| Revision as of 13:45, 7 December 2014 view sourceDiego Moya (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,467 edits →Section for Criticism← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:23, 7 December 2014 view source Bramble window (talk | contribs)154 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
| ::::::How could anyone involved in an encyclopedia in good faith argue against the proposition that the article should state the existence of criticism? Genuine question. People are angrily fighting hard to prevent the line "criticism of Sarkeesian's work exists" from appearing in the article, despite the fact that this is palpably true. I am required to assume the good faith of these people, but it's not a particularly easy assumption to maintain.] (]) 16:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | ::::::How could anyone involved in an encyclopedia in good faith argue against the proposition that the article should state the existence of criticism? Genuine question. People are angrily fighting hard to prevent the line "criticism of Sarkeesian's work exists" from appearing in the article, despite the fact that this is palpably true. I am required to assume the good faith of these people, but it's not a particularly easy assumption to maintain.] (]) 16:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::If you can find such criticism from a ] or an expert, then not only will we acknowledge its existence but we'll also cite it too. ] (]) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::::If you can find such criticism from a ] or an expert, then not only will we acknowledge its existence but we'll also cite it too. ] (]) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::You exist. I acknowledge that. However, can I find a reliable academic or journalistic source to back that up? Of course not. Yet I still acknowledge your existence because I have seen very strong evidence. | |||
| Your error here is to imagine that a grown-up, educated person can't acknowledge something's existence until he's seen an academic or journalistic reference to it. It's ludicrous to maintain that you can only acknowledge the existence of criticism after others have put it into print. Haven't you clicked on the link to Phil Mason's videos? (If you haven't, you are not fit to be an editor on this topic). If you have, you know criticism exists. You know it exists. So do I. So do 99% of people who take an interest in the Sarkeesian affair. I draw a clear distinction between describing the content of the criticism and simply acknowledging the mere existence of such. Failure to acknowledge its existence is, in my view, simple intellectual misconduct, regardless of what wikipedia's rules might be. Akin in my eyes to holocaust and anthropogenic climate change denialism. It exists, let's just acknowledge it.] (]) 15:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There has been criticism by reliable sources presented in this page, and it has not been included. ] (]) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | ::::::::There has been criticism by reliable sources presented in this page, and it has not been included. ] (]) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::Such as? ] (]) 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::::::Such as? ] (]) 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:23, 7 December 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Sarkeesian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Anita Sarkeesian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 20 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Anita Sarkeesian. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Anita Sarkeesian at the Reference desk. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Sarkeesian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Anita Sarkeesian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Cathy Young
The Cathy Young article is already included at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games per discussion here. In fact, most of the wording introduced here on "selective and skewed analysis" is almost exactly the same, and as it's about the series specifically, it's better placed there than here. The other line about "Sarkeesian theories sometimes rely on radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin" is not at all what the source says. As far as I can tell, Young only mentions Dworkin in saying that another critic of Sarkeesian cited an earlier column Young had written about Dworkin (which had nothing to do with Sarkeesian); by way of explanation she passingly notes that Sarkeesian "sometimes" relies on Dworkin's theories, without saying how or why this is significant. Either way, the line is pointless ("Young says that Sarkeesian cited someone, mic dropped") and seems to be really reaching to justify including the source here in the main article, considering that Young says basically nothing about Sarkeesian herself (and precious little of substance about her videos).--Cúchullain /c 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure it should be included anywhere since it attempts to review a series that is incomplete. I have the feeling this article may come to eat its own words eventually. Zero Serenity 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- By that logic we should remove all positive references about the video series as well. Besides it's pretty speculative to not include a source because you feel they might eat their words in the future. Are you sure you're not looking for arguments to exclude any criticism here? PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is whether to include this source at this article, and there's no consensus. You've been asked to keep your comments focused on content, not contributors before.--Cúchullain /c 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- By that logic we should remove all positive references about the video series as well. Besides it's pretty speculative to not include a source because you feel they might eat their words in the future. Are you sure you're not looking for arguments to exclude any criticism here? PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree; there's no particular reason we should care that a theory was once cited - a throwaway mic-drop line is not meaningful. So which theory did she cite, is it a theory that's very controversial or a theory that's widely accepted? Who knows! Absent context beyond "let's try and link Sarkeesian with someone controversial," this doesn't belong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Cuchullain (continued from above) I should have phrased that differently but i stand by the opinion that this line of reasoning leads to bias. And I'm surprised you don't agree. As long as there's a section in this article about the critical response to the video series, there's no reason to favor positive over critical response. The arguments brought forth by ZS are in no way (that i can see) specific to Young's article. And imho not applicable to the criticism section in general, although one could argue to move the whole section on the video series to the separate article. But as it stands, i think this line of reasoning leads to bias. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no reason to favor positive over negative criticism...but that's not what's happening. We're favoring a well-researched and well-written encyclopaedia article over a poorly-sourced, poorly written article.
The Cathy Young article is already included at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games per discussion here...the line is pointless...and seems to be really reaching to justify including the source here in the main article, considering that Young says basically nothing about Sarkeesian herself....
— User:Cuchullain
- DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is on whether the fact that the tropes series is not ready yet is a reason not to include critical articles. Or if the feeling some people have that the author will later swallow their words is a reason not to. Please leave your opinion on how much you like the article out of the discussion, or back it up by sources. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're responding to one comment that's at this point two weeks old, and not addressing the fact that various other editors have weighed in with reasonable arguments against including the material in question. There's no consensus to add the material; it's high time to move on.--Cúchullain /c 18:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion is on whether the fact that the tropes series is not ready yet is a reason not to include critical articles. Or if the feeling some people have that the author will later swallow their words is a reason not to. Please leave your opinion on how much you like the article out of the discussion, or back it up by sources. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no reason to favor positive over negative criticism...but that's not what's happening. We're favoring a well-researched and well-written encyclopaedia article over a poorly-sourced, poorly written article.
- @Cuchullain (continued from above) I should have phrased that differently but i stand by the opinion that this line of reasoning leads to bias. And I'm surprised you don't agree. As long as there's a section in this article about the critical response to the video series, there's no reason to favor positive over critical response. The arguments brought forth by ZS are in no way (that i can see) specific to Young's article. And imho not applicable to the criticism section in general, although one could argue to move the whole section on the video series to the separate article. But as it stands, i think this line of reasoning leads to bias. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm responding to comments about the Young piece that Diego Moya made, for whatever reason, in this unrelated section. He claims that Young's passing and unsupported statement that Sarkeesian "sometimes relies" on the theories of "radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin" is somehow a significant statement that ought to be included in a BLP. As we already explained a month ago, Young is only referencing Dworkin by way of explaining her own connection to a different source, the Gamesided.com piece by Mytheos Holt. Specifically, Holt cites a an earlier piece Young had written about Dworkin (which was unrelated to Sarkeesian) in his own criticism of Sarkeesian. Young's passing comment does not establish how Sarkeesian "sometimes relies" on Dworkin, let alone indicate how this would be significant. So as before, no dice.
Young's piece is already cited at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, but Diego claims that Young makes claims that are relevant to this biographical article rather than the article on the series. In reality, she doesn't say anything about Sarkeesian herself that bears including here, either in this passing comment or her other statements about Sarkeesian.
