| Revision as of 02:23, 1 December 2014 view sourceDwavenhobble (talk | contribs)58 edits →Bart Baggett Connection← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 20 October 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,504,760 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Art historians, theorists and critics.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Sarkeesian, Anita|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|class=C |living=yes |listas=Sarkeesian, Anita |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging |importance=low}} |
|
|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=low |toronto=Yes |toronto-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=low|class=c}}}} |
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|
{{Gamergate sanctions|brief=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| author = Beat Metzler |
|
|
| title = Gamer-Sexismus auf der Abschussliste |
|
|
| org = '']'' (in German) |
|
|
| url = http://www.derbund.ch/digital/social-media/GamerSexismus-auf-der-Abschussliste/story/29625804 |
|
|
| date = 3 September 2014 |
|
|
| quote = "Ihr Misplaced Pages-Eintrag wurde mit Pornobildern verunstaltet."}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{pp-blp|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
|image=] |
|
|
|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big><br /> |
|
|
This page is subject to ]; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of ''']''' (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at ].<p>Also, the article may not be edited by accounts with fewer than <big>'''500 edits'''</big>, or by accounts that are less than <big>'''30 days'''</big> old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|counter = 19 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |units=days }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Refideas |
|
{{Refideas |
|
|1=] |
|
| comment = {{crossref|Extended list at ].}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last=Campbell |first=Colin |title=The Anita Sarkeesian story |url=https://www.polygon.com/features/2019/6/19/18679678/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-interview-history-story |website=Polygon |date=June 19, 2019}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last1=Carpenter |first1=Nicole |title=Anita Sarkeesian is shutting down Feminist Frequency after 15 years |url=https://www.polygon.com/23814201/feminist-frequency-shutting-down-anita-sarkeesian |website=Polygon |date=1 August 2023}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last1=Pisoni |first1=Claude |title=Feminist Frequency Closing Down after 14 Years |url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/feminist-frequency/feminist-frequency-closing-down-after-14-years |website=Paste Magazine |date=1 August 2023}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cathy Young == |
|
== Reversion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello {{ping|Sangdeboeuf}} You used the edit summary {{green|see MOS:CAPLENGTH}}. Why do you think this is a special situation? ] (]) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
The is already included at ] per discussion ]. In fact, most of the wording introduced on "selective and skewed analysis" is almost exactly the same, and as it's about the series specifically, it's better placed there than here. The other line about "Sarkeesian theories sometimes rely on radical anti-sex feminist ]" is not at all what the source says. As far as I can tell, Young only mentions Dworkin in saying that another critic of Sarkeesian cited an earlier column Young had written about Dworkin (which had nothing to do with Sarkeesian); by way of explanation she passingly notes that Sarkeesian "sometimes" relies on Dworkin's theories, without saying how or why this is significant. Either way, the line is pointless ("Young says that Sarkeesian cited someone, mic dropped") and seems to be really reaching to justify including the source here in the main article, considering that Young says basically nothing about Sarkeesian herself (and precious little of substance about her videos).--] ]/] 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not even sure it should be included anywhere since it attempts to review a series that is incomplete. I have the feeling this article may come to eat its own words eventually. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::By that logic we should remove all positive references about the video series as well. Besides it's pretty speculative to not include a source because you feel they might eat their words in the future. Are you sure you're not looking for arguments to exclude any criticism here? ] (]) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The issue is whether to include ''this'' source at ''this'' article, and there's no consensus. You've been asked to keep your comments ] before.--] ]/] 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree; there's no particular reason we should care that a theory was once cited - a throwaway mic-drop line is not meaningful. So which theory did she cite, is it a theory that's very controversial or a theory that's widely accepted? Who knows! Absent context beyond "let's try and link Sarkeesian with someone controversial," this doesn't belong. ] (]) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@Cuchullain (continued from above) I should have phrased that differently but i stand by the opinion that this line of reasoning leads to bias. And I'm surprised you don't agree. As long as there's a section in this article about the critical response to the video series, there's no reason to favor positive over critical response. The arguments brought forth by ZS are in no way (that i can see) specific to Young's article. And imho not applicable to the criticism section in general, although one could argue to move the whole section on the video series to the separate article. But as it stands, i think this line of reasoning leads to bias. ] (]) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, there is no reason to favor positive over negative criticism...but that's not what's happening. We're favoring a well-researched and well-written encyclopaedia article over a poorly-sourced, poorly written article. |
