Jump to content

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Citations in the lead

No consensus to add citations to lede; and it does not appear that continued full protection of the article due to this dispute is necessary at this time. Dreadstar ☥ 19:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In response to this, per the citation guideline and the WP:LEADCITE section of the manual of style, citations aren't necessary in the lead section, which is just meant to summarize the key points of the (cited) article body. At least, I don't think citations are a benefit there, if others think differently, we can certainly add them, we're not lacking in sources. Just FYI, it's usually unhelpful to place tags without leaving an explanation on the talk page, especially when you could have just added the citations yourself, as I say, they're easily found in the article body.--Cúchullain t/c 02:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

People seem to have this deeply-held notion that the lead is exempt from citations. It's not. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. In contrast, it also says to use editorial judgement to balance out the citations in the lead. Some articles may require 5-10 and some may require none (as it's never challenged). Given that it's been 'challenged' by the citation needed tag, just add an inline citation to those specific instances and call it good. Tutelary (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I recommend seeking Consensus per WP:LEADCITE. Dreadstar ☥ 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally prefer a cleaner lede and references in the body, but I can understand the concern as well, especially with this being a BLP. So I'm neutral. If we do decide to maintain the status quo, we should at least put a hidden note in the lede to make editors aware of the consensus. Woodroar (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is full of references that demonstrate the harassment campaign. I think that we need to be wary of responding to every "challenge" when it comes to articles (and individuals) that have been the target of campaigns to undermine and harass. In my opinion, the article's citations are fine as they stand.Euchrid (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Dreadstar and Euchrid. I see no need to overreact and WP:MOS, LEAD and etc. are all quite clear, where material is cited in the body text, it is not cited in the lead. There is also a guideline against drive by mass tagging, per WP:POINT and others. Montanabw(talk) 04:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. per WP:V. Adding the 'citation needed' tag makes it officially 'challenged' by an editor and it therefore demands an inline citation. I'm not advocating removing anything about the harassment, but merely have citations in the lead to sate the cn tags which were added, as mandated by WP:V. It's not contrary to MOS or LEADCITE, which specifically says that the lead is not exempt. Tutelary (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is subject to attack, and the problem with adding an inline citation for points challenged in the lead is that there is no end—I challenge "1984", and "Canadian-American", and "feminist", and "media critic", and "blogger" ... and that's just the first sentence. If anyone can identify a redflag claim in the lead that is not clearly covered in the short article, please reveal it. The solution is to focus on this article, rather than on generic issues such as what guidelines may or may not say about other stuff—what problem exists in this article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It was me I added the citation tags late last night, and did not bother to discuss it on the talkpage since I mentioned it near the tag I felt it would not have been that difficult for someone to just move the tags to the lead maybe, I was just too tired to do it, I apologize about that. I have to say I agree with @Tutelary: on this one I'm afraid, my rationale is that anyone taking a quick glance i.e. just reading the lead can verify or at least see it is cited content. Not everyone may be interested in taking the time to read the entire article, so content in the lead will appear to be uncited, when in fact it isn't, I think this actually improves the article especially since it's a biography article of a living person. To hypothesize, such and such will happen in the future therefore we should not change the citation style isn't a very sound reason not to, since it's relying on events in the future. Even a polite message could deter those who might have nefarious intent if there is a message included in the header. Some issues that I spotted (might not be issues per say but would like to get views on it) is the citation in the body namely this one:[1] it relies on self-published sources, and this one: [2] it relies on a blog post in kickstarter. *sorry I have to end this here I have to run an errand will post more once free*. I'm back, in the meantime I'll leave it at here and also would like to bring editors attention to WP:POINT subsection "Important Note" since this policy is being quoted here, and also to bring attention to WP:LEADCITE, as citation styles can be changed as per the outcome of a consensus, so pointing to WP:MOS at this stage when we are in the process of trying to establish consensus, is redundant. I think there will be comment lag due to time-zone issues here, so this might get drawn out longer than usual (or necessary), you can all blame me for that. - Syanaee (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This section is titled "Citations in the lead". Is any of the above comment related to that? If so, please identify a problem in the article (in the lead).
Re "Some issues that I spotted": your two links identify references 5 and 12. The first verifies the name of her thesis, and the second verifies that something occurred at the official Kickstarter blog. Is it really necessary to explain how those two references are perfectly adequate for the purpose? Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
*facepalm moment* - just noticed the archives, I'm new to wiki so sorry if I'm going over things which have been previously covered. Johnuniq, there isn't any need to be facetious, why don't you just change the title to "citations in the lead and body" I was asking for a view on the two links I posted, since I did not know if they are accepted or if we could supplement them with sources from other places. If you don't want to explain there is no reason for the disturbing attitude you're showing, I find it pretty offensive. I'll just wait for a response from someone more reasonable, there is no guarantee I will be responding back to you, especially if you're going to display this unhelpful kind of attitude to newbies like myself. Syanaee (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, I think Johnuniq was correct here. And Syanaee, he didn't "bite." Further, if you are new to wikipedia, how is it that your earliest edits were talk, wikignoming, monobook additions and other tools of experienced users? Have you reviewed WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT? Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You saying: he didn't do it does not prove your point, you're just making a statement. Stop your obscurantism, it is clear what was going on, am not going to argue this, since it's just so silly and an insult to the intellect. Furthermore, I have some js experience, adding I have managed web servers, for forums and even done some php modding I have a little experience in this area. It's not a very complex thing to copy and pasting a script into a blank page. Also, one of the script was suggested to me by an editor to help split references. Yes I have reviewed wiki policies. These are just accusations and prove nothing. Why don't you do a sock check against my account, I'm pretty sure you'll be hard pressed to find evidence of sockpuppetry, even though I'm using a shared connection. Initia a sock-check or strike out your baseless accusation. I've been on here for about a month, I may have made edits before I had an account, but I do not have another account on here, or even if there is you'll not find any evidence of sockpuppetry, because I'm am not doing that. You've failed to address any points and started making accusations, you should be warned for WP policy violation of civility. You have shown zero decorum. You and Johnuniq both need to stop these sinuous tactics you're causing unnecessary disruption. Syanaee (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty, that's enough, stop talking about each other and stick to editorial content of this article. If you want to bash each other, take it to your own user talk pages or use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes. Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you just to a sock-check on my account just to humour them? Syanaee (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
If they wish to pursue an SPI, that's up to them. Dreadstar ☥ 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That is my position too, to establish consensus and I will stick to the out of the consensus as per the policy. I've made my points clear, and I don't want to repeat myself. Let there be consensus. Syanaee (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Full Protection

