Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suggest change to first sentence:

On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog,[12] and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.[13]

To:

On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of 12 short videos to be delivered by August, 2012 that would examine gender tropes in video games. This was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog,[12] and reached its funding goal of $6,000 within 24 hours.[13]

Bold only to highlight changes. No changes to references, all information included in source [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:B02A:CC9D:8D5E:DBB4 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? That's out-of-date information. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it is verbatim what is defined on the Kickstarter page [13], I don't see where it is "outdated" and it is very much what was advertised on kickstarter... 12 videos with an estimated delivery of August 2012. If it later changed, say that too, but you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:B02A:CC9D:8D5E:DBB4 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Verbatim? I see five videos saying estimated delivery: Aug 2012 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

From the kickstarter linked in as a source [13] in the article, "With your help, I’ll produce a 5-video series (now expanded to 12 videos) entitled Tropes vs Women in Video Games"

The backer rewards are estimated Aug 2012, no release date is promised for the videos. This is almost definitely part of the 'she ripped people off' argument.Euchrid (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, from the kickstarter linked as a source [13], most rewards are Aug 2012, However there are 2 rewards that include "complete DVD sets of the series" with delivery dates of DEC 2012. So it could be argued DEC 2012 is the valid date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:b02a:cc9d:8d5e:dbb4 (talk • contribs)

All the important details of the kickstarter campaign are described at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Crowdfunding via Kickstarter--the important parts being how she amended her goals after receiving more money to work with. As I said, out-of-date information considering that her goals were updated during the fundraising. DonQuixote (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that "the delay led some critics to question how she was using the money", it's not outdated information - it's something that affected the reception of the series. I wouldn't find it out of place at the Kickstarter campaign section. It's true that the change of schedule is already covered at Production, but the detail that 5 videos were originally planned and later were expanded to 12 is currently not mentioned anywhere. Diego (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In the real world, everything takes longer and costs more. This did not genuinely affect the reception of the series, it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme that her haters keep trying to shoehorn into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you please WP:AGF instead of making personal attacks? Are you saying that Fruzsina Eördögh's (from ReadWrite) opinion is not to be taken into account as analysis of the series production? It's really tiresome that any proposed change which can't be seen as unambiguous praise must be defended against accusations of being part of the harassment campaign. Diego (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Minute details of the project are already mentioned at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, particularly Tropes vs. Women in Video Games#Production. This article provides a general overview, and such outdated information is out-of-place here and as such will be given undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Obviously this request is in part an attempt to make Sarkeesian look bad, but it's also based on confusing the sources (or not reading them). The article suffered when we created the (unnecessary) Tropes vs. Women in Video Games fork and then made minimal effort to improve either article.

The Tropes... article already explains what happened (this one does too, in less detail). In fact, since it's only attributed to the Kickstarter announcements, it may not even be necessary for that article. At any rate, contrary to what the anon says, Sarkeesian's original plan was for five videos, not twelve. After the Kickstarter reached its goal quickly, Sarkeesian added a series of stretch goals to create more videos. However, because the campaign took in so much more money than planned, Sarkeesian changed the original plans to take advantage of the increased funding, as indicated by sources like this. The anon's proposed change is based on information that's two years out of date.