|
|
::::::{{talkquote|The is already included at ] per discussion ]...the line is pointless...and seems to be really reaching to justify including the source here in the main article, considering that Young says basically nothing about Sarkeesian herself....|Cuchullain}} |
|
|
:::::] (]) 13:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::This discussion is on whether the fact that the tropes series is not ready yet is a reason not to include critical articles. Or if the feeling some people have that the author will later swallow their words is a reason not to. Please leave your opinion on how much you like the article out of the discussion, or back it up by sources. ] (]) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You're responding to one comment that's at this point two weeks old, and not addressing the fact that various other editors have weighed in with reasonable arguments against including the material in question. There's no consensus to add the material; it's high time to move on.--] ]/] 18:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not Sangdeboeuf, obviously, but I was looking up the cited policy when they reverted your edit, and I would have reverted if they hadn't. You cited ], which says {{tq|In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait '''along with the name of the subject'''}} (emphasis mine). I see that Sangdeboeuf cited ], which gives plenty of examples of biographical infobox captions, all of which include the subject's name—save for ], where it mentions an iconic film and scene that he is known for. It seems to me that the MoS calls for "Sarkeesian" in the caption, both explicitly and implicitly. ] (]) 14:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Citizenship == |
|
|
|
:As I said in {{diff2|1152233206|my edit summary}}, the image does not simply depict the year "2011". Per ]: {{TQ|One of a caption's primary purposes is to identify the subject of the picture ... Be as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject.}} "2011" does not tell the reader who the subject of the image is. The existing caption "Sarkeesian in 2011" does so succinctly and practically. It's normal to caption portraits of biographical subjects this way. ] gives the example {{tq|"Cosby in 2010" for ]}}. Not a special situation at all. —] (]) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
{{archive top|Sans any reliable sources that contradict the reliable sourcing in this article, any discussion of this topic is moot. -- ] 17:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everybody. I read this article but have failed to confirm the citizenship of the subject. I suppose it's nice to identify as a "Canadian-American" but that isn't enough to obtain citizenship. Due to her birth in Canada and since I couldn't figure out whether the parents were there as diplomats, that would make her a Canadian citizen by birth on Canadian soil. |
|
|
|
== Active Years == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
|
| name = Anita Sarkeesian |
|
|
| image = Anita Sarkeesian headshot.jpg |
|
|
| image_size = |
|
|
| alt = |
|
|
| caption = Sarkeesian in 2011 |
|
|
| birth_date = {{birth year and age|1983}}<ref name=viaf>{{cite web |url=http://viaf.org/viaf/315959796/#Sarkeesian,_Anita_1983- |title=Anita Sarkeesian |work=Virtual International Authority File |access-date=March 16, 2016}}</ref> |
|
|
| birth_place = |
|
|
| nationality = ]<ref name=Greenhouse13>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/how-free-should-speech-be-on-twitter.html |title=Twitter's Free Speech Problem |last=Greenhouse |first=Emily |date=August 1, 2013 |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-access=limited}}</ref> |
|
|
| education = {{Plainlist| |
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| occupation = {{Flatlist| |
|
|
* Media critic |
|
|
* public speaker |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| website = {{URL|http://www.anitasarkeesian.com}} |
|
|
| module = {{Infobox YouTube personality|embed=yes |
|
|
| logo = |
|
|
| logo_caption = |
|
|
| pseudonym = |
|
|
| channel_name = feministfrequency |
|
|
| channel_display_name = Feminist Frequency |
|
|
| years_active = 2009–present |
|
|
| genre = Commentary |
|
|
| subscribers = 213 thousand |
|
|
| views = 33.7 million |
|
|
| network = |
|
|
| associated_acts = |
|
|
| catchphrase(s) = |
|
|
| silver_button = |
|
|
| silver_year = |
|
|
| gold_button = |
|
|
| gold_year = |
|
|
| diamond_button = |
|
|
| diamond_year = |
|
|
| stats_update = August 1, 2023 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pinging {{yo|Sangdeboeuf|JeffSpaceman}} I saw your reversions and figured we should ] especially since this page has Contentious Topics measures in place. The "Years active" section in the infobox (copied here for reference) specifically refers to the YouTube channel feministfrequency and is under the "YouTube information" section of the box. Its "About" page links to the official Feminist Frequency websites and social media only, not Sarkeesian's personal website or social media. The channel is specifically part of the FF organization, not Sarkeesian's personal channel (I don't think she has one of her own that I can find, unlike other social media where there is one for her and one for the organization). |
|
Can anybody figure out what her nationality/nationalities are? I think that should be fixed in the article by either a) providing proper references which mention her dual or US citizenship or b) revert to just Canadian. ] (]) 16:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Err, citations 2, 3 and 4 all describe her as "Canadian-American" and we go by those reliable sources, they are cited in the first paragraph of "background" with the qualifier of "identifies". That's pretty much all the investigation we do. All reliable sources denote her as Canadian-American (or says she identifies as). ] (]) 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Multiple reliable sources describe her as Canadian-American. We are not immigration status investigators and what ''you'' have "failed to confirm" is of no relevance to our article. I have restored the description of her identity. ] (]) 16:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is Misplaced Pages not supposed to be about the presentation of verifiable and concrete data? The opening paragraph describes her as Canadian-American, based on what she identifies as. The infobox states that her citizenship is Canadian-American (which isn't even a citizenship). |
