| Revision as of 15:12, 16 November 2012 view sourceSNAAAAKE!! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users96,243 edits →Interview with Global News← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 20 October 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,078,796 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 |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |class=C |living=yes |listas=Sarkeesian, Anita |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}} |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
{{WikiProject Blogging|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=low|class=c}}}} |
|
|
{{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= |
|
{{archivebox| |
|
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| author = Beat Metzler |
|
|
| title = Gamer-Sexismus auf der Abschussliste |
|
|
| org = '']'' (in German) |
|
|
| url = http://www.derbund.ch/digital/social-media/GamerSexismus-auf-der-Abschussliste/story/29625804 |
|
|
| date = 3 September 2014 |
|
|
| quote = "Ihr Misplaced Pages-Eintrag wurde mit Pornobildern verunstaltet."}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{pp-blp|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
==Reliable sources== |
|
|
|
|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 |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 19 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
| 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__ |
|
Since a number of editors seem to be unaware of it, here is the Misplaced Pages policy on reliable sources: ] Content which does not adhere to these guidelines, posted anywhere within Misplaced Pages, will be removed. Repeatedly reposting the same material, and not seeking consensus on the talkpage, is vandalism. ] (]) 02:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:It would also be helpful for editors with strong feelings on this subject to review ].--] (]) 14:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't see any evidence of ] on this talk page. Carrying out a discussion isn't not inherently tendentious--only insisting on forcing a conversation to keep going in spite of a clear consensus is tendentious (as are things like wikilawyering, civil POV pushing, etc.). If people can present good reliable sources criticizing Sarkeesian, the information may be appropriate for inclusion (though ideally not as a separate criticism section, per ]). The discussion above clearly shows someone who doesn't understand our sourcing/OR policy, not someone who is editing tendentiaously. Also, Euchrid is wrong to say that reposting info w/o seeking consensus is vandalism. In fact, ] explicitly says that neither POV pushing nor edit warring are vandalism. They can still lead to being blocked, but they are very definitely not vandalism. Yes, there were major problems before, but the semi-protection seems to have solved the worst of it. ] (]) 14:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good points.--] (]) 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Reversion == |
|
Looks like there are already enough reliable sources for this article but if more are needed this New York Times piece discusses the Kickstarter campaign and harassment in question. The story appeared on the front page (A1) of the August 2nd 2012 US edition of the paper. ] --] (]) 11:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's a good article, thank you. I added an item from it. It may be time to rewrite that section; we can simplify both what the attacks constituted and the response from the media, it doesn't need this much space.--] ]/] 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: I have to wonder why this blogger is a reliable source, but an article on a news site that responds to her ill-researched criticism is not reliable. Even when it showed that her points of view were condemning characters for the wrong reason. Talking about the destructoid article. The one that exhibited how unsuited she was for the task of criticizing women in gaming. Why is one random blogger a reliable source but another isn't? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::What blogger are you talking about? The above is an article in the New York Times...ie a professional journalist. ] (]) 02:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
== Ben Spurr == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
Do you think you should include the name of the guy who made the flash game? I found this article |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
saying who he is, plus others mention him. http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/7851/article/woman-receives-death-threats-for-confronting-bendilin-spurr-misogynist-game-designer/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I'm not sure. It seems like the game deserves maybe another sentence describing the response, though any more than that and it's veering too far away from the article's topic and onto gender-based conflict in gaming in general.] (]) 07:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Active Years == |
|
== Article fails to mention trolls == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
The "Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment" fails to mention that many of threats against Anita were not sincere, and were made with the intent of provoking angry responses. This is important information. |
|
|
|
| name = Anita Sarkeesian |
|
] (]) 05:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| image = Anita Sarkeesian headshot.jpg |
|
:: All that the article can discuss is the facts. Interpreting what was meant by the threats isn't up to us, and falls under ] ] (]) 05:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| image_size = |
|
:::It should also be noted that getting called on threats and intimidation, and then pretending that you weren't really serious, is a classic behavior of ]rs and other cowards and bullies. --] | ] 18:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| alt = |
|
:::: Except that for every sincere threat online there are at least 800 that are blowing smoke. Its almost a staple of the internet. Youtube is full of people that will say they will kick your ass but have no intent of doing it. Even 4chan, the source of most fulfilled internet threats probably has a fulfilled to empty ratio of 1 to every 5k. With 4chan and Youtube being the primary sites of sarkeesian threats, it can safely be concluded that it was trolling. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
| caption = Sarkeesian in 2011 |
|
|
| 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> |
|
|
| birth_place = |
|
|
| 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> |
|
|
| education = {{Plainlist| |
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| 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). |
|
== Article fails to mention criticism == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
