| Revision as of 17:28, 29 July 2014 view sourceOrangemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators126,294 edits →Tropes vs. Women in Video Games: Diego, I was not assuming bad faith on ''your'' part← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 20 October 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,034,542 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 = 0 |
|
|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}} |
|
|2= |
|
|
|
| {{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__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism == |
|
== Reversion == |
|
{{archive top|Find RS for proposed content and submit in a new thread, be extremely cautious about ] violations in any discussions. ] <small>]</small> 22:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
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> |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
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> |
|
|
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) |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
:: 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) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
== BLP violations on this talk page == |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
{{hat|Any new discussions about RS or BLP should be started in a new thread. Let me reiterate the warnings given here: further ] violations on the article or this talkpage will be met with an immediate block. ] <small>]</small> 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Please stop with the reverts and discuss this here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Active Years == |
|
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) |
|
|
: ] 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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
:The policy is clear. What we are dealing with are entirely-unsupported, entirely-unsourced allegations of criminal behavior — literally libel. |
|
|
: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. |
|
|
: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. |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::What exactly would be considered reliable sources? I'm asking this because at this point I don't know anymore what you consider to be reliable sources. I have no trouble finding reliable information out there about either her or her work that pretty much destroy the validity of this article. I don't know why you (the article editors) have trouble doing that. So, what exactly are reliable sources? (don't bother linking me to ] because I already know about it) ] (]) 13:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ping|Skaruts}} What don't you understand about that page or what was rejected on here that you feel meets the definitions set out on ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In this case, reliable would be from a source known for news. So, let's say Kotaku had criticism (or praise) for her, that could be considered reliable under ]. On the other side of her spectrum, ] would work pretty well (said magazine notably went after Lauren Faust and MLP:FIM, so don't think they aren't critical of themselves). If you're looking for something more general, try a major news organization, like the ] or ]. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 14:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
*The next editor restoring the BLP vio I've removed will be blocked. ] <small>]</small> 19:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Reinforcing Dreadstar's warning, BLP is not an optional policy nor is it 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
== Unbalanced much == |
|
|
|
| name = Anita Sarkeesian |
|
{{archive top|Find RS for proposed content and submit in a new thread, be extremely cautious about ] violations in any discussions. ] <small>]</small> 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
| image = Anita Sarkeesian headshot.jpg |
|
Article by the subjects fans, completely slanted in the subjects favor. Just look at the great references used... |
|
|
|
| image_size = |
|
#Ms. Magazine. - a women's rights/feminist magazine blog |
|
|
|
| alt = |
|
#A salon article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, who "" |
|
|
|
| caption = Sarkeesian in 2011 |
|
#Three references to helen lewis' blog, a feminist and Amanda Marcotte article, another feminist |
|
|
|
| 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> |
|
#Guardian article by Hermione Hoby, |
|
|
|
| birth_place = |
|
#Gamespot article by Carolyn Petit, another feminist |
|
|
|
| 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> |
|
#Bitch, another feminist mag that the subject has an official interest with |
|
|
|
| education = {{Plainlist| |
|
#Lots of sourcing to the subject themselves |
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
Clearly, there a plenty of users defending this article and removing any chance of balancing it out.. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
| occupation = {{Flatlist| |
|
*Source claims of bullying/harassment to feminist blogs, whilst removing any equally pov/non-notable/unreliable etc critically sourced info{{tick}} |
|
|
|
* Media critic |
|
*Use sources mostly to feminist supporters and statements of subject themselves{{tick}} |
|
|
|
* public speaker |
|
*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}} |
|
|
|
| website = {{URL|http://www.anitasarkeesian.com}} |
|
