Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 9
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dreadstar in topic Criticism piece
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Anita Sarkeesian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Tropes vs. Women in Video Games
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.
Suggest change to first sentence:
On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog,[12] and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.[13]
To:
On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of 12 short videos to be delivered by August, 2012 that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog,[12] and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.[13]
Bold only to highlight changes. No changes to references, all information included in source [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:B02A:CC9D:8D5E:DBB4 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why? That's out-of-date information. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is verbatim what is defined on the Kickstarter page [13], I don't see where it is "outdated" and it is very much what was advertised on kickstarter... 12 videos with an estimated delivery of August 2012. If it later changed, say that too, but you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:B02A:CC9D:8D5E:DBB4 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Verbatim? I see five videos saying estimated delivery: Aug 2012 --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- From the kickstarter linked in as a source [13] in the article, "With your help, I’ll produce a 5-video series (now expanded to 12 videos) entitled Tropes vs Women in Video Games"
- The backer rewards are estimated Aug 2012, no release date is promised for the videos. This is almost definitely part of the 'she ripped people off' argument.Euchrid (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, from the kickstarter linked as a source [13], most rewards are Aug 2012, However there are 2 rewards that include "complete DVD sets of the series" with delivery dates of DEC 2012. So it could be argued DEC 2012 is the valid date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:b02a:cc9d:8d5e:dbb4 (talk • contribs)
- All the important details of the kickstarter campaign are described at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Crowdfunding via Kickstarter--the important parts being how she amended her goals after receiving more money to work with. As I said, out-of-date information considering that her goals were updated during the fundraising. DonQuixote (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given that "the delay led some critics to question how she was using the money", it's not outdated information - it's something that affected the reception of the series. I wouldn't find it out of place at the Kickstarter campaign section. It's true that the change of schedule is already covered at Production, but the detail that 5 videos were originally planned and later were expanded to 12 is currently not mentioned anywhere. Diego (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the real world, everything takes longer and costs more. This did not genuinely affect the reception of the series, it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme that her haters keep trying to shoehorn into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you please WP:AGF instead of making personal attacks? Are you saying that Fruzsina Eördögh's (from ReadWrite) opinion is not to be taken into account as analysis of the series production? It's really tiresome that any proposed change which can't be seen as unambiguous praise must be defended against accusations of being part of the harassment campaign. Diego (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Minute details of the project are already mentioned at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, particularly Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Production. This article provides a general overview, and such outdated information is out-of-place here and as such will be given undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Obviously this request is in part an attempt to make Sarkeesian look bad, but it's also based on confusing the sources (or not reading them). The article suffered when we created the (unnecessary) Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and then made minimal effort to improve either article.
- The Tropes... article already explains what happened (this one does too, in less detail). In fact, since it's only attributed to the Kickstarter announcements, it may not even be necessary for that article. At any rate, contrary to what the anon says, Sarkeesian's original plan was for five videos, not twelve. After the Kickstarter reached its goal quickly, Sarkeesian added a series of stretch goals to create more videos. However, because the campaign took in so much more money than planned, Sarkeesian changed the original plans to take advantage of the increased funding, as indicated by sources like this. The anon's proposed change is based on information that's two years out of date.
- We could get into the stretch goals, but it's already covered at the "Tropes" article, and honestly we don't need any additional redundancy here. In fact, the relevant sections of this article should be rewritten to just summarize the key points, keeping the full coverage at the fork dedicated to it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Don, yes, you've said in two sentences what took me three paragraphs.--Cúchullain t/c 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Diego, you seriously undermine your calls to assume good faith for anons making problematic proposals when you fail to extend the same courtesy to regular editors.--Cúchullain t/c 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was expecting that Orange Mike would assume good faith for me. I made a reasoned argument as to why including the information could be benefitial to the article, and all I got back was 'it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme', implying that that's my goal. I reaffirm my position: combating every proposal made at this talk page by looking for ulterior motives on the proponents is severely hurting the conversation by creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND climate, and IP editors are not the only ones making that mistake. Diego (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Diego, I was not assuming bad faith on your part; you contribute to this project in lots of ways. I was merely pointing out that there is no substantial value to this information, and no reason to wedge such trivia into the article other than to falsely imply bad faith on Sarkeesian's part. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The original proposal was explicitly done to take Sarkeesian to task ("...you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole"). There's nothing "ulterior" there. But regardless of anything else, the change can't be made because it's wrong on its face: the "original promise" wasn't for 12 videos, it was for five videos, and all the original plans were scrapped to accommodate the extra money that came in, as the article already indicates. Assuming good faith and not projecting ulterior motives onto other editors is good advice that you yourself should take to heart, Diego.--Cúchullain t/c 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Diego, I was not assuming bad faith on your part; you contribute to this project in lots of ways. I was merely pointing out that there is no substantial value to this information, and no reason to wedge such trivia into the article other than to falsely imply bad faith on Sarkeesian's part. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was expecting that Orange Mike would assume good faith for me. I made a reasoned argument as to why including the information could be benefitial to the article, and all I got back was 'it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme', implying that that's my goal. I reaffirm my position: combating every proposal made at this talk page by looking for ulterior motives on the proponents is severely hurting the conversation by creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND climate, and IP editors are not the only ones making that mistake. Diego (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you please WP:AGF instead of making personal attacks? Are you saying that Fruzsina Eördögh's (from ReadWrite) opinion is not to be taken into account as analysis of the series production? It's really tiresome that any proposed change which can't be seen as unambiguous praise must be defended against accusations of being part of the harassment campaign. Diego (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the real world, everything takes longer and costs more. This did not genuinely affect the reception of the series, it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme that her haters keep trying to shoehorn into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Given that "the delay led some critics to question how she was using the money", it's not outdated information - it's something that affected the reception of the series. I wouldn't find it out of place at the Kickstarter campaign section. It's true that the change of schedule is already covered at Production, but the detail that 5 videos were originally planned and later were expanded to 12 is currently not mentioned anywhere. Diego (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- All the important details of the kickstarter campaign are described at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Crowdfunding via Kickstarter--the important parts being how she amended her goals after receiving more money to work with. As I said, out-of-date information considering that her goals were updated during the fundraising. DonQuixote (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, from the kickstarter linked as a source [13], most rewards are Aug 2012, However there are 2 rewards that include "complete DVD sets of the series" with delivery dates of DEC 2012. So it could be argued DEC 2012 is the valid date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:b02a:cc9d:8d5e:dbb4 (talk • contribs)
- Verbatim? I see five videos saying estimated delivery: Aug 2012 --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is verbatim what is defined on the Kickstarter page [13], I don't see where it is "outdated" and it is very much what was advertised on kickstarter... 12 videos with an estimated delivery of August 2012. If it later changed, say that too, but you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:B02A:CC9D:8D5E:DBB4 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Any argument is synthesis and conjecture unless there's an actual release schedule. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ugh... for what it is worth, I am not part of any "harassment campaign" or arguing that anyone ripped anyone off, nor was my original proposal designed to "take anyone to task"... except for maybe the nature of the article. Like someone previously commented, I ended up on this page when trying to figure more about the subject. I honestly have no stake in this argument. In doing so, however, I checked the links provided as source material, and read the talk page. Looking at the Kickstarter, it is very clear that it says "12" and said "12" at the time of raising the money. Sure it may have changed later and this and that... but the source says "12" and said "12" at the time the money was solicited. As I said above, feel free to note that later blog posts or updates or whatever changed that, but it doesn't "outdate" the original commitment. For example, if Reagan says "We begin bombing in five minutes" and then later explains "it was a joke"... that doesn't mean the original quote is "outdated". I genuinely feel that, in a supposed encyclopedia, the specific "12" is better than the vague "a series". I also genuinely feel the committed delivery date is a valid point and should be noted without prejudice and let readers make their own judgments. Generally, I agree this article reads like a vanity page and appears to be defended by a cadre of people determined to prevent any edit that is not unambiguous praise. If that is what you want out of the page, so be it. I'm out, debate between yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: The specific number of videos committed to is "trivia" but the fact that it was a "campaign of note on the kickstarter blog" is critical information... yeah, unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you appear not to be comprehending the sources. This Kickstarter announcement clearly lists five videos as the original goal. It then lists additional videos as "stretch goals" that were added later, with explanatory links. The source isn't currently used to cite any number of videos or anything else about the project besides the fact that the original $6,000 goal was met within 24 hours. You're proposing we use the source to add something new, but the new claim is mistaken.
