Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Positive"

There's nothing wrong or "impartial" about describing a positive review as a positive review. It's a perfectly adequate summary of the piece. Also, calling the reviewer a "scholar" isn't a WP:PEACOCK term, it's his actual job, and goes toward explaining why we care what he says. We could change it to "academic" or something. We could also say "convergent media scholar" or something more specific like that, though the source doesn't get into it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(Transposed from my talk page -Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

Can you quote the exact sentence where Nate Carpenter describes his review as a positive one? If that valuation has been explicitly made by the author, I think the reference should contain the quote. Diego (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The line after "Carpenter commended the series for rendering the ideas and language of media criticism into a format accessible for a general audience." I don't know about you but that sounds positive to me. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I was asking where does that valuation appear in a reliable source. I don't have access to the journal, and I assumed from your edit summary that you had read it and found the author was making that "positive" claim himself - which is what we need to include it in the article. If the source you're using to support that claim is the Wikipedia article, it can't be used to support a judgement of value. I'm removing it again as the valuation is not verifiable, so please don't restore it without a reliable source that describes the review as positive. Diego (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So you just admit you aren't reading the journal and are GUESSING that he wasn't positive about it. That...makes no sense. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked you to VERIFY the content you included, as the BURDEN for inclusion is yours. If you can't show evidence that the source contains material that supports the claim, it's not verifiable and must be removed. Diego (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant. Any of the project's thousands of music articles contain text in the vein of "So-and-so gave the band a favorable review, saying...". This is no different than that. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With respect to Tarc's last edit comment, album articles are not biographies of living persons, and if the tone of the review was disputed it would also need to be supported by a verifiable source. The qualifier has been challenged as unverifiable and contrary to neutrality of the article; if you want to keep it in, you'll need to find a reliable source describing the review as positive. Diego (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. If a reviewer is saying good & favorable things about a product or service or media, it is not out of bounds for us as prose writers to characterize the review as "positive", that's not original research. Seriously, smarten up. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Representative quotes:

"In this high quality, professionally produced video, [Sarkeesian] examines the role of the 'damsel in distress' trope as a narrative function in video games."

"At the heart of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games project is the goal of making the

language of criticism accessible and meaningful for general audiences. In addition to the concept of a trope, Sarkeesian introduces other concepts such as objectification and gender essentialism in easily understandable terms, and also takes the time to explain their significance."

His major criticism is that the video's limited scope doesn't get into the wider cultural and economic context that keeps games the way they are. This is mentioned in the article.

However, "Despite these limits, this critique and the whole promised series of critical analyses makes the tools of critical media literacy accessible for both students as well as popular viewers. Sarkeesian sets a positive rather than antagonistic tone, draws on a breadth of popular and scholarly knowledge, and offers an accessible critique. In an era when digital video and gaming commentary is often defined by spectacle and rant, Sarkeesian provides an intelligent, engaging, and entertaining point of departure for a wide variety of audiences. Anyone teaching courses in media, communication theory, or popular culture will find this developing web video series a valuable exemplar of the value and practice of digital critique."

Saying he reviewed the video "positively" is a perfectly reasonable, objective way to summarize the sense of the review.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Diego, seriously stop edit warring. Additionally, I noticed the next page does give Carpenter's credentials, so we can add that back in as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(bit off topic - but an explanation for my removal of "scholar" in front, as peacocking)

Scholar in this context is peacocking. That he is a scholar is either implicit by the fact that he has written an article in a scholarly journal, or it is put there to direct more focus to this view. The former doesn't require the (in that case) redundant "scholar" in which case it is peacocking, and the latter would be a breach of WP:NPOV.

That said, i've looked at the source, which seems to be in the media review section (correct me please), which is not a particular scholarly article, and probably not peer-reviewed. That doesn't make it a non-WP:RS, since it would still be under the auspices of the journals editorial review, but it does slide it down the scale of the weight that can be given to it. Finally i also looked at the scholar in question, who is a recent (pending?) PhD[1], with rather little published research[2] under his collar. Not something that merits extra weight.

All of which adds up to: Removing "scholar" in front, as either unnecessary, or breach of WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the whole scholar thing, I just wanted to point out that it is a peer reviewed journal. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I added "scholar" in the first place to explain why we care about what he says, similarly to what's done with the others cited in the reception section (why do we care what Chris Suellentrop thinks? Oh, he's with the New York Times). Recent events at the articles would suggest such an explanation is useful. Again, we could change it to "academic" or "communication studies scholar" or something like that, but if others want the wording removed, then fine. As for the source itself, it's as good as any other review in a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the relevant topic area; in fact we're lucky to have such a source for YouTube videos.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The source is the reason that we are interested - not the credentials of the writer. We rely on editorial review when assessing WP:RSs. We can't emphasize one source over another unless both are reliable and there is a significant WP:WEIGHT difference between them, that is not the case here from my analysis. Thus your explanation/emphasis lies outside WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen 14:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a weight issue, there is no great difference from what we've done with the others in the section. We do care about the writer as well as the publication; the only difference with the others is that their status as "Boston Globe contributor" or "New York Times reviewer" is clear from the context already. Again, I think it's useful to readers, especially in light of recent events, but if others want it removed then so be it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the writer here is fairly uninteresting (no major scholarly achievements, pending PhD, fairly unknown even within his field etc), and since the article doesn't seem to be a major one (no own headline/title), and not in the peer-review section of the journal (which itself is fairly marginal)... then there is really nothing to merit that it gets more attention/emphasis than any other source that we have. Which means that the context "in the journal Women & Language" is more than enough. --Kim D. Petersen 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And again, it gets no more "attention/emphasis" than what's done for literally every other source in the section, not that there's any impending rush to putting it back in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You were arguing for the "usefulness" of such emphasis, and thus i explained why such would not be WP:NPOV, given the data we have on the article. --Kim D. Petersen 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a question. Is it not WP:OR to use positively reviewed instead of reviewed? Would you admins put negatively reviewed too if you get that impression from the review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.124.63 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not OR if it's based on a reliable source. Plenty of things are negatively reviewed—for example, see List of films considered the worst and List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes—as long as a reliable source says so. Woodroar (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's original research against WP:STICKTOSOURCE in this case, as there's no reliable source stating that the review was positive, but I couldn't get a consensus to remove it. Diego (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We went over this, and no, no it's not original research to accurately describe a positive review as a positive review. The fact that the author doesn't use the exact term "positive" is irrelevant. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly."--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

This article, which has already been vetted for use in the Gamergate controversy describes TvW as a "Conservative gaming series". It's a throwaway descriptor, so I'm not sure it's notable. It's up to your discretion.

This article criticises Anita more than the videos, but has some criticism of the content of the videos, too.