I will reiterate that it's frustrating to have to go over the same points with the same editors weeks and months after the issue is settled.--Cúchullain /c 16:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- That will continue to happen as long as the critical response sections are very one-sided.PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The article reflects the reliable sources. As soon as the sources change, so will this article. Insisting on artificially creating a "balance" where none exists in the actual coverage is a bias in itself. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently strict adherence to (use of?) the wikipedia policies can lead to a one-sided coverage, in this case only positive. It's quite obvious that the used references don't reflect all common opinions, for example a critical patreon project called "The Sarkeesian effect" is earning $9K per month and critical youtube videos by Thunderf00t get a similar amount of views as Sarkeesian's videos lately and lot of likes. And obviously all the negative comments and death threads don't reflect a general misogynist attitude, but also a disagreeing with the philosophy of Sarkeesian (and inability to properly express it). Otherwise all women starting a kickstarter and youtube videos would receive the same response. So editors will keep coming in here with the best intentions to correct the bias in this article, however well it reflects sources that fit the WP policies.PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but we're not going to ignore Misplaced Pages policy simply because some people don't like what the real sources have to say.--Cúchullain /c 16:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to. I gave up trying. I'm just pointing out that in this case the policies result in a bias as compared with popular opinion.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but popular opinions don't make an encyclopaedia article. Tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and textbooks, are based on what experts and reliable sources have to say. This keeps them from being littered with fringe theories. DonQuixote (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- In this case the policies result in bias against an opinion which is clearly not just "an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters".PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's just your opinion, and you're not an expert or a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Above i gave several examples that demonstrate it's a common opinion. Probably not the majority opinion, but common nonetheless. Not just my opinion. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- And, as it has been pointed out, they're not experts or reliable sources either. DonQuixote (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Nor do i claim them to be. And nor do they need to be to have a valid point, by the way. But that's irrelevant. All i say is that they represent a common opinion, which is not represented as a result of Misplaced Pages policies.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is why we're getting frustrated, because you keep ignoring things and talking around in circles. From above:
Sorry, but popular opinions don't make an encyclopaedia article. Tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and textbooks, are based on what experts and reliable sources have to say. This keeps them from being littered with fringe theories
. DonQuixote (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)- I'm not ignoring that. I'm just pointing out why editors keep coming in who, with the best intentions, try to balance the take on Sarkeesian's theories. Because, in this case, it's not a fringe theory or the opinion of a small minority, no matter how many policies you throw at them.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, frankly, yes, it appears that opposition to Anita Sarkeesian is pretty much a small minority. Otherwise, we'd see more critical sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unless there is a discrepancy between critical sources (that comply to the Misplaced Pages policies) and popular opinion. I've given several examples to show that it's not a small minority opinion. Talking in circles indeed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you cite The Sarkeesian Effect as among your best evidence that it's not a small minority opinion suggests that it is, indeed, a small minority opinion. The 396 people giving them money wouldn't fill a subway train. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's 396 people actually giving money to support a documentary about criticism on Sarkeesian. One can only guess as to how small of a tip of the iceberg that is. Besides, you're cherry picking, which is exactly one of the criticisms on Sarkeesian. That goes to show how unproductive this dialogue has become, so i'm gonna stop responding here.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- "One can only guess" you say. That is correct. And we don't guess around here, we quote. Cupidissimo (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion stopped being productive nearly a month ago. There's no consensus for any change to the current status quo. From here on, either present new evidence or propose a specific, actionable change.--Cúchullain /c 20:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- "One can only guess" you say. That is correct. And we don't guess around here, we quote. Cupidissimo (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's 396 people actually giving money to support a documentary about criticism on Sarkeesian. One can only guess as to how small of a tip of the iceberg that is. Besides, you're cherry picking, which is exactly one of the criticisms on Sarkeesian. That goes to show how unproductive this dialogue has become, so i'm gonna stop responding here.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you cite The Sarkeesian Effect as among your best evidence that it's not a small minority opinion suggests that it is, indeed, a small minority opinion. The 396 people giving them money wouldn't fill a subway train. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unless there is a discrepancy between critical sources (that comply to the Misplaced Pages policies) and popular opinion. I've given several examples to show that it's not a small minority opinion. Talking in circles indeed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, frankly, yes, it appears that opposition to Anita Sarkeesian is pretty much a small minority. Otherwise, we'd see more critical sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring that. I'm just pointing out why editors keep coming in who, with the best intentions, try to balance the take on Sarkeesian's theories. Because, in this case, it's not a fringe theory or the opinion of a small minority, no matter how many policies you throw at them.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is why we're getting frustrated, because you keep ignoring things and talking around in circles. From above:
- Nor do i claim them to be. And nor do they need to be to have a valid point, by the way. But that's irrelevant. All i say is that they represent a common opinion, which is not represented as a result of Misplaced Pages policies.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- And, as it has been pointed out, they're not experts or reliable sources either. DonQuixote (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Above i gave several examples that demonstrate it's a common opinion. Probably not the majority opinion, but common nonetheless. Not just my opinion. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's just your opinion, and you're not an expert or a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- In this case the policies result in bias against an opinion which is clearly not just "an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters".PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but popular opinions don't make an encyclopaedia article. Tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and textbooks, are based on what experts and reliable sources have to say. This keeps them from being littered with fringe theories. DonQuixote (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking you to. I gave up trying. I'm just pointing out that in this case the policies result in a bias as compared with popular opinion.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but we're not going to ignore Misplaced Pages policy simply because some people don't like what the real sources have to say.--Cúchullain /c 16:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently strict adherence to (use of?) the wikipedia policies can lead to a one-sided coverage, in this case only positive. It's quite obvious that the used references don't reflect all common opinions, for example a critical patreon project called "The Sarkeesian effect" is earning $9K per month and critical youtube videos by Thunderf00t get a similar amount of views as Sarkeesian's videos lately and lot of likes. And obviously all the negative comments and death threads don't reflect a general misogynist attitude, but also a disagreeing with the philosophy of Sarkeesian (and inability to properly express it). Otherwise all women starting a kickstarter and youtube videos would receive the same response. So editors will keep coming in here with the best intentions to correct the bias in this article, however well it reflects sources that fit the WP policies.PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- The article reflects the reliable sources. As soon as the sources change, so will this article. Insisting on artificially creating a "balance" where none exists in the actual coverage is a bias in itself. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Citizenship
Sans any reliable sources that contradict the reliable sourcing in this article, any discussion of this topic is moot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello everybody. I read this article but have failed to confirm the citizenship of the subject. I suppose it's nice to identify as a "Canadian-American" but that isn't enough to obtain citizenship. Due to her birth in Canada and since I couldn't figure out whether the parents were there as diplomats, that would make her a Canadian citizen by birth on Canadian soil.
