Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article as it stands is nothing but a promotional piece that violates WP:NPOV

Don't take this as an endorsement of anything and everything said by Niemti and Iamcuriousblue on this page or elsewhere, because I am not familiar with it. I do think, however, that many of Niemti's suggestoins changes are entirely valid and, in fact, necessary based upon our WP:NPOV policy. This person is famous for criticizing what she perceives as sexism in video games as well as the misogynistic backlash. Saying that we cannot include video game blogs as sources because it's not about video games is nonsense. Saying that Destructoid is not a reliable source does not seem to be backed up by what WP:RS actually says, as Destructoid is actually one of the biggest and most well-respected blogs. That argument is shown to be self-serving, however, when less well known and poorer quality blogs are allowed as sources when they are supporting Sarkeesian. If you want to be very strict on sources so Destructoid cannot be used, then a lot of other sources should be removed (as well as the content they are being used to support).

The Destructoid article is not misogynistic at all, and is written by the Destructoid editor, who is reliable for the purposes of analyzing video games. Removing a reliable source who happen to disagree with some of Sarkeesian's points with logic and sanity while using primary sources created by Sarkeesian herself and mentions only of irrational responses is trying to paint an inaccurate picture that there is no criticism of anything she says.

Now, I am certainly not advocating giving WP:UNDUE weight the other way, but a simple, objectively-worded sentence stating that Sarkeesian has been criticized as concluding that certain specific games contain only negative female stereotypes while ignoring many traits or characters that portray women in a positive light, or something like that (exact wording to be hammered out by all parties), is badly needed here. Otherwise the strategy seems to be to portray everyone who disagrees with her in any way as sexists harassers. DreamGuy (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there are no sources cited that support her views. The only things that are cited, apart from her own works (which is used to describe her works), are sources that describe events and interviews. That is, none of the "pro" sources are cited for any type of analysis with regard to her work. Similarly, Destructoid (or what have you) can be used as a source for events and interviews but cannot be used as a source for any type of analysis with regard to her work. So no, this article doesn't have any positive or negative criticism of Sarkeesian's work because there hasn't been any reliable source (that's acknowledged as experts or as reliable in the relevant fields) that have been provided.

As for Destructoid being a well-respected source, as mentioned somewhere above, see WP:VG/RS. DonQuixote (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, Destructoid is classified as "situational", not "reliable". This means it's to be used with extreme caution. With this level of opposition to it's content, there's not way there is support for it to be used here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Destructoid is classified as "situational" per WP:VG/RS, we should simply use it with extreme caution. As there is a high level of opposition to include Destructoid in the above discussions, there is absolutely no way to add this source in this BLP, period. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with including criticism is that so far as anyone can tell, none of it has been made in reliable sources. The Destructoid piece is literally the closest thing anyone has found, however, it isn't actually a feature, it's just an entry in one writer's blog. That disqualifies it automatically, without getting into the discussion over whether that particular writer has any qualifications in the field of media criticism that would make his voice noteworthy to the topic. The fact that thus far no reliable sources have published a similar opinion implies it's really not significant to the topic as of yet.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Destructoid's op-ed (an article it is not) says nothing that any number of upset gamer aficionados haven't already tried. The gist of these attempts at taking her down are consistently irrelevant to Sarkeesians analysis and hopelessly ignorant of her aims and methods. They always boil down to two basic arguments:

background story or details of in-game canon are enough to explain away skimpy clothing or gender-stereotypical behavior (as if canon was generated out of thin air rather than by game designers)
overtly sexist details can be "canceled" by certain positive traits (as if sexism and certain positive character traits are mutually exclusive)

The only way something this shallow could be included as a source would be if someone with more qualifications, or competence in the field of media analysis, commented on it. For example Sarkeesian herself. If you can find that, we might have a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, you have no business labeling the article as a "promotional piece", especially not if you're trying to distance yourself from Niemti and Co.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian the Reliable Source is NEVER replying to any valid criticism (or to inconvenient questions online). The closest thing to a response was her just quitely taking down the "media analysis" video on Bayonetta[1] without acknowledging anything. --Niemti (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Destructoid is classified as "situational" per WP:VG/RS - while Kotaku is classified as always "reliable", according to which the horrible "gaming journalism" like that[2] (for example) is always excellent sources. Except it's rather rather, as Hideki Kamiya wrote,[3] "desperate" and "sensationalist". I'll also note that the Kotaku article has a total of 3 sources, 2 of them from Kotaku itself (Destructoid has 41 sources). WP:VG/RS is a joke. Also, I re-thinked it, and instead of renaming this article should be merged into an article covering the whole subject of video game controversies involving females (industry insiders, gamers, and outsiders too). In other words: not merely a move like I originally wanted it to be, but it should go to AfD and redirected to such article (not existing yet and to be created). --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what makes you think Kamiya is some sort of authority on what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia? If Yuji Naka condemns IGN shall we not use that anymore either? Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Outsider) Noted. However, I do not believe that an AfD is the proper place for merges, which is basically what has been suggested, in my opinion. To add from there, this is about a person, not about a list of "video game controversies involving females," which sounds like a PoV issue since I have not heard of the suggestion, need, or actual creation of a similar list for males. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, this recented was sent to AFD with the result of "Keep", so it's an unlikely scenario for a multitude of reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Kamiya is right, and I can show you many examples of incredibly bad "journalistic articles" at Kotaku (which is supposedly always reliable, according to some people) to support that. For example:[4] (yes, this "journalist" is "an idiot" indeed, and it was a Kotaku "top story"). The AfD was for deletion, not a redirection, and it was long ago. --Niemti (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't what the nominator's intent would be, it was still unanimously kept. I mean, feel free to nominate, but considering the points made in the first nomination, the discussions taking place here, and the fact you want to redirect it to an article that doesn't exist yet, and probably has a greater chance of being deleted than this one, I can't image that one going your way. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It was speedily kept due to the single-event notability at the moment. More than half year later, she is still notable for only this (without even releasing these videos). And as for criticism of IGN, it's more than a blog (and I'm using Kotaku for sources on Wikipedia myself, but only the when the article is not idiotic, and they often are). The article - you can propose the name that sounds the least awkward, and then collaborate with me if you want (my main foray into video game controversy specific articles was writing this). --Niemti (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One of my problems with this is that an AfD is an Article for Deletion, not about an article that you believe should be redirected. An AfD is not a proper way for a discussion on redirecting a page, instead it would be closer towards gaming the system, or at the least wrong intent. (Sergecross73 has already mentioned the results of a past AfD on this article so it would be more difficult for anything other than a keep on an AfD without a different point being made.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually it covers merging and redirecting too. And a normal discussion here is impossible due to all the primitive shouting down and attempts to forcibly silence the opposing views when they can't find proper arguments. --Niemti (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