We could get into the stretch goals, but it's already covered at the "Tropes" article, and honestly we don't need any additional redundancy here. In fact, the relevant sections of this article should be rewritten to just summarize the key points, keeping the full coverage at the fork dedicated to it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don, yes, you've said in two sentences what took me three paragraphs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Diego, you seriously undermine your calls to assume good faith for anons making problematic proposals when you fail to extend the same courtesy to regular editors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting that Orange Mike would assume good faith for me. I made a reasoned argument as to why including the information could be benefitial to the article, and all I got back was 'it's just a part of the "she ripped people off" meme', implying that that's my goal. I reaffirm my position: combating every proposal made at this talk page by looking for ulterior motives on the proponents is severely hurting the conversation by creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND climate, and IP editors are not the only ones making that mistake. Diego (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Diego, I was not assuming bad faith on your part; you contribute to this project in lots of ways. I was merely pointing out that there is no substantial value to this information, and no reason to wedge such trivia into the article other than to falsely imply bad faith on Sarkeesian's part. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The original proposal was explicitly done to take Sarkeesian to task ("...you can't throw the original promise down the memory hole"). There's nothing "ulterior" there. But regardless of anything else, the change can't be made because it's wrong on its face: the "original promise" wasn't for 12 videos, it was for five videos, and all the original plans were scrapped to accommodate the extra money that came in, as the article already indicates. Assuming good faith and not projecting ulterior motives onto other editors is good advice that you yourself should take to heart, Diego.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Any argument is synthesis and conjecture unless there's an actual release schedule. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... for what it is worth, I am not part of any "harassment campaign" or arguing that anyone ripped anyone off, nor was my original proposal designed to "take anyone to task"... except for maybe the nature of the article. Like someone previously commented, I ended up on this page when trying to figure more about the subject. I honestly have no stake in this argument. In doing so, however, I checked the links provided as source material, and read the talk page. Looking at the Kickstarter, it is very clear that it says "12" and said "12" at the time of raising the money. Sure it may have changed later and this and that... but the source says "12" and said "12" at the time the money was solicited. As I said above, feel free to note that later blog posts or updates or whatever changed that, but it doesn't "outdate" the original commitment. For example, if Reagan says "We begin bombing in five minutes" and then later explains "it was a joke"... that doesn't mean the original quote is "outdated". I genuinely feel that, in a supposed encyclopedia, the specific "12" is better than the vague "a series". I also genuinely feel the committed delivery date is a valid point and should be noted without prejudice and let readers make their own judgments. Generally, I agree this article reads like a vanity page and appears to be defended by a cadre of people determined to prevent any edit that is not unambiguous praise. If that is what you want out of the page, so be it. I'm out, debate between yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: The specific number of videos committed to is "trivia" but the fact that it was a "campaign of note on the kickstarter blog" is critical information... yeah, unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, you appear not to be comprehending the sources. This Kickstarter announcement clearly lists five videos as the original goal. It then lists additional videos as "stretch goals" that were added later, with explanatory links. The source isn't currently used to cite any number of videos or anything else about the project besides the fact that the original $6,000 goal was met within 24 hours. You're proposing we use the source to add something new, but the new claim is mistaken.

In any event, the article subsequently makes clear that Sarkeesian scrapped all those plans because "the additional funding allowed her to 'expand the scope, scale and production values of the project'", citing this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, you appear to not be comprehending the phrase "at the time of the solicitation". The Kotaku article you site was is dated at least 6 months *after* the kickstarter closed. AGAIN, that does not cancel out the original commitment. But please, keep arguing this... and that its trivia... and I am just part of a cabal to discredit the subject... and whatever else. Because clearly you have no ulterior motive to fight so viciously to keep a NUMERICAL FACT out of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1208:C053:6120:4CA6:DA6F:11A2 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't exist as a memory hole, though, but rather to give an overview of the subject. Our article on The Hobbit, for example, mentions that at one point it was going to be a two-film project directed by Guillermo del Toro, but that changed and we move on. We've not here to delve into the minutiae of what-could-have-beens. You'll notice that the first sentence of The Hobbit doesn't start with "The Hobbit is a film series consisting of three epic fantasy adventure films directed by Peter Jackson but was originally going to be two films directed by Guillermo del Toro and has been in development since 1995". That's just bad form for an encyclopedia. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, then you need to rush over the Kickstarter page and basically delete all of the controversial and canceled Kickstarter campaigns based on your "Hobbit" theory... evidently the original commitment made to secure funding is just "what-could-have-beens"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:6120:4ca6:da6f:11a2 (talk • contribs)

There's also the fact that the "original commitment" wasn't for 12 videos and the source doesn't say it was either. It was five. She said this on her website here and here is another independent source saying the same while the Kickstarter was still open. The anon misread the source and now they're just digging their heels in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Her webiste not source for kickstarter. Kickstarter page ALREADY SITED clearly says 12 as I quoted. That is what it said DURING the solicitation. It appears the "Heaven forbid we list the number of videos committed to (whatever that number may be)" group is who is digging in their heels.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1208:c053:6120:4ca6:da6f:11a2 (talk • contribs)

While I'm not convinced the number of videos would be relevant even with the correct number, my primary objection is to introducing the incorrect number as you advocate. It's demonstrably wrong and there's no consensus for the change. We can either move on or you can take it up in dispute resolution, as Dreadstar says, though it's exceedingly unlikely you'll convince anyone else.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And if it continues here, I'll be handing out blocks, I'm not allowing this article or talk page to be an unsourced attack platform against the subject of this article; it's gone on way too long as it is. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Short reminder here, this page is not a forum, please stick to discussing the editorial content of the article and not make aspersions against each other or commentary unrelated to Reliable Sources being presented - if you want to talk about each other, then take it up the chain. Dreadstar ☥ 23:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the does of perspective, Dreadstar.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Updated FAQ

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

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

Protected edit request on 28 August 2014

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

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

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

Installment

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

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

Significant POV issues

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ Templates TfDed

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

Death Threats drive her from home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this point, I think the coverage by solid sources is sufficient to include a mention of the item in this article, the Tropes article, or both. Of the above sources, I think Steadman's piece may be useful elsewhere for analysis from a noteworthy author. I'll also point out that content from the blog section of reputable newspapers aren't necessarily off limits to us; WP:NEWSBLOG covers this. Indeed, the New York Times has covered Sarkeesian in its ArtsBeat feature, written by reliable source Helen Lewis;[1] ArtsBeat is listed under the paper's newsblog section but it's of higher quality than what a lot of other websites put out as their top content. Of course, anything from a reader blog section is off limits.