|
|
::Can her citizenship be confirmed by any source? - ] (]) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You don't seem to understand how Misplaced Pages operates. Misplaced Pages editors do not conduct "investigations" — we restate and summarize what has been ] in ] about a given topic. It is verifiable that multiple reliable sources describe Anita Sarkeesian as Canadian-American, therefore, so will we, and that's the end of it, until and unless there are reliable sources which state otherwise. ] (]) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}] If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 18:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:To be fair, it's an easy thing to think is important and very easy to get tied up in citing sources. ] was a difficult article for this sort of thing because it introduced all kinds of issues related to assumed nationality, actual citizenship, representative nationality etc. Truth is, even if he represented the USA he would still be "English", or "British". The solution for footballers, as it should be for most articles unless we have any evidence otherwise, is to not mention their nationality but to state who they are and what they do and allow the narrative to explain the other stuff. Here however there are multiple sources doing that for us - end of argument. If they turn out to be wrong then that's their fault. ] (]) 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's fine to restate what sources have published, but the fact remains that no country describes their citizens as "Canadian-American" since that citizenship does not exist. There are two separate citizenships if you replace the hyphen with a comma. |
|
|
:::@] Who's attacking anybody here? ] (]) 17:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
===Nationality=== |
|
|
I simply changed the line to "nationality" and linked to ], which should suffice. This is how it is listed at ], and we cna follow that example too and add "citizenship = Canadian and American", but IMO it isn't a critical aspect of Sarkeesian's bio. ] (]) 17:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|The Wordsmith}} I think that we should remove YouTube from the infobox, given that as you note, it is not directly used by Sarkeesian. Thus, we can keep the years active as running through the present. I don't know if I was looking right at the YouTube information section, I merely thought it was talking about her activity in the world of media criticism, hence why I changed it to "2009-present." I think removing YouTube from the infobox would probably be our best bet here. ] (]) 16:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
==Bart Baggett Connection== |
|
|
|
:Agreed, "years active" is ambiguous in a biography of a person, since it could seem at first glance to refer to the person {{em|or}} their website, blog, YouTube channel, etc. I understood "years active" to refer to Sarkeesian herself. In any case, the was posted a little over a month ago, so it seems premature to call the channel inactive. —] (]) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
In light of a recent article detailing Anita Sarkeesian's early career and connections to <redacted per BLP>, shouldn't this be included in her page? It's all on-record information that can be verified by looking at the archives of her own website so it's not like this information is in dispute and it <redacted per BLP>.] (]) 07:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Present a reliable source for all negative claims about a living person, or they'll be redacted per WP:BLP. ] (]) 07:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have redacted your redactions. Please do not edit my comment again. That is not how discussions work. The source is her own blog. I said that already. I believe her own website is a reliable source for information about her is it not? The article "Anita Sarkeesian Unmasked" from Guardian Liberty Voice can also be searched up on Google. This comment is to start a discussion on the relevancy of her early career. This information, and her working for Baggett, is NOT IN DISPUTE. The conversation here is whether or not it should be included on her page. I believe it should.] (]) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And I have re-redacted them — the ] governs all content on the encyclopedia and you may not present unsourced or poorly-sourced negative claims about a living person anywhere on the encyclopedia. Please do not violate this policy. ] (]) 08:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Guardian Liberty Voice" is not a reliable source. ] (]) 08:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::One of the first autofills for Guardian Liberty Voice when I attempted to google it was "guardian liberty voice scam". I have a feeling it's not going to pass the reliability check. ] (]) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is a fact she worked for him as shown on her own blog here https://web.archive.org/web/20070912100534/http://www.neonandchrome.com/events.html ] (]) 08:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We don't really care what an Internet Archive site says. Can you provide a ] which discusses the issue? If not, it doesn't belong here, the end. ] (]) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You don't care that her website listed her as working for him for many years? Are you calling her a liar? ] (]) 08:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia is, or how Misplaced Pages works. I suggest you read the ] and the ]. They should help you understand how we write articles, and particularly how we write articles about living people. Hint: If you have to scrounge around in web archive sites to find something, it probably doesn't belong in their biography. ] (]) 08:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Almost every result for "Guardian Liberty Voice reliability" returns articles about how it is a content farm clickbait scam. I really reccomend getting your news from somewhere that produces actual journalism. ] (]) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The source is her personal blog. Stop talking about Guardian Liberty Voice. Are you anti-gamergate or are you objective? ] (]) 08:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Her personal blog says she worked for someone at some point. Of what relevance is that, and where does it contain anything which supports the derogatory and highly-defamatory claims of a link to fraud and deceptive behavior that you made above? ] (]) 08:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ref talk}} |