Willhesucceed (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this Metaleater site calls the series "conservative" is enough to call their fact checking and accuracy into question from the get go. I don't know anything about viralglobalnews.com, but they recently ran an article on the "Purge" hoax as if it were real, which doesn't speak very well for their op-eds criticizing other peoples' journalism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconding Cuchullain about the "conservative" descriptor... Metaleater has not been discussed on WP:RSN though. There's no mention of editorial oversight on their about page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the archives for Gamergate there's a super-long involved thread where I had to prove it was a reliable source. The woman knows her stuff. Liana Kerzner's a long-time geek with media credentials, she spent a week researching the topic, and on top of all that she had to convince her editor to run the story. She just doesn't happen to see Sarkeesian as progressive, since she's both sex-negative and reinforces (edit: benign) gender stereotypes. Now, granted, you could ignore this because it's both fringe and an extremely small comment, but considering how Anita doesn't get criticism pretty much at all, I thought it was worth bringing up and seeing what people here thought. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Said thread Willhesucceed (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether the writer was attempting a bit of paralipsis or just fumbled, or if her editors were in on it or also fumbled (or even if there are editors), but either way it's a pretty... unusual thing to say about this series. The fact that it's essentially a passing comment in an op-ed means we're pretty safe to leave it out. It may still be something useful for citing the author's opinion at the Gamergate article if the author and publication are noteworthy. But nonetheless, thank you for bringing new sources for discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Willhesucceed - an earnest discussion about sources potentially relevant to the article is never a waste of time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting requests

• The snippet "a pack of stickers consisting of re-imagined Zelda and Princess Peach pictures from Nintendo with a slogan and three with Feminist Frequency logo" is ambiguous; I initially read it as saying Zelda and Peach had been re-imagined by adding slogans and (in three cases) the FF logo. The last part ("three with Feminist Frequency logo") is also not grammatical; "logo" should be plural or FF should have a definite article ("the Feminist Frequency logo") or be possessive ("Feminist Frequency's logo"). I suggest rewording it to "a pack of stickers of the Feminist Frequency logo and of Nintendo characters Zelda and Princess Peach with empowering slogans". (Optionally: leave out "empowering".)
• "In the late 2012" should be "in late 2012", and the following "with an episode a month" should perhaps be changed to "at a pace of an episode a month".
• I suggest tweaking

  • A game appeared on popular Flash game website Newgrounds on July 5, 2012. The game allowed players to virtually assault Sarkeesian by clicking on her face, effectively "beating her up."

  to

  • On July 5, 2012, a game appeared on the popular Flash game website Newgrounds which allowed players to virtually assault or "beat up" Sarkeesian by clicking on her face.

-sche (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Done All done, seeing as there were no objections in four days. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

View Counts

Would a Sysop with some spare time go ahead and update the view counts in this list? They are a bit too far on the outdated side. (Head to her youtube page for a complete list.) Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done @Zero Serenity: If you can provide an episode summary for "Women as Background Decoration: Part 2" that would be nice as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll sit down to watch again sometime soon and write something up. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Here we go: "Continuing the previous episode, this focuses on sexualized violence and disposability of NPC Women in games, as well as advertising for games being as objectifing as the games can be. Conveys that violence against women is used as a form of characterization." I kinda find these videos are hard to boil into a couple sentences... Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the content is more focused on things that combine both sex and violence together. Here's my suggestion: "This episode focuses on variants of the "women as background decoration" trope that combine both sexualization and violence in the portrayal of female characters, often in order to paint more significant male characters as brutal or villainous."Cúchullain ^t/c 02:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever been good at writing these blippin' summaries anyway. You find me in agreement with your summary. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, Mr. Stradivarius, will you add?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Remind of what 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.

Key points here are published by reliable sources and proportion to the prominence in those sources. If the most reliable sources are giving prominence to the harassment issue when talking about this and later filling in readers about GamerGate, then the article should give more weight (i.e., space) to the harassment issue. My understanding is that the majority of reliable sources do (especially the most reliable sources such as mainstream news outlets), in fact, follow this pattern. However, we need to make sure the sources are connecting it to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games lest we be coatracking.

There are so many single-purpose accounts and point-of-view pushers swarming to these articles, it's important to remember Wikipedia's policies. UNDUE is not an essay or suggestion. It's required. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. We should try to hold all articles to the same level of scrutiny in an unbiased way. Preferably there should be more editors with a long editing history in wikipedia that is not heavy on feminism and related subjects. The harassment is an important thing in both GamerGate and Sarkeesian's life, that deserves due weight. The question is how relevant it is to Sarkeesian's video series themselves. It clearly contributed to press coverage and thus to funding and stirred a lot of debate. But the debate about the harassment isn't the same as the critical response to the video series.PizzaMan (♨♨) 10:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In making and getting funding for the video series she was harassed, abused, received death threats and was forced from her home. I think it warrants a mention in the series page as well, especially as the abuse was so closely connected to the release of each episode. The abuse is part of the history of the video series. - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. In fact i think it should be mentioned in at least two places: the kickstarter campaign, when it started, and the production of the videos, when it intensified. My edits to do that were reverted, though, to keep a lengthy separate paragraph about the harassment, because not everyone agrees on how lengthy the mention should be in this article. I think a brief mention is warranted in the context of this article but in cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached and this article shouldn't be used as a coatrack for a lengthy section about the threats against Sarkeesian.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those policies apply here. We have many, many sources discussing the harassment, and none of it is negative towards Sarkeesian or in any other way violates BLP. Woodroar (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Straw man. I'm not denying the extent or general relevance of the harassment. But was the harassment pointed against the video series or against Sarkeesian? I think the latter, and that's why a large paragraph on it is appropriate for this article. And indeed why it should be brought back to the point where BLP doesn't apply.PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I will clarify. I agree that a discussion about where to place the material is appropriate. (I don't agree with your opinion, but that's beside the point.) It's your use of policy that is faulty. Virtually all reliable sources about the series—even those not about the background or harassment but ostensibly a review of the videos—discuss the harassment as well, so COATRACK doesn't apply. And your quote from the BLP RfA is about removing negative details about the subject until they can be discussed, and this material about Sarkeesian is overwhelmingly positive. Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly. The reasons for her "personal" harassment and the reason she is continually harassed are the videos and the personal harassment intensify every time she posts a new one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should be mentioned in the article. I hope you can provide a source on that, preferably as a general statement rather then examples. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not ... quite true. <redacted> until the GamerGate thing, with each video receiving less views than the previous one. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is that Youtube records views over time, so an older video is likelier to have more views, further the volume of views is irrelevant to the actual principle that the renewed harassment that takes place coincides with each video. This time it happened to coincide with GamerGate but still happened because of her videos. The harassment still targets her because of her videos, and her feminism. Koncorde (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