To quote WP:ATD-R: "Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." That is, currently, the only policy I can find about redirecting an article that mentions an AfD. (Other concerns have been mentioned by other editors.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to touch on this as well. "Redirect" or "Merge" are certainly acceptable stances and results to AFDs, but typically people do not bring items like this to AFD strictly wanted to redirect/merge. Usually people just start up a Merge/Redirect discussion on the talk page, but there's an obvious reason why Niemti probably wouldn't attempt that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The "obvious reason" being: I would be immediatly shouted down by a clique of regulars of this talk page (including the users who have never edited this article, while I edited it more than anyone else), quite possibly verbally abused (again), and it would be then closed without a proper debate process. So, this is one of these "unusual" situations indeed. --Niemti (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the "strong consensus against you". But none the less, it seems like it would be better to do an RFC on it, but that's the least of your hurdles against you with this approach really... Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And so I'm not even attempting to open a discussion with the self-appointed masters and controllers of this article anymore, or even to keep watching it. See you at AfD in time. --Niemti (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you acknowledge that consensus is against your changes so you're planning on just WP:FORUMSHOPPING until you get your way. This is the very picture of disruptive editing.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, the "least awkward" name to me is Anita Sarkeesian. I don't agree with any of your repurposing of the article to POV push, or your stance on sources. Your proposal is backwards and strange in just about every regard. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not "POV push", it's NPOV push. And it's WP:N push (In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.). Also, it's let's-cover-all-the-similar-subjects-too-and-at-last push. --Niemti (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be worth examining the one Kotaku source with greater scrutiny, however it needs to be said that (1) the piece appears to be an actual Kotaku feature, not a blog, and (2) it's not being used to support anything contentious. Additionally, Niemti's little snipe about Sarkeesian taking down a video is just more of his creepy original research that has nothing to do with actual article improvements and is outside acceptable talk page discourse. And obviously deleting or merging this article elsewhere simply isn't going to happen; this is yet another attempt to skirt BLP. Please stop wasting the community's time.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kotaku IS a blog; to think other wise is just more of your creepy original research (I will talk just your way to you). --Niemti (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, however WP:VG/RS classifies the actual news posts (ie, not personal community blogs such as the Destructoid piece) as generally reliable, and again it's not being used for any contentious material. However, I'm not pushing for it if others have a problem with it. At any rate, unlike your little dig, that's certainly not original research, creepy or otherwise.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Educational use of Sarkeesian's work

I read at ANI that it was disputed that Anita Sarkeesian's work was used in university-level education.

Here is a source that says her work is so used: [5].

Here are examples of such use: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (for this course). Note that the last one for example is from a 2011 course, predating her harassment last year. To me these are evidence that her work is so used, and that it is her work that is considered of interest by these universities, rather than the mere fact that she was trolled.

It seems content mentioning such use was deleted; I propose we reinsert it. Thanks, Andreas JN 466 10:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that it is also correct that she lectures and presents at universities, as mentioned in this source. If you are not prepared to take the source's word for it, here is ample evidence: [14] Andreas JN 466 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What did you plan to add? I'm not sure what the article used to say. - Bilby (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This old version said, Sarkeesian's work has been utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses,^[1]^[2] and she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture.^[3] That wording seems completely fine to me. We could use [15] as an additional source, if need be, and/or drop the primary source. In fact, there may be more material in that old version that was actually fine. Andreas JN 466 10:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm concerned that we don't mistakenly give the wrong impression of the impact of her work. Being discussed in university courses doesn't mean that the work is necessarily taken as authoritative, and I think there is a distinction between "her work" taken as her ideas and findings, and "her work" taken as her blog. The latter is discussed, but I'm not sure that in what manner the former is. It isn't particularly unusual for a blog to be mentioned in courses, or for a well known blogger to give guest talks, and I'm not sure if that, in itself, warrants a mention. - Bilby (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The article in fact still mentions her speaking, incl. at universities, so i have no addition to propose in that respect (my mistake). That her blog is required reading for some women's studies course assignments is good info though, and the type of info universities give to students when she comes round for a presentation. That's fair enough; I don't think you could call it unduly promotional. Andreas JN 466 12:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of things which are required reading in that sense. I guess my feeling is that it just isn't significant that a couple of women's studies courses look at her blog in a tutorial somewhere. If her work was the subject of published papers, or a significant part of a course, I'd see things differently. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just one sentence, though, and it's a very matter-of-fact statement. No exaggeration, no aggrandizement. If someone interprets this as meaning something else, I'd say the problem lies with the reader, not the statement. There's clearly interest in her work among academics, or they wouldn't include her at all. In this context, I would consider it notable enough to deserve a single sentence.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal as far as including goes, but I do want to be careful not to overstate things. Would it be ok if instead of saying "her work" we say "her blog"? It is a minor change, but "her work" is broader, and suggests more than what is being used. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Re-adding the sentence, then.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Well done, guys. Andreas JN 466 07:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Just noting here that, per WP:BLPSPS, we're not allowed to use self-published sources in BLPs, unless written by the subject. There are four blogs that I left in yesterday when I was copy-editing, because they're either announcing a talk that she gave or hosting an interview with her, so they seemed harmless, but the article would be more policy-compliant if they could be replaced with other sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, misuse of self-published sources has been an issue here for months. I'm all for removing third party self-published sources, but in the cases where it's just an interview with her saying something directly about herself I don't think it's much of an issue. We'd accept the same from her own site if she published it there. I think the others were mostly there to back up something she said about herself, as one particular editor doubted it. But yes, it would be better if someone could track down better sources.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

They didn't seem to be the sole sources for anything, so I've gone ahead and removed them. If we're arguing against self-published criticism, per BLP, we ought really to remove self-published positive material too, except if published by her. It keeps the page on the straight and narrow. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines On Criticism Sources

The entire discussions before are a huge mess because people aren't doing this methodologically, or mis-understanding certain rules. In that regard, here is the actual guidelines relevant to this discussion:

Firstly, the source itself must be credible. Use WP:RS or sub-sections (eg: WP:VG/RS) to determine if a source is credible. Sources classed as "situational" are ONLY classed as such as relevant to its "notes and limitations" field - 'a lot of people in this discussion object to it' is not a valid complaint. For example, Destructoid is classed as situational because some of the authors are not reliable - therefore, any article on it is considered reliable if it can be proved the editor is indeed credible. Additionally, note that WP:NEWSBLOG is in effect, so complaints about 'using a blog post as a source' are not valid.

Secondly, the author of the source - or, the quoted parts of the source - must be reasonably qualified or have enough experience to speak about what they are saying. For example, a videogame journalist with no qualifications in women's studies cannot say "women do not feel pressured by female stereotypes in games", but they can say "female stereotypes in games are rare". Additionally, statements that are known facts require no qualifications.

Now, with those guidelines in place, state your actual arguments here. State the source and make sure it's in WP:RS, if it's "situational" show that it's allowed within the specified limitations, say EXACTLY what it is you want to add to the article, and then give others a chance to object. If the general consensus is that it is acceptable, then add it to the article. Simple as.

Hopefully, this will cut down on vague comments and blanket statements. MechPlasma (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort...but...you're pretty much saying the same thing that everyone is already in agreement about except for Niemti, who is the one who always misdirects the conversation into off-topic directions. His sources, like Destructoid, have all sorts of issues in regards to WP:RS. WP:VG/RS, and WP:NPOV. They shouldn't be used. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I second that. I think all editors that aren't Niemti would agree with those points.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the Serge and with the Hound of Ulster. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I also second that as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're not angry at me for what I'll say; I've been following the tone of the conversation but didn't have the nerve to read the specific details. That said, I think some additions about the criticism received should be made for the sake of neutrality. While it's true that most of the criticism was harassment, it's important to note that some of it was not. For example, Gamasutra echoes how part of the initial criticism was directed at the Kickstarter campaign requesting a high sum just to record some videos. And Forbes explicitly points to Destructoid as "having a legitimate grip with Sarkeesian"; in normal circumstances I'd say that merits at least mentioning Destructoid - as the exception to the harassment rule, if you will. And I'd expect at least a sentence summarizing Destructoid's involvement and position (nothing more than "they interviewed Sarkeesian, and later posted some counter arguments" - but nothing less either), using Destructoid as a WP:SELFSOURCE reference for that view, and Forbes for providing its due weight.

