Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Criticism

Destructoid has a writer who criticised some ideas she threw out in an interview. I'm not sure how relevant this is.

"I agree that game writers shouldn’t be so quick to call everything sexist, that the message should be more positive rather than negative. But I think people are too riled up over cultural critics and commenters like Anita Sarkeesian, who are just one voice among many." Forbes

Basically half of this article is criticism of Anita Sarkeesian.

Willhesucceed (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The Destructoid piece has been discussed numerous times here and it's not an acceptable source for this article. The Forbes source is from the site's blog section, which is a venue for writers to publish their own material with little if any editorial oversight.[1] It's not an acceptable source for any material on living people per WP:BLPSPS. As for viralglobalnews.com, as I said at Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, I don't know anything about the site, but the fact that they recently ran an article on the "Purge" hoax as if it were real doesn't speak very well about their op-eds criticizing other peoples' journalism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about VGN's unreliability. How embarrassing. As for the other sources, I see where you're coming from. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Always feel free to bring new sources for the community to vet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of Phil Mason's criticisms is now warranted by virtue of the reliable sources which have been mentioned in this talk page so far. Sentences relating to Wikipedia's restrictions on self-published material are also warranted in order to alert the reader that prominent material exists that Wikipedia is at present unable to cover.Bramble window (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are never mentioned in articles in that manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not a cogent argument against properly informing the reader about the topic she has chosen to inform herself on. I request you link to wikipedia policy sources explicitly barring mention of wikipeida policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Fight Club. I proposed that entirely relevant information be included in the article. You have made no case whatsoever to the contrary.Bramble window (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to cite a self-published source's opinions on a living person per WP:BLPSPS, nor are we going to explain internal Wikipedia policy in the content of an article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Again I request you link to wikipedia policy sources explicitly barring mention of wikipeida policy. I question the policy basis for such a ban.Bramble window (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bramble window, there are some legitimate problems with the article that could be remedied with discussion on this talk page. General sources involving criticism would be that mark. But what you're asking for will not happen, and for good reason. Imagine on the Communism page is there were a note saying 'We'd discuss more about how Communism is literally pure evil, but we're confined to Wikipedia's due weight policy on the matter'. It's POV and it's basically trying to say that 'We know that Wikipedia policy doesn't support it but we want it in the article anyways'. Reason why there's no absolute guideline or policy to disallow it is because it's adequately covered under WP:NPOV. Now, there is a discussion to be had about Phil Mason's criticism in this article. (Though honestly, why it would go in Anita's article I'll never know. This is a Bio and should only gently touch upon Tropes V Women, it should be discussed on that page instead.) But I assume it's because Anita's page is patrolled by a hawk and more participation will be held here. You're welcome to participate on the talk page here on the section above. Tutelary (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For starters, per the verifiability policy, you'd need a reliable, published source indicating that internal Wikipedia inclusion criteria are somehow significant to the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I did mention that in my 'General sources involving criticism' would be that mark. There have been a select few and those should be examined and purused to find more. Tutelary (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That communism talk is a false, strawman analogy. Reference to Mason's work is not in any way comparable to a blatantly non-neutral stance such as "XYZ is pure evil".

As we know, enough reliable sources have pointed to the existence of Thunderf00t's work and its significant input into causing/heightening the wave of negative commentary against Sarkeesian, some of which crossed the line into harassment.

The importance of Phil Mason in this story is established merely by looking at the reliable sources.

The reliable sources are weak on the detail or even sketchy outline of Mason's criticism and the absence of such an outline is going to be very weird to a reader uninformed as to the finer points of what's permissible in Wikipedia. It is entirely normal for an encyclopedia to say "XYZ is largely beyond the scope of this article, though its relevance to the article's subject is undisputed". It is good academic practice to be upfront and honest about the limitiations imposed on you. What's more you appear to be misrepresenting the content of the NPOV article you linked.