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

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

Moving on to the article in question (which is clearly an editorial that's not marked as such),[2] it's, well, rife with amateurish errors:

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

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

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

GamersGate

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

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

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

Why some sources are judged by "harsh" standards: General Criticism vs Critical Analysis

Critical analysis, such as "counter-arguments" that try to use the language and methods of a field of study, needs to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or other scholarly publications. These are the harsh standards for any type of critical analysis. (For example: To Kill a Mockingbird#Themes.)

General criticism, such as the book deftly presents the dry subject matter or the video jumps too quickly from one subject matter to another, I like it, I hate it, etc., can be sourced from newspapers, op-eds, blogs of acknowledged experts, etc. (For example: To Kill a Mockingbird#Reception.)

So if some sources appear to be judged harshly and other not, this is the reason. DonQuixote (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well put. I'll also add that there is a WP:WEIGHT issue as well. Viewpoints from lower quality sources get less weight, if any, compared to higher-quality sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be a false notion for many editors, particularly newer ones that this article is against any form of criticism. I would like to emphasize that this is not the case, I and I'm sure others have no bias in this subject. Given the short time span this far and foreseeable future developments and writers/academics to come, no doubt in there is the possibility of notable, even multiple critical pieces. If tomorrow any major, widely cited across Wikipedia gaming website published an article with a unfavorable reception to a tropes episode, it would be published for balance. However I must also state that it would also need to consider weight, for example this hypothetical source would not be able to counter balance everything that has been written so far to date, more than likely one small point of reference. Frankly Man (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation: We like Anita and agree with what she is saying so we will fight tooth-and-nail to keep out anything about her we don't like until we essentially have no choice in order to maintain our credibility. If that means misrepresenting the nature of sources and ignoring policy in favor of our personal opinions then so be it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Er...no. It means this (from 1:05:05 to 1:06:45), particularly this bit. DonQuixote (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And anything else that you don't like. Akulkis (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a YouTube series about video games. It is not quantum physics and it is not To Kill a Mockingbird. Even so, a review in a scientific journal is not the same as a peer-reviewed study in said journal. You are just locking out criticism because of your personal opinions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion?--I have no opinion. So, yeah, straw man there. I'm just looking out for proper use of reliable sources. The videos in questions are works, and just like any other works--like To Kill a Mockingbird--any critical analysis should come from peer-reviewed journals and or other scholarly works. This keeps fringe ideas with no merit from tertiary sources such as an encyclopaedia. Sorry, but that's how it works. DonQuixote (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think Holt represents a "fringe view" on Sarkeesian's work? Pretty sure it matches what many gamers and conservatives have said about her. Criticism of Sarkeesian is not fringe. Your comments have no basis in policy, but are just your own opinions on what you think should be allowed in this article and that apparently does not include criticism of Sarkeesian and her work.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If it weren't "fringe" there would be multiple other reliable sources carrying it. So yep. Fringe. Undeniably.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying that even if there was an in-depth review of Sarkeesian's work in, say, the Washington Times, you would consider it a fringe view if it was critical of Sarkeesian? If so, then you need to re-read the policy, because it does not say anything of that nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

When there is an in depth coverage in the Wash Times and no other reliable sources, come on back and we can discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Advocate, how about letting off until you actually find a Sarkeesian-critical source that makes a clean break out of any policy gray areas? By now, I'm sure you're reasonably familiar with the boundaries of editorial possibilities. You'll know it when you find it.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the Gameshield source that keeps coming up, I would not use it for a good review of a game I personally enjoyed because there is currently a lack of nobility, as opposed to the many others. Even if someone here was simply just be "out to prove her wrong", wouldn't you rather have the source be completely reliable? that being said, there should be no bias either way. Frankly Man (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Batting against *expunged*'s most recent video

