| Revision as of 02:32, 29 July 2014 view sourceNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 edits →Tropes vs. Women in Video Games← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:56, 29 July 2014 view source Euchrid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,813 edits →Tropes vs. Women in Video Games: backer rewards, not videosNext edit → | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
| ::Because it is verbatim what is defined on the Kickstarter page , I don't see where it is "outdated" and it is very much what was advertised on kickstarter... 12 videos with an estimated delivery of August 2012.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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ::Because it is verbatim what is defined on the Kickstarter page , I don't see where it is "outdated" and it is very much what was advertised on kickstarter... 12 videos with an estimated delivery of August 2012.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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :::Verbatim? I see five videos saying '''estimated delivery''': Aug 2012 --] <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | :::Verbatim? I see five videos saying '''estimated delivery''': Aug 2012 --] <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::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.] (]) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:56, 29 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. |
|
| 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. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Sarkeesian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Anita Sarkeesian" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 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)
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)
|
- The next editor restoring the BLP vio I've removed will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 19:55, 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
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...
- Ms. Magazine. - a women's rights/feminist magazine blog
- A salon article by Mary Elizabeth Williams, who "will fight to the death for feminism"
- Three references to helen lewis' blog, a feminist and Amanda Marcotte article, another feminist
- Guardian article by Hermione Hoby, another feminist
- Gamespot article by Carolyn Petit, another feminist
- Bitch, another feminist mag that the subject has an official interest with
- 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 info
Y - Use sources mostly to feminist supporters and statements of subject themselvesY
- Ban anyone who attempts to introduce any critical infoY
- Tropes vs. Women in Video Games - cover all harassment in explicit detail, yet don't even mention the copyright incidentY
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Verbatim? I see five videos saying estimated delivery: Aug 2012 --NeilN 02:32, 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)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Low-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- C-Class video game articles
- Low-importance video game articles
- WikiProject Video games articles