[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 106.69.187.23 (talk) at 08:56, 25 April 2014 (→‎One-sided Article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: Should the Fair Use Controversy be mentioned on Anita Sarkeesian's Wikipedia Page?

There's strong consensus that this controversy does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to address in a BLP without giving the matter undue weight. While fewer editors offered opinions as to whether the matter should be mentioned at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, I would say, at best, that there's no consensus for that either. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Recently, there has been quite a huge discussion on the talk page with no clear consensus on whether it should or should not be included. Main concerns brought up were WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RSUW. The subject of this biographical article, Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist commentator, was accused by an artist of using without permission fan-art created by the artist. The art was used in her series, "Tropes vs Women", an online Youtube Video series intended to expose the bias against women in video games. One primary source, http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita (the artist's blog) and two other sources has reported on the controversy. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132778-Anita-Sarkeesian-Stole-my-Artwork-Claims-Blogger (a seemingly reliable source) and http://www.gamepolitics.com/2014/03/10/fan-artist-upset-over-feminist-frequencys-use-her-art (who's reliability has been brought into question) Can/should the details of this controversy be included in this biographical article?" Ging287 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Include Move to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as a brief, single sentence mentioning the existence of the incident (plus the Escapist reference) and the change of the promotional logo because of it. The Escapist source is a stand-alone piece dedicated exclusively to report this controversy. It's worth nothing that the article contains other references of similar reliability (blog pieces by professional writers regularly stating their opinions at specialiced gaming magazines; these appear primarily in the Reception section), so this piece should be treated with similar weight. Diego (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude: WP:GOSSIP states that the standards for biographical articles are high. In this case, the content being reported involves an accusation of impropriety by a single party, who, as the Escapist article states, may or may not even have a legitimate claim of a copyright violation. And, there is no indication Sarkeesian herself was directly responsible in the appropriation of the artist's drawing. There has been no court case, only an accusation. So then what is the story? That the subject may have done something? Inclusion does not meet the high standards of a BLP. Further, the "controversy" isn't particularly relevant to our understanding of the subject. It constitutes WP:UNDUE, as it serves as a platform for detractors to voice criticism of the subject through a scantly sourced, minor 'scandal'. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include: Controversies are usually well documented on biographies, with a NPOV and generally fair credence given towards both sides. We have enough sources to justify at least a mention, whereas on other biographies, the controversies are usually only documented with 1-3 sources, or more depending on how big the controversy is. Also, the day of the controversy spiked on Reddit, was the day this page received almost 3500 views, compared to its usual 600. Currently, I feel as if it would be beneficial to include this event with a NPOV and accurate facts. Ging287 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude as per Cyphoidbomb's arguments. If this is truly an encyclopedic incident, there will be significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and a definable outcome, rather than one marginal source which essentially just repeats unverified accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from both articles. I have no dispute with those who have raised this issue and framed the question in this RFC. The questions of copyright and fair use are central to the proper function of this encyclopedia and deserve discussion no matter the outcome. That said, I'm not seeing anything approaching BLP-threshold sourcing which would warrant inclusion. BLP policy states clearly that anything contentious must be cited with reliable sources. There's zero RS which clearly defines the terms of the alleged incident. Without RS we have no way of knowing the accuracy of any claims. We have a single self-published accusation and a single situationally reliable source repeating these claims with little in the way of verification. If page views have increased, this is more reason we should follow proper BLP policy and guideline here, not less. NPOV doesn't mean we include criticism just to be "fair" to critics. The sourcing benchmarks on BLPs require criticism to carry weight justified by independence and reliability. Given the lengthy and determined trolling history on this pagespace, we have reason to be especially skeptical of self-published and marginal sources. BusterD (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to User:Hahnchen's suggestion below this be included over at Tropes, I maintain we still have insufficient reliable sourcing for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced of the truthfulness or significance of this incident, based on sourcing. I don't agree that The Escapist meets the standard for RS in this context. Video games, yes; copyright issues related to video games, less so, IMHO. If multiple more reliable sources appear, I might be inclined to revisit this discussion. BusterD (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're raising the bar higher and higher. This line of argument could easily discount most coverage of Sarkeesian and the series, "Sure IGN is reliable for video games, but feminist critique of video games, no." As for gamepolitics.com, it's owned and run by the Entertainment Consumers Association, that's reliable enough for me. - hahnchen 17:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hahnchen may choose to see it his or her way, but the bar has always been the same for me. Based on sourcing, I'm not convinced this material rises to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:GOSSIP) even IF provable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or blog aggregator. I'd need to see significant sourcing which makes a case for inclusion, and such has not been presented yet. I expressed willingness to reconsider my position if better sourcing is presented. The best coverage seems to be on Kate Reynold's blog, and while seemingly sensible she's not a professional writer (she only has six contributions) and her publisher accepts virtually any submissions with little editorial control. So she's not RS (and she doesn't think Sarkeesian has acted poorly, in any case). The Escapist has been offered several times to describe this subject and her work, and consensus has judged the source insufficiently reliable when offered. The author Steven Bogos claims to be "an avid gamer that lives in Japan as an English teacher." No claim of expertise or even familiarity with fair use doctrine is presented. IMHO, this non-event is just the kind of internet chatter which has tried to creep in to this subject area several times, only to find lack of consensus. Such insertions require better sourcing, and those asserting for inclusion should attempt to make stronger arguments if they expect to be taken seriously.BusterD (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why your judgement of Bogos is important, when The Escapist pay him to report news. Your argument that you need to be a lawyer to cover this reliably would easily translate to, "You need a degree in women's studies" in order to critique Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and thus shut down most of the sources. The only similar case I can think of, is Andy Baio's Kind of Bloop, and by chance, his article also references The Escapist. I'm also unsure of how you came to the conclusion that Reynold's is the best source when there's coverage from Destructoid, The Escapist and Entertainment Consumers Association's GamePolitics.com. It is internet chatter, what do you expect from a kickstarted web video series on video games? - hahnchen 01:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahnchen, I think part of the issue is that there are many high quality sources available for Sarkeesian and her series, but this particular material only appears in sources that various editors have found questionable (or unusable in the case of self-published blogs). The editor who started this RfC is the one who presented this source as the best (or least problematic) of the ones they identified.--Cúchullain t/c 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude: The story is valid yet there is little beyond the very few sources available. Unless it develops further I would take issue due to WP:RSUW. So at it stands, no but I am open for future developments, if any. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The others, especially Cyphoidbomb, Alison, NorthBySouthBaranof, and BusterD, have already covered my main objections re undue weight. I'll add another objection that BusterD touched on: the source named in the proposal as "seemingly reliable", the Escapist piece, is actually questionable. I hadn't noticed before, but The Escapist is listed as a "situational source" by WP:VG/RS. This means not every piece it publishes is assumed to be reliable for video game topics (let alone copyright law and media criticism); editors may need to demonstrate that a particular author is reliable. In this case, the author claims no particular expertise on relevant topics; his biography says he's an English teacher.[1] As this is the best source identified, this non-story is hardly a "significant view" that needs to be included in an encyclopedic BLP as of yet.
