Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 7 January 2015

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why isn't there more criticism of Sarkeesian or her work? A1: Misplaced Pages policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand, and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources. See the talk page archives for previous discussions on individual sources. Q2: I found a YouTube video/blog entry/customer review/forum thread that presents criticism of Sarkeesian's work. A2: Those kinds of self-published and/or user-generated sources do not comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. In particular, the biographies of living persons policy prohibits any self-published sources in articles on living people except for a few very specific cases. Including such sources would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. Q3: I think I may have found a new reliable source that presents a viewpoint not yet covered in the article(s). A3: You are welcome to bring any source up for discussion on the talk page, and the community will determine whether and how it may be included. However, first check the talk page archives to see if it has been discussed before.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Sarkeesian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find video game sources: "Anita Sarkeesian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 20 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Anita Sarkeesian. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Anita Sarkeesian at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Sarkeesian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find video game sources: "Anita Sarkeesian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 20 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Blogging (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Jack Manifold (2 participants) Gameplay of World of Warcraft (4 participants) Pokémon Trading Figure Game (1 participant) Buff Technologies (3 participants) Imakuni? (3 participants) Tetr.io (7 participants) Benedikt Johannes Hofer (6 participants) Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor (23 participants) Double Fine Comics (3 participants; relisted) Westballz (2 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) Ethan Winters (nom) Good article nominations Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Gardevoir (nom) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Cry of Fear (nom) Aperture Desk Job (nom) A Space for the Unbound (start) The Sims: Livin' Large (nom) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (252) screenshots (9,030) photos (72) translation from japan (187) creation merging

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Beat Metzler (3 September 2014). "Gamer-Sexismus auf der Abschussliste". Der Bund (in German). Ihr Misplaced Pages-Eintrag wurde mit Pornobildern verunstaltet.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Template:Gamergate sanctions

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: A long list

So Apparently No Critiques Allowed?

Any reason why this discussion was closed? We are not using it as a forum. I was questioning his point of view and asking him to explain his points. Breckham101 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times criticism of A.S's work

Neil Steinberg provides the lone dot of critical description of "Tropes" in the canon of "reliable" (i.e: in tune with the editorial lines of the media outlets) description of the article subject, which is otherwise a solid wall of gushing praise. He, of course, ritually engages in the obligatory two minutes' hate of Sarkeesian's supposedly misogynist critics. But he has some nuggets of actual description of some of the flaws in Sarkeesian's output.

″Given that men in these games are there mostly to be bloodily mowed down with a chain gun, focusing on the women and their roles as sex objects who “almost never get to be anything other than set-dressing or props in someone else’s narrative” seems to miss the point. I couldn’t tell whether Sarkeesian is calling for the women in these games to be given some clothes, or for the creation of new games where female heroes visit death upon cringing, semi-nude men.″

Then after some more attacks on her strawman "attackers" (emphases mine):

″Those who would intimdate and harass and silence her, however, also tend to silence those who take legitimate exception to certain arguments she makes, and would poke holes in her thesis, but are reluctant to even seem to be on the side of her vile enemies (Sarkeesian notes that, having gunned down women, the player is “free to go about business as if nothing had happened.” Which had me asking: “As opposed to what? Standing trial at the Hague?”).

How she differs from Tipper Gore railing against rock music or Congress investigating comic books in the 1950s is a matter of style — it’s all censorship disguised as moral righteousness. She leaps to lay real-world problems at the feet of video games — “these systems facilitate violence against women by turning it into a form of play, something amusing or entertaining” offering no evidence, ignoring the fact that women get the worst treatment in the most underdeveloped regions, places generally free of Xbox. Those who claim violence in video games fosters real violence are like those who claim the fluoride in our water is poisonous: were it true, we’d all be dead.″

It is important to note that Steinberg's criticism is also the substance of Phil Mason's critique of Sarkeesian, and most likely why he is so wildly popular. And why many are desperate to remove his massively influential and deeply notable work on this subject off the agenda. It's got to be why no newspaper has done an interview with him to balance out their fawning adoration of Anita.Bramble window (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/30494970-452/vile-foes-of-feminist-game-critic-miss-mark.html#.VIw6Wn-ehfs

Could you clarify what actually you think would be appropriate for the article? I can see a small amount of it as valid for the actual Tropes article (he barely even mentions the video content which is a weak spot), and some of it is relevant to Gamergate but likely already covered in that article well enough, but very little of this actually makes any sense for reception or criticism of Anita. Your highlighted sections in particular are amongst the weakest elements, and quoting them out of context, denying them any coherence, to contrive a point seems a bit odd. Koncorde (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bramble window, please remember that we're not here to discuss the topic among ourselves and that you should avoid expressing your personal opinions on the subject. I haven't read the article yet, at least not carefully, but I personally trust everyone's judgement - including yours. The source doesn't appear obviously unreliable to me, I encourage you to include it in the article. Perhaps, since you refer to another detractor who has his Misplaced Pages page, create a criticism subsection somewhere? Expand the "Awards and commentary" section? Just remember what Q1 and Q2 say.

