Misplaced Pages

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:33, 21 March 2014 view sourceTutelary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,196 edits →RfC: Should the Fair Use Controversy be mentioned on Anita Sarkeesian's Misplaced Pages Page?← Previous edit Revision as of 02:13, 29 March 2014 view source Nosepea68 (talk | contribs)220 edits →This fraud still up?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 307: Line 307:


] (]) 08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC) ] (]) 08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

== This fraud still up? ==

No, editor still haven't found out she's a darn gullible abuser? She's asserting shit without evidence, I discard them without evidence.

¨¨¨¨

Revision as of 02:13, 29 March 2014

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.
Article policies
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: 20 days 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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.

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.
Article policies
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: 20 days 
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 iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconBlogging (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFeminism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGender studies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconVideo games Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

Fan-art commercial "Fair Use"

I just found out that there's a fan-art picture used in the TvWiVG Kictstarter promotional video without artist's permission and she's never been told it's been used for promoting this video series funding.

http://cowkitty.net/post/78581402103/how-do-i-deal-with-my-artwork-being-stolen

http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

Original picture http://atomicginger.blogspot.com/2009/05/princess-daphne.html

The artist in question is asking from Sarkeesian in an open letter if Sarkeesian has legitimately licensed the picture or does she have a 501(c)3 status (non-profit) as she claims in the interviews she's given. The main problem Tammy sees is she's not asked for permission, credited or told about the use.

Further note: The picture https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Tropes_vs_woman.jpg might not be usable for[REDACTED] without permission from cowkitty. http://cowkitty.net/me

Artist herself perhaps a reliable source? Nosepea68 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As you've been told many, many times before (and as DonQuixote already told you at Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games) we don't include material that doesn't appear in reliable sources. Your little push to insert poorly cited negative material into the WP:BLP of a person you dislike is tendentious and well past disruptive at this point.--Cúchullain /c 15:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, no negative material ever exist on BLP subjects? And FYI, I don't dislike this person per se, it's her ethics I have the biggest disagreement with (and no I'm not a corporate IP rights activist, nor am I an MRA, just skeptic humanist). And lets be fucking clear here, I have not put Anita Sarkeesian to the public eye, I have not made an article about her in wikipedia. I'm just bloody gob-smacked how the reliable sources present her and how cowardly the media acts when they can't criticise her. But, yea, what ever brings a buck to them...Nosepea68 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As you know, unsourced and poorly sourced material about a living person isn't going in the article. And your personal feelings are irrelevant and have no place on this talk page. This is really getting tendentious and disruptive.--Cúchullain /c 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Somebody put it in with a source. I skewered it with Better Source Needed since N4G is considered unreliable according to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources since it requires user-submitted content. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed it. Material like that needs a rock-solid source per BLP guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Nosepea68 Lest it be confused, your proposition above represents scandalmongering, and original research. When editors start going around creating stories, elevating minor events or drawing conclusions, it is detrimental to this project. I respectfully posit that maybe your dislike of this woman is clouding your judgment. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Tell me when the FUCK I created a story or stories? I haven't elevated this nor have I drew any conclusions. FFS, gee ee tea ay gee are eye pee.Nosepea68 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So I guess my "I respectfully posit" lead-in was not gentle enough? When did you create a story? See the beginning of your post. Taking nuggets of a budding scandal and trying to make something out of it before all the facts have been properly reported in reliable sources is the creation of a story, and it represents scandalmongering at its basest. Wikipedians aren't reporters. Though we do often deal with current events, it is not our job to "get the scoop" on the breaking news before all the facts are in, particularly when there could be libel issues as they relate to living people. For all you know, someone paid someone, and the money is being held up in trust and never made it to the complainant. Who knows what happened? But if you don't have the resources to play Jimmy Olsen and follow up on those leads, then you shouldn't be posing as a reporter. And if you *do* have those resources, you should be running a reliable source. As for your exasperated spelling challenge, I think you are walking a fine line between constructive input and incivility. If you're going to publicly criticize this person for whatever your admitted bias is, then you should be open to contrary criticism equivalent to the criticism you put out. And I have yet to use profanity toward you or waste your time with phonics, except for these: Double-u pee, colon, bee el pee. Seriously, the first few paragraphs negates most of what you are proposing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You made me chuckle to myself at myself. I am obviously explaining it wrong, good point made there. I admit I jumped on this subject with more enthusiasm (money in a joke) than common sense. But you know, people like that fall to homeopathy more than often. So I must have thought I'm a person above the medium intelligence. Yes, you're quite right! Only things told in a neutral publishment are neutral. How can I be that stupid to think that the author of one picture is just asking things she have started to ask when she found her art-work used in a commercial medium she didn't get a dime from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosepea68 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, your personal feelings are irrelevant; all that matters is what appears in reliable, published sources. Please stop.--Cúchullain /c 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also read statements from a person who appears to be the original artist on a portion of the logo used. If so, this is worrisome and promotion of a logo with unattributed/uncompensated artwork is encouraging this sort of behavior? No axe to grind about the topic person in either direction, just a fan of giving credit and compensation where due

Here is what appears to be the original artist's statements on the subject http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita


thanks Sandy Foderick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.96.130 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

67.140.96.130, Look, it doesn't matter who said what unless it's been reported by reliable, published sources. If it ever is, we can talk about whether it's really worth mentioning or not; until then it's just general discussion and that's not what articles or their talk pages are for.--Cúchullain /c 17:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
With this BLP it seems only Sarkeesian managed Pravda is a reliable source. And isn't it encyclopedic to talk about person's ethics say like Stalin or Hitler. Nosepea68 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Cuchullain, Well, after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources we see that the creator of the work (THE ORIGINAL ARTIST) is indeed a reliable source. According to guidelines, published refers to "made available to the public in some form". Considering the artist's tumblr blog is, in fact, public, it is published. Therefore, it's a reliable, published source. It should be added.

If that's not enough for you, I have tweets confirming talks between the original artist and FemFreq, as well as statements by her producer. I can also easy source 4 news articles from gameskinny, groupthink, and a avoiceformen (admittedly that one is pretty biased, obviously). The first two, are, in my opinion, sites that do fact-check/are reputable. These claims are /not/ contentious claims about others, as they talk about the action, and indirectly Anita.

