This is a request to edit the article in such a way as to inform the reader that, according to the following ], http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180, the alleged threats at USU, but were not credible but that they were intended to get the event cancelled, on the grounds that this would seem an important fact for the reader to know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
As you can see by checking this situation, http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180 says "Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event." |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
The purpose of the edit would be to inform the reader that the authorities investigated the USU threats and that they found there to be reason to believe that the danger was real. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
Thank you for your kind attention to the matter of improving this article in this way, and happy editing! ] (]) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| name = Anita Sarkeesian |
|
|
|
|
|
| image = Anita Sarkeesian headshot.jpg |
|
:I think we'll take a pass on this sort of "warning", thanks. Bomb scares are no less threatening or serious than a literal bomb being placed at an event, for example. The same threshold applies here. ] (]) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| image_size = |
|
|
|
|
|
| alt = |
|
::Ok, the fact that the threats were judged by authorities not to be credible is already in the article, here: The university and police did not believe the threats were credible inasmuch as they were consistent with others Sarkeesian had received, but scheduled enhanced security measures nonetheless, a sentence which is cited four times. So the edit request is to include reference to this fact in the lead section of the article. ] (]) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| caption = Sarkeesian in 2011 |
|
:::I also vote no. Its not important. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 20:30, 28 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> |
|
::::As written, the fact that the USU threats were investigated and judged not credible is important enough to be in the body of the article. Without reference to this fact in the lead, readers of the lead section might come away with the impression that she and attendees would have actually been in some danger. Danger to human life and limb is obviously important. Are you suggesting this be removed from the body as well? ] (]) 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| birth_place = |
|
:::::Also a no. The credibility is that there was a threat, and that the event was cancelled. Sarkeesians notability is her commentary relating to the unwillingness of the University or campus police to take any action further to ensuring her safety or any other. Their opinion on the credibility of the bomb threat is not particularly relevant. ] (]) 22:28, 28 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> |
|
::::::Sorry, I just want to understand your point clearly. When you said "the crediblity is that.." did you mean that "there is no question whether..." or some such? If so, I think this fact is agreed, but then your point about that fact remains unclear. |
|
|
|
| education = {{Plainlist| |
|
::::::Let me also make sure I understand the intended meaning of your phrase "Sarkeedians notability is that...". Do you mean that her notability stems from that cancelled event, at least in part? If so, then that would seem all the more reason for the lead to include who cancelled the meeting. If the cancellation is so important, then shouldn't the reader know who cancelled it? It wouldn't be much of edit. It could be simply phrasing it as something like "She cancelled a meeting" vs. something like "the meeting was cancelled". |
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
::::::But more to the point, given that it's agreed that the cancellation is important because that why she's notable, so therefore it's important the reader of the lead understands who cancelled it, Anita, or the authorities? As it reads now the effect on the reader might well be the impression that the university or police, or state or federal authorities cancelled the event, instead of Anita. According to the more detailed description in the body of the article, it seems that they wanted the event to go on because the authorities thought the threats weren't credible, but she said no. ] (]) 06:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
:::::::Both the lede and body state that Sarkeesian cancelled the event. We can't put ''everything'' in the lede, so it's entirely appropriate to leave out minor details. ] (]) 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::::::Very well, I concede but will continue to look for ways to improve this article. ] (]) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| occupation = {{Flatlist| |
|
|
* Media critic |
|
|
* public speaker |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| website = {{URL|http://www.anitasarkeesian.com}} |
|
|
| module = {{Infobox YouTube personality|embed=yes |
|
|
| logo = |
|
|
| logo_caption = |
|
|
| pseudonym = |
|
|
| channel_name = feministfrequency |
|
|
| channel_display_name = Feminist Frequency |
|
|
| years_active = 2009–present |
|
|
| genre = Commentary |
|
|
| subscribers = 213 thousand |
|
|
| views = 33.7 million |
|
|
| network = |
|
|
| associated_acts = |
|
|
| catchphrase(s) = |
|
|
| silver_button = |
|
|
| silver_year = |
|
|
| gold_button = |
|
|
| gold_year = |
|
|
| diamond_button = |
|
|
| diamond_year = |
|
|
| stats_update = August 1, 2023 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
== A week of harassment posts == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
