Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
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.
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 sourcedmust 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.
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 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.
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
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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. --TS15:35, 17 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.
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)
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)
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)
I don't think it warrants any inclusion, it doesn't really expand on the article we have. However Chrisrus comments are irrelevant. A. again the opinion of the FBI is irrelevant (as is their taking part in any investigation). The credibility is the reliable source making the statement. B. It's not skepticism to deny the tweets exist, C. nor is it our role to deny what an authoritative reliable source states. The article name is "Here Are the 157 Hate Tweets a Feminist Faced in One Week" which shows that they are presenting such content with their editorial authority. The question is one of reliable sourcing, relevance and notability. The comments in the article about A Voice For Men is the first time I have seen such a group mentioned in conjunction with her name, but the relevance is minor nonetheless. The mention of the 9th of Feb engagement with the additional security measures is maybe notable as a passing comment in terms of reflecting on the refusal of Utah to take similar precautions. Koncorde (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The opinion of the FBI cannot be irrelevant! If they say that the tweets are credible, that would be powerful evidence. That the FBI has investigated these tweets must have seemed relevant to Cohen, the author of the Mother Jones article, because she saw fit to include this information in the article, so for what reason can we conclude that it is not? If the FBI said that the tweets are real, and that is reported somewhere WP:RS, we could say so, but Cohen simply presents them as real without mentioning how she knows this; she simply accepts them as fact. We might rightly state that Cohen believes that they are, but we can't say so ourselves. Certainly if the FBI concludes that they are, that will be relevant. The question is how reliable is this source on the authenticity of the tweets. Chrisrus (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If and when reliable sources report that the FBI has commented about the threatening tweets, then that will be relevant. I think the Mother Jones piece is sufficient for us to say that Sarkesian reports that she receives a constant barrage of obscene and threatening tweets. However, we are not in a position to discuss their authenticity or lack thereof, unless a reliable source does so. CullenLet's discuss it20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The opinion of the FBI is routinely irrelevant when it comes to wikipedia. We don't have to wait for their authorisation to use a reliable source for wikipedia. We don't need their opinion of the credibility of vulgar tweets on the internet, and any legal action that they do or do not take is unlikely to be particularly relevant to wikipedia either. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Chrisrus, the appropriate restraint we should use in relating this story to the reader will be met by being brief, by not spending too much time talking about it in detail. We don't have to wait for a more authoritative source than Mother Jones. If the FBI chimes in later, we can add that information. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no date of birth in this article for several years. How can there not be a source for Sarkeesian's birthday? I watched a recent Nightline segment which mentions "online attackers published her Social Security number and her home address". So hackers dox her and publish her home address and SSN but not her DOB? I realize that can't be used as a source on WP but there must be a reliable secondary source out there for her date of birth. Serinne (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No matter how often you repeat this; if there is no obvious source we're not about to magically produce the content you desire from thin air. Koncorde (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The people who responded are missing my point. What I can't understand is how there can be ZERO sources out there (RS or not) that have published Sarkeesian's DOB. That just seems strange. Also the Nightline segment mentions that she was doxxed - her SSN and home address were published, yet her DOB doesn't get published. I'm no hacker but how can that be, why would they leave out her DOB? Serinne (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories:
view · edit Frequently asked questions