- In any event, the article subsequently makes clear that Sarkeesian scrapped all those plans because "the additional funding allowed her to 'expand the scope, scale and production values of the project'", citing this.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you appear to not be comprehending the phrase "at the time of the solicitation". The Kotaku article you site was is dated at least 6 months *after* the kickstarter closed. AGAIN, that does not cancel out the original commitment. But please, keep arguing this... and that its trivia... and I am just part of a cabal to discredit the subject... and whatever else. Because clearly you have no ulterior motive to fight so viciously to keep a NUMERICAL FACT out of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- We don't exist as a memory hole, though, but rather to give an overview of the subject. Our article on The Hobbit, for example, mentions that at one point it was going to be a two-film project directed by Guillermo del Toro, but that changed and we move on. We've not here to delve into the minutiae of what-could-have-beens. You'll notice that the first sentence of The Hobbit doesn't start with "The Hobbit is a film series consisting of three epic fantasy adventure films directed by Peter Jackson but was originally going to be two films directed by Guillermo del Toro and has been in development since 1995". That's just bad form for an encyclopedia. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, then you need to rush over the Kickstarter page and basically delete all of the controversial and canceled Kickstarter campaigns based on your "Hobbit" theory... evidently the original commitment made to secure funding is just "what-could-have-beens"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:6120:4ca6:da6f:11a2 (talk • contribs)
- There's also the fact that the "original commitment" wasn't for 12 videos and the source doesn't say it was either. It was five. She said this on her website here and here is another independent source saying the same while the Kickstarter was still open. The anon misread the source and now they're just digging their heels in.--Cúchullain t/c 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Her webiste not source for kickstarter. Kickstarter page ALREADY SITED clearly says 12 as I quoted. That is what it said DURING the solicitation. It appears the "Heaven forbid we list the number of videos committed to (whatever that number may be)" group is who is digging in their heels.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:6120:4ca6:da6f:11a2 (talk • contribs)
- While I'm not convinced the number of videos would be relevant even with the correct number, my primary objection is to introducing the incorrect number as you advocate. It's demonstrably wrong and there's no consensus for the change. We can either move on or you can take it up in dispute resolution, as Dreadstar says, though it's exceedingly unlikely you'll convince anyone else.--Cúchullain t/c 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- And if it continues here, I'll be handing out blocks, I'm not allowing this article or talk page to be an unsourced attack platform against the subject of this article; it's gone on way too long as it is. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm not convinced the number of videos would be relevant even with the correct number, my primary objection is to introducing the incorrect number as you advocate. It's demonstrably wrong and there's no consensus for the change. We can either move on or you can take it up in dispute resolution, as Dreadstar says, though it's exceedingly unlikely you'll convince anyone else.--Cúchullain t/c 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Her webiste not source for kickstarter. Kickstarter page ALREADY SITED clearly says 12 as I quoted. That is what it said DURING the solicitation. It appears the "Heaven forbid we list the number of videos committed to (whatever that number may be)" group is who is digging in their heels.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:6120:4ca6:da6f:11a2 (talk • contribs)
- We don't exist as a memory hole, though, but rather to give an overview of the subject. Our article on The Hobbit, for example, mentions that at one point it was going to be a two-film project directed by Guillermo del Toro, but that changed and we move on. We've not here to delve into the minutiae of what-could-have-beens. You'll notice that the first sentence of The Hobbit doesn't start with "The Hobbit is a film series consisting of three epic fantasy adventure films directed by Peter Jackson but was originally going to be two films directed by Guillermo del Toro and has been in development since 1995". That's just bad form for an encyclopedia. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, you appear to not be comprehending the phrase "at the time of the solicitation". The Kotaku article you site was is dated at least 6 months *after* the kickstarter closed. AGAIN, that does not cancel out the original commitment. But please, keep arguing this... and that its trivia... and I am just part of a cabal to discredit the subject... and whatever else. Because clearly you have no ulterior motive to fight so viciously to keep a NUMERICAL FACT out of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Short reminder here, this page is not a forum, please stick to discussing the editorial content of the article and not make aspersions against each other or commentary unrelated to Reliable Sources being presented - if you want to talk about each other, then take it up the chain. Dreadstar ☥ 23:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the does of perspective, Dreadstar.--Cúchullain t/c 23:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
Sarkeesian disparaged by blocked U.S. House of Representatives ip editor
In noticing this article about an ip address repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing, I read the talk page of the blocked ip user, who states the following: "Blocked because I disagreed with the trans-lobby? These days, If I complain about a man using the womyn's restroom then I'm cosidered transphobic and get called a TERF. This has been happening a lot lately here in the halls of Congerss. If feeling uncomfortable about some creeper coming into the same bathroom as me is considered transphobic, then why is transphobia considered a bad thing? I wouldn't be surprised if the Admin who banned this IP is trans. If she is a real woman, then she should should be following real Feminists like Julie Bindel, not sellouts to the trans lobby like Anita Sarkeesian. People need to understand that transgenderism is being promoted by the Patriarchy to diminish the experiences of real womyn." This statement is out of context, which is better explained by reading the related thread. This information may not have any immediate or direct usefulness on this pagespace, but I was surprised to see the subject mentioned at all in this context by a HoR staffer. Thought I'd document it here for future reference. BusterD (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, interesting read. I don't know that it will be something to include at this point, it looks to me like just a random reference in a spate of vandalism/trolling by some Congress member's staffer.--Cúchullain t/c 21:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Updated FAQ
I've updated the wording of the first question of the FAQ to better reflect the editing history of the page. The previous blunt sentence ("Every criticism which has been brought up so far has failed to come from a reliable source") didn't properly represent the discussion held at the talk pages, and it didn't make justice to the current Reception section in the article.