Also, if this does happen to be taken into consideration, I feel it would contribute (perhaps not to Anita's personal article, but perhaps FemFreq's) as this is indeed a criticism/blemish on their image. If you go ahead and say that a personal page is not meant for this, I needn't direct you towards controversial actions committed by celebrities. These very actions have been inserted in said personal pages. Why not here? I feel the harrassment, and consequently the pro, (or people who are neutral towards her) Anita supporters are being overly protective of her "image" here. What I mean to say is that in the hopes that slander does not appear on the page, they are being "too against" placing any criticisms. This neccessarily isn't neutrality either.

Thus, I think the whole predicament deserves a mention. If not, at the very least, because of the condrodictory nature of the producer's tweet. See here: https://31.media.tumblr.com/10ab80fadf7c7e5361b63c58dfd4570b/tumblr_inline_n22zk7Rp6P1qas85b.jpg It's clear the "movement" is not non-for-profit.

Halcónico (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Halconico

Drama on the internet is not news. This is a private issue between the artist and Sarkeesian. It will be notable, when it is notable due to support from sources. This is all synthesis and original research. Koncorde (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be added. It has been addressed on the @FemFreq Twitter handle and as such, received an official response straight from the horse's mouth. Ging287 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If the only place it has been mentioned is Twitter and personal blogs... then no, it doesn't belong here. Verifiability is a core tenet of Misplaced Pages content, and unless there are reliable sources addressing the issue, we cannot include it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Care to elaborate why http://en.wikipedia.org/Viktor_Yanukovych page has somewhat rich description of many issues that has nothing carved to stone like "reliably". I know the sample is very extreme but I can't understand different rules for different BLPs. And sorry, I really get wound up sometimes on this BLP because to me it seems that Sarkeesian is outside of criticism just because internet trolls harassed her. That should not be the case, especially on the matters she talks outside online harassment. Online harassment is a matter of it self, but turning a blind eye to ALL criticism because subject was harassed is not encyclopaedic (IMHO). To me it seems there's an infinite amount of white knights holding the line for Sarkeesian, just because she was harassed.Nosepea68 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a source there then bring it up there and don't expect us to guess what you're getting at with your vague assertions. --NeilN 20:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As Halcónico said before, he/she has at least 4 sources, at least a few of which would pass WP:Verifiability. Why wouldn't this be added if we have the sources for it? Ging287 (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources listed above meet WP:V. They are self-published sources without editorial control, which we cannot use unless the creator is a well-known and accepted expert in the field. Even there, there is a direct prohibition against using such sources in biographies: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. We do not republish accusations of illegal conduct that are presented only in personal blogs and tweets. If there is truly a significant legal issue here, it will be addressed in due time by external media. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't know if they have editoral control or not until Halcónico posts them. I'm not sure how you can be making that judgement unless he/she's personally PMed them to you. Also, how would a news site covering the incident be a self published source? Ging287 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I am referring to every source already linked on this matter. If there are other sources, they should be posted here for evaluation. Vague mentions will not suffice - if they are claimed to be reliable sources, it should be trivial to post the links here for review.
One of the sources mentioned by Halcónico ("avoiceformen") is obviously completely unacceptable and, in fact, is blacklisted from Misplaced Pages. A "source" whose editorial policy states "Anti-feminist- AVfM regards feminism as a corrupt, hateful and disingenuous ideology based in female elitism and misandry. And AVfM regards all self proclaimed feminists as agents, unwitting or otherwise, of that hate and corruption" is prima facie unusable for anything on Misplaced Pages, much less the biography of a self-described feminist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.gameskinny.com/76kn4/sarkeesians-stolen-fanart-fail + http://groupthink.jezebel.com/anita-sarkeesian-steals-artwork-1538612203 | At least, Gameskinny matches editorial control mentioned here. Ging287 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
GameSkinny allows anyone to post and contribute with no apparent fact-checking or significant editorial controls. At best, this is very thin gruel.
Moreover, that article has been immediately followed up by what is largely a retraction:

While the situation has not been resolved to Smith's satisfaction, Sarkeesian has been in touch and the two are continuing dialogue regarding the use of Smith's artwork in Sarkeesian's work. Tamara Smith and Anita Sarkeesian have ultimately provided us with positive model for both criticism and response. It is a completely valid thing to criticize an issue, particularly if you feel like your work has been stolen. In both her initial letter and in her public address of copyright concerns, Smith was by open and honest, allowing for polite debate of the issue. Her insistence on polite dialogue and working through the proper channels has been amazing to watch, as has her clarification of copyright law. While simple bibliography may have circumvented this issue in the first place, Sarkeesian's willingness to engage is exactly how a creator of any public content should respond when faced with valid criticism. Hopefully Sarkeesian can continue to this dialogue to the satisfaction of her own followers and Smith. While I may still have some mixed feelings regarding Sarkeesian's initial use of the image (and whether Fair Use laws are completely adequate in many regards), I am appreciative of the conduct of both parties. Thanks to both ladies for modeling how professional an internet argument can be, and teaching me to: 1) hold my horses 2) check my sources.