I was sitting on this idea since it was just on Tumblr (failing ] before even the word go), but now . Suggestions for inclusion? ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
:This should be included. ] (]) 15:55, 29 January 2015 (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}} |
|
::I'm not so sure. The source of these screenshots is Sarkeesian itself; Cohen/Mother Jones don't clearly claim to be vouching for their authenticity by having investigated and traced them, they are just taking her at her word, or as Sarkeesian puts it "Listen and Believe". On the other hand, Mother Jones do say that the FBI opened an investigation into these tweets, so it's clear that the authorities are aware of them. If/when the authorities authenticate these tweets as real, they could be included. A healthy skepticism is in order. These tweets could be fake. We don't want to be taken in, it could be a hoax. ] (]) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think it warrants any inclusion, it doesn't really expand on the article we have. However Chrisrus comments are irrelevant. A. again the opinion of the FBI is irrelevant (as is their taking part in any investigation). The credibility is the reliable source making the statement. B. It's not skepticism to deny the tweets exist, C. nor is it our role to deny what an authoritative reliable source states. The article name is "Here Are the 157 Hate Tweets a Feminist Faced in One Week" which shows that they are presenting such content with their editorial authority. The question is one of reliable sourcing, relevance and notability. The comments in the article about A Voice For Men is the first time I have seen such a group mentioned in conjunction with her name, but the relevance is minor nonetheless. The mention of the 9th of Feb engagement with the additional security measures is maybe notable as a passing comment in terms of reflecting on the refusal of Utah to take similar precautions. ] (]) 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The opinion of the FBI cannot be irrelevant! If they say that the tweets are credible, that would be powerful evidence. That the FBI has investigated these tweets must have seemed relevant to Cohen, the author of the Mother Jones article, because she saw fit to include this information in the article, so for what reason can we conclude that it is not? If the FBI said that the tweets are real, and that is reported somewhere ], we could say so, but Cohen simply presents them as real without mentioning how she knows this; she simply accepts them as fact. We might rightly state that Cohen believes that they are, but we can't say so ourselves. Certainly if the FBI concludes that they are, that will be relevant. The question is how reliable is this source on the authenticity of the tweets. ] (]) 20:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If and when reliable sources report that the FBI has commented about the threatening tweets, then that will be relevant. I think the Mother Jones piece is sufficient for us to say that Sarkesian reports that she receives a constant barrage of obscene and threatening tweets. However, we are not in a position to discuss their authenticity or lack thereof, unless a reliable source does so. ] ] 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The opinion of the FBI is routinely irrelevant when it comes to wikipedia. We don't have to wait for their authorisation to use a reliable source for wikipedia. We don't need their opinion of the credibility of vulgar tweets on the internet, and any legal action that they do or do not take is unlikely to be particularly relevant to wikipedia either. ] (]) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I repeat - the FBI have no say in what is a reliable source for a BLP. ] (]) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Chrisrus, the appropriate restraint we should use in relating this story to the reader will be met by being brief, by not spending too much time talking about it in detail. We don't have to wait for a more authoritative source than ''Mother Jones''. If the FBI chimes in later, we can ''add'' that information. ] (]) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Date of birth == |
|
== English templates == |
|
{{archive top|Find sources for this or leave it be, no ]. ] <small>]</small> 02:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
There has been no date of birth in this article for several years. How can there not be a source for Sarkeesian's birthday? I watched a 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. ] (]) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:No matter how often you repeat this; if there is no obvious source we're not about to magically produce the content you desire from thin air. ] (]) 01:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Re|Serinne}} Because, as you mentioned, the info must come from ] and none have been presented yet. If you know of any, please feel free to mention them here! ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 01:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::The people who responded are missing my point. What I can't understand is how there can be ZERO sources out there (RS or not) that have published Sarkeesian's DOB. That just seems strange. Also the Nightline segment mentions that she was doxxed - her SSN and home address were published, yet her DOB doesn't get published. I'm no hacker but how can that be, why would they leave out her DOB? ] (]) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Her being doxxes does not mean her DoB was published by RS. But if you can't believe there are no sources, ]. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
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