Isn't the harassment better placed in Sarkeesian's own article instead of here? I understand that some of it is important in context--for example the treatment she received during/after initial funding, and after her sixth video--but most of it doesn't add to understanding of the videos, but about Anita herself. I'd like to cut that section down by half, and move excised bits to the article on Sarkeesian herself, but I'll wait for others' thoughts before proceeding. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We tried discussing this before and it went flat. And yes, I agree with what you're saying. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's necessary for context on how the series was created. It should be mentioned farther up in the article and yes, we can rewrite it as more of a summary of the key points.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You said yourself harassment is not a form of critical reception. It's not very relevant to the video series. Since the harassment was against Sarkeesian as a person, i propose only mentioning it in one sentence in this article. The rest of it should be moved to the page about Sarkeesian. Since it already started before the first video, i propose briefly mentioning it in the kickstarter section. In the critical reception, we could add one more sentence that harassment continued after the publication of the videos as discussed here: Talk:Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games/Archive_1#Reception_2 PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems all editors above are in agreement to move the bulk of the harassment section to Anita Sarkeesian. I too agree that having at the other article the content more directly related to her person, and only tangential to the video series, makes the most sense. Pizzaman, see Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale for ideas on how to write a short section for this article that summarizes the content to be moved there. Moving the remaining content to the Kickstarter section may be a good idea, as the harassment started there, though it depends on what we retain and how it's worded. Diego (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Some open ends though i'd like everyone's opinion on. 1. None of the references that Sarkeesian contacted the police actually do more than quote Sarkeesian. We should perhaps state "Sarkeesian said to have contacted the police", rather than stating she actually did, if none of the sources verified that in any way. But for now i just summarized the part as it stood. 2. I bundled the youtube, facebook and twitter threads under the term online harassment. Is that sufficiently clear? 3. i removed the beat up game. On the one hand, it's a good example, on the other hand, while some harassment may have valid points in them about the video series, this was just purely directed at her person. 4. I didn't find anything worth copying over to the Sarkeesian article, since it deals extensively with the harassment and covers it all. I feel bad about just throwing it away, so please correct me if i'm wrong and there's anything worth transferring. 5. i mention the increased press coverage after the harassment started to establish it's relevance, both to this article and in general.PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if we should have a content WP:SPLIT of all the harassment material. The topic of Harassment of Anita Sarkeesian because of her Tropes vs Women video series is certainly notable from the huge amount of sources documenting it, but the level of WP:DETAIL we have is too much for either the biography or the video series. A timeline article though could serve those readers interested in finding about the level of vitriol she received. Diego (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

PizzaMan has now excized all material on the early harassment out of the article. This isn't going to fly, as it's necessary for the background of the series. There are few if any sources for this series that discuss it without mentioning that. When I get to it I'll add a summary back to the production section, where it was until recently anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not excize all material. I summarized it in two places in the article. That seems to me in line with moving the bulk of it to the Sarkeesian page as per consensus above. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no. If the references say she contacted the police, she did. We don't second-guess or play games with the sources as you're proposing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The police themselves eventually, after a week of confusion, confirmed that she had contacted them. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as i can see, the current references say Sarkeesian claimed to have contacted the police, not that the journalist confirmed it. So it would imho be a good idea to add a reference about the police confirming it. Also, isn't "contacting" the police a little vague? Did she actually actually ask the police to track down this person with the intention of filing a complaint? Did she ask the police for protection? Or did she just say "hey, just so you know, i got a threat". Or isn't that relevant?PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Polygon did confirm it. That source is mostly about how the FBI is handling the investigation, though. It's used in our article on Anita Sarkeesian but not here, I'm guessing because more details about harassment are in the other article. Woodroar (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting as a summary does not constitute removing all mentions. I have restored the material until a consensus rewrite is developed here. This is particularly key given the fact that the lede and many of the sources specifically mention the harassment campaign as a notable part of the series' history and cultural impact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not remove all mentions. It was mentioned on two places in the article after my edits. There seemed to be a majority consensus about moving the bulk of it to the Sarkeesian article. I'm not starting an edit war, but i kindly ask you to undo your reverts and add to my edits any parts that you find relevant to the video series.PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Harassment before response / 50-50 critical reception.

Wouldn't it be more neutral to first "give a stage" to rational discussion and response before going into the harassment? PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the response on my second point, is it safe to assume we have consensus on this point? PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This remark stood for almost a week during which no one responded despite the lengthy discussion below. I added another comment two days (and many comments) ago to double check if anyone disagreed. Yet it got reverted. I'm guessing the right course of action here would be to revert the revert? PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why this is better. In fact the arrangement is pretty unfortunate overall, since we don't even mention the harassment until so late in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the harassment could be mentioned earlier. But in the critical response section, we should first give the stage to the response by authorative sources rather than the more irrational responses such as death threats. That would be putting Hoff's pyramid of disagreement upside down. In fact, i think the paragraph on harassment should be moved to Sarkeesian's wikipedia page as the threats were personal threats to Sarkeesian for the opinions she had and not a (real) response to her videos. Not that they shouldn't be mentioned here, just not in depth. On the other hand the threats are what got her a lot of attention which lead to the large success of her kickstarter campaign. And it started before she released her first video, so perhaps summarize them in the kickstarter section for chronological reasons? PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems you already agreed with me in an archived talk, to quote: Reception sections are for how the subject has been received by the critics. As in, reliable sources, which have had a much different response than the internet trolls. Much of the harassment started before there even was a series; it's not "reception" in any meaningful way.--Cúchullain t/c 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzaMan (talk • contribs)

The harassment material was moved down after an earlier discussion. I don't think all of it (specifically the harassment that occurred before there were any videos) should be in the "reception" section, because now it's not even mentioned in the sections dealing with the development. That's another matter than where it should be if it's in the reception section; I just don't see your changes as an improvement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, like i proposed in the Sarkeesian talk page, shouldn't we strife for a 50-50 mix of positive and critical response? If everyone agreed with her the series wouldn't have caused so much response. PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, per WP:UNDUE we write in proportion to the reliable sources, and virtually everything in reliable sources is positive. Woodroar (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