*Is subjects article now free from all criticism and slanted in the subjects favor?{{Confirmed}}.--] (]) 19:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| module = {{Infobox YouTube personality|embed=yes |
|
:Please feel free to present any reliably-sourced criticism of the subject here. ] (]) 21:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| logo = |
|
::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) |
|
|
|
| logo_caption = |
|
Unbalanced Much? the answer is a resounding '''NOPE'''. ]. -- ] 00:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| pseudonym = |
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
| channel_name = feministfrequency |
|
|
|
|
|
| channel_display_name = Feminist Frequency |
|
== POV Check Nomination == |
|
|
|
| years_active = 2009–present |
|
{{archive top|Per Cuchullain, the talk page is for discussing article improvements; general discussion of the topic - including personal interpretations of what's happening in the youtube discourse - violate the ] and ] policy. ] <small>]</small> 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
| genre = Commentary |
|
Hello, I would like to have this article reviewed to ensure that it complies with the established Neutral Point of View requirements. I was unfamiliar with the subject and wanted to learn more so I skimmed the article. From a cursory reading of the article, it was alarming to me that the only reception to ''Tropes vs Video Games'' was positive. Upon searching for more information elsewhere, I quickly learned that her series on Video Games was far from free of controversy. From a quick Google search I was able to find criticism that is not mentioned that I find to be relevant. |
|
|
|
| subscribers = 213 thousand |
|
* is a blog, however it does provide tangible evidence that the game footage presented in her videos has not been recorded by her. This likely doesn't meet the letter of the reliable sourcing policy, but the very first reference in the references section is also a blog and also likely falls short of that standard. |
|
|
|
| views = 33.7 million |
|
* is a magazine article criticizing the number of videos she's put out given the large sum of money she received in funding. It is clearly an opinion article but so are several of the references listed for other elements of the reception. |
|
|
|
| network = |
|
I was able to discover this criticism from a quick google search and it made me question the neutrality of the article. I'm sure there is more that deeper digging would be able to reveal. That being said, when I put the tag on the article originally, I was under the impression that I could nominate the article and that would signal uninvolved editors to assess the situation. I don't have strong feelings, I just think it's something that should be looked at more closely by uninvolved individuals. |
|
|
|
| associated_acts = |
|
|
|
|
|
| catchphrase(s) = |
|
(Thanks to ] for informing me of the proper procedure) ]]] 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| silver_button = |
|
:The first link you give is a post on someone's personal Blogspot account. "Vicsor's Opinion" is not a reliable source. |
|
|
|
| silver_year = |
|
:The second link you give is a self-published personal opinion blog post. Buying a domain does not confer status as a reliable source. "The Spearhead" is not a reliable source. |
|
|
|
| gold_button = |
|
:Neither of your links can be considered for use in this article. |
|
|
|
| gold_year = |
|
:The blog you note as being used as a reference is published under the auspices of ] with defined editorial controls and a reputation for some semblance of reliability. ] (]) 00:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| diamond_button = |
|
*As NBSB points out above, neither of the links you give meet our standards for ]. Unless/until criticism is contained in sources that do meet those standards, this article won't contain such criticisms, even if they are levied in parts of the blogosphere. If you find reliable sources that *do* contain criticism of her work, they should certainly be included, although only in ] to the prevalence in which they are found in reliable sources. Best, ] (]) 00:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| diamond_year = |
|
:We've discussed this a fair bit, and I think generally everyone agrees that well sourced criticism should be added to the article, should some emerge. The problem has been that there hasn't been sufficient significant criticism outside of blogs, youtube videos and forums. It isn't particularly surprising, given that most of her videos are of the "sky is blue" variety - they cover something that clearly needs to be said, but the claims in themselves aren't really open to criticism. The exception has been the secondary issues you raise, but there we hit sourcing issues, and the concerns either proved not to be warranted or haven't been established in more reliable sources. For example, The Spearhead article reads like a very biased opinion piece, and the issue it raises (that she hadn't released a video) is no longer relevant. There is an anti-Sarkeesian undercurrent in some forums and blogs, and they raise some potentially valid concerns, but as far as I can tell those concerns haven't reached the level of sourcing that we need to include them. - ] (]) 00:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| stats_update = August 1, 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