The issue here is that Phil Mason's videos are an integral part of the controversy, but they are so poorly described in the reliable sources that the only honest, neutral course is to refer clearly to their existence while being clear with the readers why the sources don't allow us to give the needed detail. Bramble window (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to get into an explanation of internal Wikipedia policy in an article, unless reliable, published sources have said it's somehow relevant to the subject. Which they haven't. And we certainly aren't going to say anything about anyone that doesn't appear in reliable published sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that mention of policy to the reader needs an external source. I'd like to hear a specific quote that permits such a dramatic interpretation. Quite a lot of editors are making surprising claims about the contents of policy documents that, once perused, prove not to say anything of the kind. Bramble window (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is moving away from discussing the actual article. If you're confused about Wikipedia policies, please visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. Also read WP:BETTER and WP:NDA. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bramble, the guideline covering mentions of policy within articles is MOS:SELFREF. Diego (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, Diego. Finally someone has a cogent, policy-based argument in opposition to my point, I appreciate well-founded criticism. If only there were more of that. However, having read your link it is clear that while a direct reference to Wikipedia is indeed specifically barred, self-reference is assuredly not banned. I quote directly from the policy link: "References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable. For instance, in the article on the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, before the alleged victim's identification, it said that "Due to concerns over privacy, the name of the alleged victim is not being included in this article or at this time." That is a reference that makes sense on mirrors and forks and in print, and makes sense in a copy of Wikipedia that contains only the article space. Examples also include disambiguation links and "See also" links." In that vein, we can say to the reader something along the lines of "Criticism of Sarkeesian exists (give links, name Mr Mason). Due to concerns over the self-published nature of Mr Mason's work, a detailed description of the content of his criticism is not being included in this article or at this time". This fully satisfies the actual policy as described in the article while informing the reader of the critic's existence and giving an explanation for why the criticism is not being described. I repeat, this is within the boundaries of what wikipedia has seen fit to place in its policy documents.Bramble window (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The absence of content from an article does not imply that the information does not exist. There's no need to inform users of information's existence. Moreover, WP:EL prohibits use of external links within articles and those links would fail WP:ELNO anyway. Also WP:BLPEL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the ELNO link you just posted? Let me point out the exception therein: "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." Regardless, a simple reference to Mason/Thunderf00t with the Wikipedia-approved caveat of "Due to concerns over the self-published nature of Mr Mason's work, a detailed description of the content of his criticism is not being included in this article or at this time"Bramble window (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying the Thunderf00t link is "[a]ny site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"? Because that's the first part of the section you quoted. In any case, no matter what ELNO loophole you feel applies, per WP:BLPEL we will not be including the link, with or without a caveat message. Woodroar (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Feminist Frequency

• Sarkeesian is the creator of the video blog "Feminist Frequency"

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement anymore. FF has morphed into a 501(c)(3) and has turned into a bit more than a blog on an obscure corner of the internet. What would work here? Should we replace video blog with 501(c)(3)? Should we mention it later in this paragraph as (I think) it is a new thing for this? Anyone got relevant information handy? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still a kind of vlog. If you want to point out that it's now also a non-profit organization, add "and nonprofit organization". The US tax code jargon isn't particularly reader-friendly.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No reliable sources discuss it as a non-profit organization as far as I know. Feminist Frequency is really only known for the video blog and Anita Sarkeesian's involvement with it. She only registered it as a non-profit because she relies on donations to run her video blog rather than advertising.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You complain about no RS, the spout your mouth on speculation without a source. Your statement is so hypocritical I wonder if you noticed. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you upset about exactly? It is clear that Feminist Frequency is really just the video blog and associated website and is known as such rather than as some non-profit organization. There do appear to be a very small number of sources that briefly note it is registered as a non-profit organization so maybe we can mention that in the article body. If you are suggesting that we replace every instance of "video blog" with "non-profit organization" then I oppose that particular change. Maybe we can justify calling it a "non-profit video blog", but calling Feminist Frequency a "non-profit organization" is stretching it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Original research

This article fails to bring out all of the research is original and not peer-reviewed, no statistical analysis, nothing, just opinion. Please add that part to the article othervice its misleading as it makes her look like an expert on the subject matter which she is clearly not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well. The irony is strong with this one. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Welp i am dumb i found some of her sources (just some, she leaves alot out, like saying "the more you think it wont effect you the more it effects you". Sry for bringing it up. Part is still original research for her (Redacted), but there is no wikipedia standard sources for that so i can see why its not in here (Hitman). Admins feel free to delete this if they see it neccesary, i apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.25.252 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Terror threat

In the news today: she cancelled an event because of a terror threat (link). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Have another. I'd let the wind blow a bit more before including this information though. Maybe wait until 20:00 GMT or so. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent sources. And Sarkeesian thought she'd been treated roughly up until now by some of the male gaming community; I suspect open carry rights activists will now be antagonistic to the subject and her works (but that's just my opinion). BusterD (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Me thinks there's a lotta overlap between those two and between them and MRAs... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the SLT source linked by the LAT article. Here's CNET, Deseret News, Washington Times. We now have several solid sources, including several major newspapers. I suspect this is about to get much more political. BusterD (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A threat of domestic terrorism is of course gonna get more media attention. I do agree we should wait until this "matures" more before adding it. Want to avoid WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

here's a link to the guardian article on it. LazyMapleSunday (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a bigger focus on the critism rather than just the harrasment

This article comes off a little biased. I'm not talking about the character assassination stuff, just the critism of her content. The article includes praise for her work, and rightly so, but I think it's wrong to exclude the negative opinions of her work too. There are example in gaming media, I remember a video by the Escapiest (No right answer) for example. As it is it paints it as just praise and harassment which is inaccurate. Halfhat (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed No Right Answer from the Escapist and the consensus was not to include. So, if you can find something that passes WP:RS for general criticism, we welcome it. Sofar, none have passed that test. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What about this? http://gamesided.com/2014/09/08/sarkeesian-truth-part-1-straw-feminist-trojan-horse-censorship/ I really don't have time for a proper search now. Halfhat (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We also discussed that and basically dismissed it as complete nonsense. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to dismiss sources you don't like as "complete nonsense" because there are standards. Holt is a professional journalist with significant credentials and pieces on GameSided are subject to full editorial control. One of the main arguments is that the piece was "undue", but with all the sources we have discussing and mentioning criticism from various other prominent figures it is clear that is no longer the case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And you don't get to insert sources there's no consensus for, because there are standards. The source was discussed here, and there was no consensus to include it based on WP:IRS and WP:WEIGHT.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this source either as I am dubious in regards to its notability and weight. However I don't think we should call other views "complete nonsense". Frankly Man (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge number of websites that offer criticisms of her thought and approach which should certainly warrant a general criticism section. The criticisms shouldn't have to come from only once source only, a collection of sources should be appropriate. As of the right now, it appears from the article the only people have disagreements with Anita are crazed psychopathic misogynists. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Xcuref1endx. After reading the article, I came to the impression that anyone who criticizes Sarkeesian is actually just "harassing" her. Plenty of journalists and scholars have found legitimate reasons to disagree with her and rebut her arguments. Some editors here need to stop nitpicking what goes into certain articles while not caring about what goes into other articles. yonnie (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Complain all you wish, until somebody produces a reliable source, there is no reason to change anything. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources or there's nothing to discuss.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is complaining? I am beginning to suspect bad faith amongst some of the editors here who are trying to insure a specific POV of this article. Suggesting that there should be a criticism section isn't unwarranted. Anyone who makes their name known by providing analysis and opinions are bound to have detractors. There are hundreds of articles like this http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/08/tropes-vs-anita-sarkeesian-passing-anti-feminist-nonsense-critique, are they responding to non existent complaints? --Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, suggesting there should be a "criticism section" IS unwarranted. We do not give undue weight to minority opinions for the sake of false "balance", particularly calling them out in a stand alone section -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are "hundreds" you should have no trouble presenting them. That one source you've provided has been discussed before (please check the previous threads before starting a new one) and it would be useful for explaining what the criticism is, and moreover, for the author's opinion that it's all "nonsense". This source is similar. There are also several sources already for the Hoff Sommers video.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

yeah that is my point. These people are responding to criticism. Criticism you are saying does not exist. What are they responding to then? --Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying it doesn't exist or that those sources shouldn't be used. You're grasping at straws.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

