This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 28 November 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 13) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:49, 28 November 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 13) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
| 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
| 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: |
Request for Comment: Video by the American Enterprise Institute
Responding to the request at WP:ANRFC. Despite the RfC prompt, most of the discussion focused on whether the video itself (as opposed to the secondary sources) could be suitable for use in the article, and this close reflects that. It is not clear to me that a video which does not mention a person by name, but for which the connection to the person is made in reliable secondary sources, is necessarily excluded by default by WP:OR, and this was a central argument of those opposing inclusion here. That said, WP:BLPPRIMARY requires us to exercise "extreme caution" any time that Misplaced Pages directly uses primary sources for a BLP, as opposed to citing the secondary sources. There is clearly not sufficient support among editors here to meet that standard, as required by Misplaced Pages policy. It might be easier to gain support for adding commentary that is based on the secondary sources alone, but there was insufficient discussion of this to say that there is agreement on this one way or the other. Many editors also suggested that the video could be an appropriate source in related articles, so that is another option. Sunrise (talk) 18:13, 8 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.
On September 16, 2014, this video was published by the American Enterprise Institute. The video shows brief images of Sarkeesian, but does not refer to her or her work by name. Since publication, a number of reliable outfits have picked up on this video. Polygon, Kotaku, Gamespot, Think Progress and an Opinion Peice by Polygon. My request is based on the previous, is the allusion to Sarkeesian heavy enough or relevant enough to include in her biographical article or series article? Zero Serenity 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, as due weight is established by the coverage of the topic by reliable sources, and the sources above are telling us how Sommers' video is related to Sarkeesian:
- Polygon.com: " mentions that Sarkeesian and others have faced serious threats."
- Kotaku: "In new video, she snarks about "gender police" and presents the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos about female tropes in video games as an attack on male gamer culture."
- Gamespot: "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series. Sommers says the "new culture critics" have latched onto these attacks, using them to prove that there exists a "patriarchal pathology" at the heart of gamer culture, when in fact this is not the case."
- Thinkprogress: "That logic, evidence and humor was missing in reactions to feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian, whom Sommers calls out as an offending feminist critic." "Sommers argued that Sarkeesian’s and other critics’ anonymous death threats aren’t necessarily indicative of a negative, “patriarchal pathology” in game culture". "Sommers also compared Sarkeesian’s criticisms of video game culture to hypothetical attacks on women’s magazines for not being inclusive of men..."
- Polygon again: "The person focuses on is Anita Sarkeesian", "To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism." "Sarkeesian's actual research is not addressed in Sommers' video, but Sarkeesian herself is an object of scorn and may now presumably be counted within the group of "women who have betrayed women," as Sommers' book is subtitled."
- It is clear that these reliable sources don't agree with Sommer's analysis of Sarkeesian, but it's also clear that they do consider Sommer's video an analysis of Sarkeesian as a feminist critic. Diego (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. We already established consensus for the current content through extensive talking, largely by the same participants and using the same arguments, that led to the current wording and excluded everything else; this RfC should establish whether there's a new consensus that overrides the previous one, but I can't see why the RSs provided should be rejected when they were already accepted before. Diego (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes the video clearly is about her, even if the only reference is a video of her speaking, and every reliable source covering it has picked up on that fact. Editors seeking to exclude it are just looking for any excuse to minimize criticism of Sarkeesian. We should instead be talking about the inclusion of more criticism based on the large number of reliable sources that have touched on the matter as of late.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that reliable sources make the general connection, but we need to be careful about overuse/overquoting or using the video to make specific claims. Woodroar (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes Should be included, as Diego had pointed out, WP:Weight is established. Many credible sources mentioned Sommers by name and it is obvious that Sarkeesian is the main focus of the video. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Enough sources have connected the video with Sarkeesian. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude here, include at another article like Sexism in video gaming. The video only alludes to Sarkeesian by showing her face in a discussion about "a new army of critics"; it does not refer to her by name, say anything about her series, or address any specific point she makes (it's also irrelevant to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games for the same reason). It's of tangential interest to the topic of this article at best. There is nothing else that could be said here besides the fact that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian, and we only say that much because a few reliable sources mentioned the connection. Moving the discussion to a more appropriate article would allow us to say more about it and the response to it.--Cúchullain /c 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- However, the RSs above (and below) connect Sarkeesian and Sommers, and therefore some mention is appropriate. Perhaps a sentence or two. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the reliable sources only indicate that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian as part of her wider discussion. They don't say she mentions Sarkeesian by name, says anything about her series, or addresses any specific point she makes, because she doesn't. It's not encyclopedic here.--Cúchullain /c 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude where a third party has interpreted the source material we can represent the third party as they have provided the synopsis / established the reliability. However it should be clear that A - Sarkeesian is only inferred by third parties. B - the 'other content' is not strictly associated with either Sarkeesian as a person (and personal criticism isn't particularly biopic) or her series. The quotes provided by Diego are quite clear as to what we can and cannot say / present, and synthesising content / interpreting the video ourselves outside of the comments of reliable sources is exactly what is says on the tin - synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a valid concern. We could use a wording similar to Gamespots' "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's video series".... Though we already took care that the current wording in the article is directly based on the wording at Polygon and Kotaku. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Amended my thoughts having read the opening blurb a little more closely. If we are asking to use the video as a source then it is a Primary source, from youtube, of uncertain quality. A "Think Tank" is not a reliable source, be it Conservative, Libertarian or otherwise. However its content can be used when cited with context by another party (or with according caveats).
