| Revision as of 00:34, 6 July 2014 view sourceAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators233,212 edits →BLP violations on this talk page: comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 20 October 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,038,126 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Art historians, theorists and critics.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|page=Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Anita Sarkeesian|date=14 June 2012|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Sarkeesian, Anita|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|class=C |living=yes |listas=Sarkeesian, Anita |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging |importance=low}} |
|
|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=low |toronto=Yes |toronto-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=low|class=c}}}} |
|
{{WikiProject Video games|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| author = Beat Metzler |
|
|
| title = Gamer-Sexismus auf der Abschussliste |
|
|
| org = '']'' (in German) |
|
|
| url = http://www.derbund.ch/digital/social-media/GamerSexismus-auf-der-Abschussliste/story/29625804 |
|
|
| date = 3 September 2014 |
|
|
| quote = "Ihr Misplaced Pages-Eintrag wurde mit Pornobildern verunstaltet."}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{pp-blp|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
|image=] |
|
|
|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big><br /> |
|
|
This page is subject to ]; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of ''']''' (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at ].<p>Also, the article may not be edited by accounts with fewer than <big>'''500 edits'''</big>, or by accounts that are less than <big>'''30 days'''</big> old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.)}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 8 |
|
|counter = 19 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |units=days }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
| comment = {{crossref|Extended list at ].}} |
|
|1={{Cite web |last=Newman |first=Joe |url=http://www.cardozoaelj.com/2014/04/08/sarkeesian-and-copyright/#.U3Tb4rmYaUk |title=Sarkeesian and Copyright: Testing the Boundaries of ‘Transformative’ Fair Use in Online Critique |work=] |date=8 April 2014}} |
|
|
|
| {{cite web |last=Campbell |first=Colin |title=The Anita Sarkeesian story |url=https://www.polygon.com/features/2019/6/19/18679678/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-interview-history-story |website=Polygon |date=June 19, 2019}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last1=Carpenter |first1=Nicole |title=Anita Sarkeesian is shutting down Feminist Frequency after 15 years |url=https://www.polygon.com/23814201/feminist-frequency-shutting-down-anita-sarkeesian |website=Polygon |date=1 August 2023}} |
|
|
| {{cite web |last1=Pisoni |first1=Claude |title=Feminist Frequency Closing Down after 14 Years |url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/feminist-frequency/feminist-frequency-closing-down-after-14-years |website=Paste Magazine |date=1 August 2023}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Academic credentials == |
|
== Reversion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello {{ping|Sangdeboeuf}} You used the edit summary {{green|see MOS:CAPLENGTH}}. Why do you think this is a special situation? ] (]) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
The subject's background does not include any critique of her educational background. I have included such information, and it was removed for reason of "original research", when I cited ever sentence with a reliable source. If we are to establish her as an expert, the reader should have an idea of what jobs the degree she holds allows her to do, compared to what she is trying to critique. Thank you. ] (]) 19:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not Sangdeboeuf, obviously, but I was looking up the cited policy when they reverted your edit, and I would have reverted if they hadn't. You cited ], which says {{tq|In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait '''along with the name of the subject'''}} (emphasis mine). I see that Sangdeboeuf cited ], which gives plenty of examples of biographical infobox captions, all of which include the subject's name—save for ], where it mentions an iconic film and scene that he is known for. It seems to me that the MoS calls for "Sarkeesian" in the caption, both explicitly and implicitly. ] (]) 14:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
:{{tq|If we are to establish her as an expert, the reader should have an idea of what jobs the degree she holds allows her to do}} Why? We don't do this for any other biography on a living person, why would we do so for this article? Furthermore, while you did cite a number of sources, you were clearly making connections that did not exist in the sources themselves, which is textbook ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:As I said in {{diff2|1152233206|my edit summary}}, the image does not simply depict the year "2011". Per ]: {{TQ|One of a caption's primary purposes is to identify the subject of the picture ... Be as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject.}} "2011" does not tell the reader who the subject of the image is. The existing caption "Sarkeesian in 2011" does so succinctly and practically. It's normal to caption portraits of biographical subjects this way. ] gives the example {{tq|"Cosby in 2010" for ]}}. Not a special situation at all. —] (]) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Active Years == |
|
:It's not only original research, it's exceptionally wrong-headed to think this material is ever going to go in here. Find sources that talk about it in RELATION TO THE SUBJECT of the article and then we can begin a conversation. Until then, read the part of ] that says "{{xt|This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.}}" After you get that figured out, and if you manage to find sources that discuss any of your material that are "{{xt|directly related to the topic of the article}}, we can begin explaining to you why the material can't go in anyway because of ]. TL;DR: Give it a fucking rest.— ] (]) 20:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:No reliable source has critiqued her educational background. So we won't do it either. ] (]) 20:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would love to know how quoting exact figures for employment, income and job placement is synthesis. The background lists her educational background. It shows she is educated in a specific subject matter. If the subject matter has no jobs measured objectively by the BLS available for this degree that are not available without a high school diploma, than she does not hold an expertise in any marketable skills that translate directly into job placement. |