His point is that even though those articles exist, as does this article, also this, and this, and this too, other editors continue to disregard them using adjectives such as "nonsense", "minority opinion", "false" or "weak", all of which are entirely subjective on editor's part. Even suggesting things like " I suspect open carry rights activists will now be antagonistic to the subject and her works" as if trying to paint her objectors AND open carry rights activists as violent or crazed. Totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. There is a lot of bad faith to be found among this talk page. yonnie (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody brought up open carry activists until you did. We only stick to what follows as WP:RS for WP:BLP. You have brought up two sources that have yet to show reliability. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see this section and read User:BusterD's comment. This is who brought up open carry activists. How do you decide "reliability"? yonnie (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is pretty clear. We don't give views from lower quality sources the same WP:WEIGHT as views found in superior sources, and if the sources aren't reliable and noteworthy, like those, they don't get included at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Who decides what is a "superior" source? This is why I have become less active on Wikipedia over the years. The "reality" of a subject can be manipulated by whatever is decided to be the "superior" source of information. Do you not understand how dangerous this is? The true reality of the situation, as with most situations politically and philosophically, is that it is not black and white. We as editors should be striving to present reality, not what the best known, trendiest online news outlets and journalists (essentially glorified bloggers) have to say. You're suggesting that information should not be included until a website with a lot of traffic writes something about it. yonnie (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yonskii: - WP:RS guides what is a "superior source". You seem to think wikipedia is about WP:TRUTH. It's not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So what you are telling me is that Wikipedia is not the place for providing the REALITY of a topic, but rather a collection of information presented in the form of articles based off sources presenting the opinions of well-known and popular people/organizations? The problem with that is that sources have an agenda, and when the agenda is mainstream, it is difficult to present WP:NPOV. You really think a mainstream news organization is going to write article criticiziing a Youtube Feminist talking about video games? They would be tarred-and-feathered. That is what makes this article and others like it so difficult. It presents only one side of the coin. yonnie (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the definition of a tertiary source. Encyclpaedias and textbooks are tertiary sources in that they reflect reliable sources rather than "reality". If you want tertiary sources to better reflect reality, then publish your original observations and original research in reliable sources so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for providing the REALITY of a topic, but rather a collection of information presented in the form of articles based off sources presenting the opinions of well-known and popular people/organizations. That's actually one of the best summaries I've read Yonskii. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it. Wikipedia's goal is to summarize what the best available sources for a topic say, wording it neutrally and weighting each viewpoint in proportion to its prominence. It's not our job to get to the "truth" or account for lapses in the sources. If something doesn't appear in reliable, published sources, it doesn't go in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Front page of the New York Times

Yeah. I guess that means she made it? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What relevance is this to the article? yonnie (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is largely about her and the whole controversy nonsense around her. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously asking how coverage of the subject by the New York Times could be relevant to the article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of a talk page is to discuss how to improve the article. Not gloat about how great you think someone is with stuff like "she made it". Sarkeesian has been well-known since the Kickstarter fiasco, so User:Zero Serenity's post serves no purpose. If they were to discuss how information in the source may be used to improve the article, that is different, but that's isn't the case. yonnie (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. They were bringing up what's obviously a potentially valuable source for the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that would be great, if that is what they actually did. There is zero discussion on how the source can be used in the article. Just "Yeah, she made it" (a subjective opinion). Please give us a reason why the source should be included. Don't just post a link and gloat. yonnie (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up an obviously relevant and significant source for other editors to look at. And there's nothing particularly untoward about Zero's comments. However, there is a problem when you start talking about other contributors instead of content.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pieces discussing general criticism

