Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 17 September 2014

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled to promote compliance with Misplaced Pages's policy on the biographies of living people. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

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 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 Temmie Chang (2 participants) Greg Martin (artist) (2 participants) PKHeX (5 participants) List of James Bond villains (9 participants) Evernight Games (1 participant) Pokémon Home (2 participants) List of Pokémon volumes (3 participants) Gameplay of Pokémon (8 participants) Lisette Titre-Montgomery (7 participants) Party royale game (3 participants) Cossacks (video games series) (3 participants; relisted) Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted) Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted) Merge discussions EA Sports FC (discussion) 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 Donkey Kong (nom) Hotline Miami (nom) The Suicide of Rachel Foster (nom) Bejeweled (video game) (nom) Chris Redfield (nom) List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Good article nominations Pixel Piracy (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (nom) Dendy (start) Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Regi (Pokémon) (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (start) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Schim (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Unsighted (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Nuzlocke (nom) Berzerk (video game) (start) Overcrowd: A Commute 'Em Up (nom) Frostpunk (start) Shiny Pokémon (start) Cry of Fear (start) Moida Mansion (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments A Space for the Unbound (rev) Bejeweled (video game) (rev) The Legend of Dragoon (rev) The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (nom) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Articles that need... assessment (3) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (3) infoboxes (9) cover art (249) screenshots (8,997) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging

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.

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

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

Significant POV issues

This article dismisses criticism of Sarkeesian and her works as harassment. Significant legitimate criticism does exist, and needs to be covered here in order to maintain a neutral POV. I see that there has been some trouble finding quality sources for this, but that means a concerted effort needs to be made to find them, and improve the article. A discussion needs to be had about what constitutes such a source. Skrelk (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Stating that a discussion needs to be had about sources for legitimate criticism is a little premature—if someone was thinking of adding material to the article, they should propose a source which could then be discussed. I moved your comment to the bottom of this page because that is where editors expect to find new discussions. Please click "new section" at the top of a talk page to create a new discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skrelk: If you've read this Talk page as well as the archives, you've surely seen that this is a common topic. Here's the short version: the article "dismisses criticism of Sarkeesian and her works as harassment" because that's how reliable sources characterize it; there's criticism out there, but not from reliable sources; editors have looked for criticism from reliable sources and found none; criteria for determining reliable sources has been thoroughly discussed and is based upon WP:V/WP:RS and WP:BLP; WP:NPOV doesn't mean we give "equal weight" or report all sides, only that we write based on reliable sources in proportion to those sources, which is what we've done. As Johnuniq said, if you have any specific concerns or sources to discuss, then by all means let's discuss. But please understand that we tend to see the same discussions happening over and over again, with nothing new brought to the table. I truly do hope you have something new, though. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Skrelk, if you have a new source to suggest, please feel free to do so. This is a topic which has been gone over in pretty considerable detail, however, and the regular editors don't always feel like explaining themselves over and over again, so please take a look through the Talk Page archives to see if your suggestions have already been covered. Thank you. Euchrid (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, is it There-is-valid-criticism-of-Sarkeesian-it's-not-all-harrassment Tuesday already? The number of people coming here complaining about this exact same issue is absurd. I was about to suggest putting a message preemptive message somewhere, but there's already a gigantic red banner when you edit the talk page and they don't read it. Maybe we should add another banner to the talk page suggesting that people provide reliable, third party sources when they wish to add content to the article or correct some perceived imbalance? – FenixFeather 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

FAQ

Anybody know how to do one of those 'FAQ' page things? Where it wants to ask a question which has been answered a lot, and there's a Q and a A thing at the top of the page? I think that would help some, as I've wanted to add some things on some articles which I wasn't familiar with and there were reasonable instances on why it wouldn't fit well with the article. Tutelary (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Like expanding this piece? Or did you have something else in mind? Zero Serenity 19:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, like something at Talk:Circumcision, it has a FAQ (that has only one item) but people come to the page to propose something that's been proposed 100's of times, see that, and maybe it dissuades them from proposing that exact thing. We could do that exact same thing here, with a question like 'Why is there no criticism present in the article?' or something similar. Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Checking the code: {{Round in circles|search=no|archivelink=/Archive index}}. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, or another method (the one Talk:Chelsea Manning uses) is {{faq|collapsed=no}} (or collapsed=yes if you prefer). Either way (in case this wasn't clear) one then creates Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ. If there is only one frequently asked question one wants to advise people about, Talk:Circumcision/FAQ is a good model; if there are more questions, Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ shows how to make the Qs and As collapsible. -sche (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a try. Zero Serenity 23:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero Serenity. I've added a second question and answer.Euchrid (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

But yeah! I think it'll end up working very nice, especially since the edit notice made emphasis on the sources, they may go to the talk; see nothing about it (and assume that it hasn't been brought up before) and bring it up mistakenly thinking they're the only one who thought about it. But now, they'll see the FAQ and realize that it's not been excluded because we're an authoritative group of people who just want to silence all criticism, but because there are legitimately no reliable sources for it as of yet. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ready for editing. Take note this also changes the FAQ for Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Zero Serenity 13:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused that both Template:Sarkeesian FAQ+Template:Sarkeesian FAQ/FAQ and Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ exist. Wasn't the point of the first one to replace the second one while also allowing transclusion onto the Tropes talkpage? Should the two FAQs be merged? (Or am I missing something obvious because I haven't had enough coffee today?) -sche (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There were two attempts. Only one of them is being used. DonQuixote (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

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.

