Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 19

Section for Criticism

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

References

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

Why is Breitbart not a reliable source? --LordCazicThule

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

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

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

Except when they report on negative things said about Sarkeesian. Then they were not deemed trustworthy enough to establish the relevance of what they were saying to the topic. Diego (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Such as? It would help if you can give a link. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This one, which precisely were sourced to both Polygon and Kotaku. Diego (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 14#Request for Comment: Video by the American Enterprise Institute: "It is not clear to me that a video which does not mention a person by name, but for which the connection to the person is made in reliable secondary sources, is necessarily excluded by default by WP:OR, and this was a central argument of those opposing inclusion here."

Nice try, but no. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to quote the RfC closure, don't miss the part that places it in context: It might be easier to gain support for adding commentary that is based on the secondary sources alone, but there was insufficient discussion of this to say that there is agreement on this one way or the other. The opposition applied to using the video directly, not to using the reliable sources that explicitly contradicted those who opposed discussion (and therefore can't be original research), inclusion for which we had a previous consensus. It's good that those coming afresh to this page are made aware of the history of previous decisions. The content was removed by edit warring, not by establishing a new consensus that replaced the previous one. This is a general tone by which many content decisions regarding reliable sources are made at this page. Diego (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

. Diego (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to talk about the criticism part. Saying something like "the video alludes to Sarkeesian"(Kotaku et al) isn't much of a criticism, positive or negative. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to collapse, Aye. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been a number of sources discussing criticism of her work or criticizing her work: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Consistently the page watchers shout down these sources to the point of absurdity, take no action on them, or propose content additions far more slanted towards a POV that treats all criticism as illegitimate. Why is that?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The best of those sources, The New Statesman, is already used in the Tropes article. The rest are pretty lightweight and the gist of most them is that, "yes there is popular criticism but it's either foul-mouthed abuse or reactionary codswallop that does stand up to scrutiny". If you want to propose an addition along those lines, feel free; the sources you provide would certainly support it. A more apposite observation might be that, although such Criticism sections are deprecated in BLPs, there is an unremitting push to shoehorn such a section into this article. Why is that? CIreland (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You brought up the "Gamesided" piece three months ago and it was roundly rejected. We already use Cathy Young's criticisms in the Tropes article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not a reason to not also use it here. There are parts of the Cathy Young article that are not relevant to the Tropes series and are relevant to Sarkeesian, and those were removed. Why? Diego (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed edit, with source? Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This one, later reverted by Cuchullain with the argument that "Young only mentions Dworkin in saying that another critic of Sarkeesian cited an earlier column Young had written about Dworkin" although, if you correctly parse the sentence in the article, it explicitly says that Sarkeesian sometimes relies on "radical anti-sex feminist" Andrea Dworkin's theories. Also this one added by NorthBySouthBaranof where an independent reliable source from Chicago Sun-Times makes a similar connection with Dworkin, removed in the same edit by Cuchullain without explanation. Diego (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Correctly parse" reads original research. I can still soundly reject such an idea. I'm getting real sick of the constant flinging anything at a wall hoping something sticks. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Correctly parse" reads "using the meanings of words in English". Unless you really want to imply that Sarkeesian sometimes relies on an old column of Cathy Young, the following sentence:

A fairly detailed three-part discussion of the flaws in Sarkeesian’s critique was posted a few weeks ago on Gamesided.com; for upfront disclosure, the first part quotes from an old column of mine criticizing radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin, on whose theories Sarkeesian sometimes relies.

...can only mean that Sarkeesian sometimes relies on Andrea Dworkin. Zero Serenity, there are community sanctions on all articles related GamerGate, so please keep any comments on other user's behavior to yourself and center on discussing content. Diego (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The "criticism" isn't meaningful, and is nothing but an attempt at guilt by association with someone "controversial." It doesn't attempt to explain which of Dworkin's many theories Sarkeesian relies on — is it a highly-controversial theory or a widely-accepted one? We're not told, and are left to guess. If Young had specifically cited the particular theory or theories that Sarkeesian uses and, presumably, demonstrated that those theories do not have mainstream credibility, then that would be something else entirely. But we don't have that — instead what we have is "the person I'm writing about agrees with something that a controversial person proposed." I agree with Cuchullain's removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's why we should include the words of the two reliable sources that have weighted all those concerns for us, and make no interpretation of our own. Also, that argument doesn't address the content from the Chicago Sun-Times that you added yourself. Diego (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. It also doesn't explain why the opinions on Sarkeesian by Sean Collins, Kris Graft and an anonymous writer from Newsweek are allowed in the article, but the opinion by Cathy Young has been removed. Diego (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I want somebody to explain to me what specific theories Anita relies on that are related to Dworkin, using a reliable secondary source. That is the only way anybody should consider including such information. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If that is the bar that we set to justify including content covered by two independent RS, does that mean we can remove all the references from the Commentary section that don't precisely explain how they arrived to the conclusions they state, per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT? Diego (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: the Cathy Young material and the reasons for its removal were discussed, right above, here. The piece is already included at the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and it says nothing of substance about Sarkeesian herself that could be included here, the Dworkin bit least of all. We simply shouldn't have to rehash the same discussions about the same proposed changes with the same editors week after week and month after month; this back-and-forth is beyond tiresome.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That wouldn't be necessary if we agreed to make the edits according to a unique set of criteria based on policy and applied it consistently to all references, instead of the current method of applying different subjective opinions to different sources. Diego (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Also, I've stated a flaw in the argument you used to remove the content. Do you have anything to say about that? Diego (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are we discussing Cathy Young again here? That article had its own thread. This is about creating a separate category for criticism, for which there simply isn't enough notable criticism. Case Closed. Cupidissimo (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Diego, so far as I've seen here, the same standards, based on WP:IRS, WP:WEIGHT, neutrality, and BLP are applied to all material brought up for discussion. That a large portion of the sources you advocate for fail the standards says more about them than anything.