This article is biased because it neglects any criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, and instead focuses on defending her. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Please point towards a reliable source which mentions some criticism and it'll be included in this article. ] (]) 06:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Could you also please be more specific about which statements you feel are defending the subject? ] (]) 06:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Regular lurker here, I found this: http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml ] (]) 20:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That article has already been posted and then taken down as a non-notable blog. ] (]) 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: How about these: ''Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate'' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI) and ''Anita Sarkeesian Part 2: Burqa Beach Party'' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI). What constitutes what counts as a notable source? --] (]) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: This article lays out the reliable source guidelines pretty clearly - ] YouTube videos count, for the most part, as self- published sources, and hence are not reliable. ] (]) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: So, because most YouTube videos are not reliable you are not even going to review these? I guess you could always just say it is non-notable if you don't agree with the message. --] (]) 12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please refrain from ] and ]. At Misplaced Pages we are obligated to write from a ] using ]. Generally speaking, ] does not consider self-published video rants on YouTube to be reliable sources. If you can locate some reliable sources that support your personal personal complaints with Ms. Sarkeesian it would be grounds for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Please remember that ] and that there is a heightened need for accuracy in this article due to the fact that Ms. Sarkeesian is a ]. Thanks. ] (] | ]) 13:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's right, we have to be especially careful with sources when writing anything negative about a living person. The biographies of living persons guideline, which ] linked to, is very clear on this. As a new user, I'd recommend that you familiarize yourself with things like that before criticizing others. ] (]) 02:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I reviewed the first portion of "Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate". It is an interesting analysis, but as far as I can tell, it is anonymous and self published. In order for a publication (video, blog, or print)to be considered a reliable secondary source, it at least has to be published by a recognized publisher with editorial control. --] (]) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Agreed, it's absolutely one of the most cogently argued cases I've heard, and I certainly wouldn't class it with the trolling and harassment that she's received. That doesn't change the facts of the notability policy, though ] (]) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:''"it neglects any criticism of Anita Sarkeesian"'' I don't quite understand. Doesn't the section on her Kickstarter project make it clear that there is a lot of criticism of her?--] (]) 19:42, 15 July 2012 (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) |
|
I was just going to ask the same question. I thought censorship was against Misplaced Pages's principles? It's not just "YouTube videos", one of the video game journalist sites that covered her story was critical. ] (]) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (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) |
|
:Which site is that--Destructoid? As explained above, that's just one blogger's personal opinion, which is not the sort of thing we include in Misplaced Pages. Look, this is extremely simple: provide us some good quality ] that criticize her. Then we can include the info. ] (]) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:''censorship was against Misplaced Pages's principle'' You are confusing censorship with neutral point of view. Censorship is essential to Misplaced Pages. Anything that is not supported by a reliable secondary source gets censored.--] (]) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Censorship is forbidding other people from saying things. Misplaced Pages can't do that. Misplaced Pages articles likewise cannot include everything anyone has ever said about a person. The fact that Sarkessian has been criticised is very well covered in this article - the majority of the Kickstarter section lists the things that were said. I know because I wrote much of it. If you want the article to say that those things were true, well I'm afraid that that isn't going to happen, in the name of neutrality.] (]) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ref talk}} |
|
== Anti-Modern Feminism and Anti-Sex positivism == |
|
|
I feel like the article should work in how she has consistently opposed other feminist movements and sex positive movements. She is much more conservative and pro-censorship and I feel the article needs to mention this in addition to accurately describing her worldview she puts forward. ] (]) 02:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: Do you have a ] that states that? ] (]) 02:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I think I found one but I'm not sure if it's a RS. Would a comment from Anita on youtube be considered a reliable source since it is from her?] (]) 02:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: No, that would be considered a primary source. Secondary coverage characterizing what she said on the video (in a reliable source) would be acceptable. Visit ] to find out what constitutes independent reliable sources. ] (]) 02:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Thanks! I'm just reading through that now and I'm seeing "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" so would an article on her blog where she comes out against SlutWalk which is a sex positive movement be allowed because it is a self-published source about herself? Sorry if that sounds slightly convoluted. ] (]) 02:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, that would be your personal interpretation of the primary source, and that's never acceptable. Clearly she's not describing herself as "pro-censorhip" or "opposing other feminist movements".] ]/] 02:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::From her Slut Walk Article: "I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk, for the name and for the unstrategic organizing which sadly, seems to ignores the systemic and institutional issues of rape culture, victim blaming and well, radical feminism." I'm not sure