I'll also say that these endless back and forths on trivial matters are frustrating when so much work remains to be done on the articles. There was no consensus for this addition in the previous discussion, and this RfC just reiterates what we already knew.--Cúchullain t/c 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is familiar with the sources at WP:VG/RS, The Escapist is reliable for news. It's tagged as "situational" because it also hosts video series which are primarily entertainment rather than information (like Fox in a way). As I mention below, I believe this is more suited to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games article. - hahnchen 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Hahnchen. I still feel this information should be excluded, however. The Escapist piece is presented as the best source available for the material, but it's written by someone with no apparent expertise in relevant topics, in a publication that's questionably reliable in at least some circumstances. As such it doesn't do enough to establish this copyright issue is a "significant viewpoint" on this subject. Even if we accept that this source is usable, it doesn't mean we must use it, especially as this is a potentially serious claim about a living person, and especially in light of the various other high quality sources available for Sarkeesian and her series.-Cúchullain t/c 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it's been brought up by a few different editors, I want to clarify that I oppose including this material either here or in Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.--Cúchullain t/c 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Everybody else says the same things I would have anyway. This is a private matter between Sarkeesian and the artist. The only "controversy" would be that which is manufactured by adding undue weight to the incidence. Wikipedia is not here to crowd source opinion, or remark upon every instance of drama on the internet. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing sexual harassment reported in several high profile news sources, a matter of public record, and a settlement suit to whether or not someone may or may not have appropriated an image that may or may not have breached copyright are clearly not equal. That argument is a prime example of "undue weight". Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Anita_Responds_to_Fan_Art_Controversy . It's also been covered by Daily Dot, the same source used in Trope vs Women's "Reception". Ging287 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

All three of the positions detailed above are reasonable enough. Mentioning something that has been covered in independent reliable sources makes sense, as long as it's done in a way that's neutral (i.e. doesn't draw conclusions about the validity of the complaint). Also, leaving it out as minor and ephemeral makes sense; it seems unlikely that this will be considered one of the major points of Sarkeesian's biography through the lens of history. (And if I'm wrong, that's always something that can be corrected later.) One thing I do disagree with, is that the 600- to 3500-view spike should influence the decision. It seems most likely to me that if people were reading about the controversy on Reddit or elsewhere, they came to Wikipedia to gain context for understanding that story. Just like somebody reading about a controversy of any public figure might seek out general information about the person. Anyway, I'm mu-ving on. There's more interesting work to be done on this 'pedia. -Pete (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why I included that in my opinion is because it was a huge bump in views on this page. Indeed, people were likely looking for a encyclopedic view on the controversy and found none on this page. While not necessarily a sole argument for why it should be included, I'd say it's somewhat telling. I didn't mean it as a vitriol or a cheap shot at Cyphoidbomb. Ging287 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No slight was perceived. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New response from Anita herself; http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had Ging287 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Responds to Fan Art Controversy

Presented without comment. [2] Zero Serenity (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So for all of you people who originally rejected including it on her Wikipedia page, she's now officially responded to it. Ging287 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and? Firstly, it's not her Wikipedia page. Secondly, I still maintain that this doesn't seem any more noteworthy than if the subject had any other civil dispute with any other citizen. "Sarkeesian was lecturing at a golf course and took off across the course with a golf cart that belonged to a member, believing that the golf cart was free to use. She later apologized for using the golf cart." What is the point? Wikipedia doesn't exist to report on the minutia of everybody's lives, and unless Sarkeesian becomes a notorious copyright thief as time goes on, this doesn't appear to be a historically significant event. And WP:UNDUE still appears to be a valid argument for its exclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The logo of the video series has changed because of it, so it has had a persistent effect on its branding. If only for this reason, the change of the logo because it included fan art should be mentioned at the article whose subject is specifically the video series. Diego (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. This is not a significant minority view. Anita herself has responded to it.
The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all.
There's no more reliable source than straight from the horse's mouth on the original dissenter's side.