seems unlikely to me that there is no critical debate about this. Smells like a bias. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Then go find us a source before wasting our time. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Before i do that, i want to know whether people think the paragraph is balanced.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, we're discussing what User:PizzaMan smells, which is original synthesis. The burden of proof is on any editor wishing to make changes in cited text. Present sources, or find another forum for opinions. BusterD (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I found one somewhat critical quote in the Anita_Sarkeesian page by Christina Hoff Sommers. She makes some very valid points, unfortunately only some names calling was actually quoted. I edited that to add her actual points. Maybe we could use those arguments in here as well? There's some youtube video's as well, especially by thunderf00t. Obviously, if you're discussing games and videos about games, the most suitable format is in a video. But i recall reading somewhere that a video isn't yet considered a valid reference? PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As per revert on the Sarkeesian article (which I was about to do with the same rationale), Sommers opinion is relevant to culture (though not sure what philosophy that falls under). Not relevant to Sarkeesian other than when she specifically refers to her. If Sommers critical response is to the video series then that would be fine within the context of the critical response I would presume. Koncorde (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sommer's arguments are a direct response to the claims Sarkeesian makes. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the comments from the article, they clearly aren't a response. Watching the video, aside from Sarkeesian appearing midway through I don't believe she is even mentioned by name. The article itself seems to match this clear delineation by only mentioning Sarkeesian in context of the "gender activists and hipsters" part. It's cultural comment, and would be fine for an opinion piece associated with Gamer Culture or Feminism but the only relevant Sarkeesian or Tropes content would be the personal insults. Koncorde (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you watched a different video? The one the article discusses doesn't discuss two unrelated subjects in one video. She starts the video by discussing a (the?) core claim of the Sarkeesian videos that games influence people's daily behaviour. For this, she starts with a historical perspective. The whole video is clearly centered around one line of reasoning. She also points out the valid point that the likes of Sarkeesian do a lot of cherry picking, that there are plenty of games with female protagonists and that it's perfectly normal that the majority of games simply caters to the largest market; males. She also points out that millenial males, who were brought up with these games, are actually less prone to prejudices. These are all valid points and all a direct response to the points Sarkeesian makes. In short, it's a valid critical criticism. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, unless she specifically addresses Sarkeesian / her site, we cannot jump to the conclusion that she is. Tossing pics in the background like red meat to her supporters is not a "critique" and certainly not a "critique about the website".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hoff Sommers doesn't mention Sarkeesian or her series by name, nor does she address any specific points Sarkeesian makes. She just shows shows some images of Sarkeesian as part of her general discussion against feminists critiquing video games, which she views as a male hobby. The most that can be said about this video relating to Sarkeesian is that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian in the video; there's nothing else that can be reasonably extracted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "give a stage". If I parse that correctly as discussing the background of video games, a small section would be DUE if appropriately sourced, but a thorough treatment should go in misogyny and mass media or video game culture rather than here. If you have something in mind, please suggest it. Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

She discusses feminist video game critics. Is there any other nearly as notable as Sarkeesian? Just because the criticism is also appliccable to any other feminist video game critics that may exist, that doesn't mean it's not applicable to Sarkeesian or that it's invalid criticism. And just because she's too polite to name Sarkeesian, doesn't automatically mean it's not a response to Sarkeesian's videos. In fact it's blatantly obvious that her criticism is specifically targeted at Sarkeesian. For example she specifically goes into the threads Sarkeesian received. And the video is full of samples from Sarkeesian's videos showing Sarkeesian's face. Aside from that, why do you want to keep all negative critical response out of the wikipedia article when it already contains a lengthy section on all the positive response? Do you really think she'd get death threats about it if everyone agrees with her points? Or that the Thunderf00t videos about it would get so much views and likes? Do you really think that adding some more critical critical response would obviously make the article *less* balanced?PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't attribute things to Hoff Sommers that she doesn't say. We already say (at the Sarkeesian article) that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian in the video. WP:IRS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BLP are some of the important policies and guidelines governing what goes into articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not actually responding to what i say. I bring forth several arguments to show that the Hoff videos are about Sarkeesian and are worth including here even if they wouldn't be exclusively about Sarkeesian. You're just replying "no they're not" in stead of actually responding to my points. But in case you weren't convinced, the two references that critical reception part in the Sarkeesian article cited, both mention Sarkeesian by name:[3], [4], which shows it's not just my interpretation. If you don't agree with me, please convince me and refute my points.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The video is not about her. It is about culture itself while Anita gets a whole one-liner. Not worth inclusion as Hoff's video is not specifically about her. We use this same sort of scrutiny in other articles, why not this one? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just after i kindly ask to not just say "it's not" after i argued it is about her, but rather refute my points if you don't agree, you do exactly that. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's not really anything else to say. Hoff Sommers does not directly mention Sarkeesian, her videos, or specific points she makes. The sources given say that she alludes to Sarkeesian by showing images of her amid her general discussion. And so that's what we say about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's true that she doesn't name Sarkeesian, but she does mention her, by adding a lot of video footage from Sarkeesian . Not just at one point in her video, but throughout it. (edit: while more of the game videos she shows are probably from Sarkeesian's videos, she shows Sarkeesians face twice). The whole Hoff video is a direct reply to the specific points Sarkeesian makes:

1. She starts the video by discussing a (the?) core claim of the Sarkeesian videos that games influence people's daily behaviour. For this, she starts with a historical perspective.

2. She also points out the valid point that the likes of Sarkeesian do a lot of cherry picking,

3. that there are plenty of games with female protagonists and

4. that it's perfectly normal that the majority of games simply caters to the largest market; males.

5. She also points out that millenial males, who were brought up with these games, are actually less prone to prejudices. These are a direct response to the core points Sarkeesian makes.

In short, it's a valid critical criticism. Agian, what you're doing here is saying "the Hoff videos are not about Sarkeesian", while i gave actual reasons they were. I kindly ask you to actually respond to those reasons if you don't agree with me and not just repeat your opinion without engaging in actual discussion. I'll resort to numbering here.

1. As i mention above, the Hoff video is a response to the points Sarkeesian tries to make. Her line of reasoning is at the very top of the Hoff pyramid of disagreement. Except for the part where she talks about hipsters and stuff, which is exactly the only part that was actually quoted; the least relevant part. If you don't agree with this, please summarise what you think are the core points Sarkeesian makes and explain to me why the Hoff video does not go into them.

2. While the two references i mention, don't prove that the video is about Sarkeesian, they do prove that the video bits in Hoffs video aren't just someone looking like Sarkeesian, but actually are Sarkeesian.

3. She discusses feminist video game critics. Is there any other nearly as notable as Sarkeesian?

4. Just because the criticism is also appliccable to any other feminist video game critics that may exist, that doesn't mean it's not applicable to Sarkeesian or that it's invalid criticism.

5. And just because she's too polite to name Sarkeesian, doesn't automatically mean it's not a response to Sarkeesian's videos. In fact it's blatantly obvious that her criticism is specifically targeted at Sarkeesian. For example she specifically goes into the threads Sarkeesian received.

6. And the video is full of samples from Sarkeesian's videos showing Sarkeesian's face.

7. The videos are worth including here even if they arent't exclusively about Sarkeesian. They are still mainly about Sarkeesian, as Sarkeesian is shown more than any other feminist game critic.