This has degenerated into attacks on each other, rather than the editorial content of the article, I'm closing this and if it needs to be discussed further, create a section and stay on subject: the editorial content of the article, not each other. Dreadstar ☥ 01:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to give him any more mind on this page. However, he mentioned the section about Nate Carpenter in his video (and the two wiki pages about Sarkeesian and why he thinks his video qualifies as RS for receiving 300k views *Stifles Laughter*) which is why you're seeing it disappear, along with a bunch of disruptive edits over here. This topic treads into WP:NOTFORUM so let me say that I think we need to qualify the journal just a bit more or find something better to put in there. It's affiliations with [3] might be a good place to start. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Hmm, I guess that explains it. Well, we don't need to qualify it to appease vandals. It's a review from a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Michigan Technological University.[4][5] It's probably the best source anyone's found for the reception to Sarkeesian. Hopefully it won't come to having to protect the articles.--Cúchullain t/c 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC) According to JJAB91 a 100+ page journal [6] is a "two page website" and this is "minimal staff". --NeilN talk to me 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC) There's a uni behind it? Huh. I guess I better pay more attention to this stuff. I retract my statement, but suggest the first sentence rewritten as: "Scholar Nate Carpenter reviewed the "Damsel in Distress" video positively in the journal Women & Language, published by Michigan Technological University" or something. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC) The publisher is already in the citation so it's unnecessary. DonQuixote (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Man. Not being able to read clearly without eye strain sucks. (Hint) So I wikified the reference. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Ha, I think it's just been one of those days. Maybe we could say "academic journal" or "interdisciplinary journal" or something, but we shouldn't need to do any more. We already say the name of the author, the name of the journal, and the fact that it's well, a journal, as opposed to, say, a two-paged website (the review itself takes up two pages). People intent on seeing it in a bad light will continue to do so no matter what we do.--Cúchullain t/c 02:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC) So wait, this journal and the person being cited is from Michigan Tech? That is not even in the top 100 national rankings of universities! Yet, apparently, someone who graduated from one of the top 20 universities in the country, majored in government and history, and has written for several reputable news outlets is not reliable due to being a conservative who is disagreeing with Anita. Sourcing standards at this article are all out of whack. What a fucking joke.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC) September 9, 2014— Once again, Michigan Technological University has moved up in the annual US News & World Report ranking of the best undergraduate colleges and universities, placing 56th—in the top third—of 170 public universities. Michigan Tech’s undergraduate engineering programs ranked in the top half nationwide—73rd of 157 programs ranked. [7] So yes, 'fucking joke' is true, but not about what you seem to think it is. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Cherry-picking as the article also says: "Among 268 public and private national universities—a list topped by Princeton, Harvard and Yale—Michigan Tech ranked 116." Natch, public technical schools often rank higher in things like engineering, but are traditionally not as highly-ranked in liberal arts courses such as the social sciences. By contrast Wesleyan is actually in the top ten amongst liberal arts colleges. Since Sarkeesian is not an engineer . . .--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC) are you actually attempting to make an argument that anything written by any ambulance chaser who graduated from Harvard should be given equal weight as whats published in the Harvard Law Review because he graduated from Harvard? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Still above the 50% quartile and still worth mentioning. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Comments like the above are distressing to see from an established editor at a long-term problem BLP. Nathan Carpenter is an academic from Michigan Technological University who has specific expertise relevant to this subject.[8] The review appears in a peer-reviewed[9] academic journal published by MTU, whose focus is also directly relevant to the subject - it's right there in the name.[10] Per WP:V: The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources In other words, this is exactly the kind of source we want for material like this. It's a minor journal, sure, but as an academic source publishing a full review of Sarkeesian's video, it comes in ahead of every other source we've got so far for the reception - not to mention the unusable sources that have come out of the woodwork over the last few days.--Cúchullain t/c 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC) For what it is worth, I found it quite distressing to learn that you are an admin, though admittedly not surprising. It is nice that you finally decided to read the relevant policy and cite it, since that whole process seemed to elude you and every other editor in the section above. Guess you know where to find the policy when you can use it to uphold your own viewpoint.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) In the very least, now that everyone's aware of the policy, we can all understand why a review from a peer-reviewed journal in a relevant field is a good source for this topic, and why deleted personal websites, unrelated PR releases, and sports blogs are not.--Cúchullain t/c 21:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Keep calm and continue misrepresenting and distorting policy and sources to push your POV.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Dear me, if you're going to push something that is perceived to be of questionable quality for a BLP, or drive to remove well cited and referenced content, then don't act surprised when a number of people not only don't agree with you, but also then show you why according to wikipedia we should or should not use such content. Koncorde (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Devil's Advocate, it seems you've accidentally typed out your internal mantra. Well, now that we've hit this point, we can safely consider this conversation over.--Cúchullain t/c 23:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) That's fine, at this point I am just airing my grievances at the blatant POV-pushing and wikilawyering that is locking out criticism you people simply do not like.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC) For the sake of accuracy plus obeying the intent of "no personal attacks" and "assume good faith", The Devil's Advocate surely means "...locking out criticism which doesn't meet standards of reliable sources as measured by consensus of discussion on the talk page." BusterD (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Saying people are biased and wikilawyering is neither an attack nor an assumption of bad faith. I assume bias, not bad faith.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC) And your saying that kind of thing has no place here, this page is to discuss the editorial content of the article and not other contributors. You want to discuss others, then do it on your user talk pages or other appropriate forum, If it continues here, you risk being blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Dreadstar ☥ 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism piece