I've also changed the position of the FAQ to make it more visible. There's no point in having a FAQ if no one can see it. Diego (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 28 August 2014
This edit request to Anita Sarkeesian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
She announced. @Orangemike: Mark Miller (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed typo. Dreadstar ☥ 04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Installment
- The latest instalment of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, published a couple days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Significant POV issues
This article dismisses criticism of Sarkeesian and her works as harassment. Significant legitimate criticism does exist, and needs to be covered here in order to maintain a neutral POV. I see that there has been some trouble finding quality sources for this, but that means a concerted effort needs to be made to find them, and improve the article. A discussion needs to be had about what constitutes such a source. Skrelk (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Stating that a discussion needs to be had about sources for legitimate criticism is a little premature—if someone was thinking of adding material to the article, they should propose a source which could then be discussed. I moved your comment to the bottom of this page because that is where editors expect to find new discussions. Please click "new section" at the top of a talk page to create a new discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Skrelk: If you've read this Talk page as well as the archives, you've surely seen that this is a common topic. Here's the short version: the article "dismisses criticism of Sarkeesian and her works as harassment" because that's how reliable sources characterize it; there's criticism out there, but not from reliable sources; editors have looked for criticism from reliable sources and found none; criteria for determining reliable sources has been thoroughly discussed and is based upon WP:V/WP:RS and WP:BLP; WP:NPOV doesn't mean we give "equal weight" or report all sides, only that we write based on reliable sources in proportion to those sources, which is what we've done. As Johnuniq said, if you have any specific concerns or sources to discuss, then by all means let's discuss. But please understand that we tend to see the same discussions happening over and over again, with nothing new brought to the table. I truly do hope you have something new, though. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Skrelk, if you have a new source to suggest, please feel free to do so. This is a topic which has been gone over in pretty considerable detail, however, and the regular editors don't always feel like explaining themselves over and over again, so please take a look through the Talk Page archives to see if your suggestions have already been covered. Thank you. Euchrid (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, is it There-is-valid-criticism-of-Sarkeesian-it's-not-all-harrassment Tuesday already? The number of people coming here complaining about this exact same issue is absurd. I was about to suggest putting a message preemptive message somewhere, but there's already a gigantic red banner when you edit the talk page and they don't read it. Maybe we should add another banner to the talk page suggesting that people provide reliable, third party sources when they wish to add content to the article or correct some perceived imbalance? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Skrelk, if you have a new source to suggest, please feel free to do so. This is a topic which has been gone over in pretty considerable detail, however, and the regular editors don't always feel like explaining themselves over and over again, so please take a look through the Talk Page archives to see if your suggestions have already been covered. Thank you. Euchrid (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Skrelk: If you've read this Talk page as well as the archives, you've surely seen that this is a common topic. Here's the short version: the article "dismisses criticism of Sarkeesian and her works as harassment" because that's how reliable sources characterize it; there's criticism out there, but not from reliable sources; editors have looked for criticism from reliable sources and found none; criteria for determining reliable sources has been thoroughly discussed and is based upon WP:V/WP:RS and WP:BLP; WP:NPOV doesn't mean we give "equal weight" or report all sides, only that we write based on reliable sources in proportion to those sources, which is what we've done. As Johnuniq said, if you have any specific concerns or sources to discuss, then by all means let's discuss. But please understand that we tend to see the same discussions happening over and over again, with nothing new brought to the table. I truly do hope you have something new, though. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
FAQ
Anybody know how to do one of those 'FAQ' page things? Where it wants to ask a question which has been answered a lot, and there's a Q and a A thing at the top of the page? I think that would help some, as I've wanted to add some things on some articles which I wasn't familiar with and there were reasonable instances on why it wouldn't fit well with the article. Tutelary (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Like expanding this piece? Or did you have something else in mind? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, like something at Talk:Circumcision, it has a FAQ (that has only one item) but people come to the page to propose something that's been proposed 100's of times, see that, and maybe it dissuades them from proposing that exact thing. We could do that exact same thing here, with a question like 'Why is there no criticism present in the article?' or something similar. Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Checking the code: {{Round in circles|search=no|archivelink=/Archive index}}. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, or another method (the one Talk:Chelsea Manning uses) is {{faq|collapsed=no}} (or collapsed=yes if you prefer). Either way (in case this wasn't clear) one then creates Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ. If there is only one frequently asked question one wants to advise people about, Talk:Circumcision/FAQ is a good model; if there are more questions, Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ shows how to make the Qs and As collapsible. -sche (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I gave it a try. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Zero Serenity. I've added a second question and answer.Euchrid (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- But yeah! I think it'll end up working very nice, especially since the edit notice made emphasis on the sources, they may go to the talk; see nothing about it (and assume that it hasn't been brought up before) and bring it up mistakenly thinking they're the only one who thought about it. But now, they'll see the FAQ and realize that it's not been excluded because we're an authoritative group of people who just want to silence all criticism, but because there are legitimately no reliable sources for it as of yet. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Zero Serenity. I've added a second question and answer.Euchrid (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I gave it a try. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, or another method (the one Talk:Chelsea Manning uses) is {{faq|collapsed=no}} (or collapsed=yes if you prefer). Either way (in case this wasn't clear) one then creates Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ. If there is only one frequently asked question one wants to advise people about, Talk:Circumcision/FAQ is a good model; if there are more questions, Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ shows how to make the Qs and As collapsible. -sche (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Checking the code: {{Round in circles|search=no|archivelink=/Archive index}}. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, like something at Talk:Circumcision, it has a FAQ (that has only one item) but people come to the page to propose something that's been proposed 100's of times, see that, and maybe it dissuades them from proposing that exact thing. We could do that exact same thing here, with a question like 'Why is there no criticism present in the article?' or something similar. Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ready for editing. Take note this also changes the FAQ for Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am somewhat confused that both Template:Sarkeesian FAQ+Template:Sarkeesian FAQ/FAQ and Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ exist. Wasn't the point of the first one to replace the second one while also allowing transclusion onto the Tropes talkpage? Should the two FAQs be merged? (Or am I missing something obvious because I haven't had enough coffee today?) -sche (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- There were two attempts. Only one of them is being used. DonQuixote (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
FAQ Templates TfDed
As seen here. Now that the FAQ template will take another page, it would be good to confine this to the Talk namespace. These templates are now unused. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Death Threats drive her from home
Source. Worth including here, on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games or does this fall too much under WP:UNDUE? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Verge has picked up on this. The article essentially says the same thing with no new info from Sarkeesian, so I'd give it a few days to see if it clears itself up a bit. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The threats are confirmed hoax. Evidence is manufactured. The posted by Sarkeesian was of an account page screenshot taken while logged out, with no search, 12 seconds after the final threat, and 3 minutes into a barrage of threats. The screenshot is of the Twitter user's page. This shows Sarkeesian was alerted to the threats immediately, and took a screen shot immediately after the final threat, without using the search or notification features of Twitter. Reddit has produced annotated image. --John Moser (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a hoax, after all, we don't engage in original research, and everything must be attributed to a source. In this case, you have a .jpg image using original research to supposedly debunk it, when we have rs indicating it happened. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- If I get The Verge or Destructoid to report it as a hoax, will that make it a hoax? --John Moser (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a source bias, and we are instructed to stick to the sources. So yes, that may be the case. Tutelary (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- If I get The Verge or Destructoid to report it as a hoax, will that make it a hoax? --John Moser (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a hoax, after all, we don't engage in original research, and everything must be attributed to a source. In this case, you have a .jpg image using original research to supposedly debunk it, when we have rs indicating it happened. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. Fine. Allow me to debunk some of this.
- Anita has two twitter accounts (don't ask what the other one is, I won't share it), constantly flowing in and out of accounts can explain the whole not being logged in.
- She just uses an application and never logs into the website.
Either way that one falls flat. So here's a possible explanation: A friend of hers keeps out for this sort of thing and then sends her a link to this page. One screenshot later and then it's reported. This could have all happened this fast. I really doubt with the torrent of abuse she gets anyway that anybody would bother to make all this up. Request for collapse starting right after my second comment please. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Let's keep this discussion on whether to include this material and how to best represent the available sources if we do. We don't need to respond to commentary, "debunking", or whatever that appears only in non-reliable sources. So far, it appears the only media reporting on this item treat it as real. Our only goal at this point is determining whether and how to include what the real sources say.--Cúchullain t/c 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop making unsourced, disparaging statements about living people on Wikipedia. We will not lend any credibility to the idea that the story is untrue unless and until our sources do. The only questions that concern us are whether this news item is significant enough to include in the articles, and if so, how we can best include what they say.--Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- John Moser, please familiarise yourself with the policy on biographies of living persons. Making comments like this, even on Talk pages, is against Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we don't edit based on opinion, we reflect the sources. At this time, all reliable sources state that it happened. Therefore, that's what we put in the article. Euchrid (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop making unsourced, disparaging statements about living people on Wikipedia. We will not lend any credibility to the idea that the story is untrue unless and until our sources do. The only questions that concern us are whether this news item is significant enough to include in the articles, and if so, how we can best include what they say.--Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
So this morning I'm reading the Washington Post, and guess who got an entire article about being harassed again, this time with death threats? It's almost to the point where Online harassment of Anita Sarkeesian will soon be a bluelink. If she weren't so heavily trolled, she'd likely be a minor figure, but because she's so recognized for abuse frequently hurled at her, she's become a much larger figure. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Article doesn't really add anything unfortunately. Hoping for some more info on this subject...somewhere. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit conflict. Very partial list of sources found about this incident:
- Dominguez, James (August 29, 2014). "Feminist game critic driven from home by disturbing online threats". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney, Australia: Fairfax Media. Retrieved August 29, 2014.
