Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:35, 13 August 2012

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.

Editing the page

Now some of the fuss is starting to die down, hopefully we can use this page for discussing edits to the article, rather than the subject herself - something I've been guilty of as much as anyone. Any suggestions or requests? Euchrid (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe search for sources and info from before the recent event to expand with earlier info? Sources like this, this, this, and this. Silverseren 19:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Great references. I was intrigued by her reference to the Dykes_to_Watch_Out_For#Bechdel_test.--Nowa (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that some more detail on the Tropes Vs Women series would be in order - at least the names of a few of them, and some of her other videos as well. I'll add this later today if nobody else does.Euchrid (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A handful of noteworthy people backed that Kickstarter. Not sure if its useful but I thought I'd leave a few links here. Tim Schafer of Double Fine Productions and Cory Doctorow among them. --24.5.80.174 (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC) PS: I really gotta remember my login.

Mildly noteworthy information, though I'm hesitant to use Twitter as a source.Euchrid (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I may well have gone overboard in adding previous work, conference appearances etc, but I think it's really important that the article makes it clear that Sarkeesian is notable for far more than just the Kickstarter furore. That's all that I have to add for the time being.Euchrid (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

On Ms. Sarkeesian - tropes - and notability

WP:SOAP WP:NOTFORUM WP:NPOV

I collapsed the worst example of talk page abuse but there is more on here. This article and talk page seem riddled with what I would call a short-circuit - an internet "celebrity" being promoted and attacked by people with a close connection or interest. This is really out of line with what happens in other articles and I think undermines the quality of Misplaced Pages. Obotlig ☣ 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

On the value of the article

I do not know this person, have not invested in Kickstarter, was not involved in heated argument, but came into the information I have via the Misplaced Pages gender-gap list. The only tie I have is the same gender. As long as the article remains NPOV and is not self-promoting, it merits existence. As far as I know, discussion of articles and their merits or absence of merit often shows up on talk pages. KSRolph (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the AfD deletion discussion has come and gone. Barring some drastic change in our notability policies, the odds that this article will be deleted are approximately zero. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias

While I have little interest in this whole affair I did read over the article. Needless to say the bias against some of her critics is rather excessive for a site that is not suppose to take sides. Stating that multiple third party sites think her critics are misogynist and horrible is obvious breach of Misplaced Pages strict non-bias stance, stating she has critics that have left misogynist messages is sufficient. Hopefully with some editing this article will become objective in its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.162.159 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find any sources in favour of the response the Kickstarter received, feel free to add them. Both the gaming and feminist community have universally condemned them, and the article reflects that.Euchrid (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of what other people have said. Many secondary sources have denigrated the criticisms that Anita has received, so the article can note that. If there are secondary sources that raise criticisms worth noting, the article can note that, as well. The article is objective as long as it follows WP:NPOV - which has nothing to do with whether or not it seems to say negative or positive things about various people. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

But surely on[REDACTED] we are supposed to use a neutral point of view and not both points of view

The two are different things 86.18.83.119 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Have a read of the neutral point of view guide: WP:NPOV Misplaced Pages contains statements which are supported by reliable sources. This article describes the reaction to the Kickstarter furor as it was reported in reliable sources. If there are ANY reliable sources that have a different point of view, please feel free to suggest them.Euchrid (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be a new sub section added "criticism" detailing her criticism and abuse she received. Any name calling of the people who do threaten her or otherwise abuse her it completely unprofessional . There are some valid criticism as well concerning why she needs the money when she already has not only the equipment but also her own recording studio and the other more "academic" criticism that she only focuses on how women are portrayed and not men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.162.159 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

At the point that "valid criticism" and "academic" analysis appears in reliable sources, we can discuss including them. At the point it just remains the opinion of individual editors, it stays out, no matter how many times it has to be repeated.Cúchullain /c 13:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Repeating the vile things that were posted on the Kickstarter as though they were genuine criticsm violates the Reliable Sources policy in virtually every way. If an actual reliable source posts any criticsm, however, then it should absolutely be included.Euchrid (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that these: "why she needs the money when she already has not only the equipment but also her own recording studio and the other more "academic" criticism that she only focuses on how women are portrayed and not men" are not valid criticisms. The purpose and value of the kickstarter needs only to be proven to those who donate. The fact that she writes about women is her own choice of study and focus. The end. heather walls (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

