This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrisrus (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 29 January 2015 (→A week of harassment posts: reply urging caution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:18, 29 January 2015 by Chrisrus (talk | contribs) (→A week of harassment posts: reply urging caution)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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)
- Misplaced Pages's Neutrality is different than what you might think. We do not attempt to create a "false balance" by giving inappropriate weight to issues. If no reliable sources have provided legitimate criticism of a subject, the Misplaced Pages article IS NEUTRAL when it does not contain any "criticism" . It is NOT NEUTRAL if we throw in criticism from non reliable sources "for balance". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- If only sources such as Breitbart publish criticism of Sarkeesian, then the neutral point of view is that there is little or no reliably sourced criticism of Sarkeesian. It is not necessary for a biography to have a "criticism" section; indeed most biographies, even of other people who receive frequent death threats, do not. --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)
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)
Extra criticism
there are videos up on youtube of Anita, several years ago, proclaiming she " even like video games" (direct quote). Surely this must be considered as controversial and subject to criticism since she makes her living doing this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.186.63 (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Except they are not only unreliable sources but the video in question is an out-of-context quote mine only brought up when there is no legitimate case against her. Please read the FAQ sometime. Zero Serenity 08:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is also an "appeal to hypocrisy" logical fallacy. Fedor (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit Request
This is a request to edit the article in such a way as to inform the reader that, according to the following WP:RS, http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180, the alleged threats at USU, but were not credible but that they were intended to get the event cancelled, on the grounds that this would seem an important fact for the reader to know.
As you can see by checking this situation, http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180 says "Throughout the day, Tuesday, Oct. 14, USU police and administrators worked with state and federal law enforcement agencies to assess the threat to our USU community and Ms. Sarkeesian. Together, we determined that there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and that this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event."
The purpose of the edit would be to inform the reader that the authorities investigated the USU threats and that they found there to be reason to believe that the danger was real.
Thank you for your kind attention to the matter of improving this article in this way, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we'll take a pass on this sort of "warning", thanks. Bomb scares are no less threatening or serious than a literal bomb being placed at an event, for example. The same threshold applies here. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, the fact that the threats were judged by authorities not to be credible is already in the article, here: The university and police did not believe the threats were credible inasmuch as they were consistent with others Sarkeesian had received, but scheduled enhanced security measures nonetheless, a sentence which is cited four times. So the edit request is to include reference to this fact in the lead section of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also vote no. Its not important. Zero Serenity 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- As written, the fact that the USU threats were investigated and judged not credible is important enough to be in the body of the article. Without reference to this fact in the lead, readers of the lead section might come away with the impression that she and attendees would have actually been in some danger. Danger to human life and limb is obviously important. Are you suggesting this be removed from the body as well? Chrisrus (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also a no. The credibility is that there was a threat, and that the event was cancelled. Sarkeesians notability is her commentary relating to the unwillingness of the University or campus police to take any action further to ensuring her safety or any other. Their opinion on the credibility of the bomb threat is not particularly relevant. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just want to understand your point clearly. When you said "the crediblity is that.." did you mean that "there is no question whether..." or some such? If so, I think this fact is agreed, but then your point about that fact remains unclear.
- Let me also make sure I understand the intended meaning of your phrase "Sarkeedians notability is that...". Do you mean that her notability stems from that cancelled event, at least in part? If so, then that would seem all the more reason for the lead to include who cancelled the meeting. If the cancellation is so important, then shouldn't the reader know who cancelled it? It wouldn't be much of edit. It could be simply phrasing it as something like "She cancelled a meeting" vs. something like "the meeting was cancelled".
- But more to the point, given that it's agreed that the cancellation is important because that why she's notable, so therefore it's important the reader of the lead understands who cancelled it, Anita, or the authorities? As it reads now the effect on the reader might well be the impression that the university or police, or state or federal authorities cancelled the event, instead of Anita. According to the more detailed description in the body of the article, it seems that they wanted the event to go on because the authorities thought the threats weren't credible, but she said no. Chrisrus (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Both the lede and body state that Sarkeesian cancelled the event. We can't put everything in the lede, so it's entirely appropriate to leave out minor details. Woodroar (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Very well, I concede but will continue to look for ways to improve this article. Chrisrus (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also a no. The credibility is that there was a threat, and that the event was cancelled. Sarkeesians notability is her commentary relating to the unwillingness of the University or campus police to take any action further to ensuring her safety or any other. Their opinion on the credibility of the bomb threat is not particularly relevant. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- As written, the fact that the USU threats were investigated and judged not credible is important enough to be in the body of the article. Without reference to this fact in the lead, readers of the lead section might come away with the impression that she and attendees would have actually been in some danger. Danger to human life and limb is obviously important. Are you suggesting this be removed from the body as well? Chrisrus (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also vote no. Its not important. Zero Serenity 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, the fact that the threats were judged by authorities not to be credible is already in the article, here: The university and police did not believe the threats were credible inasmuch as they were consistent with others Sarkeesian had received, but scheduled enhanced security measures nonetheless, a sentence which is cited four times. So the edit request is to include reference to this fact in the lead section of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
A week of harassment posts
I was sitting on this idea since it was just on Tumblr (failing WP:RS before even the word go), but now Mother Jones has picked it up. Suggestions for inclusion? Zero Serenity 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- This should be included. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. The source of these screenshots is Sarkeesian itself; Cohen/Mother Jones don't clearly claim to be vouching for their authenticity by having investigated and traced them, they are just taking her at her word, or as Sarkeesian puts it "Listen and Believe". On the other hand, Mother Jones do say that the FBI opened an investigation into these tweets, so it's clear that the authorities are aware of them. If/when the authorities authenticate these tweets as real, they could be included. A healthy skepticism is in order. These tweets could be fake. We don't want to be taken in, it could be a hoax. Chrisrus (talk) 18:18, 29 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