Yes i'm repeating myself, but again, i kindly ask you to actually engage in dialogue and not just repeat your opposing opinion as an absolute truth. I also think we could better spend our time just looking for other critical references. It seems an accepted point that there is only positive criticism, but that's not what i find. From the first two Google pages of "Sarkeesian criticism" alone i got plenty of sources. Perhaps they're not all up to wikipedia's standards, but the claim that all criticism is positive is just not what i find with a simple objective Google search. [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18].PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Youtube does not qualify as a source, we have discussed most of these sources before and frankly I will no longer entertain anything you post as you're not being constructive. Enough. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems my skills to find where most of the non-youtube sources are discussed, are lacking.

[19]/[20] have been discussed before but aren't any more a personal opinion piece than some of the positive reception, for example Paste magazine.

[21] same

[22] can't find where this has been discussed before

[23] can't find where this has been discussed before

[24] can't find where this has been discussed before

[25] can't find where this has been discussed before

PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, you agree with all my other points and references then? Seriously though, trying to get the criticism section more balanced is from pure constructive intentions. Name calling doesn't add to this dialogue.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop posting things in the middle of threads. It's distracting, and no one is interested in engaging in lengthy discussion in this manner. If you want to discuss something new, start a new thread.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this video is not "mainly about Sarkeesian", nor does she include "a lot of video footage from Sarkeesian". She flashes video of Sarkeesian for maybe 6 seconds in a video over 6 minutes long. She shows her first briefly when she complains about "hipsters with degrees in cultural studies", and then again when she notes that "two feminist critics received and publicized emailed death threats". That's the extent of what can reasonably be extracted as far as direct reference to Sarkeesian goes. I'm sorry, but if you want to add more, you're going to have to propose something specific and gain consensus for it to be included.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I rewatched the video and you're right that Sarkeesian is only shown twice. However, this does not prove that the video is *not* a response to Sarkeesian's videos and it's not relevant to my other points. You're still ignoring most of my points. Let's focus on the most important: 1. As i mention above, the Hoff video is a response to the points Sarkeesian tries to make. Her line of reasoning is at the very top of the Hoff pyramid of disagreement. Except for the part where she talks about hipsters and stuff, which is exactly the only part that was actually quoted; the least relevant part. If you don't agree with this, please summarise what you think are the core points Sarkeesian makes and explain to me why the Hoff video does not go into them. 3. She discusses feminist video game critics. Is there any other nearly as notable as Sarkeesian? 4. Just because the criticism is also appliccable to any other feminist video game critics that may exist, that doesn't mean it's not applicable to Sarkeesian or that it's invalid criticism. Please just respond to my questions and points. Including, ideally, my proposal to just work together and find critical references. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would still say, considering the sheer amount of positive press she has gotten especially this past week, to include one sentence by somebody who doesn't even try to argue any of her points not mention her name is disproportionate. There's a reason none of these criticisms have been picked up by any reputable source: They don't really hold up to scrutiny. If her work is really as riddled with inaccuracies as some of these articles seem to imply, a notable source is going to pick this up sooner or later. Right now, all I can see is a bunch of conspiracy theories that are widely ignored in the mainstream. Cupidissimo (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why a professor who refers to scientific sources is not a reputable source and all the positive criticism is? Perhaps you only read positive press about Sarkeesian's videos, that's your good right, but as i explained before, the sheer amount of views and likes that more critical videos got on youtube and the results from unbiased google searches show a different picture. Here's a source that literally says "The person she focuses on is Anita Sarkeesian" [26]. Also, if your interpretation is that Hoff doesn't respond to the points Sarkeesian tries to make, please explain what you consider the main points in Sarkeesian's videos, because i think that Hoff's criticism focusses exactly on the main points of Sarkeesian, as i explained several times above. (edited) PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's already been explained: "to include one sentence by somebody who doesn't even try to argue any of her points not mention her name is disproportionate" (Cupidissimo). To emphasise, "who doesn't even try to argue any of her points". Frankly, it's scraping the bottom of the barrel to include this as criticism since it doesn't directly critisise this work or the author. DonQuixote (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cupidissimo said Hoff isn't a reputable source as opposed to the positive criticism. I ask why. Also, to repeat the opinion that Hoff's video is not a response to Sarkeesian's videos as a fact, doesn't refute the reasons i give why it does. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Where does Cupidissimo actually say that? I can't find it anywhere. And you're the one with the opinion, as stated by others, and summarised by Cúchullain: 'Sorry, but this video is not "mainly about Sarkeesian", nor does she include "a lot of video footage from Sarkeesian".' At best it makes a tangential reference to Sarkeesian and her work, and that's a poor foundation to build a encyclopaedia section on. DonQuixote (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cupidissimo says "none of these criticisms have been picked up by any reputable source". By stating that none of the sources of criticism are reputable in the context of a dialogue about Hoff's video, (s)he is arguing that Hoff isn't a reputable source either. It's basig logic: if someone claims all apples are blue, they also claim a specific apple is blue. Again, repeating the opinion that Hoff's video is not about Sarkeesian does not make it a fact or refute any of my reasons it does.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, that's not how encyclopaedia articles work. If someone were to claim that all apples were blue, then that claim should be in that person's article or general article on apples (with the claim attributed to the person). It should not be included in the article for a specific apple. That's just poor writing and attribution of undue weight.

