Talk:Anita Sarkeesian: Difference between revisions

Significant POV issues

This article dismisses criticism of Sarkeesian and her works as harassment. Significant legitimate criticism does exist, and needs to be covered here in order to maintain a neutral POV. I see that there has been some trouble finding quality sources for this, but that means a concerted effort needs to be made to find them, and improve the article. A discussion needs to be had about what constitutes such a source. Skrelk (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Stating that a discussion needs to be had about sources for legitimate criticism is a little premature—if someone was thinking of adding material to the article, they should propose a source which could then be discussed. I moved your comment to the bottom of this page because that is where editors expect to find new discussions. Please click "new section" at the top of a talk page to create a new discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skrelk: If you've read this Talk page as well as the archives, you've surely seen that this is a common topic. Here's the short version: the article "dismisses criticism of Sarkeesian and her works as harassment" because that's how reliable sources characterize it; there's criticism out there, but not from reliable sources; editors have looked for criticism from reliable sources and found none; criteria for determining reliable sources has been thoroughly discussed and is based upon WP:V/WP:RS and WP:BLP; WP:NPOV doesn't mean we give "equal weight" or report all sides, only that we write based on reliable sources in proportion to those sources, which is what we've done. As Johnuniq said, if you have any specific concerns or sources to discuss, then by all means let's discuss. But please understand that we tend to see the same discussions happening over and over again, with nothing new brought to the table. I truly do hope you have something new, though. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Skrelk, if you have a new source to suggest, please feel free to do so. This is a topic which has been gone over in pretty considerable detail, however, and the regular editors don't always feel like explaining themselves over and over again, so please take a look through the Talk Page archives to see if your suggestions have already been covered. Thank you. Euchrid (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, is it There-is-valid-criticism-of-Sarkeesian-it's-not-all-harrassment Tuesday already? The number of people coming here complaining about this exact same issue is absurd. I was about to suggest putting a message preemptive message somewhere, but there's already a gigantic red banner when you edit the talk page and they don't read it. Maybe we should add another banner to the talk page suggesting that people provide reliable, third party sources when they wish to add content to the article or correct some perceived imbalance? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

FAQ

Anybody know how to do one of those 'FAQ' page things? Where it wants to ask a question which has been answered a lot, and there's a Q and a A thing at the top of the page? I think that would help some, as I've wanted to add some things on some articles which I wasn't familiar with and there were reasonable instances on why it wouldn't fit well with the article. Tutelary (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Like expanding this piece? Or did you have something else in mind? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, like something at Talk:Circumcision, it has a FAQ (that has only one item) but people come to the page to propose something that's been proposed 100's of times, see that, and maybe it dissuades them from proposing that exact thing. We could do that exact same thing here, with a question like 'Why is there no criticism present in the article?' or something similar. Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Checking the code: {{Round in circles|search=no|archivelink=/Archive index}}. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, or another method (the one Talk:Chelsea Manning uses) is {{faq|collapsed=no}} (or collapsed=yes if you prefer). Either way (in case this wasn't clear) one then creates Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ. If there is only one frequently asked question one wants to advise people about, Talk:Circumcision/FAQ is a good model; if there are more questions, Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ shows how to make the Qs and As collapsible. -sche (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a try. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero Serenity. I've added a second question and answer.Euchrid (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

But yeah! I think it'll end up working very nice, especially since the edit notice made emphasis on the sources, they may go to the talk; see nothing about it (and assume that it hasn't been brought up before) and bring it up mistakenly thinking they're the only one who thought about it. But now, they'll see the FAQ and realize that it's not been excluded because we're an authoritative group of people who just want to silence all criticism, but because there are legitimately no reliable sources for it as of yet. Tutelary (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ready for editing. Take note this also changes the FAQ for Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused that both Template:Sarkeesian FAQ+Template:Sarkeesian FAQ/FAQ and Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ exist. Wasn't the point of the first one to replace the second one while also allowing transclusion onto the Tropes talkpage? Should the two FAQs be merged? (Or am I missing something obvious because I haven't had enough coffee today?) -sche (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There were two attempts. Only one of them is being used. DonQuixote (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

In response to this, per the citation guideline and the WP:LEADCITE section of the manual of style, citations aren't necessary in the lead section, which is just meant to summarize the key points of the (cited) article body. At least, I don't think citations are a benefit there, if others think differently, we can certainly add them, we're not lacking in sources. Just FYI, it's usually unhelpful to place tags without leaving an explanation on the talk page, especially when you could have just added the citations yourself, as I say, they're easily found in the article body.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

People seem to have this deeply-held notion that the lead is exempt from citations. It's not. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. In contrast, it also says to use editorial judgement to balance out the citations in the lead. Some articles may require 5-10 and some may require none (as it's never challenged). Given that it's been 'challenged' by the citation needed tag, just add an inline citation to those specific instances and call it good. Tutelary (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I recommend seeking Consensus per WP:LEADCITE. Dreadstar ☥ 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally prefer a cleaner lede and references in the body, but I can understand the concern as well, especially with this being a BLP. So I'm neutral. If we do decide to maintain the status quo, we should at least put a hidden note in the lede to make editors aware of the consensus. Woodroar (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is full of references that demonstrate the harassment campaign. I think that we need to be wary of responding to every "challenge" when it comes to articles (and individuals) that have been the target of campaigns to undermine and harass. In my opinion, the article's citations are fine as they stand.Euchrid (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Dreadstar and Euchrid. I see no need to overreact and WP:MOS, LEAD and etc. are all quite clear, where material is cited in the body text, it is not cited in the lead. There is also a guideline against drive by mass tagging, per WP:POINT and others. Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. per WP:V. Adding the 'citation needed' tag makes it officially 'challenged' by an editor and it therefore demands an inline citation. I'm not advocating removing anything about the harassment, but merely have citations in the lead to sate the cn tags which were added, as mandated by WP:V. It's not contrary to MOS or LEADCITE, which specifically says that the lead is not exempt. Tutelary (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is subject to attack, and the problem with adding an inline citation for points challenged in the lead is that there is no end—I challenge "1984", and "Canadian-American", and "feminist", and "media critic", and "blogger" ... and that's just the first sentence. If anyone can identify a redflag claim in the lead that is not clearly covered in the short article, please reveal it. The solution is to focus on this article, rather than on generic issues such as what guidelines may or may not say about other stuff—what problem exists in this article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It was me I added the citation tags late last night, and did not bother to discuss it on the talkpage since I mentioned it near the tag I felt it would not have been that difficult for someone to just move the tags to the lead maybe, I was just too tired to do it, I apologize about that. I have to say I agree with @Tutelary: on this one I'm afraid, my rationale is that anyone taking a quick glance i.e. just reading the lead can verify or at least see it is cited content. Not everyone may be interested in taking the time to read the entire article, so content in the lead will appear to be uncited, when in fact it isn't, I think this actually improves the article especially since it's a biography article of a living person. To hypothesize, such and such will happen in the future therefore we should not change the citation style isn't a very sound reason not to, since it's relying on events in the future. Even a polite message could deter those who might have nefarious intent if there is a message included in the header. Some issues that I spotted (might not be issues per say but would like to get views on it) is the citation in the body namely this one:[1] it relies on self-published sources, and this one: [2] it relies on a blog post in kickstarter. *sorry I have to end this here I have to run an errand will post more once free*. I'm back, in the meantime I'll leave it at here and also would like to bring editors attention to WP:POINT subsection "Important Note" since this policy is being quoted here, and also to bring attention to WP:LEADCITE, as citation styles can be changed as per the outcome of a consensus, so pointing to WP:MOS at this stage when we are in the process of trying to establish consensus, is redundant. I think there will be comment lag due to time-zone issues here, so this might get drawn out longer than usual (or necessary), you can all blame me for that. - Syanaee (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This section is titled "Citations in the lead". Is any of the above comment related to that? If so, please identify a problem in the article (in the lead).