Uh...was this really necessary? Did somebody ask for Sysops only? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There...really wasn't an edit war here though. As far as I can see it's exactly one reversion and we seem to be handling this with civility. I'm not seeing this war you're referring to. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
More than one editor has added citation needed tags to the lede, then been reverted.[3][4]; as well as adding POV tags and being reverted. So, to prevent further warring I protected the article so the editors can find consensus to add or not to add citations and/or tags. This article has been subject to an enormous amount of disruption, this needs to stop. Dreadstar ☥ 15:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Folks, this is not a "just your opinion" issue; it is a clear precedent throughout wikipedia. I have participated in the FACs as either contributor or reviewer for more than 20 articles (16 or 17 of which I was a major contributor and for many of those, lead editor), and I can GUARANTEE you that the lead does NOT have to be sourced - and it is preferred not to be - so long as EVERYTHING in the lead is also sourced in the body text (even if there are minor differences in phrasing, which there should be because it's a summary of the article). As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the lead not sourced in the body of the article. If I am incorrect, then the items need to be listed specifically. I don't think anyone here has worked on a featured article before, have they? (If you have, do note your list so we can evaluate and compare if you sourced everything in the lead of all of your FACs). End of story. Even consensus doesn't override long established guidelines, so though Dreadstar says we need to establish consensus, here we really don't. The MOS is quite clear and there is no need for debate at all. Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you read WP:LEADCITE? The lead is not exempt from citations, but it says to balance out between editorial consensus and the need for redundant citations. Tutelary (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, you don't understand the policy, "direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned" is all that mandates a citation. Here, the lead contains no direct quotations from Sarkeesian nor is there anything there that is particularly contentious, it's one of the more dry and "just the facts" leads I've seen, it's also quite short and everything in it has been thoroughly cited in the article body. There is no need to waste further bandwidth on this, as it is quite obvious that tag-bombing is what occurred, and that was nothing but WP:POINT-y. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I do. The policy which mandates it is WP:V. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. In particular, the statements that have been challenged is the statements that have had the 'citation needed' tag added to them. They need an inline citation per WP:V. Tutelary (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, the text in the lead section is not what we're worried about. WP:V is 100% satisfied if the challenged text in the lead section is supported by citations in the article body. One editor cannot hold the article hostage; that's a violation of WP:POINT. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Who's holding the article hostage? All I was suggesting was that we have an inline citation per the [citation needed] tags which challenged the material in the lead. I'm sure this has happened a few times in the past. I am @Syanaee: pinging the editor who added the citation needed tags, for better context. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Montanbw, is just repeating themselves. Binksternet, I never re-edited the article after it was reverted so no one is holding it hostage. When I came across the article I felt it needed citations and I added it, which is what happens on here, I don't see why one would not want to include citations in the lead just to show how well cited the content is, since it has been challenged in the past. It only improves the veracity of the article further. There are similar issues with PZ Myers, and Thunderf00t articles which I will also get to and try and establish a consensus on them too, in due time. Folks need to stop acting like it's some kind of an attack when it's not, I am just trying to improve the article and bring it to GA standard.