In response to this, per the citation guideline and the WP:LEADCITE section of the manual of style, citations aren't necessary in the lead section, which is just meant to summarize the key points of the (cited) article body. At least, I don't think citations are a benefit there, if others think differently, we can certainly add them, we're not lacking in sources. Just FYI, it's usually unhelpful to place tags without leaving an explanation on the talk page, especially when you could have just added the citations yourself, as I say, they're easily found in the article body.--Cúchullain /c 02:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

People seem to have this deeply-held notion that the lead is exempt from citations. It's not. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. In contrast, it also says to use editorial judgement to balance out the citations in the lead. Some articles may require 5-10 and some may require none (as it's never challenged). Given that it's been 'challenged' by the citation needed tag, just add an inline citation to those specific instances and call it good. Tutelary (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I recommend seeking Consensus per WP:LEADCITE. Dreadstar ☥ 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally prefer a cleaner lede and references in the body, but I can understand the concern as well, especially with this being a BLP. So I'm neutral. If we do decide to maintain the status quo, we should at least put a hidden note in the lede to make editors aware of the consensus. Woodroar (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is full of references that demonstrate the harassment campaign. I think that we need to be wary of responding to every "challenge" when it comes to articles (and individuals) that have been the target of campaigns to undermine and harass. In my opinion, the article's citations are fine as they stand.Euchrid (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Dreadstar and Euchrid. I see no need to overreact and WP:MOS, LEAD and etc. are all quite clear, where material is cited in the body text, it is not cited in the lead. There is also a guideline against drive by mass tagging, per WP:POINT and others. Montanabw 04:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. per WP:V. Adding the 'citation needed' tag makes it officially 'challenged' by an editor and it therefore demands an inline citation. I'm not advocating removing anything about the harassment, but merely have citations in the lead to sate the cn tags which were added, as mandated by WP:V. It's not contrary to MOS or LEADCITE, which specifically says that the lead is not exempt. Tutelary (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is subject to attack, and the problem with adding an inline citation for points challenged in the lead is that there is no end—I challenge "1984", and "Canadian-American", and "feminist", and "media critic", and "blogger" ... and that's just the first sentence. If anyone can identify a redflag claim in the lead that is not clearly covered in the short article, please reveal it. The solution is to focus on this article, rather than on generic issues such as what guidelines may or may not say about other stuff—what problem exists in this article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It was me I added the citation tags late last night, and did not bother to discuss it on the talkpage since I mentioned it near the tag I felt it would not have been that difficult for someone to just move the tags to the lead maybe, I was just too tired to do it, I apologize about that. I have to say I agree with @Tutelary: on this one I'm afraid, my rationale is that anyone taking a quick glance i.e. just reading the lead can verify or at least see it is cited content. Not everyone may be interested in taking the time to read the entire article, so content in the lead will appear to be uncited, when in fact it isn't, I think this actually improves the article especially since it's a biography article of a living person. To hypothesize, such and such will happen in the future therefore we should not change the citation style isn't a very sound reason not to, since it's relying on events in the future. Even a polite message could deter those who might have nefarious intent if there is a message included in the header. Some issues that I spotted (might not be issues per say but would like to get views on it) is the citation in the body namely this one: it relies on self-published sources, and this one: it relies on a blog post in kickstarter. *sorry I have to end this here I have to run an errand will post more once free*. I'm back, in the meantime I'll leave it at here and also would like to bring editors attention to WP:POINT subsection "Important Note" since this policy is being quoted here, and also to bring attention to WP:LEADCITE, as citation styles can be changed as per the outcome of a consensus, so pointing to WP:MOS at this stage when we are in the process of trying to establish consensus, is redundant. I think there will be comment lag due to time-zone issues here, so this might get drawn out longer than usual (or necessary), you can all blame me for that. - Syanaee (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This section is titled "Citations in the lead". Is any of the above comment related to that? If so, please identify a problem in the article (in the lead).

Re "Some issues that I spotted": your two links identify references 5 and 12. The first verifies the name of her thesis, and the second verifies that something occurred at the official Kickstarter blog. Is it really necessary to explain how those two references are perfectly adequate for the purpose? Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

*facepalm moment* - just noticed the archives, I'm new to wiki so sorry if I'm going over things which have been previously covered. Johnuniq, there isn't any need to be facetious, why don't you just change the title to "citations in the lead and body" I was asking for a view on the two links I posted, since I did not know if they are accepted or if we could supplement them with sources from other places. If you don't want to explain there is no reason for the disturbing attitude you're showing, I find it pretty offensive. I'll just wait for a response from someone more reasonable, there is no guarantee I will be responding back to you, especially if you're going to display this unhelpful kind of attitude to newbies like myself. Syanaee (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, I think Johnuniq was correct here. And Syanaee, he didn't "bite." Further, if you are new to wikipedia, how is it that your earliest edits were talk, wikignoming, monobook additions and other tools of experienced users? Have you reviewed WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT? Montanabw 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You saying: he didn't do it does not prove your point, you're just making a statement. Stop your obscurantism, it is clear what was going on, am not going to argue this, since it's just so silly and an insult to the intellect. Furthermore, I have some js experience, adding I have managed web servers, for forums and even done some php modding I have a little experience in this area. It's not a very complex thing to copy and pasting a script into a blank page. Also, one of the script was suggested to me by an editor to help split references. Yes I have reviewed wiki policies. These are just accusations and prove nothing. Why don't you do a sock check against my account, I'm pretty sure you'll be hard pressed to find evidence of sockpuppetry, even though I'm using a shared connection. Initia a sock-check or strike out your baseless accusation. I've been on here for about a month, I may have made edits before I had an account, but I do not have another account on here, or even if there is you'll not find any evidence of sockpuppetry, because I'm am not doing that. You've failed to address any points and started making accusations, you should be warned for WP policy violation of civility. You have shown zero decorum. You and Johnuniq both need to stop these sinuous tactics you're causing unnecessary disruption. Syanaee (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty, that's enough, stop talking about each other and stick to editorial content of this article. If you want to bash each other, take it to your own user talk pages or use Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution processes. Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you just to a sock-check on my account just to humour them? Syanaee (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If they wish to pursue an SPI, that's up to them. Dreadstar ☥ 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That is my position too, to establish consensus and I will stick to the out of the consensus as per the policy. I've made my points clear, and I don't want to repeat myself. Let there be consensus. Syanaee (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Full Protection

Uh...was this really necessary? Did somebody ask for Sysops only? Zero Serenity 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• They key here is finding Consensus on whether or not to add citations to the lede per WP:LEADCITE, I've fully protected the article to prevent further edit warring. Please find consensus here on the talk page; take it up the chain if needed. Dreadstar ☥ 15:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There...really wasn't an edit war here though. As far as I can see it's exactly one reversion and we seem to be handling this with civility. I'm not seeing this war you're referring to. Zero Serenity 15:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