Re "Some issues that I spotted": your two links identify references 5 and 12. The first verifies the name of her thesis, and the second verifies that something occurred at the official Kickstarter blog. Is it really necessary to explain how those two references are perfectly adequate for the purpose? Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

*facepalm moment* - just noticed the archives, I'm new to wiki so sorry if I'm going over things which have been previously covered. Johnuniq, there isn't any need to be facetious, why don't you just change the title to "citations in the lead and body" I was asking for a view on the two links I posted, since I did not know if they are accepted or if we could supplement them with sources from other places. If you don't want to explain there is no reason for the disturbing attitude you're showing, I find it pretty offensive. I'll just wait for a response from someone more reasonable, there is no guarantee I will be responding back to you, especially if you're going to display this unhelpful kind of attitude to newbies like myself. Syanaee (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, I think Johnuniq was correct here. And Syanaee, he didn't "bite." Further, if you are new to wikipedia, how is it that your earliest edits were talk, wikignoming, monobook additions and other tools of experienced users? Have you reviewed WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT? Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You saying: he didn't do it does not prove your point, you're just making a statement. Stop your obscurantism, it is clear what was going on, am not going to argue this, since it's just so silly and an insult to the intellect. Furthermore, I have some js experience, adding I have managed web servers, for forums and even done some php modding I have a little experience in this area. It's not a very complex thing to copy and pasting a script into a blank page. Also, one of the script was suggested to me by an editor to help split references. Yes I have reviewed wiki policies. These are just accusations and prove nothing. Why don't you do a sock check against my account, I'm pretty sure you'll be hard pressed to find evidence of sockpuppetry, even though I'm using a shared connection. Initia a sock-check or strike out your baseless accusation. I've been on here for about a month, I may have made edits before I had an account, but I do not have another account on here, or even if there is you'll not find any evidence of sockpuppetry, because I'm am not doing that. You've failed to address any points and started making accusations, you should be warned for WP policy violation of civility. You have shown zero decorum. You and Johnuniq both need to stop these sinuous tactics you're causing unnecessary disruption. Syanaee (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty, that's enough, stop talking about each other and stick to editorial content of this article. If you want to bash each other, take it to your own user talk pages or use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes. Dreadstar ☥ 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you just to a sock-check on my account just to humour them? Syanaee (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If they wish to pursue an SPI, that's up to them. Dreadstar ☥ 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That is my position too, to establish consensus and I will stick to the out of the consensus as per the policy. I've made my points clear, and I don't want to repeat myself. Let there be consensus. Syanaee (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Full Protection

Uh...was this really necessary? Did somebody ask for Sysops only? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• They key here is finding Consensus on whether or not to add citations to the lede per WP:LEADCITE, I've fully protected the article to prevent further edit warring. Please find consensus here on the talk page; take it up the chain if needed. Dreadstar ☥ 15:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There...really wasn't an edit war here though. As far as I can see it's exactly one reversion and we seem to be handling this with civility. I'm not seeing this war you're referring to. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

More than one editor has added citation needed tags to the lede, then been reverted.[3][4]; as well as adding POV tags and being reverted. So, to prevent further warring I protected the article so the editors can find consensus to add or not to add citations and/or tags. This article has been subject to an enormous amount of disruption, this needs to stop. Dreadstar ☥ 15:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Folks, this is not a "just your opinion" issue; it is a clear precedent throughout wikipedia. I have participated in the FACs as either contributor or reviewer for more than 20 articles (16 or 17 of which I was a major contributor and for many of those, lead editor), and I can GUARANTEE you that the lead does NOT have to be sourced - and it is preferred not to be - so long as EVERYTHING in the lead is also sourced in the body text (even if there are minor differences in phrasing, which there should be because it's a summary of the article). As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the lead not sourced in the body of the article. If I am incorrect, then the items need to be listed specifically. I don't think anyone here has worked on a featured article before, have they? (If you have, do note your list so we can evaluate and compare if you sourced everything in the lead of all of your FACs). End of story. Even consensus doesn't override long established guidelines, so though Dreadstar says we need to establish consensus, here we really don't. The MOS is quite clear and there is no need for debate at all. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:LEADCITE? The lead is not exempt from citations, but it says to balance out between editorial consensus and the need for redundant citations. Tutelary (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, you don't understand the policy, "direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned" is all that mandates a citation. Here, the lead contains no direct quotations from Sarkeesian nor is there anything there that is particularly contentious, it's one of the more dry and "just the facts" leads I've seen, it's also quite short and everything in it has been thoroughly cited in the article body. There is no need to waste further bandwidth on this, as it is quite obvious that tag-bombing is what occurred, and that was nothing but WP:POINT-y. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do. The policy which mandates it is WP:V. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. In particular, the statements that have been challenged is the statements that have had the 'citation needed' tag added to them. They need an inline citation per WP:V. Tutelary (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, the text in the lead section is not what we're worried about. WP:V is 100% satisfied if the challenged text in the lead section is supported by citations in the article body. One editor cannot hold the article hostage; that's a violation of WP:POINT. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Who's holding the article hostage? All I was suggesting was that we have an inline citation per the tags which challenged the material in the lead. I'm sure this has happened a few times in the past. I am @Syanaee: pinging the editor who added the citation needed tags, for better context. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Montanbw, is just repeating themselves. Binksternet, I never re-edited the article after it was reverted so no one is holding it hostage. When I came across the article I felt it needed citations and I added it, which is what happens on here, I don't see why one would not want to include citations in the lead just to show how well cited the content is, since it has been challenged in the past. It only improves the veracity of the article further. There are similar issues with PZ Myers, and Thunderf00t articles which I will also get to and try and establish a consensus on them too, in due time. Folks need to stop acting like it's some kind of an attack when it's not, I am just trying to improve the article and bring it to GA standard.