This appears to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot and has no business in Sarkeesian's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, That is not Misplaced Pages policy and therefore I will disregard it. And yes, they have significant editorial control. To try to dismiss it as 'no significant editorial control' is to try to negate it altogether. They prove it in this link: http://www.launchpowered.com/products/GameSkinny.php (Launchpowered owns GameSkinny.) Also, what about the Jezabel link? Ging287 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... Anyone can post Videos, Slideshows, or Articles here. Sounds like the same editorial policy as the NY Times or the WSJ. --NeilN 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So I concede on GameSkinny, but what about the Jezebel link? Ging287 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the blog part of Jezebel. . --NeilN 21:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As NeilN said, Groupthink appears to be Jezebel's blog section, where anybody can write their own posts. Little to no editorial control. Novusuna 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Gah, OK. Thanks. If I find any other source that I think is reliable, I'll bring it up. Ging287 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's the thing: Even if there are a few sources, what is there to report? Someone believes their copyright was violated, there was a brief Internets kerfuffle, then the two sides started talking to each other and... the end. I don't see what's possibly encyclopedic about it in the context of Sarkeesian's life. If there is actual legal action filed, that might rise to the level of encyclopedicity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess you have all had ample discussion on the matter, and I take it you don't need the links anymore? I just wanted to bring the articles to attention. I mean no disrespect to Anita, but my point after reading the whole issue on her "stealing" the art w/o permission, and no mention of it on her page (and talk regarding adding/ignoring said issue) made me feel like it should've been brought up. Like I (and others here) have said, I feel like just because she's been harassed extensively doesn't mean people should be overly protective of her. Thanks, Halcónico (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to inquire on what would get this fact added to the page. What would be a reliable source other than the complainee's original site? Also, post the other sources. I sympathize with you, though. Ging287 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS will answer most of your questions. Please study it, and if you have any specific questions not covered by WP:RS, feel free to ask. DonQuixote (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The only reliable regularly used source that reports on this I have found so far is The Escapist (magazine) . Stabby Joe (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone reasonably object? Ging287 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. We have the thinnest of thin gruel, based not on independent reporting but simply uncritical repetition of a blog post, with no update as to the significance of the dispute or its outcomes. Misplaced Pages is not a news site, and we can afford to wait to find out if this is truly a significant part of Sarkeesian's life - which we can judge by the number and quality of reliable sources which report on the situation over time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you not apply uncritical repetition of Sarkeesian's word to radical feminist reporters? Like their articles are used as RS in this BLP.Nosepea68 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If you question the reliability of a source used in this article, feel free to point out which particular source it is here, at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or tag the questionable source with {{unreliable source?}}. Otherwise, please stop your pointless and vapid ranting. DonQuixote (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Nosepea68, the reliability of a source isn't determined by the adjectives that can be applied to the author, it's determined by the integrity of the publisher of the material. If you haven't figured that out by now, you should go read WP:RS. If an author is a radical feminist and writes for the New York Times, then yeah, we use their articles. If Hitler, Stalin, or Satan himself were published by the NYT we'd use their work. If Hitler had a blog, then not so much. See the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ging287 Object to what? To the inclusion of contentious information in a BLP where the proposed information has no inherent relevance to who the subject is, and only one source is provided? Yeah, I object. It's neither mandatory, nor inherently wise to include this information, as doing so might give detractors a platform upon which to voice their anti-Sarkeesian agenda. But more importantly, WP:NOTGOSSIP states: "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy". I doubt that the threshold of "high standard" is met with only one source. The story has no legs yet, but we're discussing the inclusion of content that says little more than that the subject was accused of misappropriating fan-art, something that is presumably a civil infraction. I don't see the significance to this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
One key issue that seems to come up in a lot of articles with a degree of controversy is undue weight, WP:RSUW. While the news piece is a valid reference in itself, it is as it stands the only one. While articles do use single references, it's usually in the context of a wider section/subject. Unless the story gained legs, any mention with a single source would be at best a footnote which is not, for lack of a better word now, "gel" with the section (whichever section that may be mind you). However while I also would take issue with its conclusion, I would still sit on it for the time being in case anything else does come up. For now though, not so much. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, now that a seemingly reliable source has appeared () this seems like even more of a non-story. All it really says is that an artist claims Sarkeesian "stole" some fan art she made, but the artist didn't create the character and doesn't remotely hold the copyright. Sarkeesian claims her use is commentary on the copyrighted character, which is fair use. It's a minor news footnote, not encyclopedia material.--Cúchullain /c 20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. Currently, Feminist Frequency is registered as a corporation, not a non profit organization: https://twitter.com/deviever/status/442039221482557440/photo/1 | That being said, you're partially right. She doesn't own the character. She owns her own art of the character, and has copyright automatically upon creation. Even if this is 'Fair use' per commentary, she still received money for it, and the fair use doctrine prohibits this as it's commercial use. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html | That's pretty much not the point. We have a reliable source that accurately depicts the incident and we're holding off from adding it...why? It's not libelious, and per WP:NPOV, we can make sure it depicts all sides in a neutral manner. Ging287 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ging287 Being a non-profit and being a corporation are not mutually exclusive. There are numerous corporations that are non-profits. In fact, you may HAVE to incorporate to be a non-profit. Have you ever heard of a non-profit individual? Some examples: Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR. Boy Scouts of America. All of those have corporate records that you can locate by searching the California Secretary of State site. The page even says that nonprofits are included. And here is a step-by-step guide on how to establish a non-profit corporation in California. This is exactly the type of problem that original research creates--armchair reporters who try to cobble together fact scraps, (some patently wrong,) and turn them into a hodgepodge of nothingness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems somebody have filed Feminist Frequency as a non-profit corporation (site doesn't tell who has filed or owns the corporation). http://www.wysk.com/index/california/walnut/mt8qeb8/feminist-frequency/profile# and that can be confirmed at https://businessfilings.sos.ca.gov/ using Secretary of State ID: C3587383 or name. The thing is its Incorporation Date: 07/05/2013 . Which is nearly same as the first video's release date (tinfoil hat; real reason for the production delay). Nosepea68 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Please don't engage in original research directly under the posts explaining that original research is inappropriate.--Cúchullain /c 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I repeated what the source says to show that this is basically a news footnote. Again, a disagreement mentioned in one reliable source (so far) is not encyclopedic material. Further, your own research and interpretation of the material may or may not be accurate, but they don't have bearing on the discussion per Misplaced Pages's no original research policy.--Cúchullain /c 22:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Cyphoid, I concede on that point. I am a reasonable person. I'm not going to go all out when you've plainly rebutted me. Cuchullain, here is another potentially reliable source. http://www.gamepolitics.com/2014/03/10/fan-artist-upset-over-feminist-frequencys-use-her-art Ging287 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
What is that source's editorial policy and expertise on the subject? Our article describes it as "a blog about the politics of computer and video games started by freelance journalist Dennis McCauley". Not particularly encouraging.--Cúchullain /c 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Copyright law is largely irrelevant to the particular incident about the fan art; every character in the logo is similarly copyrighted to their own authors, so the claim by CowKitty.net has no more weight for infringement than any other character; either the whole collage infringes, or none of it. What matters is that the reaction from the blogosphere has been reported by a major professional magazine, with Sarkeesian acknowledging the incident; that's two sources, one primary and another one secondary and independent, enough to provide due weight.
Given that the article already dedicates a big amount of space to everything reported by professional bloggers about the Kickstarter campaign and video series, this one article doesn't feel out of place; it merits at least a short one-liner, which is the amount of text that we have granted other similar writers covering the topic. Alternatively we could raise the bar for sources and reject every reference posted by a professional blogger, which would reduce the weight of coverage about the Tropes vs. Women series to a much more reasonable size for a biography. Diego (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
This trivia doesn't "merit" anything, as argued by numerous editors already. The "Tropes vs. Women" coverage does need to be reworked, especially as we now have an article on the series. Unfortunately little work has been done to either article.--Cúchullain /c 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually while I would argue against its merit as it stands, two sources (EDIT: more it seems now) is enough to not outright dismiss the story. As mentioned before I would still sit on it for the time being in case any follow stories appear. Granted WP:RSUW considered, being personally my bigger concern. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So the main qualm now is WP:RSUW? Ging287 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There are at least two qualms. First is that the sources that made a big deal about this "story" aren't reliable, and thus can't be used. The reliable sources that have picked it up make it clear that it's a pretty trivial fair use disagreement. Understanding that, we need to worry about the story receiving due weight, which may well mean no weight at all. There are a number of policies and guidelines that speak to why these kinds of stories may not be appropriate in articles even if they've come up in one or a few reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS; it's not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information; it needs to be careful articles don't become WP:COATRACKs where every bit of trivia gets inserted, especially in biographies of living people, etc. And yes, a number of these issues are explained in the WP:RSUW essay.--Cúchullain /c 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132778-Anita-Sarkeesian-Stole-my-Artwork-Claims-Blogger is a reliable source. They have an editorial policy. They are not blogs. They can be used. We are not reporting it as news, 1. It's not journalism. 2. We are not covering it as a news report. 3. Is not relevant. 4. It's not a diary. Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing. We aren't going to focus the entire article elaborating on the fair use controversy, but it does deserve a mention. 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ging287 (talk • contribs)
There exists a consensus that at this point, it does not deserve a mention. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus at this point. To use that as an excuse is trying to stifle discussion. Ging287 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My recommendation then, is to open a Request for comment. This will allow editors from varied backgrounds to contribute to the discussion as well as centralize and focus the discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Doing that now. Would you have a problem with this as the question, Should the Fair Use Controversy be mentioned on Anita Sarkeesian's Misplaced Pages Page? Ging287 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The question needn't be that vague. It would be better (since this page is a text wall) to summarize the dispute a la: "The subject of this biographical article, Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist commentator (or whatever she is described as) was accused by an artist of using without permission fan-art created by the artist. The art was used in a trailer promoting a feminist documentary. One reliable source has reported on the controversy. (link goes here) Can/should the details of this controversy be included in this biographical article?" Formatted for attractiveness and adherence to detail, of course. It might also be worth summarizing the pros and con arguments, though maybe not. Them's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've inserted most of your words except a select few into the question. Ging287 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
She's officially responded. http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had Can we include it now? Ging287 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mild Inconsistency?