Then, if someone have a problem with that, they'll comment here. I figure you followed the third faq's advice and started a discussion first, but I fail to see how that makes any sense given the nature of Misplaced Pages: «everyone can edit», not «everyone can propose an edit». Heinerj (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I was attempting to be collaborative: Heinberg's criticism is sorely needed in the article which is presently simple hagiography. Should wikipedia paraphrase Heinberg? Quote him extensively? Refer to him as one of an army of people making similar criticisms, or continue with the text as if nobody else was making the same points? Important questions for a supposedly collaborative editorial team to hash out, I thought. Would you really prefer I stampede into the text like a bull at a gate and get accused of vandalism? Bramble window (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about: you shoudn't fear any accusation of vandalism if you've got good intentions and have a reliable source. I doubt someone will have something against you for one or two sourced senteces. However, if you prefer to discuss the source with the others because you think that its inclusion might be controversial, let's wait and see what everyone has to say.Heinerj (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems like another fine reliable source to use to insert criticism of the subject. We have quite a few reliable sources now representing varying views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Before I begin, Neil Steinberg has an article. Second, this is more something to put into Tropes vs. Women if at all. Third, I am against inclusion. Neil does not say anything substantive and the tone of his article is all over the place. I've got a couple of other nitpicks about things he is straight up lying about, (censorship, use of the third world argument) but that isn't the thrust of the point. Zero Serenity 17:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for inclusion where and however appropriate, but I am concerned by the initial propositions tone, and the emphasis applied. The content itself is worth what it's worth when you're able to actually parse it into coherency. Koncorde (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose something along the lines of "Sarkeesian has received criticism for her failure to produce evidence to support her assertion that the content of video games "facilitates" misogynist violence in the real world." Then a link to the Heinberg article. And if it ever makes it into a RS, we can later add a link to Phil Mason's identical criticism. Bramble window (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We will never be adding Mason's criticism. He does not even come close to WP:RS for WP:BLP. Zero Serenity 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What, so if Mason's work were to be favorably reviewed in a reliable source by a notable reviewer, you'd oppose inclusion? Bramble window (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd still oppose inclusion, because that's a mere argument from authority. Mason's just this loudmouthed belligerent chemist with a YouTube account: notable (marginally) but not in any sense a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You've misread my post. I didn't call him a reliable source, because he obviously doesn't fit WP's specific criteria for RS. I note you mention that he is loudmouthed and belligerent as if that had some bearing on his accuracy. My understanding of WP policy is that if PM were reviewed favourably in a reliable source, that would make the content of the review automatically eligible for inclusion per policy. Bramble window (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If Phil Mason was quoted as a critic, we could mention him as a critic. If his criticisms were specifically outlined by an RS as "criticisms" then we could make reference to those also, but the inclusion would be contextual. What we wouldn't do is actually quote Phil Mason unless he was subject to the same standards of an RS (i.e. he'd have to be employed by a paper with editorial oversight) etc. etc. An interview in a reliable source would be an opinion, but potentially valid - depending again on context (i.e. referring to Sarkeesian / Tropes vs Women directly etc). Lots of permutations of where the line is drawn. Koncorde (talk) 19:22, 13 December

To get back to your proposal, it is inappropriately utilizing one source to expansively attribute claims about her criticism. So as proposed no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 2014 (UTC)

So how would you propose to include the much-needed criticism from the reliable source? I'm very curious. Bramble window (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom is right, it's just an opinion of a single man and we should treat it like that until we have more. Reliable it's reliable and looks like no one doubts that so I've tried to add it in the Awards and commentary section. Maybe it's not the best place, feel free to move it. Heinerj (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the second sentence "but criticized the lack of evidence supporting the correlation between certain videogames and real-life misogyny" as it's not clear he is referring specifically to Sarkeesian (in which case supporting studies and documentation is provided for each video...what qualifies as "evidence" though?) or just generally making the point there is no evidence for anything supporting feminist theories as it tags onto the part relating to Tipper Gore / moral outrage type stuff. Would rephrase to something along the lines of "but questioned Sarkeesians in-game expectations and the lack of immediate evidence relating to the impact of the video game medium." or something. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable, I edited to avoid any confusion. I don't want anyone to hold back their criticism or anything, but please, let's not over-discuss this. If a detail is wrong just edit! Heinerj (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Zero Serenity, please explain your last revert. If you think that a couple of sentences really could break the flow of the article, perhaps you could change the phrasing? Or maybe you don't find the source reliable? A couple of editors here seem to consider necessary the inclusion of the quote and your personal view on the article is not enough a reason to remove it. We shouldn't really discuss consensus on something so simple. We are quoting indirectly a well-sourced criticism, it's common practice. Heinerj (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statements are contradictory for starters, as well as you seem to want to avoid conversation about its worthiness. I don't trust this at all, and your presentation of it still warrants closer scrutiny as others have said this doesn't fit. Zero Serenity 01:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, tell me where I wasn't clear (or contradictory, as you said). I can't still quite understand why you think we shouldn't include the quote. What aren't you trusting? What do you mean with worthiness? All I said was that "its worthiness" is not something we should discuss. I'll ask one again: do you think it's unreliable?

Anyway, if you are so concerned let's see what other editors have to say. Heinerj (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including this article per se, but what his point is I don't quite understand. He states that her series is necessary, but disagrees with the reasons Sarkeesian herself gives without offering anything else? Not sure whether that is the best thing to quote. I would probably pick out that Steinberg says he is confused as to what her exact goals are. Not the greatest point but at least he does state this and manages not to contradict himself about it. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is not contradictory: you can praise someone's work and still find some flaws in it. E.g. Virginia Woolf is a wonderful and influential writer, but I think she's superficial when she talks about death. Heinerj (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He's not pointing to an aspect that he doesn't like though, instead he states that he finds her work both necessary and pointless, which is a direct contradiction. Which is why my recommendation as per above still stands. Cupidissimo (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several relevant points that merit inclusion. One is the connection with Andrea Dworkin (calling her tame by comparison), a connection also made by two other sources (Cathy Young) and the one by Reason.com (this one which explains "what specific theories Anita relies on that are related to Dworkin", which Zero Serenity asked for). There's three reliable sources making that connection now, one of them in detail.