And no, I don't particularly want to repeat myself about Cathy Young, which was discussed extensively last month, in a second thread, but here goes: "The piece is already included at the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and it says nothing of substance about Sarkeesian herself that could be included here, the Dworkin bit least of all."--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So, you're still missing the part about "there are bits of that piece that you removed which don't apply at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and do apply at Anita Sarkeesian", and the one about "the reason you gave for removing the content is patently false".

The point is that the standards are not applied consistently. An extensive in-depth article fully about Sarkeesian is rejected, even though some of its points have been made independently by a second reliable source, while a caption in a gallery is reintroduced. How do you apply Weight other than "I like it and it sounds nice on Sarkeesian"? Oh wait, that's exactly how it's being applied. Diego (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're well aware that using article talk pages to make personal comments or insinuate conduct issues is inappropriate. Take conduct disputes here, and do not misuse the talk page again if you want to avoid such a trip yourself in the near future.

I'm not going to respond to the content issue regarding Cathy Young here when we already covered this issue in the thread I'll now link for the second time. I'll respond there; I really don't understand how anyone could think this issue will be resolved by bringing it up weeks later in the middle of another, unrelated thread.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I linked to Bustle twice and forgot to include Asian Age.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

the one that says "That video games are sexist and their view of women objectionable isn’t news, but the response to Anita’s work has showed just how extreme opinions are pertaining to it." ". “I think the argument (that she has put forward) was long overdue. The attacks on her are by a minor community that is very vocal on the Internet. The points that she makes are valid, and the intolerance is unjustified." " Anita’s observations are right, but that the gaming world is not the only one that can be pulled up for it" - basically that she has received unjust "criticism" that is essentially just harassment? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Way to blatantly cherry-pick dude.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Pot: Kettle, etc. Cupidissimo (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

At one point we'd approached a consensus at using some of those sources (the good ones) to state that criticism of Sarkeesian exists. Of course using the New Statesman and Bustle would require us to get into the opinions of those authors, who don't think much of said criticism. The proposal died on the vine in large part because those advocating for the material never made a real attempt at or proposal for an addition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How could anyone involved in an encyclopedia in good faith argue against the proposition that the article should state the existence of criticism? Genuine question. People are angrily fighting hard to prevent the line "criticism of Sarkeesian's work exists" from appearing in the article, despite the fact that this is palpably true. I am required to assume the good faith of these people, but it's not a particularly easy assumption to maintain.Bramble window (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can find such criticism from a reliable source or an expert, then not only will we acknowledge its existence but we'll also cite it too. DonQuixote (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You exist. I acknowledge that. However, can I find a reliable academic or journalistic source to back that up? Of course not. Yet I still acknowledge your existence because I have seen very strong evidence.

Your error here is to imagine that a grown-up, educated person can't acknowledge something's existence until he's seen an academic or journalistic reference to it. It's ludicrous to maintain that you can only acknowledge the existence of criticism after others have put it into print. Haven't you clicked on the link to Phil Mason's videos? If you have, you know criticism exists. You know it exists. So do I. So do 99% of people who take an interest in the Sarkeesian affair. I draw a clear distinction between describing the content of the criticism and simply acknowledging the mere existence of such. Failure to acknowledge its existence is, in my view, tantamount to intellectual misconduct, regardless of what wikipedia's rules might be. Akin in my eyes to holocaust and anthropogenic climate change denialism. It exists, let's just be adults and acknowledge it.Bramble window (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can acknowledge that I exist, but that's not going to make it into an encyclopaedia article. My existence needs to be verified by a reliable source, not you, and it has to be deemed noteworthy, in order for me to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia or a textbook. That's the point. I have to resign myself to the sad fact that I'm not going to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article.

And amateur analysis on any topic, such as relativity, evolution, the themes of To Kill a Mockingbird, the themes of the Holy Grail, the works Huston Smith, or the works of Anita Sarkeesian will be thoroughly rejected from any tertiary source, such as an encyclopaedia article. This is because the necessary step of citing reliable sources is used to screen out fringe theories. The more and more you go on about popular opinion in spite of things like reliable sources, the more and more you paint your views as fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been criticism by reliable sources presented in this page, and it has not been included. Diego (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Such as? DonQuixote (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Since we're apparently just repeating ourselves endlessly now: "At one point we'd approached a consensus at using some of those sources (the good ones) to state that criticism of Sarkeesian exists. Of course using the New Statesman and Bustle would require us to get into the opinions of those authors, who don't think much of said criticism. The proposal died on the vine in large part because those advocating for the material never made a real attempt at or proposal for an addition."--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered that maybe the reason people find it difficult to collaborate with regular editors on this page, such as yourself, is because said editors are simply people with whom it is difficult to collaborate unless one already agrees with them?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered that there is a vocal group of people with axes to grind against the article subject, who are determined to include even the most trivial and specious of allegedly-negative material about her, and that said editors are here not to improve the encyclopedia's biography of Anita Sarkeesian but rather to use this biography as a platform to express their personal disapproval of and disrespect toward the subject and her works? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have no axe to grind against AS. She published some videos which received positive notices from people who agree with her worldview, and sharply negative responses from people who don't. I'm referring only to those who responded civilly on both sides, I think it's irresponsible to give the crazy green-ink "threat"-spewing brigade the oxygen of further publicity. The problem with this page is the attempt to erase from history the civil critics of AS's videos based on ridiculous hair-splitting. Bramble window (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