Can anybody figure out what her nationality/nationalities are? I think that should be fixed in the article by either a) providing proper references which mention her dual or US citizenship or b) revert to just Canadian. JakobusVP (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Err, citations 2, 3 and 4 all describe her as "Canadian-American" and we go by those reliable sources, they are cited in the first paragraph of "background" with the qualifier of "identifies". That's pretty much all the investigation we do. All reliable sources denote her as Canadian-American (or says she identifies as). Koncorde (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Multiple reliable sources describe her as Canadian-American. We are not immigration status investigators and what you have "failed to confirm" is of no relevance to our article. I have restored the description of her identity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is Misplaced Pages not supposed to be about the presentation of verifiable and concrete data? The opening paragraph describes her as Canadian-American, based on what she identifies as. The infobox states that her citizenship is Canadian-American (which isn't even a citizenship).
- Can her citizenship be confirmed by any source? - JakobusVP (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand how Misplaced Pages operates. Misplaced Pages editors do not conduct "investigations" — we restate and summarize what has been verifiably published in reliable sources about a given topic. It is verifiable that multiple reliable sources describe Anita Sarkeesian as Canadian-American, therefore, so will we, and that's the end of it, until and unless there are reliable sources which state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, it's an easy thing to think is important and very easy to get tied up in citing sources. Dan Potts (footballer) was a difficult article for this sort of thing because it introduced all kinds of issues related to assumed nationality, actual citizenship, representative nationality etc. Truth is, even if he represented the USA he would still be "English", or "British". The solution for footballers, as it should be for most articles unless we have any evidence otherwise, is to not mention their nationality but to state who they are and what they do and allow the narrative to explain the other stuff. Here however there are multiple sources doing that for us - end of argument. If they turn out to be wrong then that's their fault. Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine to restate what sources have published, but the fact remains that no country describes their citizens as "Canadian-American" since that citizenship does not exist. There are two separate citizenships if you replace the hyphen with a comma.
- @Zero Serenity Who's attacking anybody here? JakobusVP (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Nationality
I simply changed the line to "nationality" and linked to Canadian American, which should suffice. This is how it is listed at Jim Carry, and we cna follow that example too and add "citizenship = Canadian and American", but IMO it isn't a critical aspect of Sarkeesian's bio. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Bart Baggett Connection
In light of a recent article detailing Anita Sarkeesian's early career and connections to <redacted per BLP>, shouldn't this be included in her page? It's all on-record information that can be verified by looking at the archives of her own website so it's not like this information is in dispute and it <redacted per BLP>.Xander756 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Present a reliable source for all negative claims about a living person, or they'll be redacted per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have redacted your redactions. Please do not edit my comment again. That is not how discussions work. The source is her own blog. I said that already. I believe her own website is a reliable source for information about her is it not? The article "Anita Sarkeesian Unmasked" from Guardian Liberty Voice can also be searched up on Google. This comment is to start a discussion on the relevancy of her early career. This information, and her working for Baggett, is NOT IN DISPUTE. The conversation here is whether or not it should be included on her page. I believe it should.Xander756 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- And I have re-redacted them — the Biographies of Living Persons policy governs all content on the encyclopedia and you may not present unsourced or poorly-sourced negative claims about a living person anywhere on the encyclopedia. Please do not violate this policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Guardian Liberty Voice" is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- One of the first autofills for Guardian Liberty Voice when I attempted to google it was "guardian liberty voice scam". I have a feeling it's not going to pass the reliability check. Parabolist (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is a fact she worked for him as shown on her own blog here https://web.archive.org/web/20070912100534/http://www.neonandchrome.com/events.html Xander756 (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- We don't really care what an Internet Archive site says. Can you provide a reliable secondary source which discusses the issue? If not, it doesn't belong here, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't care that her website listed her as working for him for many years? Are you calling her a liar? Xander756 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia is, or how Misplaced Pages works. I suggest you read the verifiability policy and the biographies of living persons policy. They should help you understand how we write articles, and particularly how we write articles about living people. Hint: If you have to scrounge around in web archive sites to find something, it probably doesn't belong in their biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't care that her website listed her as working for him for many years? Are you calling her a liar? Xander756 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- We don't really care what an Internet Archive site says. Can you provide a reliable secondary source which discusses the issue? If not, it doesn't belong here, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have redacted your redactions. Please do not edit my comment again. That is not how discussions work. The source is her own blog. I said that already. I believe her own website is a reliable source for information about her is it not? The article "Anita Sarkeesian Unmasked" from Guardian Liberty Voice can also be searched up on Google. This comment is to start a discussion on the relevancy of her early career. This information, and her working for Baggett, is NOT IN DISPUTE. The conversation here is whether or not it should be included on her page. I believe it should.Xander756 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Almost every result for "Guardian Liberty Voice reliability" returns articles about how it is a content farm clickbait scam. I really reccomend getting your news from somewhere that produces actual journalism. Parabolist (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The source is her personal blog. Stop talking about Guardian Liberty Voice. Are you anti-gamergate or are you objective? Xander756 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Her personal blog says she worked for someone at some point. Of what relevance is that, and where does it contain anything which supports the derogatory and highly-defamatory claims of a link to fraud and deceptive behavior that you made above? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The source is her personal blog. Stop talking about Guardian Liberty Voice. Are you anti-gamergate or are you objective? Xander756 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Primary sources are generally acceptable when published by the article subject themselves as a way of verifying statements, but per WP:NPOV, Misplaced Pages articles should be written using the balance (or existence) of secondary sources to determine how to weight things. An old apparent resume you found on the Internet Archive that lists occasional part time work (most of those are listed for 1 day seminars etc,) might be acceptable as a way to verify that statement if WP:BLP compliant secondary sources discussed the statement, but it does not make the statement worth including in the first place per Misplaced Pages policies. Having taken a look over GLV (including a convenient summary of their rather lackadaisical editorial policy,) it does not appear that they meet the standard of sourcing required by Misplaced Pages to make severely negative claims about living people. Do not restore the comments about either of the people whose names you mentioned. Please note that I am acting as an uninvolved admininistrator enforcing WP:BLP in this situation, and providing an interpretation of our policies in an effort to assist understanding how ENWP BLP and sourcing policies apply to an article to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to, not weighing in on the actual content beyond that. If you find sources that do meet our standards for writing about living people, it's fine to bring these claims back up. Until then, do not restore the redactions. As a general rule, if you restore a redaction made by another editor on WP:BLP grounds without first establishing consensus that that edit didn't violate WP:BLP, you're likely to run in to trouble, especially if you do so more than once. Without a reliable source, making claims of the nature that you made about either person you spoke of is not acceptable here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You should not be redacting discussion about information found on a primary source just because <redacted> Xander756 (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- So what you've presented is that 10 years ago, Anita Sarkeesian managed/coordinated several handwriting analysis seminars, among other events. Of what relevance is this to her present-day life and works? We are not a compendium of trivia, we write encyclopedia articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Technically as this would class as a person's biography page their past is inherently relevant to the present otherwise why state about any persons early life or in this case Anita's education or see David Beckham, this is not the Tropes vs Women / Feminist frequency project page but a persons biography which should include early life and career choices. Thus also relevant on this page would be her worth with Neon and Chrome and Bart Baggett. For those who need more sources which has archived versions as early as 2006 oh also confirmation from a blog that this is the official site So it's my take that this is a biography page and not simply a page to advertise her work. Am I wrong in that ?Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:11, 01 December 2014 (UTC)
- We don't write biographies based on blogspots and web archives. We write biographies as we write articles, generally, based on reliable secondary sources. As none of the above links are reliable secondary sources, we're not going to include any of that. In this biography, what we're looking for is material which has already been published in a reliable secondary source, such as The New York Times, PBS NewsHour, Wired, Mother Jones, The National Review, etc.