The question is, would a reader, looking at the lede through neutral eyes (which precludes the "Sarkeesian is a fraud!" and the "preach it sister!" types), find any of the material contentious? I'm thinking no. --NeilN talk to me 19:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? I'm curious. As I have said, my personal opinion if the citations are included in the lead, for someone having a quick read through it just makes it easier to verify the claims, rather than having to scroll and look for them somewhere in the body, to be it only improves the article, this isn't something unusual many articles have lead citations, which are GA rated or even featured articles. I suspect you'll only keep having the problem of editors who might have ulterior motives to keep adding the [citation needed] tags, why not just preemptive it? If the consensus is no on this then fine, leave it as it is. Syanaee (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I read this as add redundant cites to the lede if the material is contentious. --NeilN talk to me 20:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
But the content has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Then it makes sense to include them in the lead as per WP:LEADCITE, if the content had not been challenged, then it would have been sound to stick to the article default citation template, if claim X is going to be challenged in the lead then it makes sense to include a citations to claim X in the lead, even though claim X may be cited properly in the body. The redundancy issue I don't think applies if the content is likely to or has been challenged. Syanaee (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Challenged in good faith. If you're challenging it because you as a regular reader think the material is contentious, okay. If you're challenging it just to stick cites up there, less okay. --NeilN talk to me 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a little of both I had known of the fallout of Anita's project, when I first read the page as a neutral (at least I'd like to think I am) I thought it was missing citations, maybe it's because I'm familiar with a different type of citation style but to me at the time it felt right to add the citations need tag, since 1.) I knew it would be easy to prove it (since I'd known what had happened) and 2.) that it would prevent the claim being challenged in the future. I wasn't aware of the problems the page had suffered, maybe I was being naive, but after looking into this issue, it only suggested that actually it makes more sense now due to the controversy to include the citations in the lead, and body. Since some editors regard the it as controversial, I felt as per policy lets establish a consensus on this, since if an article includes citations in the body, that does not automatically make it exempt from including them in the lead too. Syanaee (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place to claim that something must be done because the rules require it (WP:5P is a good place for the basics). Can anyone identify any text in the article that is a problem? Does it fail NPOV or V or anything else? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. When someone tag-bombs a scant two-paragraph lead of dry facts fully cited, that's disruption, not a "challenge." There is no issue to debate here, it's just more of the same silly disruption of the article that people were doing with other issues. There is no need to waste further time responding to what is basically more tendentious argumentation over a non-issue. No one here has even made a convincing case - the overall issue is, of course, controversial, but not any individual sentence in the lead This is ridiculous. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree the claim online harassment is a controversial one (for the record I do think Anita suffered online harassment) which is cited in the body, when one verifies the reliability of this cite, the cited page states, "...controversial feminist critic..."[5], it is also cited in forbes, I can't accesss the website but here is cache.[6] the first one calming she's a controversial figure comes directly from the cited content in the body, however I don't see "controversial" mentioned in the article, would it be fair to say Anita is a controversial figure in the feminist movement? Based on the histrionics surrounding the whole subject, and going by the cited content in the body then one would argue yes. So therefore, I do believe the lead needs citations, since we can establish the person is considered controversial (which I might add should also be included in the article for neutrality), since many citations are based on Stephen Totilo who calls Anita a controversial figure, moreover not mentioning Anita is a controversial figure from the citations is WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:POV pushing. So we have a problem, you can't pick-and-choose all the positive statements it creates a problem of neutrality. You both have failed to demonstrate any sound reasoning based on evidence, that is my opinion. Syanaee (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm finding it hard to understand that comment. I think that it does not identify any text in the article that needs a citation—is that correct? However, the comment suggests that the term "controversial" should be added—is that correct? Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Syanaee: per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:WEASEL, and especially WP:LABEL, we should not label people as "controversial". We describe the controversy but do not describe the person as controversial. Woodroar (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, @Woodroar: I am bringing attention to the citations which do label Anita as controversial Maybe you had a pointed I striked out where I was not clear in my previous comment which seems like I was implying Antia is controversial., I am not making this claim these are coming directly from the citations, so your assumption that I am labeling is incorrect, or maybe I did not make myself clear. These statements are made in the citations one of which is in the body of the article itself. All I am saying is, you can't pick-and-choose when you've used a person as a reliable sources to leave out a statement the source makes which states states Anita is a "controversial" figure. Because that would be cherry-picking unless it can be proven otherwise. @Johnuniq: let me clarify since some citations by a particular person who has been cited multiple times in the article states Antia is a "controversial" figure, then for balance it needs perhaps need to be included. Since this to some extent may establish Anita to be controversial, I believe it requires citations in the lead, since the content in the lead is likely to be challenged as has been the case in the past. I will not respond to comments which are repetitive, or erroneous I'm not obliged to educate everyone on policy. Anyone who's comment does not address my points will be dismissed or RE'd back to the last two comments. Syanaee (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Syanaee, I did not mean to imply that you were calling the subject "controversial". What I meant is that we don't say that in articles, unless there is wide usage in reliable sources. If nearly every source called her "controversial", that option may be on the table—though it would still be preferable to describe the controversy rather than use a subjective and vague label—but we're not going to apply weasel words based on a single or small number/proportion of sources. Woodroar (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That is OK, Woodroar. I agree with you, but unfortunately there is a problem here, the source has been established to be reliable, since there are a number of other citations based on this sources work, and I have also provided a citation from an outside source forbes corroborating the source cited multiple times in the article. I personally like you do feel we should not describe people as controversial, generally that is a fallacy when the subject is about an academic work. But the problem we have is, do we say the source which is cited multiple times in the article is reliable or not? I don't know to be honest. This is why we should avoid personal blogs, since views of people can change, one day they maybe your friend and the next day they may be your enemy. So you have to be very careful, when you pick a source, basically from my academic background we are taught this. Stephen Totilo has been used multiple times, as a source, and he is the one who writes "controversial" also, and I have managed to find another source which is from forbes. So, does the claim "controversial" fall under fringe views? if yes, then what do we do with all the other citations which are using Stephen Totilo to establish veracity and verifiability? It just complicates everything further. Syanaee (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely complicated, I agree. And it's not so much a fringe thing, it's just that value statements are not part of the dispassionate encyclopedic language we should use. Even what many would consider positive value statements—"proud" or "colorful" or "diplomatic"—mean different things to different readers and should be avoided. Woodroar (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Man, this has gotten all over the place. I suppose the main problem is still the issue of citations in the lead. As I said in my initial comment, I wouldn't mind adding them if others want them, or if it would avoid problems in the past. But my take is that they'd be hopelessly redundant and confusing in this context. For starters, adding them only for the (ostensibly) "controversial" passages would give the appearance that anything that remains unfootnoted is uncited, even though it is. It invites us to just cite everything, although that would quickly become problematic given that the lead just summarizes the main points of the article. For example, one source verifies Sarkeesian's age, while three others[7][8][9] verify that she's Canadian-American, though both facts are in the first sentence. Are we really to add two, or four, footnotes to the first sentence when the information is cited perfectly well in the article body? Additionally, the material Syanaee tagged in the second paragraph just summarizes material cited to a dozen or more different sources. Would it really be a benefit to readers to include all these citations in the lead?