Yet another section that has degenerated into attacks on each other, rather than the editorial content of the article, I'm closing this and if it needs to be discussed further, create a section and stay on subject: the editorial content of the article, not each other. Dreadstar ☥ 01:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A piece appeared in Gamesided by Mytheos Holt offering up criticism of Sarkeesian and Tropes vs. Women. From his LinkedIn page you can see that he has a degree in Government and History from the rather prestigious Wesleyan University and has served as a reporter and editor for National Review and The Washington Times, so he would meet the standards of a professional journalist. Holt is listed as a staff writer on Gamesided's about page. Certainly this critical piece meets the standards for reliability on the Tropes Vs. Women page, but I think it would be good to have people weigh in here on whether it can be used in this article as well.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Let's start with WP:VG/S. Not listed. That's one strike. Second, where somebody went to school is largely irrelevant to his journalistic integrity. So that doesn't really count. Next, working for three (The Blaze you didn't mention is the third) conservative news outlets screams of being a non-neutral source. Strike two. Strike three? I read it. His lengthy and amazingly boring article boils down to two points. Anita is sex negative and she shares a lot with Jack Thompson. This is such a terrible straw-man argument (article) that I cannot even qualify it with "might be useful if we get more like this." It isn't. It reads like a professionally dressed send up of the flawed arguments others have made already. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC) So your objections are: Not included in a non-exhaustive WikiProject-specific list of "approved" sources that has no standing in policy whatsoever. OMG! Conservative! Didn't like what he said. Nope, fail, not good reasoning. The point of everything I mentioned is that he is a professional journalist with an educational background that makes him qualified to speak on sociopolitical matters. Whether you think his position is correct or not has no bearing on whether the source should be used here. Opinions that are attributed are acceptable in BLPs. Your assessment should be based on the standard criteria for reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC) VG/S is pretty much what we use if it's video game related. (Which this is.) I would have said the same thing if it was an editorial progressive bias. (Which is why I haven't cited...oh, I dunno, Daily Kos or MSNBC here.) Jack Thompson asked for outright jail time for developers of violent video games. Anita has asked for...? My point is, this guy carries lots of WP:UNDUE to me since it comes from an openly biased perspective. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 01:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC) VG/S has no standing in policy. It is merely a guide and is not an exhaustive list of sources. The opinionated nature of the source is why it would have to be attributed to the author, rather than stated matter-of-factly. Not sure why you are throwing out WP:UNDUE. My reason for bringing up the source here is for discussion on whether the site mees the standard criteria for reliable sources. Given that Gamesided is affiliated with Sports Illustrated and seems to have a professional staff, which includes the author of the piece, it does not appear to me that this is a self-published blog, but is more akin to an editorial in a traditional media outlet.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC) because if we have to dredge sources that are not even acceptable by the VG/S then its pretty clear that the content does not represent any appreciable measure of the mainstream opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC) VG/S is a non-exhaustive list of sources. Period. Full stop. This source is not mentioned at all on that page, which includes the list of unreliable sources. Presumably that is because it has not been reviewed by the WikiProject. What we can say, as I already noted, is that it is affiliated with a professional news outlet and has a professional staff with the author being a member of said staff who has professional journalistic experience.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Professional journalistic experience" doesn't equal "professional academic experience". Sorry. If that guy were to write an article criticizing Brian Cox's work, there's a low probability that his article will contain anything citable. Unless it's shown that he knows his particle physics, he's not a reliable source in this regard...same with cultural and media studies. Unless it's shown that he's an acknowledged expert in this field, he's not a reliable source in critiquing this kind of work. The most he can do is report on events, which is when his professional journalistic experience comes in handy. DonQuixote (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Government and history are related fields and his activities as a journalist actually included media criticism. However, his academic credentials are only part of it as opinion pieces by professional journalists are still valid for reception. We include positive reception from Chris Suellentrop, who similarly lacks any academic experience in the matter.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC) For what it's worth, here's my analysis of Holt's / Gamesided's reliability and due-ness. Apologies for the length of it. Summary: I'm not sure Holt's a RS, and I'm sceptical it'd be due to mention his claims even if he were a RS; I wouldn't cite him. If he were to be cited, I'd say it should be for claims 3 and 5 (the others seem even less reliable/due). As WP:RS and WP:NPOV note, "reliability" does not exist in the abstract: we must "judge whether [a source] is reliable for the statement being made". What statements of Holt's might be cited, if he were a reliable source? He provides a helpful list of his main claims: (1) Sarkeesian "presents feminism as a monolith", (2) "she claims to only be a critic, but behaves as a would-be censor", (3) "her research suffers from non-transparency, clear confirmation bias, and an underreliance on actual scholarship", (4) she is "unreasonably uncharitable", (5) "she