- As you appear to be a new editor, I encourage you to review Misplaced Pages's core content policies, most notably verifiability, reliable sources, and the biographies of living persons policies. These are core to how we write on Misplaced Pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except that's a primary resource in it's own right. The Website itself list's Anita Sarkeesian as the seminar co-ordinator. The web archive link is to prove it's verifiable that it has been on said page since 2006 and isn't some recent addition or the result of a hacker etc. If you want more verification that Handwriting university is operated by Bart Baggett. Those pages do exist and as such are can verified as a primary sources for this information. As such her involvement in Bart Baggett's work is not something in doubt hence could be included. The only doubt over this would be how much of other activities and issues surrounding it she is part of which could easily be left out. As I said previous work / early life information is present in many other biographies of living people. What is different in this case ? Is the website of Bart Baggett saying Anita worked with him not evidence enough they worked together? The only thing in wikipedias rules in not to interpret the sources. Simply stating the connection between Anita and Bart Baggett is not breaking any rules WP:PRIMARY as it can be verified by checking the site. Additionally her name appears on two press releases I'm not quite sure how the website itself and press releases from the group don't count as verifiable sources of information for the connection. They are not biased and as such their inclusion and the inclusion of the information they contain alone is not against Misplaced Pages's rules. It would only go against Misplaced Pages's rules if people were to add additional interpretation to said source. Under Misplaced Pages's rules they do not ban all self published sources only claim self published expert sources unless by an established expert are to not be used. In this case Bart Baggat would be the one responsible for the site and as previously stated it can be shown he owns said website thus claims that Anita was on his staff are valid. Infact source 20 on David Beckham uses such a press release from a school as evidence he attended said school. Are we to say a press release by Bart Baggat is a lie ? Dwavenhobble (talk) 06:52, 01 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're just not understanding. Those aren't reliable secondary sources. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY,
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
The primary sources you cite have not been discussed by reliable secondary sources, therefore we have no reason to believe that any of the information in them belongs in her biography. Which means they won't be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're just not understanding. Those aren't reliable secondary sources. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY,
- Except that's a primary resource in it's own right. The Website itself list's Anita Sarkeesian as the seminar co-ordinator. The web archive link is to prove it's verifiable that it has been on said page since 2006 and isn't some recent addition or the result of a hacker etc. If you want more verification that Handwriting university is operated by Bart Baggett. Those pages do exist and as such are can verified as a primary sources for this information. As such her involvement in Bart Baggett's work is not something in doubt hence could be included. The only doubt over this would be how much of other activities and issues surrounding it she is part of which could easily be left out. As I said previous work / early life information is present in many other biographies of living people. What is different in this case ? Is the website of Bart Baggett saying Anita worked with him not evidence enough they worked together? The only thing in wikipedias rules in not to interpret the sources. Simply stating the connection between Anita and Bart Baggett is not breaking any rules WP:PRIMARY as it can be verified by checking the site. Additionally her name appears on two press releases I'm not quite sure how the website itself and press releases from the group don't count as verifiable sources of information for the connection. They are not biased and as such their inclusion and the inclusion of the information they contain alone is not against Misplaced Pages's rules. It would only go against Misplaced Pages's rules if people were to add additional interpretation to said source. Under Misplaced Pages's rules they do not ban all self published sources only claim self published expert sources unless by an established expert are to not be used. In this case Bart Baggat would be the one responsible for the site and as previously stated it can be shown he owns said website thus claims that Anita was on his staff are valid. Infact source 20 on David Beckham uses such a press release from a school as evidence he attended said school. Are we to say a press release by Bart Baggat is a lie ? Dwavenhobble (talk) 06:52, 01 December 2014 (UTC)
- Technically as this would class as a person's biography page their past is inherently relevant to the present otherwise why state about any persons early life or in this case Anita's education or see David Beckham, this is not the Tropes vs Women / Feminist frequency project page but a persons biography which should include early life and career choices. Thus also relevant on this page would be her worth with Neon and Chrome and Bart Baggett. For those who need more sources which has archived versions as early as 2006 oh also confirmation from a blog that this is the official site So it's my take that this is a biography page and not simply a page to advertise her work. Am I wrong in that ?Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:11, 01 December 2014 (UTC)
- So what you've presented is that 10 years ago, Anita Sarkeesian managed/coordinated several handwriting analysis seminars, among other events. Of what relevance is this to her present-day life and works? We are not a compendium of trivia, we write encyclopedia articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
References
- http://web.archive.org/web/20070703184334/http://neonandchrome.com/
- http://handwritinguniversity.com/teleclass/haisha/confirmation1.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20060709040902/http://handwritinguniversity.com/teleclass/haisha/confirmation1.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20130826072319/http://attorney-pr.blogspot.co.uk/2008_06_07_archive.html
- http://handwritinguniversity.com/catalogchoice/
- http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb197342.htm
- http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/01/prweb335817.htm
- Except as I am demonstrating by pointing to 20 on David Beckham such information is being used already without a supporting secondary source. I take it Liberty Voice isn't being allowed as a secondary source to back this up (Redacted) nor Breitbart. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY,
augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
As per WP:PSTSUnless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge
Thus as this in not an interpretation of the source it is directly reading said soruce stating Anita was part of said organisation then it is admissible under the same rules being used for David Beckman source 20. If you are suggesting we cannot accept Anita Sarkessian having worked with Bart Baggat despite two press releases and the actual website stating as much we cannot accept the press release by the school in David Beckham Dwavenhobble (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)- OK, you have read the policy but you're still not understanding it. Yes, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages unless restricted by another policy — which is exactly what the Biographies of living persons policy does, restricting the use of primary sources in biographies.
- I have redacted the Guardian Liberty Voice link as violative of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Do not reinsert it, as its content is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages in any way. If you want to complain about something in the David Beckham article, start a new thread on that talk page and complain about it. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in other articles doesn't justify doing it here.