Why is not allowing to link to the original artist who filed the public complaint against Anita allowed, but linking to Feminist Frequency's blog in citation #6 allowed? Can someone elaborate? Ging287 (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources (such as Anita's blog) may be used as sources about themselves, so long as it meets the criteria listed in the policy. As a primary source, it can only be used to cite straightforward statements of fact, such as the title of Anita's master's thesis. Novusuna 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So what's the problem about adding it as the sole source for the Fair Use controversy? Ging287 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that an encyclopaedia is not a newspaper. We don't create stories (see above comments and WP:NOTNEWS). DonQuixote (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right. We don't create stories. However, I believe that the Fair Use Controversy qualifies as a notable event, and Cowkitty.net, the website of the person making the claim is notable. Ging287 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Notability isn't determined by Misplaced Pages editors. See WP:NOTABILITY, particularly WP:NRV. DonQuixote (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. We're on the same page. The source is reliable per WP:RS and has received a ton of attention from the Internet at large. Also this on NRV: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Ging287 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So...as stated above, please provide the reliable sources that have provided "significant coverage", otherwise, not notable in the least. DonQuixote (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.cowkitty.net/ is the original source of the complainee, directly from the horse's mouth. Explain how that is not a reliable source. Ging287 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" refers to secondary sources, such as newspapers--please provide some of those. The link you keep referring to is a primary source, and using it means that we're creating a story and acting like a newspaper, which an encyclopaedia is not supposed to do. DonQuixote (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say that? Can you quote the bit I'm specifically violating? Linking me to an entire page and expecting me to find the relevant passage is unreasonable. Ging287 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Er...WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NRV, WP:PRIMARY...all of which I have specifically linked above. Please pay attention. DonQuixote (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."...second paragraph of the section WP:NRV.
"Misplaced Pages should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories"...bullet #1 of section WP:NOTNEWS.
And you have to read WP:PRIMARY yourself as that explains everything you need to know about primary, secondary and even tertiary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous section, so far I can only find The Escapist (magazine) story: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132778-Anita-Sarkeesian-Stole-my-Artwork-Claims-Blogger otherwise self published sources is really scraping the barrel. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Fair Use Controversy be mentioned on Anita Sarkeesian's Misplaced Pages Page?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Recently, there has been quite a huge discussion on the talk page with no clear consensus on whether it should or should not be included. Main concerns brought up were WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RSUW. The subject of this biographical article, Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist commentator, was accused by an artist of using without permission fan-art created by the artist. The art was used in her series, "Tropes vs Women", an online Youtube Video series intended to expose the bias against women in video games. One primary source, http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita (the artist's blog) and two other sources has reported on the controversy. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132778-Anita-Sarkeesian-Stole-my-Artwork-Claims-Blogger (a seemingly reliable source) and http://www.gamepolitics.com/2014/03/10/fan-artist-upset-over-feminist-frequencys-use-her-art (who's reliability has been brought into question) Can/should the details of this controversy be included in this biographical article?" Ging287 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include Move to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as a brief, single sentence mentioning the existence of the incident (plus the Escapist reference) and the change of the promotional logo because of it. The Escapist source is a stand-alone piece dedicated exclusively to report this controversy. It's worth nothing that the article contains other references of similar reliability (blog pieces by professional writers regularly stating their opinions at specialiced gaming magazines; these appear primarily in the Reception section), so this piece should be treated with similar weight. Diego (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Exclude: WP:GOSSIP states that the standards for biographical articles are high. In this case, the content being reported involves an accusation of impropriety by a single party, who, as the Escapist article states, may or may not even have a legitimate claim of a copyright violation. And, there is no indication Sarkeesian herself was directly responsible in the appropriation of the artist's drawing. There has been no court case, only an accusation. So then what is the story? That the subject may have done something? Inclusion does not meet the high standards of a BLP. Further, the "controversy" isn't particularly relevant to our understanding of the subject. It constitutes WP:UNDUE, as it serves as a platform for detractors to voice criticism of the subject through a scantly sourced, minor 'scandal'. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Include: Controversies are usually well documented on biographies, with a NPOV and generally fair credence given towards both sides. We have enough sources to justify at least a mention, whereas on other biographies, the controversies are usually only documented with 1-3 sources, or more depending on how big the controversy is. Also, the day of the controversy spiked on Reddit, was the day this page received almost 3500 views, compared to its usual 600. Currently, I feel as if it would be beneficial to include this event with a NPOV and accurate facts. Ging287 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Exclude as per Cyphoidbomb's arguments. If this is truly an encyclopedic incident, there will be significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and a definable outcome, rather than one marginal source which essentially just repeats unverified accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Exclude from both articles. I have no dispute with those who have raised this issue and framed the question in this RFC. The questions of copyright and fair use are central to the proper function of this encyclopedia and deserve discussion no matter the outcome. That said, I'm not seeing anything approaching BLP-threshold sourcing which would warrant inclusion. BLP policy states clearly that anything contentious must be cited with reliable sources. There's zero RS which clearly defines the terms of the alleged incident. Without RS we have no way of knowing the accuracy of any claims. We have a single self-published accusation and a single situationally reliable source repeating these claims with little in the way of verification. If page views have increased, this is more reason we should follow proper BLP policy and guideline here, not less. NPOV doesn't mean we include criticism just to be "fair" to critics. The sourcing benchmarks on BLPs require criticism to carry weight justified by independence and reliability. Given the lengthy and determined trolling history on this pagespace, we have reason to be especially skeptical of self-published and marginal sources. BusterD (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