the fact that the "sharply negative" responses came from people whose opinions dont matter to an encyclopedia means that we dont cover them. we dont create a false balance by giving validation to non reliable complainers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh? How is it a "pot calling the kettle" situation? I linked to all the reliable sources discussing criticism both negative and positive and did not single anything out for one position or another.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be cherry picking your sources to suit your personal POV. The article as it is reflects the coverage Sarkeesian gets in reliable sources. Again though, this is for a "section" for criticism. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here for each of the ones that we have included so far, so a "section" seems a bit far fetched. If you keep bringing up the same sources that were turned down before, what you're really doing is showing that there isn't enough for a "section" the the first place. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

a "section" for "criticism" will never be appropriate: WP:STRUCTURE / WP:CRITS. Including all types of critiques and reception from reliable sources is appropriate, but only from reliable sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree that a separate section is not appropriate. The current Awards and commentary section should fill that role though, as "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section", per WP:CSECTION and WP:STRUCTURE. However in that section all negative or neutral material has been removed. That section is giving no consideration to prominence of the viewpoints held by RSs, where photo captions from galleries are allowed while whole articles from reliable sources dedicated to Sarkeesian have been removed. Diego (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

if the reliable sources and voices dont give negative or neutral commentary, we dont attempt to created it out of thin air or by giving excessive credence to non reliable sources .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that the antecedent of your conditional is false. There are reliable sources holding neutral and negative view on Sarkeesian, and those have been removed from the article on the ground of some editors' opinion that they didn't matter. This is the opposite way to proceed with respect to the WP:WEIGHT policy, which states "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Diego (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim these sources don't exist, only that you haven't found any of them. Cupidissimo (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

until those elusive as yet not presented sources appear, we appear to have nothing more to discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what sources am I cherry-picking? The sources I cited represent a wide range of views on Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

New source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey hey, a reliable source, a detailed and nuanced criticism addressing specific points of Sarkeesian's work, and arguments that go deeper than "Feminazi." I would agree this analysis belongs in either this article or Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this adds something. Throwing away paragraphs about other feminists (Dworkin shows up again with one Julie Burchill) I read this argument as her use of language to portray sex workers in the series as objects rather than subjects is the heart of his (and a couple other cited people's) argument. In my personal opinion, that felt like Sarkeesian's point which was completely lost somewhere. I'm not going to say include or don't include at this point but I don't know if this is substantial enough. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Verge 50

I can't figure out how to include this award in the text. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, the subject is in pretty impressive company. One of the few self-employed on the list. BusterD (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotefarm

I had a quick look at the article and I was going to add the quotefarm template, but once I saw the talk page I chose to write here instead. Why are there so many quotes when stating facts? Should we rely so much on quoting tweets when making a point? I don't find it suitable for an encyclopedia and I'm sure we can express someone's view more concisely. I haven't found nothing in the archives about this and if someone can't see what I'm talking about I'll make sure to list some examples. Should I try, be bold and rewrite? I'm asking 'cause I'm a newbie and I'd rather see some discussion on this before I edit. Heinerj (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason there are lots of quotes is because there is 1) a lot of controversy surrounding the subject and 2) a great concern about content regarding living people . This frequently leads to a consensus point where the direct quote is included rather than a summary or rephrasing because direct quotes eliminate potentially controversial and generally nonproductive discussions about "spin". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So, what should I do? I'm currently trying to remove some quotes and some non notable content. Should I edit, revert and then discuss all of that? Make a list of bullet points? I thank you for your explanation but we should write the best possible article and if it implies discussion, so be it. This is why we are here and how we're being productive. Heinerj (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Another thing is a lot of what is in quotes are titles of articles and such. So it does read like there are a lot of quotes, but it looks like more of a problem of quotation marks instead. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Very true, another big problem I see there is that we can't make a statement (thus a direct quote) about everything: when it's clear that we're making a point and if there's no discussion or multiple opinions, I think we should be more concise. Heinerj (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Tried something, probably made a mess with the sources and there's probably a lot to do about style and formatting. Remember, I'm not your favourite bone. Heinerj (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Much of this was good, some of it needs review and more work. And there's more that could be removed as we don't need so much detail on the production of the Tropes series.

I re-added the note on the essay Sarkeesian contributed to the book Fanpires. It was published in an academic book and has been cited by at least one other.[9] This seems noteworthy enough to include in the biography of the author.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The common practice is Bold, Revert, Discuss. New User:Heinerj has deleted sizeable sections of cited text; others have reinserted small parts of the deleted portions. Now we're discussing those edits. Re-deleting sections without first discussing constitutes the beginning of edit warring. I'd encourage all parties to discuss before warring in live space. For my part, I think the deletions go too far and I have zero problem with the parts Zero Serenity and Cuchullain have attempted to restore. BusterD (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

BRD was needed. There were quite a few quotes. Personally I'm fine with what's been re-added so far. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cúchullain, that something was published doesn't mean it's worth mentioning in the article. If you have any secondary sourcing you can add as a footnote to prove that it's worth mentioning I will gladly accept it--but we can't just list everything someone has published. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Heinerj, when removing quotes please be careful not to undo the existing balance. If a section contains quotes with a variety of differing opinions, selectively removing some of the quotes while leaving others may inadequately misrepresent the way that part has been covered in reliable sources. Either all of them should be removed, or none of them. Diego (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all. BustedD, of course I didn't want to start any edit war, but I can see how that was inconsiderate given the article's condition and I'm sorry.

Regarding Cuchullain's and EvergreenFir's edits, I still have my doubts about the relevance of the essay and other part re-added: the point here is not to include everything every RS says, but to make a single, clear and cohesive article.