Another interesting point stated in the source is that, because of the brutality and loudness of her attackers, people are afraid of making legitimate criticism of her ideas and her work (such as the one offered below, i.e. that "she leaps to lay real-world problems at the feet of video games, offering no evidence") for fear of being lumped together with those. You may agree or not with this, but this is legitimate analysis from a RS of the reasons why there's no more criticism, given the current high profile of her work. Diego (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not actually the case. The reference is vague, unspecific and tenuous, Dworkin's quote is rather general and not unique to Dworkin. There is no significant overlap between Sarkeesian's and Dworkin's positions, and these articles don't prove otherwise. You are still grasping at straws to include a controversial-sounding name for absolutely no reason, and to keep bringing up articles that have been discussed before and were not included to prove your point accomplishes the opposite of that. Cupidissimo (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I too can't see why this source shouldn't be used, nor why it was removed from the article. Chicago Sun-Times is a reliable source on par with the several major newspapers already included as references. Diego (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Literal quote: "This seeming contradiction is tied to longstanding tensions between some strands of feminist cultural criticism and sex workers. Sarkeesian's criticism of video games is in a tradition of feminist analysis that goes back to the 1980s, when theorists like Andrea Dworkin argued that "Pornography is used in rape—to plan it, to execute it, to choreograph it, to engender the excitement to commit the act." (and then it goes on for two more sentences in the same paragraph, in a piece that is dedicated in full to how Sarkeesian's work has been received by a collective of women). @Cupidissimo, what's vague, unspecific or tenous about this? This is detailed content about Sarkeesian from a RS about a point that two other independent sources have also noticed, which is much more weight than some of the opinions included in the Commentary section. It's not the job of editors to second-guess what professional journalist decide to write about with respect to this topic, and we have already included in the article content much more tenuous than this - we should merely compile and summarize what reliable sources have said about it. There's simply no argument given for excluding this content that has been grounded in policy.

And one more time, as I said to Zero Serenity, please focus on the content and references provided and not in editor behavior, as the topic is subject to special administrative sanctions. Diego (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You are failing to suggest any actual edits though. The edit that we are discussing here isn't discussing Dworkin at all. So I'd say, write an edit that can be discussed instead of defending an edit that nobody actually made. Cupidissimo (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cupidissimo, the source doesn't call anything pointless or necessary. That's your inference (wrong, I dare say) and it's not something we should discuss here. My reasoning still stands: someone can praise someone's work and still find some flaws in it.

Diego I don't think that using more than two sentences on this particular piece is a good idea. If you don't think my two sentences represent the article, please do edit them, but I don't find Steinberg relevant enough to expand his ideas in this article. Maybe, since you seem to think you can relate his criticism to someone else's, you could expand the article on the video series, like Zero Serenity said before. Heinerj (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would edit them, but they are no longer in the article. There's no way to reach an WP:EDITCONSENSUS if there's nothing left to edit upon. As I said, I don't think your edit should have been removed, it was valid content. As the opposition for its inclusion isn't based in policy (so far we have "No concensus for inclusion" - well, there's no consensus for exclusion either, and Cupidissimo finding the RS contradictory, which again isn't a reason not to cover it), and the reasons for including it include WP:RS, WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:WEIGHT, I'm restoring it. Other editors may feel free to improve the wording to what they think better reflects this reliable source. We could use it also at Tropes vs. Women, but that's never been a reason not to have it here too. Diego (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's not discuss this over and over again and let's stay in topic. If someone has a problem, that's fine, but make sure it's in one of these categories:

• The source isn't reliable
• The source isn't adequately represented
• The source isn't notable or relevant enough to be included

We're not here to discuss worthiness or vagueness, whatever these words mean. KIS: state your valid criticism and wait for others to discuss it and just it. Heinerj (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My point was: Due to his vague wording, it's difficult to represent certain aspects of his argument accurately: They are not clear (to me at least). Which is why I suggested to use a different aspect of the article. I didn't argue against its inclusion. Cupidissimo (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, first off, I think we've established that the Sun-Times column can be used; it's an official column by a professional columnist for a respected publication. I have no idea why Diego insists on confusing things by bringing other sources into the discussion of this one; we need to focus on the topic at hand or the discussion is sure to be derailed.

Steinberg covers several things in his piece. The main thrust of it is that the "vile foes" and "angry obsessives" just bring more attention to Sarkeesian, and tend to prevent others from critiquing her points out of fear of being associated with the crowd. He then offers a few critiques of his own, of one of her videos, saying negative as well as positive things.

We need to get this right, because while the harassment material more belongs in this article, his critiques of the video more belong in the Tropes article. This is really a problem we created ourselves by allowing the series to be split off into an unnecessary fork, ensuring that both articles are redundant and in perpetually poor shape.--Cúchullain /c 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've brought other sources because, in case you didn't notice, one of the points made by Steinberg was also made by the others as well; that makes it reasonable to consider them together and see how to give due weight to what they have in common. Someone asked what points in the reference should be covered, I proposed three (including the original one introduced by Bramble window). Two of them were picked up for discussion, the other one remains unexplored. Doh. That doesn't 'derail' anything. I can wait until the other points are discussed to see what to do about the other sources.

I don't agree that all commentary of her work should be placed at Tropes vs Women; that series is specific to video games, and content about games or and specific points in the videos can be covered there in greater detail. But that doesn't mean that those can't also be covered here more generally (we have a guideline on how to handle this, so there's nothing problematic about this fairly common structure) and commentary about her views on feminism often concern her general style, not anything particular of the Tropes videos, so they're also relevant here - otherwise we wouldn't have the quotes from Rolling Stones and Humphreys/Vered. Diego (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