WP:UNDUE is meant to make sure that minority views are not represented, however a significant dispute which again, she responded to is significant enough to include. Ging287 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC is ongoing. When wikipedians disagree as to interpretation of pillars, policies and guidelines, we measure consensus. If at the close of the RFC consensus finds the material should be included, it will be included. If consensus doesn't find it warrants inclusion, the material will stay out. I've given my reasons above. This recent posting doesn't move my opinion at all. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ging, respectfully, undue isn't limited to the snippets you've provided: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:BALASPS) This is consistent with my position that this event is not relevant to our presentation of the subject. The subject is a feminist commentator. That is what she is known for. That she or her organization misappropriated fanart doesn't improve our understanding of what the subject is known for anymore than a civil dispute about a misappropriated golf cart could teach us about the subject. The "minority view" in this case would be the view of the detractors who wish to paint the subject as immoral, or error prone, or whatever that minority agenda is. The only reason why it is being proposed, is because to her detractors, it represents a tasty morsel of controversy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that there are editors out there who do appear to be looking for criticism for the sake of criticism (hence why I am watching this article to begin with), currently it has been civil and retained a good level of WP:GOODFAITH. Having said that, I do however see a degree of merit for this subject being moved to FF/Tropes article instead, at least within the talkpage. Given that there multiple sources (IE more than just the Escapist that seems to keep only being brought up) and an acknowledgment form the original source, I would be less inclined at this stage to dismiss it outright than before. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there is nothing preventing you from editing or starting up a new section for the source of claims/addendums that you wish to add. There is no page protection, no vandalistic edits/reverts on the talk page. No cursing, no swearing, no nothing inhibiting you from adding/discussing what you like. Ging287 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the best option; it looks like too much weight for a biography, but it's related to the marketing image of the video series - as the promotional logo used the fan art, and now has been changed because of it. Changing my !vote. Diego (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The response from Sarkeesian just confirms how much of a non-issue this was: the most sensational claims are false, there's no legal issue, and the only thing to come of it is that Sarkeesian swapped out some art in a banner. It doesn't change my opinion at all, in fact I'm even more convinced this little footnote is totally unencyclopedic and inappropriate for either article. I'm with Cyphoid, and I reiterate my frustration that we've spent nearly two weeks on this pointless ephemera when necessary improvements and much better available sources remain on the sidelines.--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one here wants to get frustrated. While I understand and even agree with your valid points (it is a very minor story), there still seems to be reasonable doubt amongst others that won't go away and I can even see their perspective to a degree. I for one would rather see this moved to the other article, that much can be agreed upon, especially if there are apparent pending improvements. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joe. I don't know that the fact some editors keep bringing this episode up really signifies that it's important, only that those editors think it is, for reasons that may or may not mesh with Wikipedia standards and policy. Personally, I oppose this material being included in either article based on the sources we currently have, regardless of where it's discussed.--Cúchullain t/c 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would need to happen for you to agree with inclusion? What level of sourcing would you consider enough for mentioning the existence of this event in one of the articles? Is there a point at which you would think that it's rational to cover the event based on some amount of available sources? Diego (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not how it works. The burden of evidence is on the folks who want to add the material; if you want it included, you present your evidence and arguments. I'm not particularly interested in getting into some hypothetical contingency that would rationalize including material that's currently inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Not how it works"? I'm asking how much evidence, and of what nature, would YOU consider enough to satisfy BURDEN. Should I infer that no amount of evidence in the world would be enough for you to change your mind? Diego (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's being a bit unfair, Diego. I suspect if Time Magazine made Sarkeesian person of the year, and listed Sarkeesian's handling of this controversy a key factor in the publication's decision-making, User:Cuchullain might be persuaded. I'm also certain a somewhat smaller threshold of sourcing might be persuasive to Cúchullain. But that user is under no obligation to identify the precise threshold which would satisfy. I agree with that user this non-event is a tempest in a teapot and has no place in a biography or an article about the series, adding nothing significant about either. Just because something is true and verifiable doesn't make it encyclopedic. When we disagree about these issues, we measure consensus. Establishing consensus is more about light than heat, IMHO. So I encourage everyone to stay calm and edit Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only ask because the amount of references for this subject is already higher than several opinions by commentators that happen to have been included in the article; yet there doesn't seem to be a point where those with an "Exclude" position would admit that this subject has enough weight for inclusion either at this or the other article, with most opinions against it being subjective and based on personal feelings or unexplained application of policy. If they offered some rational arguments for including or including references and applied them consistently for all sources, it would be much easier to take that position seriously. At least Cyphoidbomb voices the underlying concern against this coverage, that any form of criticism would amount to "scoring points" for Sarkeesian critics - but then WP:CENSOR is not a valid reason to avoid including content when it *has* been covered by several reliable sources in a responsible manner. In any other WP:AUTHOR article, a disagreement about copyright law that prompted the author to change the main logo with which the video series is identified, it would merit at least a one-liner explaining the change without much ado, as marketing and commercial identification are consistently deemed important enough to merit coverage (even inclusion of non-free images under the strict criteria for NFC); but not on this one. Diego (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diego Moya, can we please get some examples of these other articles where this has happened? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would that make a difference in your position? Diego (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. Would likely be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway. But if you're going to suggest that it's common, I would respectfully ask for evidence indicating that it's common. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diego Moya, since you're asking me personally, I'd say that if this little episode were substantively covered in multiple sources that were unquestionably reliable for directly relevant topics, we could talk about if and how we should include the material. That's just to open the discussion - it wouldn't mean we should, let alone must, include it. It still depends on how significant the episode is in the context of all sources for Sarkeesian and her work. Articles, at least good articles, aren't written by ticking boxes or "satisfying" minimum inclusion thresholds. They're written by consulting the best available sources and accurately representing what they say in a neutral, balanced, and encyclopedic manner. In this case it's all just hypothetical - we can't very well make decisions based on sources that don't exist. It's a distraction from the real question, which is whether the sources we actually have indicate that this copyright disagreement is a significant episode to the topic and justify its inclusion. In my mind, and evidently in the minds of most participants, the answer to that question is no.--Cúchullain t/c 19:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been covered by The Daily Dot[3] by the same writer who's opinion is already referenced in Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games#Reception. - hahnchen 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that source up, Hahnchen. Daily Dot has been discussed a few times here and it seems to be fine; as you say the publication and author are cited here already (though that particular material will ultimately be moved over to the Tropes article). It's a much better source than the others, however I remain unconvinced it's enough to establish this episode is a significant viewpoint considering the WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP implications.--Cúchullain t/c 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source Hahnchen, although I would argue that some other sources are still valid. I will definitely agree with Cuchullain for this article, although I'll still recommend for the time being this being put in Tropes talkpage. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this is precisely why Wikipedia is not news. We can afford to wait to find out what happens rather than rushing to throw barely-supported and fourth-hand allegations into articles. It turns out this is literally a nothingburger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Cyphoidbomb: My position is not that it's a common occurence -that's your own wording- as much as that it's a reasonable position to hold, given the standards encoded in policy that drive coverage of marketing and brading throughout the whole project. It's unlikely that other articles happen to be in the exact same situation as this one, nor that was my position; but NFCI has a common understanding that marketing, branding, and identification information implicitly provide contextual significance to topics discussed by reliable sources, in particular for commentary of non-free images as is the logo discussed in this RfC; you should explain why this commonly held criterion doesn't provide significance at this case. Anyway, as you don't regard as relevant the other instances of logos under copyright contentions, I'll withheld the several examples that I had in mind of changes to logos and branding of products that happened because of concerns of copyright and trademark.