Although not pieces directly offering criticism there are articles in The New Statesman and Bustle that provide examples of common critiques levied at Sarkeesian and her work with rebuttals for each point. Some of it more rightly belongs in the Tropes article, but certain details are more concerned with Sarkeesian herself. New Statesman is obviously a reliable source. Bustle is a relatively new outlet, but the author of the piece does appear to have experience in journalism and the outlet has a decent-sized editorial team.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are very good findings! They analyze what many editors have been complaining as missing in the article - the criticism that people from the general public outside reliable sources (like the infamous thunderf00t video) have been addressing at Sarkeesian. The Bustle.com piece largely follows the same line as NewStateman, so it should be reliable if used as a WP:RSOPINION. Diego (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe Ian Steadman's piece in the New Statesman has come up before, and yes, it should be included. I'm not familiar with Bustle.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are some additional pieces concerning criticism: [2] [3] [4]. Another point of interest is all of those sources, and the New Statesman source, explicitly mention YouTuber Thunderf00t's video. There is a Bright Side of News source that might be warranted, mentioning some of the backlash against her critics including the aforementioned YouTuber being blocked on Twitter. Bright Side does seem like it may be a reliable source, though I think we could only justify a minor mention of that incident as part of a longer sentence discussing Thunerf00t's video or general backlash against critics of Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite looking pretty unprofessional, The Asian Age seems to be a fairly prominent and widely cited Indian newspaper.[5] On the other hand, the source has no byline, so we don't know anything about the author.[6] It does say at the bottom, "With inputs from Somudra Banerjee", and this person has written a lot for the site, but without more information on the author(s), I'm skeptical of this one. Nothing on WP:RS/N, either. I can't find much about Inquisitr or their editorial policies, or about this author, Joseph Medina.[7] It appears they invite anyone to join their "expanding team of authors".[8] Also nothing relevant on WP:RS/N; I'm pretty skeptical of this one. VentureBeat seems to be a fairly well regarded blog-style news site focusing specifically on "technology innovation".[9] Previous discussions on WP:RS/N have found articles from it reliable.[10] The article is by Jeff Grubb, a reporter for the site specializing in video games.[11][12] The source looks like it should be reliable to me. Finally, www.brightsideofnews.com doesn't give me any confidence at all. The author claims no particular credentials,[13] and is not listed in their professional staff.[14]

TL;DR version: VentureBeat yes, Asian Age maybe, Inquistr maybe, and brightsideofnews.com no.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Asian Age is obviously reliable as a major Indian news outlet. Not even sure why you are questioning it. With regards to Inquisitr, they appear to require applicants to have at least three previously published works before they will be considered. It is therefore not surprising that a large number of their staff are either credentialed journalists or long-time writers. Clearly they are not setting a low bar for prospective writers and can thus be seen as reliable. As far as Bright Side, the author's LinkedIn page provides a long list of previous gaming news outlets where he has worked.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm questioning the sources for the reasons I gave. For Inquisitr, it seems to be a fine source for some things, but without clearer information about its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and the reliability of the publication and the author for directly relevant topics, its status as a "significant viewpoint" on the subject can't be assumed out of hand. At any rate, it doesn't really offer much the other sources don't say already.