More than one editor has added citation needed tags to the lede, then been reverted.; as well as adding POV tags and being reverted. So, to prevent further warring I protected the article so the editors can find consensus to add or not to add citations and/or tags. This article has been subject to an enormous amount of disruption, this needs to stop. Dreadstar ☥ 15:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:LEADCITE? The lead is not exempt from citations, but it says to balance out between editorial consensus and the need for redundant citations. Tutelary (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, you don't understand the policy, "direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned" is all that mandates a citation. Here, the lead contains no direct quotations from Sarkeesian nor is there anything there that is particularly contentious, it's one of the more dry and "just the facts" leads I've seen, it's also quite short and everything in it has been thoroughly cited in the article body. There is no need to waste further bandwidth on this, as it is quite obvious that tag-bombing is what occurred, and that was nothing but WP:POINT-y. Montanabw 18:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do. The policy which mandates it is WP:V. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. In particular, the statements that have been challenged is the statements that have had the 'citation needed' tag added to them. They need an inline citation per WP:V. Tutelary (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, the text in the lead section is not what we're worried about. WP:V is 100% satisfied if the challenged text in the lead section is supported by citations in the article body. One editor cannot hold the article hostage; that's a violation of WP:POINT. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Who's holding the article hostage? All I was suggesting was that we have an inline citation per the tags which challenged the material in the lead. I'm sure this has happened a few times in the past. I am @Syanaee: pinging the editor who added the citation needed tags, for better context. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Montanbw, is just repeating themselves. Binksternet, I never re-edited the article after it was reverted so no one is holding it hostage. When I came across the article I felt it needed citations and I added it, which is what happens on here, I don't see why one would not want to include citations in the lead just to show how well cited the content is, since it has been challenged in the past. It only improves the veracity of the article further. There are similar issues with PZ Myers, and Thunderf00t articles which I will also get to and try and establish a consensus on them too, in due time. Folks need to stop acting like it's some kind of an attack when it's not, I am just trying to improve the article and bring it to GA standard.

The question is, would a reader, looking at the lede through neutral eyes (which precludes the "Sarkeesian is a fraud!" and the "preach it sister!" types), find any of the material contentious? I'm thinking no. --NeilN 19:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? I'm curious. As I have said, my personal opinion if the citations are included in the lead, for someone having a quick read through it just makes it easier to verify the claims, rather than having to scroll and look for them somewhere in the body, to be it only improves the article, this isn't something unusual many articles have lead citations, which are GA rated or even featured articles. I suspect you'll only keep having the problem of editors who might have ulterior motives to keep adding the tags, why not just preemptive it? If the consensus is no on this then fine, leave it as it is. Syanaee (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I read this as add redundant cites to the lede if the material is contentious. --NeilN 20:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But the content has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Then it makes sense to include them in the lead as per WP:LEADCITE, if the content had not been challenged, then it would have been sound to stick to the article default citation template, if claim X is going to be challenged in the lead then it makes sense to include a citations to claim X in the lead, even though claim X may be cited properly in the body. The redundancy issue I don't think applies if the content is likely to or has been challenged. Syanaee (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Challenged in good faith. If you're challenging it because you as a regular reader think the material is contentious, okay. If you're challenging it just to stick cites up there, less okay. --NeilN 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a little of both I had known of the fallout of Anita's project, when I first read the page as a neutral (at least I'd like to think I am) I thought it was missing citations, maybe it's because I'm familiar with a different type of citation style but to me at the time it felt right to add the citations need tag, since 1.) I knew it would be easy to prove it (since I'd known what had happened) and 2.) that it would prevent the claim being challenged in the future. I wasn't aware of the problems the page had suffered, maybe I was being naive, but after looking into this issue, it only suggested that actually it makes more sense now due to the controversy to include the citations in the lead, and body. Since some editors regard the it as controversial, I felt as per policy lets establish a consensus on this, since if an article includes citations in the body, that does not automatically make it exempt from including them in the lead too. Syanaee (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the right place to claim that something must be done because the rules require it (WP:5P is a good place for the basics). Can anyone identify any text in the article that is a problem? Does it fail NPOV or V or anything else? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree the claim online harassment is a controversial one (for the record I do think Anita suffered online harassment) which is cited in the body, when one verifies the reliability of this cite, the cited page states, "...controversial feminist critic...", it is also cited in forbes, I can't accesss the website but here is cache. the first one calming she's a controversial figure comes directly from the cited content in the body, however I don't see "controversial" mentioned in the article, would it be fair to say Anita is a controversial figure in the feminist movement? Based on the histrionics surrounding the whole subject, and going by the cited content in the body then one would argue yes. So therefore, I do believe the lead needs citations, since we can establish the person is considered controversial (which I might add should also be included in the article for neutrality), since many citations are based on Stephen Totilo who calls Anita a controversial figure, moreover not mentioning Anita is a controversial figure from the citations is WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:POV pushing. So we have a problem, you can't pick-and-choose all the positive statements it creates a problem of neutrality. You both have failed to demonstrate any sound reasoning based on evidence, that is my opinion. Syanaee (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand that comment. I think that it does not identify any text in the article that needs a citation—is that correct? However, the comment suggests that the term "controversial" should be added—is that correct? Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Syanaee: per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:WEASEL, and especially WP:LABEL, we should not label people as "controversial". We describe the controversy but do not describe the person as controversial. Woodroar (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, @Woodroar: I am bringing attention to the citations which do label Anita as controversial Maybe you had a pointed I striked out where I was not clear in my previous comment which seems like I was implying Antia is controversial., I am not making this claim these are coming directly from the citations, so your assumption that I am labeling is incorrect, or maybe I did not make myself clear. These statements are made in the citations one of which is in the body of the article itself. All I am saying is, you can't pick-and-choose when you've used a person as a reliable sources to leave out a statement the source makes which states states Anita is a "controversial" figure. Because that would be cherry-picking unless it can be proven otherwise. @Johnuniq: let me clarify since some citations by a particular person who has been cited multiple times in the article states Antia is a "controversial" figure, then for balance it needs perhaps need to be included. Since this to some extent may establish Anita to be controversial, I believe it requires citations in the lead, since the content in the lead is likely to be challenged as has been the case in the past. I will not respond to comments which are repetitive, or erroneous I'm not obliged to educate everyone on policy. Anyone who's comment does not address my points will be dismissed or RE'd back to the last two comments. Syanaee (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Syanaee, I did not mean to imply that you were calling the subject "controversial". What I meant is that we don't say that in articles, unless there is wide usage in reliable sources. If nearly every source called her "controversial", that option may be on the table—though it would still be preferable to describe the controversy rather than use a subjective and vague label—but we're not going to apply weasel words based on a single or small number/proportion of sources. Woodroar (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That is OK, Woodroar. I agree with you, but unfortunately there is a problem here, the source has been established to be reliable, since there are a number of other citations based on this sources work, and I have also provided a citation from an outside source forbes corroborating the source cited multiple times in the article. I personally like you do feel we should not describe people as controversial, generally that is a fallacy when the subject is about an academic work. But the problem we have is, do we say the source which is cited multiple times in the article is reliable or not? I don't know to be honest. This is why we should avoid personal blogs, since views of people can change, one day they maybe your friend and the next day they may be your enemy. So you have to be very careful, when you pick a source, basically from my academic background we are taught this. Stephen Totilo has been used multiple times, as a source, and he is the one who writes "controversial" also, and I have managed to find another source which is from forbes. So, does the claim "controversial" fall under fringe views? if yes, then what do we do with all the other citations which are using Stephen Totilo to establish veracity and verifiability? It just complicates everything further. Syanaee (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely complicated, I agree. And it's not so much a fringe thing, it's just that value statements are not part of the dispassionate encyclopedic language we should use. Even what many would consider positive value statements—"proud" or "colorful" or "diplomatic"—mean different things to different readers and should be avoided. Woodroar (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is compounded by the fact that the article itself needs serious work - we've never engaged in the cleanup required by our decision to keep the unnecessary Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork. As it's just a summary, a proper article cleanup would probably change the way the lead looks. If folks are really concerned about the state of things, fixing the article itself will be more productive than anything we do to the lead.--Cúchullain /c 15:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it here