As for "none of these have been picked up by any reputable sources", that's nothing remotely like "Cupidissimo said Hoff isn't a reputable source as opposed to the positive criticism"--it's more like "Cupidissimo said Hoff's arguments haven't been picked up by any reputable sources." That is to say, it would be better if she would publish in a reputable source such as a scholarly (peer reviewed) journal or (fact checked) newspaper. DonQuixote (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Cupidissimo's statement can be interpreted in two ways. Either "none of the criticism on Sarkeesian in general has been picked up by a reputable source", to which i responded with the apples analogy, because i consider Hoff a reputable source. The other way of interpreting it is "Hoff's criticism was never picked up by reputable sources", but that wouldn't be very relevant because Hoff is herself a reputable source.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, i think it has been suggested in this discussion that Hoff's video itself can't be a reliable source because it's a video and videos have to be interpreted by written sources/interpretations. First of all, the whole wikipedia article is full of direct references to Sarkeesian's videos. Second, the wikipedia policy on reliable sources literally states that "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." I do agree however that it would be good to add a secondary reference to emphasize the link since Hoff doesn't mention Sarkeesian by name. But it's not necessary to reference only written sources as was suggested. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering "the sheer amount of reputable positive press", perhaps you could help improve the quality of the positive criticism. There's currently two print only sources whereas verifyable online sources would be preferred (edit: i was misinformed about this). Paste magazine might not be a very good source as it's clearly written as a personal opinion column with remarks like "I am about to reveal even more radical feelings". And the quoted New York times article only mentions Sarkeesian on one tiny section, which apparently makes it a very weak reference if acceptable at all.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with offline/print or previously online sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Online sources aren't "preferred" over print sources in any way, shape or form. I don't know where you got that idea from. What's preferred are sources with greater reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, regardless of where they're found, per WP:IRS. The greater its reputation for these matters, the better it is for our articles. Newsweek and a peer-reviewed academic journal that specializes in a relevant field are as good as we can hope for. All of the cited sources are superior to Hoff Sommers' video, which suffers from the various problems outlined here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It was told to me in a talk page like this one, but i stand corrected on the print sources.PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So, what's it gonna be? The Paste magazine is clearly a personal opinion piece, which has been used as an argument to deny critical responses. And the NY times piece refers to Sarkeesian even less than Hoff's videos. Are we really holding positive and critical reviews to the same level of scrutiny?PizzaMan (♨♨) 09:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? The cited New York Times sources specifically discuss the subject, and they're from a reliable source, not a YouTube video. Stronger sources get more weight than weaker ones. Unusable sources like YouTube videos and self-published blogs get no weight whatsoever. And again, please stop dropping these comments in the middle of threads, it makes it difficult to follow and respond.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's indeed not ideal to have a dialogue at several places at once, so i'm open to a solution for that. Feel free to shuffle my comments around. A large part of this discussion was about how Hoffs video should be exclusively or mostly about Sarkeesian's videos to make a proper source. The NY Times piece only mentions Sarkeesian in one paragraph. I understand the weight of being published in the NY times, but even so, one might argue to value the opinion of a professor over that of a journalist. And before you repeat that i'm the one not listening here, what do you call ignoring my strongest example about the paste magazine piece? PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no one else is going to re-arrange all these posts for you. If you want to continue discussing this matter, you can start a thread and be specific about what it is you want to do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you re-read your second sentence you will realise why your other points are moot, we don't have to disprove anything. The onus is on you to prove positive and notably the actual article (which we are quoting) does not make that claim. Therefore we cannot make that inference.

• 1. No it's not. Sarkeesian isn't mentioned / presented until well into the video. Additionally we are quoting the source (i.e. the article critiquing the video) not interpreting the video. Therefore we go by what the source says about Sarkeesian.
• 2. Missing from your list.
• 3. Irrelevant. The association with Sarkeesian is made by the image displayed, but wikipedia is reliant upon the interpretation of the article. The article again only refers to Sarkeesian in relation to the attack.
• 4. Actually, the video isn't applicable to any feminist video game critic. It is applicable to feminist theory, video game culture etc but not any specific person because, y'know, she doesn't mention any of them.

I am never responding to you again on this subject until you grasp the basics of why we cannot synthesise arguments. Koncorde (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stating that you are never responding to me again on the subject doesn't invalidate your points in and on it's own, so i'll still respond to them.

• 1. The video is published on behalf of an institute so it's not self-published. I therefor propose it as a source. Therefor we are not reliant on secondary interpretations. I do agree we should add a secondary source to prove that the video is in fact relevant to Sarkeesian's videos, since it has been sucessfully argued here that that's not face evident, although to me it's blatantly obvious. I provide this source above, to which no one disagreed so far. It says "The person she focuses on is Anita Sarkeesian"
• 2. I picked a few points from the points i made before and kept the same numbering. Or perhaps i can't count to two ;-)
• 3. The video is about feminist game critics such as Sarkeesian. Since Sarkeesian is the most prominent of those, the criticism is applicable to Sarkeesian's videos. Note that there are other (self-proclaimed) feminist game critics and feminist gamers who have differing opinions from Sarkeesian (such as the few critical comments on her facebook page that she didn't delete). Hoff's message isn't targeted at those, because she doesn't respond to those opinions. Again: Hoff's video is a source on it's own and yes, it would be a good idea to add a secondary source to cast away doubt that the Hoff video is relevant to Sarkeesian's videos. Also note that it doesn't have to be exclusively about Sarkeesian's videos to still be relevant to them.
• 4. She does mention Sarkeesian, she just does it visually rather than in words. But again, yes we need a secondary source to cast away doubt that the Hoff video is actually about Sarkeesian.

PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The video itself is not admissible as a source because the AEI Youtube channel is not a reliable source. The only reason we are even discussing it is because it has been mentioned elsewhere. Other points (such as: This article is about not about Sakreesian, which is neither mentioned nor discussed specifically) are moot, because of the reliability issue. Cupidissimo (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's a video doesn't make it an unreliable source. It's brought in an objective tone rather than a personal column and it's published by an institute, rather than a person. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We've gone over this. PizzaMan, you're not listening. There's nothing more to say here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a remarkable remark right after you tell me to (quote) not go "into what you think other users are doing" and "Comment on the content, not the contributor". Please explain what you mean.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I was attempting to politely point you to the guidelines on Failure or refusal to "get the point", which is a form of disruptive editing. All of your points have been addressed in detail above, but you continue going on about them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly a lengthy discussion. Let me assure you, i'm listening to what everyone is saying and i just want to contribute to making this article better. However, i do not think that my arguments for including the Hoff video have been refuted. Resorting to ad hominem arguments, only convinces me of the opposite, if anything.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was inadmissible because it was a video - it's inadmissible because of the source. If this was The New York Times' Youtube channel, or a clip from Fox News - yes. The institute however is not a reliable source just because of "tone" and because it calls itself an institute. End of story. 31.49.129.100 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion about whether it's an acceptable source has already been done in the gamergate talk pages. Decision was to accept it, as is witnessed by a dedicated paragraph, complete with a photo of Hoff-Sommers. It shouldn't have been started here again. The discussion on this page should only be on the question if Hoff's criticism is relevant to this video series. And since that isn't apparent to everyone at face value, i provided a source to prove this, which says "The person she focuses on is Anita Sarkeesian" [27]. Despite the length of this dialogue, no one has yet disagreed that that's a valid source.PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What other people are doing in another article is irrelevant. The context of Hoff Sommers in that article is very different and uses a different rationale. Sommers comments about critics in general is fine when in an article talking about critics in general. It's less valid when applied specifically. We've already said the existing secondary sources are valid where they perform the interpretation (such as the source inferring Sommers is critical of critics "like" Sarkeesian). However, bearing in mind your source also says "Sarkeesian's actual research is not addressed in Sommers' video" and it is abundantly clear the source doesn't tie the video to the Tropes series. End result - it's synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Hoff defines who the video is responding to at 3:10. During this section, she shows Sarkeesian. Only Sarkeesian. Not Sarkeesian and other "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies". Only Sarkeesian. And while the reference i gave thinks it doesn't do a good job of addressing the points forward by Sarkeesian (to which i disagree), that doesn't take away that it stated that "The person she focuses on is Anita Sarkeesian", which clearly establishes that Sarkeesian's videos are a main focus of the Hoff video. To repeat myself: Sarkeesian's videos may not be the *only* focus, but they don't have to be as long as they're a major focus.PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear there's no consensus to include anything about Hoff Sommers here. It's high time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought subjective interpretation of videos by editors wasn't a considered a valid argument. This shouldn't be about how the majority here interprets a video, but about references. I gave a reference that establishes the Hoff video being targeted to Sarkeesian's videos and i have yet to see a reference to support the interpretation that it doesn't. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No you didn't. This video just doesn't address the video series, and as such won't work as a source for this article. Whether it is suitable for other articles has to be discussed there. Cupidissimo (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PizzaMan, the majority of other editors who've weighed in disagree with your interpretation. There's no consensus to include it. You can try dispute resolution if you really want, but otherwise it's time to move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Young on Tropes vs. Women