They don't make the same point at all. Young says, in passing and without any evidence, that Sarkeesian "sometimes relies" on Dworkin. The Reason article, which you've dropped out of nowhere into this thread, says that Sarkeesian is (supposedly) part of the anti-sex feminist tradition which famously includes Dworkin. However, Steinberg says that Sarkeesian is not like Dworkin. There's no connection to be made here, and yes, this is a distraction from dealing with the actual topic of the thread.--Cúchullain /c 20:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't need to show their evidence at each step, right? We trust them to have done their homework. And the Reason article does show evidence, and it's not in passing. Steinberg says that Sarkeesian is tame in comparison with Dworkin, thus comparable. So, even not equal, they're in the same scale. As the actual topic of the thread is "what appears in Steinbergs piece", and the comment about Dworkin appears in the Dworkin piece, your insistence that we *must not* talk about it is distracting. And also irrelevant, as I've already accepted that we can open a different thread to talk about it. A thread where you should explain why you think a connection that has been noted by three different reliable sources should not be included in the article. Diego (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Steinberg says the opposite of what Reason says and what Young passingly refers to: that Sarkeesian is not like Dworkin. And none of them make this any significant part of their critique. Sorry, this is a non-starter. Time to move on and get back to discussing things that could actually go in the article.-Cúchullain /c 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And what do we do when several reliable sources say different things about the same idea? Exactly, we report about all of them, per WP:Neutral point of view. If you don't want to wait to a separate thread to discuss this part of the Steinberg piece, we can keep discussing it here, as it's clear that this has enough weight to go into the article - it is more reliably sourced than some content already included in it. Diego (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No one else but you appears to think this is the "same idea". And even if your "connection" was real, it would be an exceedingly minor point in all of the articles. You're fixating on material that's at *most* insignificant, to the detriment of discussion that could actually produce changes to the article. This isn't the first time.--Cúchullain /c 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First, no one is stopping anyone from commenting about other things; there's no way my comments can be seen as preventing other discussion. You keep commenting on my actions in a negative way, and discouraging other editors from participating is WP:OWN behavior; so don't do that.

Second, I wouldn't insist to include what you see as minor points if the article didn't already include a large amount of minor content from other sources. If you agreed to apply the same standards of what counts as significant to all the sources in the article, I would accept that a full paragraph of analysis on feminism theory could be excluded per due weight, same as a passing comment in the lead of an interview and a caption in a gallery about dozens of other women, if these were also excluded. Diego (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There's obviously no "OWN" issue here, as you continue filling the section with more comments. There's a growing IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue, however. Your comments would cause a lot less friction if you'd issue them in a more productive way. Stop going off on tangents, for starters. If there's a specific problem with other sources or material, as always, feel free to discuss them on their own merits. However, as you've been told repeatedly, the presence of (supposedly) problematic other material doesn't justify introducing your own problematic material that's unsuitable on its face.--Cúchullain /c 19:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

workshop

• Neil Steinberg says that because of the vile harassment that has been aimed at Sarkeesian other potentially legitimate critiques of her work have not been made because the critics fear being lumped in with the harassment.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) expanded with something like: ...although there are legitimate critiques to be made. That's an important part of Steinberg's article, not including it would skew the stance made at his article. Also, STICKTOSOURCE: Steinberg said "those who intimidate and harass and silence her", not "vile harassment" (nor "potentially"). Taking this into account, that's in the line of becoming a valid summary of an important point made by that piece. Diego (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's do this. Without discussing the wording of the proposition, it looks to me that we should include at least these three elements:

• praise of activism, because it's a positive comment and we don't want to reference only the negative one.
• lack of evidence, because it's a strong accusation, I think far stronger than the next point.
• lack of legitimate critique because of the hate mob following her.

I still find the third point to be slightly irrelevant. Heinerj (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Neil Steinberg places Sarkeesian in line of critics who have helped "nudge us toward that happy day" when society is less sexist. However, he faults her arguments that lack evidence to support them and states that because of the vile harassment that has been aimed at Sarkeesian, other potentially legitimate critiques of her work have not been made because the critics fear being lumped in with the harassment.

v2 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's quite good, in fact. Put "vile harassment" in quotes, or better yet drop "vile" (the harassment is not directly defined as such, only indirectly in the title - so that would be '...harassment by "vile foes"...') and that could go in the article. Diego (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• In his column for the Chicago Sun-Times, Neil Steinberg praised Sarkeesian's activism, but criticized her work because it doesn't offer evidence supporting the correlation between certain video games and real-life misogyny. He also stated that other potentially legitimate critiques of her work are held back because commentators may fear being lumped in with the harassment.

I'm sorry, but I still can't see the problem with my previous two sentences. Praising her activism (we know what kind is that from the rest of the article) and criticizing her work is exactly what he does.Heinerj (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• In his column for the Chicago Sun-Times, Neil Steinberg praised Sarkeesian's activism, but he criticized her work because it doesn't offer evidence supporting the correlation between certain video games and real-life misogyny. He also stated that because commentators may fear being lumped in with the harassment, other potentially legitimate critiques of her work are infrequent.

Changed some things, trying to be concise. Heinerj (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The real bent of the piece, especially as it relates to Sarkeesian herself, is that the harassment and criticism also tend to silence people who "take legitimate exception to certain arguments she makes, and would poke holes in her thesis", who don't want to be associated with Sarkeesian's "vile enemies". The specific "legitimate exceptions" he makes are tied to just the one video (and are a bit difficult to follow), and serve mostly to make his main point: that no one is making points like that because they don't want to be associated with the harassers. I think that's what we need to get across here; perhaps some of the specifics could be brought up at the Tropes article.--Cúchullain /c 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Tied to one video"? It is basically one of the central points behind her entire body of work! On a related note, Erik Kain has also cited the reluctance of the press to criticize Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Steinberg's specifically referring to one of the "Background Decoration" videos.--Cúchullain /c 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why be so precious about quoting him exactly, rather than giving an entirely fair summation? Here's an example: "Heinberg makes it clear that he sees Sarkeesian's arguments as containing significant holes. He criticises her for making extraordinary claims without evidence about the way games supposedly "facilitate" violence in the real world. He mocks Sarkeesian for missing the point for her complaint about game characters not suffering consequences for misdeeds committed during gameplay. He sarcastically suggests that Sarkeesian would prefer the game character be tried for war crimes". Rather more importantly, Sarkeesian's wild unsupported claim about video games "facilitating" violence in the real world should be in the lede. It's not likely she got attacked and harassed by idiots because those idiots really hate hoop earrings. Apart from that claim, there's really nothing notable about her videos: it's not much more than just a talking head reading turgid 1970's gender war propaganda. If we're really giving this person an article, we sort of have to draw attention to the only vaguely interesting thing in her output. Kind of like an article about Shakespeare that neglects to mention Hamlet. Bramble window (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing actionable article improvements, not for airing your personal thoughts on the subject, and they're certainly not for disparaging living people. Your comments are entirely inappropriate and appear to be escalating.--Cúchullain /c 23:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of my post is two specific "actionable article improvements", along with an argument for the need for the 2nd suggestion. I barely even touch on my personal views. How about you concentrate on the important parts of the post and make an argument for or against them? Bramble window (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How about you quit violating WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:TPG, and disparaging living people? It's really not optional.--Cúchullain /c 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As has been said by several other editors, the material belongs in Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, not here. This article is about a person, not a work. Criticism (or praise) of her work belongs in the article about the work, not here. This is not a coatrack. Also, per WP:BLP, please refrain from sharing personal opinions and/or criticisms on the talk page. Kaldari (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me. When I saw the attack on living person Phil Mason pass without censure or even comment I figured that the norms had become less rigid. Will I expect to see you finally protest at the attack on Dr. Mason or are you done now?Bramble window (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior begins and ends with you. Stop violating the talk page rules, period.--Cúchullain /c 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Readwrite source