Protected edit request on 28 August 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

She announced. @Orangemike: Mark Miller (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed typo. Dreadstar ☥ 04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Installment

• The latest instalment of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, published a couple days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a page for that. Zero Serenity 13:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Death Threats drive her from home

Source. Worth including here, on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games or does this fall too much under WP:UNDUE? Zero Serenity 13:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Verge has picked up on this. The article essentially says the same thing with no new info from Sarkeesian, so I'd give it a few days to see if it clears itself up a bit. Zero Serenity 15:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The threats are confirmed hoax. Evidence is manufactured. The posted by Sarkeesian was of an account page screenshot taken while logged out, with no search, 12 seconds after the final threat, and 3 minutes into a barrage of threats. The screenshot is of the Twitter user's page. This shows Sarkeesian was alerted to the threats immediately, and took a screen shot immediately after the final threat, without using the search or notification features of Twitter. Reddit has produced annotated image. --John Moser (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a hoax, after all, we don't engage in original research, and everything must be attributed to a source. In this case, you have a .jpg image using original research to supposedly debunk it, when we have rs indicating it happened. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If I get The Verge or Destructoid to report it as a hoax, will that make it a hoax? --John Moser (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a source bias, and we are instructed to stick to the sources. So yes, that may be the case. Tutelary (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Fine. Allow me to debunk some of this.

1. Anita has two twitter accounts (don't ask what the other one is, I won't share it), constantly flowing in and out of accounts can explain the whole not being logged in.
2. She just uses an application and never logs into the website.

Either way that one falls flat. So here's a possible explanation: A friend of hers keeps out for this sort of thing and then sends her a link to this page. One screenshot later and then it's reported. This could have all happened this fast. I really doubt with the torrent of abuse she gets anyway that anybody would bother to make all this up. Request for collapse starting right after my second comment please. Zero Serenity 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion on whether to include this material and how to best represent the available sources if we do. We don't need to respond to commentary, "debunking", or whatever that appears only in non-reliable sources. So far, it appears the only media reporting on this item treat it as real. Our only goal at this point is determining whether and how to include what the real sources say.--Cúchullain /c 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making unsourced, disparaging statements about living people on Misplaced Pages. We will not lend any credibility to the idea that the story is untrue unless and until our sources do. The only questions that concern us are whether this news item is significant enough to include in the articles, and if so, how we can best include what they say.--Cúchullain /c 18:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

John Moser, please familiarise yourself with the policy on biographies of living persons. Making comments like this, even on Talk pages, is against Misplaced Pages policy. Furthermore, we don't edit based on opinion, we reflect the sources. At this time, all reliable sources state that it happened. Therefore, that's what we put in the article. Euchrid (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So this morning I'm reading the Washington Post, and guess who got an entire article about being harassed again, this time with death threats? It's almost to the point where Online harassment of Anita Sarkeesian will soon be a bluelink. If she weren't so heavily trolled, she'd likely be a minor figure, but because she's so recognized for abuse frequently hurled at her, she's become a much larger figure. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article doesn't really add anything unfortunately. Hoping for some more info on this subject...somewhere. Zero Serenity 13:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Very partial list of sources found about this incident:

• Dominguez, James (August 29, 2014). "Feminist game critic driven from home by disturbing online threats". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney, Australia: Fairfax Media. Retrieved August 29, 2014.
• McDonald, Soraya Nadia (August 29, 2014). "Gaming vlogger Anita Sarkeesian is forced from home after receiving harrowing death threats". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
• Steadman, Ian (August 27, 2014). "Tropes vs Anita Sarkeesian: on passing off anti-feminist nonsense as critique". New Statesman. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
• Crossley, Rob (August 28, 2014). "Tropes vs Women author Sarkeesian vacates home following online threats". ComputersAndVideoGames. Future plc. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
• Murillo, Erwin (August 28, 2014). "Anita Sarkeesian Received Rape And Death Threats On Twitter, Authorities Alerted". Gamer Headlines. Retrieved 29 August 2014.

In Google news I see about 80 articles about this incident alone, and while some of them are of marginal reliability, I think we're about to start seeing criticism in RS. See this:

• Sales, Samual (August 28, 2014). "Another take on the Anita Sarkeesian Controversy: Who's to blame for this madness?". Gamer Headlines. Retrieved 29 August 2014.