The question is, would a reader, looking at the lede through neutral eyes (which precludes the "Sarkeesian is a fraud!" and the "preach it sister!" types), find any of the material contentious? I'm thinking no. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? I'm curious. As I have said, my personal opinion if the citations are included in the lead, for someone having a quick read through it just makes it easier to verify the claims, rather than having to scroll and look for them somewhere in the body, to be it only improves the article, this isn't something unusual many articles have lead citations, which are GA rated or even featured articles. I suspect you'll only keep having the problem of editors who might have ulterior motives to keep adding the tags, why not just preemptive it? If the consensus is no on this then fine, leave it as it is. Syanaee (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I read this as add redundant cites to the lede if the material is contentious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But the content has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Then it makes sense to include them in the lead as per WP:LEADCITE, if the content had not been challenged, then it would have been sound to stick to the article default citation template, if claim X is going to be challenged in the lead then it makes sense to include a citations to claim X in the lead, even though claim X may be cited properly in the body. The redundancy issue I don't think applies if the content is likely to or has been challenged. Syanaee (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Challenged in good faith. If you're challenging it because you as a regular reader think the material is contentious, okay. If you're challenging it just to stick cites up there, less okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a little of both I had known of the fallout of Anita's project, when I first read the page as a neutral (at least I'd like to think I am) I thought it was missing citations, maybe it's because I'm familiar with a different type of citation style but to me at the time it felt right to add the citations need tag, since 1.) I knew it would be easy to prove it (since I'd known what had happened) and 2.) that it would prevent the claim being challenged in the future. I wasn't aware of the problems the page had suffered, maybe I was being naive, but after looking into this issue, it only suggested that actually it makes more sense now due to the controversy to include the citations in the lead, and body. Since some editors regard the it as controversial, I felt as per policy lets establish a consensus on this, since if an article includes citations in the body, that does not automatically make it exempt from including them in the lead too. Syanaee (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place to claim that something must be done because the rules require it (WP:5P is a good place for the basics). Can anyone identify any text in the article that is a problem? Does it fail NPOV or V or anything else? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. When someone tag-bombs a scant two-paragraph lead of dry facts fully cited, that's disruption, not a "challenge." There is no issue to debate here, it's just more of the same silly disruption of the article that people were doing with other issues. There is no need to waste further time responding to what is basically more tendentious argumentation over a non-issue. No one here has even made a convincing case - the overall issue is, of course, controversial, but not any individual sentence in the lead This is ridiculous. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree the claim online harassment is a controversial one (for the record I do think Anita suffered online harassment) which is cited in the body, when one verifies the reliability of this cite, the cited page states, "...controversial feminist critic..."[5], it is also cited in forbes, I can't accesss the website but here is cache.[6] the first one calming she's a controversial figure comes directly from the cited content in the body, however I don't see "controversial" mentioned in the article, would it be fair to say Anita is a controversial figure in the feminist movement? Based on the histrionics surrounding the whole subject, and going by the cited content in the body then one would argue yes. So therefore, I do believe the lead needs citations, since we can establish the person is considered controversial (which I might add should also be included in the article for neutrality), since many citations are based on Stephen Totilo who calls Anita a controversial figure, moreover not mentioning Anita is a controversial figure from the citations is WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:POV pushing. So we have a problem, you can't pick-and-choose all the positive statements it creates a problem of neutrality. You both have failed to demonstrate any sound reasoning based on evidence, that is my opinion. Syanaee (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand that comment. I think that it does not identify any text in the article that needs a citation—is that correct? However, the comment suggests that the term "controversial" should be added—is that correct? Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Syanaee: per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:WEASEL, and especially WP:LABEL, we should not label people as "controversial". We describe the controversy but do not describe the person as controversial. Woodroar (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, @Woodroar: I am bringing attention to the citations which do label Anita as controversial Maybe you had a pointed I striked out where I was not clear in my previous comment which seems like I was implying Antia is controversial., I am not making this claim these are coming directly from the citations, so your assumption that I am labeling is incorrect, or maybe I did not make myself clear. These statements are made in the citations one of which is in the body of the article itself. All I am saying is, you can't pick-and-choose when you've used a person as a reliable sources to leave out a statement the source makes which states states Anita is a "controversial" figure. Because that would be cherry-picking unless it can be proven otherwise. @Johnuniq: let me clarify since some citations by a particular person who has been cited multiple times in the article states Antia is a "controversial" figure, then for balance it needs perhaps need to be included. Since this to some extent may establish Anita to be controversial, I believe it requires citations in the lead, since the content in the lead is likely to be challenged as has been the case in the past. I will not respond to comments which are repetitive, or erroneous I'm not obliged to educate everyone on policy. Anyone who's comment does not address my points will be dismissed or RE'd back to the last two comments. Syanaee (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Syanaee, I did not mean to imply that you were calling the subject "controversial". What I meant is that we don't say that in articles, unless there is wide usage in reliable sources. If nearly every source called her "controversial", that option may be on the table—though it would still be preferable to describe the controversy rather than use a subjective and vague label—but we're not going to apply weasel words based on a single or small number/proportion of sources. Woodroar (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That is OK, Woodroar. I agree with you, but unfortunately there is a problem here, the source has been established to be reliable, since there are a number of other citations based on this sources work, and I have also provided a citation from an outside source forbes corroborating the source cited multiple times in the article. I personally like you do feel we should not describe people as controversial, generally that is a fallacy when the subject is about an academic work. But the problem we have is, do we say the source which is cited multiple times in the article is reliable or not? I don't know to be honest. This is why we should avoid personal blogs, since views of people can change, one day they maybe your friend and the next day they may be your enemy. So you have to be very careful, when you pick a source, basically from my academic background we are taught this. Stephen Totilo has been used multiple times, as a source, and he is the one who writes "controversial" also, and I have managed to find another source which is from forbes. So, does the claim "controversial" fall under fringe views? if yes, then what do we do with all the other citations which are using Stephen Totilo to establish veracity and verifiability? It just complicates everything further. Syanaee (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely complicated, I agree. And it's not so much a fringe thing, it's just that value statements are not part of the dispassionate encyclopedic language we should use. Even what many would consider positive value statements—"proud" or "colorful" or "diplomatic"—mean different things to different readers and should be avoided. Woodroar (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Man, this has gotten all over the place. I suppose the main problem is still the issue of citations in the lead. As I said in my initial comment, I wouldn't mind adding them if others want them, or if it would avoid problems in the past. But my take is that they'd be hopelessly redundant and confusing in this context. For starters, adding them only for the (ostensibly) "controversial" passages would give the appearance that anything that remains unfootnoted is uncited, even though it is. It invites us to just cite everything, although that would quickly become problematic given that the lead just summarizes the main points of the article. For example, one source verifies Sarkeesian's age, while three others[7][8][9] verify that she's Canadian-American, though both facts are in the first sentence. Are we really to add two, or four, footnotes to the first sentence when the information is cited perfectly well in the article body? Additionally, the material Syanaee tagged in the second paragraph just summarizes material cited to a dozen or more different sources. Would it really be a benefit to readers to include all these citations in the lead?

The problem is compounded by the fact that the article itself needs serious work - we've never engaged in the cleanup required by our decision to keep the unnecessary Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork. As it's just a summary, a proper article cleanup would probably change the way the lead looks. If folks are really concerned about the state of things, fixing the article itself will be more productive than anything we do to the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it here

Wikipedia is not a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've decided to take a break for a while from this article, just to avoid emotional baisness I've made my points, I will not be responding for a few days. You folks can carry no with the discussion, if there is something important just ping me. Syanaee (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC) We discourage the use of citations in the lede, because that's not what the lede is for. The fact that one or two editors, presumably in good faith, added "cite needed" tags to the lede, does not mean that we actually do need such citations in the lede instead of in their proper places in the article's body. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC) In all honesty this post does not even deserve a response it's wrong on so many levels, which have already been covered at great length. So I find this post dubious at bare minimum. Syanaee (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC) When wikipedians disagree about interpretation on pillars, policies or guidelines, we discuss our disagreement on talk pages and muster consensus. It seems consensus, as demonstrated in the discussion above, illustrated by examples and links to policies and guidelines, does not favor inclusion of citations in the lede. What an individual wikipedian wants must be measured by the willingness of others to accept those wants. I don't see much support for citations in the lede in the discussion above. BusterD (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC) I'm in agreement. Citations in the lede are messy and unnecessary when the information is included in the body of the article. Ledes, as a rule, contain such basic information about the topic (name, occupation, etc) that citing it will usually not be necessary. If any of this information is controversial or in dispute, then that can be placed in the body of the article.Euchrid (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Granted buster D you have a point on this page and in this article, but the default rule isn't not to include citations in the lead. This is what Mike was implying. Fair enough if the consensus is leave the cites out of the lead then with all due respect leave them out. But don't try to twist wiki policy with fallacious information. I am happy with what the consensus wants. I'm not going to hold grudges or be sarcastic or troll, I personally might not agree with it, (which is irrelevant) but I will defend the consensus. But I don't like lies or misinformation. Syanaee (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC) I don't get paid to do this shit, wiki isn't an academic source accepted in any university, so I don't need to waste my time on Jimmys balls. I can leave today, this place is already discredited in academic circles, I don't need to waste my time on this bullshit project where jimmy will be begging for donations next year. This whole place is going to be flushed down the toilet. Why should I waste my time editing on it, someone please explain that to me? I could blow coke up my nose then to piss around on this shit. I have better things to do. Syanaee (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian disparaged by blocked U.S. House of Representatives ip editor

