Misplaced Pages

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 19:31, 29 July 2014 (Signing comment by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 - "→Tropes vs. Women in Video Games: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:31, 29 July 2014 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 - "→Tropes vs. Women in Video Games: ")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

Find RS for proposed content and submit in a new thread, be extremely cautious about WP:BLP violations in any discussions. Dreadstar ☥ 22:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violations on this talk page

Any new discussions about RS or BLP should be started in a new thread. Let me reiterate the warnings given here: further WP:BLP violations on the article or this talkpage will be met with an immediate block. Dreadstar ☥ 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)
What exactly would be considered reliable sources? I'm asking this because at this point I don't know anymore what you consider to be reliable sources. I have no trouble finding reliable information out there about either her or her work that pretty much destroy the validity of this article. I don't know why you (the article editors) have trouble doing that. So, what exactly are reliable sources? (don't bother linking me to this page because I already know about it) Skaruts (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Skaruts: What don't you understand about that page or what was rejected on here that you feel meets the definitions set out on WP:RS? --NeilN 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case, reliable would be from a source known for news. So, let's say Kotaku had criticism (or praise) for her, that could be considered reliable under WP:VG/S. On the other side of her spectrum, Ms. Magazine would work pretty well (said magazine notably went after Lauren Faust and MLP:FIM, so don't think they aren't critical of themselves). If you're looking for something more general, try a major news organization, like the Associated Press or Reuters. Zero Serenity 14:13, 25 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

Find RS for proposed content and submit in a new thread, be extremely cautious about WP:BLP violations in any discussions. Dreadstar ☥ 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Unbalanced Much? the answer is a resounding NOPE. We appropriate represent the mainstream academic views of the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV Check Nomination

Per Cuchullain, the talk page is for discussing article improvements; general discussion of the topic - including personal interpretations of what's happening in the youtube discourse - violate the talk page guidelines and WP:NOTAFORUM policy. Dreadstar ☥ 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The first link you give is a post on someone's personal Blogspot account. "Vicsor's Opinion" is not a reliable source.
The second link you give is a self-published personal opinion blog post. Buying a domain does not confer status as a reliable source. "The Spearhead" is not a reliable source.
Neither of your links can be considered for use in this article.
The blog you note as being used as a reference is published under the auspices of a well-established reliable source with defined editorial controls and a reputation for some semblance of reliability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As NBSB points out above, neither of the links you give meet our standards for reliable sources. Unless/until criticism is contained in sources that do meet those standards, this article won't contain such criticisms, even if they are levied in parts of the blogosphere. If you find reliable sources that *do* contain criticism of her work, they should certainly be included, although only in due weight to the prevalence in which they are found in reliable sources. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
We've discussed this a fair bit, and I think generally everyone agrees that well sourced criticism should be added to the article, should some emerge. The problem has been that there hasn't been sufficient significant criticism outside of blogs, youtube videos and forums. It isn't particularly surprising, given that most of her videos are of the "sky is blue" variety - they cover something that clearly needs to be said, but the claims in themselves aren't really open to criticism. The exception has been the secondary issues you raise, but there we hit sourcing issues, and the concerns either proved not to be warranted or haven't been established in more reliable sources. For example, The Spearhead article reads like a very biased opinion piece, and the issue it raises (that she hadn't released a video) is no longer relevant. There is an anti-Sarkeesian undercurrent in some forums and blogs, and they raise some potentially valid concerns, but as far as I can tell those concerns haven't reached the level of sourcing that we need to include them. - Bilby (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That may well be true, but I wasn't suggesting that those sources necessarily be included. I just want an outside person to look at the article and assess its neutrality. If you believe that the article is unarguably neutral and needs no such review, I am more than willing to defer to your judgement as you are clearly more familiar with the subject matter. It is my opinion that it may not be and it would benefit from an outside reviewer looking at it. I am also not surprised that the most prevalent criticism of someone that makes videos on YouTube is on YouTube. That is all I have to say, I really don't have strong feelings Radon 00:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There's really nothing to look at unless there are additional reliable sources we're missing, or if currently used sources are problematic or improperly represented. There are definitely sources we're missing, but I haven't found any that really criticize Sarkeesian or the series. If YouTube videos or any other self-published sources are really the source of the most prevalent criticism, then excluding them is the right decision.--Cúchullain /c 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I just stumbled over this recently, so I am not as informed as others regarding the edit history of the article. While I do understand the argument why YouTube videos of people's opinions of Ms. Anita Sarkeesian work can't be considered notable, in and of themselves, I do have a bit of a concern that the result is that the article seemingly portrays all of her detractors as misogynistic because the admittedly shocking and upsetting misogyny made more high-profile news than the legitimate criticism.
Some of these non-misogynistic critics mentioned are women who levy criticism at Sarkeesian for a host of different reasons, while at the same time decrying similar aspects of gaming that Sarkeesian herself assails.
From what one can discern, the most common complaint by female gamers is that Ms. Sarkeesian represents herself to be a long-time avid gamer in her work, troubled by experiencing years worth of negative feminine stereotypes, while there is a video on the internet of Sarkeesian herself, admitting the following when she began her work in 2010, "I'm not a fan of video games, I actually had to learn a lot of video games in the process of making this." - (http://vimeo.com/13216819)
"Gamer" is not synonymous with "fan of video games", says the guy who started playing Avalon Hill games in the 1960s and D&D in 1975, and saw sexism already in the hobby in those days. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You have seen Ms. Sarkeesian's videos, right? The ones on YouTube, probably the main reason why she has this article? The videos show her as a young girl, enjoying playing the video game "Super Mario Bros." The purpose was to show her as a long-time avid gamer in the video game sense. It was to give her criticism more validity, her videos take on what she perceives to be sexism in video gaming, (chiefly in the games themselves and not the hobby), and she approaches the issue as more than a feminist but as a feminist gamer. That, in light of her comments in the linked video is why she gets all the criticism from real, avid female gamers. It is a disagreement between feminists, albeit between a somewhat semi-famous one and largely unknown ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.48.121 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, unless this has been addressed in reliable sources there's nothing to discuss here. The talk page is for discussing article improvements; general discussion of the topic - including personal interpretations of what's happening in the youtube discourse - violate the talk page guidelines and WP:NOTAFORUM policy.--Cúchullain /c 21:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image to place