I've reverted Diego Moya's bold addition of text on this freelance author's "guestimation" that Sarkeesian spent $15,000 on equipment. This topic was discussed here and on my talk page here, and there's no call to break up the flow of the sentence by adding this minor point (The $15,000 is just what the author says she can easily account for; the point of the piece is that she thinks Sarkeesian should explain her plans for the rest of her money). This source and material is already included at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (and has been since it was created); in fact, this is section on the production of the video series is redundant with the fork, and probably needs be worked down into a summary.--Cúchullain /c 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Koncorde's change works perfectly, thanks for that. Though we do need to hammer out the redundancy between this article and the fork.--Cúchullain /c 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the drive by edit, just saw there was an obvious solution. Also, yes, the fork is still a mess. Koncorde (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And I've restored the paragraph to the previous version that stood in place for more than a year (minus Knocorde's tweaking of the second half), now that this text has been reverted. The change was not a "bold addition", it was a relocation of content from the references section to the main text; if there was something bold, it was me trying to address the concerns you stated about the long quotes within the reference; in the same move I had also expanded the Jesse Singal's sentence to keep them at similar weight. I made this change as an attempt of compromise; as you reject the compromise, the previous long-standing consensus needs to be restored in order to keep the previous WP:BALANCE, WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT. Your plain removal of the attempted compromise text leaves all the other accompanying changes in place, without keeping the payload that made them acceptable.

BTW, the problem with the version you (twice) reverted to, is that it doesn't properly represent the source. The main point in the source is not that the quality increased, but that technical equipment needed for that increase amounts to 10% of the budget; thus the need to provide a detailed financial breakdown to explain what the author perceives as a discrepancy. By mentioning that Eördögh "stated that the production quality of the videos had increased from her previous works" without describing her analysis of that increase, undue weight is given to this point, which is accessory to the core argument. Diego (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof‎, the version that you're reverting represents what the linked source says about the topic, and has been standing in the article as the WP:CONSENSUS version for a year. If you want to change it to something else, you have to discuss it here first. Diego (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that Sarkeesian spent $160,000 on a single video, and thus "needs to explain where the money went" is a weak, not to say completely exploded and worthless, argument. At this point, it's obvious where the money is going — the series is a long-term project over a number of years. There's no evidence that the author is an expert in the costs of video production, and thus the "guesstimate" is of dubious value. As previously noted, the cost of equipment is a small fraction of the cost of making a video; significant labor is involved in videography, sound, editing, etc. The author makes no attempt to quantify these costs — therefore, for our article to suggest that the true cost of production is anything remotely resembling $15,000 is misleading in the extreme. The source's analysis of video production costs is, at best, weak, and we have no need of including weak analysis. It's enough to state the author's primary argument that Sarkeesian should find a way to be more transparent with costs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No one's suggesting that Sarkeesian spent $160,000 on a single video, nor that $15,000 is the true cost of production, so that's a strawman fallacy. It doesn't matter that you think the argument is weak; estimating the costs of equipment is still the primary argument made by the source, and it should be properly represented in the text. I see that you're not addressing any of the arguments about balance, weight and consensus that I've made, and that make your last revert unacceptable. Diego (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This freelance writer's guestimation of $15k is not a significant point, as we already determined in the . This is another example of Diego fixating on insignificant details to the detriment of accurately and clearly conveying what the source is saying. I'm sorry, but a single editor should not be allowed to force his preference or to hold up needed changes.

Honestly, this is one of the weakest sources we currently use. It's from a fairly minor tech news website and the author is not a staff member. ReadWrite does have an editorial policy but it appears they invite anyone to publish and don't appear to pay their "guest writers. In other words, it's a group blog. Not saying we should exclude it entirely, but it's already cited (saying basically the same thing) in the Tropes fork. We simply do not need production information on the series cited to iffy sources here.--Cúchullain /c 14:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's speculation. If we're going to quote the $15k then we should quote the entire context - which is unreasonably undue weight. The crux of the issue is the request for a break down of the money and an urge for transparency. The requested break down of the money is the $160k, not $160k less $15k speculation. Koncorde (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain, this is a BLP, we have to get it right. This means discussing the details, that's what we're here to do. Participation is not mandatory; if you find this conversation tiresome, nobody is forcing you to discuss it. Yet complaining all the time how tiresome you find all the thing is not among the expected rules of behavior that you should follow.

If these are insignificant details to you, why do you keep undoing my changes and won't you simply accept them as a way to reach WP:CONSENSUS? Or maybe these details do matter, and we should be discussing them, and your actions contradict your words?