|
|
::For example, if Sakeesian's baccalaureate degree was in business administration with a focus in marketing from Northwestern Illinois University and she obtained a Master of Public Administration from Governor's State University, it would be perfectly acceptable for the reader to know the rankings of these schools and career outcomes. In fact, if Sarkeesian would have chosen that degree major, I very highly doubt we would be having this conversation now, because the job placement, income and employment for those majors is very, very high because they contain the communication and political science that Sarkeesian studied, however, the math and science is much more difficult, which business and government require for quantitative analysis, and I honestly think that because the job outcomes for these majors Sarkeeesian chose are very low, you somehow jump to her defense, yet if I the data would show opposite, no one would have reverted my edit. |
|
|
::Plus, excuse me but ''The Wall Street Journal'', ''U.S. News & World Report'', the Bureau of Labor Statistics and regionally-accredited university websites are very, very reliable sources, thank you very much.] (]) 20:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Making insinuations about her education based on , and "university rankings" is right out. |
|
|
:::Absolutely ''nobody'' cares what you or anyone else thinks about the "job outcomes" for Sarkeesian's majors. If you wish to prove otherwise, you need ] discussing those outcomes in direct relation to Sarkeesian's life and career. |
|
|
:::Similarly, your proposed addition implicitly asserted that average salaries are a meaningful way of demonstrating anything about a particular person's life and works... which is a) completely ridiculous and b) obviously biased. ] (]) 20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
:::Oh please. Yes, your sources may be reliable, and yes, you cited everything you wrote. But, for example, I can go on the ] page and write cited content about puppies and sunshine. That does not mean the information is at all relevant to the article. So, accuracy of college rankings aside, your information about her university not having a proper science program or about how liberal arts majors earn less than people in computer science is utterly irrelevant. What does the GPA requirement of her undergraduate university have anything to do with her? Your edits were ] beyond all comprehension. If you want to criticize the schools she attended, do that on your blog. ]. – ] <sup>]</font></sup><sup>]</font></sup> 20:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| name = Anita Sarkeesian |
|
::::::<small>Maybe not puppies, but definitely !— ] (]) 21:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
| image = Anita Sarkeesian headshot.jpg |
|
::::Excuse me, I did not insinuate anything whatsoever. Lest we not forget she stated a kickstarter because she needed funding. I am sure people obviously care about her source of income for these videos she created, because that is the very heart of the article. I am not going to tolerate being accused of using unreliable sources or original research. I posted on this talk page to facilitate discussion, and your comments to be have been as worthwhile as the ones left on her social networks. ] (]) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| image_size = |
|
:::::::::if you actually think that you "did not insinuate anything whatsoever", then there is a clear case that you are lacking in ] to edit Misplaced Pages - I would suggest you use those college ratings and find one that has a good liberal arts track. -- ] 01:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| alt = |
|
:::::If "people obviously care" then they'll write about it in reliable sources and then you can put it in, K?— ] (]) 21:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| caption = Sarkeesian in 2011 |
|
::::::I will not discuss this further with you, and I will report your language at user incidents. Have a nice day. ] (]) 21:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| birth_date = {{birth year and age|1983}}<ref name=viaf>{{cite web |url=http://viaf.org/viaf/315959796/#Sarkeesian,_Anita_1983- |title=Anita Sarkeesian |work=Virtual International Authority File |access-date=March 16, 2016}}</ref> |
|
:::::::I wish you good luck, sir. ] (]) 21:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| birth_place = |
|
:I removed it because it's OR and irrelevant. Grabbing a handful of sources about the academic ranking of Sarkeesian's alma mater and then using that as a way to try and implicitly discredit her is a ludicrous misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy in this area. ] says "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner '''what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects''', and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." |
|
|
|
| nationality = ]<ref name=Greenhouse13>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/how-free-should-speech-be-on-twitter.html |title=Twitter's Free Speech Problem |last=Greenhouse |first=Emily |date=August 1, 2013 |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-access=limited}}</ref> |
|
:Raking around "contextualizing" a person's academic record when that record has ''not'' been the subject of any actual critical analysis by third parties is against BLP policy and against the rules against synthesis. Unless there's a reliable secondary source that claims that there is some contention around Ms. Sarkeesian's academic credentials, they don't need any more "contextualizing" than anybody else. |
|
|
|
| education = {{Plainlist| |
|