In noticing this article about an ip address repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing, I read the talk page of the blocked ip user, who states the following: "Blocked because I disagreed with the trans-lobby? These days, If I complain about a man using the womyn's restroom then I'm cosidered transphobic and get called a TERF. This has been happening a lot lately here in the halls of Congerss. If feeling uncomfortable about some creeper coming into the same bathroom as me is considered transphobic, then why is transphobia considered a bad thing? I wouldn't be surprised if the Admin who banned this IP is trans. If she is a real woman, then she should should be following real Feminists like Julie Bindel, not sellouts to the trans lobby like Anita Sarkeesian. People need to understand that transgenderism is being promoted by the Patriarchy to diminish the experiences of real womyn." This statement is out of context, which is better explained by reading the related thread. This information may not have any immediate or direct usefulness on this pagespace, but I was surprised to see the subject mentioned at all in this context by a HoR staffer. Thought I'd document it here for future reference. BusterD (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, interesting read. I don't know that it will be something to include at this point, it looks to me like just a random reference in a spate of vandalism/trolling by some Congress member's staffer.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Updated FAQ

I've updated the wording of the first question of the FAQ to better reflect the editing history of the page. The previous blunt sentence ("Every criticism which has been brought up so far has failed to come from a reliable source") didn't properly represent the discussion held at the talk pages, and it didn't make justice to the current Reception section in the article.

I've also changed the position of the FAQ to make it more visible. There's no point in having a FAQ if no one can see it. Diego (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 August 2014

She announced. @Orangemike: Mark Miller (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed typo. Dreadstar ☥ 04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Installment

• The latest instalment of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, published a couple days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a page for that. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Death Threats drive her from home

Source. Worth including here, on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games or does this fall too much under WP:UNDUE? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Verge has picked up on this. The article essentially says the same thing with no new info from Sarkeesian, so I'd give it a few days to see if it clears itself up a bit. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The threats are confirmed hoax. Evidence is manufactured. The posted by Sarkeesian was of an account page screenshot taken while logged out, with no search, 12 seconds after the final threat, and 3 minutes into a barrage of threats. The screenshot is of the Twitter user's page. This shows Sarkeesian was alerted to the threats immediately, and took a screen shot immediately after the final threat, without using the search or notification features of Twitter. Reddit has produced annotated image. --John Moser (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a hoax, after all, we don't engage in original research, and everything must be attributed to a source. In this case, you have a .jpg image using original research to supposedly debunk it, when we have rs indicating it happened. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If I get The Verge or Destructoid to report it as a hoax, will that make it a hoax? --John Moser (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a source bias, and we are instructed to stick to the sources. So yes, that may be the case. Tutelary (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Fine. Allow me to debunk some of this.

1. Anita has two twitter accounts (don't ask what the other one is, I won't share it), constantly flowing in and out of accounts can explain the whole not being logged in.
2. She just uses an application and never logs into the website.

Either way that one falls flat. So here's a possible explanation: A friend of hers keeps out for this sort of thing and then sends her a link to this page. One screenshot later and then it's reported. This could have all happened this fast. I really doubt with the torrent of abuse she gets anyway that anybody would bother to make all this up. Request for collapse starting right after my second comment please. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion on whether to include this material and how to best represent the available sources if we do. We don't need to respond to commentary, "debunking", or whatever that appears only in non-reliable sources. So far, it appears the only media reporting on this item treat it as real. Our only goal at this point is determining whether and how to include what the real sources say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making unsourced, disparaging statements about living people on Wikipedia. We will not lend any credibility to the idea that the story is untrue unless and until our sources do. The only questions that concern us are whether this news item is significant enough to include in the articles, and if so, how we can best include what they say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

John Moser, please familiarise yourself with the policy on biographies of living persons. Making comments like this, even on Talk pages, is against Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, we don't edit based on opinion, we reflect the sources. At this time, all reliable sources state that it happened. Therefore, that's what we put in the article. Euchrid (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So this morning I'm reading the Washington Post, and guess who got an entire article about being harassed again, this time with death threats? It's almost to the point where Online harassment of Anita Sarkeesian will soon be a bluelink. If she weren't so heavily trolled, she'd likely be a minor figure, but because she's so recognized for abuse frequently hurled at her, she's become a much larger figure. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article doesn't really add anything unfortunately. Hoping for some more info on this subject...somewhere. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Very partial list of sources found about this incident:

• Dominguez, James (August 29, 2014). "Feminist game critic driven from home by disturbing online threats". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney, Australia: Fairfax Media. Retrieved August 29, 2014.
• McDonald, Soraya Nadia (August 29, 2014). "Gaming vlogger Anita Sarkeesian is forced from home after receiving harrowing death threats". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
• Steadman, Ian (August 27, 2014). "Tropes vs Anita Sarkeesian: on passing off anti-feminist nonsense as critique". New Statesman. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
• Crossley, Rob (August 28, 2014). "Tropes vs Women author Sarkeesian vacates home following online threats". ComputersAndVideoGames. Future plc. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
• Murillo, Erwin (August 28, 2014). "Anita Sarkeesian Received Rape And Death Threats On Twitter, Authorities Alerted". Gamer Headlines. Retrieved 29 August 2014.

In Google news I see about 80 articles about this incident alone, and while some of them are of marginal reliability, I think we're about to start seeing criticism in RS. See this:

• Sales, Samual (August 28, 2014). "Another take on the Anita Sarkeesian Controversy: Who's to blame for this madness?". Gamer Headlines. Retrieved 29 August 2014.

The above commentary appearing in a somewhat reliable source mentions scrubbing of her Wikipedia page, for example. "There’s a very real discussion to be had about Anita and the quality of her work, but it’s getting buried in the mud being thrown both ways..." comments author Samual Sales. I think the coverage of this reprehensible incident gives us a new ballgame, source-wise. Personally, I thought the Steadman article linked above was a good discussion of the reaction to the series, not just the incident. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure Computer and Video Games and Gamer Headlines qualify as RS, but the others certainly do. My point I was trying to make is that the information on the threats and soforth is a bit weak. Apart from the screenshot, Anita hasn't said much. I'm not denying any of it was true, I'm just wishing for more on it to put in the article. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We're handicapped because we're not a newspaper. There are several RS newspapers which cover the incident, but in their blogs section, so I didn't list them. I suspect we'll see some coverage in the next few days as the larger media decides if they want to cover it, and the troll community continues to act like a torch and pitchfork mob chasing a beast. I'd agree the two sources you mentioned would be situationally reliable only. Imagine how crazy this talk page would be if it weren't semi-protected right now. I'm surprised we haven't seen more activity on the Tropes page yet. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's under full protection (Sysop required) so even I can't edit it. But yeah, after demanding protection for Xbox One and Death Battle repeatedly, they can get pretty hairy. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's semi. I just added three of the best sources, and slightly rewrote the beginning of the paragraph. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That...was the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games page. I was referring to Anita's page. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think the coverage by solid sources is sufficient to include a mention of the item in this article, the Tropes article, or both. Of the above sources, I think Steadman's piece may be useful elsewhere for analysis from a noteworthy author. I'll also point out that content from the blog section of reputable newspapers aren't necessarily off limits to us; WP:NEWSBLOG covers this. Indeed, the New York Times has covered Sarkeesian in its ArtsBeat feature, written by reliable source Helen Lewis;[10] ArtsBeat is listed under the paper's newsblog section but it's of higher quality than what a lot of other websites put out as their top content. Of course, anything from a reader blog section is off limits.