As to User:Hahnchen's suggestion below this be included over at Tropes, I maintain we still have insufficient reliable sourcing for inclusion anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I'm not convinced of the truthfulness or significance of this incident, based on sourcing. I don't agree that The Escapist meets the standard for RS in this context. Video games, yes; copyright issues related to video games, less so, IMHO. If multiple more reliable sources appear, I might be inclined to revisit this discussion. BusterD (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you're raising the bar higher and higher. This line of argument could easily discount most coverage of Sarkeesian and the series, "Sure IGN is reliable for video games, but feminist critique of video games, no." As for gamepolitics.com, it's owned and run by the Entertainment Consumers Association, that's reliable enough for me. - hahnchen 17:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Hahnchen may choose to see it his or her way, but the bar has always been the same for me. Based on sourcing, I'm not convinced this material rises to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:GOSSIP) even IF provable. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper or blog aggregator. I'd need to see significant sourcing which makes a case for inclusion, and such has not been presented yet. I expressed willingness to reconsider my position if better sourcing is presented. The best coverage seems to be on Kate Reynold's blog, and while seemingly sensible she's not a professional writer (she only has six contributions) and her publisher accepts virtually any submissions with little editorial control. So she's not RS (and she doesn't think Sarkeesian has acted poorly, in any case). The Escapist has been offered several times to describe this subject and her work, and consensus has judged the source insufficiently reliable when offered. The author Steven Bogos claims to be "an avid gamer that lives in Japan as an English teacher." No claim of expertise or even familiarity with fair use doctrine is presented. IMHO, this non-event is just the kind of internet chatter which has tried to creep in to this subject area several times, only to find lack of consensus. Such insertions require better sourcing, and those asserting for inclusion should attempt to make stronger arguments if they expect to be taken seriously.BusterD (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why your judgement of Bogos is important, when The Escapist pay him to report news. Your argument that you need to be a lawyer to cover this reliably would easily translate to, "You need a degree in women's studies" in order to critique Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and thus shut down most of the sources. The only similar case I can think of, is Andy Baio's Kind of Bloop, and by chance, his article also references The Escapist. I'm also unsure of how you came to the conclusion that Reynold's is the best source when there's coverage from Destructoid, The Escapist and Entertainment Consumers Association's GamePolitics.com. It is internet chatter, what do you expect from a kickstarted web video series on video games? - hahnchen 01:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hahnchen, I think part of the issue is that there are many high quality sources available for Sarkeesian and her series, but this particular material only appears in sources that various editors have found questionable (or unusable in the case of self-published blogs). The editor who started this RfC is the one who presented this source as the best (or least problematic) of the ones they identified.--Cúchullain /c 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Exclude: The story is valid yet there is little beyond the very few sources available. Unless it develops further I would take issue due to WP:RSUW. So at it stands, no but I am open for future developments, if any. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The others, especially Cyphoidbomb, Alison, NorthBySouthBaranof, and BusterD, have already covered my main objections re undue weight. I'll add another objection that BusterD touched on: the source named in the proposal as "seemingly reliable", the Escapist piece, is actually questionable. I hadn't noticed before, but The Escapist is listed as a "situational source" by WP:VG/RS. This means not every piece it publishes is assumed to be reliable for video game topics (let alone copyright law and media criticism); editors may need to demonstrate that a particular author is reliable. In this case, the author claims no particular expertise on relevant topics; his biography says he's an English teacher. As this is the best source identified, this non-story is hardly a "significant view" that needs to be included in an encyclopedic BLP as of yet.
I'll also say that these endless back and forths on trivial matters are frustrating when so much work remains to be done on the articles. There was no consensus for this addition in the previous discussion, and this RfC just reiterates what we already knew.--Cúchullain /c 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
As someone who is familiar with the sources at WP:VG/RS, The Escapist is reliable for news. It's tagged as "situational" because it also hosts video series which are primarily entertainment rather than information (like Fox in a way). As I mention below, I believe this is more suited to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games article. - hahnchen 05:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, Hahnchen. I still feel this information should be excluded, however. The Escapist piece is presented as the best source available for the material, but it's written by someone with no apparent expertise in relevant topics, in a publication that's questionably reliable in at least some circumstances. As such it doesn't do enough to establish this copyright issue is a "significant viewpoint" on this subject. Even if we accept that this source is usable, it doesn't mean we must use it, especially as this is a potentially serious claim about a living person, and especially in light of the various other high quality sources available for Sarkeesian and her series.-Cúchullain /c 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As it's been brought up by a few different editors, I want to clarify that I oppose including this material either here or in Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.--Cúchullain /c 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Everybody else says the same things I would have anyway. This is a private matter between Sarkeesian and the artist. The only "controversy" would be that which is manufactured by adding undue weight to the incidence. Misplaced Pages is not here to crowd source opinion, or remark upon every instance of drama on the internet. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Comparing sexual harassment reported in several high profile news sources, a matter of public record, and a settlement suit to whether or not someone may or may not have appropriated an image that may or may not have breached copyright are clearly not equal. That argument is a prime example of "undue weight". Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Anita_Responds_to_Fan_Art_Controversy . It's also been covered by Daily Dot, the same source used in Trope vs Women's "Reception". Ging287 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

