Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 18 March 2014

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. Feminism Low‑importance 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 view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Retro Engine (2 participants) Chrome Engine (0 participants) Payal Dhare (2 participants) Edi Birsan (3 participants) Jack Manifold (7 participants) Gameplay of World of Warcraft (6 participants) Pokémon Trading Figure Game (3 participants) Buff Technologies (5 participants) Westballz (4 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Evil Empire (company) (discussion) Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (nom) Ethan Winters (nom) Fallout: New Vegas (nom) Good article nominations Dark Urge (nom) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (nom) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Cry of Fear (nom) A Space for the Unbound (start) The King of Fighters '97 (start) F1 24 (start) Façade (video game) (start) Prey (2017 video game) (start) Transfer Pak (start) Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (start) Lost Sphear (start) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Dynasty Warriors 4 (nom) Articles that need... assessment (1) (0) reassessment (1) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (257) screenshots (9,039) photos (70) translation from japan (187) creation merging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 24 October 2013 by reviewer NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs).

Possible area of expansion

There's not much on the reaction the videos provoked or any critical analysis of them (which may be because not much appears in reliable sources). --NeilN 14:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexist harassment?

I see the harassment she got more as personal attacks as compared to literal sexist harassment. I see no evidence that she was attacked because she was a woman, but because she injected herself to community with which she obviously wasn't familiar with, and she had an agenda. There's equal amount (none) of evidence that she actually was familiar with gaming community and did it on purpose. For that I'd change the wording on the harassment a bit.

Original text says "triggered a wave of sexist harassment" -> "triggered a wave of sexually offensive and personal harassment"

Anybody have a take on that?

Nosepea68 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources say sexist harassment, and we reflect what the sources say. That last bit is your personal POV, which needs to be verified by a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I never intended them to be nothing more as Sarkeesian has gotten rid of the evidence except a screen cap on her website and that's never been analysed by a reliable source. (Genuine question, Should I mark my POV comments like I made something like POV: <statment>?)

And the first bit is semantics. It seems words sexist and sexism are used in a different meaning than their literal definition are i.e. any hate against a person is sexist (or misogynistic) if it's aimed towards a female.

Nosepea68 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to mark your statements as POV. Editors' POVs are allowed on talk pages. A NPOV is preferred in the article proper. That being said, we can cite POVs of reliable sources within the article, just not our own POVs. DonQuixote (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I applaud the heroic efforts of Don, Diego and NorthBySouthBaranof to clean up the horrible mess this fork was originally in, but I really see no reason for this article to exist. After Nosepea's blatant attempts to insert ostensibly negative material were removed, the contains nothing that isn't already better covered at Anita Sarkeesian. There is no information on the harrassment campaign or on the reception of the videos, and the only addition is the pointless episode list. And now the content editors have two weak articles to maintain instead of just one. It's not as if the original article just has so much good content that we need to worry about length; at any rate no one has suggested that. I'm leaning towards recommending we just redirect this fork back to the main article; nothing significant will be lost.--Cúchullain /c 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that we have the split in place, it lays the work for a much better organization, we just have to follow the manual of style. The level of content on the video series is undue weight on the biography article, as you and others have repeatedly stated at its discussion and edit comments, and has prevented the current sections to grow with more detailed explanations of what the current sources have said; we can simply move the Reception subsection here and leave an overview of the whole Tropes vs Women section written in summary style. The "subsequent harassment" section can conversely left at Anita Sarkeesian and summarized here, as it mostly deals with her and has a thin connection with the video series itself. Diego (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Truth be told, this article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Given that these videos have just been released, they're not really notable other than the online harassment (which is already mentioned in the original article). Maybe later on, when these videos have had the chance to influence others works, they might be notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article but not as they are now. This is also why there's no reliable sources with criticism of her work; no reputable expert has found them notable enough, or had time enough, to critique as yet. DonQuixote (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there are relatively few sources that deal with the series as opposed to just discussing it in light of its background, Sarkeesian herself, or video game misogyny in general. It's telling that the sources that do deal specifically with the series - ie, the reception - has been left out of this article while it exists at the main article. As we already have better coverage of this at the main article, it's hard to see the benefit of keeping this fork. So, shall we merge it back?--Cúchullain /c 13:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to simultaneously remove content about the series from Anita Sarkeesian as undue weight and want to merge this back for not having enough content. Either we have too much content, or too few; you can't have both. This article provides us with the opportunity to describe in some detail the contents of each video and the tropes contained in them, which would be totally inadequate at the biography. If you're concerned about duplicate content, the manual of style is precisely clear in what to do: use summary style in one article, and include details in the other. Diego (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUEWEIGHT covers this article just as much as the other. Neither are going to include everything every blogger has ever said on the topic. And again, the other article already presents better coverage of the series.--Cúchullain /c 00:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You're conflating two different issues. In the context of the main article, which is about the online harassment and any background information, the minutiae of her work is just too much information which could be written in an article of its own. In the context of this article, there isn't enough information about the series (that is, the series hasn't gained any notability) to warrant an encyclopedia article. The bottom line is, Sarkeesian and her work aren't really that notable outside of academic circles and certainly not notable enough for encyclopedia articles. The only thing that is notable is the online harassment which have been covered by media. DonQuixote (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose a merge. Per this edit, it's clear that material from high quality sources meeting BLP and IRS thresholds is being generated. The source added to the BLP by User:Cuchullain does not appear to discuss the harrassment, instead the source discusses the series itself. Soon more will be available, IMHO sufficient sourcing exists and is used on this page to meet GNG. While it's a bit inconvenient to watchlist another page and look out for ip and spa harassment directed at the subject and the connected BLP, I think we can manage it. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