As for the two non-newspaper sources listed by Buster, WP:VG/RS seems to regard Computer and Video Games as acceptable for at least some things. However, I'm with Zero on Gamerheadlines; I sincerely doubt that site or that piece in particularly could be considered reliable, for a variety of reasons.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, on further reading, I think that Gamerheadlines article may well come up again from people hoping to insert negative criticism into the article, so I'll go ahead an elaborate on why I consider it unreliable. The source isn't mentioned at WP:VG/RS, and there seems to have been no discussion at the WikiProject Video games or the Reliable sources noticeboard about it, let alone consensus that it's generally reliable by Wikipedia standards. A brief look at the website sends up several red flags. The "About" tells us very little, and nothing to say this isn't a blog. The "Authors" page lists 20 people (a lot for such an obscure site) but few if any seem to be professional staff or have much journalism background (including this author). There's no editor in chief (only one person claims to be "an editor" at all). It seems they've got a pretty loosely defined editorial staff.

Moving on to the article in question (which is clearly an editorial that's not marked as such),[11] it's, well, rife with amateurish errors:

"Sarkeesian has also flaunted[sic] with more controversy in the past, after she was discovered to have been lying about her industry experience in interviews and on her kickstarter[sic] page, and suffered claims that she’s thrown out the regular show schedule promised on her page in favour producing[sic] only three episodes a year to fund a lavish lifestyle of luxury. To top it off, there’s[sic] even claims that the footage she uses in videos was stolen from various long players[?] with permission[sic]."

If this site has any editorial oversight at all, this kind of thing really doesn't speak well for its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It would take a lot to convince me that this passes the WP:IRS criteria.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New York Times this morning. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

FAQ Templates TfDed

As seen here. Now that the FAQ template will take another page, it would be good to confine this to the Talk namespace. These templates are now unused. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Handwriting University

The sentence "She worked as a seminar coordinator and media contact for Handwriting University." cites

• http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb197342.htm
• http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/01/prweb335817.htm
• http://handwritinguniversity.com/teleclass/haisha/confirmation1.html

I see some issues with this. Two of the links are press releases and one is self-published, and they just list someone named Anita Sarkeesian in passing. This seems like WP:OR assuming that any mention of "Anita Sarkeesian" is plausible/reliable and referring specifically to the subject of this article. (I haven't checked, but it is conceivable that there's someone else with the name.)

Second, if this is indeed the same Sarkeesian, how is it relevant? Is it really necessary or appropriate to list all the "details of her life"? Trivialist (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If we had some reliable sources commenting on the fact that she'd been there and done that, a weak case might be made that it belongs in a proper warts-and-all bio. But so far, as Trivialist says, that case hasn't been made. Given the unfavorable opinion of most people about handwriting analyst, the insistence on putting in ill-sourced stuff like this seems like you're determined to make her look bad. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is her, no doubt. Neon and Chrome is her old site, which includes the same phone number as the press releases and mentions her involvement in coordinating handwriting analysis seminars. Being self-published is not really a problem since it is just citing her and her employer to prove that she had these jobs. We are allowed to use primary sources for these kinds of details. It is just one sentence. TheRedPenOfDoom has now removed it as "self-promotional", but that is misguided. Nothing within the sources provided is unduly self-serving and the material added to the article is not unduly self-serving. It is literally just noting that she worked for Handwriting University.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Allowed to" doesn't mean "must". This is really going to need some justification to even be considered for inclusion. Assuming this is even the same "Anita Sarkeesian", at most this is just some place that she happened to work; it's not like it's a WP:BLPSELFPUB source she personally wrote, giving encyclopedic biographical information about herself. It's just press releases and whatnot that very tangentially mentioned that someone of this name worked there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I can't even fathom how someone could think this was appropriate for inclusion, let alone to revert it back in multiple times when it had been removed in good faith. They don't even mention Sarkeesian other than to list someone of the name (or just "Anita") in the contacts. Sorry, but this is a WP:BLPPRIVACYWP:BLPPRIMARY violation and has no place in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cuch, it's not particularly significant. Koncorde (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a BLPPRIVACY issue. Where she used to work is perfectly valid information to include in a BLP per policy, even when citing her or her employer. Have you even read that policy or do you just like reciting it when you see something you don't like? I am curious why people are so resistant to this rather meager sentence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Typo. I meant WP:BLPPRIMARY and this is a clear cut violation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think this is important enough to include? Is Sarkeesian a handwriting expert? Has she been involved with anything related to handwriting? Are reputable secondary sources saying that this is anywhere near notable? Frankly, this is far more trivial than any of the other trivial matters that were brought up (and those were negative bits of trivial--see this and this). DonQuixote (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently negative about the information, however. Prior work experience is not trivial either, at least when it is of such duration. It is important because it is part of her professional background.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How is it important to her professional background? Again...is Sarkeesian a handwriting expert? Has she been involved with anything related to handwriting? Are reputable secondary sources saying that this is anywhere near notable? Saying that you think it's important doesn't make it so, you have to show that it's important, otherwise it's trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of that in the case of disagreement, WP:BURDEN is on the editor intending insertion to make a case, and that page consensus as mustered on talk determines whether that editor has met the burden of appropriate WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I don't see anything even vaguely approaching that threshold here. BusterD (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I intended to make the concluding point that "I am curious why people are so resistant to this rather meager sentence" is a very poor argument, since nobody here is required to indulge that curiosity. On the other hand, per BURDEN, inserting editor is compelled to make a case convincing to other editors, and so far hasn't done it. BusterD (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources written by the source may be useable, in some circumstances, when they provide material of some encyclopedic interest about themselves. Releases by employers don't cut it, especially when they give no information about the subject beyond including them (or someone else of the name) in the contacts. But yes, even if this did fall into the category of self-published sources we could potentially use, the burden of evidence is on the one introducing it to find consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Her old website, which I included in the External Links, notes her role as a seminar coordinator as well: [12]. Given that seminars are a big part of the work she does for her site Feminist Frequency it is actually related to her notability in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

you are suggesting that we build her CV for her? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You didn't link that page before, for one thing. For another, perhaps I'm not seeing everything, since that's just an archive of a defunct site, but I don't see anything about Handwriting University, just coordinating seminars. You seriously want to use a defunct website as evidence that this information is noteworthy?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All the handwriting and forensic document examination seminars were associated with Handwriting University. What makes it noteworthy is that it is part of her professional background and is relevant to what she does today, which is not too dissimilar.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When my mother was about 19, she got a secretarial job for the cult group Psychiana, which was headquartered in her home town of Moscow, Idaho. When I think of my mother's life, her association with that cult is utterly insignificant to her real life story. It was just a teenage job. We need real evidence that this handwriting analysis is a significant part of Sarkeesian's life story. I am just not seeing it here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism piece

A piece appeared in Gamesided by Mytheos Holt offering up criticism of Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women. From his LinkedIn page you can see that he has a degree in Government and History from the rather prestigious Wesleyan University and has served as a reporter and editor for National Review and The Washington Times, so he would meet the standards of a professional journalist. Holt is listed as a staff writer on Gamesided's about page. Certainly this critical piece meets the standards for reliability on the Tropes Vs. Women page, but I think it would be good to have people weigh in here on whether it can be used in this article as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with WP:VG/S. Not listed. That's one strike. Second, where somebody went to school is largely irrelevant to his journalistic integrity. So that doesn't really count. Next, working for three (The Blaze you didn't mention is the third) conservative news outlets screams of being a non-neutral source. Strike two. Strike three? I read it. His lengthy and amazingly boring article boils down to two points. Anita is sex negative and she shares a lot with Jack Thompson. This is such a terrible straw-man argument (article) that I cannot even qualify it with "might be useful if we get more like this." It isn't. It reads like a professionally dressed send up of the flawed arguments others have made already. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So your objections are:

• Not included in a non-exhaustive WikiProject-specific list of "approved" sources that has no standing in policy whatsoever.
• OMG! Conservative!
• Didn't like what he said.