structures her arguments so as to make them unfalsifiable", and (6) "her theory of gender relations is unrealistically antagonistic and designed to promote rancor between men and women". He goes on to say (7) "Sarkeesian fits far more into the Dworkin and MacKinnon mold of sex negative feminism", and (8) "the fact that she only represents one, very extreme side of the feminist movement is relevant and potentially dangerous not just for video games, but for feminism itself." He also claims that (9) she connects "real world violence against women and violence in video games" but "never supplies any source to substantiate this supposedly obvious connection, or any of the others she makes throughout the series, nor does she show that video game use and domestic violence are correlated in any way at all. This despite the fact that it would probably be very easy to establish such a connection in international markets at minimum, given the existence of actual rape simulators published in Japan." He concludes by saying (10) "she has used her ideology in pursuit not of understanding, but simply of power over the stories that an emerging medium can tell, and of coercion and shame against that medium's fans." So, is Holt / Gamesided a reliable source for these claims? And are they due (appropriate to mention)? The first thing WP:RS says is, quoting WP:BLP, that "contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced [...] should be removed". I'll keep that in mind while looking at everything else. Next, WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [... These] may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. [...] Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." How is gamesided currently treated (≈de facto)? Others have noted it's not in WP:VG/S, but it is cited in 5 other Wikipedia articles (out of thousands of video-game-related articles). That's definitely not a high enough number that one could regard it as de facto accepted, though citing it wouldn't be entirely without precedent. Holt is not cited in any articles yet. (He is cited in several books, according to a Google Books search, though most of them are books that advance wp:fringe theories about Obama — which does not mean Holt himself is not credible, it just means those books don't provide evidence that he is credible.) His linkedin CV, OTOH, seems to establish him as a journalist. How should gamesided be viewed (≈de jure)? Its about page names an editorial staff. It suggests that any fan can write for the site, but it credits Holt as a regular staff writer. Furthermore, his blurb says he specializes in "push[ing] back on the idea that video games cause violence/sexism in right-leaning outlets", so he is at least claimed to be "authoritative in relation to the subject", whether or not he is "regarded as" such generally (which is the full requirement imposed by WP:RS). On a balance, Holt's / Gamesided's reliability is debatable. (I realize that may be a non-useful, tautological thing to say during a debate over his reliability.) I'm sceptical, but I'm willing to be persuaded he's reliable for some of his statements (see below for more on which ones). As for due-ness, WP:UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Is Holt's viewpoint "significant"? The fact that, prior to today, no reliable source had been found which contained a viewpoint like Holt's suggests that it may not be. Hence, I conclude that the article should probably not be cited — it is possibly not a WP:RS, and citing it would probably be WP:UNDUE. If the article were to be cited, how should it be cited? Even in his blurb and in his article, it is admitted that he is politically biased, so his claims (if any are included) should be attributed to him by name and not just by blue superscript number. And not all of them seem WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE to the same extent: Claim 1 is unimportant: so what if she presents feminism as a monolith? That doesn't invalidate her arguments, it just means that any time she says "according to feminism, X", we have to subaudi "according to [one stream of] feminism, X".) Claim 2 does not seem to be worth mentioning either, especially because Holt goes on to admit that Sarkeesian hasn't censored anything, he just considers (what he sees as) her failure to acknowledge "context" to be equivalent to censorship. Claims 4, 6 and 10 are basically just calling her mean, which also does not seem worth mentioning. ("Conservative writer Mytheos Holt said Sarkeesian was unreasonably critical of things and promoted rancor." Yeah, not notable.) Claims 7 and 8, that Sarkeesian belongs to and is dangerous for (respectively) certain liberal political movements, seem unreliable / undue coming from a conservative — I'd say mainstream sources should be cited for information about Sarkeesian's political views. (Otherwise, perhaps those books Holt is cited in, which I mentioned above, could be used to establish that Obama really is a communist and fascist.) Claim 9 is bizarre; it amounts to "she never supplies evidence of X, even though evidence totally exists". I'm not sure it would be worth in the article even if Holt were deemed a reliable source for it. Claims 3 and 5 seem like they would be the most likely of the criticisms to be due, if any were due (and if Holt / Gamesided were deemed a reliable source for them). -sche (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC) On Chris Suellentrop, his about page states him as "a videogame critic for The New York Times". Academically, he's qualified on this subject and he comes from a generally reliable source of The New York Times. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Article is an opinion piece about another person with a different opinion. Sarkeesian is not famous for her type of feminism, or the accuracy or relevancy of her views. She happens to be a feminist who is notable due to the harassment she received. I would therefore consider the article relevant when dealing only with the the Video Series (within the context of "a Conservative critic says") and / or comment on the harassment. Anything else is his opinion and only as valid as any other disregarded op-ed. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC) So the tl;dr version: I don't know this guy, he's conservative, and he's criticizing Anita so he must be kept out. Again, this is not the RS criteria you are applying, but your own personal views of what constitutes an acceptable source for you. Honestly, it is pathetically obvious that you guys are just straining yourselves to find excuses to keep anything resembling actual criticism out of this article. You can't say it is basically repeating the same "flawed" arguments that have been made against her elsewhere and then also dismiss it as not representing a significant viewpoint. The fact he is putting out criticism that has been made towards Anita in the past suggests it is not undue to mention the criticism. Another fact is that, as I have said twice already, GameSided is attached to Sports Illustrated, which is generally considered a reliable source. Him being a conservative has no relevance to whether or not his opinion should be included. We don't do litmus tests on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Re "You can't say it is basically repeating the same 'flawed' arguments that have been made against her elsewhere and then also dismiss it as not representing a significant viewpoint": I considered this, because you and some of the other commenters above are correct that several of the criticisms Holt makes have been made repeatedly by non-reliable sources. However, WP:DUE explicitly requires representing "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", emphasis mine. Hence the view that vaccines cause autism, or that the sun revolves around the earth, is represented on Wikipedia according to its prominence in reliable sources (which is small to nonexistent), not according to its prominence among non-reliable sources (which is much larger — according to polls, one fifth of Americans believe vaccines cause autism and the sun revolves around the earth, so I imagine a lot of blogs run by those people make those claims). Hence my comment "the fact that, prior to today, no reliable source had been found which contained a viewpoint like Holt's suggests that it may not be" due to give his view weight. -sche (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Exactly how many reliable sources have actually done any in-depth critical analysis of Sarkeesian's work? Most coverage is just noting the video and making a few comments about its contents. Some commentary is offered, but it is not common or in-depth.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC) There are plenty. Already included, we have a review Women & Language, a peer-reviewed academic journal; this by Chris Suellentrop, video game critic from the New York Times; this review by Jesse Singal, video game critic for the The Boston Globe, and several other pieces from reliable magazines and websites (at least I think they are; if not they should be removed as well). There's also this by New Statesman tech writer Ian Steadman, which hasn't been added yet. It's not like high-quality sources are so rare we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel.--Cúchullain t/c 20:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I'm going to have to agree with -sche and TheRedPenOfDoom that the piece shouldn't be included. There's no mention of GameSided on the extensive WP:VG/RS, which doesn't speak well for it, though it shouldn't necessarily be excluded on that basis alone. However, GameSided appears to be the video game "community" of FanSided,[11] a sports blog network compared to Bleacher Report and SB Nation. Those sites are not generally considered reliable for sports, let alone other topics. It's been claimed that the site is "affiliated" with Sports Illustrated, though it's unclear what that entails, and at any rate I don't see how that would confer reliability to this source. Barring evidence to the contrary, I don't see that this source passes the threshold of reliability or due weight. The site does claim an editorial staff (meaning there's some editorial oversight), and Holt is listed as a "staff writer" (meaning he's not just a freelancer or community blogger).[12] Additionally, he appears to be published in other papers and sites. However, this piece is clearly marked as Holt's own opinion, not one endorsed by the publication: a notice explains his views "explicitly belong to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of, nor should be attributed to, GameSided as an organization". This specific distinction from the site's main content is part of the blog's opinion policy, and distinguishes things like this from pieces carrying the site's "masthead", which they do for many of their other reviews (typically of games). GameSided appears to publish these op-ed things from various people, staff or not, with that caveat about the views therein. Even if GameSided were accepted as a generally reliable publication and not a self-published blog, this piece would not inherently be more noteworthy than something like a reader blog post or letter to the editor. Nor do I believe that Holt is such an established voice on the topic of media criticism that his words should be included on his personal merit alone. In other words, I don't see that the fact this piece appeared in (or was hosted by) GameSided establishes it as significant viewpoint on the subject that ought to be included. In terms of both the piece and the publication, it doesn't approach the level of the various reviews and pieces that appear (without the caveat) in significant, reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as the New York Times, Boston Globe, and academic journal reviews currently available to us. At least, setting the bar low enough for this to get over would necessitate us adding dozens (or more) similarly questionable sources that would flood out the many unquestionably significant sources available to us.--Cúchullain t/c 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Most of the sources you mention provide maybe a paragraph or two of actual analysis, with most of what they say being a description of the videos and a recap of other matters regarding Sarkeesian. This is three pages of actual criticism, and just the first part (second part is up now) so it is far more critical analysis of her work than has been released in any other publication. The debate here is not whether it is an opinion piece, but whether GameSided is a reliable source with us able to include a staff writer's opinion in the same way we would include the opinion of staff writers elsewhere. A disclaimer that it is just his opinion only proves that it is his opinion, which we already know.