I'd also like to see a summary of the arguments by Anita herself as were included in the campaign (i.e. something more detailed than she "would examine gender tropes in video games.") Is it too much to ask, identifying the primary arguments and players as identified by reliable sources, and explain what were the relevant points of view for each side? I'd expect nothing less, for the article to explain the circumstances that initiated the harassment campaign, instead of just reporting that it happened. Diego (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. (It's obvious that the significance of the harassment is much more than that of the valid criticism, and should be given much more weight. That doesn't means the criticism doesn't exist, nor that it should be given zero weight, though; some sources are also reporting on the consequences of this and other incidents and the industry-wide debate they've opened,[16] and that should be covered). Diego (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a big part of the problem was that Niemti was unwilling to search for better sources, and was rather heavy-handed in how he wanted to present the controversy. It may be possible to delve into further. Gamasutra is a good source for analysis, for example, though I'm hesitant to use Forbes without looking into it further, I know there's a lot of articles in the field of video games at Forbes that really aren't anything more than random user-blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The author of the Forbes entry is a regular contributor specialiced in games. Also, the topic is not just video-games but also online communities, feminism and harassment; I'm sure Forbes is reviewing something with that depth. Diego (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means including all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources; it certainly doesn't mean we should relax the verifiability requirements just to stick in some negative commentary for the sake of it. We've discussed the Destructoid piece to death; it's not usable, as it's just a community blog entry, and the author is a video game writer with no established expertise in media criticism. I don't see any of your other sources as usable either. The Gamasutra piece does not criticize Sarkeesian's work, and in fact it only offhandedly mentions actual criticism. The Forbes piece is more problematic. It's not a feature, it's a blog entry by an (amateur?) video game writer. And it does not criticize Sarkeesian; it just briefly mentions the Destructoid blog entry as having "a legitimate gripe" with Sarkeesian, which isn't particularly significant. The first Rock Paper Shotgun piece only briefly mentions Sarkeesian and doesn't criticize her beyond calling her "divisive". The second piece doesn't mention her at all. All this tracks with what we've found previously, which is that thus far, no reliable publications have printed negative criticism of Sarkeesian. As such, it's not a "significant viewpoint" about the subject and it shouldn't be included in the article unless that changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I was only speaking of Gamasutra in general, I didn't specifically, check that source to see what it said, and like I was saying before, I've seen some questionable articles from the Forbes "contributors" in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A direct criticism of Sarkeesian work is not what's missing from the article; it's the realization that not all existing criticism (against the Kickstarter campaign in particular) was sexual harassment. That point of view identified by Gamasutra is not an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary proof; it's rather common sense, but you wouldn't guess it from the current article.

As for the Forbes reference: why the "amateur?" remark? Forbes has an editorial review process for its contributors, which are selected for "credibility, knowledge and expertise" and receive a background check, so their views are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. There is no disclaimer that I can find stating that Forbes is not responsible for their contributor's words; so we can assume that the "interactive column that [Forbes] calls a blog post" is made in the voice of Forbes.com; and they've lent that space to Erik Kain for almost two years now, time enough for exposing any problematic content that would be against their review process. What is exactly the problem of verifiability you see there? I don't see any qualitative difference with other sources already used like Amy Oleary and Helen Lewis for the NY Times or Molly McHugh for Digital Trends.com; unless you can identify a reason why Kain's column is not subject to the Forbes' editorial review they say they exercise on their collaborators.

Kain reinforces the view that not all criticism to the campaign was harassment ("Not everyone reacted this way, of course. So I’m not speaking to you. I’m not speaking to you if you have a legitimate gripe with Sarkeesian and what she’s doing or how she’s doing it. I’m only talking to those who are using threats of violence, blatant misogyny, and so forth. This is like the Hepler incident – people had a legitimate gripe with Hepler’s statements, and some people responded really badly"), so we have a point of view that has been noted by at least two independent sources. I can agree that the sources don't merit detailing what the nature or even the sources of such commentary, but that's not needed to cover the point of view with due weight. Forget everything that I said about Destructoid if that makes you feel better, but there are still problems to fix here. Diego (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, harassment isn't criticism. Secondly, it's redundant to say that not everyone was involved in the harassment. Finally, there hasn't been a so-called "valid" criticism (positive or negative) from a reliable source. People have had "reactions", yes, such as the above mentioned harassment or half-baked amateurish "arguments" or whatever, but unless they're acknowledged as experts, they can't be regarded as criticism. As for amateur, he's an amateur (not a reliable source) unless he's acknowledged as an expert (reliable source) in gender studies. DonQuixote (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

there hasn't been a so-called "valid" criticism (positive or negative) from a reliable source But there's a reliable source (two, really) saying that there's valid criticism.

it's redundant to say that not everyone was involved in the harassment Is reduntant if you say it twice; it can't be redundant if you say it once.

he's an amateur [...] unless he's acknowledged as an expert He's acknowledged as an expert, by Forbes, in "gaming, pen-and-paper games, music, movies, television and other facets of pop culture and tech". To comment on online communities and pop culture you don't need to be an expert in gender studies, you need to be an expert in online communities and pop culture. If there are no reasonable arguments based on Wikipedia policy, facts, and what the sources actually say, I'm going to add the following to the Kickstarter campaign section: Diego (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Gamasutra contrasted the level of criticism that a Kickstarter campaign should reasonably expect with the amount of backlash received from online communities. [17]
A Forbes contributor noted that, while coherent and meaningful arguments against "what she’s doing or how she’s doing it" are legitimate, violent reactions and threats were not.[18]

"But there's a reliable source (two, really) saying that there's valid criticism."

Since those sources are questionable as to their expertise with regards to Sarkeesian's field of study, anything they say about the validity of other people's criticism is also questionable. If you can prove me wrong and verify those two sources' credibility, please do so.

"Is reduntant if you say it twice; it can't be redundant if you say it once."

Ok. I'll concede that point. But it'll be difficult to write "but not everyone who reacted did so by harassment" (or words to that effect) in a meaningful way that enhances the quality of this article. Please do so if you can.

"He's acknowledged as an expert, by Forbes, in "gaming, pen-and-paper games, music, movies, television and other facets of pop culture and tech"."

Yes, but not an expert in gender studies...and therefore not an expert in determining what constitutes a "legitimate gripe" or a "legitimate" argument with regards to Sarkeesian's work. That is, he's questionable as a source in regards to this field of study.

DonQuixote (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Diego, I'd say the Gamasutra line is okay, but doesn't really add anything to the article we don't say already. The Forbes source isn't usable for the reasons already given - and that line isn't a good summary of the contents anyway. He deals with "legitimate gripes" for exactly one sentence before moving on to discuss the harassment - which we already cover using far less questionable sources. Again, this is bending over backwards to introduce a viewpoint that isn't really significant in the reliable sources.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind, this isn't a knock against Kain or even his entry; it just doesn't cut it here as a source (and I don't think Diego's wording properly represents the piece anyway.) The other sources Diego mentions are dissimilar: O'Leary's New York Times piece and McHugh's Digital Trends piece appear to be actual articles in their respective publications, not blog posts. Helen Lewis' piece appears in the New York Times blog section, but not as a personal blog, it's actually part of the paper's "ArtsBeat" feature. And none of these is an op ed or opinions column. Of course, if anyone has concerns about these or any other sources, they should feel free to bring them up here and remove them if necessary.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"No videos published"

Two editors have tried to add the pseudo-accusation that no videos have come out of Sarkeesians Kickstarter project in one day.[19][20] Perhaps there should be an "Attention editors"-notice for the editing screen of the article as well as the talkpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should add the "Attention editors" edit notice for the article as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

First, what on earth is a pseudo-accusation? It's either a fact or it isn't. Does pointing to an absence of published videos in contrast to promises published by the subject for videos by August, then before the end of 2012, both now passed, count as original research? I feel like legitimate criticism is being kept out of this article by characterising it as harassment. 118.210.255.166 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A pseudo-accusation is basically the same as saying a false accusation. See the wikilink in the previous sentence for more information. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Let them do so. There is significant backlash against her refusal to follow through on her kickstarter promises. Hiding it is invalidates the entire article and makes it nothing but a blatant fluff article and advertisement piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.104.115 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:VERIFY and WP:SPS. Random, unattributed "backlash" isn't notable. Nor are random users on messageboards or whatnot. It needs to be backed by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