BusterD, it's funny you say that. The source you're referring to, Nate Carpenter's review in Women & Language actually does discuss the harassment (the link is through a database, but I can email it to whoever wants it). I've found a number of other academic sources that I'll be adding to the article soon. What I'm finding is that even the comparatively few sources that discuss the video series in and of itself, do so alongside, or in the context of, discussion of the harassment. In a vacuum there may be enough to justify a separate article, but as of now it will just duplicate the main one and cover little if anything that's wouldn't be better placed there. In my opinion, at this stage we can do a better job covering both topics together, as the sources almost universally do.--Cúchullain /c 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Next Episode announced October 29th 2013

Just a little late the next episode appearing soon "ish". http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/65461672933/heres-a-quick-sneak-peek-at-the-next-episode-of So, maybe this series will finish in a couple of years and somebody can finally evaluate its academic value.

Nosepea68 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempted redirect

I'm not sure we've sufficiently established page consensus to redirect or merge this material over to the BLP of Sarkeesian. I've specifically opposed it and it appears others (pagecreator and Diego) hold for this separate pagespace. I'd appreciate it if we didn't start a revert war over a redirect without gathering a clearer measurement. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

About to do overhaul...

Hey all.

I will be doing an exhaustive overhaul to this article when I can make a schedule for it. I will remove "stuff" that has only value in BLP and has little to nothing to do with video series. Meanwhile do not think I am not monitoring that no "stuff" without real encyclopedic value is put to the article!

Nosepea68 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to edit this highly contentious article, you need to be able to string a sentence together in English, follow what the sources say, and resist your compulsion to disparage the subject. Excising whole sections without discussion, as you did here, is not productive.--Cúchullain /c 23:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the last time User:Nosepea68 edited the page an entire section was blanked, I asked that user to discuss changes here before making them. I encourage all users to discuss a way forward before wholesale stripping of cited content. I agree with User:Cuchullain that Nosepea68's tendency to minimize the importance of the subject doesn't indicate an encyclopedic view. BusterD (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving on with this

Hey,

I think the section "Harassment and response" should be only like synopsis in this article and the better explanation of it kept in the BLP and here a link to the section in BLP. Also in that section you should start that the harassment started prior to her funding ended, not sure if there's many RS to back it up, but at least on some (tv-videos) of her public appearances she said something like "I haven't even said anything yet.". I admit that's just from my memory and it's not infallible as you know.

Great thanks to User:Zero_Serenity for adding a bit more flesh on the bones in short summaries. I would like to add some myself, but I think I better not as I consider myself going biased there if I did. Thanks also to User:Cuchullain for moving redundant stuff from BLP to this article concentrating on the series itself.

Also I think the background section should be moved to BLP, with only a short summary in this article with a link to the BLP.

Thanks for bothering to read, not so sleep depraved this time, Nosepea68 (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Something fishy with the dates...

See "On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign" and "Sarkeesian started funding her Tropes vs Women in Video Games as a Kickstarter project on June 4, 2012" double you tea ef. No time to check sources at this moment. Talk yo you laters. Nosepea68 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of information

I reverted Nosepea's attempt to excise cited information for a second time. In addition to removing cited material, it made pointless style and formatting changes and also surreptitiously altered (cited) wording that had been discussed at the main article before it was copy-and-pasted here. Since this is the second time Nosepea has attempted to blank this same content without consensus, I ask that any future removals be discussed first.--Cúchullain /c 05:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What is a common time to wait for a reply then? My question originally was about moving the "harassment" bit to the BLP. I added even a link and kept wording I didn't like. I just hope this article will not go for the revert war as Cuclu started. I hope that I can keep this one as encyclopaedic I can. Nosepea68 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Both BusterD and I already explained to you why excising the material is a bad idea. I don't think anyone is interested in explaining the exact same thing over and over again because you refuse to get the point.--Cúchullain /c 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate strongly my suggestion to User:Nosepea68 to discuss any wholesale deletions before performing them. Edit wars are disruptive, even when done in slow motion. Over and over again that user has demonstrated disdain towards an encyclopedic view of both the BLP subject and the video series. While that user and I have agreed occasionally, more often I find that editor's poor attitude, basic lack of competence with the English language, and unwillingness to hear what others are saying troublesome and tiresome. Frequently the editor has used these talk pages to discuss opinions of the subject instead of trying to improve pagespace. If Nosepea68 continues to edit here without gathering support on talk, I believe it will be necessary to escalate this situation to a process or attendance from uninvolved administrators. This is no longer a content dispute; this has become about one user's stridency. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I warned the user here that patience is wearing thin and that continuing along this path will lead to blocks and bans.--Cúchullain /c 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Working Titles