- What I'm telling you is that absent any reliable secondary source discussing Anita Sarkeesian's previous work experiences, they do not warrant space in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- What he's trying to stress, Dwavenhobble, is that according to WP:BLPPRIMARY, primary sources can't be the first used on any subject, as they come directly from the prioprieters of whatever is on point for discussion. We get that various parts haven't been updated since 2006, we get it. We aren't worried, at least here, that they've been hacked and are trying to perpetuate thoughts of another in order to gain favorable sourcing. We're just saying that it has to be backed up by something secondary, completely displaced from the situation, in order to really have a quality standard that wikipedia is going for. Misplaced Pages wants competitive articles that show both sides objectively. Strictly speaking, objectivity doesn't exist. It just doesn't. But we can at least try to get sources that separate themselves from those the sources are about. I couldn't write a page about myself because in my unconscious arrogance, uncontrollable and of which I'm unaware, I would miss things. Even if I had editors that were telling me they were brutally honest, they'd be dealing with and knowing me directly. It renders the arguments convoluted. Thank the other editors for their input. It's helpful.Chewbakadog (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The way things have been going and the seeming disparity between the sources considered accepted and those being rejected I honestly think at present it might be worth having a back end page on Misplaced Pages discussing what sites can and can't be considered secondary sources considering certain sites such as many Gawker group ones are being allowed as secondary sources. As I said there are secondary sources but they're being rejected by editors. Also again in this case it is not an interpretation of biased representation being expressed in both the press release and the website itself it's a simply piece of information not an interpretation of said information. Also it is not Bart Baggat's page it's Anita's thus it wouldn't be Bart Baggat talking about himself but about another person. Dwavenhobble (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's no way to list all possible reliable and unreliable sources. The best way to bring a particular question about sourcing to a broader consensus is through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where community discussions are had on the reliability of particular sources in each given context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that maybe, just maybe, the disparity between the accepted and rejected sources has something to do with the quality of the sources and not with the content of those sources. This seems like Creationism/Evolutions: All serious material favours one side vastly but the other side keeps trying to achieve "balance". That's not how it works. We reflect what's out there rather than creating a balance where no balance exists. Cupidissimo (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you consider an image footnote about Sarkeesian in a gallery about 125 women, by an unsigned journalist, to be a high quality source? Because that's the quality level of accepted content. Would you abide to that acceptance criterion to all content at reliable magazines that anyone wants to include? Diego (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The thing to do is to challenge that particular source/wording if you feel that it is not supported. Instead, what you're doing amounts to "There's some parts of the article I feel are poorly sourced, so I should be allowed to add some other poor sources". Nope. Cupidissimo (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The poorly sourced part has been challenged, and has been restored. According to you. what am I expected to do when different sources are subject to different quality standards depending on how nice they are to the subject of the article? Diego (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cupidissimo is right, if you want to challenge material, the way to do it is to well, challenge the material, not to just insert more poor quality material. In this case you didn't make any discernable challenge, you just removed some stuff and then brought it up after the fact in this unrelated thread. This should answer whatever challenge you have; the material appeared in Newseek. I couldn't find it on their website, so maybe it only appeared in print, but I found it through my library. Clearly a major publication including the subject in a list of women of impact is worth a mention, and carries far greater weight than PR websites and creepy deleted personal webpages.--Cúchullain /c 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The poorly sourced part has been challenged, and has been restored. According to you. what am I expected to do when different sources are subject to different quality standards depending on how nice they are to the subject of the article? Diego (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- The thing to do is to challenge that particular source/wording if you feel that it is not supported. Instead, what you're doing amounts to "There's some parts of the article I feel are poorly sourced, so I should be allowed to add some other poor sources". Nope. Cupidissimo (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you consider an image footnote about Sarkeesian in a gallery about 125 women, by an unsigned journalist, to be a high quality source? Because that's the quality level of accepted content. Would you abide to that acceptance criterion to all content at reliable magazines that anyone wants to include? Diego (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that maybe, just maybe, the disparity between the accepted and rejected sources has something to do with the quality of the sources and not with the content of those sources. This seems like Creationism/Evolutions: All serious material favours one side vastly but the other side keeps trying to achieve "balance". That's not how it works. We reflect what's out there rather than creating a balance where no balance exists. Cupidissimo (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There's no way to list all possible reliable and unreliable sources. The best way to bring a particular question about sourcing to a broader consensus is through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where community discussions are had on the reliability of particular sources in each given context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- The way things have been going and the seeming disparity between the sources considered accepted and those being rejected I honestly think at present it might be worth having a back end page on Misplaced Pages discussing what sites can and can't be considered secondary sources considering certain sites such as many Gawker group ones are being allowed as secondary sources. As I said there are secondary sources but they're being rejected by editors. Also again in this case it is not an interpretation of biased representation being expressed in both the press release and the website itself it's a simply piece of information not an interpretation of said information. Also it is not Bart Baggat's page it's Anita's thus it wouldn't be Bart Baggat talking about himself but about another person. Dwavenhobble (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- What he's trying to stress, Dwavenhobble, is that according to WP:BLPPRIMARY, primary sources can't be the first used on any subject, as they come directly from the prioprieters of whatever is on point for discussion. We get that various parts haven't been updated since 2006, we get it. We aren't worried, at least here, that they've been hacked and are trying to perpetuate thoughts of another in order to gain favorable sourcing. We're just saying that it has to be backed up by something secondary, completely displaced from the situation, in order to really have a quality standard that wikipedia is going for. Misplaced Pages wants competitive articles that show both sides objectively. Strictly speaking, objectivity doesn't exist. It just doesn't. But we can at least try to get sources that separate themselves from those the sources are about. I couldn't write a page about myself because in my unconscious arrogance, uncontrollable and of which I'm unaware, I would miss things. Even if I had editors that were telling me they were brutally honest, they'd be dealing with and knowing me directly. It renders the arguments convoluted. Thank the other editors for their input. It's helpful.Chewbakadog (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except as I am demonstrating by pointing to 20 on David Beckham such information is being used already without a supporting secondary source. I take it Liberty Voice isn't being allowed as a secondary source to back this up (Redacted) nor Breitbart. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY,
Section for Criticism
Her views are controversial enough that I propose a separate section for criticism. While most of the criticism is happening on platforms like social media that are unreliable sources, there are also articles and columns (examples) on the topic. Other articles (example) also exist that acknowledge the existence of criticism. In both cases it's worth noting that many sources fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. --Eldritcher (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
References
- http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/27/An-open-letter-to-Bloomberg-s-Sheelah-Kolhatkar-on-the-delicate-matter-of-Anita-Sarkeesian
- http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/07/13/on-anita-sarkeesian-sexism-in-video-games-and-why-we-need-to-have-the-conversation-even-if-it-feeds-the-trolls/
- No, Breitbart is not a reliable source, for one. We discuss notable criticisms of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games in that article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why is Breitbart not a reliable source? --LordCazicThule
- Please read WP:RS. Breitbart is not just partisan but unscrupulously partisan with a bad record of publicizing and disseminating various bullshit: hoaxes, ad hominem attacks, non-issue "controversies", etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- So how exactly are other sources used on this page such as Polygon and Kotaku exempt from this clause? --LordCazicThule — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCazicThule (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- They're not. They went through the same process and were deemed reliable sources by consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except when they report on negative things said about Sarkeesian. Then they were not deemed trustworthy enough to establish the relevance of what they were saying to the topic. Diego (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Such as? It would help if you can give a link. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- This one, which precisely were sourced to both Polygon and Kotaku. Diego (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 14#Request for Comment: Video by the American Enterprise Institute:
"It is not clear to me that a video which does not mention a person by name, but for which the connection to the person is made in reliable secondary sources, is necessarily excluded by default by WP:OR, and this was a central argument of those opposing inclusion here."
- Nice try, but no. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you're going to quote the RfC closure, don't miss the part that places it in context:
It might be easier to gain support for adding commentary that is based on the secondary sources alone, but there was insufficient discussion of this to say that there is agreement on this one way or the other.