Nope, fail, not good reasoning. The point of everything I mentioned is that he is a professional journalist with an educational background that makes him qualified to speak on sociopolitical matters. Whether you think his position is correct or not has no bearing on whether the source should be used here. Opinions that are attributed are acceptable in BLPs. Your assessment should be based on the standard criteria for reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. VG/S is pretty much what we use if it's video game related. (Which this is.)
2. I would have said the same thing if it was an editorial progressive bias. (Which is why I haven't cited...oh, I dunno, Daily Kos or MSNBC here.)
3. Jack Thompson asked for outright jail time for developers of violent video games. Anita has asked for...?

My point is, this guy carries lots of WP:UNDUE to me since it comes from an openly biased perspective. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

VG/S has no standing in policy. It is merely a guide and is not an exhaustive list of sources. The opinionated nature of the source is why it would have to be attributed to the author, rather than stated matter-of-factly. Not sure why you are throwing out WP:UNDUE. My reason for bringing up the source here is for discussion on whether the site mees the standard criteria for reliable sources. Given that Gamesided is affiliated with Sports Illustrated and seems to have a professional staff, which includes the author of the piece, it does not appear to me that this is a self-published blog, but is more akin to an editorial in a traditional media outlet.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

because if we have to dredge sources that are not even acceptable by the VG/S then its pretty clear that the content does not represent any appreciable measure of the mainstream opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

VG/S is a non-exhaustive list of sources. Period. Full stop. This source is not mentioned at all on that page, which includes the list of unreliable sources. Presumably that is because it has not been reviewed by the WikiProject. What we can say, as I already noted, is that it is affiliated with a professional news outlet and has a professional staff with the author being a member of said staff who has professional journalistic experience.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Professional journalistic experience" doesn't equal "professional academic experience". Sorry. If that guy were to write an article criticizing Brian Cox's work, there's a low probability that his article will contain anything citable. Unless it's shown that he knows his particle physics, he's not a reliable source in this regard...same with cultural and media studies. Unless it's shown that he's an acknowledged expert in this field, he's not a reliable source in critiquing this kind of work. The most he can do is report on events, which is when his professional journalistic experience comes in handy. DonQuixote (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Government and history are related fields and his activities as a journalist actually included media criticism. However, his academic credentials are only part of it as opinion pieces by professional journalists are still valid for reception. We include positive reception from Chris Suellentrop, who similarly lacks any academic experience in the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's my analysis of Holt's / Gamesided's reliability and due-ness. Apologies for the length of it.

Summary: I'm not sure Holt's a RS, and I'm sceptical it'd be due to mention his claims even if he were a RS; I wouldn't cite him. If he were to be cited, I'd say it should be for claims 3 and 5 (the others seem even less reliable/due).

As WP:RS and WP:NPOV note, "reliability" does not exist in the abstract: we must "judge whether [a source] is reliable for the statement being made". What statements of Holt's might be cited, if he were a reliable source? He provides a helpful list of his main claims: (1) Sarkeesian "presents feminism as a monolith", (2) "she claims to only be a critic, but behaves as a would-be censor", (3) "her research suffers from non-transparency, clear confirmation bias, and an underreliance on actual scholarship", (4) she is "unreasonably uncharitable", (5) "she structures her arguments so as to make them unfalsifiable", and (6) "her theory of gender relations is unrealistically antagonistic and designed to promote rancor between men and women". He goes on to say (7) "Sarkeesian fits far more into the Dworkin and MacKinnon mold of sex negative feminism", and (8) "the fact that she only represents one, very extreme side of the feminist movement is relevant and potentially dangerous not just for video games, but for feminism itself." He also claims that (9) she connects "real world violence against women and violence in video games" but "never supplies any source to substantiate this supposedly obvious connection, or any of the others she makes throughout the series, nor does she show that video game use and domestic violence are correlated in any way at all. This despite the fact that it would probably be very easy to establish such a connection in international markets at minimum, given the existence of actual rape simulators published in Japan." He concludes by saying (10) "she has used her ideology in pursuit not of understanding, but simply of power over the stories that an emerging medium can tell, and of coercion and shame against that medium's fans." So, is Holt / Gamesided a reliable source for these claims? And are they due (appropriate to mention)? The first thing WP:RS says is, quoting WP:BLP, that "contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced [...] should be removed". I'll keep that in mind while looking at everything else. Next, WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [... These] may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. [...] Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." How is gamesided currently treated (≈de facto)? Others have noted it's not in WP:VG/S, but it is cited in 5 other Wikipedia articles (out of thousands of video-game-related articles). That's definitely not a high enough number that one could regard it as de facto accepted, though citing it wouldn't be entirely without precedent. Holt is not cited in any articles yet. (He is cited in several books, according to a Google Books search, though most of them are books that advance wp:fringe theories about Obama — which does not mean Holt himself is not credible, it just means those books don't provide evidence that he is credible.) His linkedin CV, OTOH, seems to establish him as a journalist. How should gamesided be viewed (≈de jure)? Its about page names an editorial staff. It suggests that any fan can write for the site, but it credits Holt as a regular staff writer. Furthermore, his blurb says he specializes in "push[ing] back on the idea that video games cause violence/sexism in right-leaning outlets", so he is at least claimed to be "authoritative in relation to the subject", whether or not he is "regarded as" such generally (which is the full requirement imposed by WP:RS). On a balance, Holt's / Gamesided's reliability is debatable. (I realize that may be a non-useful, tautological thing to say during a debate over his reliability.) I'm sceptical, but I'm willing to be persuaded he's reliable for some of his statements (see below for more on which ones). As for due-ness, WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Is Holt's viewpoint "significant"? The fact that, prior to today, no reliable source had been found which contained a viewpoint like Holt's suggests that it may not be. Hence, I conclude that the article should probably not be cited — it is possibly not a WP:RS, and citing it would probably be WP:UNDUE. If the article were to be cited, how should it be cited? Even in his blurb and in his article, it is admitted that he is politically biased, so his claims (if any are included) should be attributed to him by name and not just by blue superscript number. And not all of them seem WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE to the same extent: Claim 1 is unimportant: so what if she presents feminism as a monolith? That doesn't invalidate her arguments, it just means that any time she says "according to feminism, X", we have to subaudi "according to [one stream of] feminism, X".) Claim 2 does not seem to be worth mentioning either, especially because Holt goes on to admit that Sarkeesian hasn't censored anything, he just considers (what he sees as) her failure to acknowledge "context" to be equivalent to censorship. Claims 4, 6 and 10 are basically just calling her mean, which also does not seem worth mentioning. ("Conservative writer Mytheos Holt said Sarkeesian was unreasonably critical of things and promoted rancor." Yeah, not notable.) Claims 7 and 8, that Sarkeesian belongs to and is dangerous for (respectively) certain liberal political movements, seem unreliable / undue coming from a conservative — I'd say mainstream sources should be cited for information about Sarkeesian's political views. (Otherwise, perhaps those books Holt is cited in, which I mentioned above, could be used to establish that Obama really is a communist and fascist.) Claim 9 is bizarre; it amounts to "she never supplies evidence of X, even though evidence totally exists". I'm not sure it would be worth in the article even if Holt were deemed a reliable source for it. Claims 3 and 5 seem like they would be the most likely of the criticisms to be due, if any were due (and if Holt / Gamesided were deemed a reliable source for them).