- The primary source itself does not mention Sarkeesian, it is therefore completely inadmissible by itself.
- The secondary sources and comment about the video made in reliable source is admissible within the context of exactly what is said about Sarkeesian, or exactly what is said about the Trope series. Koncorde (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a valid concern. We could use a wording similar to Gamespots' "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's video series".... Though we already took care that the current wording in the article is directly based on the wording at Polygon and Kotaku. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- do not use - per POLICY WP:OR we may not use sources to make claims that are not explicit in the source. Vague references via pictures are not explicit in the source and requires outside knowledge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not OR if RSs make the connection. RSs have made the connection. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- what reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- if reliable sources say "Hoff Summers says X about Sarkeesian" we could theoretically use what the reliable sources have said HS claims, BUT if the reliable sources are saying "HS says Sarkeesian cherry picks information in her critiques, but HS herself has cherrypicked information." we would need to use the reliable sources in context as saying HS's critique is weak. And if the reliable sources are saying that HS critique is weak , poorly constructed, and not valid, we would really not have any incentive or reason to include such a weak, poorly constructed and invalid critique. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- You forget that Sommers' video is itself a reliable source for WP:RSOPINION (and WP:RS/AC may be applicable for her attributed opinion, as Sommers is an academic). It reliably documents the libertarian point of view, so it needs to be included per WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS with due weight (which is proportional to the sources we have covering her video). WP:NPOV doesn't care whether a critique is considered weak by others in the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, it still requires us to show both sides. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sommers' video can't be used for any material discussing living people per WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS. The only reason we're talking about it at all is that other, reliable sources have mentioned it.--Cúchullain /c 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sommers' video is not self-published. Diego (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's a YouTube video with no credits released on the channel of a conservative think tank. What kind of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy does this have?--Cúchullain /c 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's a video from an academic published by a conservative think tank, an organism dedicated to creating public opinion; we can be pretty sure that it accurately captures the right-wing advocacy of ideas from the people publishing them. That's why I mentioned WP:RSOPINION as the appropiate policy. The weight is established by the news sources covering it, establishing it as a significant opinion, not by its own fact-checking - there's no possible way to do fact checking for opinions other than being sure that they really come from the people making them, which it's clear in this case. We held an extensive discussion before, the arguments in this RFC were all presented there and they led us to the version currently in the article. There aren't any real new arguments here that could change that previous consensus. Diego (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- No matter how many reliable sources connect the original Sarkeesian, we cannot use the original because HS decided to be coy and not explicitly mention any names. We can only use what any reliable sources have said about it in the context that the reliable source talks about it. Of the links above that I have looked at vaguely come close to "reliable", they have all criticized HS's analysis and so we would need to do that as well. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me to use vaguely reliable sources at best to shoehorn in a commentary that has been discredited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is not how Achieving neutrality, Attributing and specifying biased statements and Biased or opinionated sources instructs us to cover a neutrality dispute or bias in the sources. In all cases the policy is to include the relevant sources, sticking as closely as possible to their wording, and making abundant use of attribution. Diego (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. "
- Just to clarify, are you suggesting that we use the video as a source here, or are you suggesting we use the sources which link the video to Sarkeesian. aprock (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that we keep the exact same content we have now from the previous consensus. The video might have not been enough if used all by itself, but that's not how it's being used. All the content in the article is directly sourced to independent reliable sources, as you and Konkorde are suggesting. The various RSs covering it are signaling it as an argument significant enough to be taken into account, if only because they thought it was relevant to the topic to the point they feel the need to discredit it, instead of merely ignoring it as irrelevant. Diego (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is not how Achieving neutrality, Attributing and specifying biased statements and Biased or opinionated sources instructs us to cover a neutrality dispute or bias in the sources. In all cases the policy is to include the relevant sources, sticking as closely as possible to their wording, and making abundant use of attribution. Diego (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- No matter how many reliable sources connect the original Sarkeesian, we cannot use the original because HS decided to be coy and not explicitly mention any names. We can only use what any reliable sources have said about it in the context that the reliable source talks about it. Of the links above that I have looked at vaguely come close to "reliable", they have all criticized HS's analysis and so we would need to do that as well. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me to use vaguely reliable sources at best to shoehorn in a commentary that has been discredited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's a video from an academic published by a conservative think tank, an organism dedicated to creating public opinion; we can be pretty sure that it accurately captures the right-wing advocacy of ideas from the people publishing them. That's why I mentioned WP:RSOPINION as the appropiate policy. The weight is established by the news sources covering it, establishing it as a significant opinion, not by its own fact-checking - there's no possible way to do fact checking for opinions other than being sure that they really come from the people making them, which it's clear in this case. We held an extensive discussion before, the arguments in this RFC were all presented there and they led us to the version currently in the article. There aren't any real new arguments here that could change that previous consensus. Diego (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's a YouTube video with no credits released on the channel of a conservative think tank. What kind of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy does this have?--Cúchullain /c 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sommers' video is not self-published. Diego (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sommers' video can't be used for any material discussing living people per WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS. The only reason we're talking about it at all is that other, reliable sources have mentioned it.--Cúchullain /c 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- You forget that Sommers' video is itself a reliable source for WP:RSOPINION (and WP:RS/AC may be applicable for her attributed opinion, as Sommers is an academic). It reliably documents the libertarian point of view, so it needs to be included per WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS with due weight (which is proportional to the sources we have covering her video). WP:NPOV doesn't care whether a critique is considered weak by others in the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, it still requires us to show both sides. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude here, as Cuchullain said. Needs to be more explicitly about Sarkeesian. Could mention that secondary sources assumed it was about her, but only if there's a place for it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion here and at the Tropes page. Like User:Cuchullain and User:TheRedPenOfDoom above, I can't see inclusion if the source doesn't specifically critique the subject or her work. TRPoD points out that WP:OR doesn't allow us to use sources which don't explicitly cover the subject. If a reader must use inference or outside knowledge to understand the source, the source can't be applied per synthesis. The Sommers video covers the broader subject matter, but doesn't address the subject of this pagespace. For my part, I'm disappointed the Sommers video DOESN"T critique the subject; we've been needing negative critique and Sommers is the closest thing to an expert who has approached coverage of video blogs like Sarkeesian's. I'm hoping for better. BusterD (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The source specifically critiques the subject, as recognized by Polygon, Kotaku, Gamespot and Thinkprogress. Actually the opposing arguments are contradicting each other - one argument says that the video is not about Sarkeesian; the other says that, according to RSs covering the video, its depiction of Sarkeesian's arguments is wrong. Both things can't be true at the same time. Diego (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude on this, and of course both can be true. When applied to Sarkeesian, the arguments are nonsensical so it's not necessarily contradictory to then assume that the arguments weren't meant directly for her. It is relevant however that the video is only ever mentioned in the context of criticising it. I'd much rather hold out for something more substantive than "this one lady said something once that may have been in part about the subject".Cupidissimo (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The source specifically critiques the subject, as recognized by Polygon, Kotaku, Gamespot and Thinkprogress. Actually the opposing arguments are contradicting each other - one argument says that the video is not about Sarkeesian; the other says that, according to RSs covering the video, its depiction of Sarkeesian's arguments is wrong. Both things can't be true at the same time. Diego (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude, as it has really nothing to do with Sarkeesian herself. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude. The video isn't specifically about Sarkeesian or her work. Should be in CHS's own article or, as suggested above, Sexism in video gaming or other similar, general articles. DonQuixote (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I should note a number of the parties pushing to exclude this material now previously agreed to include it, but apparently now are reneging on that earlier consensus, which is a fairly good sign that they never wanted to compromise in the first place. The editors trying to keep out criticism always tell those of us who want to include criticism that we need multiple reliable sources covering criticism of her and here we have it in spades, yet now they resort to using their personal analysis of the video to push their own POV. Even though Sommers shows video of Sarkeesian when talking about gaming critics and makes a bunch of references that are clearly about Sarkeesian and her video series, the fact Sarkeesian remains "she who must not be named" in the video is being given as a reason to exclude this, even as numerous reliable sources got who and what she was talking about and explicitly note this as criticism of Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Tut tut. Consensus can change, after all. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a change in consensus so much as two people deciding they no longer wish to compromise as they see an opportunity to push their POV and other POV-pushers hopping on board. None of you are citing anything in the reliable sources themselves or in policy. You are just using your personal assessment of what you think about the video. Unfortunately, there appears to be far too many of you who like to substitute your own biased opinion of the issue for policy and reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Pssst, Tarc, you've linked to a policy that says "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Diego (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The material shouldn't have been added in the first place for the reasons given above. The exceptionally rough "consensus" to include it before was based on a much narrower participation than this RFC has attracted. Making serious allegations about other editors without evidence is unlikely to swing the debate in your favor; please stop.--Cúchullain /c 22:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Only one person pushing for exclusion cites any policy and it is an irrelevant policy. We have numerous reliable sources directly attesting to the video's relevance to Sarkeesian. People voting to exclude are basing it on their own personal opinion that the video has nothing to do with Sarkeesian. For fuck's sake there are only two real people shown in that video. One is Sommers and the other is Sarkeesian. I doubt anyone here honestly believes the video is not about her and reliable sources generally agree the video concerns Sarkeesian. The reality is that you want to minimize criticism of Sarkeesian as much as possible and are using any excuse you can muster without any regard to policy or sources. It is POV-pushing plain and simple.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Arguing from the position that policy is irrelevant is nonsensical. As noted above, the sources don't say much more than footage of Sarkeesian was included in CHS's video. Is that really what this is all about? Including content that says footage of Sarkeesian was in a youtube video? aprock (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am arguing from the position that the policy on original research is irrelevant here as multiple reliable sources state the video concerns Sarkeesian. No original research is required to connect this video to Sarkeesian as multiple reliable sources have already handled it. Please review all the sources Aprock. Many of them say much more than what editors pushing to exclude mention of the video are saying. It is not lost on anyone familiar with the subject that Sommers posted this video at the time she did, showed footage of Sarkeesian speaking and only Sarkeesian as she criticized feminist gaming critics, and reiterated several common criticisms of Sarkeesian's work. Reliable sources do recognize that this video was really about Sarkeesian and note several of the critiques directed her way. When she talks of feminist gaming critics, this is clearly a catch-all term meant to include Sarkeesian as Sarkeesian was shown when she was saying it. Sommers never utters her name as though Sarkeesian were Candlejack, but that is neither here nor ther- --The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hoff Sommers merely alludes to Sarkeesian in the video, and the reliable sources discussing it just reiterate the fact that she alludes to Sarkeesian in the video. The source that contains the most about the Sarkeesian connection (the op-ed) argues that what Hoff Sommers does imply about Sarkeesian is wrong. That's what we're dealing with.--Cúchullain /c 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- There has to be some word for starting your argument with
"original research is irrelevant here"
, and then launching into extensive WP:OR with statements like"It is not lost on anyone familiar with the subject that Sommers posted this video at the time she did"
and"When she talks of feminist gaming critics, this is clearly a catch-all term meant to include Sarkeesian"
. What is "clear" to "anyone familiar with the subject" is precisely the kind of original research we don't need here. aprock (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)- You don't need anyone familiar with the subject to make the connection, the reliable and notable sources mentioned above do that for you. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- As noted several times, the sources say little more than that footage of Sarkeesian was in the video. That's really it. aprock (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the quotes Diego provided. The sources clearly say more than that. I only mention the rest because the editors pushing to exclude it understand what the video is about and know that reliable sources confirm as much, but they still express a position that the video has nothing to do with her.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, they don't. I've read the sources multiple times. Even Diego's quotes highlight this. The only source which goes beyond the fact that Sarkeesian is shown in the videos is the ThinkProgress source. What you have is a single dubious source (the web front for a liberal think tank). Is that really your idea of a reliable source? aprock (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the quotes Diego provided. The sources clearly say more than that. I only mention the rest because the editors pushing to exclude it understand what the video is about and know that reliable sources confirm as much, but they still express a position that the video has nothing to do with her.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- As noted several times, the sources say little more than that footage of Sarkeesian was in the video. That's really it. aprock (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You don't need anyone familiar with the subject to make the connection, the reliable and notable sources mentioned above do that for you. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- There has to be some word for starting your argument with