Diego, I still consider some quotes to be necessary. In particular I kept "harassment is the background radiation of my life", simply because we spent half of the article talking about that. To further explain: I think that the Colbert quotes are pedantic and a little bit apologetic "I'm not here to censor games" (No reason to be defensive, we didn't talk about any censorship), "but to create awareness" (we already know that from everything else we wrote). We must quote something because it's essential to the point we want to make, not because it was said on the Colbert Report.

That was my reasoning and If someone want to keep something despite that, I'm perfectly fine with it: we're talking about a few details and lines of text. Just make sure to write here your reasons please. Heinerj (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I see no reason to keep the SLT quote since it states what is already included in the previous sentence. As I previously tried to say: we should't quote something just to support our points, we should make them with our prose. Heinerj (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, I think the bold deletions by Heinerj are a net positive and something several of us wouldn't think to do, being somewhat invested over time in the condition of the page. Fresh eyes are sometimes a good thing, and for that we thank new wikipedians. Cuchullain in particular has said it's past time to rethink and rewrite portions of this page and IMHO the new edits do help the page move forward. I encourage Heinerj to continue to edit boldly, not just here but in other pagespaces, being aware that some editors are less open to mass deletion that those of us here. BusterD (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I too want to thank Heinerj for this bold move, which was certainly a net positive. Hopefully it will be the first of several. We don't need the specifics of the production or their reception here; that more fits the purpose of the fork. What we need here is a good summary of the key points relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of Anita Sarkeesian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Heinerj, The Salt Lake Tribune quote is noteworthy because it represents the newspaper of record in the state of Utah agreeing with and expounding upon Sarkeesian's points. I'm in general agreement that there should be fewer quotes and I think the vast majority of your edits were valid, but that is one quote that I believe deserves space here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof: As I said: it's just a detail, I respect your reasoning and I won't discuss the deletion anymore. I asked you and others to explain yourselves just for the sake of future discussion and I appreciate you doing so. Having said that, I still can't see why we can't paraphrase the quote. It's our duty, as an encyclopedia, to explain Sarkeesian's point and we shouldn't delegate by quoting others. Do you think you could rephrase the quote? And... have you read what I said about the Colbert thingy? What do you think? Heinerj (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times criticism of A.S's work

Neil Steinberg provides the lone dot of critical description of "Tropes" in the canon of "reliable" (i.e: in tune with the editorial lines of the media outlets) description of the article subject, which is otherwise a solid wall of gushing praise. He, of course, ritually engages in the obligatory two minutes' hate of Sarkeesian's supposedly misogynist critics. But he has some nuggets of actual description of some of the flaws in Sarkeesian's output.

″Given that men in these games are there mostly to be bloodily mowed down with a chain gun, focusing on the women and their roles as sex objects who “almost never get to be anything other than set-dressing or props in someone else’s narrative” seems to miss the point. I couldn’t tell whether Sarkeesian is calling for the women in these games to be given some clothes, or for the creation of new games where female heroes visit death upon cringing, semi-nude men.″

Then after some more attacks on her strawman "attackers" (emphases mine):

″Those who would intimdate and harass and silence her, however, also tend to silence those who take legitimate exception to certain arguments she makes, and would poke holes in her thesis, but are reluctant to even seem to be on the side of her vile enemies (Sarkeesian notes that, having gunned down women, the player is “free to go about [his] business as if nothing had happened.” Which had me asking: “As opposed to what? Standing trial at the Hague?”).

How she differs from Tipper Gore railing against rock music or Congress investigating comic books in the 1950s is a matter of style — it’s all censorship disguised as moral righteousness. She leaps to lay real-world problems at the feet of video games — “these systems facilitate violence against women by turning it into a form of play, something amusing or entertaining” offering no evidence, ignoring the fact that women get the worst treatment in the most underdeveloped regions, places generally free of Xbox. Those who claim violence in video games fosters real violence are like those who claim the fluoride in our water is poisonous: were it true, we’d all be dead.″

It is important to note that Steinberg's criticism is also the substance of Phil Mason's critique of Sarkeesian, and most likely why he is so wildly popular. And why many are desperate to remove his massively influential and deeply notable work on this subject off the agenda. It's got to be why no newspaper has done an interview with him to balance out their fawning adoration of Anita.Bramble window (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Could you clarify what actually you think would be appropriate for the article? I can see a small amount of it as valid for the actual Tropes article (he barely even mentions the video content which is a weak spot), and some of it is relevant to Gamergate but likely already covered in that article well enough, but very little of this actually makes any sense for reception or criticism of Anita. Your highlighted sections in particular are amongst the weakest elements, and quoting them out of context, denying them any coherence, to contrive a point seems a bit odd. Koncorde (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bramble window, please remember that we're not here to discuss the topic among ourselves and that you should avoid expressing your personal opinions on the subject. I haven't read the article yet, at least not carefully, but I personally trust everyone's judgement - including yours. The source doesn't appear obviously unreliable to me, I encourage you to include it in the article. Perhaps, since you refer to another detractor who has his Wikipedia page, create a criticism subsection somewhere? Expand the "Awards and commentary" section? Just remember what Q1 and Q2 say.