As for brightsideofnews, I can't find anything at all about its editorial policies or its reputation, which doesn't bode well for it. They list an editorial staff, but they note they invite anybody to write for them and don't indicate how they exert editorial oversight. Again, the writer is not listed in their editorial staff, strongly suggesting he's just another one of those "anybodies", and he doesn't claim any other credentials as a journalist with a potentially "significant viewpoint".[15] This is especially an issue considering he makes potentially significant claims about living people that don't appear in the real reliable sources (that the Youtuber got booted from Twitter for his videos criticizing Sarkeesian; that Sarkeesian herself was responsible for this somehow, etc.) I don't see any way that this would be acceptable to source BLP material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I provided you with a link to Strickland's credentials above. He has worked at numerous gaming news outlets. As to allegations against Sarkeesian, Strickland does not make that allegation. Thunderf00t made the allegations and the report presents it as such with a statement that it is unclear she had anything to do with it. With regard to inviting anyone to contribute they have a page where you can send them a piece (with sources included), but it has to be reviewed by the editorial team. Inquisitr is widely cited in books and other outlets, has pieces republished by BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post, and has sufficiently stringent standards for accepting writers to where they are nearly all experienced writers. Seems to me there is no good reason to question their reliability. I see no comment from you on Asian Age and why you are so skeptical of an international Indian daily.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I already answered that in my first response. On brightsideofnews, your link further confirms the above suspicions. They'll take any submission and make no indication that they do anything as far as "fact checking or accuracy" is concerned, or even that they pay the "contributors", they merely say they'll decide whether to run it or give credit. This looks effectively like self publishing. This is more of a problem as the source makes some potentially serious BLP claims, which seem to be what you wanted to include in the article: he claims that the Youtuber was suspended for his videos criticizing Sarkeesian, and (following the Youtuber), he suggests Sarkeesian herself was responsible for the suspension. Those are big claims, but neither seems to be mentioned in reliable sources. If it's really important to the article subject, better sources will pick it up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You haven't really given a satisfactory answer on anything. It seems to me that your approach changes depending on what you need to do exclude material you don't like. Dismissing an Indian newspaper as a reliable source with little comment is honestly kind of suspicious. Your statement about Bright Side is ridiculous and wrong. Nowhere does the author of the piece actually suggest Sarkeesian was responsible, he states that Thunderf00t made this allegation, but it is not clear if this is true or not. As to their submission guidelines, your nit-picking on what they state is just absurd. Many news outlets that accept submissions do not explicitly outline how they check a submitted piece. The fact Bright Side demands sources, suggests they want verification of any claims made in a piece. What I see is you, once more, trying to come up with any excuse you can conjure to not accept material you don't like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat favorable to the suggestion of naming Thunderf00t in this article. But only in the context of descriptions of him being part of the "cloud of people who follow behind [misogynist abuse and harassment], thinking they're being so clever pointing out her 'lies'"[16], of course. Because the only media "backlash" involved here is straightforward (though stinging) rebukes by mainstream journalists of anti-feminist conspiracy theorists with zero recognition in the field of media studies. You know, the same way we would treat Sarkeesian if she began publishing YouTube rants about chemtrails or how vaccination causes autism. I assume this is what you had in mind, Advocate.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I for one would agree to mention Thunderf00t following that approach. Sticking closely to the words of the various sources we have, of course. Diego (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with including it too, and in fact it can be done without adding every random source TDA digs up. Both the Venture Beat source and the lesser Inquisitr source write that the 2014 harassment seems to have been inspired by "Thunderfoot's" video. The Asian Age source mentions Thunderfoot as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Asian Age does not attribute the harassment to Thunderf00t, nor does Bright Side, nor does The New Statesman. I find it convenient that you are suddenly not so skeptical of Inquisitr upon seeing that you can use it to serve your own POV. You have not meaningfully addressed my points about Bright Side and have completely ignored my point about the author's background in gaming journalism.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please. I've explained the issues with the sources in detail, I'm not going to repeat myself again simply because you like bickering. If you want to start talking about editors' "POVs" we can start with yours.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You haven't really explained the issues at all. What you have done is make some rather bizarre criticisms such as arguing over whether Strickland is a member of the staff, rather than discussing his overall experience in gaming journalism, or nit-picking that the site does not explicitly lay out how the editorial staff check each piece submitted to them while ignoring that they require pieces to include sources for their claims. The only thing you ever said about a major Indian newspaper is that the correspondent is not named, ignoring that it is a major Indian newspaper with editorial staff and all that jazz. With Inquisitr you were ready to dismiss it even after I pointed out the large number of professional journalists on staff and their stringent requirements for any prospective writer, but changed your tune when someone suggested the source could be used to attack Thunderf00t.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've explained the issues repeatedly and in considerable detail, you just refuse to hear it. I'm done with your personal comments and aspersions. If you have a problem with other users' conduct, quit bogging down the article talk page and take it to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Though of course that's going to bring your conduct under scrutiny as well, and someone with your edit history here really isn't going to enjoy that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Advocate, no one "attributes harassment" to Thunderf00t, but try reading Steadman's piece a bit more carefully. It's the one that has "anti-feminist nonsense" in the title. It refers to Thunderf00t's video's as "masterclasses in substituting smug for substance" and places him at the head of a group of non-notable gamers who "pander childish ideas of what debate and critique are". And he clearly states that Sarkeesian's abusers are "explicitly influenced by the crap that presents itself as objective critique". Again, no "attribution", but a clearly expressed opinion that it's about attacking Sarkeesian, not merely criticizing her ideas.