- Hoff Sommers merely alludes to Sarkeesian in the video, and the reliable sources discussing it just reiterate the fact that she alludes to Sarkeesian in the video. The source that contains the most about the Sarkeesian connection (the op-ed) argues that what Hoff Sommers does imply about Sarkeesian is wrong. That's what we're dealing with.--Cúchullain /c 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am arguing from the position that the policy on original research is irrelevant here as multiple reliable sources state the video concerns Sarkeesian. No original research is required to connect this video to Sarkeesian as multiple reliable sources have already handled it. Please review all the sources Aprock. Many of them say much more than what editors pushing to exclude mention of the video are saying. It is not lost on anyone familiar with the subject that Sommers posted this video at the time she did, showed footage of Sarkeesian speaking and only Sarkeesian as she criticized feminist gaming critics, and reiterated several common criticisms of Sarkeesian's work. Reliable sources do recognize that this video was really about Sarkeesian and note several of the critiques directed her way. When she talks of feminist gaming critics, this is clearly a catch-all term meant to include Sarkeesian as Sarkeesian was shown when she was saying it. Sommers never utters her name as though Sarkeesian were Candlejack, but that is neither here nor ther- --The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Arguing from the position that policy is irrelevant is nonsensical. As noted above, the sources don't say much more than footage of Sarkeesian was included in CHS's video. Is that really what this is all about? Including content that says footage of Sarkeesian was in a youtube video? aprock (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Only one person pushing for exclusion cites any policy and it is an irrelevant policy. We have numerous reliable sources directly attesting to the video's relevance to Sarkeesian. People voting to exclude are basing it on their own personal opinion that the video has nothing to do with Sarkeesian. For fuck's sake there are only two real people shown in that video. One is Sommers and the other is Sarkeesian. I doubt anyone here honestly believes the video is not about her and reliable sources generally agree the video concerns Sarkeesian. The reality is that you want to minimize criticism of Sarkeesian as much as possible and are using any excuse you can muster without any regard to policy or sources. It is POV-pushing plain and simple.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The material shouldn't have been added in the first place for the reasons given above. The exceptionally rough "consensus" to include it before was based on a much narrower participation than this RFC has attracted. Making serious allegations about other editors without evidence is unlikely to swing the debate in your favor; please stop.--Cúchullain /c 22:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude here - As the material is not about Sarkeesian personally, but part of a broader debate about video game culture, it would make sense to include somewhere like Sexism in video gaming or maybe Video game culture#Gender issues, but not in Sarkeesian's biographical article. This article is for describing Sarkeesian's life and work; it's not an appropriate forum for debates about the merits of her viewpoints, especially when such criticisms barely (or don't at all) mention Sarkeesian herself. Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude After reviewing the sources, only one of them discusses Sommers views as relating to Sarkeesian. That source (ThinkProgress) is critical of Sommers' views, citing evidence that they are not correct. It's difficult to see adding the video based on that source. Additionally, it's not at all clear that ThinkProgress (an outlet for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress) is a suitable source for a WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- ORLY?
Showing footage of documentary maker Anita Sarkeesian, Sommers mocks researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies," while acknowledging that they make "some valid points."
She claims that those who disagree with feminist critics have used "logic, evidence and humor" to state their case, although she mentions that Sarkeesian and others have faced serious threats.
- -Polygon
In her new video, she snarks about "gender police" and presents the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos about female tropes in video games as an attack on male gamer culture.
- -Kotaku
To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism.
In her ugliest moment during this video, Sommers goes so far as to question who might be behind threats against Sarkeesian, asking "if it was indeed gamers who sent the threats."
- -Polygon
- Per NPOV, there is no way you can justify excluding material about this video without disregarding policy and sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're not serious are you?