The above commentary appearing in a somewhat reliable source mentions scrubbing of her Misplaced Pages page, for example. "There’s a very real discussion to be had about Anita and the quality of her work, but it’s getting buried in the mud being thrown both ways..." comments author Samual Sales. I think the coverage of this reprehensible incident gives us a new ballgame, source-wise. Personally, I thought the Steadman article linked above was a good discussion of the reaction to the series, not just the incident. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure Computer and Video Games and Gamer Headlines qualify as RS, but the others certainly do. My point I was trying to make is that the information on the threats and soforth is a bit weak. Apart from the screenshot, Anita hasn't said much. I'm not denying any of it was true, I'm just wishing for more on it to put in the article. Zero Serenity 14:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We're handicapped because we're not a newspaper. There are several RS newspapers which cover the incident, but in their blogs section, so I didn't list them. I suspect we'll see some coverage in the next few days as the larger media decides if they want to cover it, and the troll community continues to act like a torch and pitchfork mob chasing a beast. I'd agree the two sources you mentioned would be situationally reliable only. Imagine how crazy this talk page would be if it weren't semi-protected right now. I'm surprised we haven't seen more activity on the Tropes page yet. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's under full protection (Sysop required) so even I can't edit it. But yeah, after demanding protection for Xbox One and Death Battle repeatedly, they can get pretty hairy. Zero Serenity 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's semi. I just added three of the best sources, and slightly rewrote the beginning of the paragraph. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That...was the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games page. I was referring to Anita's page. Zero Serenity 14:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think the coverage by solid sources is sufficient to include a mention of the item in this article, the Tropes article, or both. Of the above sources, I think Steadman's piece may be useful elsewhere for analysis from a noteworthy author. I'll also point out that content from the blog section of reputable newspapers aren't necessarily off limits to us; WP:NEWSBLOG covers this. Indeed, the New York Times has covered Sarkeesian in its ArtsBeat feature, written by reliable source Helen Lewis; ArtsBeat is listed under the paper's newsblog section but it's of higher quality than what a lot of other websites put out as their top content. Of course, anything from a reader blog section is off limits.

As for the two non-newspaper sources listed by Buster, WP:VG/RS seems to regard Computer and Video Games as acceptable for at least some things. However, I'm with Zero on Gamerheadlines; I sincerely doubt that site or that piece in particularly could be considered reliable, for a variety of reasons.--Cúchullain /c 17:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, on further reading, I think that Gamerheadlines article may well come up again from people hoping to insert negative criticism into the article, so I'll go ahead an elaborate on why I consider it unreliable. The source isn't mentioned at WP:VG/RS, and there seems to have been no discussion at the WikiProject Video games or the Reliable sources noticeboard about it, let alone consensus that it's generally reliable by Misplaced Pages standards. A brief look at the website sends up several red flags. The "About" tells us very little, and nothing to say this isn't a blog. The "Authors" page lists 20 people (a lot for such an obscure site) but few if any seem to be professional staff or have much journalism background (including this author). There's no editor in chief (only one person claims to be "an editor" at all). It seems they've got a pretty loosely defined editorial staff.

Moving on to the article in question (which is clearly an editorial that's not marked as such), it's, well, rife with amateurish errors:

"Sarkeesian has also flaunted with more controversy in the past, after she was discovered to have been lying about her industry experience in interviews and on her kickstarter page, and suffered claims that she’s thrown out the regular show schedule promised on her page in favour producing only three episodes a year to fund a lavish lifestyle of luxury. To top it off, there’s even claims that the footage she uses in videos was stolen from various long players with permission."

If this site has any editorial oversight at all, this kind of thing really doesn't speak well for its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It would take a lot to convince me that this passes the WP:IRS criteria.--Cúchullain /c 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New York Times this morning. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

FAQ Templates TfDed

As seen here. Now that the FAQ template will take another page, it would be good to confine this to the Talk namespace. These templates are now unused. Zero Serenity 17:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Handwriting University

The sentence "She worked as a seminar coordinator and media contact for Handwriting University." cites

• http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb197342.htm
• http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/01/prweb335817.htm
• http://handwritinguniversity.com/teleclass/haisha/confirmation1.html

I see some issues with this. Two of the links are press releases and one is self-published, and they just list someone named Anita Sarkeesian in passing. This seems like WP:OR assuming that any mention of "Anita Sarkeesian" is plausible/reliable and referring specifically to the subject of this article. (I haven't checked, but it is conceivable that there's someone else with the name.)

Second, if this is indeed the same Sarkeesian, how is it relevant? Is it really necessary or appropriate to list all the "details of her life"? Trivialist (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If we had some reliable sources commenting on the fact that she'd been there and done that, a weak case might be made that it belongs in a proper warts-and-all bio. But so far, as Trivialist says, that case hasn't been made. Given the unfavorable opinion of most people about handwriting analyst, the insistence on putting in ill-sourced stuff like this seems like you're determined to make her look bad. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is her, no doubt. Neon and Chrome is her old site, which includes the same phone number as the press releases and mentions her involvement in coordinating handwriting analysis seminars. Being self-published is not really a problem since it is just citing her and her employer to prove that she had these jobs. We are allowed to use primary sources for these kinds of details. It is just one sentence. TheRedPenOfDoom has now removed it as "self-promotional", but that is misguided. Nothing within the sources provided is unduly self-serving and the material added to the article is not unduly self-serving. It is literally just noting that she worked for Handwriting University.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Allowed to" doesn't mean "must". This is really going to need some justification to even be considered for inclusion. Assuming this is even the same "Anita Sarkeesian", at most this is just some place that she happened to work; it's not like it's a WP:BLPSELFPUB source she personally wrote, giving encyclopedic biographical information about herself. It's just press releases and whatnot that very tangentially mentioned that someone of this name worked there.--Cúchullain /c 03:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I can't even fathom how someone could think this was appropriate for inclusion, let alone to revert it back in multiple times when it had been removed in good faith. They don't even mention Sarkeesian other than to list someone of the name (or just "Anita") in the contacts. Sorry, but this is a WP:BLPPRIVACYWP:BLPPRIMARY violation and has no place in the article.--Cúchullain /c 03:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cuch, it's not particularly significant. Koncorde (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a BLPPRIVACY issue. Where she used to work is perfectly valid information to include in a BLP per policy, even when citing her or her employer. Have you even read that policy or do you just like reciting it when you see something you don't like? I am curious why people are so resistant to this rather meager sentence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Typo. I meant WP:BLPPRIMARY and this is a clear cut violation.--Cúchullain /c 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think this is important enough to include? Is Sarkeesian a handwriting expert? Has she been involved with anything related to handwriting? Are reputable secondary sources saying that this is anywhere near notable? Frankly, this is far more trivial than any of the other trivial matters that were brought up (and those were negative bits of trivial--see this and this). DonQuixote (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently negative about the information, however. Prior work experience is not trivial either, at least when it is of such duration. It is important because it is part of her professional background.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How is it important to her professional background? Again...is Sarkeesian a handwriting expert? Has she been involved with anything related to handwriting? Are reputable secondary sources saying that this is anywhere near notable? Saying that you think it's important doesn't make it so, you have to show that it's important, otherwise it's trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of that in the case of disagreement, WP:BURDEN is on the editor intending insertion to make a case, and that page consensus as mustered on talk determines whether that editor has met the burden of appropriate WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I don't see anything even vaguely approaching that threshold here. BusterD (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I intended to make the concluding point that "I am curious why people are so resistant to this rather meager sentence" is a very poor argument, since nobody here is required to indulge that curiosity. On the other hand, per BURDEN, inserting editor is compelled to make a case convincing to other editors, and so far hasn't done it. BusterD (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources written by the source may be useable, in some circumstances, when they provide material of some encyclopedic interest about themselves. Releases by employers don't cut it, especially when they give no information about the subject beyond including them (or someone else of the name) in the contacts. But yes, even if this did fall into the category of self-published sources we could potentially use, the burden of evidence is on the one introducing it to find consensus.--Cúchullain /c 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Her old website, which I included in the External Links, notes her role as a seminar coordinator as well: . Given that seminars are a big part of the work she does for her site Feminist Frequency it is actually related to her notability in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