Then, if someone have a problem with that, they'll comment here. I figure you followed the third faq's advice and started a discussion first, but I fail to see how that makes any sense given the nature of Wikipedia: «everyone can edit», not «everyone can propose an edit». Heinerj (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I was attempting to be collaborative: Heinberg's criticism is sorely needed in the article which is presently simple hagiography. Should wikipedia paraphrase Heinberg? Quote him extensively? Refer to him as one of an army of people making similar criticisms, or continue with the text as if nobody else was making the same points? Important questions for a supposedly collaborative editorial team to hash out, I thought. Would you really prefer I stampede into the text like a bull at a gate and get accused of vandalism? Bramble window (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about: you shoudn't fear any accusation of vandalism if you've got good intentions and have a reliable source. I doubt someone will have something against you for one or two sourced senteces. However, if you prefer to discuss the source with the others because you think that its inclusion might be controversial, let's wait and see what everyone has to say.Heinerj (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems like another fine reliable source to use to insert criticism of the subject. We have quite a few reliable sources now representing varying views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Before I begin, Neil Steinberg has an article. Second, this is more something to put into Tropes vs. Women if at all. Third, I am against inclusion. Neil does not say anything substantive and the tone of his article is all over the place. I've got a couple of other nitpicks about things he is straight up lying about, (censorship, use of the third world argument) but that isn't the thrust of the point. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for inclusion where and however appropriate, but I am concerned by the initial propositions tone, and the emphasis applied. The content itself is worth what it's worth when you're able to actually parse it into coherency. Koncorde (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose something along the lines of "Sarkeesian has received criticism for her failure to produce evidence to support her assertion that the content of video games "facilitates" misogynist violence in the real world." Then a link to the Heinberg article. And if it ever makes it into a RS, we can later add a link to Phil Mason's identical criticism. Bramble window (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We will never be adding Mason's criticism. He does not even come close to WP:RS for WP:BLP. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What, so if Mason's work were to be favorably reviewed in a reliable source by a notable reviewer, you'd oppose inclusion? Bramble window (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd still oppose inclusion, because that's a mere argument from authority. Mason's just this loudmouthed belligerent chemist with a YouTube account: notable (marginally) but not in any sense a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You've misread my post. I didn't call him a reliable source, because he obviously doesn't fit WP's specific criteria for RS. I note you mention that he is loudmouthed and belligerent as if that had some bearing on his accuracy. My understanding of WP policy is that if PM were reviewed favourably in a reliable source, that would make the content of the review automatically eligible for inclusion per policy. Bramble window (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If Phil Mason was quoted as a critic, we could mention him as a critic. If his criticisms were specifically outlined by an RS as "criticisms" then we could make reference to those also, but the inclusion would be contextual. What we wouldn't do is actually quote Phil Mason unless he was subject to the same standards of an RS (i.e. he'd have to be employed by a paper with editorial oversight) etc. etc. An interview in a reliable source would be an opinion, but potentially valid - depending again on context (i.e. referring to Sarkeesian / Tropes vs Women directly etc). Lots of permutations of where the line is drawn. Koncorde (talk) 19:22, 13 December

To get back to your proposal, it is inappropriately utilizing one source to expansively attribute claims about her criticism. So as proposed no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC) 2014 (UTC)

So how would you propose to include the much-needed criticism from the reliable source? I'm very curious. Bramble window (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom is right, it's just an opinion of a single man and we should treat it like that until we have more. Reliable it's reliable and looks like no one doubts that so I've tried to add it in the Awards and commentary section. Maybe it's not the best place, feel free to move it. Heinerj (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the second sentence "but criticized the lack of evidence supporting the correlation between certain videogames and real-life misogyny" as it's not clear he is referring specifically to Sarkeesian (in which case supporting studies and documentation is provided for each video...what qualifies as "evidence" though?) or just generally making the point there is no evidence for anything supporting feminist theories as it tags onto the part relating to Tipper Gore / moral outrage type stuff. Would rephrase to something along the lines of "but questioned Sarkeesians in-game expectations and the lack of immediate evidence relating to the impact of the video game medium." or something. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable, I edited to avoid any confusion. I don't want anyone to hold back their criticism or anything, but please, let's not over-discuss this. If a detail is wrong just edit! Heinerj (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Zero Serenity, please explain your last revert. If you think that a couple of sentences really could break the flow of the article, perhaps you could change the phrasing? Or maybe you don't find the source reliable? A couple of editors here seem to consider necessary the inclusion of the quote and your personal view on the article is not enough a reason to remove it. We shouldn't really discuss consensus on something so simple. We are quoting indirectly a well-sourced criticism, it's common practice. Heinerj (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statements are contradictory for starters, as well as you seem to want to avoid conversation about its worthiness. I don't trust this at all, and your presentation of it still warrants closer scrutiny as others have said this doesn't fit. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, tell me where I wasn't clear (or contradictory, as you said). I can't still quite understand why you think we shouldn't include the quote. What aren't you trusting? What do you mean with worthiness? All I said was that "its worthiness" is not something we should discuss. I'll ask one again: do you think it's unreliable?

Anyway, if you are so concerned let's see what other editors have to say. Heinerj (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including this article per se, but what his point is I don't quite understand. He states that her series is necessary, but disagrees with the reasons Sarkeesian herself gives without offering anything else? Not sure whether that is the best thing to quote. I would probably pick out that Steinberg says he is confused as to what her exact goals are. Not the greatest point but at least he does state this and manages not to contradict himself about it. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is not contradictory: you can praise someone's work and still find some flaws in it. E.g. Virginia Woolf is a wonderful and influential writer, but I think she's superficial when she talks about death. Heinerj (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He's not pointing to an aspect that he doesn't like though, instead he states that he finds her work both necessary and pointless, which is a direct contradiction. Which is why my recommendation as per above still stands. Cupidissimo (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several relevant points that merit inclusion. One is the connection with Andrea Dworkin (calling her tame by comparison), a connection also made by two other sources (Cathy Young) and the one by Reason.com (this one which explains "what specific theories Anita relies on that are related to Dworkin", which Zero Serenity asked for). There's three reliable sources making that connection now, one of them in detail.