Koncorde: So we agree that the most relevant part of the piece is the request for a break down of the money? As my concern is one of weight and we cannot get an agreement on what is the second most important part, I'm removing everything where we can't come to an agreement . Diego (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And I've put it back, because you're the only person here who seems to think it should be removed. You've cited no reason for removing Singal's view that the extra Kickstarter funding was well spent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done, undue weight. The general agreement so far is that only the main point of each article should be used, and that commentary about the series production should not be too detailed. The Singal's quote you restored doesn't seem to be the main point of his article, and it's definitely about the series, not the person. Diego (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a section on the series' production. Singal comments on the production - and the video game columnist for a major newspaper is a much stronger source than a freelancer for ReadWrite. However, I still don't know why this production information is still here in the main article when it's already duplicated at the Tropes fork. But I know one thing: the article should not be held hostage to the preferences of one editor.--Cúchullain /c 13:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I remember why this material is still here: last time editors took a stab at a significant restructuring, Diego reverted it over this single issue of Fruzsina Eordogh's $15k production cost guesstimate. I'm sorry, but it's hard to see this as anything other than obstruction.--Cúchullain /c 13:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The "obstruction" would go away much faster if you discussed my raised concerns, instead of my behavior. Diego (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed your concerns at length: no one else finds the $15k number significant enough to include, and it's certainly not so significant that it should affect how we include other material. No one else besides you has a problem with the way either the Eordogh or Singal material has been presented for many months.--Cúchullain /c 15:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And apparently, "I don't think there's a problem" is the only answer required to counter concerns about neutrality in a BLP article, when an argument is raised about the specific ways that the current content violates policy? Because that's the only consistent answer that has been given time and again.

Given that "no one had a problem with the way Eordogh or Singal were presented for many months", I take that you'd agree to restore the paragraph to the previous version as it existed on December 9th, right before Heinerj's major change? Because that would totally solve this discussion, and the current version is definitely not the same one that we had during all those months. Diego (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I don't believe that lengthy quote in the citation is necessary or useful, and it seems I'm not the only one. The only reason to include it is to get that $15k guesstimate into the article, but you're the only one who thinks it's significant.--Cúchullain /c 17:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. I find it significant. I disagree with your attempts to exclude this aspect. I can't see any rational explanation or justification for it. Bramble window (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you've just said that this exact version, the one I suggest returning to, had been completely acceptable for months to anyone involved in this page. I agree with your words, do you? Diego (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

On the text, yes, of course. On the unnecessary and distracting quote in the citation, nope.--Cúchullain /c 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you've now made abundantly clear what you don't like. The problem is that you won't make the tiniest effort and change your position an inch to agree to something that you don't like, in order to have a version that all can live with.

You wonder why opposed the changes to restructure the content between articles? It's because you've rejected all possibilities and offers to reach consensus, even when adopting consensus involved agreeing to what you've said - in this case accepting that the previous version stood there for months becasuse it was acceptable to all involved, including me. Diego (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You've been told to stop abusing the talk page by making comments about other contributors. Please do not do this again.--Cúchullain /c 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've been told to stop abusing the talk page by making comments about other contributors. I already implored you not to do it, just like I had already appealed to all users in this page not to do it, and again, and again, and again. I hereby pledge to do it only when you do it, just like it happened when you started this thread, and again, and again, and again. Diego (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm disengaging from this unproductive line of discussion. Cúchullain /c 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Stepping away from the quotation for a moment - the section shouldn't exist. This is an article about Anita Sarkeesian, not the video series, production of it or otherwise. Pretty much anything to do with "Tropes Vs Women" should not be in this article (Despite the fact that I opposed the original fork because it was an excuse to try and push POV by long gone single purpose astro turfing account). Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, nearly identical versions of this material are already included in the other article.--Cúchullain /c 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So, can we settle this affair in a way that doesn't completely rejects my concerns by moving the whole section in the version that existed for months to the other article, or there's no hope that we can reach an agreement by having everyone yielding a little? Diego (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've made my position clear on whether the $15k guesstimate is a significant point bearing inclusion.--Cúchullain /c 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So is mine. Diego (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I'm lost. What are Diego and Cúchullain discussing? Does it concern the fork of Tropes vs. Women? Would it be easier if we decided once and for all to remove most of the content regarding the TvW series from this article and focus on the other one? Because I'm up for it and I think it will resolve the issue about Steinberg's article too. Heinerj (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Forks, Yes, and Yes. About 4 months ago a single purpose account (Nosepea68) prompted a fork, which resulted in a lot of duplication of content and half quotes suspended across two largely similar wiki-pages. I'm still not convinced the video series particularly requires its own wikipage and almost all the content still refers to Sarkeesian. Koncorde (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Heinerj: Yes, now that we're stuck with the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork, all the content on the production and reception of the video series that's included here is a duplication of material that's really more appropriate in the fork. We need to figure out how to improve both articles, but instead we quibble over insignificant details.--Cúchullain /c 14:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain we are not stuck with it, we can decide at any moment to merge the pages. Personally, I'm opposed because it will create too much confusion now, but it looks like it should be discussed. Perhaps you could create another section? Talking about the content, I think I'll try something one of these days. Heinerj (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to merge the pages back last year after this discussion, but was reverted. Then we went through a merge discussion and the consensus was to keep the articles separate. It does appear we're stuck with the fork, at this point it will be better to try and improve them both as much as we can.--Cúchullain /c 16:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's like 1 years old! Anyway, you're right, we should stop talking and just focus on improving both of them. I too am tired of quibbling like you and as I said I'll try some edits in the near future. We'll see if it'll work.Heinerj (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