::That may well be true, but I wasn't suggesting that those sources necessarily be included. I just want an outside person to look at the article and assess its neutrality. If you believe that the article is unarguably neutral and needs no such review, I am more than willing to defer to your judgement as you are clearly more familiar with the subject matter. It is my opinion that it may not be and it would benefit from an outside reviewer looking at it. I am also not surprised that the most prevalent criticism of someone that makes videos on YouTube is on YouTube. That is all I have to say, I really don't have strong feelings ]]] 00:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::There's really nothing to look at unless there are additional reliable sources we're missing, or if currently used sources are problematic or improperly represented. There are definitely sources we're missing, but I haven't found any that really criticize Sarkeesian or the series. If YouTube videos or any other ] sources are really the source of the most prevalent criticism, then excluding them is the right decision.--] ]/] 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I just stumbled over this recently, so I am not as informed as others regarding the edit history of the article. While I do understand the argument why YouTube videos of people's opinions of Ms. Anita Sarkeesian work can't be considered notable, in and of themselves, I do have a bit of a concern that the result is that the article seemingly portrays all of her detractors as misogynistic because the admittedly shocking and upsetting misogyny made more high-profile news than the legitimate criticism. |
|
|
::::Some of these non-misogynistic critics mentioned are women who levy criticism at Sarkeesian for a host of different reasons, while at the same time decrying similar aspects of gaming that Sarkeesian herself assails. |
|
|
::::From what one can discern, the most common complaint by female gamers is that Ms. Sarkeesian represents herself to be a long-time avid gamer in her work, troubled by experiencing years worth of negative feminine stereotypes, while there is a video on the internet of Sarkeesian herself, admitting the following when she began her work in 2010, "I'm not a fan of video games, I actually had to learn a lot of video games in the process of making this." - (http://vimeo.com/13216819) |
|
|
:::::"Gamer" is not synonymous with "fan of video games", says the guy who started playing Avalon Hill games in the 1960s and D&D in 1975, and saw sexism already in the hobby in those days. --] | ] 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You have seen Ms. Sarkeesian's videos, right? The ones on YouTube, probably the main reason why she has this article? The videos show her as a young girl, enjoying playing the video game "Super Mario Bros." The purpose was to show her as a long-time avid gamer in the video game sense. It was to give her criticism more validity, her videos take on what she perceives to be sexism in ''video'' gaming, (chiefly in the games themselves and not the hobby), and she approaches the issue as more than a feminist but as a feminist gamer. That, in light of her comments in the linked video is why she gets all the criticism from real, avid female gamers. It is a disagreement between feminists, albeit between a somewhat semi-famous one and largely unknown ones. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::Look, unless this has been addressed in reliable sources there's nothing to discuss here. The talk page is for discussing article improvements; general discussion of the topic - including personal interpretations of what's happening in the youtube discourse - violate the ] and ] policy.--] ]/] 21:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image to place == |
|
|
|
|
|
Given that I found this original photo on Flickr, it's been uploaded to commons as it has a good license and imho, may have a place on this article. It's a professional photo of Anita speaking a media conference. Does it have a place on the article? Of course I don't mean that every image of her is to be used on this article; but this particular one I think could be in some fashion. File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Anita_Sarkeesian_2013.jpg ] (]) 02:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:How about on the right side of the Awards and Recognition section? ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Go ahead. I've no knowledge about how to place images or what dimensions to use. Though it's 6.5 megs, so it may need to be downsized a bit. ] (]) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There's a try. Otherwise, do you think anybody has a profile photo of her that's a bit more recent than 2011 that we can use? ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RS/N== |
|
|
{{archive top}} |
|
|
Take note of this discussion: ] if it hasn't already been posted to this page. ] <small>]</small> 22:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Now archived: ] ] <small>]</small> 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tropes vs. Women in Video Games == |
|
|
|
|
|
Suggest change to first sentence: |
|
|
|
|
|
On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog, and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
To: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of '''12''' short videos '''to be delivered by August, 2012''' that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog, and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
|
: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}} |
|
'''Bold''' only to highlight changes. No changes to references, all information included in source <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== English templates == |
|