Another interesting point stated in the source is that, because of the brutality and loudness of her attackers, people are afraid of making legitimate criticism of her ideas and her work (such as the one offered below, i.e. that "she leaps to lay real-world problems at the feet of video games, offering no evidence") for fear of being lumped together with those. You may agree or not with this, but this is legitimate analysis from a RS of the reasons why there's no more criticism, given the current high profile of her work. Diego (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not actually the case. The reference is vague, unspecific and tenuous, Dworkin's quote is rather general and not unique to Dworkin. There is no significant overlap between Sarkeesian's and Dworkin's positions, and these articles don't prove otherwise. You are still grasping at straws to include a controversial-sounding name for absolutely no reason, and to keep bringing up articles that have been discussed before and were not included to prove your point accomplishes the opposite of that. Cupidissimo (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I too can't see why this source shouldn't be used, nor why it was removed from the article. Chicago Sun-Times is a reliable source on par with the several major newspapers already included as references. Diego (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Literal quote: "This seeming contradiction is tied to longstanding tensions between some strands of feminist cultural criticism and sex workers. Sarkeesian's criticism of video games is in a tradition of feminist analysis that goes back to the 1980s, when theorists like Andrea Dworkin argued that "Pornography is used in rape—to plan it, to execute it, to choreograph it, to engender the excitement to commit the act."[10] (and then it goes on for two more sentences in the same paragraph, in a piece that is dedicated in full to how Sarkeesian's work has been received by a collective of women). @Cupidissimo, what's vague, unspecific or tenous about this? This is detailed content about Sarkeesian from a RS about a point that two other independent sources have also noticed, which is much more weight than some of the opinions included in the Commentary section. It's not the job of editors to second-guess what professional journalist decide to write about with respect to this topic, and we have already included in the article content much more tenuous than this - we should merely compile and summarize what reliable sources have said about it. There's simply no argument given for excluding this content that has been grounded in policy.

And one more time, as I said to Zero Serenity, please focus on the content and references provided and not in editor behavior, as the topic is subject to special administrative sanctions. Diego (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You are failing to suggest any actual edits though. The edit that we are discussing here isn't discussing Dworkin at all. So I'd say, write an edit that can be discussed instead of defending an edit that nobody actually made. Cupidissimo (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cupidissimo, the source doesn't call anything pointless or necessary. That's your inference (wrong, I dare say) and it's not something we should discuss here. My reasoning still stands: someone can praise someone's work and still find some flaws in it.

Diego I don't think that using more than two sentences on this particular piece is a good idea. If you don't think my two sentences represent the article, please do edit them, but I don't find Steinberg relevant enough to expand his ideas in this article. Maybe, since you seem to think you can relate his criticism to someone else's, you could expand the article on the video series, like Zero Serenity said before. Heinerj (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would edit them, but they are no longer in the article. There's no way to reach an WP:EDITCONSENSUS if there's nothing left to edit upon. As I said, I don't think your edit should have been removed, it was valid content. As the opposition for its inclusion isn't based in policy (so far we have "No concensus for inclusion" - well, there's no consensus for exclusion either, and Cupidissimo finding the RS contradictory, which again isn't a reason not to cover it), and the reasons for including it include WP:RS, WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:WEIGHT, I'm restoring it. Other editors may feel free to improve the wording to what they think better reflects this reliable source. We could use it also at Tropes vs. Women, but that's never been a reason not to have it here too. Diego (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's not discuss this over and over again and let's stay in topic. If someone has a problem, that's fine, but make sure it's in one of these categories:

• The source isn't reliable
• The source isn't adequately represented
• The source isn't notable or relevant enough to be included

We're not here to discuss worthiness or vagueness, whatever these words mean. KIS: state your valid criticism and wait for others to discuss it and just it. Heinerj (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My point was: Due to his vague wording, it's difficult to represent certain aspects of his argument accurately: They are not clear (to me at least). Which is why I suggested to use a different aspect of the article. I didn't argue against its inclusion. Cupidissimo (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, first off, I think we've established that the Sun-Times column can be used; it's an official column by a professional columnist for a respected publication. I have no idea why Diego insists on confusing things by bringing other sources into the discussion of this one; we need to focus on the topic at hand or the discussion is sure to be derailed.

Steinberg covers several things in his piece. The main thrust of it is that the "vile foes" and "angry obsessives" just bring more attention to Sarkeesian, and tend to prevent others from critiquing her points out of fear of being associated with the crowd. He then offers a few critiques of his own, of one of her videos, saying negative as well as positive things.

We need to get this right, because while the harassment material more belongs in this article, his critiques of the video more belong in the Tropes article. This is really a problem we created ourselves by allowing the series to be split off into an unnecessary fork, ensuring that both articles are redundant and in perpetually poor shape.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've brought other sources because, in case you didn't notice, one of the points made by Steinberg was also made by the others as well; that makes it reasonable to consider them together and see how to give due weight to what they have in common. Someone asked what points in the reference should be covered, I proposed three (including the original one introduced by Bramble window). Two of them were picked up for discussion, the other one remains unexplored. Doh. That doesn't 'derail' anything. I can wait until the other points are discussed to see what to do about the other sources.