you are suggesting that we build her CV for her? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You didn't link that page before, for one thing. For another, perhaps I'm not seeing everything, since that's just an archive of a defunct site, but I don't see anything about Handwriting University, just coordinating seminars. You seriously want to use a defunct website as evidence that this information is noteworthy?--Cúchullain /c 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All the handwriting and forensic document examination seminars were associated with Handwriting University. What makes it noteworthy is that it is part of her professional background and is relevant to what she does today, which is not too dissimilar.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When my mother was about 19, she got a secretarial job for the cult group Psychiana, which was headquartered in her home town of Moscow, Idaho. When I think of my mother's life, her association with that cult is utterly insignificant to her real life story. It was just a teenage job. We need real evidence that this handwriting analysis is a significant part of Sarkeesian's life story. I am just not seeing it here. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism piece

Batting against *expunged*'s most recent video

GamersGate

Ms. Sarkeesian became a target of angry trolls at 4Chan and Reddit but I am trying to find a reliable neutral third party source for it. I thought I'd post the link here and see if it can be used for this article. Arstechnica 4Chan chat logs for Gamersgate is this source acceptable? Orion Blastar (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Source is very acceptable since it follows WP:RS and is listed in WP:VG/S as reliable. That being said I'm not sure it's worth inclusion since this has more to do with Zoe Quinn and that whole...thing (I'm not an expert and don't want to be on that subject) that happened around her. My vote is good source, but against inclusion. Zero Serenity 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ars Technica is a very good source, albeit on the natural sciences and technology specifically (really some of the best work I've seen in science journalism is done very well here), not sure about them on the broader cultural issues, though. Their generally model is to get PhD's in the respective field to write the articles, a model which doesn't transfer well to cultural issues. I think the measure you need is not WP:VG/S but more sources known for reliability on cultural analysis. For the specific information contained in the source by Orion, they are most certainly reliable, but the question then is on of WP:WEIGHT (space for content is justified by the attention reliable sources give a topic, not on perceived importance by some other metric). I think it's a good source to use but there's not enough additional weight in it alone to add much more than a single sentence. Second Quantization (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why some sources are judged by "harsh" standards: General Criticism vs Critical Analysis

Critical analysis, such as "counter-arguments" that try to use the language and methods of a field of study, needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or other scholarly publications. These are the harsh standards for any type of critical analysis. (For example: To Kill a Mockingbird#Themes.)

General criticism, such as the book deftly presents the dry subject matter or the video jumps too quickly from one subject matter to another, I like it, I hate it, etc., can be sourced from newspapers, op-eds, blogs of acknowledged experts, etc. (For example: To Kill a Mockingbird#Reception.)

So if some sources appear to be judged harshly and other not, this is the reason. DonQuixote (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well put. I'll also add that there is a WP:WEIGHT issue as well. Viewpoints from lower quality sources get less weight, if any, compared to higher-quality sources.--Cúchullain /c 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be a false notion for many editors, particularly newer ones that this article is against any form of criticism. I would like to emphasize that this is not the case, I and I'm sure others have no bias in this subject. Given the short time span this far and foreseeable future developments and writers/academics to come, no doubt in there is the possibility of notable, even multiple critical pieces. If tomorrow any major, widely cited across Misplaced Pages gaming website published an article with a unfavorable reception to a tropes episode, it would be published for balance. However I must also state that it would also need to consider weight, for example this hypothetical source would not be able to counter balance everything that has been written so far to date, more than likely one small point of reference. Frankly Man (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation: We like Anita and agree with what she is saying so we will fight tooth-and-nail to keep out anything about her we don't like until we essentially have no choice in order to maintain our credibility. If that means misrepresenting the nature of sources and ignoring policy in favor of our personal opinions then so be it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Er...no. It means this (from 1:05:05 to 1:06:45), particularly this bit. DonQuixote (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And anything else that you don't like. Akulkis (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a YouTube series about video games. It is not quantum physics and it is not To Kill a Mockingbird. Even so, a review in a scientific journal is not the same as a peer-reviewed study in said journal. You are just locking out criticism because of your personal opinions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion?--I have no opinion. So, yeah, straw man there. I'm just looking out for proper use of reliable sources. The videos in questions are works, and just like any other works--like To Kill a Mockingbird--any critical analysis should come from peer-reviewed journals and or other scholarly works. This keeps fringe ideas with no merit from tertiary sources such as an encyclopaedia. Sorry, but that's how it works. DonQuixote (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think Holt represents a "fringe view" on Sarkeesian's work? Pretty sure it matches what many gamers and conservatives have said about her. Criticism of Sarkeesian is not fringe. Your comments have no basis in policy, but are just your own opinions on what you think should be allowed in this article and that apparently does not include criticism of Sarkeesian and her work.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If it weren't "fringe" there would be multiple other reliable sources carrying it. So yep. Fringe. Undeniably.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying that even if there was an in-depth review of Sarkeesian's work in, say, the Washington Times, you would consider it a fringe view if it was critical of Sarkeesian? If so, then you need to re-read the policy, because it does not say anything of that nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

When there is an in depth coverage in the Wash Times and no other reliable sources, come on back and we can discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Advocate, how about letting off until you actually find a Sarkeesian-critical source that makes a clean break out of any policy gray areas? By now, I'm sure you're reasonably familiar with the boundaries of editorial possibilities. You'll know it when you find it.