-sche (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

On Chris Suellentrop, his about page states him as "a videogame critic for The New York Times". Academically, he's qualified on this subject and he comes from a generally reliable source of The New York Times. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is an opinion piece about another person with a different opinion. Sarkeesian is not famous for her type of feminism, or the accuracy or relevancy of her views. She happens to be a feminist who is notable due to the harassment she received. I would therefore consider the article relevant when dealing only with the the Video Series (within the context of "a Conservative critic says") and / or comment on the harassment. Anything else is his opinion and only as valid as any other disregarded op-ed. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So the tl;dr version: I don't know this guy, he's conservative, and he's criticizing Anita so he must be kept out. Again, this is not the RS criteria you are applying, but your own personal views of what constitutes an acceptable source for you. Honestly, it is pathetically obvious that you guys are just straining yourselves to find excuses to keep anything resembling actual criticism out of this article. You can't say it is basically repeating the same "flawed" arguments that have been made against her elsewhere and then also dismiss it as not representing a significant viewpoint. The fact he is putting out criticism that has been made towards Anita in the past suggests it is not undue to mention the criticism. Another fact is that, as I have said twice already, GameSided is attached to Sports Illustrated, which is generally considered a reliable source. Him being a conservative has no relevance to whether or not his opinion should be included. We don't do litmus tests on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Re "You can't say it is basically repeating the same 'flawed' arguments that have been made against her elsewhere and then also dismiss it as not representing a significant viewpoint": I considered this, because you and some of the other commenters above are correct that several of the criticisms Holt makes have been made repeatedly by non-reliable sources. However, WP:DUE explicitly requires representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", emphasis mine. Hence the view that vaccines cause autism, or that the sun revolves around the earth, is represented on Wikipedia according to its prominence in reliable sources (which is small to nonexistent), not according to its prominence among non-reliable sources (which is much larger — according to polls, one fifth of Americans believe vaccines cause autism and the sun revolves around the earth, so I imagine a lot of blogs run by those people make those claims). Hence my comment "the fact that, prior to today, no reliable source had been found which contained a viewpoint like Holt's suggests that it may not be" due to give his view weight. -sche (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how many reliable sources have actually done any in-depth critical analysis of Sarkeesian's work? Most coverage is just noting the video and making a few comments about its contents. Some commentary is offered, but it is not common or in-depth.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty. Already included, we have a review Women & Language, a peer-reviewed academic journal; this by Chris Suellentrop, video game critic from the New York Times; this review by Jesse Singal, video game critic for the The Boston Globe, and several other pieces from reliable magazines and websites (at least I think they are; if not they should be removed as well). There's also this by New Statesman tech writer Ian Steadman, which hasn't been added yet. It's not like high-quality sources are so rare we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with -sche and TheRedPenOfDoom that the piece shouldn't be included. There's no mention of GameSided on the extensive WP:VG/RS, which doesn't speak well for it, though it shouldn't necessarily be excluded on that basis alone. However, GameSided appears to be the video game "community" of FanSided,[13] a sports blog network compared to Bleacher Report and SB Nation. Those sites are not generally considered reliable for sports, let alone other topics. It's been claimed that the site is "affiliated" with Sports Illustrated, though it's unclear what that entails, and at any rate I don't see how that would confer reliability to this source. Barring evidence to the contrary, I don't see that this source passes the threshold of reliability or due weight.

The site does claim an editorial staff (meaning there's some editorial oversight), and Holt is listed as a "staff writer" (meaning he's not just a freelancer or community blogger).[14] Additionally, he appears to be published in other papers and sites.
However, this piece is clearly marked as Holt's own opinion, not one endorsed by the publication: a notice explains his views "explicitly belong to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, nor should be attributed to, GameSided as an organization". This specific distinction from the site's main content is part of the blog's opinion policy, and distinguishes things like this from pieces carrying the site's "masthead", which they do for many of their other reviews (typically of games). GameSided appears to publish these op-ed things from various people, staff or not, with that caveat about the views therein. Even if GameSided were accepted as a generally reliable publication and not a self-published blog, this piece would not inherently be more noteworthy than something like a reader blog post or letter to the editor. Nor do I believe that Holt is such an established voice on the topic of media criticism that his words should be included on his personal merit alone.
In other words, I don't see that the fact this piece appeared in (or was hosted by) GameSided establishes it as significant viewpoint on the subject that ought to be included. In terms of both the piece and the publication, it doesn't approach the level of the various reviews and pieces that appear (without the caveat) in significant, reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as the New York Times, Boston Globe, and academic journal reviews currently available to us. At least, setting the bar low enough for this to get over would necessitate us adding dozens (or more) similarly questionable sources that would flood out the many unquestionably significant sources available to us.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sources you mention provide maybe a paragraph or two of actual analysis, with most of what they say being a description of the videos and a recap of other matters regarding Sarkeesian. This is three pages of actual criticism, and just the first part (second part is up now) so it is far more critical analysis of her work than has been released in any other publication. The debate here is not whether it is an opinion piece, but whether GameSided is a reliable source with us able to include a staff writer's opinion in the same way we would include the opinion of staff writers elsewhere. A disclaimer that it is just his opinion only proves that it is his opinion, which we already know.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's long (very) doesn't mean it's any good or any use to us. The disclaimer means the publication doesn't endorse it, let alone exert their editorial oversight (which should be clear from the length), they're effectively just a host for the writer to publish their own opinions. This isn't just my thought on the matter, it's the blog's actual policy. For these op-eds, the editors are clear they do basically nothing. So any "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" the site may have, which is already debatable, does not percolate down to these pieces. This is distinct from other pieces they run, including their actual reviews, which still obviously reflect a writer's opinion but are under the publication's banner. And that's besides the point that this is the video game section of a sports blog network.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are using the classic "it's a blog" slander to dismiss the source now. This is simply absurd. Our policies do not say opinion pieces are unacceptable as sources for included attributed opinion, which is all I am suggesting, and "self-published" does not apply to opinion pieces supplied by professional staff on a professional outlet. I brought this here for that type of evaluation, i.e. whether GameSided can be said to be a professional outlet with professional staff. That is because that is the general standard for inclusion on a BLP. According to Fansided's about page, editors have full control over each site's contents.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading your comment immediately once you accused me of "slander". Better luck next time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who decided to try and use a cheap tactic to discredit the source, so don't complain when I call you on it. Surely you know being a "blog" would not disqualify it as a source even if that were an accurate assessment. The Huffington Post is generally considered a "blog" site and is also often considered a reliable source even on BLPs. As it stands, you calling it a blog appears to have no purpose other than to discredit the source with a label. Our standards for reliable sources are not based on labels or litmus tests.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling a thing the thing it is isn't "slander". You're being ridiculous.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC) A blog is the bottom of the barrel. From WP:BLOGS, "[blogs] are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant[sic] field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author is not an established expert in the relevant field. It's like the difference between knowing the machinery of a car engine vs knowing how thermodynamics works within a car engine--it's two different subjects. If you want something that's undeniable more acceptable than a blog, a suggestion is a source that's published by a university, like a journal or scholarly book. DonQuixote (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a reason WP:BLOGS redirects to "self-published" sources and that is because it is referring to self-published blogs, not all blogs as you would know if you read the policy. As I said there are many sites considered blogs that are considered to be of the same professional standards as other news outlets, at least for some of their content. Cuchullain is throwing out "it's a blog" in order to discredit the source rather than addressing whether it meets the standard criteria for determining whether a source is reliable. All I am asking for is for someone to actually weigh it against our standards, but it seems editors here are more interested in finding any excuse they can muster to dismiss it than having a serious discussion about it. I told you before that not everyone needs to be an established expert in the specific field of cultural and media studies to be included here as most of the people cited in the article do not have any greater claim to expertise than Holt (arguably his degree in history and government does give him some weight in analyzing a feminist web series). Our standard for including critical commentary on a web series and the person who created it is not so limiting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And you're affecting indignation and casting aspersions to shift attention away from the conspicuous weaknesses of a source you want to introduce. It's not going to be a particularly effective tactic for you. As always, the burden of evidence is on you to defend your controversial additions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Er...yeah, but they're not trying to analyze the material in terms of cultural and media studies like Holt is attempting to do. Anyone trying to do that has to be an acknowledged expert or publish in a peer reviewed journal (or something similar). He's going beyond his area of expertise. Our standard for including critical commentary is precisely that limiting...similarly, Holt's "criticism" (positive or negative) of particle physics or evolution or climate science isn't citable because he's not recognized as an expert in those fields--especially if he tries to use the language or methods of those fields without the proper training (which he is doing here). Unless he's shown to be an acknowledged expert in any of these, his blogs aren't reliable sources. So...please cite a source saying that he's an acknowledged expert in this field or point to a peer-reviewed article that he has published in this field.