Link

The problem is that criticism focused on the sexualization of female characters often hinges on subjective perception—one feminist’s sexually empowered woman is another’s sex toy—and can easily turn to sex-shaming. Bayonetta, featuring an over-the-top, deliberately hypersexualized female super-fighter, has been slammed as exploitative by critics including Sarkeesian. Yet in a 2012 article on ThinkProgress.org, left-wing feminist Alyssa Rosenberg defended the game as an exercise in exuberant girl-power and wrote that its detractors were “wrapped up in a confining vision of the liberated female: one where sex needn’t define any part of a woman, and flaunted sexuality is inherently a concession to the male gaze.”

Sarkeesian’s Tropes vs. Women videos, which feature prominently in the debate about videogames, feminism and sexism, are full of selective and skewed analysis—one that neglects positive female images, ignores examples of male characters getting the same treatment she considers sexist for women, and attacks games for encouraging deadly violence toward female characters when killing those characters is actually the “bad” option that causes player to lose points. (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.) It should go without saying that the biased shoddiness of Sarkeesian’s arguments does not in any way excuse the online harassment toward her, let alone violent threats. But the harassment should not preclude a critical examination of her critique—instead of the largely unquestioning adulation it has received from the elite gaming media.

While it is commonly argued that feminist criticism seeks only to examine “problematic” media, not to deny anyone the right to enjoy them, the language employed by the critics often suggests otherwise. Sarkeesian ... refers to videogames depictions of women being “harmful,” “dangerously irresponsible,” and related to real-life negative attitudes toward women and possibly even violence.

This article will also shortly appear in Reason. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Young is the Rush Limbaugh of antifeminism. She is not an authority on anything. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

She's been published in Newsday (one among many articles), Time, The Daily Beast, and Slate among others. She's been quoted in the Wall Street Journal. Business Insider referred to the first article in this series in approval.

You can see a lot of these articles are gender-related. Clearly she's relevant and notable. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much problem with including Young, she's a journalist and the piece appeared in Real Clear Politics, which seems to be a reliable source. We do need to hammer out exactly what we're going to include. The idea that this piece should receive more WEIGHT than viewpoints from more established sources because it's longer is, of course, wrong. Due weight is decided by "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", not arbitrary factors like the length of the piece.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind this reference in general although it's weird to me that it's so long. I would also prefer an example from the article that isn't "neglects positive female images" as a video with that topic is planned and mentioned in this article. Cupidissimo (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need to work on the phrasing. It's barely recognizable as the same article right now. I'll take a stab at it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha, contrary to my last comment, upon reading the source thoroughly I noted the addition actually followed the source's wording far to closely and needs to be corrected to avoid plagiarism. I've removed it and will throw something new back up shortly, and in the meantime we can discuss better ways to include the material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to point just that - there's no way you could possibly get a more accurate phrasing, those being the very same words. I would make sure to quote the "biased shoddiness of Sarkeesian’s arguments " bit (it's right before the "does not in any way excuse the online harassment tow"), as it summarizes in a very graphical way Young's opinion of Sarkeesian's work, and provides a welcome contrast with the "essential viewing"s and "painstaking detail"s and "racking up accolades" used from the other references. Diego (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I re-added it minus the plagiarism. It looks like we've seen the first bit of negative criticism that approaches the level of the other sources we've got, though unlike most of the others Young is a partisan.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I also tend to think Cathy Young, as published in RCP, would be accepted by any reasonable editor as meeting the threshold of independence and reliability demanded of a BLP. The source has credibility in the field and (unlike Sommers) directly details the subject of this pagespace. I agree appropriate weight has yet to be determined, but her critique is of a sort badly needed to offer examples of thinkers who disagree with the subject's theses. Thanks User:Willhesucceed for offering this up for discussion. BusterD (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, someone on Wikipedia being decent. I'm genuinely surprised at this point. Thanks, @BusterD:.

I disagree with the way the article's currently included:

On the other hand, Cathy Young wrote on RealClearPolitics that the videos are "full of selective and skewed analysis" that overlooks evidence that may challenge the arguments, and said that, although the harassment toward her couldn't be excused, it "should not preclude a critical examination of her critique".

Why are we making this about Sarkeesian on the videos' page? I suggest the bolded be removed and more of Young's actual critique of the videos replace it. Willhesucceed (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is about the videos. However, we could remove it as it's basically a tautology she's trying to pass of as incisive critique. She doesn't really say anything else of substance about the series that we could include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Young in her article, actually links to another article by Mytheos Holt for "a fairly detailed three-part discussion of the flaws in Sarkeesian’s critique". Mytheos Holt states and even lists six explicit complaints: misrepresentation of the feminist diaspora, censor-like attitude, poor and biased quality of the documentation of the author, inaccuracy with double standards, poisoning the well, and use of a flawed theory of gender. Link1Link2Link3

Maybe we should remove the Cathy's self-justification of her own critique as suggested by Willhesucceed and concisely add Mytheos Holt's main points, something like "Mytheos Holt accuses the videos of misrepresenting the diversity in feminism, using poor documentation, using double standards, poisoning the well and being based on a gender theory 'designed to promote rancor'". Großinquisitor Zweihänder (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Holt's work has been discussed here previously; GameSided is a rather poor source and the analysis appears, at best, disjunct and incoherent and, in places, flatly disingenuous. To just take one example, a section entitled "Sarkeesian the Censor" cites not a single statement from Sarkeesian that could remotely be construed as support for censorship of video games. Rather, he simply states that "There have been people throughout history who have analyzed works of art by looking for offensive isolated plot elements in this way, but they haven't been called critics. They've been called censors." Baldly asserting that anyone who analyzes art seeking to unwind subtexts, tropes and stereotypes is a "censor" is inductive reasoning at its best.