All three of the positions detailed above are reasonable enough. Mentioning something that has been covered in independent reliable sources makes sense, as long as it's done in a way that's neutral (i.e. doesn't draw conclusions about the validity of the complaint). Also, leaving it out as minor and ephemeral makes sense; it seems unlikely that this will be considered one of the major points of Sarkeesian's biography through the lens of history. (And if I'm wrong, that's always something that can be corrected later.) One thing I do disagree with, is that the 600- to 3500-view spike should influence the decision. It seems most likely to me that if people were reading about the controversy on Reddit or elsewhere, they came to Misplaced Pages to gain context for understanding that story. Just like somebody reading about a controversy of any public figure might seek out general information about the person. Anyway, I'm mu-ving on. There's more interesting work to be done on this 'pedia. -Pete (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The main reason why I included that in my opinion is because it was a huge bump in views on this page. Indeed, people were likely looking for a encyclopedic view on the controversy and found none on this page. While not necessarily a sole argument for why it should be included, I'd say it's somewhat telling. I didn't mean it as a vitriol or a cheap shot at Cyphoidbomb. Ging287 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No slight was perceived. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
New response from Anita herself; http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had Ging287 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Anita Responds to Fan Art Controversy

Presented without comment. Zero Serenity (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So for all of you people who originally rejected including it on her Misplaced Pages page, she's now officially responded to it. Ging287 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Great, and? Firstly, it's not her Misplaced Pages page. Secondly, I still maintain that this doesn't seem any more noteworthy than if the subject had any other civil dispute with any other citizen. "Sarkeesian was lecturing at a golf course and took off across the course with a golf cart that belonged to a member, believing that the golf cart was free to use. She later apologized for using the golf cart." What is the point? Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to report on the minutia of everybody's lives, and unless Sarkeesian becomes a notorious copyright thief as time goes on, this doesn't appear to be a historically significant event. And WP:UNDUE still appears to be a valid argument for its exclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The logo of the video series has changed because of it, so it has had a persistent effect on its branding. If only for this reason, the change of the logo because it included fan art should be mentioned at the article whose subject is specifically the video series. Diego (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. This is not a significant minority view. Anita herself has responded to it.
The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all.
There's no more reliable source than straight from the horse's mouth on the original dissenter's side.
WP:UNDUE is meant to make sure that minority views are not represented, however a significant dispute which again, she responded to is significant enough to include. Ging287 (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
An RFC is ongoing. When wikipedians disagree as to interpretation of pillars, policies and guidelines, we measure consensus. If at the close of the RFC consensus finds the material should be included, it will be included. If consensus doesn't find it warrants inclusion, the material will stay out. I've given my reasons above. This recent posting doesn't move my opinion at all. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Ging, respectfully, undue isn't limited to the snippets you've provided: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:BALASPS) This is consistent with my position that this event is not relevant to our presentation of the subject. The subject is a feminist commentator. That is what she is known for. That she or her organization misappropriated fanart doesn't improve our understanding of what the subject is known for anymore than a civil dispute about a misappropriated golf cart could teach us about the subject. The "minority view" in this case would be the view of the detractors who wish to paint the subject as immoral, or error prone, or whatever that minority agenda is. The only reason why it is being proposed, is because to her detractors, it represents a tasty morsel of controversy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that there are editors out there who do appear to be looking for criticism for the sake of criticism (hence why I am watching this article to begin with), currently it has been civil and retained a good level of WP:GOODFAITH. Having said that, I do however see a degree of merit for this subject being moved to FF/Tropes article instead, at least within the talkpage. Given that there multiple sources (IE more than just the Escapist that seems to keep only being brought up) and an acknowledgment form the original source, I would be less inclined at this stage to dismiss it outright than before. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Currently, there is nothing preventing you from editing or starting up a new section for the source of claims/addendums that you wish to add. There is no page protection, no vandalistic edits/reverts on the talk page. No cursing, no swearing, no nothing inhibiting you from adding/discussing what you like. Ging287 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That may be the best option; it looks like too much weight for a biography, but it's related to the marketing image of the video series - as the promotional logo used the fan art, and now has been changed because of it. Changing my !vote. Diego (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The response from Sarkeesian just confirms how much of a non-issue this was: the most sensational claims are false, there's no legal issue, and the only thing to come of it is that Sarkeesian swapped out some art in a banner. It doesn't change my opinion at all, in fact I'm even more convinced this little footnote is totally unencyclopedic and inappropriate for either article. I'm with Cyphoid, and I reiterate my frustration that we've spent nearly two weeks on this pointless ephemera when necessary improvements and much better available sources remain on the sidelines.--Cúchullain /c 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
No one here wants to get frustrated. While I understand and even agree with your valid points (it is a very minor story), there still seems to be reasonable doubt amongst others that won't go away and I can even see their perspective to a degree. I for one would rather see this moved to the other article, that much can be agreed upon, especially if there are apparent pending improvements. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Joe. I don't know that the fact some editors keep bringing this episode up really signifies that it's important, only that those editors think it is, for reasons that may or may not mesh with Misplaced Pages standards and policy. Personally, I oppose this material being included in either article based on the sources we currently have, regardless of where it's discussed.--Cúchullain /c 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What would need to happen for you to agree with inclusion? What level of sourcing would you consider enough for mentioning the existence of this event in one of the articles? Is there a point at which you would think that it's rational to cover the event based on some amount of available sources? Diego (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not how it works. The burden of evidence is on the folks who want to add the material; if you want it included, you present your evidence and arguments. I'm not particularly interested in getting into some hypothetical contingency that would rationalize including material that's currently inappropriate.--Cúchullain /c 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"Not how it works"? I'm asking how much evidence, and of what nature, would YOU consider enough to satisfy BURDEN. Should I infer that no amount of evidence in the world would be enough for you to change your mind? Diego (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That's being a bit unfair, Diego. I suspect if Time Magazine made Sarkeesian person of the year, and listed Sarkeesian's handling of this controversy a key factor in the publication's decision-making, User:Cuchullain might be persuaded. I'm also certain a somewhat smaller threshold of sourcing might be persuasive to Cúchullain. But that user is under no obligation to identify the precise threshold which would satisfy. I agree with that user this non-event is a tempest in a teapot and has no place in a biography or an article about the series, adding nothing significant about either. Just because something is true and verifiable doesn't make it encyclopedic. When we disagree about these issues, we measure consensus. Establishing consensus is more about light than heat, IMHO. So I encourage everyone to stay calm and edit Misplaced Pages. BusterD (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I only ask because the amount of references for this subject is already higher than several opinions by commentators that happen to have been included in the article; yet there doesn't seem to be a point where those with an "Exclude" position would admit that this subject has enough weight for inclusion either at this or the other article, with most opinions against it being subjective and based on personal feelings or unexplained application of policy. If they offered some rational arguments for including or including references and applied them consistently for all sources, it would be much easier to take that position seriously. At least Cyphoidbomb voices the underlying concern against this coverage, that any form of criticism would amount to "scoring points" for Sarkeesian critics - but then WP:CENSOR is not a valid reason to avoid including content when it *has* been covered by several reliable sources in a responsible manner. In any other WP:AUTHOR article, a disagreement about copyright law that prompted the author to change the main logo with which the video series is identified, it would merit at least a one-liner explaining the change without much ado, as marketing and commercial identification are consistently deemed important enough to merit coverage (even inclusion of non-free images under the strict criteria for NFC); but not on this one. Diego (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Diego Moya, can we please get some examples of these other articles where this has happened? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Would that make a difference in your position? Diego (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not. Would likely be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument anyway. But if you're going to suggest that it's common, I would respectfully ask for evidence indicating that it's common. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Diego Moya, since you're asking me personally, I'd say that if this little episode were substantively covered in multiple sources that were unquestionably reliable for directly relevant topics, we could talk about if and how we should include the material. That's just to open the discussion - it wouldn't mean we should, let alone must, include it. It still depends on how significant the episode is in the context of all sources for Sarkeesian and her work. Articles, at least good articles, aren't written by ticking boxes or "satisfying" minimum inclusion thresholds. They're written by consulting the best available sources and accurately representing what they say in a neutral, balanced, and encyclopedic manner. In this case it's all just hypothetical - we can't very well make decisions based on sources that don't exist. It's a distraction from the real question, which is whether the sources we actually have indicate that this copyright disagreement is a significant episode to the topic and justify its inclusion. In my mind, and evidently in the minds of most participants, the answer to that question is no.--Cúchullain /c 19:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It has been covered by The Daily Dot by the same writer who's opinion is already referenced in Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games#Reception. - hahnchen 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that source up, Hahnchen. Daily Dot has been discussed a few times here and it seems to be fine; as you say the publication and author are cited here already (though that particular material will ultimately be moved over to the Tropes article). It's a much better source than the others, however I remain unconvinced it's enough to establish this episode is a significant viewpoint considering the WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP implications.--Cúchullain /c 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the source Hahnchen, although I would argue that some other sources are still valid. I will definitely agree with Cuchullain for this article, although I'll still recommend for the time being this being put in Tropes talkpage. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
And this is precisely why Misplaced Pages is not news. We can afford to wait to find out what happens rather than rushing to throw barely-supported and fourth-hand allegations into articles. It turns out this is literally a nothingburger. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