While I agree the information does not belong in the article, we don't need an edit notice. I understand that a lot of the regular editors here are trying to protect the article from the same harassment that Sarkeesian faced on the rest of the internet, but the problems here really aren't all that much worse than many other articles about people who've generated controversy (whether warranted or not). Heck, we have people edit warring for years over what genres a particular band is. Adding a bunch of edit notices is extremely unlikely to change anyone's behavior. For example, in the case of the IP above, they'll simply believe that their interpretation of what belongs in the article is more correct than the edit notice, if they even read the notice at all. This is the reality of having an openly edited wiki. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Does a source that aggregates negative responses *by* individual, "random" users count as notable? 118.210.255.166 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of infobox

I see that one user has removed Template:Infobox person, and another replaced it. For my part, I prefer the presence of an infobox in a biography, even if it seems (as described by the remover) "pointless to repeat facts that are easily found in the first four sentences of the article". IMHO, an infobox is useful even when a bit duplicative, being a structure where additional information can be placed when discovered and cited. I'm aware there's a more general disagreement among wikipedians about the need for an infobox in any situation, but in this case, for my part, I prefer the use of Infobox person. BusterD (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I reinstated it both for the reasons you listed above, and also simply because of precendent and established style. Wikipedia biographies have infoboxes, and without it the article looks incomplete. Euchrid (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The lack of all that additional information is what makes the infobox extremely pointless. It basically amounts to a kind of encyclopedic baseball card...

Peter ^Isotalo 08:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would assert that Infobox person commonly is used to highlight basic information already easily found in any biography. Acting as a set of basic statistics about the subject is its exact purpose. Since it appears at least two editors object, please establish consensus for removal before deleting it again. BusterD (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely a fan of removing infoboxes when they contain almost no information...but that is basically never the case for biographical articles. The duplication issue is desirable, In fact, except for some special cases (like chemical compounds), there shouldn't be any non-duplicated information. That is, the infobox shouldn't contain any novel info, only info that is repeated elsewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

there is a wide consensus for infoboxes (except Opera <cough>) if you think they're baseball cards go there. here it is clearly vandalism. but more fundamentally, with the rise of wikidata it allows machines to read data about the article, and coordinate them among projects and languages. we need more, not fewer infoboxes; the buggy code is a negative, but i hear lua is working on it. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't call it vandalism; that only refers to spam or edits deliberately intended to make WP worse. Peter Isotalo clearly thought the article was better without the infobox. We clearly disagree, but that doesn't mean his edit was in good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

i'm sorry i don't view "makes the infobox extremely pointless. It basically amounts to a kind of encyclopedic baseball card" as a good faith argument. taking away code or functionality with discussion is vandalism. i don't care about intent; i prefer the teleological to the deontological. we have a lot of editors around here who push their own "policy pov" without consensus and against consensus, and we need to deal with it as vandalism. otoh, we could be more polite to vandals. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagreed with the removal of the infobox, but it certainly wasn't vandalism. As stated above, a vandal is someone trying to make the Wiki worse, and that wasn't the case here. Euchrid (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I'm a one-edit, one-comment bad faith vandal. Nothing more to discuss, then.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

[chuckle] I think we follow BRD here, so no single good faith edit is ever vandalism, IMHO. Thanks for expressing your opinion, Peter. I was trying to maintain as neutral a tone as possible; labeling seems way over the top (and excessive) to me. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

On biography and criticism

I've been watching this page off and on for some time, only lightly participating. There's a point I'd like to make that I don't think has been addressed here.

It seems to me a biography should be mainly about the person and what they accomplish; secondarily, it should be about the reaction to what they accomplish, if that reaction is significant. But it's not supposed to be an adjudication of the value of the person's work -- positive or negative. There are surely exceptions, where a number of high quality sources have evaluated the work, which might happen with a very influential thinker late in his or her career. But in most cases, it's simply not the main role of an encyclopedia article to deliver a message about whether or not the work is good, or scientific, or accurate, or whatever. The reader is seeking a guide to who they are and what they did; a deep evaluation will come from other kinds of publications.

In this case, we have a woman who is widely noted for having taken a position and embarking on some work, and for having been on the receiving end of some major backlash. I can't see why an encyclopedia article would tell a story that goes much beyond that. There's no broad consideration of the value of her work, because her work is incomplete, hasn't gone through any kind of peer review, etc.

Let's look at a Featured Article about somebody whose positions were controversial, but whose "career" predated the interactive Internet. I'm thinking of Stanley Green. Surely there are lots of people who expressed disagreement with his views. But is a deep dive into his critics' reasoning going to help us understand the man better? I don't think so, and as I recall, nobody at the FA discussion thought so either.

I've read the Destructoid piece. I think it's a worthwhile, interesting piece, and I think Sarkeesian and others would do well to consider what the author had to say. But that kind of criticism need not be covered in an encyclopedic piece -- and neither does anything praising her work. It's not what we're here to do, and I think if we can accept that, we'll realize there really isn't so much to argue about. -Pete (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason *to* accept that, so I don't know how we *can* accept that. In fact that's a direct contradiction of several of our policies. If an article does nothing but talk about one side's views it is inherently POV. With the thrust of the article being about this person's claims, and that that she was attacked, it inherently slants the article to give the idea of support for her claims. The fact that reliable sources (as Destructoid certainly is) disagree are important to mention. The article tone currently ends up extremely promotional, and certainly many of the edit and talk page comments from editors suggest that the editors making edits are themselves advocating her positions. Wikipedia needs to be objective. Turning this into a PR fluff piece is not advancing the goals of an encyclopedia, it is taking an advocacy stance. The fact that one editor was being unnecessarily critical towards the subject in no way excuses multiple editors being unjustifiably favorable towards her. DreamGuy (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The primary problem with that approach is that no one has found any reliable sources that offer negative criticism. The closest anyone has found is that Destructoid piece, but as has been discussed endlessly, it's an op ed blog entry and the consensus is against using it. If this were really a significant point of view, it would appear in less disputably reliable sources, and thus far it hasn't.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what Cuchullain says. People (either Niemti or anons) keep asserting that there's a vast amount of criticism of Sarkeesian. Well, yeah, that's obvious, that's what made her famous. But then some go further and assert that there is credible criticism advanced in reliable sources. To date, no one has produced even one piece of that (again, the Destructoid op-ed certainly doesn't meet it as a factual source, and it's not important enough to include as opinion per wP:NPOV). So, Dream guy, if you can find some of this legitimately sourced criticism, please, let us know. If you can't, please don't tell us the article is slanted. If 80% of reliable sources support something, than our article should clearly indicate that that is the common opinion on that thing, and if 99% of sources support something, we shouldn't even mention the opposition per WP:FRINGE. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pete, Dreamguy, you need to accept that the video game community is just a community like any other, ie a group of amateurs enjoying a particular hobby. It's a community that happens to be rather young, tech-savvy and extremely vocal, which makes it good at publishing opinions that can be easily googled. However, none of this gives this particular group of amateurs the privilege of getting exclusive counter-commentary on academic criticism of its topic of interest. What you're nagging us for would be the equivalent of hobby wargamers demanding to get "their side of the story" featured if some historian criticized how history is portrayed in, say, Axis and Allies.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@Dreamguy, it is one thing to state what the article's subject's POV is, and it's a very different thing for the Wikipedia article to endorse or promote a POV. In its current state, this article does give a clear exposition of what Sarkeesian's POV is. It does that through factual statements: she wrote a thesis with this title, she produced media advancing that position. The article doesn't state that she is right or wrong; the article doesn't quote individual feminists or gamers who agree with her positions. That's because the article is about who she is and what she represents, not a judgment of whether her position is right or not. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to be.

