Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:13, 20 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 Westballz (0 participants) Temmie Chang (4 participants) Greg Martin (artist) (3 participants) PKHeX (6 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 (8 participants) Party royale game (4 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 (5) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (9) cover art (249) screenshots (9,002) photos (71) 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

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

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)

Lectures about not editing based on "personal POV" is unlikely to persuade coming from someone with your track record. And yes, driving the discourse off on tangents about other material that previously failed to find consensus makes it more likely that discussion about the source at hand will be derailed before achieving consensus.--Cúchullain /c 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My track record is not one of editing based on "personal POV" but it is clear that is what you are doing. A neutral observer would conclude that there is enough reliably-sourced criticism to include it in the article now, but you still cry bloody murder at the thought of it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please. For weeks you've made few if any edits here that weren't devoted to trying to insert negative material, generally based on flimsy sources, and then you fly off the handle whenever you're challenged.--Cúchullain /c 01:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing flimsy about my sources, only your arguments against them. As to why I want criticism in the article, well, shouldn't you want criticism in the article? I would think any devoted Wikipedian would be incensed at the lack of criticism of the subject in this article and want there to be some inserted once reliable sources were found.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you really trying to defend the creepy deleted personal website and PR releases that didn't discuss the subject as solid sources for a BLP?--Cúchullain /c 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are valid sources for a BLP since they are either from her or associated with her and considering all I really added was "Sarkeesian worked for x" and nothing more, it was hardly some horrific negative attack. It was simply an accurate statement about her prior work experience.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Right...--Cúchullain /c 02:38, 18 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)

It's irrelevant that Hoff Sommers doesn't identify Sarkeesian by name; Colin Campbell does that connection for us, noting how Sommers is "mocking" her -among others- but at the same time acknowledges some of her points as valid; points that have been included in this article, including the analysis of the Damsel in distress and womens as sex objects. This is not a passing mention, it's critical analysis of Sarkeesians work as reported by an independent reliable third party. Now if your point is that Polygon is not reliable to establish the objects of their articles as significant topics, we should be talking about removing most of the Continued harassment and GamerGate section, of which two thirds are sourced by this very same source. But of course if we go with that revision of the current standards for inclusion, it should prompt a review of all the sentences that have been included in the article based on opinions published by gaming websites, which are less reliable than the opinions of scholars. Diego (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. To move the discussion forward, does anyone have a suggestion for content to discuss? Second Quantization (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is most certainly a "passing mention", at most. Sommers flashes a shot of Sarkeesian as she goes on about "a new army of critics" and all the various things "they" supposedly say, which includes little if anything specific to Sarkeesian (she does allude to Sarkeesian later in discussing the death threats, but Polygon doesn't pick up on that). As for suggested additions, I've already made a suggestion above, in the event that there's consensus this is significant enough to include.--Cúchullain /c 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the reference with more detail, it's there in the second-to-last paragraph. Also, everything she says about "critics" is aimed at Sarkeesian; when she uses the word "critics" her image is introduced as the object of the sentence, so she is clearly one of the critics alluded. We even have Polygon confirming that point. Diego (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right that Polygon does mention the second allusion to Sarkeesian. As for the rest, yes, it's a passing mention at most, and again, little if anything is specific to Sarkeesian (Sarkeesian is hardly the only one to discuss "damsels in distress", and I highly doubt that she's called video games a "hetero-patriarchal capitalist pursuit"). If Sommer intended "Anita Sarkeesian" instead of "new army of critics", she could have said that, or in the very least engaged with things Sarkeesian says.--Cúchullain /c 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The bobbing and weaving you are doing here is sad. She puts this out now, puts up footage of Sarkeesian and only Sarkeesian up on the screen when talking about critics, and multiple reliable sources caught that (now Kotaku as well), yet you talk as though the video has nothing to do with Sarkeesian at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to respond to my actual comments.--Cúchullain /c 01:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussing content