@Cúchullain: So far, so good - May I ask you why you don't always maintain the same position with respect to the references currently used to document the harassment and reception sections? There is definitely a double standard at place in this talk page where every author that wouldn't cast Sarkeesian in the best light is required to have both and degree in sociology, cultural studies and video game criticism, and where even sources deemed as reliable are cast into doubt the moment they decide to reflect a shred of criticism of the person and her work (even if otherwise they defend her to their heart), while no similar credentials are ever required for writers of articles that happen to praise her work.

I shall remind you that the number of editors holding a position should not hold as much weight as the arguments with which those positions are defended. I've seen much links to policy here, and very little discussion of the criteria that these policies establish as relevant for including or excluding topics. What would be the content of the policy that justifies this as having undue weight? This is not a flat Earth theory, it's about an issue with the image that the author herself has acknowledged. And where is the majority position about the copyright issue against which this one is in a minority position, therefore much less prominent, to the point that it should be completely hidden? When analyzing the criteria established by WP:UNDUE, they don't seem all that relevant at all, neither does mentioning this incident with neutral words seem to have any BLP implication. Is because of this that you don't discuss the content of the policies themselves, and limit your arguments to the name of the policy? As the event will permanently affect the commercial identification and branding of the video series, WP:NOTNEWS (which is about routine announcements of transient relevance) is not relevant either - any explanation of why the current logo is not the same one as the one used in the original Kickstarter campaign will necessarily need to mention this incident, so it's already part of the permanent record for the series.

A neutral point of view is to be decided primarily by what reliable sources deem worthy of coverage, rather than how editors happen to feel about that coverage. When those sources have identified a topic as noteworthy, neutrality requires that it is covered to at least some degree even if it's a point of view that you personally don't agree with. Diego (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for outlining your argument in a general manner, this section has become somewhat convoluted in structure. While previously I have held the view that this story may not be necessary due to the lack of sources/coverage, by this stage given the multiple references from reliable sources, including sources already mentioned along with the both first parties in the story, does hold merit. However as Diego has mentioned the the issue being with the branding, by this stage the story does seem more relevant to the series rather than the creator. What is slightly funny in a way though that despite all of the debate thus far, said piece IF included will more than likely only be a couple of sentences (within the Reception?) at best, so I find this whole situation to be something on an interesting test case even if we still don't agree in the near future. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diego I concede that "common" was my interpretation. I apologize. You said "In any other WP:AUTHOR article, a disagreement about copyright law that prompted the author to change the main logo with which the video series is identified, it would merit at least a one-liner..." I was curious about the "in any other" aspect of the claim you were making, since no examples were provided. But whatevs. Also, my core argument isn't about censorship, my core argument is that not everything matters. We are allowed, and even encouraged to be discriminating about the sort of content we include, particularly for BLPs. I've been fairly clear about this point and how it relates to my argument. I recall a "scandal" many months ago where American actress Jamie Pressly accused another actress, Estella Warren, of stealing a purse from a party. There was coverage in a number of sources, Pressly gave an interview that detailed the allegations and talked about how she and her friend tracked down the purse by turning on the iPhone locator, blah blah blah. The scandal made a brief appearance in the article, (and I believe I was complicit in copyediting and finding sources, etc,) but another editor deleted the block for BLP issues (if memory serves me) and I remember thinking that was a decent call and that I probably should have removed it. My point is, that not everything requires mention, and I doubt Britannica would dignify such a triviality as this fanart kerfuffle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diego, I "maintain the same position" for all material, particularly if it's potentially controversial material about a living person, like this is. And more importantly, so does Wikipedia. Material I've added is mostly from academic publications and reputable newspapers; if there's a problem with any of it, bringing it up directly is a much better way to resolve the issue than hand-waving insinuations. The real "double standard" here is on the introducing end; for whatever reason people don't argue for weeks in support of poorly-sourced trivia when it's uncontroversial or flattering. As for requiring that sources have some "credentials" in the subjects they discuss, well, that comes from Wikipedia policy, and the fact that I've made an effort to become familiar with the range and quality of sources available for this topic rather than just relying on whatever happens to pop up in a Google search.--Cúchullain t/c 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've also claimed several times that the collage is the "logo of the video series" or some such; this is false. As the Escapist piece and Sarkeesian's response make clear, it's the image used in the Kickstarter for the series. This is what's actually used in the series. The collage did get circulated in sources, especially older ones, but it's been less common since the series actually started.--Cúchullain t/c 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well pardon me as that's not my claim, this is how it's identified in the Daily Dot article. The image is still used in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games image album. Diego (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Dot and your comments are wrong. It's a subtle but significant distinction when you're trying to make claims about the impact of the disagreement.--Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little comment, but ask this question, "How much of this will be covered in a ~400-page biography?" That is, an encyclopaedia article should not cover every detail just the major ones. So if this thing will take of up pages and pages or even a chapter in a 400-page biography, then it should be covered here. If this thing will only be a few sentences or even just a footnote, it probably shouldn't be covered in a relatively short encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes. While some have argued such, I have no issue with any of the perfectly reliable sources presented. However I had been sitting on them in the event the story would develop beyond what would end up as a simple throwaway sentence at the bottom on the article. By this stage I would say it is safe to assume that it won't develop any more, further more I can't see this article overall being greatly expanded in the foreseeable future either. So at this stage, a minor story casually and quietly brought up then immediately settled doesn't seem like a good fit to an already currently minor article/work in progress. While not the best comparison, I've read many legitimate stories on political figures that never made it into the article since the story didn't add much overall. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've uncollapsed the RFC and related sections after a discussion on my talk page. It does seem that a clear consensus has emerged, but ideally an RfC should be archived on its own, not along with other sections. Additionally, considering how contentious these discussion tend to be, it would be better if someone uninvolved performed the close. I'll make a request at WP:AN/RFC now.--Cúchullain t/c 22:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Escapist criticism

