Revision as of 23:11, 23 June 2018 view sourceGrayfell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers83,427 edits →Date of Birth: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:56, 24 June 2018 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,632 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 19) (botNext edit → | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
:::::According to your Talk page, you've already been told about ] and ]. You should also read ] and ], and probably ] as well. In short, none of that material will be added to the article without ]. ] (]) 14:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC) | :::::According to your Talk page, you've already been told about ] and ]. You should also read ] and ], and probably ] as well. In short, none of that material will be added to the article without ]. ] (]) 14:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
:::: Understood administrator Woodroar. No offence or deliberate breaking of rules intended. ] (]) 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC) | :::: Understood administrator Woodroar. No offence or deliberate breaking of rules intended. ] (]) 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
== Medium post == | |||
I looked at the archives but couldn't find it. Can it be considered as a valid reference for the article?--] (]) 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
:It's a reliable source for the opinions of the author of the post; those opinions are about Feminist Frequency, not Anita Sarkeesian, and so should not be placed in this article. ] (]) 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah, definitely not here. Probably not anywhere. It's self-published and, as far as I can tell, the author is "" (according to ]) rather than an "established expert on the subject matter". But that's just my $0.02. ] (]) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::Chmielarz himself might be notable enough an opinion in its own self published right (he is a well known designer, and Indie game developers tend not to have the media traction someone at a larger organisation has, which may mean this is an underrepresented opinion within Misplaced Pages). But in any case it should be on the Tropes wiki, and should be in context without UNDUE. Whether he is loved or hated by Vice or others is basically irrelevant. ] (]) 09:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::Not an appropriate source for either article. ] is (in this case as with similar ones) a blog host and thus falls afoul of ]. The author isn't an expert source on media criticism or video game criticism, unless he's got some other expertise on video game criticism beyond being an indie developer.--] ]/] 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::::Woodroar's link further suggests that others in the field don't regard his voice as authoritative.--] ]/] 14:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Missing Harassment by Anita Saarkeesian == | == Missing Harassment by Anita Saarkeesian == |
Revision as of 04:56, 24 June 2018
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Sarkeesian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find video game sources: "Anita Sarkeesian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Anita Sarkeesian. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Anita Sarkeesian at the Reference desk. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why isn't there more criticism of Sarkeesian or her work? A1: Misplaced Pages policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand, and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources. See the talk page archives for previous discussions on individual sources. Q2: I found a YouTube video/blog entry/customer review/forum thread that presents criticism of Sarkeesian's work. A2: Those kinds of self-published and/or user-generated sources do not comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. In particular, the biographies of living persons policy prohibits any self-published sources in articles on living people except for a few very specific cases. Including such sources would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. Q3: I think I may have found a new reliable source that presents a viewpoint not yet covered in the article(s). A3: You are welcome to bring any source up for discussion on the talk page, and the community will determine whether and how it may be included. However, first check the talk page archives to see if it has been discussed before. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; 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 one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. Also, the article may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. (Such removals are not subject to any "revert-rule" counting.) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Sarkeesian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find video game sources: "Anita Sarkeesian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Claim that Sarkeesian "improves gender inclusivity"
I find myself sceptical of the line "and improving gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media" at the end of the second paragraph. This is a claim that does not appear to have any basis or reference. How do we know she is actually improving gender inclusivity? By what metric? Certainly I am sure that she hopes and tries to improve gender inclusivity, but saying that she actually does so without any sources takes things a bit further. I realise this is hardly a major issue and is one of syntax rather than substance, but changing it may nevertheless help with WP:NPOV. I am apparently too inexperienced/untrusted to edit what is clearly a controversial page, but perhaps it could instead read "and appeared on The Colbert Report discussing her experiences of harassment whilst attempting to improve gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbe46 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Go away, little troll.