Peter 00:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the Gameshield source that keeps coming up, I would not use it for a good review of a game I personally enjoyed because there is currently a lack of nobility, as opposed to the many others. Even if someone here was simply just be "out to prove her wrong", wouldn't you rather have the source be completely reliable? that being said, there should be no bias either way. Frankly Man (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources

Some additional sources are now available:

• Catherine Bailey Kyle (2014), "Her Story Too: Final Fantasy X, Revolutionary Girl Utena, and the Feminist Hero's Journey", published in Heroines of Film and Television: Portrayals in Popular Culture, edited by Norma Jones, Maja Bajac-Carter, Bob Batchelor (Rowman & Littlefield; ISBN: 1442231505). This discusses Sarkeesian and cites her videos a number of times; it's partially available on Google Books.
• Helen Lewis (September 3, 2014), "Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women", The New Statesman.
• Rivera, Joshua (2014). "Cyber-bullies reach a new low". Entertainment Weekly, (1328), 14. This is a small blurb about Sarkeesian and the 2014 harassment.
• Andrea Weckerle (2013). Civility in the Digital Age: How Companies and People Can Triumph over Haters, Trolls, Bullies and Other Jerks. Que Publishing. ISBN: 0133134989. The introduction discusses the 2012 harassment campaign.
• Christine Cupaiuolo (2014). "Not Just Playing Games: The Benefits of Failure and the Power of a Supportive Community". Digital Divide. ISBN: 163295463X A publication of the MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Series. Quite a bit about the 2012 harassment and Tropes...
• Marcyliena H. Morgan (2014). Speech Communities. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 1107782856. Page 111 discusses Sarkeesian and the 2012 events.
• Esther MacCallum-Stewart (2014). Online Games, Social Narratives. Routledge. ISBN: 1317652231 Pages 8, 140, 64 discuss Sarkeesian.
• Carlen Lavigne (2013). Cyberpunk Women, Feminism and Science Fiction: A Critical Study. McFarland. ISBN: 147660178X. The conclusion mentions Sarkeesian and the 2012 events (p. 184).
• Ronald J. Burke (2014). "Individual, organizational, and societal backlash against women". In Ronald J Burke & Debra A Major (Eds.), Gender in Organizations: Are Men Allies or Adversaries to Women’s Career Advancement? (pp. 335–362). Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN: 1781955700. Page 335 gives Sarkeesian's experience as an example.
• Clementine Ford (2014) "There's Nothing Funny about Misogyny". In Dustin Kid (Ed.) Destroying the Joint. (pp. 189-197). Westview Press. ISBN: 0813349133. Pages 195-196 discuss Sarkeesian.
• Paul Tassi (2014). Fanboy Wars: The Fight For The Future Of Video Games, Forbes Media. ISBN: 1632956365. This gets into Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women in Video Games quite a bit. However, I can't vouch for this one; I know nothing about the author or Forbes Media as a book publisher, and at least this version was released through Vook.
• Laurie Penny (2014). Unspeakable Things: Sex, Lies and Revolution. Bloomsbury. ISBN: 1620406896. Has a paragraph on the 2012 harassment; no idea if Penny can be considered reliable.

I'll add more as I find them.--Cúchullain /c 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Good gracious. Where do you find the time... Anyway, perhaps a sub talk page for suggested sources might be in our future with this. Zero Serenity 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Penny is a columnist at The New Statesman and has a Harvard fellowship, so she has the credentials at the very least. That said, a single chapter out of a full length book isn't much to go on. Euchrid (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

• Karen Frost-Arnold (March 2013) "Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability". Episteme 11:1. Cambridge University Press. Touches on Sarkeesian's experience as an instance where internet anonymity may become a "net epistemic detriment" to disadvantaged groups if it's used more for harassment than for support.
• Todd Martens (September 6, 2014). "THE PLAYER; Ugly side of gaming comes to light; A dispute has led to recent threats and harassment." Los Angeles Times. Discusses the 2014 harassment of Sarkeesian and others.
• Paul Muhlhauser and Daniel Schafer (March 2014). "Avengendering of the Lambs" www.womenandlanguage.org. See also Women and Language 37:1, p. 148. An "alternative scholarship" multimedia work inspired by Feminist Frequency.
• Janet Bing (September 2013) "Gotcha: What Social Activists can Learn from Pranksters". Women & Language 36:2 (pp. 97-106). P. 103 mentions Sarkeesian as a modern successor to earlier feminist activists.

--Cúchullain /c 21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Breaking off

Okay, we disagree on the break-off idea of stuffing what we think is usable in a spare page. My thought on the subject is put it someplace where it can't be archived and is easy to access. I'm not trying to discredit, marginalize or anything negative about the stuff you found. Zero Serenity 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, the list can be in two places.--Cúchullain /c 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

American Enterprise Institute criticism

Okay, here we have another article about criticism, this time it is secondary reporting of it. Can we now include criticism of Sarkeesian?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is dry on details about her and criticism of her work. Since we are not the mouthpieces of think tanks (go with it) and the substance of the article is really the video by the AEI, I vote for no inclusion again. Zero Serenity 14:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A thought on the video anyway: "They want the male video game culture to die." I cannot facepalm fast enough at this claim. Otherwise, said video is very dry on specific criticism of the work so much as the video saying "Don't do the series" with a dash of victim blaming. Still voting no. Zero Serenity 14:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"The AEI argues that hardcore games are aimed at men and therefore ought to be free to feature imagery appealing to that audience. Showing footage of documentary maker Anita Sarkeesian, Sommers mocks researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies," while acknowledging that they make "some valid points". This is a significant opinion reported by a reliable source (by a writer already accepted in the article!), about the topic of this article, one that is different to and of equal weight than the WP:RSOPINIONS already included. How can you justify to exclude it in the light of balancing aspects and WP:BALANCE? Given the number of times that "bring reliable sources with criticism" has been said at this talk page, now that we have them I'm taking all you at your word. Diego (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Because in this case the source really isn't Polygon so much as it's the AEI. And AEI is of questionable reliability. Zero Serenity 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

See the URL of the reference. It points to Polygon.com, a reliable source. So, not a valid reason to ignore the neutrality policy. Diego (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

By your standards that makes bing, google and facebook reliable sources when they post excerpts or share videos. Zero Serenity 15:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. You don't have a valid argument and you know it; search engines and networks don't have an editorial review process for fact-checking and a reputation for accuracy, and Polygon does. The good thing is, we don't even need to quote the AEI; we can use what Colin Campbell, a journalist whose articles are already used as references for this topic, has published as news reporting at his online news organization. Diego (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quote something that is his opinion on the subject and not just a variant of "she said". Zero Serenity 15:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I love that when I post a dozen real sources that deal substantively with Sarkeesian and her work it draws crickets, but the second someone dredges up something that smells like it might contain something negative, they come out the woodwork. Too typical.