(edit conflict) ::How about this?: "Christina Hoff Sommers, from the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank, acknowledged Sarkeesian's analysis of damsels in distress and objects of sexual gratification as "valid points", but mocked her and other researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies". (source: Colin Campbell, Polygon.com).(I've partly based it on Cúchullain's suggestion above). We could either include or exclude the other point that Campbell notes about the video, that Sommers acknowledges both the "serious threats" faced by Sarkeesian and the "logic, evidence and humor" of those who disagree with her as a feminist critic. (See? There was some in-depth content to write about after all). Diego (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, although I wouldn't include the suggested extra point, and I would replace mocked with criticised: Christina Hoff Sommers, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, acknowledged Sarkeesian's analysis of damsels in distress and objects of sexual gratification as "valid points", but criticised her and other researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies". Second Quantization (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested "mocked" because that's the term that Campbell uses, but I'm ok with replacing it by "criticised" if you think it sounds more neutral. I think the AEI should be described just by "conservative" for the same reason - it's both the most neutral term and the one used by the reference. Diego (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's policy to write in a dry neutral tone (while it is not required of reliable sources), also over adherence to a source is plagiarism; digest a source and write the point in your own words. Second Quantization (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers has her own page, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Several problems with the suggestion. Neither Polygon nor the video itself single out "analysis of damsels in distress and objects of sexual gratification" as "valid points" by Sarkeesian or anyone else. Sommer merely touches on women being portrayed as "damsels in distress or sex objects" as one of various points raised by "these critics" (plural). What she does say re "valid points" is, "Now, these critics have made some useful points about sexist tropes and narratives". It appears Polygon got the "useful points" quote wrong, and at any rate it doesn't elaborate on what they are. In other words, Sommer neither calls the "damsels in distress or sex objects" bits "valid points", nor attributes them particularly to Sarkeesian.

In fact, Sommer never attributes anything at all particularly to Sarkeesian (who, again, she never names). Nor does Polygon say that she does. As such, it's not accurate to claim that Sommer "mocked her and other researchers". Rather, Sommer just alludes to Sarkeesian as part of a wider criticism of feminist video game criticism. The most we could say would be my original line, she "references Sarkeesian in a criticism of feminist responses to video games and gamer culture" (or possibly "alludes to Sarkeesian").--Cúchullain /c 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We have another source that says more now from Kotaku. Your argument that not mentioning Sarkeesian by name means we can only mention a "reference to Sarkeesian" is patently ridiculous. She deliberately calls out Sarkeesian in the video by showing footage of Sarkeesian in the same breath as her criticism of "gender activists" so we can reasonably use the mention of Sarkeesian as a basis for including the other critiques about said activists.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't say she "acknowledged Sarkeesian" or "mocked Sarkeesian" without, well, misrepresenting the sources. She doesn't say anything about Sarkeesian at all, she just shows an image of her when she talks about the wider group she's criticizing (and references her more directly later when talking about the death threats). Saying she "referenced Sarkeesian in her criticism of feminist responses to video games" is accurate.--Cúchullain /c 01:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation of the source. Multiple reliable sources picked up on her criticizing Sarkeesian. You seem to not want her criticism included for some reason despite it being noted by multiple reliable sources. Stange . . .--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed out why Diego's suggestion is flawed. Now, is there a problem with my suggestion, or are you just going to continue venting?--Cúchullain /c 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is giving your personal interpretation of the video (rooted in your personal POV on the subject), ignoring what the reliable sources say about it, and saying we should make an edit according to what you think of the video. Sorry, but that is not valid policy-based reasoning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You're really not helping your position with your personal comments and battleground mentality.--Cúchullain /c 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you do not want personal comments then you should use arguments that aren't just your personal feelings regarding the source and give some actual policy-based reasoning. Your opinion that Sommers herself only makes a passing reference to Sarkeesian and that thus we cannot use what multiple reliable sources say about her video and how it concerns Sarkeesian is not policy-based reasoning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather, you should stop making personal comments and drop the battleground mentality, period. Especially if you're going to presume to deliver lectures on policy and behavior. My suggestion is based on what the video actually covers, and what the other sources actually say about it.--Cúchullain /c 04:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be helpful to show what the sources actually say.