actual legit critique from a reliable source even

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I shit you not, that is actually content worthy of inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I sum up what I read as the following. The use of the term prostituted women vs. sex workers. I'm of two camps, the first saying this should be in Tropes' reception if at all and I'm not sure this weighs very much. If there was some sort of substantial flaw, this certainly is not one. Zero Serenity 03:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Deigo posted this article earlier. Zero Serenity 03:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, its pretty much just the choice of terminology and whatever conclusions you are willing to draw from there. and whether more appropriate here or there or both i am agnostic at this point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Never noticed the link from Diego, apologies for that if he did. And yes, this should be related to the videos and should basically be along the lines of "the videos were criticised for the continued use of the word 'Prostitute', a phrase considered sex negative by..." etc etc. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I pointed to the Reason piece, which originally published that, like two weeks ago.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that source was dropped into an unrelated thread without comment or suggestions for article changes. Clearly it's perfectly reasonable for inclusion, probably better at the fork than here since it's all about what the videos discuss. Something along the lines of, "Noah Berlatsky wrote in Newsweek that some sex workers have objected to Sarkeesian's discussions of video game portrayals of sex workers, particularly her use of terminology that they believe plays into the objectification she criticizes." And perhaps, if it's deemed worth a second sentence, "According to Berlatsky, this reflects a long-standing debate about sex work within feminist discourse".--Cúchullain /c 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a pretty good encapsulation. (although is it just from sex workers or is it also from people who support sex workers rights? ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it's sex workers themselves: "But Sarkeesian's videos have not garnered much praise from those most directly affected by these tropes. On the contrary, many sex workers have argued that Sarkeesian's videos contribute to the objectification and stigma that she claims she is trying to reduce." And all three people he quotes in that regard are current or former sex workers.--Cúchullain /c 19:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, since we're talking about Newsweek, this prominently features Sarkeesian. Thoughts?--Cúchullain /c 15:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You are so transparent it's hilarious. Previously, you pushed to get rid of the Tropes article and now you are glad that it exists because you can shunt off reliably-sourced criticism to that article and right after doing that you suggest including more material about harassment in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, you have to stretch pretty far with your assumptions to mistake me for someone who thinks Misplaced Pages benefits from having that pointless fork. Nice try though.--Cúchullain /c 13:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that we still oppose the other article - but if it exists everything should be contextualised. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty amazing ...

... the pitch battle that's been going on here ever since the "Tropes" incident, where folks are battling day after day to add/remove criticism of Sarkeesian. You'd swear it was almost political, and that it was more about something bigger than the just the person involved here. Like a cultural war of sorts. Gotta protect her BLP / gotta dish out the dirt. Day after day after day. A war of attrition on all sides - Alison 08:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The " Gotta protect her BLP " is , you know WP:BLP one of the primary obligations of Misplaced Pages editors and is given such high priority that it is for example specifically called out in other policies WP:3RR and for which WP:General sanctions have been created. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Alison is decrying BLP policy, just lamenting that yet another Wiki-war has to be waged over something that by all rights should have been governed by common sense from the outset, and that the notion of crowd-controlled pseudonymous biography writing has probably been the singularly worst aspect of the Misplaced Pages. It's also possible that some of this has become bigger than what it was in the beginning; that despite being yet anther culture war front, that there are living, breathing people at the core here who have been through a public wringing that no one here can really at the end of the day relate to. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Tarc is, of course, correct; BLP is always paramount. What bothers me here is that we have a bunch of pseudonymous 'warriors' on all sides of this culture war, who are playing fast and loose with a very real, clearly-identified person here. And all this has real-life ramifications for the subject, but not for those here doing the warring - Alison 01:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of a pitched battle between believers in telepathy and skeptics of telepathy. A bunch of people writing for newspapers and magazine have decided they are telepathic and are printing that people who dislike Ms Sarkeesian also dislike all women. Problem is, their telepathy is unproven. They don't know the deep motives of anonymous tweeters, and neither does anyone else. The battle is currently being won by the people who say "well, if these newspaper and magazine writers say they can read the minds of tweeters, who are we to be objective? If the papers say the specific psychological motives of people they know nothing about are X, then by golly they are X!". There's a tiny group on the battlefield saying that a million journalists claiming to be mind-readers isn't proof of the successful reading of even one mind.Bramble window (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You have the believers in telepathy on the wrong side. There are a group of editors following the mainstream reliable sources, and a group of true believers that there is something out there that should make her look bad and if we keep concentrating hard enough, a fork will bend sometime somewhere that we can then poke her in the heart. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As an example, from Newsweek (which is also linked in the section just above)

Newsweek asked BrandWatch, a social media analytics company, to dig through the more than 2 million tweets about GamerGate since September 1 discover how often Twitter users tweeted at or about the major players in the debate, and whether those tweets were positive, negative or neutral. BrandWatch sampled 25 percent of tweets—what it considers a reflective amount of data—on the hashtag #GamerGate from Sept. 1 to Oct. 23...The discrepancies seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women.

It's called research. Far from what you're claiming. DonQuixote (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I noted before, the overwhelming majority of those tweets you refer to were labelled neutral. The research doesn't support the claims. When I read the research last week, I didn't see any part of the research that claimed to distinguish between tweets where people civilly disagreed and tweets where people simply made personal attacks. From my recollection, tweets were simply "positive, negative or neutral". The results weren't fine-grained enough to distinguish a misogynist attack from an attack on some unrelated basis. The vast majority of tweets in your cited study were not aimed at "women" and were not negative. It is an immense leap to move from these banal findings (short version: a small minority, much less than 10%, of tweeters were nasty, the rest were not, and didn't appear to target anyone) to the frankly laughable assertion that wikipedia "knows" that Gamergate is all about misogyny. Again, if you assume that journalists have no telepathic powers, and if you actually read the Newsweek research with a little care, the support for misogyny being the driving force in Gamergate simply doesn't exist. To push the Gamergate = misogyny meme you need to misread the research and credit journalists with powers from the DC universe, not reality. Bramble window (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