The problem is compounded by the fact that the article itself needs serious work - we've never engaged in the cleanup required by our decision to keep the unnecessary Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork. As it's just a summary, a proper article cleanup would probably change the way the lead looks. If folks are really concerned about the state of things, fixing the article itself will be more productive than anything we do to the lead.--Cúchullain t/c 15:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it here

Wikipedia is not a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've decided to take a break for a while from this article, just to avoid emotional baisness I've made my points, I will not be responding for a few days. You folks can carry no with the discussion, if there is something important just ping me. Syanaee (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We discourage the use of citations in the lede, because that's not what the lede is for. The fact that one or two editors, presumably in good faith, added "cite needed" tags to the lede, does not mean that we actually do need such citations in the lede instead of in their proper places in the article's body. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In all honesty this post does not even deserve a response it's wrong on so many levels, which have already been covered at great length. So I find this post dubious at bare minimum. Syanaee (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
When wikipedians disagree about interpretation on pillars, policies or guidelines, we discuss our disagreement on talk pages and muster consensus. It seems consensus, as demonstrated in the discussion above, illustrated by examples and links to policies and guidelines, does not favor inclusion of citations in the lede. What an individual wikipedian wants must be measured by the willingness of others to accept those wants. I don't see much support for citations in the lede in the discussion above. BusterD (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. Citations in the lede are messy and unnecessary when the information is included in the body of the article. Ledes, as a rule, contain such basic information about the topic (name, occupation, etc) that citing it will usually not be necessary. If any of this information is controversial or in dispute, then that can be placed in the body of the article.Euchrid (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


Granted buster D you have a point on this page and in this article, but the default rule isn't not to include citations in the lead. This is what Mike was implying. Fair enough if the consensus is leave the cites out of the lead then with all due respect leave them out. But don't try to twist wiki policy with fallacious information. I am happy with what the consensus wants. I'm not going to hold grudges or be sarcastic or troll, I personally might not agree with it, (which is irrelevant) but I will defend the consensus. But I don't like lies or misinformation. Syanaee (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't get paid to do this shit, wiki isn't an academic source accepted in any university, so I don't need to waste my time on Jimmys balls. I can leave today, this place is already discredited in academic circles, I don't need to waste my time on this bullshit project where jimmy will be begging for donations next year. This whole place is going to be flushed down the toilet. Why should I waste my time editing on it, someone please explain that to me? I could blow coke up my nose then to piss around on this shit. I have better things to do. Syanaee (talk) 00:21, 26 August 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.

Additional sources

Some additional sources are now available:

I'll add more as I find them.--Cúchullain t/c 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Good gracious. Where do you find the time... Anyway, perhaps a sub talk page for suggested sources might be in our future with this. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Penny is a columnist at The New Statesman and has a Harvard fellowship, so she has the credentials at the very least. That said, a single chapter out of a full length book isn't much to go on. Euchrid (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more:

  • Karen Frost-Arnold (March 2013) "Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability". Episteme 11:1. Cambridge University Press. Touches on Sarkeesian's experience as an instance where internet anonymity may become a "net epistemic detriment" to disadvantaged groups if it's used more for harassment than for support.
  • Todd Martens (September 6, 2014). "THE PLAYER; Ugly side of gaming comes to light; A dispute has led to recent threats and harassment." Los Angeles Times. Discusses the 2014 harassment of Sarkeesian and others.
  • Paul Muhlhauser and Daniel Schafer (March 2014). "Avengendering of the Lambs" www.womenandlanguage.org. See also Women and Language 37:1, p. 148. An "alternative scholarship" multimedia work inspired by Feminist Frequency.
  • Janet Bing (September 2013) "Gotcha: What Social Activists can Learn from Pranksters". Women & Language 36:2 (pp. 97-106). P. 103 mentions Sarkeesian as a modern successor to earlier feminist activists.

--Cúchullain t/c 21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Breaking off

Okay, we disagree on the break-off idea of stuffing what we think is usable in a spare page. My thought on the subject is put it someplace where it can't be archived and is easy to access. I'm not trying to discredit, marginalize or anything negative about the stuff you found. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, the list can be in two places.--Cúchullain t/c 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Bomb Threats

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

Sure, I mean, why the hell not? There is plenty of reporting about it. A person already put it in there, but feel free to use this as a reason why we should have yet more material on this matter and avoid explaining why numerous reliable sources expressing criticism of her should not be included.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been added by NorthBySouthBaranof.[10] Devil's Advocate, give it a rest.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian/Archive_10&oldid=1146520993"