If you want the article to include criticism of her views, you probably are thinking about an article more properly titled The views of Anita Sarkeesian. If you can find enough reliable sources that treat that as their central subject, go ahead and start that as a companion article. -Pete (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what we would call a POV fork. Not gonna happen.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course it's not -- the sources don't exist. But if there were substantial scholarly discussion of her views, her views would be notable, and a legitimate topic for coverage. It would only be a POV fork if Wikipedia's coverage gave undue weight to one kind of reaction to her work -- not if the article were written appropriately.

But that's enough hypotheticals for me. :) -Pete (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! Peter, I have been wondering why you were misunderstanding me, and just noticed -- it's because I left a critical word out of my first sentence. Just added it back in red. -Pete (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I must draw some issue here with the idea that the article should be about "who she is and what she represents" and not feature any criticism on her stance. In all honesty, the one key reason this person is notable is because of said stance. Bringing up her work and then saying that criticism should be in a separate article is a gross violation of NPOV, because an encyclopedic article should cover the subject as a whole. And really looks more skewed when we consider that her views are being discussed in here for the fact she was harassed for them. If you're going to discuss what she represents, you need to discuss the reaction too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, it would be a ruled out as an obvious POV fork. And like Pete pointed out, it's a (very) hypothetical situation. There's nothing to debate.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. At any rate the elements of the "reaction" that got significant coverage in reliable sources is already discussed in detail here.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree in part, but disagree with the last point - not everything reported by reliable sources is already discussed. The "harassment" angle has been described in detail, and the criticism on her views is not supported by RSs, but there's also the mediatic debate that was initiated by the harassment. This is relevant to the person and the event, but so far the article only covers it with the sentence "The situation generated much media discussion on the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture", which is unsourced ( I've tagged it with {{elucidate}} ). The article can be still expanded with whatever analysis the available sources provide on it. Diego (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded a bit on that section and removed the tag, but there wasn't a lot to say, so perhaps I erred by removing the tag when I did? If so, I'm very happy to return it. There wasn't a lot of meta-discussion I could find in reliable sources about Sarkeesian's harassment triggering wider discourse, but there was some, and Bitch made the direct connection. There was a lot of evidence, of course - the NYT piece talks about the issue with direct reference to Sarkeesian, as does Crikey, The Guardian, and others - but my assumption was that we needed an RS stating the the discussion was triggered (at least in part) by her experiences, rather than the discussions themselves. - Bilby (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I added the corresponding wording in the lead to better summarize what the article actually talked about - specifically, the parts saying that after the harassment, there were a bunch of news articles published that talked about it and the wider issue of misogyny in video games and video game culture. I think Bilby's version explains it pretty clearly and concisely.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Should there really be the adjectives, "misogynist" and "sexist" outside of direct quotes in the criticisms section? It seems like the argument could be maid that the harassment was not sexist, just regular old run of the mill harassment, and adding those adjectives seems to reinforce her position. 24.17.74.242 (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

'The project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment that Slate described as an "absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse."' Sexist may be better replaced with "sexual" or "sexualized". It could also be removed as the following quote describes it as sexist and the remaining section gives examples of the abuse. Just food for thought. UncannyGarlic (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the article mostly avoids anything that would be considered POV, except for this one sentence: "The situation helped to bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention...", which is not backed up by reliable sources that actually justify the implication that sexual harassment not only exists, but is also pervasive in the video game culture. Because there are no reliable sources backing this implication up, I would suggest to change the sentence into something more objective, such as: "The situation caused discussions about sexual harassment in a range of publications and outlets, including..." (English is not my native language, so I can't come up with a fancy formulation)

Also it might be reasonable to mention the fact, that her project did not only trigger a "campaign of sexual harassment", but also actual valid criticism. I acknowledge that most of that criticism was in the form of youtube comments/videos, which apparently do not count as reliable sources, but currently the article seems to suggest, that there was no valid criticism of the project. To keep the article objective, it seems appropriate to state, that videos that criticized this project have received significant attention. 95.112.186.81 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"The three incidents above were so public and brutal that they raised the profile of harassment beyond the gaming community itself, where debate on the matter has raged for years. Suddenly it was on CBC Radio, in the New Statesman, in the Guardian, in the mainstream feminist press, as well as in other outlets." uh, yes it is.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I think the biggest problem with the current formulation is the word "pervasive". Even the quote you bring up merely implies the existence of harassment in the gaming community, but not that it actually is pervasive. Removing that word, so just saying: "The situation helped to bring the issue of sexual harassment in the video game culture..." seems like a good way to avoid any too extreme implications. As long as we don't have a reliable source actually saying that the entire gaming culture is full of sexual harassment, we shouldn't speak of "pervasive" harassment, but just of harassment. 95.112.186.81 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pervasive" doesn't mean something is universal in the culture, it means it spreads widely through it. It seems a fair summary of many of the cited sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind then. It is always difficult to figure out, what exactly a word means in such a context. I agree that "it spreads widely through it, but isn't universal" seems like an adequate description of the matter, so using "pervasive" is fine. Consider my objection to the formulation no longer to be relevant. 95.112.186.81 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Release

Now that the first video is out, is it appropriate to have a new section? I feel like the Kickstarter campaign and the series itself should have seperate sections. I'm thinking a list of titles, release dates (as each is released) and some quotes from commentators on what they thought of them? Euchrid (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's appropriate to have a new section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

We should wait until the third-party sources start coming in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Her Masters Thesis is no longer online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsnotmyfault1 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be accessible in printed from through her university, so it's still a valid reference. Diego (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

At any rate there's no reason to doubt her assertion on her website. I'm third-party sources probably mention that too if we need them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a neutral statement?

The people behind the campaign would return to the forums they normally posted on to award each other points for the abuse 195.228.189.97 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's a pretty fair paraphrase of the New York Times quote: "As she explained in a recent TEDx talk, they effectively “gamified” misogyny: returning to the forums they all frequented to award each other “Internet points” for the worst outrages."[21] I've tweaked it for clarity and simplicity's sake but I think it follows the source pretty accurately.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The awarding of "internet points" is a long standing joke/practice (Ie, "100 Internets to you"). The use here seems to imply that her opponents invented the practice simply to badger her. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither the source nor this article claims they "invented the practice".--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't directly claim, but it obviously implies as such the full quote is "The people behind the campaign awarded each other "Internet points" for the abuse on forums; Sarkeesian argued that they had "gamified" misogyny." This was a long standing practice that has existed for at least 5-10 years, not something newly invented. A better phrasing would be "in response to attackers awarding each other fictional "internet points," Sarkeesian claimed her opponents had "gamified" misogyny. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't know where you're getting the "newly invented" bit. It makes as much sense as "brownie points". So no, it doesn't imply what you think it's implying. And the points aren't "fictional"...they were used in real events. DonQuixote (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Where has page one gone?--58.7.73.157 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Go up to the box at the top of the page. Click on the "1" next to Archives. DonQuixote (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