As Anita has said here, the working titles of the series are apparently not tied to any specific episode order (DiD turned into three episodes for starters). I removed them from the grid that tied them to specific episodes and moved them elsewhere since it doesn't make sense where it is anymore. Zero Serenity (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about the video series Anita Sarkeesian has made. For it to be encyclopaedic it should contain any information that is relevant to this series. So, whether you like it or not every episode had a pre-production name. This article is not about what she tweets nor it is about what she has done or hasn't done. It's simply an article about the video series.Nosepea68 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As you don't seem to care to leave harassing messages on my talk page, I'm just going to ignore you. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication in up-to-date reliable sources that the titles are valid. As such we should avoid them until new information emerges.--Cúchullain /c 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Length of Content Summaries

I'm trying to establish a good length in my head that seems consistent and informative enough. Hahnchen, I'm not going to just flat out revert your change, but I do think it is a bit short on details there. Anybody got something to add? Zero Serenity (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with you expanding upon them. The main motivation for making the change was to use recognised terms such as tokenism vs. stuff like "the Smurfette principle". - hahnchen 20:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to disparage your good work, but to be honest I don't see these as particularly helpful or encyclopedic to begin with. If it's totally necessary we should be able to summarize each episode in a few sentences at most.--Cúchullain /c 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that we'd want to keep episode summaries reasonably brief, no more than a short paragraph. If we're going to characterize in any way, we'd need reliable sources making those characterizations. I'm comfortable that such will eventually be available, but don't see any except for episode one so far. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For episode summaries, it's acceptable to go to primary sources. - hahnchen 15:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Please note my intentional use of the word "characterize". BusterD (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe sometime this weekend I'll binge watch the series again and see if there's anything else worth mentioning. I'll probably keep it to five sentences at worst and stick to broad ideas (like mentioning Tokenism) as much as I can rather than specifics (like spiking Mass Effect). Zero Serenity (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we can come up with something descent. But if we're going to do anything more than a sentence or two we need to consider moving them to the prose instead of an info box.--Cúchullain /c 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you keep the same high standars for the short summaries as you keep on the other things. Nosepea68 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts about this article

Hey,

to me it seems I'm not the only "SPA" editing this article (Zero Serenity). I tried to uphold the original video names Anita Sarkeesian promised during the Kickstarter project https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/ and I was edited out. I was called SPA and for OR for trying to add the names for the videos she used when promoting the project. I find it very disturbing that now there is a majority of the editors watching this article thinking that I'm trying to make black to white. I'm trying to provide the best knowledge we have from open sources about the video series.

So, please enlighten me if there is better open sources about the names of the videos, because if they are behind a pay-wall I have no idea how that information could be added to an open source encyclopedia for free.

Nosepea68 (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The article already mentions the original titles, of which one has turned into 3 episodes, and the other has changed from Mrs to Ms. As a result we cannot reasonably assume the other titles will be either one offs or multiple use, or stay the same. There is also no purpose to mentioning what may or may not be created unless the next episode and title is announced in a reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nosepea, you're the only single-purpose account I see here. You've made virtually no edits to any articles that aren't related to Anita Sarkeesian and you've made your bias against the subject as clear as day. Your recent edits just further confirm the fact that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia.--Cúchullain /c 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section is extremely misleading, while the harassment, etc has been given its own section, it is also part of the reception. Separating it tries to separate this as reception to the videos and the individual. If one skips to the "Reception" section one might be mislead into thinking she's had nothing but positive response to what she's doing.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Makes complete sense since the harassment was not indicative on her work since it wasn't done when it was started. Hence it cannot be "reception" since it was never "given" at the time. Besides, there is no real notable source of criticism for her series. Zero Serenity (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's standard practice to have a dedicated Reception section when there's enough material for it. Here there is, and it's probably the best sourced section in the entire article. And Zero is right, there are relatively few reliable sources that critique the videos specifically, as opposed to Sarkeesian and her thoughts more generally. Almost all of the ones I've found are included already, and they're all represented accurately.--Cúchullain /c 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Fan-art commercial "Fair Use"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An encyclopaedia is not a newspaper. We don't report these things. If enough reliable sources, such as newspapers, report on this then we can cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a small chance that the entire discussion could be moved here from Anita's own article. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems there's been a resolution of some sort. Anita has been offered to use the fan-art free just by providing proof of Feminist Frequency's non-profit status to Tammy. Sarkeesian has decided to remove the fan-art in question claiming it's "a gesture of goodwill".

http://cowkitty.net/post/79912196471/update-3-you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had Nosepea68 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed 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
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Start-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/24 October 2013
• Accepted AfC submissions