So I don't really see where you're going with this. If we ever mention obscure individuals like Thunderf00t or the "Owen/Taurini Team", it will be as bumptious crackpots who provide moral support for harassment and death threats. Because that's exactly how they're perceived by mainstream journalists.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where Thunderf00t is referred to as a crackpot or anything of the sort. The responses are more like, "So what if Sarkeesian was not really a gamer before doing this, that does not mean her points are not valid" or "This is not cherry-picking because it is pulling out examples of tropes used in games and not meant as a critique of each work as a whole." Such arguments amount to conceding the evidence, but disagreeing with the interpretation. Not suggesting we don't note the criticism of her critics, but if you are suggesting the views of her critics not be mentioned at all then that is a problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo's comment is an accurate summary of what the source says about "Thunderfoot". If we are to mention Thunderfoot based on the source, that's pretty much what we'll be saying.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither Asian Age nor Venture Beat nor The Inquisitr make any claims about the veracity of Thunderf00t's critique from my reading. The New Statesman piece is more opinionated, but the author hardly treats Thunderf00t's views as akin to conspiracy theories. He simply disagrees with them and considers them nonsense for various reasons. Bright Side is actually sympathetic to Thunderf00t's arguments. One source out of five is hardly sufficient to suggest we only treat Thunderf00t's claims as mad ravings that only serve as fodder for misogynistic harassers.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Asian Age[17] briefly mentions Thunderf00t as an inspiration and then refers to level-headed Indian critics who refer to Sarkeesian as "a necessary first step". And that's a single video game example from dozens. Then it goes on to refer to commentators that says she's basically 100% right and that video game designers are reproducing deeply problematic gender stereotypes. Venture Beat[18] points to an issue with Hitman: Absolution as "a factual discrepancy or potential mistake", but then immediately (as in the next sentence) points to the absurdity of calling her a liar and that claims like this has "emboldened" harassers. Inquistr[19] refers directly to the Venture Beat piece and draws the exact same conclusion, saying Thunderf00t's claims are used as "leverage from which to spout even more hate against Sarkeesian".

Your interpretation of these texts as you present them is hopelessly biased towards whitewashing virulently anti-Sarkeesian opinions from amateurs who mostly lack notability. Steadman's piece[20] is likely the most detailed and has the most clout as a source, but you choose to overlook a barrage of comments that portray Thunderf00t as part of a group of ranting fools.

The piece in BSN[21] that actually supports Thunderf00t is the real "one in five" here. It's focsed on sympathy because of perceived wrongdoing by Twitter and raises some very iffy speculation about Sarkeesian's involvement in a supposed "retaliation". This is pure, unsubstantiated editorializing about facts, not levelheaded commentary regarding media criticism. It only has a thin veneer of "not saying I have any kind of proof, but you have to wonder"-arguments. Otherwise it's actually hinting at conspiracies. Even if you factor in this source, which is an obvious gray area of reliability, it's clear that Thunderf00t can never be included here as a serious commentator. And, yes, it is quite likely he will also be mentioned alongside hateful clowns like Jordan "[I don't think] her labia probably looks like roast beef sliding off a plate"[22] Owen.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have very strong opinions regarding this subject. Right in this comment you are misrepresenting Asian Age by singling out the "necessary first step" line regarding the opinion of two gaming journalists, ignoring that the preceding paragraph consisted of one of those gaming journalists essentially agreeing with Thunderf00t's arguments. Here you say it goes on to have people saying she is "basically 100% right" despite the journalist I mentioned and another who merely said "most" of her statements were correct. Stating that his criticism fuels hateful individuals or harassers, does not mean we attack him or treat him like a fringe voice when the sources do not really portray him that way. In fact, he is saying things that are very similar to Christina Sommers. We cannot present these as fringe voices.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is it you want to include here? You aren't being at all clear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my first comment when mentioning these sources was clear enough and I am also making it clear what I think should not be included.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not, and this isn't going anywhere. Please suggest some specific wording, or we can move on to something else.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Content suggestion

I tried writing up a summary of Ian Steadman's piece in the New Stateman:[23]

Sarkeesian has been the target of extensive criticism from vocal members of the online gaming community through self-published YouTube editorials, posts on forums like Reddit and a crowdfunded documentary-style exposé. The gaming community criticism has focused on accusations that Sarkeesian has been profiting personally from her Kickstarter campaign, exaggerating or even encouraging documented abuse or that she lacks understanding of video games by not being a genuine gamer. This has been described as "anti-feminist nonsense" and has been closely associated with the outright harassment and abuse and that "most violent and dangerous threats are explicitly influenced by the crap that presents itself as objective critique".