There was a previous attempt to add a picture to the article, which I think is a good idea. The pictures in this Flickr stream are all creative commons - does anyone have a preference for which to use? I like the first one because it's the clearest headshot. http://www.flickr.com/photos/anitasarkeesian/sets/72157627811851198/with/7443438274/ Euchrid (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Creative Commons license is CC BY-NC 2.0 (no commercial use) meaning it is incompatible with Misplaced Pages licensing. --NeilN 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed Ms. Sarkeesian, asking if she would be willing to relicense an image under cc-by-2.5 or cc-by-sa. --NeilN 00:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great, thanks for that. I found the stream by emailing her myself, and she got back to me within a few days, so you should get a reply pretty soon. I wasn't aware of the finer points of CC.Euchrid (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done and added to the article. --NeilN 03:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for sorting that out! Euchrid (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with copyright issues on Commons and Misplaced Pages is fun. We'll see how long the tropes image lasts this time. --NeilN 05:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I'd like to get in early and request, in light of several additions and removal of the phrase 'Armenian-American', that this not become yet another article which gets bogged down in debate over the topic's ethnicity. It's an unhelfpul and unimportant rabbithole. Whether Sarkeesian considers herself Armenian, American, Armenian-American or American-Armenian is of no relevance to her notability.Euchrid (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed about notability, but we still include ethnicity in the body of most if not all well written bios. I just removed it from the lede, where it certainly wouldn't go unless it related to her notability. --Mollskman (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess that I just don't feel like the statement about her parent's ancestry is the same as calling herself Armenian, and unless she makes a specific statement about her own ethnicity then there's nothing for us to document. I won't make any changes until we get consensus from other editors, though - the last thing that this article needs is another edit war! :) Euchrid (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where the notion that we wouldn't include ethnicity in the lede unless it's related to notability comes from - is this in WP:MOS, WP:BLP or somewhere else? If it is somewhere else it's contradicting WP:NOTABLE which states pretty unequivocally that notability determines whether an article has a topic, not the contents of an article. Regarding the wording, if we're not comfortable with calling her Armenian without a direct quote (which I think is a bit against common sense but whatever) we can always say that she is of Armenian descent since we can directly source her parents ancestry. SÆdon 06:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO discusses the lead issue. Also, it's a matter of weight (i.e., WP:DUE). For the vast majority of people, their ethnicity simply isn't such a critical part of their identity that it belongs in the summary of a summary of their life that is a lead paragraph. Of course, there are exceptions, but I don't see how Sarkeesian is one. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll keep that in mind. The WP:UNDUE argument makes sense. SÆdon 07:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who pulled out policy links, the WP:MOSBIO seems especially relevant. I guess the question now is whether we need a seperate sentence specifically stating "Sarkeesian is Armenian-American" (and even if we do I think that there's a better place for it than stuck on the end of the paragraph where it is now) or if the quote about her Armenian heritage is sufficient.Euchrid (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed that line; it's not clearly sourced and it's pretty redundant and awkwardly worded since we're already quoting her about her background. I'd say the most we should do would be paraphrase her instead of quoting her directly, but we don't need both the quote on her background and the conclusion that she's Armenian-American.Cúchullain /c 00:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticsm

I'm not sure what is being said the in criticsm section. What point is being made about Bastion? The grammar in both sentences needs a serious cleanup and is far from the Misplaced Pages standard. Euchrid (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, having read the two links, I think that I see what is being said here. Can I suggest that you change the heading to something along the lines of "response" rather than criticsm, since the Destructoid article specifically says that that's their intent - not to attack, but to respond. My point about the grammar stands as well, at the moment it's quite confusingly worded, and both sentences need to be read several times before they make any sense.Euchrid (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've removed it. The fact that one author on one website responded in his community blog to oppose a single interview does not meet the requirements of WP:UNDUE to have a whole separate section on criticism. To be honest, I don't even think it deserves mention anywhere in the article, but if it does, it should be a single sentence embedded in the rest of the work. In other words, we should not be striving to find some sort of criticism. We should be striving to present a broad picture of Sarkeesian, what makes her famous, based on how she has been covered in reliable sources. We're not trying to document every interview she's given and every blog she's made/written and then find all of the responses to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering about WP:UNDUE myself, but as I don't read Destructoid regularly I wasn't sure about notability/reliability of their writers.Euchrid (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Victory93, you're veering rapidly into Original Research territory. Statements like "which isn't in any way true" aren't acceptable.Euchrid (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be said that devoting an entire paragraph to "criticism" appearing in the unedited community blog of one Destructoid writer is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The one sentence about Bayonetta that utterly distorts the source is likewise inappropriate. Victory, find something better to do.Cúchullain /c 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be stated that she hates men because hating and boycotting the media and hating and blaming men are one and the same. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that she 1) hates men; 2) is boycotting the media; 3) is blaming men, and/or 4) these are all one and the same in Sarkeesian's case. Unless you have such sources, this is not going in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How about Ernest Belfort Bax 1913 novel The Fraud of Feminism? --58.7.138.14 (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Must be a pretty prescient book to predict things about a person many decades before she was born.Cúchullain /c 12:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate to break it to ya, my anonymous pal, but a novel is a work of fiction! Look it up; that means it's all made up, and is not a reliable source for anything! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to feminism in general and meant that Anita Sarkeesian is just one of many because feminism is uniformed. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Feminism is uniformed? I don't ever recall being issued a uniform! What do they look like? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It is just a figure of speach it means they all agree with each other that everything is sexist and believe all males are sexist. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a forum to discuss Anita Sarkeesian or feminism or anything else. If you have specific recommendations for the article—suggestions of reliable sources to include, for example—please suggest them. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Wyatt. -Pete (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable secondary sources that talk about The Fraud of Feminism, perhaps you can write a Misplaced Pages article on it. Right now, it is simply a redirect to the author, Ernest Belfort Bax. Here a couple of references that might be a good start.--Nowa (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