- McDonald, Soraya Nadia (August 29, 2014). "Gaming vlogger Anita Sarkeesian is forced from home after receiving harrowing death threats". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
- Steadman, Ian (August 27, 2014). "Tropes vs Anita Sarkeesian: on passing off anti-feminist nonsense as critique". New Statesman. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
- Crossley, Rob (August 28, 2014). "Tropes vs Women author Sarkeesian vacates home following online threats". ComputersAndVideoGames. Future plc. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
- Murillo, Erwin (August 28, 2014). "Anita Sarkeesian Received Rape And Death Threats On Twitter, Authorities Alerted". Gamer Headlines. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
In Google news I see about 80 articles about this incident alone, and while some of them are of marginal reliability, I think we're about to start seeing criticism in RS. See this:
- Sales, Samual (August 28, 2014). "Another take on the Anita Sarkeesian Controversy: Who's to blame for this madness?". Gamer Headlines. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
The above commentary appearing in a somewhat reliable source mentions scrubbing of her Wikipedia page, for example. "There’s a very real discussion to be had about Anita and the quality of her work, but it’s getting buried in the mud being thrown both ways..." comments author Samual Sales. I think the coverage of this reprehensible incident gives us a new ballgame, source-wise. Personally, I thought the Steadman article linked above was a good discussion of the reaction to the series, not just the incident. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Computer and Video Games and Gamer Headlines qualify as RS, but the others certainly do. My point I was trying to make is that the information on the threats and soforth is a bit weak. Apart from the screenshot, Anita hasn't said much. I'm not denying any of it was true, I'm just wishing for more on it to put in the article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- We're handicapped because we're not a newspaper. There are several RS newspapers which cover the incident, but in their blogs section, so I didn't list them. I suspect we'll see some coverage in the next few days as the larger media decides if they want to cover it, and the troll community continues to act like a torch and pitchfork mob chasing a beast. I'd agree the two sources you mentioned would be situationally reliable only. Imagine how crazy this talk page would be if it weren't semi-protected right now. I'm surprised we haven't seen more activity on the Tropes page yet. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's under full protection (Sysop required) so even I can't edit it. But yeah, after demanding protection for Xbox One and Death Battle repeatedly, they can get pretty hairy. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, it's semi. I just added three of the best sources, and slightly rewrote the beginning of the paragraph. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's under full protection (Sysop required) so even I can't edit it. But yeah, after demanding protection for Xbox One and Death Battle repeatedly, they can get pretty hairy. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- We're handicapped because we're not a newspaper. There are several RS newspapers which cover the incident, but in their blogs section, so I didn't list them. I suspect we'll see some coverage in the next few days as the larger media decides if they want to cover it, and the troll community continues to act like a torch and pitchfork mob chasing a beast. I'd agree the two sources you mentioned would be situationally reliable only. Imagine how crazy this talk page would be if it weren't semi-protected right now. I'm surprised we haven't seen more activity on the Tropes page yet. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
That...was the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games page. I was referring to Anita's page. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- At this point, I think the coverage by solid sources is sufficient to include a mention of the item in this article, the Tropes article, or both. Of the above sources, I think Steadman's piece may be useful elsewhere for analysis from a noteworthy author. I'll also point out that content from the blog section of reputable newspapers aren't necessarily off limits to us; WP:NEWSBLOG covers this. Indeed, the New York Times has covered Sarkeesian in its ArtsBeat feature, written by reliable source Helen Lewis;[1] ArtsBeat is listed under the paper's newsblog section but it's of higher quality than what a lot of other websites put out as their top content. Of course, anything from a reader blog section is off limits.
- As for the two non-newspaper sources listed by Buster, WP:VG/RS seems to regard Computer and Video Games as acceptable for at least some things. However, I'm with Zero on Gamerheadlines; I sincerely doubt that site or that piece in particularly could be considered reliable, for a variety of reasons.--Cúchullain t/c 17:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, on further reading, I think that Gamerheadlines article may well come up again from people hoping to insert negative criticism into the article, so I'll go ahead an elaborate on why I consider it unreliable. The source isn't mentioned at WP:VG/RS, and there seems to have been no discussion at the WikiProject Video games or the Reliable sources noticeboard about it, let alone consensus that it's generally reliable by Wikipedia standards. A brief look at the website sends up several red flags. The "About" tells us very little, and nothing to say this isn't a blog. The "Authors" page lists 20 people (a lot for such an obscure site) but few if any seem to be professional staff or have much journalism background (including this author). There's no editor in chief (only one person claims to be "an editor" at all). It seems they've got a pretty loosely defined editorial staff.