"When the first video was released, comments were disabled on YouTube. Paul Tassi surmised that this was the result of further "trolling"" - This is just a one-sided interpretation, clearly violating the NPOV. There were many voices online that disabling comments was basically a method of silencing dissent and not accepting discussion. This should be rectified by citing examples of statements from the other side - Vorpal Saber (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We cite noteworthy opinions on the topic as determined by their presence and prevalence in reliable, published sources, we don't include poorly sourced material "from the other side" just for the sake of it. If you have anything that meets the inclusion criteria, bring them up so we can vet them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong: there are instances of articles on Wikipedia which cite "public controversy" and the like. The amount of criticism against Anita Sarkeesian's video warrants more than a token note from someone who only supports her. This is still a direct violation of NPOV. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So please provide a reliable source that we can cite so this can be corrected. DonQuixote (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ign.com/blogs/vitaismydaddy/2013/03/21/theamazingatheists-view-on-anita-sarkeesians-damsel-in-distress-video - this refers to the AmazingAtheist's videos, he's as a credible source (as a YouTube blogger) as Anita Sarkeezian is - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, bloggers are not reliable sources. Sarkeesian, in fact, is probably not a reliable source about most things except for her own life. It's slightly possible that she could be considered to be reliable with reference to the some academic issues relating to misogynistic behavior on the internet, because she's given a TED talk and other invited lectures on the matter, but probably not. What I'm trying to say is that there is something very different between writing an article about Sarkeesian and the question of whether or not she's a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/society/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-backlash/ - is this a reliable source? - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

http://dustycartridge.com/features/a-response-to-anita-sarkeesians-tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/ - "The thing that irks me the most, though, is the fact that it seems the series, like all of her videos, are going to be a closed text. Not open for discussion, as she closes down the discourse leaving no room for a spirited talk on the matter. Of course, her defense will be that the knuckle-draggers might belch obscenities at her, but surely it’s worth taking the good with the bad if you’re aiming to educate? " - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

this is not a blog - http://dustycartridge.com/about/ , it's full scale internet journalism, with paid staff - Vorpal Saber (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We may be in better territory with that the Daily Dot piece, but it doesn't remotely say what you seem what you want to insert. The piece itself doesn't criticize Sarkeesian for disabling the comments and doesn't give a lot of credibility to the positions of "amazingatheist" et al. Dusty Cartridge is a video game blog, which is at best reliable for discussing video games, meaning it's at best reliable for discussing video games. This not being a video game, it's out. At any rate, at this point I really think we need to consider whether an extremely trivial discussion of disabling YouTube comments on one video in one series the subject has made is actually worth including in her biography, no matter which "side" the commentary is coming from.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. If this discussion was so "extremely trivial" as you suggest, why is there a mention in the first place that disabling the comments is because of the trolls? It was somehow warranted to appear on the page, reinforcing the notion of harassment and dismissing the criticism she receives for disabling the comments in the first place? This makes no sense - Vorpal Saber (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

On this last issue, Vorpal Saber may actually have a point. I could certainly see the argument that the closure of comments simply isn't worth mentioning at all, and that that sentence could be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was saying. The comment closure is a painfully trivial point and we need to decide whether it actually belongs (obviously I'm leaning to no). Either way, the issue isn't helped by piling on a random bunch of blog "criticism".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)>

As opposed to one clearly biased *opinion* from a reliably verifiable source? That man was as qualified to deduce the reason of Sarkeezian's disabling of comments as I or AmazingAtheist are - but let's leave it at that. I am satisfied with the outcome. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have helped your case immensely if you'd said that from the beginning rather than advocating inserting even more poorly sourced material. As to the Tassi piece itself, I've removed it entirely, as it appears to be from the blog section of Forbes.com and therefore shouldn't be taken as necessarily reliable. Unfortunately it's hard to tell what's actually from Forbes and what's just another blog their hosting these days, and we really need to watch out for stuff like that. However, there's nothing wrong with the Stuff.co.nz piece; we might could use it for something else that isn't so brain-numbingly trivial.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the part about the Nintendo damsels in distress. That part is commentary about video games after all. Diego (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK - now I'm mystified by what you find reliable or unreliable. So far the only reason you've provided why you don't trust the Forbes column is because it's in blog format, and WP:RSOPINION makes it clear that this format doesn't matter at all when published by "otherwise reliable news sources".

I just can't see how Stuff.co.uk and The DailyDot bloggers can be reliable and Forbes is not; none of them are self-published, and the three of them are opinion columns by paid professional workers subject to an editorial review by their contractors; yet one's "internet journalism" and the other is "a blog, and therefore shouldn't be taken as necessarily reliable"? Can you provide a single reason making a difference between Forbes and the either Stuff.co or DailyDot, that justifies the first one being less reliable than the other two for the assertion that Sarkeesian says that Nintendo games have damsels in distress? Diego (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlike most similar news sites, the Forbes blog section isn't written by paid professional contributors with editorial oversight. Its really just random peoples' blogs. Therefore, simply because something appears at Forbes.com doesn't mean it's actually written by Forbes or that it's reliable. I don't know why they do it, but unless it's clear that the author is really Forbes staff or reliable in their own right, Forbes blogs should be avoided.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See this for more on the Forbes blog section.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, how is that any different to what Gavia Baker-Whitelaw and Gerard Campbell do, which you consider reliable sources? I'm genuinely trying to figure out if I'm missing something on how to decide that a source is reliable, because so far it looks like it's based just on the emotional response from editors here at the talk page. The link to Poynter you provide doesn't support your point as you think it does - it explains how Forbes writers are encouraged to construct a reputation and accountability for their web presence, paid for building a network of trust, and carefully vetted by the core staff. Did you miss how "Forbes differs by paying some of their writers and being more selective of its contributors" and DVornik saying "We look at their experience, we look at their credentials and what they’ve done. And we turn many people away"? How is this not the same as columns in a traditional newspaper?

The only innovation in "this new publishing model" would be that some controversial columns could be published at first without supervision from the core staff. But they are reviewed after-the-fact following feedback from readers, as the Eric Jackson example shows. Publishing corrections is one of the processes for which we consider news organizations as reliable, and Forbes contributors are not exempt from it. At most this delayed process would make those contributions unreliable for a few days or weeks, but not in the long term; and the other listed driving forces for accuracy of the contributors (money, stability, status attention) are the same ones by which whole newspapers are considered reliable. Given that Forbes contributors are subject to this known editorial process, can you point at any specific reason why Tassi (a writer with a high number of followers in Forbes platform) is not to be trusted as much as those from The Daily Dot and Stuff.co.nz?

There's also the nature of the content itself that was being supported. The assertion that Nintendo is mentioned in Sarkeesian's video is not an exceptional claim nor related to BLP concerns, and it doesn't require any extraordinary support; in fact it could be verified by watching the original video and thus sourced from the primary source - which I've just done. Nevertheless third party references are preferred, and I'd very much like the Forbes reverence reinstated to provide readers with further context from an independent party. Diego (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, it doesn't matter how this compares to the Daily Dot and Stuff.co.nz pieces since no one's trying to use those. Even if they were, unless I'm mistaken, they're written by paid staff of those publications, with editorial oversight from them. They appear to be acceptable NEWSBLOGS (if I'm mistaken, of course they shouldn't be used either.) The Forbes blog section is distinct from the site's magazine content, it's essentially just a host with their brand on it and a small amount of oversight. Having a blog there doesn't confer much more reliability than having on on Blogspot, they're effectively self-published sources, which we don't use in BLPs. I would have tried to find a superior source to back up the material, but I didn't find it particularly important.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes blog is ... essentially just a host with their brand on it and a small amount of oversight, which is essentially what other news blogs are, so the caveats at WP:NEWSBLOG apply in exactly the same way. Being inside or outside the magazines's content is meaningless on the web, where everything is one click away. What matters is that professional writers (which paid Forbes contributors are - they're the opposite of self-published from the second they're branded as Forbes and paid for the work) "may be acceptable sources", to be used with care depending on the kind of content they're supporting as references. Non-exceptional claims from a highly positioned Forbes blog contributor are perfectly OK, as any other from a branded newspaper; since they're subject to the same level of scrutiny. The content for which the reference was used did not describe biographical data but was providing a direct description of a non-fiction work. Diego (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to help with any grammatical errors produced on the article page. If possible, can you please allow me to correct these grammar errors for you. Thank you for your time. Humble2468 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done Any editor who becomes WP:AUTOCONFIRMED can directly edit the article. Specific allowance for a particular editor to edit the article is not possible. If you do not wish to become Autoconfirmed, you will need to specify which corrections you wish to see in the article, typically in a "Please change X to Y, because Z" format.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

potential source

Ms. Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs. Women in Video Games project resulted in a well-publicized backlash ... Ms. Sun-Higginson’s project seems largely to have escaped such hateful and vicious trolling, though a recent uptick in awareness due to the film’s Kickstarter success could change that. And if the bitterness and outrage never surfaces? Then perhaps that means the stories boldly told by victims of sexism, the courageous tweets from influential people within the games community, and the articles written by insightful authors and published by respected outlets are finally having an impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-kickstarter

