Talk:Anita Sarkeesian: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:04, 2 December 2014 view sourceZero Serenity (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,042 edits →Section for Criticism ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:55, 2 December 2014 view source The Devil's Advocate (talk \| contribs)19,695 edits →Section for Criticism Next edit →
Line 112:		Line 112:
	::::Precisely. Given academia, I'm pretty sure it won't be long before someone looks to tear her arguments apart in a journal - no quicker way to tenure than publishing on trendy topics! ] (]) 02:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)		::::Precisely. Given academia, I'm pretty sure it won't be long before someone looks to tear her arguments apart in a journal - no quicker way to tenure than publishing on trendy topics! ] (]) 02:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}Motion to collapse, Aye. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)		{{outdent}}Motion to collapse, Aye. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
			:There have been a number of sources discussing criticism of her work or criticizing her work: . Consistently the page watchers shout down these sources to the point of absurdity, take no action on them, or propose content additions far more slanted towards a POV that treats all criticism as illegitimate. Why is that?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:55, 2 December 2014

Skip to table of contents

view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why isn't there more criticism of Sarkeesian or her work? A1: Misplaced Pages policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand, and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources. See the talk page archives for previous discussions on individual sources. Q2: I found a YouTube video/blog entry/customer review/forum thread that presents criticism of Sarkeesian's work. A2: Those kinds of self-published and/or user-generated sources do not comply with Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources. In particular, the biographies of living persons policy prohibits any self-published sources in articles on living people except for a few very specific cases. Including such sources would a) tarnish the quality of Misplaced Pages's information and b) potentially open up Misplaced Pages to legal action. Q3: I think I may have found a new reliable source that presents a viewpoint not yet covered in the article(s). A3: You are welcome to bring any source up for discussion on the talk page, and the community will determine whether and how it may be included. However, first check the talk page archives to see if it has been discussed before.

This 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

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.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This 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
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Blogging (inactive)

This 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.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This 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
Low	This 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.

Gender studies Low‑importance

This 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Video games Low‑importance

This 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

Low

This 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

Aimsey (1 participant)
Fedmyster (2 participants)
Retro Engine (2 participants)
Chrome Engine (1 participant)
Payal Dhare (3 participants)
Edi Birsan (3 participants)
Jack Manifold (7 participants)
Gameplay of World of Warcraft (6 participants)
Pokémon Trading Figure Game (3 participants)
Westballz (4 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

Sun Haven

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Template:Gamergate sanctions

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

A long list

Cathy Young

The Cathy Young article is already included at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games per discussion here. In fact, most of the wording introduced here on "selective and skewed analysis" is almost exactly the same, and as it's about the series specifically, it's better placed there than here. The other line about "Sarkeesian theories sometimes rely on radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin" is not at all what the source says. As far as I can tell, Young only mentions Dworkin in saying that another critic of Sarkeesian cited an earlier column Young had written about Dworkin (which had nothing to do with Sarkeesian); by way of explanation she passingly notes that Sarkeesian "sometimes" relies on Dworkin's theories, without saying how or why this is significant. Either way, the line is pointless ("Young says that Sarkeesian cited someone, mic dropped") and seems to be really reaching to justify including the source here in the main article, considering that Young says basically nothing about Sarkeesian herself (and precious little of substance about her videos).--Cúchullain /c 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it should be included anywhere since it attempts to review a series that is incomplete. I have the feeling this article may come to eat its own words eventually. Zero Serenity 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

By that logic we should remove all positive references about the video series as well. Besides it's pretty speculative to not include a source because you feel they might eat their words in the future. Are you sure you're not looking for arguments to exclude any criticism here? PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue is whether to include this source at this article, and there's no consensus. You've been asked to keep your comments focused on content, not contributors before.--Cúchullain /c 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree; there's no particular reason we should care that a theory was once cited - a throwaway mic-drop line is not meaningful. So which theory did she cite, is it a theory that's very controversial or a theory that's widely accepted? Who knows! Absent context beyond "let's try and link Sarkeesian with someone controversial," this doesn't belong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain (continued from above) I should have phrased that differently but i stand by the opinion that this line of reasoning leads to bias. And I'm surprised you don't agree. As long as there's a section in this article about the critical response to the video series, there's no reason to favor positive over critical response. The arguments brought forth by ZS are in no way (that i can see) specific to Young's article. And imho not applicable to the criticism section in general, although one could argue to move the whole section on the video series to the separate article. But as it stands, i think this line of reasoning leads to bias. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is no reason to favor positive over negative criticism...but that's not what's happening. We're favoring a well-researched and well-written encyclopaedia article over a poorly-sourced, poorly written article.