Discussion has devolved into back-and-forth that violates WP:TPG and WP:NOTAFORUM. Once again, comments need to be about article improvements, not general discussion of the topic - or each other. Editors also need to keep in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Repeated violations of good talk page behavior will be considered disruptive.--Cúchullain t/c 02:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amB2Ieuee9o

I'm sure the same editors who think of her as some sort of scholar/victim needing to be saved will say this is just YouTube, but the channel is run by the magazine, so it is the same source. Please amuse me with stretched logic as to why this can not be allowed in the article. But please make it original: don't just repeat the same nonsense that was used to exclude Destructoid's notable and valid criticism of our favourite damsel in distress70.75.28.225 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've already established that the Escapist is characterized as a "situational" source by the WP:VG/RS guidelines, meaning not everything it puts out is assumed to be reliable for video game topics (let alone other things). This video recalls Hahnchen's comments here: "As someone who is familiar with the sources at WP:VG/RS, The Escapist is reliable for news. It's tagged as 'situational' because it also hosts video series which are primarily entertainment rather than information (like Fox in a way)." In short, Escapist may be usable for some things, but this isn't one of them. Better luck next time.--Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Especially No Right Answer by itself. Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition) and Moviebob (The Big Picture) have both come to say she's got very good points so saying "The Escapist" has this opinion is just wrong. It's just those two. Plus, NRA (Ugh, I just realized what that's an acronym of) tends to be heavily scripted and done for comedy purposes. So, reliable? No, I wouldn't say so. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much like Destructoid, a video game publication, is a "situational source." But their valid and accurate (not to mention respectful) critique of Anita's "work" on video games is not allowed. Why? Because they have no women's studies training, even though they limit the scope of their criticism to her claims regarding the facts of the games and leave all women's issues out of it. But none of the pro Anita reliable sources are peer reviewed psychology or sociology journals. They're just people talking about how heroic she is for standing up to the online critics. That being the case, this article should be strictly limited to the harassment she claims hurt her feelings, and led to her receiving a whole bunch of money to make YouTube videos. Unless, of course, you want to include the videos of her contradicting herself: "I love video games" vs. "I'm not a fan of video games." That last bit will be called original research but it would be quite appropriate to say simply "Anita has claimed many times to love video games. However, before becoming famous she has said "I'm not a fan of video games." The source would be video of her saying these things and no editorializing would be necessary. Given all this, the fact that the article exists in its current form suggests that there is something very wrong with the editorial process here; as does the fact that angry editors will immediately look for strange reasons to dismiss all this, and win the argument.70.75.28.225 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. You seemed to have disregarded what we said and then went on to quote mine her (For the record the phrase is "I'm not a gamer" because she doesn't like to play so many violent video games. This quote without context is compelling, but with context makes sense as gamers at the time played tons of violent games.) We will take criticism when it's from proper Reliable Source. The Escapist can provide news and critical opinions, but No Right Answer is not considered part of their critical series. Zero Serenity (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, she said "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games [in order to make some silly video]"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI Get it now? Doubt it.70.75.28.225 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publish your observation in a reliable source so that we can cite you, a secondary source, properly rather than interpreting a primary source which Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to do. DonQuixote (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you've already been warned about bad faith and now you can add insulting other editors to that list of offenses sofar. But I will entertain this specific video. It was shot in 2010. The kickstarter took off in 2012. Huh. Two years can change the mind and tastes of somebody especially with the rapid fire pace of video games. This does not even come close to discrediting her in academia, nor does it convince me she is a fraud. Zero Serenity (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except she claimed to be a "life long gamer." Anyway, despite the fact that she has not been published in any peer reviewed journals, and says rather silly things, as well as having a complete disregard for honesty, she has a massive fan club here, who is prepared to ignore facts and reason in an effort to keep her hero status alive in their minds. It's weird, but there's nothing I can do about it.70.75.28.225 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, that video may be RS for whether there are, in fact, too many dicks on the dance floor. This talk page seems to lend some credence to the notion as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. This talk page does demonstrate that there are "too many dicks" on the talk page. Of course dicks, to borrow the terminology of another editor, before you get on ME for using the crude term, in this case would be defined as people who dogmatically reject all the facts proving that their hero is a silly person who could never pass peer review. Why not? Because there is consensus amongst psychiatrists that men and women are indeed different. That is not to say women are inferior in any way, but the vast majority of women do not find men who need to be rescued by some action woman sexy. They definitely do find large men who could rescue them sexy. If you disagree with this, you are either amongst the small minority of women who think otherwise, or a man who is not large and attractive to women.70.75.28.225 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is