There were some anti-kickstarters, does anyone have links to them? Since so much digital text has been written on the subject, I'm finding it hard to find the references to them. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What's an anti-kickstarter? Euchrid (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

An anti-kickstarter in this case would be a kickstarter that would offer an alternate point of view to Sarkesian's stories. Or it would offer a very similar service but from an opposing point of view, etc. I know there were some anti-kickstarters indeed. But never saw one. NPOV-wise they ware worth mentioning. --95.90.45.117 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR / WP:RS no, they are not worth mentioning unless a third party reliable source has done so. do you have any such coverage? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert of Damsel / Forbes

Hi, i havent found any discusion about the forbes source. Think its important to jhave some financial info in her. BR Serten (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You'll find discussion of Forbes at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 3. This one is particularly problematic as the author admits that he didn't follow the situation from the beginning and then proceeds to summarize the situation without acknowledging his own sources. This is the definition of an unreliable source. Beyond that, repeating hearsay that "people thought she ran off with the money" without immediately correcting that point is exactly why we have BLP policies. Woodroar (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I however dont see that particular Forbes titel= Damsel in Distress having been discussed, your second point is imho more valid. I want to avoid parroting the hearsay. I think something according the line Kickstarter was overwelming success, people started asking what she was going to to with the gold mine struck, thats - according Forbs -one of the reasons why the money storm got its drawbacks would be OK. Nobody talks about envy and a financial goldmine so far - but that would be normal! Serten (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That blog was already discussed. It isn't a Forbes article, it's written by a blogger; it's effectively a self-published source which we don't use at biographies of living people. Even beyond that, the piece doesn't really back up what you seem to want to say, it only mentions that point just to dismiss it entirely. It also doesn't use terms like "gold mine" or "money storm".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK that answers the question. I still think Sarkeesian gainig much more money than expected is a motivation to smeer her, not only sexism. BUt thats to be proven or found elsewhere. Thanks Serten (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You should check your definition of self-published source, that is hosted and paid for by a third party. You may be wary of its review process, but don't say that it doesn't have one. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPS. It doesn't matter where it's hosted. It also doesn't matter if Forbes may or may not come along and correct something after the damage is done, their relatively hands-off editorial policies and the fact that it's a blog make this inappropriate for any BLP articles. Woodroar (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not "anyone can create a personal web page and claim to be an expert in a certain field" at Forbes, therefore not self-published. You may be thinking of Op-ed, which is the closest thing to the model used by Forbes for their blogs; I don't see any practical formal difference with respect to this, do you? If so, what is it? And no, the blog format can't be the reason why some sources are excluded from BLPs, a different reason is needed. Diego (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a WP:NEWSBLOG, which at any any rate must be "used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". Forbes blogs are effectively self-published as almost anyone can have one and there's little editorial oversight. I see no evidence that that author is one of the relatively few Forbes bloggers who are paid, let alone are professional Forbes staff. Self-published sources written by anyone other than the subject aren't used in BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. I see no reason to prolong this discussion as the source isn't being used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Episode listing

I'd like to discuss the Tropes V Women episode list, which I added and which was removed. My logic in adding the list was that this web series is at least as notable as many TV shows, all of which have an episode list, and as such that level of detail was appropriate here. The edit summary on its removal stated that 'WP is not a web directory', which is fair enough, but I was wondering at what point would it be appropriate to list episodes of a web series in the fashion that we do television episodes? Interested in the opinions of others. Euchrid (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I just think it's a lot more useful to describe them in prose. These are part of a series, but the series is still part of a larger series of Feminist Frequency videos (which we aren't listing), and even the larger sub-series of Tropes vs Women videos (which we aren't listing). My guess is that every single entry will eventually get press coverage, but as-of-yet we only have the primary source for these episode names. Also, since this is an article about a blogger, and not a blog, I think these entries should be treated as periods in her timeline, not as mini-articles for her projects. Mainly I reverted it because it left me no place to mention the YouTube removal, but I'm still open to other ideas. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I suppose that the episode listing would be appropriate when and if the series was spun off into its own article, though I don't feel like it's notable enough to warrant that at present. Euchrid (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the episode listing would make sense in a standalone article on the series (which is probably notable enough to qualify for an article here), but is too much detail here in Ms. Sarkeesian's biography. Andreas JN 466 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issue, critique missing

personal rant. wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM

Her videos only consist of lecturing and patronizing gamers. There is a serious NPOV problem with the article since a critical point of view on her work is missing. Seriously her videos are pointless. It's as if she is superstitious about computer games. She misses the point completely that computer games are a phantasy custom-designed for those who are supposed to play them. To the point, that if there was a computer game, where your character is a prostitute - it just means the game addresses gamers who like this sort of phantasy. Her point of view can be only described as unworldly. Is there really no critical sources about her work? I mean even some of the kickstarter backers for sure must be disappointed. --95.90.45.117 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious NPOV problem with the article since a critical point of view on her work is missing. Pointers towards further search for sources:

Her videos consist of lecturing and patronizing gamers, there is also an element of indoctrination.
It's as if she is superstitious about computer games, lack of scientific basis.
She seems not to realize that computer games are a phantasy custom-designed for those who are supposed to play them. Example: If there was a computer game, where your character is a prostitute - it just means the game addresses gamers who like this sort of phantasy.
Her point of view is unworldly compared to that of a common gamer.

Is there really no critical sources about her work? Was there never kickstarter backers for sure must be disappointed. --95.90.45.117 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want critique of her work then you can fix it by supplying the sources. Because of the recent nature of her work it is extremely unlikely that there have been any reliably published sources that do so. It is not NPOV violation to not include something that doesnt exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There's some critical sources for her work. Here is a article in readwrite magazine on the issue of lack of transparency. --jadrian (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not notable/reliable enough, sorry. 86.40.236.171 (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well why was the current, disgracefully biased page considered reliable? I doubt anything will be reliable enough for you unless it gives the feminist POV you agree with - ie just a POV, and one in need of a critical reply, which you attempt to silence. I was going to give a link to another critical piece but wiki has for some reason blacklisted the "A voice for men" site. So is wiki now just propaganda? --86.160.92.120 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Jadrian, I just skimmed that article and it does not even seem to be critical of her work. The author is asking for a breakdown of how the Kickstarter money was spent, not criticizing the work itself.