:If someone wishes to see the relative academic standing of her alma mater, the hyperlink conveniently provided to that article is more than enough to do so. |
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
:Compare this to someone whose academic record actually ''is'' a matter of some controversy. Someone like, say, ], who basically has a correspondence course Ph.D from an unaccredited Bible college. In that article, Misplaced Pages has a section on his educational background where two professors (Barbara Forrest and Karen Bartelt) are referenced, who have written reliable secondary sources on Hovind's Ph.D and the controversy around it. |
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
:Even if it were compatible with OR and compatible with BLPSTYLE, the "contextualization" is simultaneously uninformative: a writer and cultural/media critic having degrees in communication and social and political thought is hardly something that needs contextualising—it's a fairly normal thing for writers and critics to have a humanities background. Funnily enough a degree in communications and/or humanities more generally—in the right hands—can make it so that a person can reasonably communicate their ideas to others. The inclusion of the expected job outcome stuff is also ludicrous. It's no secret that humanities degrees don't automatically guarantee you a job. It's not like medical school where you sort of know where you are going afterwards. I've got an MA in Philosophy—the "what you can do with your philosophy degree" pages on UK academic websites don't really reflect what I've been doing since graduating. So, yeah, other than a fairly ham-fisted attempt at objective-sounding trashing of a BLP subject (translation: "she's an idiot because she's got a non-STEM degree from a lousily-ranked university, she can't be right about any of that sexism in video games nonsense"), I'm not exactly sure what context the edit was adding. —] (]) 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::None of the other editors' comments are anywhere near as problematic as the initial edit or the introducing editor's subsequent behavior. The material is patent original research and ] designed to cast the subject in a negative light, and the user is refusing to ] to those explaining the issue. It doesn't bode well that the editor went to ANI over curt but entirely on-point comments while engaging in this behavior.--] ]/] 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| occupation = {{Flatlist| |
|
:In the event that the OP still doesn't get it, I'd like encourage him (because I highly doubt the OP is a woman) to look through other biographies and try to find one that similarly attempts to "contextualize" the person's academic background when the person has a degree from an accreditted college. I'm going to estimate he will find zero.--] (]) 03:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Media critic |
|
|
|
|
|
* public speaker |
|
== Criticism == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
| website = {{URL|http://www.anitasarkeesian.com}} |
|
Both her arguments and business model have come under considerable attack. None of these are mentioned in the article. This is one-sided, and makes it appear that her many assertions are unchallenged. Despite the amount of controversy she has raised, the article makes it appear that the only resistance she faced was from anonymous misogynists. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> |
|
|
|
| module = {{Infobox YouTube personality|embed=yes |
|
:That's because the attacks were from "anonymous misogynists". We would certainly include criticism from ] but nobody has managed to find any. If you have any suggestions, feel free to include them here and we can discuss. I hope this helps. Cheers! ] (]) 02:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| logo = |
|
|
|
|
|
| logo_caption = |
|
This article violates NPOV throughout, there are many reliable sources and people who have criticism about Anita yet non are mentioned in the article <br> |
|
|
|
| pseudonym = |
|
to be totally honest this article should be AFD'd she really isn't notable or encyclopaedia worthy in the grand scheme of things ] (]) 23:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| channel_name = feministfrequency |
|
:Oh that's cute. I see you attempted to justify your position by posting before removing it. But you didn't even bother to read it apparently. You have no interest in making this article better, you just want to attack Anita. So if you want to contribute, realize that you have to back up everything you say with a reliable source that you read and understand, not one you spent five seconds searching the internet for. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 02:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| channel_display_name = Feminist Frequency |
|
:: Zero Serenity, it must be noted that ] is to be followed along with ], even for IP editors. One of my main contributions was to this page where I eventually learned by my own knife Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Claiming that someone just wants to 'attack Anita' is an assumption of malicious intent, which I think that the user has not earned. Instead, I believe that they should be instructed on the ways of reliable sources, why there is no criticism, among other reasonable things. ] (]) 04:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| years_active = 2009–present |
|
|
|
|
|
| genre = Commentary |
|
== BLP violations on this talk page == |
|
|
|
| subscribers = 213 thousand |
|
|
|
|
|
| views = 33.7 million |
|
Please stop with the reverts and discuss this here. |
|
|
|
| network = |
|
|
|
|
|
| associated_acts = |
|
Personally, I feel that the statements ''can'' and ''should'' be redacted or removed per ] and ]. The IP editor is trolling or engaging in personal attacks, even though it's couched in terms of "improving" the article. Allowing anything and everything as long as the magic words "None of these are mentioned in the article." violates the spirit—if not the letter—of our BLP policy. Opinions? ] (]) 17:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| catchphrase(s) = |
|