The Cathy Young article is already included at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games per discussion here...the line is pointless...and seems to be really reaching to justify including the source here in the main article, considering that Young says basically nothing about Sarkeesian herself....
— User:Cuchullain

DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is on whether the fact that the tropes series is not ready yet is a reason not to include critical articles. Or if the feeling some people have that the author will later swallow their words is a reason not to. Please leave your opinion on how much you like the article out of the discussion, or back it up by sources. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're responding to one comment that's at this point two weeks old, and not addressing the fact that various other editors have weighed in with reasonable arguments against including the material in question. There's no consensus to add the material; it's high time to move on.--Cúchullain /c 18:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

Sans any reliable sources that contradict the reliable sourcing in this article, any discussion of this topic is moot. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 24 November 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 everybody. I read this article but have failed to confirm the citizenship of the subject. I suppose it's nice to identify as a "Canadian-American" but that isn't enough to obtain citizenship. Due to her birth in Canada and since I couldn't figure out whether the parents were there as diplomats, that would make her a Canadian citizen by birth on Canadian soil.

Can anybody figure out what her nationality/nationalities are? I think that should be fixed in the article by either a) providing proper references which mention her dual or US citizenship or b) revert to just Canadian. JakobusVP (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Err, citations 2, 3 and 4 all describe her as "Canadian-American" and we go by those reliable sources, they are cited in the first paragraph of "background" with the qualifier of "identifies". That's pretty much all the investigation we do. All reliable sources denote her as Canadian-American (or says she identifies as). Koncorde (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources describe her as Canadian-American. We are not immigration status investigators and what you have "failed to confirm" is of no relevance to our article. I have restored the description of her identity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages not supposed to be about the presentation of verifiable and concrete data? The opening paragraph describes her as Canadian-American, based on what she identifies as. The infobox states that her citizenship is Canadian-American (which isn't even a citizenship).

Can her citizenship be confirmed by any source? - JakobusVP (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Misplaced Pages operates. Misplaced Pages editors do not conduct "investigations" — we restate and summarize what has been verifiably published in reliable sources about a given topic. It is verifiable that multiple reliable sources describe Anita Sarkeesian as Canadian-American, therefore, so will we, and that's the end of it, until and unless there are reliable sources which state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be turning into a pattern. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Zero Serenity 18:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, it's an easy thing to think is important and very easy to get tied up in citing sources. Dan Potts (footballer) was a difficult article for this sort of thing because it introduced all kinds of issues related to assumed nationality, actual citizenship, representative nationality etc. Truth is, even if he represented the USA he would still be "English", or "British". The solution for footballers, as it should be for most articles unless we have any evidence otherwise, is to not mention their nationality but to state who they are and what they do and allow the narrative to explain the other stuff. Here however there are multiple sources doing that for us - end of argument. If they turn out to be wrong then that's their fault. Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine to restate what sources have published, but the fact remains that no country describes their citizens as "Canadian-American" since that citizenship does not exist. There are two separate citizenships if you replace the hyphen with a comma.

@Zero Serenity Who's attacking anybody here? JakobusVP (talk) 17:00, 24 November 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.