Given that I found this original photo on Flickr, it's been uploaded to commons as it has a good license and imho, may have a place on this article. It's a professional photo of Anita speaking a media conference. Does it have a place on the article? Of course I don't mean that every image of her is to be used on this article; but this particular one I think could be in some fashion. File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Anita_Sarkeesian_2013.jpg Tutelary (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How about on the right side of the Awards and Recognition section? Zero Serenity 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. I've no knowledge about how to place images or what dimensions to use. Though it's 6.5 megs, so it may need to be downsized a bit. Tutelary (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a try. Otherwise, do you think anybody has a profile photo of her that's a bit more recent than 2011 that we can use? Zero Serenity 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

RS/N

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Take note of this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journalist_connected_to_the_subject if it hasn't already been posted to this page. Dreadstar ☥ 22:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Now archived: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Journalist_connected_to_the_subject Dreadstar ☥ 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

Suggest change to first sentence:

On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog, and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.

To:

On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of 12 short videos to be delivered by August, 2012 that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog, and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.


Bold only to highlight changes. No changes to references, all information included in source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:B02A:CC9D:8D5E:DBB4 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? That's out-of-date information. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Because it is verbatim what is defined on the Kickstarter page , I don't see where it is "outdated" and it is very much what was advertised on kickstarter... 12 videos with an estimated delivery of August 2012. If it later changed, say that too, but you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:B02A:CC9D:8D5E:DBB4 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Verbatim? I see five videos saying estimated delivery: Aug 2012 --NeilN 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
From the kickstarter linked in as a source in the article, "With your help, I’ll produce a 5-video series (now expanded to 12 videos) entitled Tropes vs Women in Video Games"
The backer rewards are estimated Aug 2012, no release date is promised for the videos. This is almost definitely part of the 'she ripped people off' argument.Euchrid (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, from the kickstarter linked as a source , most rewards are Aug 2012, However there are 2 rewards that include "complete DVD sets of the series" with delivery dates of DEC 2012. So it could be argued DEC 2012 is the valid date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:b02a:cc9d:8d5e:dbb4 (talk • contribs)
All the important details of the kickstarter campaign are described at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Crowdfunding via Kickstarter--the important parts being how she amended her goals after receiving more money to work with. As I said, out-of-date information considering that her goals were updated during the fundraising. DonQuixote (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that "the delay led some critics to question how she was using the money", it's not outdated information - it's something that affected the reception of the series. I wouldn't find it out of place at the Kickstarter campaign section. It's true that the change of schedule is already covered at Production, but the detail that 5 videos were originally planned and later were expanded to 12 is currently not mentioned anywhere. Diego (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In the real world, everything takes longer and costs more. This did not genuinely affect the reception of the series, it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme that her haters keep trying to shoehorn into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please WP:AGF instead of making personal attacks? Are you saying that Fruzsina Eördögh's (from ReadWrite) opinion is not to be taken into account as analysis of the series production? It's really tiresome that any proposed change which can't be seen as unambiguous praise must be defended against accusations of being part of the harassment campaign. Diego (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Minute details of the project are already mentioned at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, particularly Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Production. This article provides a general overview, and such outdated information is out-of-place here and as such will be given undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Obviously this request is in part an attempt to make Sarkeesian look bad, but it's also based on confusing the sources (or not reading them). The article suffered when we created the (unnecessary) Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and then made minimal effort to improve either article.