|
*Primary sources are generally acceptable when published by the article subject themselves as a way of verifying statements, but per ], Misplaced Pages articles should be written using the balance (or existence) of secondary sources to determine how to weight things. An old apparent resume you found on the Internet Archive that lists occasional part time work (most of those are listed for 1 day seminars etc,) might be acceptable as a way to verify that statement if ] compliant secondary sources discussed the statement, but it does not make the statement worth including in the first place per Misplaced Pages policies. Having taken a look over GLV (including a convenient summary of their rather lackadaisical editorial policy,) it does not appear that they meet the standard of sourcing required by Misplaced Pages to make severely negative claims about living people. Do not restore the comments about '''either''' of the people whose names you mentioned. Please note that I am acting as an uninvolved admininistrator enforcing ] in this situation, and providing an interpretation of our policies in an effort to assist understanding how ENWP BLP and sourcing policies apply to an article to ensure that ] is adhered to, not weighing in on the actual content beyond that. If you find sources that ''do'' meet our standards for writing about living people, it's fine to bring these claims back up. Until then, '''do not''' restore the redactions. As a general rule, if you restore a redaction made by another editor on ] grounds without first establishing consensus that that edit didn't violate WP:BLP, you're likely to run in to trouble, especially if you do so more than once. Without a reliable source, making claims of the nature that you made about ''either'' person you spoke of is not acceptable here. ] (]) 08:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:You should not be redacting discussion about information found on a primary source just because <redacted> ] (]) 08:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::So what you've presented is that 10 years ago, Anita Sarkeesian managed/coordinated several handwriting analysis seminars, among other events. Of what relevance is this to her present-day life and works? We are not a compendium of trivia, we write encyclopedia articles. ] (]) 09:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Technically as this would class as a person's biography page their past is inherently relevant to the present otherwise why state about any persons early life or in this case Anita's education or see ], this is not the Tropes vs Women / Feminist frequency project page but a persons biography which should include early life and career choices. Thus also relevant on this page would be her worth with Neon and Chrome <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070703184334/http://neonandchrome.com/</ref> and Bart Baggett. For those who need more sources <ref>http://handwritinguniversity.com/teleclass/haisha/confirmation1.html</ref> which has archived versions as early as 2006 <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060709040902/http://handwritinguniversity.com/teleclass/haisha/confirmation1.html</ref> oh also confirmation from a blog that this is the official site <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20130826072319/http://attorney-pr.blogspot.co.uk/2008_06_07_archive.html</ref> So it's my take that this is a biography page and not simply a page to advertise her work. Am I wrong in that ?] (]) 02:11, 01 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Section for Criticism == |
|
== English templates == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a general question: should we consider using either the {{tl|Use Canadian English}} template or the {{tl|Use American English}} template in this article, since the subject was born in Canada but identifies herself as Canadian-American? ] (] - ]) 05:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Her views are controversial enough that I propose a separate section for criticism. While most of the criticism is happening on platforms like social media that are unreliable sources, there are also articles and columns (examples<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/27/An-open-letter-to-Bloomberg-s-Sheelah-Kolhatkar-on-the-delicate-matter-of-Anita-Sarkeesian</ref><ref>http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml</ref>) on the topic. Other articles (example<ref>http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/07/13/on-anita-sarkeesian-sexism-in-video-games-and-why-we-need-to-have-the-conversation-even-if-it-feeds-the-trolls/</ref>) also exist that acknowledge the existence of criticism. In both cases it's worth noting that many sources fall under ]. --] (]) 12:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, Breitbart is not a reliable source, for one. We discuss notable criticisms of '']'' in that article. ] (]) 17:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Referencing some criticism she's received doesn't sound like a bad idea, but a whole section only for criticism would be wonky. Perhaps just integrate what she's been criticized for in the appropriate section, like the ''Reception'' section of ''Video Series'' could hold some criticism of her videos from those sources you listed? <font face="syntax">]<sup>]</sup></font> 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? The Wordsmith 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
Sarkeesian in 2011