Also, "criticism" is not the same thing as "critical analysis", and critical analysis in one field is not the same thing as critical analysis in another field. That is, being an expert in one thing doesn't make anyone an expert in another thing, even if they're marginally related. DonQuixote (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is alright, I realize now from the section below that expecting a reasonable and considerate discussion was a foolhardy endeavor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Given your contributions, I can't imagine why you would be expecting such a thing. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Batting against *expunged*'s most recent video

I don't want to give him any more mind on this page. However, he mentioned the section about Nate Carpenter in his video (and the two wiki pages about Sarkeesian and why he thinks his video qualifies as RS for receiving 300k views *Stifles Laughter*) which is why you're seeing it disappear, along with a bunch of disruptive edits over here. This topic treads into WP:NOTFORUM so let me say that I think we need to qualify the journal just a bit more or find something better to put in there. It's affiliations with [15] might be a good place to start. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess that explains it. Well, we don't need to qualify it to appease vandals. It's a review from a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Michigan Technological University.[16][17] It's probably the best source anyone's found for the reception to Sarkeesian. Hopefully it won't come to having to protect the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

According to JJAB91 a 100+ page journal [18] is a "two page website" and this is "minimal staff". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a uni behind it? Huh. I guess I better pay more attention to this stuff. I retract my statement, but suggest the first sentence rewritten as: "Scholar Nate Carpenter reviewed the "Damsel in Distress" video positively in the journal Women & Language, published by Michigan Technological University" or something. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The publisher is already in the citation so it's unnecessary. DonQuixote (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Man. Not being able to read clearly without eye strain sucks. (Hint) So I wikified the reference. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I think it's just been one of those days. Maybe we could say "academic journal" or "interdisciplinary journal" or something, but we shouldn't need to do any more. We already say the name of the author, the name of the journal, and the fact that it's well, a journal, as opposed to, say, a two-paged website (the review itself takes up two pages). People intent on seeing it in a bad light will continue to do so no matter what we do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So wait, this journal and the person being cited is from Michigan Tech? That is not even in the top 100 national rankings of universities! Yet, apparently, someone who graduated from one of the top 20 universities in the country, majored in government and history, and has written for several reputable news outlets is not reliable due to being a conservative who is disagreeing with Anita. Sourcing standards at this article are all out of whack. What a fucking joke.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

September 9, 2014— Once again, Michigan Technological University has moved up in the annual US News & World Report ranking of the best undergraduate colleges and universities, placing 56th—in the top third—of 170 public universities. Michigan Tech’s undergraduate engineering programs ranked in the top half nationwide—73rd of 157 programs ranked. [19] So yes, 'fucking joke' is true, but not about what you seem to think it is. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cherry-picking as the article also says: "Among 268 public and private national universities—a list topped by Princeton, Harvard and Yale—Michigan Tech ranked 116." Natch, public technical schools often rank higher in things like engineering, but are traditionally not as highly-ranked in liberal arts courses such as the social sciences. By contrast Wesleyan is actually in the top ten amongst liberal arts colleges. Since Sarkeesian is not an engineer . . .--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

are you actually attempting to make an argument that anything written by any ambulance chaser who graduated from Harvard should be given equal weight as whats published in the Harvard Law Review because he graduated from Harvard? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Still above the 50% quartile and still worth mentioning. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments like the above are distressing to see from an established editor at a long-term problem BLP. Nathan Carpenter is an academic from Michigan Technological University who has specific expertise relevant to this subject.[20] The review appears in a peer-reviewed[21] academic journal published by MTU, whose focus is also directly relevant to the subject - it's right there in the name.[22] Per WP:V:

The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources

In other words, this is exactly the kind of source we want for material like this. It's a minor journal, sure, but as an academic source publishing a full review of Sarkeesian's video, it comes in ahead of every other source we've got so far for the reception - not to mention the unusable sources that have come out of the woodwork over the last few days.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I found it quite distressing to learn that you are an admin, though admittedly not surprising. It is nice that you finally decided to read the relevant policy and cite it, since that whole process seemed to elude you and every other editor in the section above. Guess you know where to find the policy when you can use it to uphold your own viewpoint.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In the very least, now that everyone's aware of the policy, we can all understand why a review from a peer-reviewed journal in a relevant field is a good source for this topic, and why deleted personal websites, unrelated PR releases, and sports blogs are not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep calm and continue misrepresenting and distorting policy and sources to push your POV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

GamersGate

Ms. Sarkeesian became a target of angry trolls at 4Chan and Reddit but I am trying to find a reliable neutral third party source for it. I thought I'd post the link here and see if it can be used for this article. Arstechnica 4Chan chat logs for Gamersgate is this source acceptable? Orion Blastar (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Source is very acceptable since it follows WP:RS and is listed in WP:VG/S as reliable. That being said I'm not sure it's worth inclusion since this has more to do with Zoe Quinn and that whole...thing (I'm not an expert and don't want to be on that subject) that happened around her. My vote is good source, but against inclusion. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ars Technica is a very good source, albeit on the natural sciences and technology specifically (really some of the best work I've seen in science journalism is done very well here), not sure about them on the broader cultural issues, though. Their generally model is to get PhD's in the respective field to write the articles, a model which doesn't transfer well to cultural issues. I think the measure you need is not WP:VG/S but more sources known for reliability on cultural analysis. For the specific information contained in the source by Orion, they are most certainly reliable, but the question then is on of WP:WEIGHT (space for content is justified by the attention reliable sources give a topic, not on perceived importance by some other metric). I think it's a good source to use but there's not enough additional weight in it alone to add much more than a single sentence. Second Quantization (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)