how I could be interpreting that wrong as she clearly states her dislike of SlutWalk. I never mentioned "pro-censorhip" or "opposing other feminist movements" so I'm not sure why you're thinking I'm saying that she has those views. From my understanding (which I admit is limited) it should be allowed because it meets all 5 points of criteria for a Self-published source. ] (]) 02:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/05/link-round-up-feminist-critiques-of-slutwalk/ - Thought I should provide the article so it could be reviewed. ] (]) 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The initial poster certainly did use the terms "pro-censorship" or "opposing other feminist movements", and you responded directly to a question posed to them. If you want to say something different, please indicate what it is so we can determine whether the use is appropriate. To reiterate, primary sources ''may'' be used in some circumstances, sparingly and with great caution, but interpretation of primary sources is never acceptable.] ]/] 02:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: I responded here since the OP and the header also indicate that this discussion is about potential Anti-Sex positivism views Anita may hold. I don't think any interpretation was made, her direct quote is "I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk". Since not many third party sources will likely be found on this topic but she herself admits it I think in this circumstance it should be allowed. ] (]) 03:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think that it's important to fully capture Sarkeesian's position in the Misplaced Pages article, but I don't think that the Slutwalk source is useful, for two reasons. Firstly, it's primarily a round-up of other sources, which aren't all saying the same thing, and as such aren't useful in an article about Sarkeesian, except to infer that she agrees withi them to some degree. Secondly, she doesn't elucidate her own reasons for being against Slutwalk to any great detail - it seems like an off-the-cuff comment, rather than a fully developed position, and not a sufficently prominent part of her broader argument / worldview to merit inclusion. ] (]) 03:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::The fact that it's a roundup does not mean that it cannot be used, because the part being referenced is her personal opinion. And we cannot insist that she provides reasons for her position. The only grounds on which this can be opposed is ]--that is, whether her opinion on this random subject is important enough for inclusion. On that point, I'm not sure; I'd lean towards keeping it out, since I'm sure Sarkeesian has expressed lots of opinions in her blog and vlog, and we certainly don't want to list every single one of them. But we need to follow policies when we decide what to include or not include. ] (]) 03:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::The source could, if we determined it necessary, be used to indicate that Sarkeesian is critical of Slut Walk. It ''cannot'' be used to indicate that she is "Anti-Sex Positivism", "Anti-Modern Feminism", or anything else that the source doesn't say directly. As to what it ''does'' say, we'd still have to have some reason to include it, and I don't see one. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a list of all the things the subject has ever said or written about. The fact that no secondary sources mention it is probably a good indication that it's not noteworthy enough to include.--] ]/] 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}I agree. Per ], "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In the case of YouTube videos, I'm not sure we'd want to use these to establish ''any'' fact concerning a BLP without a reliable secondary. ] (]) 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:This may be a useful reference.--] (]) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::But on reading it, you learn that Sarkeesian has said some nuanced things about SlutWalk that don't fit the tidy sound-bite description of her which started this section. --] | ] 18:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Should this article include the nuanced things?--] (]) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't think so. Sarkeesian is a commentator, which means that she has expressed opinions on a wide variety of things. Trying to list every single one of them would bloat the article and violate ]. Only the core points of her position need to be in the article, and I don't feel like her stance on SlutWalk is one of them. ] (]) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sorry I forgot the original post in this section--Cuchullain and BusterD are absolutely right--even if we do use this source, we can only state exactly what it says, which is that she disagrees in part with the term "SlutWalk", not to say that she generally is anti-sex positive or whatever. ] (]) 01:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== English templates == |
|
== Interview with ''Global News'' == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Sarkeesian was recently interviewed by ''Global News''. Not sure if there's anything useful in there, but here's the source: http://www.globalnews.ca/16x9/video/dangerous+game+tropes+vs+women+bullying/video.html?v=2299118976&p=1&s=dd#video. ] (]) 22:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd say that it's at least worth mentioning that it happened. ] (]) 06:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Why? It's just another interview, one of dozens. --] | ] 14:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::To my knowledge it's the first time that she's been interviewed on TV news, so it represents a new level of exposure and recognition. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, though. ] (]) 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Being interviewed = "a new level of exposure and recognition"? More like a new level of scrapping a barrel (the program was really stupid anyway, because people trolling on the Internet and 13-year-old gamers is not "news" and surely is not reserved to harrassing women). And hey, where's this web series of hers? Even her blog had no other updates for over 3 months since August 1 after posting a pic of posing with a pile of random games (which included ] 1 & 2 for "research the sexism" in the games with no human beings or even organic life forms, and which is like her "playing a game" with a controller turned off in the trailer - she's such an expert). Also, a RS view on all this from a different perspecive: (back from September, and of course over 2 months later the series is still "upcoming", forevermore). --] (]) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (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}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_Internet_Culture_logo.svg){kind=link}
Sarkeesian in 2011