- Your first quote says "showing footage of Sarkeesian", then doesn't address her at all afterward.
- Your second quote says "the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos", which is specifically not Sarkeesian.
- Your third quote is from an opinion piece and only usable for what Colin Campbell thinks, not Sommers.
- Your continued inability to represent sources properly is nothing short of disruptive. aprock (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned the issue is not the sources about the video. The sources about the video are fine, but when their strongest point are allusions only it's weak sauce. I mean take a look at the quotes you picked out to support your case? They're the concrete links? Again, that's some serious weakness. The video itself, by itself, on its own, we could maybe say "An image of Sarkeesian was used in a video by Hoff Somers while she said stuff about feminists and gamers" which is pretty much what we said originally - and that was a stretch in order to try and expand the criticism. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Don't bring your "misrepresenting sources" crap here too, please, especially when you can only claim it by cherry-picking and misrepresenting the quotes I give out. Those sources explicitly connect the video to Sarkeesian and thus warrant mentioning it here. How does it look when a bunch of editors blatantly supportive of Anita Sarkeesian try to suppress reliably-sourced criticism of her and her work by misrepresenting or outright ignoring reliable sources? It looks like POV-pushing and that is because it is POV-pushing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your understanding of reliable sourcing is horribly misinformed. Just above, you tried to use an opinion piece for establishing due due weight. You've been around long enough that you should know you cannot do that. aprock (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- How are opinion pieces not relevant? This is an opinion piece by a staff member at a major gaming media outlet. If they think Sarkeesian is relevant enough to the Sommers video to publish that piece then I think that is important.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Now you're actively advocating for WP:RSOPINION pieces to be used for establishing due weight and to introduce content beyond the author's personal opinion. aprock (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact..." The information being introduced isn't factual, it's the authors opinion on the subject of the article. Due weight is established because notable sources have felt it important enough to mention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. And as such, it is a WP:PRIMARY source, and cannot be used to add content to a biography of a living person per WP:BLPPRIMARY. aprock (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is a joke. The primary source is Sarkeesians videos on her opinions. The secondary source is the AEI published video that critiques Sarkeesians videos. The other sources are tertiary sources that recognize the AEI video as a critique of Sarkeesian's video. The POV pushing of this article isn't even trying to be disguised anymore. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't match wikipedia policy. That there are so many policies and so much jargon is one of the downsides of wikipedia. If you are interested in seeing how policy defines those terms, the best place to look is WP:PSTS. The basic version is that the first source to make a claim is the primary source. Sources which discuss the claim are secondary sources. Depending on the claim, a source can be both a primary and a secondary source. aprock (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Primary sources are allowed in BLPs, especially when it is an opinion piece from a reputable outlet written by a member of the staff. Certain primary sources are not allowed, but this is not one of those sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. From 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. aprock (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- If that were a reason to remove this content, then 90% of the "Awards and commentary" section should be removed too, as most of them are opinion pieces as well, just like the Kotaku and Polygon ones. Diego (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. From 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. aprock (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is a joke. The primary source is Sarkeesians videos on her opinions. The secondary source is the AEI published video that critiques Sarkeesians videos. The other sources are tertiary sources that recognize the AEI video as a critique of Sarkeesian's video. The POV pushing of this article isn't even trying to be disguised anymore. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. And as such, it is a WP:PRIMARY source, and cannot be used to add content to a biography of a living person per WP:BLPPRIMARY. aprock (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact..." The information being introduced isn't factual, it's the authors opinion on the subject of the article. Due weight is established because notable sources have felt it important enough to mention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Now you're actively advocating for WP:RSOPINION pieces to be used for establishing due weight and to introduce content beyond the author's personal opinion. aprock (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- How are opinion pieces not relevant? This is an opinion piece by a staff member at a major gaming media outlet. If they think Sarkeesian is relevant enough to the Sommers video to publish that piece then I think that is important.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your understanding of reliable sourcing is horribly misinformed. Just above, you tried to use an opinion piece for establishing due due weight. You've been around long enough that you should know you cannot do that. aprock (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're not serious are you?