• In the video, Hoff Sommers shows footage of Sarkeesian while she says "Well, now, gamers are dealing with a new army of critics: gender activists and, I don't know, hipsters with a degree in cultural studies." Later, she shows Sarkeesian again while she refers to the death threats.
• Polygon says, "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 slight misquote). Later, they say: "She claims that those who disagree with feminist critics have used 'logic, evidence and humor' to state their case, although she mentions that Sarkeesian and others have faced serious threats."
• GameSpot notes the "gender activists" and "hipsters with degrees in cultural studies" bit (correctly quoted), but doesn't mention Sarkeesian in this context. Ruh roh! On the death threats, they say, "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series. Sarkeesian recently made headlines after she published Twitter posts and emails that documented threats to her life as a result of her criticisms about gender issues in video games. Sommers says the 'new culture critics' have latched onto these attacks, using them to prove that there exists a "patriarchal pathology" at the heart of gamer culture, when in fact this is not the case."
• Kotaku says, "In her new video, she snarks about 'gender police' and presents the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos about female tropes in video games as an attack on male gamer culture." That's it; nothing on the death threats. In other words, it's a breezier version of what I said.

The wording can be tweaked, but saying Hoff Sommers "referenced Sarkeesian in her criticism of feminist responses to video games and video game culture" is a perfectly reasonable summary of what the sources say about this video.--Cúchullain /c 04:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's another, fuller suggestion: "Philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers of the conservative American Enterprise Institute included Sarkeesian and her series in a video criticizing feminist responses to video games and video game culture, which she regarded as an unfair intrusion on a male-dominated hobby."--Cúchullain /c 05:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. It neatly avoids including any of the actual criticism of Sarkeesian that is explicitly mentioned in those reliable sources. At the same time, seeing as Sarkeesian is obviously one of the people Sommers is criticizing, all the comments in the video about gender activists and feminist critics are reasonably open to inclusion in this article on that basis.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, Cúchullain, you have already accepted (twice) that when Hoff Sommers says "critics" and shows footage of Sarkeesian she's referring specifically to her; this is how identifies Sarkeesian and Quinn towards the end. This doesn't mean that Sommers is talking about some other generic feminist critics receiving death threats, now does it? :-P Your latest suggestion looks better though. "Alluded to" is a good way to describe how Sarkeesian is mentioned in the video; if we say that she was "alluded as part of new media critics, gender activists and hipsters", then the summary will be capturing the gist of the reference more closely. Diego (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Alluded to" is fine, hence why I included it. However "alluded as part of new media critics" doesn't really work as a sentence. How about "alluded to Sarkeesian and her series in a video criticizing..."--Cúchullain /c 11:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have still much work to do with my phrasal verbs. We have to include how Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian so "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies" has to be there in some way or another, as that's the main connection existing between both video-bloggers, i.e. the light in which Sommers is presenting Sarkeesian; this is what Sommers is saying during the whole seconds when Sarkeesians is on the screen. How about following Polygon more closely and paraphrasing it as Sommers criticized new media critics as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies", in an allusion to Sarkeesian? Diego (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That phrasing is still pretty clunky. But either, we don't need to have a quote (which is actually "...a new army of critics, gender activists and, I don't know, hipsters with degrees in cultural studies"; that's clunky in its own right). We can paraphrase it, or alternately we can follow Kotaku and not worry about the specific moment she alludes to Sarkeesian (GameSpot doesn't mention Sarkeesian at all in that regard). That way we can talk about the whole thrust of the video. The issue with something like:

"In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of 'a new army of critics, gender activists and, I don't know, hipsters with degrees in cultural studies'."

...is that, apart from including an awkwardly phrased quote, it doesn't get into why she's going on about these "activists" in the first place: because she thinks they're unfairly criticizing the male hobby of video games.--Cúchullain /c 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I wrote my previous one before finding Kotaku. Your new wording doesn't look bad to me at all, though if you want to include her basis for , you can get some from Kotaku too: "she snarks about "gender police" and presents the likes of as an attack on male gamer culture". Diego (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, but the sentence doesn't say anything about what the actual criticism is (ie, that she's criticizing them for criticizing video games), or mention video games at all. Plus the quote is extremely awkwardly phrased.--Cúchullain /c 17:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost there

Let's see how the whole thing runs together: "In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' and describes the likes of Sarkeesian's work as an attack on male gamer culture ".