The opposition applied to using the video directly, not to using the reliable sources that explicitly contradicted those who opposed discussion (and therefore can't be original research), inclusion for which we had a previous consensus. It's good that those coming afresh to this page are made aware of the history of previous decisions. The content was removed by edit warring, not by establishing a new consensus that replaced the previous one. This is a general tone by which many content decisions regarding reliable sources are made at this page. Diego (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you're going to quote the RfC closure, don't miss the part that places it in context:
- Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 14#Request for Comment: Video by the American Enterprise Institute:
- This one, which precisely were sourced to both Polygon and Kotaku. Diego (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Such as? It would help if you can give a link. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except when they report on negative things said about Sarkeesian. Then they were not deemed trustworthy enough to establish the relevance of what they were saying to the topic. Diego (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- They're not. They went through the same process and were deemed reliable sources by consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- So how exactly are other sources used on this page such as Polygon and Kotaku exempt from this clause? --LordCazicThule — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCazicThule (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS. Breitbart is not just partisan but unscrupulously partisan with a bad record of publicizing and disseminating various bullshit: hoaxes, ad hominem attacks, non-issue "controversies", etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why is Breitbart not a reliable source? --LordCazicThule
. Diego (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to talk about the criticism part. Saying something like "the video alludes to Sarkeesian"(Kotaku et al) isn't much of a criticism, positive or negative. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Referencing some criticism she's received doesn't sound like a bad idea, but a whole section only for criticism would be wonky. Perhaps just integrate what she's been criticized for in the appropriate section, like the Reception section of Video Series could hold some criticism of her videos from those sources you listed? Shadowrunner 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- I could imagine adding to the section about the reception of her series. The issue that comes up is when the criticism goes beyond the series. She has, for example, started holding speeches. Their contents have received both negative and positive feedback. I can only imagine that the amount will just keep on increasing and we'll keep facing this issue again if it's not addressed. What about changing the 'Reception' section into a general section with the reception of all her works and not just the video series. --Eldritcher (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have a section entitled "Awards and commentary" that could conceivably be expanded. However, the Destructoid blog was rejected by consensus last year, and the Forbes blog doesn't really say anything more than "some people have criticized her," which isn't really worth mentioning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please make no mistake. Page watchers here would really like some reliably sourced critique of the subject and her work, but I for one am regularly disappointed with the poor quality of sources presented. I was hoping the Sommers material would work out, but Sommers never mentioned the subject, merely alluding to one of Sarkeesian's many positions. The Cathy Young material was marginal, and has been added to the Tropes page. None of the sources mentioned above by User:Eldritcher qualify under WP:IRS. The Forbes material is just a Forbes-associated blog (based on consensus on this talk page), with little in the way of editorial control or oversight. Destructoid has also been discussed here and been found to be situationally reliable, that is, reliable for the purposes of discussing video games, but not sufficiently reliable for insertion in BLPs or critique of Sarkeesian's work (again, based on discussion here on talk). Breitbart has been adequately addressed by User:Orangemike above. Since fringe conservative thinkers have begun writing in defense of the pro-Gamergate crowd, it's perhaps inevitable that a conservative or libertarian think tank will offer direct critique of Sarkeesian, her videos and her positions. Page watchers here would appreciate links to such criticism, and even more appreciate links to scholarly critique appearing in peer reviewed journals. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Precisely. Given academia, I'm pretty sure it won't be long before someone looks to tear her arguments apart in a journal - no quicker way to tenure than publishing on trendy topics! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please make no mistake. Page watchers here would really like some reliably sourced critique of the subject and her work, but I for one am regularly disappointed with the poor quality of sources presented. I was hoping the Sommers material would work out, but Sommers never mentioned the subject, merely alluding to one of Sarkeesian's many positions. The Cathy Young material was marginal, and has been added to the Tropes page. None of the sources mentioned above by User:Eldritcher qualify under WP:IRS. The Forbes material is just a Forbes-associated blog (based on consensus on this talk page), with little in the way of editorial control or oversight. Destructoid has also been discussed here and been found to be situationally reliable, that is, reliable for the purposes of discussing video games, but not sufficiently reliable for insertion in BLPs or critique of Sarkeesian's work (again, based on discussion here on talk). Breitbart has been adequately addressed by User:Orangemike above. Since fringe conservative thinkers have begun writing in defense of the pro-Gamergate crowd, it's perhaps inevitable that a conservative or libertarian think tank will offer direct critique of Sarkeesian, her videos and her positions. Page watchers here would appreciate links to such criticism, and even more appreciate links to scholarly critique appearing in peer reviewed journals. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Motion to collapse, Aye. Zero Serenity 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There have been a number of sources discussing criticism of her work or criticizing her work: . Consistently the page watchers shout down these sources to the point of absurdity, take no action on them, or propose content additions far more slanted towards a POV that treats all criticism as illegitimate. Why is that?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The best of those sources, The New Statesman, is already used in the Tropes article. The rest are pretty lightweight and the gist of most them is that, "yes there is popular criticism but it's either foul-mouthed abuse or reactionary codswallop that does stand up to scrutiny". If you want to propose an addition along those lines, feel free; the sources you provide would certainly support it. A more apposite observation might be that, although such Criticism sections are deprecated in BLPs, there is an unremitting push to shoehorn such a section into this article. Why is that? CIreland (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- You brought up the "Gamesided" piece three months ago and it was roundly rejected. We already use Cathy Young's criticisms in the Tropes article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to not also use it here. There are parts of the Cathy Young article that are not relevant to the Tropes series and are relevant to Sarkeesian, and those were removed. Why? Diego (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a proposed edit, with source? Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- This one, later reverted by Cuchullain with the argument that "Young only mentions Dworkin in saying that another critic of Sarkeesian cited an earlier column Young had written about Dworkin" although, if you correctly parse the sentence in the article, it explicitly says that Sarkeesian sometimes relies on "radical anti-sex feminist" Andrea Dworkin's theories. Also this one added by NorthBySouthBaranof where an independent reliable source from Chicago Sun-Times makes a similar connection with Dworkin, removed in the same edit by Cuchullain without explanation. Diego (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a proposed edit, with source? Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to not also use it here. There are parts of the Cathy Young article that are not relevant to the Tropes series and are relevant to Sarkeesian, and those were removed. Why? Diego (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"Correctly parse" reads original research. I can still soundly reject such an idea. I'm getting real sick of the constant flinging anything at a wall hoping something sticks. Zero Serenity 12:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Correctly parse" reads "using the meanings of words in English". Unless you really want to imply that Sarkeesian sometimes relies on an old column of Cathy Young, the following sentence:
A fairly detailed three-part discussion of the flaws in Sarkeesian’s critique was posted a few weeks ago on Gamesided.com; for upfront disclosure, the first part quotes from an old column of mine criticizing radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin, on whose theories Sarkeesian sometimes relies.