Another example is that Holt attacks Sarkeesian at length for "almost exclusively using academic sources." That's right, according to Holt, Sarkeesian should not have used reliable, peer-reviewed studies to support her work because they cost money to access and "this calls the ability of Sarkeesian's research to stand on its own into question." In Holt's world, supporting your arguments with published, peer-reviewed studies from academic journals shows that you are opposed to "transparency in sourcing." *boggle* (Hint: This is a profoundly unserious and illogical argument.)

When we can cite actual peer-reviewed analysis, rambling polemics from a political opponent just don't merit inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamesided and the Holt pieces were discussed at the main article here and here and they were not included. Gamesided is the video game section of Fansided, a sports blog network and is not included in WP:VG/RS list of sources reliable for video games. Moreover, Holt's pieces are marked as opinion pieces, which according to the site's opinion policy don't carry the weight of the publication. It's not appropriate for inclusion. This is one of the weakest points of Young's article; instead of making concrete claims about the videos herself, she directs readers to articles by a nobody (who cites one of her earlier papers). On another note, as we now have multiple editors on all sides questioning the inclusion of Young's "self-justification", that part should be removed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I wasn't sure about reliability of the source, but I though that redirection by a reliable source factor for reliability. I was wrong, thanks for clearing that out. Still we're a bit thin of factual negative critics. Großinquisitor Zweihänder (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That does appear to be the case, but it speaks to the kind of sources we have.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Start Date of the Kickstarter

I'm a little confused about the start date mentioned in the article. It says June 4th 2012, but on the Kickstarter itself, there's a mention of the project being funded within 24 hours on May 18th 2012. From May 17th to June 16th is 30 days. It's a very minor error, but I think it's important that it be edited. I'm not sure what significance June 4th has, but it definitely isn't the right date - the right date is already cited in the Kickstarter page.151.227.39.189 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're right and I'll fix it. Thanks for pointing this out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: Critical Reception

Withdrawn by user. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The critical reception portion of the article only appears to reflect positive feedback that Sarkeesian has received for the series. The allegations of cherry-picking (which she vehemently denies, I should add) are missing from the article. The only information in the article that represents criticism that Sarkeesian has received is in the form of "sexist harassment" and "misogyny", which I believe does not adequately give fairness to the criticism that she has received. I understand that Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published sources in biographies of living persons, but the mainstream gaming media has only really looked at the harassment towards Sarkeesian, rather than the criticism that it has received. I believe that this represents some bias on the part of the mainstream media that should be reflected in the article. With regards to non-self-published criticism, there was this video by by Christina Hoff Sommers addresses some issues with the claim that video games are sexist, and that video was published by the American Enterprise Institute. With regards to self-published criticism, there was also this video published by Phil Mason (better known online as Thunderf00t). Davblayn (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The Sommers issue has been debated here before (see Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games/Archive 2) and the consensus is that Sommers does not directly address Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, nor does she cite Sarkeesian by name. A video that merely shows an image or two of Sarkeesian is not sufficient, per WP:SYNTH, to create a nexus between the two. This article is about a specific video series, not a general article about "the claim that video games are sexist." For whatever reason (and you'd have to ask her), Sommers declined to actually even say the words "Anita Sarkeesian" in her video, instead making throwaway snide remarks about "hipsters with degrees in cultural studies." Thunderf00t's self-published videos are a self-published primary source and not apparently a notable viewpoint, given the lack of apparent references to his critiques in reliable secondary sources. Claims of "bias" are not relevant here. Wikipedia doesn't traffic in conspiracy theories. Unless you have an issue beyond these two, I'll remove the NPOV tag shortly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) In addition to what NorthBySouthBaranof said, we do mention negative criticism by Cathy Young. It is, as far as I know, the only reliably sourced purely negative criticism that specifically comments on the video series that exists. Woodroar (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Very well. I still wish to be absolutely clear in saying that this article is biased because the media is biased towards Sarkeesian. Call me a cynic, but the disregard towards self-published criticism appears to be pushing an agenda. I have no further comment to make on this article Davblayn (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Where does Thunderf00t publish conspiracy theory? (I did not watch all of his videos but some regarding Sarkeesian.) He shows examples of her videos where she was cherry picking like leaving out pointes in jokes/dialogs or selectively using footage to support her claims such as when she shows footage of Super Meat Boy having to rescure Bandage Girl, but leaving out, that this example is actually a parody of the "Damse in Distress" trope which comes obvious as a parody when Bandage Girl has to rescure her savior in one of the hardest levels because he failed to rescure her. Not to mention when she includes footage of male protagonists violently killing female NPC while in that game she shows the player actually gets punished with money loss on killing any NPC that's not his target. I know Thunderf00t is still not a source for WP, however calling it "conspiracy theory" is certainly absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.134.14.25 (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC) To be clear, the "conspiracy theory" I refer to is not in reference to Thunderf00t — it is in reference to the idea that there is some bias in the mainstream media against criticism of Sarkeesian. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

New source for your consideration

Some well-researched criticism I just found that I'd like to submit to the editors here: on Gameinformer. Not sure if it's usable and if it's more appropriate for this page or her personal bio. While it's on a blog, it's article-tier material, so I thought it wouldn't hurt pointing it out. Thanks. 109.115.176.89 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

probably not. they dont appear to have a very good editorial oversight when they leave drafting notes in the published version ("Afterwards she began preaching at itinerant tent revivals, ultimately earning the name "Sister Aimee" and relocating to California where she founded her ministry and radio program [4]. [Maybe work on this part a bit more?]") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

and it is quite hilarious to read a clickbait article ranting literally about "clickbait" media of the early 20th century. Is gameinformer a comic site? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Game Informer may be a reliable source, but its blog section is not. The drafting notes and the fact that the byline is to an online handle are a dead giveaway about how much oversight this piece has received.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical Support/Negative Criticism Breakdown Comment

@Cuchullain I created an extra heading as I expect most readers would prefer to see information broken into Support and Criticism, and have a more visible difference between the two, even if that difference is a heading

The title "Critical Reception" as far as I am concerned is superfluous as it comes under the heading "Reception" itself (It's a bit like having a heading "This heading" and starting the content "This heading ...")

Why do you deem my edits unnecessary?Derry Adama (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dividing the content up into "Positive" and "Negative" subsections isn't particularly helpful, especially when some of the sources highlight both positive and negative points. We also don't need to chop up the section into a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any cases (movie, book or otherwise) where they typically divide up the reviews into good and bad. Usually it's just reviews, critical reception, and then any awards or cultural significance. Don't see why this subject should be treated any differently. Koncorde (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, we have policy specifically against such actions WP:STRUCTURE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)