These are the significant ideas pertaining to Sarkeesian in the sources, right? How would you word it differently? Diego (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that works pretty well, especially with the ellipses. Well done. We'll need to paraphrase the last bit to avoid plagiarism. How about: "In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists and... hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' she believes has unfairly attacked masculine video game culture.".--Cúchullain /c 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We almost have a deal, though the second half is hard to parse; does "she" refers to Hoff Sommers, Sarkeesian or the army? I had problems making sense of it even though I already knew what it's saying. Also, "believes" is a bit strong; I can't tell if Sommers would agree to say "I believe this army has unfairly attacked male game culture", not from the references. Something like this is closer to the source: "...cultural stucies', and said many of these critics want the male game culture to die".

And, new development: see Kotaku's updated note at the bottom - Hoff Sommers self-identifies as "Libertarian-leaning and is a registered Democrat". Do we have evidence the video was made on behalf of the institute, and not presented on her own? If not, it's best to present her as " Philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers released a video were she alluded...". Diego (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We could go with In a video for the conservative American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists and... hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' whom she believes has unfairly attacked masculine video game culture", which makes clear the "whom" (the army of critics) is separate from the "she" (Hoff Sommers). As for the videos, they're produced by the AEI. We don't need to say she's a libertarian; the "philosopher" part is what gives her the street cred, such as it is".--Cúchullain /c 12:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, "whom" is right. Though we don't need to say the AEI is conservative either, then; given that we don't WP:LABEL any other source in that way, and it's "likely to create confusion" (to the point that Kotaku had to amend their article title), we can leave guessing her ideology as an exercise to the reader. So, can it be "In a video for the American Enterprise Institute, philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers alluded to Sarkeesian as part of an 'army of critics, gender activists' and 'hipsters with degrees in cultural studies' whom she believes has unfairly attacked masculine video game culture" the final version? (We can avoid the ellipsis entirely, or keep it if you prefer). Diego (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine, though there's no question the AEI itself is conservative, even if Hoff Sommers doesn't identify herself as conservative herself. I think it's better to leave in the ellipses. And finally, looking at it again I think the line should be "have unfairly attacked" rather than "has". Otherwise it's good to go, though I suppose we need to figure out where to put it now.--Cúchullain /c 14:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no question The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Guardian also have known political biases, and we don't deem relevant to mention those. I've placed it at Reception, chronologically, where it's used as analysis of her work; it could be moved also to GamerGate, though if we did that we should then explain the connection with the incident. Diego (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW I've changed 'believe' to 'said', as the references doesn't use 'believe' either and it looks a little weasel-y. Should it be 'says', 'say' or 'said'? (Or we could use 'described'...) Please copy-edit as needed. Diego (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Conservatism is part of the AEI's entire MO and identity - it's a think tank. I'd think it would help readers identify who they are and why we care about their video. On the other point, I think "said" works just fine. Again, well done, Diego. I'll respond to the placement question below.--Cúchullain /c 15:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

...then we can say "think tank" rather than "conservative", just like we often say "online newspaper" or "magazine" for other sources; that's enough to identify those as originators of public opinion, without leaning the sentence over the political axis. The ideology is not particularly relevant here, and highlighting it seems undue weight, as it reads like an attempt to sway the reader according to their prejudices; it just doesn't feels neutral to me. Diego (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Think tank" could work, though the name already indicates it's an institute of some kind. But again, promoting conservatism is the entire reason they exist, it's not inaccurate or leading. We can remove it unless others think it should stay put.--Cúchullain /c 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer "conservative think tank" or "conservative American Enterprise Institute". A news source occasionally may reveal a tendency toward framing assertions in a liberal or conservative way; AEI is an organization dedicated to promoting their institutional conservative/corporatist bias unapologetically. IMHO, Sommers is a fringe specimen of the category of thinkers we call "feminists". Unlike most feminists (who have day jobs) she's a professional spokesperson backed by a huge money machine which gives her no responsibility other than making fringe assertions and writing fringe screeds. My opinion seems well-founded, based on the sources in her Misplaced Pages article and a reasonable online search for other sourcing. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty slim pickings, and there'd be no way it would ever be included if reliable sources hadn't mentioned it. It really ought to be identified for what it is: the product of a conservative think tank (who would likely have no problem being labeled as such; "conservative" isn't a slur to be avoided). All three of the sources make note of that, even Kotaku, who updated the article to avoid calling Hoff Sommers herself conservative, as that's apparently not how she identifies.