- ...can only mean that Sarkeesian sometimes relies on Andrea Dworkin. Zero Serenity, there are community sanctions on all articles related GamerGate, so please keep any comments on other user's behavior to yourself and center on discussing content. Diego (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The "criticism" isn't meaningful, and is nothing but an attempt at guilt by association with someone "controversial." It doesn't attempt to explain which of Dworkin's many theories Sarkeesian relies on — is it a highly-controversial theory or a widely-accepted one? We're not told, and are left to guess. If Young had specifically cited the particular theory or theories that Sarkeesian uses and, presumably, demonstrated that those theories do not have mainstream credibility, then that would be something else entirely. But we don't have that — instead what we have is "the person I'm writing about agrees with something that a controversial person proposed." I agree with Cuchullain's removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's why we should include the words of the two reliable sources that have weighted all those concerns for us, and make no interpretation of our own. Also, that argument doesn't address the content from the Chicago Sun-Times that you added yourself. Diego (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. It also doesn't explain why the opinions on Sarkeesian by Sean Collins, Kris Graft and an anonymous writer from Newsweek are allowed in the article, but the opinion by Cathy Young has been removed. Diego (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I want somebody to explain to me what specific theories Anita relies on that are related to Dworkin, using a reliable secondary source. That is the only way anybody should consider including such information. Zero Serenity 13:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- If that is the bar that we set to justify including content covered by two independent RS, does that mean we can remove all the references from the Commentary section that don't precisely explain how they arrived to the conclusions they state, per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT? Diego (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Diego Moya: the Cathy Young material and the reasons for its removal were discussed, right above, here. The piece is already included at the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and it says nothing of substance about Sarkeesian herself that could be included here, the Dworkin bit least of all. We simply shouldn't have to rehash the same discussions about the same proposed changes with the same editors week after week and month after month; this back-and-forth is beyond tiresome.--Cúchullain /c 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be necessary if we agreed to make the edits according to a unique set of criteria based on policy and applied it consistently to all references, instead of the current method of applying different subjective opinions to different sources. Diego (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. Also, I've stated a flaw in the argument you used to remove the content. Do you have anything to say about that? Diego (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why are we discussing Cathy Young again here? That article had its own thread. This is about creating a separate category for criticism, for which there simply isn't enough notable criticism. Case Closed. Cupidissimo (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Diego, so far as I've seen here, the same standards, based on WP:IRS, WP:WEIGHT, neutrality, and BLP are applied to all material brought up for discussion. That a large portion of the sources you advocate for fail the standards says more about them than anything.
- And no, I don't particularly want to repeat myself about Cathy Young, which was discussed extensively last month, in a second thread, but here goes: "The piece is already included at the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and it says nothing of substance about Sarkeesian herself that could be included here, the Dworkin bit least of all."--Cúchullain /c 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- So, you're still missing the part about "there are bits of that piece that you removed which don't apply at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and do apply at Anita Sarkeesian", and the one about "the reason you gave for removing the content is patently false".
- The point is that the standards are not applied consistently. An extensive in-depth article fully about Sarkeesian is rejected, even though some of its points have been made independently by a second reliable source, while a caption in a gallery is reintroduced. How do you apply Weight other than "I like it and it sounds nice on Sarkeesian"? Oh wait, that's exactly how it's being applied. Diego (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're well aware that using article talk pages to make personal comments or insinuate conduct issues is inappropriate. Take conduct disputes here, and do not misuse the talk page again if you want to avoid such a trip yourself in the near future.
- I'm not going to respond to the content issue regarding Cathy Young here when we already covered this issue in the thread I'll now link for the second time. I'll respond there; I really don't understand how anyone could think this issue will be resolved by bringing it up weeks later in the middle of another, unrelated thread.--Cúchullain /c 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Diego, so far as I've seen here, the same standards, based on WP:IRS, WP:WEIGHT, neutrality, and BLP are applied to all material brought up for discussion. That a large portion of the sources you advocate for fail the standards says more about them than anything.
- Why are we discussing Cathy Young again here? That article had its own thread. This is about creating a separate category for criticism, for which there simply isn't enough notable criticism. Case Closed. Cupidissimo (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Diego Moya: the Cathy Young material and the reasons for its removal were discussed, right above, here. The piece is already included at the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and it says nothing of substance about Sarkeesian herself that could be included here, the Dworkin bit least of all. We simply shouldn't have to rehash the same discussions about the same proposed changes with the same editors week after week and month after month; this back-and-forth is beyond tiresome.--Cúchullain /c 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- If that is the bar that we set to justify including content covered by two independent RS, does that mean we can remove all the references from the Commentary section that don't precisely explain how they arrived to the conclusions they state, per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT? Diego (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I want somebody to explain to me what specific theories Anita relies on that are related to Dworkin, using a reliable secondary source. That is the only way anybody should consider including such information. Zero Serenity 13:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The "criticism" isn't meaningful, and is nothing but an attempt at guilt by association with someone "controversial." It doesn't attempt to explain which of Dworkin's many theories Sarkeesian relies on — is it a highly-controversial theory or a widely-accepted one? We're not told, and are left to guess. If Young had specifically cited the particular theory or theories that Sarkeesian uses and, presumably, demonstrated that those theories do not have mainstream credibility, then that would be something else entirely. But we don't have that — instead what we have is "the person I'm writing about agrees with something that a controversial person proposed." I agree with Cuchullain's removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I linked to Bustle twice and forgot to include Asian Age.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- the one that says "That video games are sexist and their view of women objectionable isn’t news, but the response to Anita’s work has showed just how extreme opinions are pertaining to it." ". “I think the argument (that she has put forward) was long overdue. The attacks on her are by a minor community that is very vocal on the Internet. The points that she makes are valid, and the intolerance is unjustified." " Anita’s observations are right, but that the gaming world is not the only one that can be pulled up for it" - basically that she has received unjust "criticism" that is essentially just harassment? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Way to blatantly cherry-pick dude.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pot: Kettle, etc. Cupidissimo (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- At one point we'd approached a consensus at using some of those sources (the good ones) to state that criticism of Sarkeesian exists. Of course using the New Statesman and Bustle would require us to get into the opinions of those authors, who don't think much of said criticism. The proposal died on the vine in large part because those advocating for the material never made a real attempt at or proposal for an addition.--Cúchullain /c 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- How could anyone involved in an encyclopedia in good faith argue against the proposition that the article should state the existence of criticism? Genuine question. People are angrily fighting hard to prevent the line "criticism of Sarkeesian's work exists" from appearing in the article, despite the fact that this is palpably true. I am required to assume the good faith of these people, but it's not a particularly easy assumption to maintain.Bramble window (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you can find such criticism from a reliable source or an expert, then not only will we acknowledge its existence but we'll also cite it too. DonQuixote (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- You exist. I acknowledge that. However, can I find a reliable academic or journalistic source to back that up? Of course not. Yet I still acknowledge your existence because I have seen very strong evidence.