This is pretty weak tea. A video game website's article, about a conservative YouTube video, about feminist responses to video game culture, that merely mentions Sarkeesian - and not by name - is not exactly multiple references in an academic book in terms of WP:WEIGHT. That said, the American Enterprise Institute is a prominent American think tank, and Christina Hoff Sommers is an academic (in philosophy, though she does write a lot about feminism), which adds important street cred. Nevertheless, citing the YouTube video directly isn't kosher, both in the spirit of WP:BLPSPS and due to the fact that appearing on YouTube does nothing to establish it as a significant viewpoint on the topic. However, assuming Polygon is reliable for news and for establishing that particular news items are noteworthy (there's not much on them at WP:VG/RS, but they're cited here already, for what it's worth), we could use the Polygon article in question. We could say something along the lines of, "In a video for the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers referenced Sarkeesian in a criticism of feminist responses to video games and gamer culture."

The next question we need to ask at this point is the question of WP:WEIGHT. No matter how you look at this, it's a pretty low bar for inclusion. Are we going to include every passing reference to Sarkeesian in a reliable source? There are a ton of them that are at this level or better, so that would be a ton of mostly trivial material to add to the article. I'm interested to hear others' thoughts on the matter.--Cúchullain /c 16:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Treading into WP:NOTFORUM for the first one but I'll bite. Fending off what is useless tends to be easier for me than transposing or writing off the cuff (see my other pet projects). So when I see something that looks suspicious, it is very easy to put down. Aside, I'm not sure WP:SPS applies here since it is produced by AEI as opposed to just...whatever her name is (man that passed out of general memory fast). Again, I'm following with it hardly being about her since the article is mostly just a "she said" rather than having any depth. Polygon not being on VG:RS is a bit peculiar. I'll head over and try to rectify that. Zero Serenity 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain, it only makes sense that negative criticism draws more attention, precisely because none has been used yet. Other sources that are in line with the content already reported don't require significant debate; they can be included at a gentle pace without much opposition and without altering the balance of the article, which is quite imbalanced. When a piece by a reliable source presents a new point of view that hasn't been covered so far, neutrality policy -which is about diversity of viewpoints in case of disputes, not mere relative volume of coverage- requires us to present that point of view. With adequate weight, yes, but so far negative commentary has been given *zero weight*, which isn't due weight either. A simple quote like the one you suggested would therefore be enough to comply with the requirement to describe the existing dispute without engaging in it nor taking sides. Diego (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• The source is perfectly reliable for a criticism attributed to the American Enterprise Institute, Second Quantization (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, the issue is how much this can be considered a "significant viewpoint" for an article on this subect. The video barely touches on Sarkeesian herself and doesn't even bother to name her. The Polygon article just mentions Sommers shows footage of her when she makes a complaint about feminist video game critics. If we're setting the "significant viewpoint" bar as low as "things that passingly refer to the subject", then per WP:BALANCE we'll be adding dozens more trivial additions. And there's quite a lot of "diversity" in viewpoints found in sources sources (including much more substantial sources) that hasn't been added, though of course there's no clamoring for it since it largely isn't negative.--Cúchullain /c 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Now reported in GameSpot as well. I should note this is in addition to the rather lengthy criticism offered by Mytheos Holt. We also have the Escapist piece about the fan-art controversy with an even better piece provided by Zero Serenity on that issue. At what point does criticism of Sarkeesian stop being "undue" in your eyes exactly? Do we need lengthy tirades against her in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, before you would consider allowing any reliably-sourced criticism into this article? For the record, I looked at your additional sources when you posted them and just now and note that they all seem to be solely concerned with the harassment. We already have plenty of information about that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE if you're confused about what undue weight means.--Cúchullain /c 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Gamesided again. Also, we settled the fan art peice MONTHS ago. I'd just wrap this up as "Late to the party". Zero Serenity 18:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It does seem poorly advised to bring up sources previously rejected by consensus here, as it's only going to be a distraction from discussing the source at hand.--Cúchullain /c 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You can reject reliable sources with shrill cries of "it's a blog" that have no basis in policy when said "blog" has editorial control and the author is an experienced journalist with greater academic credibility than pretty much every person included in the article at present, including the subject, but you have not achieved "consensus" just by having the greater number of shrill voices shouting the same invalid arguments. Only point that had any basis in policy was that the criticism may be undue, but now we have another example of reliably-sourced criticism so it is looking a bit less undue to include Holt's criticism. As far as the fan-art bit, I did not see this source that Zero so graciously provided today get mentioned in that discussion, so it seems that is a legitimate basis for renewing discussion of the matter. The more you reject these reliable sources the more obvious it becomes that this has less to do with policy and more to do with your personal POVs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As editors, we strive for a balanced article. Do we think that the article is focusing too much on the criticisms, or is it fair? Seems somewhat repetative. In responding to The Dvil's Advocate, who has done a fantastic job covering a lot of the discussion here, I think a great point is raised. There's absolutely a point in which there's too much criticism. It feels a little like beating a dead horse. At the same time, though, it's criticizing and outspeaking critic, which is ironic. That aside, the largest part about sourcing criticism is the reliability, right? How are we going to agree on what is critical in being factual yet balanced and fair, and isn't just outright flaming? Is a variety of authors better than only a few credible ones? I'm talking the Kevin Morris article vs the Mary Elizabeth Williams article. There's a lot of defense and a lot of hate. It's critical a balance is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your post seems...off-topic. Sorta a swoop in and endorse one side before bringing up something irrelevant. We judge reliable sources based on WP:RS and use WP:VG/S as an additional guide. Said articles you mention do not pose any of your claimed controversies. And quantity does not bring up quality. Conspiratorial movies may have millions of views on youtube, but that doesn't make them any more correct than one guy with less than 100 views. Editors, policies and track records dictate reliability, not view count. Zero Serenity 19:32, 17 September 2014 (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