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 12:41, 7 July 2014 view sourceZero Serenity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,042 edits This was lost during the purge, maybe it's useful otherwise← Previous edit Revision as of 00:20, 9 July 2014 view source Radon210 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers20,275 edits →POV Check Nomination: new sectionNext edit →
Line 76: Line 76:
:Please feel free to present any reliably-sourced criticism of the subject here. ] (]) 21:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC) :Please feel free to present any reliably-sourced criticism of the subject here. ] (]) 21:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
::The editor who received the topic ban earned it through long, well-documented, disruptive behavior on this particular article. ] ] 21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ::The editor who received the topic ban earned it through long, well-documented, disruptive behavior on this particular article. ] ] 21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

== POV Check Nomination ==

Hello, I would like to have this article reviewed to ensure that it complies with the established Neutral Point of View requirements. I was unfamiliar with the subject and wanted to learn more so I skimmed the article. From a cursory reading of the article, it was alarming to me that the only reception to ''Tropes vs Video Games'' was positive. Upon searching for more information elsewhere, I quickly learned that her series on Video Games was far from free of controversy. From a quick Google search I was able to find criticism that is not mentioned that I find to be relevant.
* is a blog, however it does provide tangible evidence that the game footage presented in her videos has not been recorded by her. This likely doesn't meet the letter of the reliable sourcing policy, but the very first reference in the references section is also a blog and also likely falls short of that standard.
* is a magazine article criticizing the number of videos she's put out given the large sum of money she received in funding. It is clearly an opinion article but so are several of the references listed for other elements of the reception.
I was able to discover this criticism from a quick google search and it made me question the neutrality of the article. I'm sure there is more that deeper digging would be able to reveal. That being said, when I put the tag on the article originally, I was under the impression that I could nominate the article and that would signal uninvolved editors to assess the situation. I don't have strong feelings, I just think it's something that should be looked at more closely by uninvolved individuals.

(Thanks to ] for informing me of the proper procedure) ]]] 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:20, 9 July 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 
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.
Articles for deletionThis 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 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...

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 


The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Criticism

Both her arguments and business model have come under considerable attack. None of these are mentioned in the article. This is one-sided, and makes it appear that her many assertions are unchallenged. Despite the amount of controversy she has raised, the article makes it appear that the only resistance she faced was from anonymous misogynists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringgrip (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Ringgrip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's because the attacks were from "anonymous misogynists". We would certainly include criticism from reliable, third-party published sources but nobody has managed to find any. If you have any suggestions, feel free to include them here and we can discuss. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This article violates NPOV throughout, there are many reliable sources and people who have criticism about Anita yet non are mentioned in the article
to be totally honest this article should be AFD'd she really isn't notable or encyclopaedia worthy in the grand scheme of things 77.97.151.145 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's cute. I see you attempted to justify your position by posting this article before removing it. But you didn't even bother to read it apparently. You have no interest in making this article better, you just want to attack Anita. So if you want to contribute, realize that you have to back up everything you say with a reliable source that you read and understand, not one you spent five seconds searching the internet for. Zero Serenity 02:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Zero Serenity, it must be noted that WP:BITE is to be followed along with assume good faith, even for IP editors. One of my main contributions was to this page where I eventually learned by my own knife Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Claiming that someone just wants to 'attack Anita' is an assumption of malicious intent, which I think that the user has not earned. Instead, I believe that they should be instructed on the ways of reliable sources, why there is no criticism, among other reasonable things. Tutelary (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations on this talk page

Please stop with the reverts and discuss this here.