- Moving on to the article in question (which is clearly an editorial that's not marked as such),[2] it's, well, rife with amateurish errors:
- "Sarkeesian has also flaunted[sic] with more controversy in the past, after she was discovered to have been lying about her industry experience in interviews and on her kickstarter[sic] page, and suffered claims that she’s thrown out the regular show schedule promised on her page in favour producing[sic] only three episodes a year to fund a lavish lifestyle of luxury. To top it off, there’s[sic] even claims that the footage she uses in videos was stolen from various long players[?] with permission[sic]."
- If this site has any editorial oversight at all, this kind of thing really doesn't speak well for its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It would take a lot to convince me that this passes the WP:IRS criteria.--Cúchullain t/c 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, on further reading, I think that Gamerheadlines article may well come up again from people hoping to insert negative criticism into the article, so I'll go ahead an elaborate on why I consider it unreliable. The source isn't mentioned at WP:VG/RS, and there seems to have been no discussion at the WikiProject Video games or the Reliable sources noticeboard about it, let alone consensus that it's generally reliable by Wikipedia standards. A brief look at the website sends up several red flags. The "About" tells us very little, and nothing to say this isn't a blog. The "Authors" page lists 20 people (a lot for such an obscure site) but few if any seem to be professional staff or have much journalism background (including this author). There's no editor in chief (only one person claims to be "an editor" at all). It seems they've got a pretty loosely defined editorial staff.
GamersGate
Ms. Sarkeesian became a target of angry trolls at 4Chan and Reddit but I am trying to find a reliable neutral third party source for it. I thought I'd post the link here and see if it can be used for this article. Arstechnica 4Chan chat logs for Gamersgate is this source acceptable? Orion Blastar (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Source is very acceptable since it follows WP:RS and is listed in WP:VG/S as reliable. That being said I'm not sure it's worth inclusion since this has more to do with Zoe Quinn and that whole...thing (I'm not an expert and don't want to be on that subject) that happened around her. My vote is good source, but against inclusion. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ars Technica is a very good source, albeit on the natural sciences and technology specifically (really some of the best work I've seen in science journalism is done very well here), not sure about them on the broader cultural issues, though. Their generally model is to get PhD's in the respective field to write the articles, a model which doesn't transfer well to cultural issues. I think the measure you need is not WP:VG/S but more sources known for reliability on cultural analysis. For the specific information contained in the source by Orion, they are most certainly reliable, but the question then is on of WP:WEIGHT (space for content is justified by the attention reliable sources give a topic, not on perceived importance by some other metric). I think it's a good source to use but there's not enough additional weight in it alone to add much more than a single sentence. Second Quantization (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Why some sources are judged by "harsh" standards: General Criticism vs Critical Analysis
Critical analysis, such as "counter-arguments" that try to use the language and methods of a field of study, needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or other scholarly publications. These are the harsh standards for any type of critical analysis. (For example: To Kill a Mockingbird#Themes.)
General criticism, such as the book deftly presents the dry subject matter or the video jumps too quickly from one subject matter to another, I like it, I hate it, etc., can be sourced from newspapers, op-eds, blogs of acknowledged experts, etc. (For example: To Kill a Mockingbird#Reception.)