The Tropes... article already explains what happened (this one does too, in less detail). In fact, since it's only attributed to the Kickstarter announcements, it may not even be necessary for that article. At any rate, contrary to what the anon says, Sarkeesian's original plan was for five videos, not twelve. After the Kickstarter reached its goal quickly, Sarkeesian added a series of stretch goals to create more videos. However, because the campaign took in so much more money than planned, Sarkeesian changed the original plans to take advantage of the increased funding, as indicated by sources like this. The anon's proposed change is based on information that's two years out of date.
We could get into the stretch goals, but it's already covered at the "Tropes" article, and honestly we don't need any additional redundancy here. In fact, the relevant sections of this article should be rewritten to just summarize the key points, keeping the full coverage at the fork dedicated to it.--Cúchullain /c 13:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Don, yes, you've said in two sentences what took me three paragraphs.--Cúchullain /c 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Diego, you seriously undermine your calls to assume good faith for anons making problematic proposals when you fail to extend the same courtesy to regular editors.--Cúchullain /c 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I was expecting that Orange Mike would assume good faith for me. I made a reasoned argument as to why including the information could be benefitial to the article, and all I got back was 'it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme', implying that that's my goal. I reaffirm my position: combating every proposal made at this talk page by looking for ulterior motives on the proponents is severely hurting the conversation by creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND climate, and IP editors are not the only ones making that mistake. Diego (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Diego, I was not assuming bad faith on your part; you contribute to this project in lots of ways. I was merely pointing out that there is no substantial value to this information, and no reason to wedge such trivia into the article other than to falsely imply bad faith on Sarkeesian's part. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The original proposal was explicitly done to take Sarkeesian to task ("...you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole"). There's nothing "ulterior" there. But regardless of anything else, the change can't be made because it's wrong on its face: the "original promise" wasn't for 12 videos, it was for five videos, and all the original plans were scrapped to accommodate the extra money that came in, as the article already indicates. Assuming good faith and not projecting ulterior motives onto other editors is good advice that you yourself should take to heart, Diego.--Cúchullain /c 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Any argument is synthesis and conjecture unless there's an actual release schedule. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... for what it is worth, I am not part of any "harassment campaign" or arguing that anyone ripped anyone off, nor was my original proposal designed to "take anyone to task"... except for maybe the nature of the article. Like someone previously commented, I ended up on this page when trying to figure more about the subject. I honestly have no stake in this argument. In doing so, however, I checked the links provided as source material, and read the talk page. Looking at the Kickstarter, it is very clear that it says "12" and said "12" at the time of raising the money. Sure it may have changed later and this and that... but the source says "12" and said "12" at the time the money was solicited. As I said above, feel free to note that later blog posts or updates or whatever changed that, but it doesn't "outdate" the original commitment. For example, if Reagan says "We begin bombing in five minutes" and then later explains "it was a joke"... that doesn't mean the original quote is "outdated". I genuinely feel that, in a supposed encyclopedia, the specific "12" is better than the vague "a series". I also genuinely feel the committed delivery date is a valid point and should be noted without prejudice and let readers make their own judgments. Generally, I agree this article reads like a vanity page and appears to be defended by a cadre of people determined to prevent any edit that is not unambiguous praise. If that is what you want out of the page, so be it. I'm out, debate between yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Anita Sarkeesian Add topic