| Revision as of 00:41, 9 July 2014 view sourceKevin Gorman (talk | contribs)12,000 edits →POV Check Nomination: r← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:52, 20 October 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,041,182 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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
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> |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Active Years == |
|
== BLP violations on this talk page == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
Please stop with the reverts and discuss this here. |
|
|
|
| name = Anita Sarkeesian |
|
|
|
|
|
| image = Anita Sarkeesian headshot.jpg |
|
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) |
|
|
|
| image_size = |
|
: ] 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) |
|
|
|
| alt = |
|
::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) |
|
|
|
| caption = Sarkeesian in 2011 |
|
:The policy is clear. What we are dealing with are entirely-unsupported, entirely-unsourced allegations of criminal behavior — literally libel. |
|
|
|
| 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> |
|
: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. |
|
|
|
| birth_place = |
|
: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. |
|
|
|
| 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> |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
| education = {{Plainlist| |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] (]) |
|
*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) |
|
|
|
| occupation = {{Flatlist| |
|
|
|
|
|
* Media critic |
|
== Unbalanced much == |
|
|
|
* public speaker |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| website = {{URL|http://www.anitasarkeesian.com}} |
|
|
| module = {{Infobox YouTube personality|embed=yes |
|
|
| logo = |
|
|
| logo_caption = |
|
|
| pseudonym = |
|
|
| channel_name = feministfrequency |
|
|
| channel_display_name = Feminist Frequency |
|
|
| years_active = 2009–present |
|
|
| genre = Commentary |
|
|
| subscribers = 213 thousand |
|
|
| views = 33.7 million |
|
|
| network = |
|
|
| associated_acts = |
|
|
| catchphrase(s) = |
|
|
| silver_button = |
|
|
| silver_year = |
|
|
| gold_button = |
|
|
| gold_year = |
|
|
| diamond_button = |
|
|
| 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). |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Clearly, there a plenty of users defending this article and removing any chance of balancing it out.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
*Source claims of bullying/harassment to feminist blogs, whilst removing any equally pov/non-notable/unreliable etc critically sourced info{{tick}} |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
*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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ref talk}} |
|
== POV Check Nomination == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== English templates == |
|
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. |
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
(Thanks to ] for informing me of the proper procedure) ]]] 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The first link you give is a post on someone's personal Blogspot account. "Victor's Opinion" is not a reliable source. |
|
|
: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. |
|
|
:Neither of your links can be considered for use in this article. |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
*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) |
|
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