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC) The fact that it's long (very) doesn't mean it's any good or any use to us. The disclaimer means the publication doesn't endorse it, let alone exert their editorial oversight (which should be clear from the length), they're effectively just a host for the writer to publish their own opinions. This isn't just my thought on the matter, it's the blog's actual policy. For these op-eds, the editors are clear they do basically nothing. So any "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" the site may have, which is already debatable, does not percolate down to these pieces. This is distinct from other pieces they run, including their actual reviews, which still obviously reflect a writer's opinion but are under the publication's banner. And that's besides the point that this is the video game section of a sports blog network.--Cúchullain t/c 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC) You are using the classic "it's a blog" slander to dismiss the source now. This is simply absurd. Our policies do not say opinion pieces are unacceptable as sources for included attributed opinion, which is all I am suggesting, and "self-published" does not apply to opinion pieces supplied by professional staff on a professional outlet. I brought this here for that type of evaluation, i.e. whether GameSided can be said to be a professional outlet with professional staff. That is because that is the general standard for inclusion on a BLP. According to Fansided's about page, editors have full control over each site's contents.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I stopped reading your comment immediately once you accused me of "slander". Better luck next time.--Cúchullain t/c 00:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC) You are the one who decided to try and use a cheap tactic to discredit the source, so don't complain when I call you on it. Surely you know being a "blog" would not disqualify it as a source even if that were an accurate assessment. The Huffington Post is generally considered a "blog" site and is also often considered a reliable source even on BLPs. As it stands, you calling it a blog appears to have no purpose other than to discredit the source with a label. Our standards for reliable sources are not based on labels or litmus tests.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Calling a thing the thing it is isn't "slander". You're being ridiculous.--Cúchullain t/c 02:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (EC) A blog is the bottom of the barrel. From WP:BLOGS, "[blogs] are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant[sic] field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The author is not an established expert in the relevant field. It's like the difference between knowing the machinery of a car engine vs knowing how thermodynamics works within a car engine--it's two different subjects. If you want something that's undeniable more acceptable than a blog, a suggestion is a source that's published by a university, like a journal or scholarly book. DonQuixote (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC) There is a reason WP:BLOGS redirects to "self-published" sources and that is because it is referring to self-published blogs, not all blogs as you would know if you read the policy. As I said there are many sites considered blogs that are considered to be of the same professional standards as other news outlets, at least for some of their content. Cuchullain is throwing out "it's a blog" in order to discredit the source rather than addressing whether it meets the standard criteria for determining whether a source is reliable. All I am asking for is for someone to actually weigh it against our standards, but it seems editors here are more interested in finding any excuse they can muster to dismiss it than having a serious discussion about it. I told you before that not everyone needs to be an established expert in the specific field of cultural and media studies to be included here as most of the people cited in the article do not have any greater claim to expertise than Holt (arguably his degree in history and government does give him some weight in analyzing a feminist web series). Our standard for including critical commentary on a web series and the person who created it is not so limiting.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC) And you're affecting indignation and casting aspersions to shift attention away from the conspicuous weaknesses of a source you want to introduce. It's not going to be a particularly effective tactic for you. As always, the burden of evidence is on you to defend your controversial additions.--Cúchullain t/c 04:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (EC) Er...yeah, but they're not trying to analyze the material in terms of cultural and media studies like Holt is attempting to do. Anyone trying to do that has to be an acknowledged expert or publish in a peer reviewed journal (or something similar). He's going beyond his area of expertise. Our standard for including critical commentary is precisely that limiting...similarly, Holt's "criticism" (positive or negative) of particle physics or evolution or climate science isn't citable because he's not recognized as an expert in those fields--especially if he tries to use the language or methods of those fields without the proper training (which he is doing here). Unless he's shown to be an acknowledged expert in any of these, his blogs aren't reliable sources. So...please cite a source saying that he's an acknowledged expert in this field or point to a peer-reviewed article that he has published in this field. Also, "criticism" is not the same thing as "critical analysis", and critical analysis in one field is not the same thing as critical analysis in another field. That is, being an expert in one thing doesn't make anyone an expert in another thing, even if they're marginally related. DonQuixote (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC) It is alright, I realize now from the section below that expecting a reasonable and considerate discussion was a foolhardy endeavor.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Given your contributions, I can't imagine why you would be expecting such a thing. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)