sorry, but you are not a social media data analyst whose opinions about what percentage of what is a meaningful measure. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with TRPoD, you're not an expert. I would no more trust your analysis on this than I would trust it on evolution, relativity, or literary analysis. Besides, we're not obligated to trust your analysis over other experts unless you publish in a reliable source. Seriously, you're painting yourself more and more as fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, no friend of GG, says that the tweets are actually, in data terms, "undetermined". I just checked and no dictionary lists "undetermined" as a synonym for "misogynist". So your cited research does nothing to refute my point. There is no research or any other evidence for generalised misogyny among sympathizers of Gamergate. Some journalists have a hunch that GG hates women, and WP is repeating this hunch as if it's a solid established fact. Like I said, a widely-held hunch as to the nature of the thoughts and feelings of an anonymous internet movement has a place on WP, provided it is labelled as opinion. If you want such thoughts and feelings to be labelled as facts by WP, then actual evidence and expertise, specifically psychological expertise, needs to be cited. It would need to represent a random sampling of Gamergaters and would need a mountain of context to support the conclusion that each individual is personally anti-woman rather than simply unsympathetic to the views of Brianna Wu, for example. Not every man who hates Michael Vick is a racist. Bramble window (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? The fact that someone has to point out the exacting wording of the article (ie "undetermined") puts that into question.

Combined, these two women have gotten more tweets on the #GamerGate hashtag than all the games journalists Newsweek looked at combined. And, again, neither of them has committed any supposed “ethics” violations. They’re just women who disagree with #GamerGate...Tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian. But Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian were on the receiving end of more negative tweets overall than Grayson, Totilo and Kotaku, which suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites.

And, yeah, unless you publish your analysis of why this particular analysis is wrong in a reliable source, we have no obligation to note your analysis. DonQuixote (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No need for me to re-hash the original analysis which says that the vast majority of tweets were either positive or neutral/undetermined (pick your favourite adjective). It's right there in what you linked. Also, the three women you name are unapologetic proponents of feminist viewpoints, and it's not yet demonstrated that the negative tweets they have received is for their views or for their sex. Bramble window (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't say what you're saying. Learn to read. And you're going off on a tangent in terms of your analysis. That requires you to be published. DonQuixote (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I have cited accurately the content of the article. You seem to be accusing me of lying, which I will not tolerate. Withdraw that and it will go no further. Bramble window (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that the "vast majority of tweets were either positive or neutral/undetermined"? In fact, in the graphs the positive tweets (green) were fairly small. Also, if you read the article, its point is that "n analysis by Newsweek found that Twitter users tweeting the hashtag #GamerGate direct negative tweets at critics of the gaming world more than they do at the journalists whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." DonQuixote (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You saw the graphs, right? Green for positive, red for negative and grey for undetermined/neutral. The latter constituted the vast majority of tweets. That's the fact given in the article. A fact that is not mutually exclusive with the other fact you cite, which relates to the minority of tweets that were not neutral. Are you sticking with the accusation of me lying? Because I didn't lie at any point, or quote inaccurately. Bramble window (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

From just above, you said the vast majority of tweets were either positive or neutral/undetermined (emphasis mine). And now you're saying what I just said, which was the graphs the positive tweets (green) were fairly small and claiming that you've been saying that all along. And, as I've also said, if you read the article, its point is that "n analysis by Newsweek found that Twitter users tweeting the hashtag #GamerGate direct negative tweets at critics of the gaming world more than they do at the journalists whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." That is to say, of the negative tweets, most of it is directed towards critics of gaming rather than journalists "whose coverage they supposedly want scrutinized." That's what the article is saying is the result of its analysis. To say anything else is to misquote them. And if you think that their analysis is flawed--publish it in a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Either you start discussing something vaguely related to this article and its possible improvement or you stop right now. Come on, Zero Serenity already pointed out WP:NOTFORUM. Heinerj (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. As the article points out, the tweets that the reporter called "neutral" were actually, in data terms, "undetermined" — that is, the algorithm couldn't determine whether they were positive or negative. That does not imply any sort of conclusion about the content of the tweets, which is one of the limitations of an algorithmic approach. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost as if there's some sort of external campaign going on to influence Misplaced Pages articles or something...--Cúchullain /c 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

did you see that in your tea leaves? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I almost deleted this section on WP:NOTFORUM. Seems I should have. Zero Serenity 00:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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. Breckham101 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Our policies aren't going away, either. Breitbart is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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? Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart is dead. Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source because it doesn't meet the definitions (competence, editorial judgement, reputation, etc.) for such a thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 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. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 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. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com gets noted for things like for , not for having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.One of the prime components of (site's like Breitbart) post-objective journalism is the understanding that the accuracy of a story is likely to be secondary to a story's impact. If the story does what it was intended to do (destroy or harm an organization, generally), it does not matter if it is later shown to have been a fabrication -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 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. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Video series

I removed most of the content about the video series, since we have an individual article. 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 talk page. In particular, I'm referring to this and this. Both conversations train-wrecked big time, but maybe someone will find it useful to continue them in the other page. Heinerj (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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. Heinerj (talk) 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 here) 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. Heinerj (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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.Heinerj (talk) 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.--Cúchullain /c 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Berlatsky piece

As per Heinerj's edits and previous discussions here, material specifically discussing issues related to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series belongs in that particular article. Both positive and negative material was removed in an effort to reduce duplication between the two. Noah Berlatsky's article is a specific critique of points raised in Tropes — 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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. --DHeyward (talk) 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 undue weight on a single critique. Neither The Colbert Report nor The Salt Lake Tribune are critiques of the video series. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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 NorthBySouthBaranof 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. Heinerj (talk) 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. Woodroar (talk) 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.--Cúchullain /c 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. Zero Serenity 16:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Intel Partnership

I wrote a bit more, but I'm unsure how I could fit this into it if at all, since it seems to be a more complete list of the partners than the reference already provides. Zero Serenity 17:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Low-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class video game articles
• Low-importance video game articles
• WikiProject Video games articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press