intended to improve the article. Just because certain people don't like the recommendations doesn't mean they wouldn't indeed improve the article. It would improve Wiki's reputation if there was not an effort to exclude valid and reliable criticism (Destructoid, mainly) of someone with no ability to pass peer review, while pretending that she is a "great scholar." (Yes, I used quotes because an editor, who happened to be an admin, referred to her as such in a previous discussion. What a joke.)70.75.28.225 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been condensed to limit soapboxing. Yet, you continue to soapbox. Please stop soapboxing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soapboxing is defined as pointing out the weakness in your arguments? I didn't know that.70.75.28.225 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soapboxing defined as somebody using this talk page to drone on and on about subjects with which nobody except the speaker seems to care. Nothing 70.75.28.225 has put forward is new, useful, or directly related to improving the page. What he or she fails to know is that the droning has caused most everyone to tune that ip editor out. There's something of the WP:ICANTHEARYOU going on. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
70.75.25.225 You're not pointing out the weaknesses in my arguments, since I neither recall ever tangling with you, nor have I attempted to project a POV at this article other than objecting to the introduction of fringe content unworthy of inclusion in a biographical article. If you mean the collective "you", that's fine, but my personal opinion is that you are soapboxing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you people just ignore reason and logic. You've been excluding reliable and valid criticism with phrases like "go away" for years. What do you expect people to do? 'Find peer reviewed criticism and....' Except you people have not done the same. Again, her work is not respected by academic publications as it goes against the consensus held by the American Psychiatric Association, but you editors pretend that she is worthy of an article completely exclusive of valid criticism from RS (again, Destructoid). And yes, you is collective.70.75.28.225 (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, have to admit that we haven't found any peer reviewed criticism either...that's why there's no criticism (positive or negative) mentioned in the article. Please go find one (positive or negative) rather than soapboxing about a non-peer reviewed article (Destructroid), which being non-peer reviewed is far from valid or reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the standard, but Anita hasn't met it.70.75.28.225 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So...what standard are you talking about? The standard here is the standard for an encyclopaedia or a textbook, which relies on citing reliable sources. Please go find a reliable source rather than soapboxing about a horrible source that doesn't meet the minimum level of academic standards.
As for Anita, she's not editing this page so she doesn't have to do anything other than be a person mentioned by notable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is not the standard. Is the NYT peer reviewed? Nope. Destructoid is not either, but it is an RS. Yes, a situational RS, but we are talking about video games. They may not have any credentials when it comes to women's studies, but they simply discussed her lack of knowledge concerning the games themselves. There is no reason to exclude them.70.75.28.225 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is standard for academic criticism. The NYT has it's own standard for reporting news, which is fact checking. Note that reporting news is not the same thing as criticism. The NYT is not a RS for criticism and neither is Destructoid, which is considered far less reliable than the NYT. An encyclopaedia's standard is to consider the sources within context and to give due weight with respect to the reliability of a source within that context. Destructoid is a horrible source for this type of criticism (positive or negative). YouTube is a horrible source for this type of criticism (positive or negative). Please study WP:RS as it goes over this as well as providing several examples. DonQuixote (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DonQuixote stated: "there's no criticism (positive or negative) mentioned in the article." Yet there is a response section which is full of praise from non peer reviewed sources, all of whom have less relevance to this subject than Destructoid. This is why I not only don't assume good faith, I can see the obvious dishonesty.70.75.28.225 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Praise isn't the same thing as criticism. And sorry if I missed that one criticism, but I don't edit this article regularly.
Scholar Nate Carpenter reviewed the "Damsel in Distress" video positively in the journal Women & Language. Carpenter commended the series for rendering the ideas and language of media criticism into a format accessible for a general audience. He found it limited in failing to analyze the cultural milieu that perpetuates damaging tropes, but overall found it an "intelligent, engaging, and entertaining point of departure" for viewers interested in media studies. (emphasis mine)
So, yep, we have exactly one criticism from an expert published in a scholarly journal. Notice the difference between that and the Destructoid article, which is "criticism" from an amateur published in a "situational" source that's far removed from the area of study in question. (I haven't had the chance to access Carpenter's article, so I don't know if it's actually a peer reviewed analysis of the videos or merely a review. If it's not an analysis then it's not a work of criticism; see below, Boston Globe et al.)
As for the other sources, such as the Boston Globe, they don't criticize her arguments (positive or negative), they review her work from a pop POV. They describe the works, provide background information and give their opinions. Notice the difference.
The Destructoid article and the YouTube videos are written from a pop POV but they try to argue against the videos by amateur analysis--that is, they try to emulate experts while at the same time bypassing the peer-review process. So, no, not reliable sources given the context. DonQuixote (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link does not suggest that this Nate Carpenter's article was peer reviewed. Anyway, I repeat: all this favourable stuff is allowed while Destructoid, whose article is topic specific and covers their area of expertise, which they are recognized for, is not allowed. I do accuse the editors here of blatant dishonesty in their effort glorify Anita, despite the proof of her own dishonesty. I'm sure Don, or some other editor, will come back and make some rambly, nonsense defence of this policy, but it will only serve to justify the loss of my respect and donations to Wikipedia. At least neutral observers wanting to see the truth of Anita's character can have a laugh at the determination of her acolytes to hide from reality.70.75.28.225 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, Women & Language is indeed peer-reviewed.[4] For another, sources used in articles don't necessarily need to be peer reviewed, even though several used here are (Women & Language, Television & New Media, SIGITE '13). Sources do need to be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and higher quality sources are given more weight than lower quality ones.