Do you want to revisit the prospect of including it in the first place?--Cúchullain /c 20:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

On the merits, I think the Sommers critique small beer, and it doesn't address the sorts of issues often raised in this talk space by concerned game community defenders. Correctly characterizing Sommers's employer as conservative helps identify the fringey aspect of her critique per WP:DUEWEIGHT. For my part, I'm very glad to see ANY negative criticism of the subject which meets WP:IRS, since this is something we've been missing for quite some time and is one of the points upon which page critics harp incessantly. I believe I can identify with some frustrated editors who want to see more critique of the subject but can't find anything outside of YouTube videos. While I understand WP policy on verifiability, the policy seems to some to employ an unfair "double standard". Subject can say pretty much whatever she wants on YouTube, and we occasionally post it, per WP:SELFSOURCE. A multitude of non-notable critics say lots of stuff on YouTube and we're prohibited from reporting on any of it, per WP:NOYT and WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Only if the video gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources (as it happens to be in this case) are we allowed to use the video critique. I suspected that the corner had been turned (that we'd soon be seeing negative critique meeting IRS) the day we started discussing the bomb threats. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

More sources

Sommers video is getting traction in more news sites, see Salon, Kotaku who mention Sarkeesian in their coverage. Diego (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, given the inclusion of the video and notability of the person in question, a mention of Sommers does appear valid however the wording and weight of it must be considered further. While I understand some of the concerns here over the lack of any criticism so fa far for a controversial figure, I am however still concerned with the constant insistence for such content, even though I will assume good faith nonetheless. EDIT: So far after watching the video and the suggestions presented so far seem like a good starting point. Frankly Man (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with including it if that's the consensus, so long as it's 100% accurate. But you're right, the insistence on including any and all negative material is troubling. We also have a wider conversation to get into about due weight: if we include this, what about all the other items, negative or otherwise, that have this level of sourcing or better. Are we really going to include every source that ever mentioned Sarkeesian in passing?

As for the sources, the Salon article doesn't mention this video, and Kotaku has been discussed above.--Cúchullain /c 13:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly Man, the insistence is because NPOV urges us to take great care to report all significant points of view, and BLP encourages to adhere strictily to NPOV. We know that a negative POV exists, the argument is to what degree we can form consensus that it's significant. Therefore, each time a new point of view receives coverage in RSs, we are bound to review it and assess its relevance, lest we breach neutrality by omission of significant coverage. This article should withstand scrutiny of conservative readers too, so if there's a chance that a conservative POV is reliably sourced and relevant, our due as encyclopedians is to report it with due weight. There's no honor in enforcing neutrality when you agree with the content, the whole point is defending it even when you despise what has been said. Diego (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What I mean by insistence is rather more "stretching of sources" so to speak. I strongly agree that more critical sources are needed, nonetheless I still prefer to approach this article with scrutiny given the controversial subject matter. That being said everything seems to be on the ball in this instance so far nor have I any qualms with you. I always want to find common ground. Frankly Man (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We also have another issue to hammer out: if we include this, where the hell do we put it? This article's structure has never been hammered out ever since we got stuck with the unnecessary Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork. We have a reception section for Tropes here, but it's basically just an outdated version of the reception section in the fork. Should this be moved to the Tropes article? Included in both places? Why? And where? There's also a "Continued harassment and GamerGate" section here, which could be the right fit, but that's structured as just another subsection of the Tropes section. Do we create another whole section for this one triviality? This article is in a horrible state, in spite of (or because of) all the attention things like this receive.--Cúchullain /c 13:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