--Jorm (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps surprisingly, I do think there's something to this and I've removed the last part of that sentence for now. Cbe46, the lead section is really just a summary of the article itself. It doesn't necessarily need sources because everything should be referenced properly below. The fifth paragraph of the "Reception and public appearances" goes into her Colbert Report appearance in greater detail, and it's sourced to The Verge. So, we should be good, right? Except I don't think we are. The Verge doesn't really say anything about her "improving gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". It verges (sorry) on that topic but only in the context of what Colbert said ("separate but equal games"), not Sarkeesian. I bet she does say this in the video itself, but I feel that we should let third-party sources show us what to highlight, especially in the lead section. Anyways, anyone should feel free to revert me with another source that talks about these specific claims. Or just revert me because reasons. Woodroar (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- It should have read something like "and appeared on The Colbert Report discussing her experiences of harassment and the challenge of attempting to improve gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". I somewhat object to the complete removal of the quote by Woodroar. The specific words do not need to appear in the reliable source for the statement of her intent to be addressed (a full transcript is available). For additional sources in any case: Kotaku, , WashingtonPost, LA Times , MotherJones referring to the sentence from the show "I think women are perceived as threatening because we are asking for games to be more inclusive,” Sarkeesian said. “We’re asking for games to acknowledge that we exist and that we love games.". Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted but changed it to your verbiage, I like that much better. I also added what I think are the 2 strongest sources, but (of course) I don't mind at all if we add the others. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I find myself marveling at how rarely these days we have controversy on this talk page, how clearly constructive the suggestion by User:Cbe46 was, and how quickly this modest request led to page improvement. This IS the article about the lady gamer who's trying to burn the entire male-dominated gaming community down right? Can't anyone dredge up some old YouTube comments or archival Reddit threads which say something offensive? Is it possible the imposition of discretionary sanctions coupled with the semi-protection have allowed this place to cool down? We may be forced to allow this article to get even better if someone doesn't start a scene here... BusterD (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- DELETED. Lucien86 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Define "willing", and then question why that word is being used in a disingenuous way. When there are news sources proudly declaring that putting children in detention camps is moral, or justifying the shooting of medics during protests, or standing with right wing nationalists, what suggests that they would be un-"willing" to go speak out about Sarkeesian? Then define "truth", and then question why you don't think the content is true and what is being missed that would be more true. Koncorde (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- DELETED. Lucien86 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- According to your Talk page, you've already been told about WP:V and WP:NOR. You should also read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and probably WP:NOTFORUM as well. In short, none of that material will be added to the article without reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Understood administrator Woodroar. No offence or deliberate breaking of rules intended. Lucien86 (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted but changed it to your verbiage, I like that much better. I also added what I think are the 2 strongest sources, but (of course) I don't mind at all if we add the others. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- It should have read something like "and appeared on The Colbert Report discussing her experiences of harassment and the challenge of attempting to improve gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". I somewhat object to the complete removal of the quote by Woodroar. The specific words do not need to appear in the reliable source for the statement of her intent to be addressed (a full transcript is available). For additional sources in any case: Kotaku, , WashingtonPost, LA Times , MotherJones referring to the sentence from the show "I think women are perceived as threatening because we are asking for games to be more inclusive,” Sarkeesian said. “We’re asking for games to acknowledge that we exist and that we love games.". Koncorde (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps surprisingly, I do think there's something to this and I've removed the last part of that sentence for now. Cbe46, the lead section is really just a summary of the article itself. It doesn't necessarily need sources because everything should be referenced properly below. The fifth paragraph of the "Reception and public appearances" goes into her Colbert Report appearance in greater detail, and it's sourced to The Verge. So, we should be good, right? Except I don't think we are. The Verge doesn't really say anything about her "improving gender inclusivity in gaming culture and the media". It verges (sorry) on that topic but only in the context of what Colbert said ("separate but equal games"), not Sarkeesian. I bet she does say this in the video itself, but I feel that we should let third-party sources show us what to highlight, especially in the lead section. Anyways, anyone should feel free to revert me with another source that talks about these specific claims. Or just revert me because reasons. Woodroar (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Missing Harassment by Anita Saarkeesian
Nonsense |
---|
"If you Google my name on YouTube you get shitheads like this dude who are making these dumb-assed videos," she says. "They just say the same shit over and over again. I hate to give you attention because you're a garbage human. These dudes just making endless videos that go after every feminist over and over again is a part of the issue of why we have to have these conversations." Source: https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sarkeesian-garbage-human-vidcon-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrant (talk • contribs)
References
|
Date of Birth
How is it possible that an article about a figure this notable does not have a more accurate birthday? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Because nobody has cited a reliable source for it. Such a source must be from a reliable outlet and cannot be a primary document, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Without a good source, this information cannot be added to the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- C-Class Toronto articles
- Low-importance Toronto articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- C-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Low-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- C-Class video game articles
- Mid-importance video game articles
- WikiProject Video games articles
- Unassessed WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press