Nationality

I simply changed the line to "nationality" and linked to Canadian American, which should suffice. This is how it is listed at Jim Carry, and we cna follow that example too and add "citizenship = Canadian and American", but IMO it isn't a critical aspect of Sarkeesian's bio. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bart Baggett Connection

In light of a recent article detailing Anita Sarkeesian's early career and connections to <redacted per BLP>, shouldn't this be included in her page? It's all on-record information that can be verified by looking at the archives of her own website so it's not like this information is in dispute and it <redacted per BLP>.Xander756 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Present a reliable source for all negative claims about a living person, or they'll be redacted per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have redacted your redactions. Please do not edit my comment again. That is not how discussions work. The source is her own blog. I said that already. I believe her own website is a reliable source for information about her is it not? The article "Anita Sarkeesian Unmasked" from Guardian Liberty Voice can also be searched up on Google. This comment is to start a discussion on the relevancy of her early career. This information, and her working for Baggett, is NOT IN DISPUTE. The conversation here is whether or not it should be included on her page. I believe it should.Xander756 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have re-redacted them — the Biographies of Living Persons policy governs all content on the encyclopedia and you may not present unsourced or poorly-sourced negative claims about a living person anywhere on the encyclopedia. Please do not violate this policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"Guardian Liberty Voice" is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the first autofills for Guardian Liberty Voice when I attempted to google it was "guardian liberty voice scam". I have a feeling it's not going to pass the reliability check. Parabolist (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact she worked for him as shown on her own blog here https://web.archive.org/web/20070912100534/http://www.neonandchrome.com/events.html Xander756 (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't really care what an Internet Archive site says. Can you provide a reliable secondary source which discusses the issue? If not, it doesn't belong here, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't care that her website listed her as working for him for many years? Are you calling her a liar? Xander756 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia is, or how Misplaced Pages works. I suggest you read the verifiability policy and the biographies of living persons policy. They should help you understand how we write articles, and particularly how we write articles about living people. Hint: If you have to scrounge around in web archive sites to find something, it probably doesn't belong in their biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost every result for "Guardian Liberty Voice reliability" returns articles about how it is a content farm clickbait scam. I really reccomend getting your news from somewhere that produces actual journalism. Parabolist (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is her personal blog. Stop talking about Guardian Liberty Voice. Are you anti-gamergate or are you objective? Xander756 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Her personal blog says she worked for someone at some point. Of what relevance is that, and where does it contain anything which supports the derogatory and highly-defamatory claims of a link to fraud and deceptive behavior that you made above? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally acceptable when published by the article subject themselves as a way of verifying statements, but per WP:NPOV, Misplaced Pages articles should be written using the balance (or existence) of secondary sources to determine how to weight things. An old apparent resume you found on the Internet Archive that lists occasional part time work (most of those are listed for 1 day seminars etc,) might be acceptable as a way to verify that statement if WP:BLP compliant secondary sources discussed the statement, but it does not make the statement worth including in the first place per Misplaced Pages policies. Having taken a look over GLV (including a convenient summary of their rather lackadaisical editorial policy,) it does not appear that they meet the standard of sourcing required by Misplaced Pages to make severely negative claims about living people. Do not restore the comments about either of the people whose names you mentioned. Please note that I am acting as an uninvolved admininistrator enforcing WP:BLP in this situation, and providing an interpretation of our policies in an effort to assist understanding how ENWP BLP and sourcing policies apply to an article to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to, not weighing in on the actual content beyond that. If you find sources that do meet our standards for writing about living people, it's fine to bring these claims back up. Until then, do not restore the redactions. As a general rule, if you restore a redaction made by another editor on WP:BLP grounds without first establishing consensus that that edit didn't violate WP:BLP, you're likely to run in to trouble, especially if you do so more than once. Without a reliable source, making claims of the nature that you made about either person you spoke of is not acceptable here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You should not be redacting discussion about information found on a primary source just because <redacted> Xander756 (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

So what you've presented is that 10 years ago, Anita Sarkeesian managed/coordinated several handwriting analysis seminars, among other events. Of what relevance is this to her present-day life and works? We are not a compendium of trivia, we write encyclopedia articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically as this would class as a person's biography page their past is inherently relevant to the present otherwise why state about any persons early life or in this case Anita's education or see David Beckham, this is not the Tropes vs Women / Feminist frequency project page but a persons biography which should include early life and career choices. Thus also relevant on this page would be her worth with Neon and Chrome and Bart Baggett. For those who need more sources which has archived versions as early as 2006 oh also confirmation from a blog that this is the official site So it's my take that this is a biography page and not simply a page to advertise her work. Am I wrong in that ?Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:11, 01 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't write biographies based on blogspots and web archives. We write biographies as we write articles, generally, based on reliable secondary sources. As none of the above links are reliable secondary sources, we're not going to include any of that. In this biography, what we're looking for is material which has already been published in a reliable secondary source, such as The New York Times, PBS NewsHour, Wired, Mother Jones, The National Review, etc.