@Cyphoidbomb: My position is not that it's a common occurence -that's your own wording- as much as that it's a reasonable position to hold, given the standards encoded in policy that drive coverage of marketing and brading throughout the whole project. It's unlikely that other articles happen to be in the exact same situation as this one, nor that was my position; but NFCI has a common understanding that marketing, branding, and identification information implicitly provide contextual significance to topics discussed by reliable sources, in particular for commentary of non-free images as is the logo discussed in this RfC; you should explain why this commonly held criterion doesn't provide significance at this case. Anyway, as you don't regard as relevant the other instances of logos under copyright contentions, I'll withheld the several examples that I had in mind of changes to logos and branding of products that happened because of concerns of copyright and trademark.

@Cúchullain: So far, so good - May I ask you why you don't always maintain the same position with respect to the references currently used to document the harassment and reception sections? There is definitely a double standard at place in this talk page where every author that wouldn't cast Sarkeesian in the best light is required to have both and degree in sociology, cultural studies and video game criticism, and where even sources deemed as reliable are cast into doubt the moment they decide to reflect a shred of criticism of the person and her work (even if otherwise they defend her to their heart), while no similar credentials are ever required for writers of articles that happen to praise her work.

I shall remind you that the number of editors holding a position should not hold as much weight as the arguments with which those positions are defended. I've seen much links to policy here, and very little discussion of the criteria that these policies establish as relevant for including or excluding topics. What would be the content of the policy that justifies this as having undue weight? This is not a flat Earth theory, it's about an issue with the image that the author herself has acknowledged. And where is the majority position about the copyright issue against which this one is in a minority position, therefore much less prominent, to the point that it should be completely hidden? When analyzing the criteria established by WP:UNDUE, they don't seem all that relevant at all, neither does mentioning this incident with neutral words seem to have any BLP implication. Is because of this that you don't discuss the content of the policies themselves, and limit your arguments to the name of the policy? As the event will permanently affect the commercial identification and branding of the video series, WP:NOTNEWS (which is about routine announcements of transient relevance) is not relevant either - any explanation of why the current logo is not the same one as the one used in the original Kickstarter campaign will necessarily need to mention this incident, so it's already part of the permanent record for the series.

A neutral point of view is to be decided primarily by what reliable sources deem worthy of coverage, rather than how editors happen to feel about that coverage. When those sources have identified a topic as noteworthy, neutrality requires that it is covered to at least some degree even if it's a point of view that you personally don't agree with. Diego (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for outlining your argument in a general manner, this section has become somewhat convoluted in structure. While previously I have held the view that this story may not be necessary due to the lack of sources/coverage, by this stage given the multiple references from reliable sources, including sources already mentioned along with the both first parties in the story, does hold merit. However as Diego has mentioned the the issue being with the branding, by this stage the story does seem more relevant to the series rather than the creator. What is slightly funny in a way though that despite all of the debate thus far, said piece IF included will more than likely only be a couple of sentences (within the Reception?) at best, so I find this whole situation to be something on an interesting test case even if we still don't agree in the near future. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Diego I concede that "common" was my interpretation. I apologize. You said "In any other WP:AUTHOR article, a disagreement about copyright law that prompted the author to change the main logo with which the video series is identified, it would merit at least a one-liner..." I was curious about the "in any other" aspect of the claim you were making, since no examples were provided. But whatevs. Also, my core argument isn't about censorship, my core argument is that not everything matters. We are allowed, and even encouraged to be discriminating about the sort of content we include, particularly for BLPs. I've been fairly clear about this point and how it relates to my argument. I recall a "scandal" many months ago where American actress Jamie Pressly accused another actress, Estella Warren, of stealing a purse from a party. There was coverage in a number of sources, Pressly gave an interview that detailed the allegations and talked about how she and her friend tracked down the purse by turning on the iPhone locator, blah blah blah. The scandal made a brief appearance in the article, (and I believe I was complicit in copyediting and finding sources, etc,) but another editor deleted the block for BLP issues (if memory serves me) and I remember thinking that was a decent call and that I probably should have removed it. My point is, that not everything requires mention, and I doubt Britannica would dignify such a triviality as this fanart kerfuffle. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Diego, I "maintain the same position" for all material, particularly if it's potentially controversial material about a living person, like this is. And more importantly, so does Misplaced Pages. Material I've added is mostly from academic publications and reputable newspapers; if there's a problem with any of it, bringing it up directly is a much better way to resolve the issue than hand-waving insinuations. The real "double standard" here is on the introducing end; for whatever reason people don't argue for weeks in support of poorly-sourced trivia when it's uncontroversial or flattering. As for requiring that sources have some "credentials" in the subjects they discuss, well, that comes from Misplaced Pages policy, and the fact that I've made an effort to become familiar with the range and quality of sources available for this topic rather than just relying on whatever happens to pop up in a Google search.--Cúchullain /c 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You've also claimed several times that the collage is the "logo of the video series" or some such; this is false. As the Escapist piece and Sarkeesian's response make clear, it's the image used in the Kickstarter for the series. This is what's actually used in the series. The collage did get circulated in sources, especially older ones, but it's been less common since the series actually started.--Cúchullain /c 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well pardon me as that's not my claim, this is how it's identified in the Daily Dot article. The image is still used in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games image album. Diego (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Daily Dot and your comments are wrong. It's a subtle but significant distinction when you're trying to make claims about the impact of the disagreement.--Cúchullain /c 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a little comment, but ask this question, "How much of this will be covered in a ~400-page biography?" That is, an encyclopaedia article should not cover every detail just the major ones. So if this thing will take of up pages and pages or even a chapter in a 400-page biography, then it should be covered here. If this thing will only be a few sentences or even just a footnote, it probably shouldn't be covered in a relatively short encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Cúchullain /c 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, yes. While some have argued such, I have no issue with any of the perfectly reliable sources presented. However I had been sitting on them in the event the story would develop beyond what would end up as a simple throwaway sentence at the bottom on the article. By this stage I would say it is safe to assume that it won't develop any more, further more I can't see this article overall being greatly expanded in the foreseeable future either. So at this stage, a minor story casually and quietly brought up then immediately settled doesn't seem like a good fit to an already currently minor article/work in progress. While not the best comparison, I've read many legitimate stories on political figures that never made it into the article since the story didn't add much overall. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ambassador Award 2014

She got 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards honour her with Ambassador Award 2014. Not sure these are RS but anyway here goes. http://www.joystiq.com/2014/02/11/game-developers-choice-awards-honor-anita-sarkeesian-riot-found/ , http://www.polygon.com/2014/2/11/5401754/gdc-choice-awards-2014-feminist-frequency-league-of-legends , http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2014-game-developers-choice-awards-honoring-feminist-frequency-creator-anita-sarkeesian-with-ambassador-award-riot-games-brandon-beck-and-marc-merrill-with-pioneer-award-244904611.html . So maybe add a section named Awards or slip it in somewhere else in BLP? Perhaps add it in the fork too. Nosepea68 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Already added under Feminist Frequency. Some other placement may be better, maybe it will become clearer as the page is cleaned up.--Cúchullain /c 04:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd put it in the top part as she got it as a person who created Feminist Frequency. Nosepea68 (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cúchullain, she's nominated for Women in Gaming Ambassador Award . Perhaps worth mentioning in Awards and recognition? The best source I found was http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/213512/Anita_Sarkeesian_more_up_for_nominations_at_Women_in_Gaming_Awards.php

Nosepea68 (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This fraud still up?

No, editor still haven't found out she's a darn gullible abuser? She's asserting shit without evidence, I discard them without evidence.

¨¨¨¨

Categories:
Talk:Anita Sarkeesian: Difference between revisions Add topic