- Not trying to justify my own proposal, but I just went with the sources that had been posted before. I welcome more if they pass RS. Zero Serenity 14:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Exclude Here - here from RfC. This video belongs at Gamergate controversy - if anywhere. Watched the clip; it's an editorial on #Gamergate - not Sarkeesian - from what appears to be a conservative think-tank. The flash of Sarkeesian's face doesn't make it about her. This is BLP, stringent rules apply. EBY (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exclude here A video which does not mention her by name, or engage with her specific arguments by name, simply cannot be used in her BLP. Throwing images of her face into this video falls far short of any reasonable standard for including mention of an advocacy video into a BLP. By the way, Legobot asked me to take a look here. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- The article content isn't sourced to the video, it's referenced by the reliable sources that explain how it's connected to Saarkesian, and we quote those. Diego (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The RfC has been open for two weeks, and stale for one. I'm going to request an uninvolved admin to close it, as User:Zero Serenity seems eager to act upon it. Diego (talk) 11:19, 8 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.Secondary sources about the video by the American Enterprise Institute
@BusterD:, the RfC close makes it clear and explicit that it only applies to using the video directly as a reference, it does not justify removing the content agreed on the previous consensus over secondary sources. Please stop the disruptive removal of sourced content. Diego (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that several editors have removed the coverage of the Sommers video against the previous consensus and the results of the recent RFC that recognized the validity of commentary based on the secondary sources alone. I'm challenging the neutrality of the resulting section with this content removed as failing to give due weight to critic views, as the removal of sourced criticism is against WP:NOTCENSORED. Diego (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Which part of that policy are you citing? I don't see any part of that policy which supports your contention. It merely says that some content may be objectionable, and does not contain any mandate that we include any particular content. It states that merely "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal" but I hardly think the reams of discussion above can be fairly interpreted to mean that "being objectionable" is the only reason cited for its removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- For my part, I wasn't that enthused about the insertion, and to my eyes the RFC was about using the video in the pagespace, not the narrow question of whether the video could be used as citation. To my reading, the overwhelming consensus of the RFC was that the video was not about the subject and shouldn't be used in this pagespace. The Sommers video doesn't directly critique the subject, so should't be applied. Please assume good faith; this has nothing to do with censorship; instead it has to do with applicability, and the RFC settled the issue with significant participation. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- The RFC found no consensus for including either the video or the secondary sources. As such, it was highly disappointing to see it reverted back in. The "neutrality" tag is unproductive, considering the disputed material was never in that section to begin with. Barring any evidence of a real dispute about the section contents, the tag should be removed.--Cúchullain /c 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- The RFC found no consensus for excluding them either, and we have a previous consensus to have the secondary sources (to which you agreed yourself), so it was highly disappointing to see it removed in the first place. How is it that the sources supporting the content have been acceptable for months, and suddenly they can be removed with JUSTDOESNOTBELONG arguments?
- @Cuchullain, the content you have removed from RealClearPolitics includes "Sarkeesian theories sometimes rely on radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin", which is not at Tropes... article and is not about the videos but about the person, so it can't be removed on that basis. And the removed content was located at Awards and commentary, I placed it there myself and has been there for a few weeks, when I changed the section title from "Awards and recognition" to the more neutral "Awards and commentary". The tag should not be removed until the dispute is settled.
- @BusterD - if you had that reading, you didn't properly read the RfC close, which explicitly address that distinction (" Despite the RfC prompt, most of the discussion focused on whether the video itself (as opposed to the secondary sources) could be suitable for use in the article"). The RfC didn't reach any agreement about what to do with the secondary sources, so the previous consensus still holds. Diego (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The RFC found no consensus to include the material, meaning per WP:NOCONSENSUS we don't include it. The dispute has gone through an RfC, which had a far wider participation than previous discussion, making it harder for one or two editors to railroad in material that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Given that this dispute has already been through a community discussion, perma-tagging the section is not productive.--Cúchullain /c 14:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The RFC found no consensus for including either the video or the secondary sources. As such, it was highly disappointing to see it reverted back in. The "neutrality" tag is unproductive, considering the disputed material was never in that section to begin with. Barring any evidence of a real dispute about the section contents, the tag should be removed.--Cúchullain /c 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- For my part, I wasn't that enthused about the insertion, and to my eyes the RFC was about using the video in the pagespace, not the narrow question of whether the video could be used as citation. To my reading, the overwhelming consensus of the RFC was that the video was not about the subject and shouldn't be used in this pagespace. The Sommers video doesn't directly critique the subject, so should't be applied. Please assume good faith; this has nothing to do with censorship; instead it has to do with applicability, and the RFC settled the issue with significant participation. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- @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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Categories:- 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