As you appear to be a new editor, I encourage you to review Misplaced Pages's core content policies, most notably verifiability, reliable sources, and the biographies of living persons policies. These are core to how we write on Misplaced Pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that's a primary resource in it's own right. The Website itself list's Anita Sarkeesian as the seminar co-ordinator. The web archive link is to prove it's verifiable that it has been on said page since 2006 and isn't some recent addition or the result of a hacker etc. If you want more verification that Handwriting university is operated by Bart Baggett. Those pages do exist and as such are can verified as a primary sources for this information. As such her involvement in Bart Baggett's work is not something in doubt hence could be included. The only doubt over this would be how much of other activities and issues surrounding it she is part of which could easily be left out. As I said previous work / early life information is present in many other biographies of living people. What is different in this case ? Is the website of Bart Baggett saying Anita worked with him not evidence enough they worked together? The only thing in wikipedias rules in not to interpret the sources. Simply stating the connection between Anita and Bart Baggett is not breaking any rules WP:PRIMARY as it can be verified by checking the site. Additionally her name appears on two press releases I'm not quite sure how the website itself and press releases from the group don't count as verifiable sources of information for the connection. They are not biased and as such their inclusion and the inclusion of the information they contain alone is not against Misplaced Pages's rules. It would only go against Misplaced Pages's rules if people were to add additional interpretation to said source. Under Misplaced Pages's rules they do not ban all self published sources only claim self published expert sources unless by an established expert are to not be used. In this case Bart Baggat would be the one responsible for the site and as previously stated it can be shown he owns said website thus claims that Anita was on his staff are valid. Infact source 20 on David Beckham uses such a press release from a school as evidence he attended said school. Are we to say a press release by Bart Baggat is a lie ? Dwavenhobble (talk) 06:52, 01 December 2014 (UTC)

You're just not understanding. Those aren't reliable secondary sources. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. The primary sources you cite have not been discussed by reliable secondary sources, therefore we have no reason to believe that any of the information in them belongs in her biography. Which means they won't be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Except as I am demonstrating by pointing to 20 on David Beckham such information is being used already without a supporting secondary source. I take it Liberty Voice isn't being allowed as a secondary source to back this up (Redacted) nor Breitbart. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY, augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. As per WP:PSTS Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Thus as this in not an interpretation of the source it is directly reading said soruce stating Anita was part of said organisation then it is admissible under the same rules being used for David Beckman source 20. If you are suggesting we cannot accept Anita Sarkessian having worked with Bart Baggat despite two press releases and the actual website stating as much we cannot accept the press release by the school in David Beckham Dwavenhobble (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, you have read the policy but you're still not understanding it. Yes, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages unless restricted by another policy — which is exactly what the Biographies of living persons policy does, restricting the use of primary sources in biographies.

I have redacted the Guardian Liberty Voice link as violative of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Do not reinsert it, as its content is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages in any way. If you want to complain about something in the David Beckham article, start a new thread on that talk page and complain about it. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in other articles doesn't justify doing it here.