86.160.92.120: the article linked above seems to be a self-published blog; what we need are commentaries posted in reliable sources (see the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sourcing). Regarding your other article, I don't know exactly what you mean by blacklisted (do you mean your edit did not go through?), but there are many reasons this could have happened, see WP:BLACKLIST. Regardless, you could post the URL without linking it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been many legitimate critiques of her work that have rebutted each and every one of her assertions. Unfortunately, they are all critiques by her peers, those on youtube and self-published sites, which may not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. However, facts such as her disabling comments and disabling voting on her women tropes youtube videos should start the critique section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osaka35 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but mentioning some YouTube setting isn't a legitimate critique. DonQuixote (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither disabling comments nor disabling voting on a YouTube video are even vaguely remarkable in a blogger or vidder, especially one who's been the target of vandalism; far less do they constitute something so horrific as to merit a "criticism" section. You've got a bad case of "guilty until proven innocent" there. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So, people on YouTube who point out how she's wrong are so insignificant that they're not worth mentioning? Okay. So, seeing as how Anita is just some girl who runs her mouth on YouTube, should this article be deleted? It's only fair, as long as all criticism of her is inadmissible based on her critics having the same credentials as her. Want an example of valid criticism of her? She complained that the movie Sucker Punch was bad because it's sexist to put women in action hero roles (she rambled something about it being objectification). Yet her latest videos are her complaining that men are always the heroes in video games, and there are no female heroes. This girl simply looks for reasons to complain about men at any given moment. Consistency is less important than random hatred. Will McRoy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Will McRoy (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 July 2013

Simple answer: Yes, anonymous commentators on Youtube are insignificant. As is your personal criticism of her. She has an article because her work has been covered by reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So because she makes YouTube videos AND she was talked about in the media for being "bullied", criticism coming from people with the same qualifications as her is irrelevant? And why did you simply delete the legitimate criticism I made of her? She is very inconsistent when it comes to her complaints about the portrayal of women in pop culture. Will McRoy 8 July 2013 (UTC)

When Wired or the NY Times makes note of the criticisms, then we can discuss adding what they said. And I deleted your criticism as, I noted on your talk page, this is not a forum. Your personal views don't belong here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, she's notable because the media took note of her being "bullied"? She's not notable by your standards, unless you want this article to ONLY be about the fact that she was "bullied". Otherwise, this article should be deleted as not being of a notable subject or legitimate criticism of her should be allowed. Just because you're a fan of her doesn't mean that she is above criticism. Will McRoy (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. Her work, and the reaction to it, has been covered by Wired, Slate, and the NY Times. That makes her notable by Wikipedia standards. When Wired or the NY Times makes note of the criticisms, then we can discuss adding what they said. And, as usual with editors on a soapbox, you make the mistake of assuming I have a personal interest in the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's standards on what constitutes a notable person: "If there is enough valid content to fill an article about the person, then "John Doe" would be an appropriate title. If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event"

Seeing as how all those articles are about her being bullied, and that all she has done otherwise is upload YouTube videos, this article should be titled "When People Felt Sorry for Anita" or it should just be deleted. I vote for deletion.Will McRoy (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC

Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anita_Sarkeesian. And sign your posts like you've been asked to. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I did sign my last post. Anyway, no one has explained why someone who was barely mentioned in one article and apparently spoke at a university I've never heard of (which doesn't make them poor) is notable- other than that all you have is notable publications talking about the bullying campaign against her. This should be deleted or other YouTubers should be covered. I again believe deletion is more appropriate.Will McRoy (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 20:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great. Noted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great. So, retitled or deleted? Or maybe Thunderf00t and TheAmazingAtheist (both of whom have more YouTube views than Anita and have criticized her directly) should get Wikipedia articles too? I sure hope it isn't the last option. Will McRoy (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Status quo as you haven't bothered to make any new arguments. But your opinion has been noted! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

None of my arguments have been addressed- including on the page you linked to, which is closed and recommends bringing up such issues here- but okay. I guess people who make arguments that consist of nonsense should be felt sorry for, promoted and NEVER criticized. Will McRoy (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One last thing. Why was the sourced criticism mentioned by another user above declined? Yes, it was mentioned that the source was more or less a blog, but some of the sources for this article are just blogs. One person claimed the criticism was invalid, but it was about the fact that she was given $160 000 dollars to make YouTube videos just because people felt sorry for her; and she has no interest in explaining where that money went. I'd say that's legitimate criticism, especially considering all that money went to someone who cried about being called names on the internet. Where's my cash?

It seems as though your best argument is that notable publications have mentioned her (as already mentioned, they did so because of the "bullying") and criticism must be left out because no notable source has done so. In a post which you deleted, I mentioned that she is not notable enough for notable people to criticize her. Again, this article should simply be about the incident that made her (sort of) notable or deleted. Will McRoy (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:NeilN suggested that you read the deletion discussion on this article. It's clear from the discussion that WP:BLP1E does not appy here, as the article existed with references prior to the Kickstarter campaign. When you talk about NeilN's "best argument" above, we can't be more clear that it's the only important argument. WP:BLP requires that all negative information about a living person must be referenced to a rock-solid source. It doesn't mean that articles include no negative information: as you said, criticism is out there, but it absolutely must be published by a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy which YouTube is not. Woodroar (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly which non bullying related articles make her notable?Will McRoy (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This again? I'm sorry, Will McRoy, but the notability debate has been and gone, several times, and Sarkeesian has only become more notable since then. If you genuinely want to combat non-notable BLP issues, there are far less notable articles to examine. The only reason to go after this one is to try and silence someone you don't like. Euchrid (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Because the only argument seems to be 'she's notable, darnit!' The articles that supposedly make her notable-and aren't simply about the bullying- are an Observer article that barely quotes her, a Salon article (an entertainment website) that does feature her somewhat prominently, mention of her speaking at a university I've never heard of (which doesn't make that school sub par in any way, just less notable than most) and mention of her speaking at some college, but the last one was right after the sympathetic outcry. If this makes someone notable, where are the articles on all the pundits I see on CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, etc. In the interest of fairness, I suggest you Anita fans get writing. Given this obvious lack of notability, I can only assume that you are all fans of this person, despite her claims being very easy to criticize- and which would be by notable people if she were notable.

As far as your accusations against me goes, I prefer the company and paradigms of most women to men (not just because of the difference in anatomy). What I object to is someone being criticized due to their extremely weak arguments (it may have gone over board, but this is the internet), crying about it, having a massive outpouring of sympathy (leading to huge "donations"), that person using the money to make more videos consisting of poor arguments (which she could do without $160 000) and basically tell those who gave her the money to go f*%k themselves when asked how it was spent. Then this person is promoted with a very favourable Wikipedia article which does not allow criticism.Will McRoy (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Will--if you think the article subject isn't notable, start a deletion discussion; instructions can be found at WP:AFD. Talking about it here is a waste of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not a regular editor, so I don't know how this sort of thing works. I'll do that some time in the not too distant future. Thanks.Will McRoy (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing specific, actionable article improvements, not general discussion of the topic or your personal opinions. Please read the talk page guidelines; continued comments like that will be seen as disruptive and may result in you being blocked from editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's been absolutely no notable sources criticising Sarkeesian. At all. I have been looking out for them for ages. Standard news outlets I can understand, she's pretty popular with not-so-gamers, but even gaming news sites like Kotaku or IGN still praise her even when their comments are massively critical of her. So yeah, while she's certainly got more haters than fans, and she's been objectively wrong on occasion, there's really nothing we can do about it. 86.40.236.171 (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the previous poster. Articles that praise her work are illegitimate because the _comments_ are critical? Why should the opinion of 200 random loudmouths matter? That's the point of the Reliable Sources standard—to keep people from citing the hoi polloi. As for "she's been objectively wrong", name the issue (and provide a credible cite) and it will be mentioned. I daresay you won't be able to. Rahul Mereand-Sinha (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor's point is that there no reliable critical sources and that the loudmouths don't matter, even though he (or she), personally, feels that Sarkeesian was wrong. Woodroar (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference FemFreqAbout was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "'I'll Make a Man Out of You': Redefining Strong Female Characters". Sewanee: The University of the South. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2012-06-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ "Feminist Frequency comes to SOU". The Siskiyou. March 4, 2012. Retrieved June 28, 2012.

[FemFreqAbout-1] Cite error: The named reference FemFreqAbout was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] "'I'll Make a Man Out of You': Redefining Strong Female Characters". Sewanee: The University of the South. 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2012-06-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[3] "Feminist Frequency comes to SOU". The Siskiyou. March 4, 2012. Retrieved June 28, 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]