I don't agree that all commentary of her work should be placed at Tropes vs Women; that series is specific to video games, and content about games or and specific points in the videos can be covered there in greater detail. But that doesn't mean that those can't also be covered here more generally (we have a guideline on how to handle this, so there's nothing problematic about this fairly common structure) and commentary about her views on feminism often concern her general style, not anything particular of the Tropes videos, so they're also relevant here - otherwise we wouldn't have the quotes from Rolling Stones and Humphreys/Vered. Diego (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

They don't make the same point at all. Young says, in passing and without any evidence, that Sarkeesian "sometimes relies" on Dworkin. The Reason article, which you've dropped out of nowhere into this thread, says that Sarkeesian is (supposedly) part of the anti-sex feminist tradition which famously includes Dworkin. However, Steinberg says that Sarkeesian is not like Dworkin. There's no connection to be made here, and yes, this is a distraction from dealing with the actual topic of the thread.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't need to show their evidence at each step, right? We trust them to have done their homework. And the Reason article does show evidence, and it's not in passing. Steinberg says that Sarkeesian is tame in comparison with Dworkin, thus comparable. So, even not equal, they're in the same scale. As the actual topic of the thread is "what appears in Steinbergs piece", and the comment about Dworkin appears in the Dworkin piece, your insistence that we *must not* talk about it is distracting. And also irrelevant, as I've already accepted that we can open a different thread to talk about it. A thread where you should explain why you think a connection that has been noted by three different reliable sources should not be included in the article. Diego (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Steinberg says the opposite of what Reason says and what Young passingly refers to: that Sarkeesian is not like Dworkin. And none of them make this any significant part of their critique. Sorry, this is a non-starter. Time to move on and get back to discussing things that could actually go in the article.-Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And what do we do when several reliable sources say different things about the same idea? Exactly, we report about all of them, per WP:Neutral point of view. If you don't want to wait to a separate thread to discuss this part of the Steinberg piece, we can keep discussing it here, as it's clear that this has enough weight to go into the article - it is more reliably sourced than some content already included in it. Diego (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No one else but you appears to think this is the "same idea". And even if your "connection" was real, it would be an exceedingly minor point in all of the articles. You're fixating on material that's at *most* insignificant, to the detriment of discussion that could actually produce changes to the article. This isn't the first time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First, no one is stopping anyone from commenting about other things; there's no way my comments can be seen as preventing other discussion. You keep commenting on my actions in a negative way, and discouraging other editors from participating is WP:OWN behavior; so don't do that.

Second, I wouldn't insist to include what you see as minor points if the article didn't already include a large amount of minor content from other sources. If you agreed to apply the same standards of what counts as significant to all the sources in the article, I would accept that a full paragraph of analysis on feminism theory could be excluded per due weight, same as a passing comment in the lead of an interview and a caption in a gallery about dozens of other women, if these were also excluded. Diego (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There's obviously no "OWN" issue here, as you continue filling the section with more comments. There's a growing IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue, however. Your comments would cause a lot less friction if you'd issue them in a more productive way. Stop going off on tangents, for starters. If there's a specific problem with other sources or material, as always, feel free to discuss them on their own merits. However, as you've been told repeatedly, the presence of (supposedly) problematic other material doesn't justify introducing your own problematic material that's unsuitable on its face.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

workshop

• Neil Steinberg says that because of the vile harassment that has been aimed at Sarkeesian other potentially legitimate critiques of her work have not been made because the critics fear being lumped in with the harassment.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) expanded with something like: ...although there are legitimate critiques to be made. That's an important part of Steinberg's article, not including it would skew the stance made at his article. Also, STICKTOSOURCE: Steinberg said "those who intimidate and harass and silence her", not "vile harassment" (nor "potentially"). Taking this into account, that's in the line of becoming a valid summary of an important point made by that piece. Diego (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's do this. Without discussing the wording of the proposition, it looks to me that we should include at least these three elements:

• praise of activism, because it's a positive comment and we don't want to reference only the negative one.
• lack of evidence, because it's a strong accusation, I think far stronger than the next point.
• lack of legitimate critique because of the hate mob following her.

I still find the third point to be slightly irrelevant. Heinerj (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Neil Steinberg places Sarkeesian in line of critics who have helped "nudge us toward that happy day" when society is less sexist. However, he faults her arguments that lack evidence to support them and states that because of the vile harassment that has been aimed at Sarkeesian, other potentially legitimate critiques of her work have not been made because the critics fear being lumped in with the harassment.

v2 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's quite good, in fact. Put "vile harassment" in quotes, or better yet drop "vile" (the harassment is not directly defined as such, only indirectly in the title - so that would be '...harassment by "vile foes"...') and that could go in the article. Diego (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• In his column for the Chicago Sun-Times, Neil Steinberg praised Sarkeesian's activism, but criticized her work because it doesn't offer evidence supporting the correlation between certain video games and real-life misogyny. He also stated that other potentially legitimate critiques of her work are held back because commentators may fear being lumped in with the harassment.

I'm sorry, but I still can't see the problem with my previous two sentences. Praising her activism (we know what kind is that from the rest of the article) and criticizing her work is exactly what he does.Heinerj (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• In his column for the Chicago Sun-Times, Neil Steinberg praised Sarkeesian's activism, but he criticized her work because it doesn't offer evidence supporting the correlation between certain video games and real-life misogyny. He also stated that because commentators may fear being lumped in with the harassment, other potentially legitimate critiques of her work are infrequent.

