| Revision as of 15:35, 17 January 2015 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →We're not going to go away...: NPOV is that there is little or no RS criticism← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:19, 17 January 2015 view source Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →We're not going to go away...: Giving this a more descriptive section heading: →On the lack of criticism of this biographical article's subjectNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ==On the lack of criticism of this biographical article's subject== | |||
| ==We're not going to go away...== | |||
| I apologize, for it seems it must be tiring for all of you to hear the same things day in day out, but I would still like to question why there is apparently no room for criticism to be allowed in this article? The references from Breitbart and Newsweek seem just as credible as the sources that support Anita. If there is any large difference in reliability and factual correctness, I'd love to hear it. Most of the references given are all news sources and the ones offering critcisms are also, and appear to be just as reliable. Please address this point. ] (]) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | I apologize, for it seems it must be tiring for all of you to hear the same things day in day out, but I would still like to question why there is apparently no room for criticism to be allowed in this article? The references from Breitbart and Newsweek seem just as credible as the sources that support Anita. If there is any large difference in reliability and factual correctness, I'd love to hear it. Most of the references given are all news sources and the ones offering critcisms are also, and appear to be just as reliable. Please address this point. ] (]) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Our policies aren't going away, either. Breitbart is not a reliable source. ] (]) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | :Our policies aren't going away, either. Breitbart is not a reliable source. ] (]) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:19, 17 January 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | 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. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
On the lack of criticism of this biographical article's subject
I apologize, for it seems it must be tiring for all of you to hear the same things day in day out, but I would still like to question why there is apparently no room for criticism to be allowed in this article? The references from Breitbart and Newsweek seem just as credible as the sources that support Anita. If there is any large difference in reliability and factual correctness, I'd love to hear it. Most of the references given are all news sources and the ones offering critcisms are also, and appear to be just as reliable. Please address this point. 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)
- Alright, then how come we don't have any reliable criticism on here? Misplaced Pages must remain neutral. Breckham101 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- If only sources such as Breitbart publish criticism of Sarkeesian, then the neutral point of view is that there is little or no reliably sourced criticism of Sarkeesian. It is not necessary for a biography to have a "criticism" section; indeed most biographies, even of other people who receive frequent death threats, do not. --TS 15:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, then how come we don't have any reliable criticism on here? Misplaced Pages must remain neutral. Breckham101 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
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)
- It goes in the other article because it makes sense to go in the other article as it is criticism of the series, and its content. Koncorde (talk) 20:19, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- I see how there's nothing to be discussed here since you already decided to do this instead of discussing my main point, that you still don't understand: it may be encyclopedic, but it's too recent. I say wait to include it, we have all the time in the world. Heinerj (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm willing to withdraw it if you agree to stop reverting. You clearly know where you're at and there's not really any other option if you're willing to blindly revert three different editors five times in 45 minutes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- At the second revert a discussion should have been opened, not after five. That and since you seem to know wiki policy already I'm not willing to withdrawal my collaboration. Zero Serenity 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- As my last revert states, I will stop reverting and add the recentism tag. The three editors did the exact same thing and none of them seemed willing to cooperate. It may be a giant misunderstanding, but I can't see how my words in the summaries can be misinterpreted. Heinerj (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- When Sarkeesian received terrorist threats that was added to the article right away as it was clearly a notable incident. Similarly, a $300 million outlay by Intel, for which sources highlight the involvement of Sarkeesian, seems notable. If you add the tag, I will revert it as unjustified. --NeilN 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a nice attitute NeilN. A terrorist threat is very different. This is too recent and too vague. Why can't you all wait? That's all I'm asking here! Heinerj (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- From a WP:NPOV standpoint, how is it different? --NeilN 18:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem with this, especially now that it's been reported in all manner of reliable sources.--Cúchullain /c 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was a non-controversial addition to the article, the whole reversion by Heinerj was unnecessary initially, and to continue reverting was bizarre and completely out of character for how they typically conducts his/her self. The rationale to remove was very weak, compared to the relevancy to include. Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with it being "too recent". The coverage prompts inclusion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was a non-controversial addition to the article, the whole reversion by Heinerj was unnecessary initially, and to continue reverting was bizarre and completely out of character for how they typically conducts his/her self. The rationale to remove was very weak, compared to the relevancy to include. Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem with this, especially now that it's been reported in all manner of reliable sources.--Cúchullain /c 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- From a WP:NPOV standpoint, how is it different? --NeilN 18:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a nice attitute NeilN. A terrorist threat is very different. This is too recent and too vague. Why can't you all wait? That's all I'm asking here! Heinerj (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- When Sarkeesian received terrorist threats that was added to the article right away as it was clearly a notable incident. Similarly, a $300 million outlay by Intel, for which sources highlight the involvement of Sarkeesian, seems notable. If you add the tag, I will revert it as unjustified. --NeilN 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- As my last revert states, I will stop reverting and add the recentism tag. The three editors did the exact same thing and none of them seemed willing to cooperate. It may be a giant misunderstanding, but I can't see how my words in the summaries can be misinterpreted. Heinerj (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- At the second revert a discussion should have been opened, not after five. That and since you seem to know wiki policy already I'm not willing to withdrawal my collaboration. Zero Serenity 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm willing to withdraw it if you agree to stop reverting. You clearly know where you're at and there's not really any other option if you're willing to blindly revert three different editors five times in 45 minutes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see how there's nothing to be discussed here since you already decided to do this instead of discussing my main point, that you still don't understand: it may be encyclopedic, but it's too recent. I say wait to include it, we have all the time in the world. Heinerj (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The reasoning behind my first revert (edit summary) still stands and no one tried to provide theirs. I suggest again to read WP:RECENT, and see how it has nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:RS. There was just a distinct lack of etiquette from other editors and, because of my insistence, a purely punitive block. Of course, now it's pretty useless to talk about this, so I'll focus on something else: the Wired UK part it's out of context (we didn't introduce the topic before and the phrase doesn't do it itself). Personally I think it doesn't belong here since an entire different article is devoted to discuss that mess. Heinerj (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're better off not throwing stones about a "lack of etiquette". Moving on to the content matter, clearly others think this item is significant enough to include, considering how much press it's gotten. IMO this should have ended as soon a secondary sources were brought into the discussion. I don't think the line about Gamergate is necessary, especially not before Gamergate is even discussed.--Cúchullain /c 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, this is not the place to discuss editors' behaviour. I was simply trying my explain my frustration since it was discussed by you and Koncorde (talk · contribs). If someone has to say something more about it, everyone is welcome to do so in my talk page. Heinerj (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to fix this once the article comes unlocked again. Zero Serenity 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, this is not the place to discuss editors' behaviour. I was simply trying my explain my frustration since it was discussed by you and Koncorde (talk · contribs). If someone has to say something more about it, everyone is welcome to do so in my talk page. Heinerj (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
BoobFreq
| Discussion is closed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Note: please do not hat this important section until after the discussion has concluded. At the time of writing, discussion is ongoing. Respect that. This section is not owned by anyone, per WP rules. It is extremely rude and aggressive to hat it while it's being teased out. Bramble window (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC) This appears to warrant inclusion in this article as it clearly concerns Sarkeesian: http://www.vocativ.com/culture/media/gamergate-anita-sarkeesian-princess-kora/ http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/sarkeesian-princess-kora-sex-workers/ It is about a sex worker who is using parody videos about Sarkeesian to criticize her views regarding women who work in the sex industry. Seems this warrants inclusion of other material criticizing Sarkeesian's views regarding sex workers that has been recently removed as it ties into the criticism.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Nightline
Here is the transcript of ABC Nightline's piece tonight on Gamergate and Anita Sarkeesian:
--TS 07:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Date of birth
Why has there been no DOB in this article for several years now? How can there not be a source out there for Sarkeesian's birthday? I watched the recent Nightline segment which mentions "online attackers published her Social Security number and her home address". So hackers dox her and publish her home address and SSN but not her DOB? I realize that can't be used as a source on WP but there must be a reliable secondary source out there for her date of birth. Serinne (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- 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