That Destructoid piece has been discussed to death. As it's essentially an op-ed piece in one writer's unedited community blog, the consensus has been that it's an unusable self-published source. This video is in a similar boat: it's evidently created for "comedy purposes"; it's not a reliable source even for video games, let alone anything else. Neither source remotely compares to peer-reviewed articles or pieces from reputable newspapers, or even to reliable video game sites with a strong editorial process. Sorry, that's just a non-starter.--Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Dtoid article was written by their reviews director. It's been admitted that Destructoid is a situational RS. Since they're an award winning video game magazine, and the subject here is video games (the facts of Anita's claims regarding video games are discussed, separate from women's issues within them), I don't see the problem. I'm sure others will.70.75.28.225 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was written in the writer's unedited personal blog in the part of the site where anybody can make a blog post. It's effectively a self-published source, which aren't used without good reason, especially in a biography of a living person, and especially when so many superior sources are readily available. We've discussed this piece repeatedly; the consensus is very unlikely to change.--Cúchullain t/c 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We've discussed this piece repeatedly; the consensus is very unlikely to change" I know70.75.28.225 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014

Sarkeesian has been listed as being the first female to receive the GDC Ambassador award, though this is not the case. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the GDC awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheri_Graner_Ray), Sheri Graner Ray is actually the first female to receive the award. Soapy1978 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your article that you posted, she won the "Developers' Choice Award", not "Ambassador Award". So, statement still stands. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, Sheri Graner Ray won the 2004 "IGDA Award for Community Contribution", which was discontinued after 2007.[5] This may be a predecessor to the "Ambassador Award", launched in 2008,[6] but I can't find anything specific clarifying that. The cited New York Times source does verify that Sarkeesian "won the ambassador award, the first time a woman has received that honor",[7] which is why I added it; Sarkeesian also mentioned it in her acceptance speech.[8] She's clearly the first woman to have received the "Ambassador Award" under that name, but that point may be somewhat confusing if this is basically the same award under different names. What do others think?--Cúchullain t/c 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's a curveball. (I flipped the answer while we discuss this.) I am unsure which side of the fence I'd fall on this one. The Community Contribution award sounds like it is to the development community as opposed to community at large (which is what the ambassador award sounds like it's for). Do we have better definitions of what the awards are for from the GDC? Zero Serenity (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. From the links, "The Community Contribution award embodies the goals of the IGDA and recognizes the significant contributions that an individual has made in building community, sharing knowledge, speaking on behalf of developers and/or contributing to the art form of game development". It appears to have only been awarded to game developers. On the other hand "The Ambassador Award honors an individual or individuals who have helped the game industry advance to a better place, either through facilitating a better game community from within, or by reaching outside the industry to be an advocate for video games and help further our art." It's mostly gone to people who aren't developers. In the very least there's been a change of focus. As I can't find anything specific connecting the two, I'm leaning to just trusting the New York Times' judgement and leaving the line in there.--Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
we attribute the analysis "The NYT says it is the first time a woman ...." if another reliable source later points out an error in the NYT's analysis we should remove it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be of some interest. Sheri Graner Ray confirms that the two awards are not the same and congratulates Sarkeesian (http://sherigranerray.com/?p=196) --50.0.164.142 (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 02:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided Article?

In the section discussing Anita's Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment it isn't mentioned why she faced such heavy criticism and backlash from the gaming community. In the entire article I couldn't see anywhere that even mentions why she faces such widespread criticism and disdain. 106.69.77.24 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please find a reliable secondary source that mentions this so that we can include it in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually feel like the article is quite descriptive of why she was attacked. This sentence, "The project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment that Amanda Marcotte in Slate magazine described as an "absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse", in which "[e]very access point they could exploit was used to try to get to her".", seems to indicate that she was attacked as a result of misogyny or sexist backlash to her criticisms of sexism in gaming. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is referred to as "attacks caused by sexism" weren't all "attacks" in the first place. Most of it was an angry and not at all uncommon reaction (a backlash, if you will - and she's not the only one that's ever been affected, but the only one publicly complaining of it) to many of the perceived faults in her conduct as well as her works' content. That the reaction was sexist and misogynist is nothing but her own assertion founded on a misrepresentation of the people (and the community) reacting to her (in her speeches, she makes it sound like it's an organized sexist conspiracy against her). This article readily accepts that assertion as valid without question and irresponsibly proceeds to mention it several times throughout. However, personally, I don't have much against still calling it an attack, the important part is that the article does not neglect to mention that there was actual constructive criticism (and there was a lot of it - and might be also fair to mention that she never mentioned nor addressed any of it anywhere).
I usually like to think of this website, though vulnerable, as still maintained by mostly honest people who care for the accuracy of the information in it. Currently, the article seems as if the people maintaining it are just as dismissive as Anita is towards all the constructive criticism she was provided with, and towards all the suspicions of her misconduct (there are many certainties but I would be content with at least mentioning the controversial aspects of her campaign), among other things. The fact is, she is suspected of fraud, to put it bluntly (and that isn't referring to the money), and some nitpicking aside, people have a serious case for it, and that shouldn't be ignored.
Thanks. -85.240.73.115 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again - Got sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm harassment and rape threats are not attacks, but instead are "constructive criticism"? I think you're going to need some pretty good sources on this one. I've just reviewed all the sources in the "Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment" section and all of them seem to be reliable, third party sources. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 01:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 85 IP's position appears to be without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I gathered was from youtube videos dissecting her works, her Masters thesis, her conduct, etc. Are videos considered valid as sources? If so, I'll have to ask if someone could be so kind as to check the youtubers Investig8tiveJournalism, thunderf00t, jordanowen42 (warning: long videos), and The Gaming Goose (this one actually agrees with some of her premises, but presents a much deeper and more accurate (and honest) analysis than Anita does on games). I'm asking you this because I'm going to be absent for some time since tomorrow (switching ISP), and I need to go to sleep now (3:30am). Hope no one takes this request the wrong way. And thanks.