So if some sources appear to be judged harshly and other not, this is the reason. DonQuixote (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well put. I'll also add that there is a WP:WEIGHT issue as well. Viewpoints from lower quality sources get less weight, if any, compared to higher-quality sources.--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think there may be a false notion for many editors, particularly newer ones that this article is against any form of criticism. I would like to emphasize that this is not the case, I and I'm sure others have no bias in this subject. Given the short time span this far and foreseeable future developments and writers/academics to come, no doubt in there is the possibility of notable, even multiple critical pieces. If tomorrow any major, widely cited across Wikipedia gaming website published an article with a unfavorable reception to a tropes episode, it would be published for balance. However I must also state that it would also need to consider weight, for example this hypothetical source would not be able to counter balance everything that has been written so far to date, more than likely one small point of reference. Frankly Man (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Translation: We like Anita and agree with what she is saying so we will fight tooth-and-nail to keep out anything about her we don't like until we essentially have no choice in order to maintain our credibility. If that means misrepresenting the nature of sources and ignoring policy in favor of our personal opinions then so be it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Er...no. It means this (from 1:05:05 to 1:06:45), particularly this bit. DonQuixote (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- And anything else that you don't like. Akulkis (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is a YouTube series about video games. It is not quantum physics and it is not To Kill a Mockingbird. Even so, a review in a scientific journal is not the same as a peer-reviewed study in said journal. You are just locking out criticism because of your personal opinions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion?--I have no opinion. So, yeah, straw man there. I'm just looking out for proper use of reliable sources. The videos in questions are works, and just like any other works--like To Kill a Mockingbird--any critical analysis should come from peer-reviewed journals and or other scholarly works. This keeps fringe ideas with no merit from tertiary sources such as an encyclopaedia. Sorry, but that's how it works. DonQuixote (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really think Holt represents a "fringe view" on Sarkeesian's work? Pretty sure it matches what many gamers and conservatives have said about her. Criticism of Sarkeesian is not fringe. Your comments have no basis in policy, but are just your own opinions on what you think should be allowed in this article and that apparently does not include criticism of Sarkeesian and her work.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it weren't "fringe" there would be multiple other reliable sources carrying it. So yep. Fringe. Undeniably.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- So are you saying that even if there was an in-depth review of Sarkeesian's work in, say, the Washington Times, you would consider it a fringe view if it was critical of Sarkeesian? If so, then you need to re-read the policy, because it does not say anything of that nature.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- When there is an in depth coverage in the Wash Times and no other reliable sources, come on back and we can discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- So are you saying that even if there was an in-depth review of Sarkeesian's work in, say, the Washington Times, you would consider it a fringe view if it was critical of Sarkeesian? If so, then you need to re-read the policy, because it does not say anything of that nature.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Advocate, how about letting off until you actually find a Sarkeesian-critical source that makes a clean break out of any policy gray areas? By now, I'm sure you're reasonably familiar with the boundaries of editorial possibilities. You'll know it when you find it.
- Peter Isotalo 00:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it weren't "fringe" there would be multiple other reliable sources carrying it. So yep. Fringe. Undeniably.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really think Holt represents a "fringe view" on Sarkeesian's work? Pretty sure it matches what many gamers and conservatives have said about her. Criticism of Sarkeesian is not fringe. Your comments have no basis in policy, but are just your own opinions on what you think should be allowed in this article and that apparently does not include criticism of Sarkeesian and her work.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion?--I have no opinion. So, yeah, straw man there. I'm just looking out for proper use of reliable sources. The videos in questions are works, and just like any other works--like To Kill a Mockingbird--any critical analysis should come from peer-reviewed journals and or other scholarly works. This keeps fringe ideas with no merit from tertiary sources such as an encyclopaedia. Sorry, but that's how it works. DonQuixote (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Er...no. It means this (from 1:05:05 to 1:06:45), particularly this bit. DonQuixote (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the Gameshield source that keeps coming up, I would not use it for a good review of a game I personally enjoyed because there is currently a lack of nobility, as opposed to the many others. Even if someone here was simply just be "out to prove her wrong", wouldn't you rather have the source be completely reliable? that being said, there should be no bias either way. Frankly Man (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Batting against *expunged*'s most recent video
| This has degenerated into attacks on each other, rather than the editorial content of the article, I'm closing this and if it needs to be discussed further, create a section and stay on subject: the editorial content of the article, not each other. Dreadstar ☥ 01:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't want to give him any more mind on this page. However, he mentioned the section about Nate Carpenter in his video (and the two wiki pages about Sarkeesian and why he thinks his video qualifies as RS for receiving 300k views *Stifles Laughter*) which is why you're seeing it disappear, along with a bunch of disruptive edits over here. This topic treads into WP:NOTFORUM so let me say that
Still above the 50% quartile and still worth mentioning. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Criticism piece
| Yet another section that has degenerated into attacks on each other, rather than the editorial content of the article, I'm closing this and if it needs to be discussed further, create a section and stay on subject: the editorial content of the article, not each other. Dreadstar ☥ 01:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
I'm going to have to agree with -sche and TheRedPenOfDoom that the piece shouldn't be included. There's no mention of GameSided on the extensive WP:VG/RS, which doesn't speak well for it, though it shouldn't necessarily be excluded on that basis alone. However, GameSided appears to be the video game "community" of FanSided,[11] a sports blog network compared to Bleacher Report and SB Nation. Those sites are not generally considered reliable for sports, let alone other topics. It's been claimed that the site is "affiliated" with Sports Illustrated, though it's unclear what that entails, and at any rate I don't see how that would confer reliability to this source. Barring evidence to the contrary, I don't see that this source passes the threshold of reliability or due weight. The site does claim an editorial staff (meaning there's some editorial oversight), and Holt is listed as a "staff writer" (meaning he's not just a freelancer or community blogger).[12] Additionally, he appears to be published in other papers and sites.
|