- If you can find such criticism from a reliable source or an expert, then not only will we acknowledge its existence but we'll also cite it too. DonQuixote (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- How could anyone involved in an encyclopedia in good faith argue against the proposition that the article should state the existence of criticism? Genuine question. People are angrily fighting hard to prevent the line "criticism of Sarkeesian's work exists" from appearing in the article, despite the fact that this is palpably true. I am required to assume the good faith of these people, but it's not a particularly easy assumption to maintain.Bramble window (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- At one point we'd approached a consensus at using some of those sources (the good ones) to state that criticism of Sarkeesian exists. Of course using the New Statesman and Bustle would require us to get into the opinions of those authors, who don't think much of said criticism. The proposal died on the vine in large part because those advocating for the material never made a real attempt at or proposal for an addition.--Cúchullain /c 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pot: Kettle, etc. Cupidissimo (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Way to blatantly cherry-pick dude.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- the one that says "That video games are sexist and their view of women objectionable isn’t news, but the response to Anita’s work has showed just how extreme opinions are pertaining to it." ". “I think the argument (that she has put forward) was long overdue. The attacks on her are by a minor community that is very vocal on the Internet. The points that she makes are valid, and the intolerance is unjustified." " Anita’s observations are right, but that the gaming world is not the only one that can be pulled up for it" - basically that she has received unjust "criticism" that is essentially just harassment? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Your error here is to imagine that a grown-up, educated person can't acknowledge something's existence until he's seen an academic or journalistic reference to it. It's ludicrous to maintain that you can only acknowledge the existence of criticism after others have put it into print. Haven't you clicked on the link to Phil Mason's videos? (If you haven't, you are not fit to be an editor on this topic). If you have, you know criticism exists. You know it exists. So do I. So do 99% of people who take an interest in the Sarkeesian affair. I draw a clear distinction between describing the content of the criticism and simply acknowledging the mere existence of such. Failure to acknowledge its existence is, in my view, simple intellectual misconduct, regardless of what wikipedia's rules might be. Akin in my eyes to holocaust and anthropogenic climate change denialism. It exists, let's just acknowledge it.Bramble window (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- There has been criticism by reliable sources presented in this page, and it has not been included. Diego (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Such as? DonQuixote (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Since we're apparently just repeating ourselves endlessly now: "At one point we'd approached a consensus at using some of those sources (the good ones) to state that criticism of Sarkeesian exists. Of course using the New Statesman and Bustle would require us to get into the opinions of those authors, who don't think much of said criticism. The proposal died on the vine in large part because those advocating for the material never made a real attempt at or proposal for an addition."--Cúchullain /c 19:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Have you considered that maybe the reason people find it difficult to collaborate with regular editors on this page, such as yourself, is because said editors are simply people with whom it is difficult to collaborate unless one already agrees with them?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Have you considered that there is a vocal group of people with axes to grind against the article subject, who are determined to include even the most trivial and specious of allegedly-negative material about her, and that said editors are here not to improve the encyclopedia's biography of Anita Sarkeesian but rather to use this biography as a platform to express their personal disapproval of and disrespect toward the subject and her works? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Have you considered that maybe the reason people find it difficult to collaborate with regular editors on this page, such as yourself, is because said editors are simply people with whom it is difficult to collaborate unless one already agrees with them?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Since we're apparently just repeating ourselves endlessly now: "At one point we'd approached a consensus at using some of those sources (the good ones) to state that criticism of Sarkeesian exists. Of course using the New Statesman and Bustle would require us to get into the opinions of those authors, who don't think much of said criticism. The proposal died on the vine in large part because those advocating for the material never made a real attempt at or proposal for an addition."--Cúchullain /c 19:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Such as? DonQuixote (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- There has been criticism by reliable sources presented in this page, and it has not been included. Diego (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Eh? How is it a "pot calling the kettle" situation? I linked to all the reliable sources discussing criticism both negative and positive and did not single anything out for one position or another.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- You appear to be cherry picking your sources to suit your personal POV. The article as it is reflects the coverage Sarkeesian gets in reliable sources. Again though, this is for a "section" for criticism. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here for each of the ones that we have included so far, so a "section" seems a bit far fetched. If you keep bringing up the same sources that were turned down before, what you're really doing is showing that there isn't enough for a "section" the the first place. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- a "section" for "criticism" will never be appropriate: WP:STRUCTURE / WP:CRITS. Including all types of critiques and reception from reliable sources is appropriate, but only from reliable sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agree that a separate section is not appropriate. The current Awards and commentary section should fill that role though, as "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section", per WP:CSECTION and WP:STRUCTURE. However in that section all negative or neutral material has been removed. That section is giving no consideration to prominence of the viewpoints held by RSs, where photo captions from galleries are allowed while whole articles from reliable sources dedicated to Sarkeesian have been removed. Diego (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, what sources am I cherry-picking? The sources I cited represent a wide range of views on Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- a "section" for "criticism" will never be appropriate: WP:STRUCTURE / WP:CRITS. Including all types of critiques and reception from reliable sources is appropriate, but only from reliable sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- You appear to be cherry picking your sources to suit your personal POV. The article as it is reflects the coverage Sarkeesian gets in reliable sources. Again though, this is for a "section" for criticism. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here for each of the ones that we have included so far, so a "section" seems a bit far fetched. If you keep bringing up the same sources that were turned down before, what you're really doing is showing that there isn't enough for a "section" the the first place. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we might have her birth year wrong
...nails painted gold, Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student... This would mean she was born in 1983, right? Zero Serenity 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I changed it. Good catch.--Cúchullain /c 14:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP issues with a multiple sources violating said rules
Having been informed perilously of the no original research and no X reporting on X rules I wanted to run a potential issue by other editors here. Source 5 in the Wiki sources is Anita's own website which directly contravenes X on X rules and WP:BLP relating to primary sources. As Anita is being the source of information about her Masters Thesis and not as required by WP:BLP rules a secondary source or a primary source used to back up the secondary. The same is true for source 13 as again it's her own site so a primary source not secondary as also is 56. If we are to reject Bart Baggett's website and press releases as a source for him and Anita having worked together then by the same rules source 5, 13 and 56 need replacing in this article as they are primary sources not secondary and constitute X as evidence for X. Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:11 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Self-published sources are permitted in biographies when they are verifiably authored by the article subject, subject to some other restrictions. The material doesn't seem to be unduly self-serving and doesn't make claims about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except it would violate part 5 as those sections of the article are based upon the source 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources. 3 it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; said sections of the article do rely on those sources including that she was invited to Bungie unless someone can present a secondary source backing this claim up. Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:40 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- This source is fine to establish an uncontroversial personal detail like the name of Sarkeesian's master's thesis, per WP:BLPSPS. Similarly, this source is also fine for verifying Sarkeesian's own statement to indicate that the engagement at Bungie helped inspire the series (though this doesn't seem like all that significant of a point). There was formerly another citation verifying that Sarkeesian had spoken at Bungie; this should be restored if the info is kept. This is just being used to indicate when the video was released, which is also not controversial. Of course production information isn't something that needs to at this article, but attempts to move it all over to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games were reverted. None of the sources involve "claims about events not directly related to the subject", and obviously the article is not primarily based on these three sources.--Cúchullain /c 03:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like this from Bloomberg Businessweek verifies the engagement at Bungie and that this was an inspiration in creating the series. I guess it is worth a mention. I'll add that source here momentarily, and also add it to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, where it really belongs.--Cúchullain /c 03:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- This source is fine to establish an uncontroversial personal detail like the name of Sarkeesian's master's thesis, per WP:BLPSPS. Similarly, this source is also fine for verifying Sarkeesian's own statement to indicate that the engagement at Bungie helped inspire the series (though this doesn't seem like all that significant of a point). There was formerly another citation verifying that Sarkeesian had spoken at Bungie; this should be restored if the info is kept. This is just being used to indicate when the video was released, which is also not controversial. Of course production information isn't something that needs to at this article, but attempts to move it all over to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games were reverted. None of the sources involve "claims about events not directly related to the subject", and obviously the article is not primarily based on these three sources.--Cúchullain /c 03:13, 4 December 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