I have to ask though, do you really need immediate sources to realize that the accusations of sexism and misogyny are assertions? Because nowhere in her videos did she objectively substantiate them, and the people's attacks are merely within the context that she is a self-proclaimed feminist. If she was a self-proclaimed atheist, instead of rape-threats she would receive attacks in that context, such as: "may you burn in hell" or "may the church van run over you". If they sound far fetched, try watching this video which features at least the latter, and exemplifies that context (death threats included): Hate E-mails with Richard Dawkins - this is also one example of how other people receive "attacks" from their audience too, although, since his position in his debates is actually substantiated by reason and science, it's generally well received and accepted, thus the amount of attacks is much lower in comparison to Anita's - there probably should be a wiki page about this internet phenomenon to dispel much of the misunderstanding about it, but that's for a different discussion elsewhere, I guess). If you need more examples, just type "hate mail" or something similar on youtube or google and you'll get plenty of it.
@FenixFeather, I did not say the threats were constructive criticism. Please don't jump to conclusions if you're only reading cursorily. What I stated was, basically, that part of what she claimed to have perceived as attacks were actual constructive criticism, which she has been dismissing as if it was the exact same as the rest of it. That dismissive attitude has spread throughout many of the people who support her, and likely most of the people who are "outside" of the whole thing (such as the mainstream media (CNN) and many video gaming laymen).
The thing is, I'm not asking you to believe in me. I'm simply asking you to care about the information you're maintaining here, and to care about being impartial and fair about it. That will imply that you actually look closely at it. I'm sorry for not being able to provide more direct links myself. ::::Thanks. -85.240.73.115 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interpretation, original research and POV. Unfortunately you have provided no reliable secondary source to support any of your claims and thus, because of our policy of being impartial and fair, none of this will make it into an encyclopaedia article. Feel free to publish your interpretation, original research and POV on a blog. DonQuixote (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And additionally, this talk page isn't a forum for general discussion of the subject, let alone for unsupported negative claims about a living person. Please keep your comments tied to specific article improvements (which again, require reliable sources) or they'll be archived.--Cúchullain t/c 04:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In short:
Claim 1 "All of which is referred to as "attacks caused by sexism" weren't all "attacks" in the first place."
Secondary sources used in this article clearly discuss sexist attacks, threats of rape, violent games etc. If you have reliable secondary sources that pre-date these attacks that outline them as not being sexist then please provide them.
Claim 2 Most of it was an angry and not at all uncommon reaction to many of the perceived faults in her conduct as well as her works' content.
As significant majority of the secondary sources deal with harassment prior to her series being released, or even the final Kickstarter total being achieved, I would be interested to see the reliable secondary sources that critically analyse something that didn't even exist, or could be angry about such non-existent material.
Claim 3 "That the reaction was sexist and misogynist is nothing but her own assertion founded on a misrepresentation of the people (and the community) reacting to her"
The secondary sources, some of whom were also harassed, disagree that it was just her assertion. Again, where are the sources that state that the creation of a game that allowed users to beat her, or leaving comments advocating rape, are only misogynistic or sexist based upon her assertion?
Claim 4 "in her speeches, she makes it sound like it's an organized sexist conspiracy against her"
Given that the attacks were documented by reputable secondary sources as originating from several core users, and astroturfed from specific forums, where are the reputable sources that say "actually, spontaneously a lot of people just don't like her". The secondary sources also make it quite clear that the only reason so much money was donated was specifically because of the organised attacks.
Claim 5 "This article readily accepts that assertion as valid without question and irresponsibly proceeds to mention it several times throughout."
This article relies upon the words of reliable secondary sources, some of whom were also attacked by the same individuals. If you have evidence that this article is accepting something because Sarkeesian said so i.e. a reliance upon a Primary Source for a controversial claim, then please identify it.
Claim 6 "However, personally, I don't have much against still calling it an attack"
Generous, fortunately we also have reputable secondary sources who also agree that it was an attack, therefore making your acceptance of these facts redundant.
Claim 7 "the important part is that the article does not neglect to mention that there was actual constructive criticism."
If you can provide the reliable secondary sources, we are waiting.
Claim 8 "and there was a lot of it - and might be also fair to mention that she never mentioned nor addressed any of it anywhere"
If there is a lot of it, then you should have no issue finding the sources of the valid criticism. The absence of her response is irrelevant. In the end this is her "opinion" against lots of other peoples "opinions" and that's pretty much the core value of free speech.
Claim 9 "What I stated was, basically, that part of what she claimed to have perceived as attacks were actual constructive criticism, which she has been dismissing as if it was the exact same as the rest of it."
Reliable Sources should be able to outline the constructive criticism that existed prior to or alongside the attacks that took place before her content existed. Reliable sources should also now be available that provide valid critique of the content. Please provide these sources.
Claim 10 "If she was a self-proclaimed atheist, instead of rape-threats she would receive attacks in that context, such as: "may you burn in hell" or "may the church van run over you".
Off topic, but do you honestly think that being a feminist contextualises "rape threats"? I would direct your attention to Elevatorgate.
Claim 11 "The fact is, she is suspected of fraud, to put it bluntly (and that isn't referring to the money), and some nitpicking aside, people have a serious case for it, and that shouldn't be ignored."
That is a very, very serious allegation. We're going to need more than some youtube videos of basement lawyering. Ideally an actual lawsuit would be very handy, if not imperative, to support that claim. Koncorde (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC):O[reply]
Oddly enough, although I am "a self-proclaimed feminist", nobody ever sends me rape threats. Or is this really just the old "well, of course she got rape threats: she's an uppity bitch!" assumption? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said it before and I will say it again but why is there no mention of her being a possible minadrist. --106.69.187.23 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&oldid=605723949"