WRT that concern, here WP:NPOV meets WP:NOTPAPER. If a lot of sources cover the topic from the same angle, the proper thing to do is create a WP:SPLIT article and move those minor details there as a notable angle to cover in more detail, not to reject significant points of view that differ from the more popular one. That a significant, different viewpoint reported in reliable sources, receives less views than a majority one can not be a reason to omit all coverage for it - that's squarely against neutrality; what we do is find the right structure to report it, balancing their relative weights. We do cover fringe and minority views after all if we have reliable information for them, even if it requires that we create new articles to find room.

We had some talk about trimming this article down to an overall introduction and moving details about TV Tropes to its dedicated article, where we can asses the relevance of a reference with respect to the series instead of to the person. That would allows us to let our coverage expand in a natural way from what reliable sources have published, without having to reject some sources only because some other sources exist and we're running out of bits. Diego (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you have brought up the structural issues with the article. Given that the reception section for both articles are directed at the show rather than the person, I would suggest one idea (for now until others are made) that the wording be more about the person or at least separated from the Tropes portion, perhaps merged with the awards/recognition part? Frankly Man (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Now in ThinkProgress as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re the structural issues and duplication of the "reactions"/"reception" section: if it is felt that the two articles need to remain separate, and that each article needs to retain a "reactions"/"reception" section, perhaps we could still centralize the content in one article and then wp:transclude it into the other article (see e.g. the "operation timeline" section of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). That would prevent one article from being more out-of-date than the other. -sche (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The guide of style recommends a simple summary in one of the articles, that links to the other. Both articles don't need the same level of detail, and a summary with just the essentials is less likely to become outdated. Diego (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're stuck with the Tropes article for the foreseeable future. I really don't know what to do with this, though it's obviously not optimal that it's in the reception section for the Tropes series here, but not at the actual Tropes article. We definitely need to cover the basics of Tropes here, since it's directly relevant to her bio, but there certainly doesn't need to be a lengthy section on its reception, especially not to cover things not covered over there.

We might could move the line over to the Tropes article, and finally get serious about rewriting this article. I also suppose we could expand the "awards and recognition" into a longer "influence" or "legacy" section, that would include stuff like this, among other things.--Cúchullain /c 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A response from Colin Campell at Polygon with many references to Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss the references to Sarkeesian in there:

• (in Campbell's view), she 'has provided some of the most detailed, arresting and convincing documentary work ever produced on the cultural role of video games.' This could be added to Reception.
• 'To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism.' We have this already covered with the previous Polygon article.
• 'Sarkeesian herself is an object of scorn and may now presumably be counted within the group of "women who have betrayed women'. This is a new one, could be used if preceded by 'Campbell said'.
• Toward the end, something more in-depth: "Anita Sarkeesian's work is compelling and persuasive. More women are playing games, working in games, writing about games and making demands on the people who make games. More feminist commentators are taking the game industry to task. Feminists have made the effort to point out the current crassness of some games, and I find it hard to imagine this will fail to leave a deep impression on game makers and game consumers in the years to come." Maybe it's worth a one-sentence summary, though I can't see how we can work it into the article.

Diego (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bomb Threats

Article. Worth mentioning here, on GDC or both? Zero Serenity 01:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I mean, why the hell not? There is plenty of reporting about it. A person already put it in there, but feel free to use this as a reason why we should have yet more material on this matter and avoid explaining why numerous reliable sources expressing criticism of her should not be included.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been added by NorthBySouthBaranof. Devil's Advocate, give it a rest.--Cúchullain /c 13:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fanart issue revisited

Okay, this got sort of lost in the above and it was not worth hashing out in a broader discussion, but Zero Serenity added this source regarding the fanart matter to the reference page. It does not appear to me that the source was ever brought up in previous discussions. The only reliable source raised previously was an Escapist piece. Given the high quality of this previously unknown source, particularly the fact that it is a rebuttal to the fanart claims, I think it warrants including this matter in the article now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:05, 20 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