Personally, I feel that the statements can and should be redacted or removed per WP:BLPTALK and WP:TPO. The IP editor is trolling or engaging in personal attacks, even though it's couched in terms of "improving" the article. Allowing anything and everything as long as the magic words "None of these are mentioned in the article." violates the spirit—if not the letter—of our BLP policy. Opinions? Woodroar (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK specifically excludes content related to content choices. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate It is directly related to making content choices, contesting why there is no criticism or mention of it in the article. They weren't supposing something heinous, they were supposing some common notion that Anita's critics have. I strongly oppose redacting anyone's content unless it is blatantly, irrevocably and unambiguously disruptive. This was not. Additionally, others' comments should not be edited. Tutelary (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That "notion" was not supported by any reliable source which would enable us to include such content. That puts the cart before the horse. If there's no sources, there's no content we can even discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The policy is clear. What we are dealing with are entirely-unsupported, entirely-unsourced allegations of criminal behavior — literally libel.
If the editor presented a reliable source which said the same things, it would not be removed under BLP, because it would be relevant to a content choice — Is that reliable source's POV worthy of inclusion? That would be a proper subject of reasoned debate.
But that's not what we have here. We have an anonymous drive-by IP editor on the talk page of a controversial person's biography making entirely unsupported, unsourced and original research allegations of criminal wrongdoing. There is no content choice because there is no content that we could possibly include under any reading of Misplaced Pages policy. It cannot possibly be related to a content choice — it exists only to troll and denigrate a living person.
We are under no obligation to allow our talk pages to be used by anonymous people to troll and denigrate living people. In fact, it's explicitly prohibited by policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Reinforcing Dreadstar's warning, BLP is not an optional policy nor is it subject to negotiation. Defamation on this talkpage (or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages) will result in sanctions. The original 21 June edit and intervening edits to its removal on 5 July have been deleted from the history. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced much

Article by the subjects fans, completely slanted in the subjects favor. Just look at the great references used...

  1. Ms. Magazine. - a women's rights/feminist magazine blog
  2. A salon article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, who "will fight to the death for feminism"
  3. Three references to helen lewis' blog, a feminist and Amanda Marcotte article, another feminist
  4. Guardian article by Hermione Hoby, another feminist
  5. Gamespot article by Carolyn Petit, another feminist
  6. Bitch, another feminist mag that the subject has an official interest with
  7. Lots of sourcing to the subject themselves

Clearly, there a plenty of users defending this article and removing any chance of balancing it out..

  • Source claims of bullying/harassment to feminist blogs, whilst removing any equally pov/non-notable/unreliable etc critically sourced infocheckY
  • Use sources mostly to feminist supporters and statements of subject themselvescheckY
  • Ban anyone who attempts to introduce any critical infocheckY
  • Tropes vs. Women in Video Games - cover all harassment in explicit detail, yet don't even mention the copyright incidentcheckY
  • Is subjects article now free from all criticism and slanted in the subjects favor? Confirmed.--SurferJimmy (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to present any reliably-sourced criticism of the subject here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The editor who received the topic ban earned it through long, well-documented, disruptive behavior on this particular article. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

POV Check Nomination

Hello, I would like to have this article reviewed to ensure that it complies with the established Neutral Point of View requirements. I was unfamiliar with the subject and wanted to learn more so I skimmed the article. From a cursory reading of the article, it was alarming to me that the only reception to Tropes vs Video Games was positive. Upon searching for more information elsewhere, I quickly learned that her series on Video Games was far from free of controversy. From a quick Google search I was able to find criticism that is not mentioned that I find to be relevant.

  • is a blog, however it does provide tangible evidence that the game footage presented in her videos has not been recorded by her. This likely doesn't meet the letter of the reliable sourcing policy, but the very first reference in the references section is also a blog and also likely falls short of that standard.
  • is a magazine article criticizing the number of videos she's put out given the large sum of money she received in funding. It is clearly an opinion article but so are several of the references listed for other elements of the reception.

I was able to discover this criticism from a quick google search and it made me question the neutrality of the article. I'm sure there is more that deeper digging would be able to reveal. That being said, when I put the tag on the article originally, I was under the impression that I could nominate the article and that would signal uninvolved editors to assess the situation. I don't have strong feelings, I just think it's something that should be looked at more closely by uninvolved individuals.

(Thanks to NorthBySouthBaranof for informing me of the proper procedure) Radon 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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