: ] specifically excludes content related to content choices. {{tq|Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and '''not related to making content choices''' should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate}} It is directly related to making content choices, contesting why there is no criticism or mention of it in the article. They weren't supposing something heinous, they were supposing some common notion that Anita's critics have. I strongly oppose redacting anyone's content unless it is blatantly, irrevocably and unambiguously disruptive. This was not. Additionally, others' comments should not be edited. ] (]) 18:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| silver_button = |
|
::That "notion" was not supported by any ] which would enable us to include such content. That puts the cart before the horse. If there's no sources, there's no content we can even discuss. ] (]) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| silver_year = |
|
:The policy is clear. What we are dealing with are entirely-unsupported, entirely-unsourced allegations of criminal behavior — literally libel. |
|
|
|
| gold_button = |
|
:If the editor presented a reliable source which said the same things, it would not be removed under BLP, because it would be relevant to a content choice — ''Is that reliable source's POV worthy of inclusion?'' That would be a proper subject of reasoned debate. |
|
|
|
| gold_year = |
|
:But that's not what we have here. We have an anonymous drive-by IP editor on the talk page of a controversial person's biography making '''entirely unsupported, unsourced and ] allegations of criminal wrongdoing.''' There is no ''content choice'' because there is no '''content''' that we could possibly include under any reading of Misplaced Pages policy. It cannot possibly be related to a content choice — it exists only to troll and denigrate a living person. |
|
|
|
| diamond_button = |
|
:We are under no obligation to allow our talk pages to be used by anonymous people to troll and denigrate living people. In fact, it's ]. ] (]) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| diamond_year = |
|
|
| stats_update = August 1, 2023 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pinging {{yo|Sangdeboeuf|JeffSpaceman}} I saw your reversions and figured we should ] especially since this page has Contentious Topics measures in place. The "Years active" section in the infobox (copied here for reference) specifically refers to the YouTube channel feministfrequency and is under the "YouTube information" section of the box. Its "About" page links to the official Feminist Frequency websites and social media only, not Sarkeesian's personal website or social media. The channel is specifically part of the FF organization, not Sarkeesian's personal channel (I don't think she has one of her own that I can find, unlike other social media where there is one for her and one for the organization). |
|
*The next editor restoring the BLP vio I've removed will be blocked. ] <small>]</small> 19:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
**Reinforcing Dreadstar's warning, BLP is not an optional policy or is subject to negotiation. Defamation on this talkpage (or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages) will result in sanctions. The original 21 June edit and intervening edits to its removal on 5 July have been deleted from the history. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|The Wordsmith}} I think that we should remove YouTube from the infobox, given that as you note, it is not directly used by Sarkeesian. Thus, we can keep the years active as running through the present. I don't know if I was looking right at the YouTube information section, I merely thought it was talking about her activity in the world of media criticism, hence why I changed it to "2009-present." I think removing YouTube from the infobox would probably be our best bet here. ] (]) 16:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Unbalanced much == |
|
|
|
:Agreed, "years active" is ambiguous in a biography of a person, since it could seem at first glance to refer to the person {{em|or}} their website, blog, YouTube channel, etc. I understood "years active" to refer to Sarkeesian herself. In any case, the was posted a little over a month ago, so it seems premature to call the channel inactive. —] (]) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ref talk}} |
|
Article by the subjects fans, completely slanted in the subjects favor. Just look at the great references used... |
|
|
#Ms. Magazine. - a women's rights/feminist magazine blog |
|
|
#A salon article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, who "" |
|
|
#Three references to helen lewis' blog, a feminist and Amanda Marcotte article, another feminist |
|
|
#Guardian article by Hermione Hoby, |
|
|
#Gamespot article by Carolyn Petit, another feminist |
|
|
#Bitch, another feminist mag that the subject has an official interest with |
|
|
#Lots of sourcing to the subject themselves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== English templates == |
|
Clearly, there a plenty of users defending this article and removing any chance of balancing it out.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a general question: should we consider using either the {{tl|Use Canadian English}} template or the {{tl|Use American English}} template in this article, since the subject was born in Canada but identifies herself as Canadian-American? ] (] - ]) 05:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
*Source claims of bullying/harassment to feminist blogs, whilst removing any equally pov/non-notable/unreliable etc critically sourced info{{tick}} |
|
|
*Use sources mostly to feminist supporters and statements of subject themselves{{tick}} |
|
|
*Ban anyone who attempts to introduce any critical info{{tick}} |
|
|
*] - cover all harassment in explicit detail, yet don't even mention the copyright incident{{tick}} |
|
|
*Is subjects article now free from all criticism and slanted in the subjects favor?{{Confirmed}}.--] (]) 19:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please feel free to present any reliably-sourced criticism of the subject here. ] (]) 21:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The editor who received the topic ban earned it through long, well-documented, disruptive behavior on this particular article. ] ] 21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? The Wordsmith 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_Internet_Culture_logo.svg){kind=link}
Sarkeesian in 2011