Changed some things, trying to be concise. Heinerj (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The real bent of the piece, especially as it relates to Sarkeesian herself, is that the harassment and criticism also tend to silence people who "take legitimate exception to certain arguments she makes, and would poke holes in her thesis", who don't want to be associated with Sarkeesian's "vile enemies". The specific "legitimate exceptions" he makes are tied to just the one video (and are a bit difficult to follow), and serve mostly to make his main point: that no one is making points like that because they don't want to be associated with the harassers. I think that's what we need to get across here; perhaps some of the specifics could be brought up at the Tropes article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Tied to one video"? It is basically one of the central points behind her entire body of work! On a related note, Erik Kain has also cited the reluctance of the press to criticize Sarkeesian.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Steinberg's specifically referring to one of the "Background Decoration" videos.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Why be so precious about quoting him exactly, rather than giving an entirely fair summation? Here's an example: "Heinberg makes it clear that he sees Sarkeesian's arguments as containing significant holes. He criticises her for making extraordinary claims without evidence about the way games supposedly "facilitate" violence in the real world. He mocks Sarkeesian for missing the point for her complaint about game characters not suffering consequences for misdeeds committed during gameplay. He sarcastically suggests that Sarkeesian would prefer the game character be tried for war crimes". Rather more importantly, Sarkeesian's wild unsupported claim about video games "facilitating" violence in the real world should be in the lede. It's not likely she got attacked and harassed by idiots because those idiots really hate hoop earrings. Apart from that claim, there's really nothing notable about her videos: it's not much more than just a talking head reading turgid 1970's gender war propaganda. If we're really giving this person an article, we sort of have to draw attention to the only vaguely interesting thing in her output. Kind of like an article about Shakespeare that neglects to mention Hamlet. Bramble window (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing actionable article improvements, not for airing your personal thoughts on the subject, and they're certainly not for disparaging living people. Your comments are entirely inappropriate and appear to be escalating.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of my post is two specific "actionable article improvements", along with an argument for the need for the 2nd suggestion. I barely even touch on my personal views. How about you concentrate on the important parts of the post and make an argument for or against them? Bramble window (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How about you quit violating WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:TPG, and disparaging living people? It's really not optional.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As has been said by several other editors, the material belongs in Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, not here. This article is about a person, not a work. Criticism (or praise) of her work belongs in the article about the work, not here. This is not a coatrack. Also, per WP:BLP, please refrain from sharing personal opinions and/or criticisms on the talk page. Kaldari (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me. When I saw the attack on living person Phil Mason pass without censure or even comment I figured that the norms had become less rigid. Will I expect to see you finally protest at the attack on Dr. Mason or are you done now?Bramble window (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior begins and ends with you. Stop violating the talk page rules, period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So Apparently No Critiques Allowed?

WP:NOTFORUM folks. Dreadstar ☥ 04:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So according to the discussions above about the possible inclusion of criticisms of Anita Sarkeesians work we have come to the conclusion that Andrew Breitbart is not a "reliable source"? The fact that it's not reliable is irrelevant due to the fact that a person like Andrew Breitbart, himself, criticizing Anita Sarkeesian is notable. I am appalled at the shocking double standard for the incredibly biased and poor sources in this article. So we can have nothing but praise and acceptance of every word she says allowed on here via Kotaku and IGN, but one disseminating critique by Andrew Breitbart from an official source-- NOPE. It's not as though he is even highly more notable than the person he's talking about, that doesn't matter because he's criticizing Anita Sarkeesian. I also find it funny how one person states we shouldn't take his criticisms seriously because of his past reputation and then goes on to state that we shouldn't listen to him because he commits the ad hominem fallacy. Dismissing someone's argument for who they are IS THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY. Now, I'm sorry if I'm breaking up the perfect feminist echo chamber bubble but I think we could have a tiny section for one little critique? Thanks. :) Breckham101 (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC) The above seems to be a straw man argument (or dead man argument). Nobody is keeping Andrew Breitbart's opinion out of anywhere. But since Breitbart died in March 2012, it would be hard for him to put his fringe positions forth on the subject of Anita Sarkeesian, who had no mainstream exposure at the time of his death. However, before his demise he established a media outlet in order to continue to put fringe positions out. Editors like myself regard Breitbart.com as unreliable because as a media outlet over and over they've proved themselves unreliable. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC) How have they proved themselves to be "unreliable"? Also, what "fringe positions" are you speaking of? The ones that disagree with you? Much regard, Breckham101 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Any reason why this discussion was closed? We are not using it as a forum. I was questioning his point of view and asking him to explain his points. Breckham101 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

actual legit critique from a reliable source even

[11] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I shit you not, that is actually content worthy of inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I sum up what I read as the following. The use of the term prostituted women vs. sex workers. I'm of two camps, the first saying this should be in Tropes' reception if at all and I'm not sure this weighs very much. If there was some sort of substantial flaw, this certainly is not one. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Deigo posted this article earlier. [12] Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, its pretty much just the choice of terminology and whatever conclusions you are willing to draw from there. and whether more appropriate here or there or both i am agnostic at this point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Never noticed the link from Diego, apologies for that if he did. And yes, this should be related to the videos and should basically be along the lines of "the videos were criticised for the continued use of the word 'Prostitute', a phrase considered sex negative by..." etc etc. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I pointed to the Reason piece, which originally published that, like two weeks ago.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that source was dropped into an unrelated thread without comment or suggestions for article changes. Clearly it's perfectly reasonable for inclusion, probably better at the fork than here since it's all about what the videos discuss. Something along the lines of, "Noah Berlatsky wrote in Newsweek that some sex workers have objected to Sarkeesian's discussions of video game portrayals of sex workers, particularly her use of terminology that they believe plays into the objectification she criticizes." And perhaps, if it's deemed worth a second sentence, "According to Berlatsky, this reflects a long-standing debate about sex work within feminist discourse".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be a pretty good encapsulation. (although is it just from sex workers or is it also from people who support sex workers rights? ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like it's sex workers themselves: "But Sarkeesian's videos have not garnered much praise from those most directly affected by these tropes. On the contrary, many sex workers have argued that Sarkeesian's videos contribute to the objectification and stigma that she claims she is trying to reduce." And all three people he quotes in that regard are current or former sex workers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, since we're talking about Newsweek, this prominently features Sarkeesian. Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You are so transparent it's hilarious. Previously, you pushed to get rid of the Tropes article and now you are glad that it exists because you can shunt off reliably-sourced criticism to that article and right after doing that you suggest including more material about harassment in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, you have to stretch pretty far with your assumptions to mistake me for someone who thinks Wikipedia benefits from having that pointless fork. Nice try though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that we still oppose the other article - but if it exists everything should be contextualised. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)