Not sure if this is the best wording, but I believe something like this would be a pretty relevant addition to the article. The gaming community's views on this are obviously considered about as credible as those of truthers regarding 9/11, but it seems worthy to mention this. Especially if we include the not-overly-notable response by Christina Hoff Summers.
Peter ^Isotalo 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

wikt:IFYPFY [24]. -sche (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty good, though I think it needs a little work. Steadman goes through three major points that Sarkeesian's critics typically fall back to:

• That she was "dishonest" about her intentions, and uses, or even encourages, her abuse in order to gain money (for the Kickstarter project) or sympathy
• That she isn't a "real" "gamer"
• That she exaggerates or cherry-picks episodes from games to make her point.

Steadman criticizes each of these points in turn:

• The first he regards as "classic victim blaming"; writes that there is overlap between those who make this claim and those who cause the abuse in the first place; and notes that men rarely have to face this type of thing while women do
• The second point he regards as baseless and irrelevant
• On the third point, he writes that the critics miss the point entirely, as she is talking about tropes within and across games, not making wider judgments of individual games: she "only presents sections of games as sexist because she's only talking about the sexist bits of games, and how, of the tropes developers choose to put in their games when designing for female characters, they frequently fall back on sexist ones. Seriously, she couldn't be clearer about this..."

The Bustle article by Chris Tognotti mentions the same three points of criticism, and offers similar critiques of each of them. He also adds a fourth about critics that claim they're not misogynous (he thinks they really are mostly misogynous). Steadman touches on this as well, but this one's a little less clear. I think we can do few sentences about how the criticism comes out (youtube, blogs, Reddit and social media, etc) and the main things it focuses on (that she dishonestly uses the abuse to garner money for her series and sympathy; that she's not a "gamer"; and that she exaggerates or cherry-picks evidence). Then we can add Steadman's, and perhaps Tognotti's responses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How usable is Bustle? I actually wanted to integrate it in the suggestion above, but I couldn't actually determine how established the site is.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bustle appears to be a fairly-reputable site targeting a female audience and I think the article is acceptable here as proposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think Bustle is okay. When it launched, the content was all written by unpaid community bloggers (like other sources discussed and rejected here before) and the site was mocked by other media. However, its reputation and writing seem to have improved dramatically since then.[25][26] Now they list an editorial staff. They accept pitches from freelancers, but they list editorial procedures for how they would include the content. But either way, this writer (Chris Tognotti) isn't a freelancer, he's part of their writing staff, meaning this article should have at least that level of oversight. Before Bustle, he seems to have been on the staff of the erstwhile The Daily. And of course, it's a site that focuses on women's issues and interests, so if it's taken as reliable generally it should be reliable for this topic specifically.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this paragraph will have the intended effect. It reads a bit too much like it is lending credence to her (admittedly false) accusers instead of damning them. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would have merit with quotes like "most violent and dangerous threats". I don't believe it lends credence as much as underlines that the only strong criticism against Sarkeesian comes from people who are out to destroy her. Except they're not doing it through outright abuse. But I'm not adamant about inclusion. I'd be happy to wait until it surfaces in more notable publication. If ever...

Peter ^Isotalo 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be all right to include, with the caveat that these journalists specifically challenge the claims. We'd need to be careful to cover what they're saying accurately, both concerning the criticisms, and their criticisms of the criticisms.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What happened with this proposal? It seemed to have near-consensus, yet it has not been refined nor included in the article. Diego (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It died on the vine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Paging @Peter Isotalo:. Paging Peter Isotalo. Are you still in favor of this paragraph? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the paragraph as written, for the reasons I gave. We could work on something else if others are still interested.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)