She is a Separatist Feminist because she belives what is stated below...

Separatist feminism is a form of radical feminism that holds that opposition to patriarchy is best done through focusing exclusively on women and girls. Some separatist feminists do not believe that men can make positive contributions to the feminist movement and that even well-intentioned men replicate the dynamics of patriarchy.

Author Marilyn Frye describes separatist feminism as "separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege—this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women."

In a tract on socialist feminism published in 1972, the Hyde Park Chapter of the Chicago Women's Liberation Union differentiated between Separatism as an "ideological position", and as a "tactical position". In the same document, they further distinguished between separatism as "personal practice" and as "political position".

Apologies for stating the exact same thing again, but 1) please give a specific source that says that Sarkeesian is a separatist feminist, and 2) the source needs to show why this is important enough to discuss in the bio article about her. Misplaced Pages expressly forbids original research, which is what you do if you say "The definition of A is....Sarkeesian meets that definition, so Sarkeesian is A." That's not what we do. That's what researchers, blog writers, academics, and even journalists do. All we do is report what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The section that says that she has been haressed stronglly implies that she believes all men are violant and oppressive towards women. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That section says nothing whatsoever about Sarkeesian's beliefs. Euchrid (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely says no such thing. What it does imply is that some men can be violent and oppressive towards women. As witnessed by the violence and harassment directed towards her. It doesn't speak about her beliefs, but only about the actions taken against her. Glaucus (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

120..., what I see here looks like it has the makings of an interesting opinion piece. I would love to read something like that, it might help shape my thinking. I encourage you to compose a blog post or op-ed type piece, for publication somewhere that sort of thing is desired -- and post a link here once you have, if you feel it would be informative to how this article should be constructed. However, Misplaced Pages is most definitely not that place. Misplaced Pages does not accept original research or the synthesis of ideas published separately. It's simply not how this community defines the role of a tertiary reference source. Misplaced Pages's role is to summarize views that are published elsewhere, in proportion to the weight they are given by experts in a relevant field. (More or less, that is my interpretation.)

What you are proposing is interesting and worth debating, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to have that debate. -Pete (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, please do NOT use Misplaced Pages talk pages to promote your own blogs, opinion pieces or what have you. This talk page is one step shy of going right back off the rails already. WP:SOAP deals with article space, but I imagine that it could be applied to talk pages as well - maybe someone more experienced than me can weigh in on that.Euchrid (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This would be akin to posting WP:REFSPAM. --NeilN 23:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, it's not my intent to encourage substantial promotion. Depending what gets written and where it gets published, a friendly note might be reasonable, but I agree with the above comments, that a protracted discussion of this point is inappropriate use of the talk page, with or without a separate published piece. -Pete (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright then if I find a source that she hates men I will post it. However her statement that most writers are male strongly implies that their audience are violent chauvinist. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Her statement that most writers are male indicates that she believes that most writers are male. Nothing more. If she says that people who play video games (I'm assuming that that's who you're talking about here?) are violent chauvinists then we'll put that in too. Misplaced Pages does not infer anything - that's WP:Original Research Euchrid (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Further to this - what statement that most writers are male? That doesn't appear anywhere in the article. Euchrid (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway that's what TV Tropes says about most writers being male. I just feel she is forcing her viewers to boycott anything she finds misogynistic. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be time to just start swiftly deleting or archiving comments that have nothing to do with improving the article with reliably sourced material. We're going in circles. -Pete (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

She Hates Men

Her videos are to blame men individually since she believes all men individually hate women individually and spreads her message to her followers that we are all oppressive and are violent towards women. --58.7.217.204 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)