:Why? That's out-of-date information. ] (]) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::Because it is verbatim what is defined on the Kickstarter page , I don't see where it is "outdated" and it is very much what was advertised on kickstarter... 12 videos with an estimated delivery of August 2012. If it later changed, say that too, but you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::Verbatim? I see five videos saying '''estimated delivery''': Aug 2012 --] <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: From the kickstarter linked in as a source in the article, "With your help, I’ll produce a 5-video series ('''now expanded to 12 videos''') entitled Tropes vs Women in Video Games" |
|
|
::::The backer rewards are estimated Aug 2012, no release date is promised for the videos. This is almost definitely part of the 'she ripped people off' argument.] (]) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Again, from the kickstarter linked as a source , most rewards are Aug 2012, However there are 2 rewards that include "complete DVD sets of the series" with delivery dates of DEC 2012. So it could be argued DEC 2012 is the valid date. {{unsigned|2606:a000:1208:c053:b02a:cc9d:8d5e:dbb4}} |
|
|
::::::All the important details of the kickstarter campaign are described at ]--the important parts being how she amended her goals after receiving more money to work with. As I said, out-of-date information considering that her goals were updated during the fundraising. ] (]) 11:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Given that "the delay led some critics to question how she was using the money", it's not outdated information - it's something that affected the reception of the series. I wouldn't find it out of place at the Kickstarter campaign section. It's true that the change of schedule is already covered at Production, but the detail that 5 videos were originally planned and later were expanded to 12 is currently not mentioned anywhere. ] (]) 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::In the real world, everything takes longer and costs more. This did not genuinely affect the reception of the series, it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme that her haters keep trying to shoehorn into the article. --] | ] 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Can you please ] instead of making personal attacks? Are you saying that 's (from ]) opinion is not to be taken into account as analysis of the series production? It's really tiresome that any proposed change which can't be seen as unambiguous praise must be defended against accusations of being part of the harassment campaign. ] (]) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Minute details of the project are already mentioned at ], particularly ]. This article provides a general overview, and such outdated information is out-of-place here and as such will be given ]. ] (]) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::{{ec}}Obviously this request is in part an attempt to make Sarkeesian look bad, but it's also based on confusing the sources (or not reading them). The article suffered when we created the (unnecessary) ] fork and then made minimal effort to improve either article.<br> |
|
|
:::::::::The Tropes... article already explains what happened (this one does too, in less detail). In fact, since it's only attributed to the Kickstarter announcements, it may not even be necessary for that article. At any rate, contrary to what the anon says, Sarkeesian's original plan was for ''five'' videos, not twelve. After the Kickstarter reached its goal quickly, Sarkeesian added a series of stretch goals to create more videos. However, because the campaign took in so much more money than planned, Sarkeesian changed the original plans to take advantage of the increased funding, as indicated by sources like . The anon's proposed change is based on information that's two years out of date.<br> |
|
|
:::::::::We could get into the stretch goals, but it's already covered at the "Tropes" article, and honestly we don't need any additional redundancy here. In fact, the relevant sections of this article should be rewritten to just summarize the key points, keeping the full coverage at the fork dedicated to it.--] ]/] 13:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Don, yes, you've said in two sentences what took me three paragraphs.--] ]/] 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Diego, you seriously undermine your calls to assume good faith for anons making problematic proposals when you fail to extend the same courtesy to regular editors.--] ]/] 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I was expecting that Orange Mike would assume good faith for ''me''. I made a reasoned argument as to why including the information could be benefitial to the article, and all I got back was 'it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme', implying that that's my goal. I reaffirm my position: combating every proposal made at this talk page by looking for ulterior motives on the proponents is severely hurting the conversation by creating a ] climate, and IP editors are not the only ones making that mistake. ] (]) 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Diego, I was not assuming bad faith on ''your'' part; you contribute to this project in lots of ways. I was merely pointing out that there is no substantial value to this information, and no reason to wedge such trivia into the article other than to falsely imply bad faith on Sarkeesian's part. --] | ] 17:28, 29 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