What I'm telling you is that absent any reliable secondary source discussing Anita Sarkeesian's previous work experiences, they do not warrant space in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What he's trying to stress, Dwavenhobble, is that according to WP:BLPPRIMARY, primary sources can't be the first used on any subject, as they come directly from the prioprieters of whatever is on point for discussion. We get that various parts haven't been updated since 2006, we get it. We aren't worried, at least here, that they've been hacked and are trying to perpetuate thoughts of another in order to gain favorable sourcing. We're just saying that it has to be backed up by something secondary, completely displaced from the situation, in order to really have a quality standard that wikipedia is going for. Misplaced Pages wants competitive articles that show both sides objectively. Strictly speaking, objectivity doesn't exist. It just doesn't. But we can at least try to get sources that separate themselves from those the sources are about. I couldn't write a page about myself because in my unconscious arrogance, uncontrollable and of which I'm unaware, I would miss things. Even if I had editors that were telling me they were brutally honest, they'd be dealing with and knowing me directly. It renders the arguments convoluted. Thank the other editors for their input. It's helpful.Chewbakadog (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The way things have been going and the seeming disparity between the sources considered accepted and those being rejected I honestly think at present it might be worth having a back end page on Misplaced Pages discussing what sites can and can't be considered secondary sources considering certain sites such as many Gawker group ones are being allowed as secondary sources. As I said there are secondary sources but they're being rejected by editors. Also again in this case it is not an interpretation of biased representation being expressed in both the press release and the website itself it's a simply piece of information not an interpretation of said information. Also it is not Bart Baggat's page it's Anita's thus it wouldn't be Bart Baggat talking about himself but about another person. Dwavenhobble (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no way to list all possible reliable and unreliable sources. The best way to bring a particular question about sourcing to a broader consensus is through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where community discussions are had on the reliability of particular sources in each given context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Section for Criticism

Her views are controversial enough that I propose a separate section for criticism. While most of the criticism is happening on platforms like social media that are unreliable sources, there are also articles and columns (examples) on the topic. Other articles (example) also exist that acknowledge the existence of criticism. In both cases it's worth noting that many sources fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. --Eldritcher (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

References

No, Breitbart is not a reliable source, for one. We discuss notable criticisms of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games in that article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is Breitbart not a reliable source? --LordCazicThule

Please read WP:RS. Breitbart is not just partisan but unscrupulously partisan with a bad record of publicizing and disseminating various bullshit: hoaxes, ad hominem attacks, non-issue "controversies", etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So how exactly are other sources used on this page such as Polygon and Kotaku exempt from this clause? --LordCazicThule — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCazicThule (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

They're not. They went through the same process and were deemed reliable sources by consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Referencing some criticism she's received doesn't sound like a bad idea, but a whole section only for criticism would be wonky. Perhaps just integrate what she's been criticized for in the appropriate section, like the Reception section of Video Series could hold some criticism of her videos from those sources you listed? Shadowrunner 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I could imagine adding to the section about the reception of her series. The issue that comes up is when the criticism goes beyond the series. She has, for example, started holding speeches. Their contents have received both negative and positive feedback. I can only imagine that the amount will just keep on increasing and we'll keep facing this issue again if it's not addressed. What about changing the 'Reception' section into a general section with the reception of all her works and not just the video series. --Eldritcher (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a section entitled "Awards and commentary" that could conceivably be expanded. However, the Destructoid blog was rejected by consensus last year, and the Forbes blog doesn't really say anything more than "some people have criticized her," which isn't really worth mentioning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please make no mistake. Page watchers here would really like some reliably sourced critique of the subject and her work, but I for one am regularly disappointed with the poor quality of sources presented. I was hoping the Sommers material would work out, but Sommers never mentioned the subject, merely alluding to one of Sarkeesian's many positions. The Cathy Young material was marginal, and has been added to the Tropes page. None of the sources mentioned above by User:Eldritcher qualify under WP:IRS. The Forbes material is just a Forbes-associated blog (based on consensus on this talk page), with little in the way of editorial control or oversight. Destructoid has also been discussed here and been found to be situationally reliable, that is, reliable for the purposes of discussing video games, but not sufficiently reliable for insertion in BLPs or critique of Sarkeesian's work (again, based on discussion here on talk). Breitbart has been adequately addressed by User:Orangemike above. Since fringe conservative thinkers have begun writing in defense of the pro-Gamergate crowd, it's perhaps inevitable that a conservative or libertarian think tank will offer direct critique of Sarkeesian, her videos and her positions. Page watchers here would appreciate links to such criticism, and even more appreciate links to scholarly critique appearing in peer reviewed journals. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Given academia, I'm pretty sure it won't be long before someone looks to tear her arguments apart in a journal - no quicker way to tenure than publishing on trendy topics! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Motion to collapse, Aye. Zero Serenity 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been a number of sources discussing criticism of her work or criticizing her work: . Consistently the page watchers shout down these sources to the point of absurdity, take no action on them, or propose content additions far more slanted towards a POV that treats all criticism as illegitimate. Why is that?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories: