Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Question/Thought

This question/thought is somewhat in regards to criticism of the videos, but does not deal with the content of those videos, but instead the production timeline. Would it hurt in any way to make mention of the criticism many of her supporters have in regards to the promised production schedule through the Kickstarter, as well as the DVD copies that have yet to materialize? She states in her kickstarter page that production of the entire DVD set of twelve episodes would be complete by Dec 2012, yet three years have passed since then, and no DvD's have been released, and only half of the videos have been produced. Reference into one of the complaints: Reference of the Kickstarter claims: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

References

The schedule was thrown to the wayside a long time ago, and the objective of the project changed almost immediately. Her videos have been over-length, and to a greater specificity than originally promised. Planned single episodes have become multi episode. Quoting an article almost 2 years old about what the project had delivered at that time would be a little undue (particularly as recent financial statement actually did give a breakdown). Feminist Frequency is now not just a kickstarter but a full non-profit organisation with myriad goals. Criticism of not releasing 12 videos would, obviously, be tempered with what actually has been achieved, and whether it would be "followers" (or backers) complaining about the undelivered is open to debate. If you can find more recent criticism please let us know. Koncorde (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember seeing something recently in regards to it, well, recent being a relative term. (IE within the past year.) I'll try to drag up that article again, as it was a rather interesting read, and did note as you said how the idea which began with the kickstarter grew into becoming something more. I think, ideally, if included, the criticism would have to be worded something like: "Many supporters of the videos have voiced concerns over the project's original timeline of release, compared with the current status of the videos. However, much of this deviation from the timeline can be traced to further developments and evolving of the project from a simple Kickstarter series, into a Non-Profit Organization with multiple diverse goals." (Just a what if there.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I work odd hours, and have to deal more with what goes on there, than here. I found a few articles in reference to the release schedule, though looking at them I determined that they probably wouldn't be viable sources. Largely due to the fact that they effectively reference each other. Meaning that by following the links, you'd end up going in a big circle. About the only interesting article, which did not reference another (only to be referenced back to the first) was a Forbes Article from Jan of 2015. This article does raise some questions, touching on the release dates by saying quote "I’m a little disappointed to see only two videos in her Tropes vs. Women were series were released (for a total of six in the series since 2012.) That seems like incredibly low output compared to other YouTube series and channels on a much more generous budget than most." (It is an opinion piece.) It's worth noting also, that it does explain this lack of output, adding "More than anything, these stats show that Sarkeesian has become a media talking head rather than a YouTube personality—her 20 media appearances in 2014 dwarf all other stats provided." If it were included, like Koncorde said, probably the best way would be to note that the lack of output raised questions among supporters and opposition, perhaps noting how it prompted accusations of fraud, and then offering the counter point with a breakdown of how the funds were/are being spent. If this could be done, it could allow mention of the controversy surrounding the videos, without skewing things too far one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The best we're going to manage out of one piece without giving undue emphasis is to say something along the lines of "In January 2015 Feminist Frequency released its end of year report outlining its continued plans for the Tropes series, and expansion of its programs, while noting that it had released only 6 of the originally planned 12 videos to this point." Trying to shove in questions of fraud would be seriously undue; for starters that's a legal allegation that would be linked directly to an individual and put wikipedia as a liable party - without something very strong to support it (at a minimum an allegation by a serious reliable source after investigation, or a declaration by legal office of some sort) we would have strike that immediately. Koncorde (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best way to handle it.

Inserted along those lines with context of full report. Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Positive Female Characters

The title card says it is part of the series. I feel these will end up as "parts", similar to other episodes like DID and WaBD. Which...actually I got a funny idea on that. Perhaps these episodes could be grouped up based on what they're with? Like, DiD, Ms. Male, WaBD and now PFC. I'll open the floor. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like that to me, too. It's more or less what she said in the annual report.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the second title card as part of the video. Knew there were new videos due, but made an incorrect assumption based on other stuff read. Apologies Serenity. Koncorde (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Liana K

A discussion pertaining to this article is at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Metaleater_source Rhoark (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the DLC episode be its own part of the list?

"Women as Reward - Special DLC Mini-Episode" as its called kinda feels like a little addendum more than an entire episode. Should it have its own line or just be tacked on to the previous episode? I'm a bit torn. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it separate, it's a separate video even if it covers a related topic. I'll work on descriptions today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree at this stage of page development, leave it separate. While they cover roughly similar ground, the mini-ep is clearly a different produced work. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a list of videos, rather than numbered episodes. I know there's meant to be 12 only, but we also know that was thrown out of the window over a year ago when the double headers appeared. Koncorde (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point, let's remove the numbers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Body Language & The Male Gaze

latest addition  : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPOla9SEdXQ --ChristopheT (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Y Done. I'll throw in a summary when I get a chance to watch it. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you Zero ! --ChristopheT (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary source additions by Barackaddict

I noticed User:Zero Serenity removed an addition of FemFreq's official financial figures from a section of the article discussing financing and spending. I understand why people are keen to revert Barack, given that he keeps on charging in and adding stuff without discussion while edit warring, but I dont see why this is a bad addition. It seems to fit with the use proposed by WP:PRIMARY, is it the phrasing you have issue with? Brustopher (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the reason to add these figures to the article without any sort of justification. What justification would we give for including this information? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm perhaps. I just thought primary sourcing would work well in a section on finance. Although perhaps a breakdown for every year would be overly detailed? How about noting that FemFreq publish their financial figures every year, with a link to their reports? That way it's accessible from the article but we're not getting boggled down in minutiae. Brustopher (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried to discuss things on people's individual Talk pages, but didn't get any responses really. I'm new here and didn't realise that there was a talk page for this. I apologise unreservedly for not communicating properly. I was growing a bit frustrated with the constant revisions of my cited and factually accurate edits. I'd like to apologise to the community for charging in and adding stuff without discussion.

Thank you Brustopher for asking the question, I eagerly anticipate the answer and would be happy to make revisions of the wording. I thought the final one seemed pretty bullet-proof to be honest.

Barackaddict (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Barack my advice to you would be this. Relax a bit and don't charge into things all guns blazing. If you're going to add anything other than the most bland information to Sarkeesian related article's its probably worth discussing them on the talk page first. Brustopher (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, look at my final edit. I put them after the bit where claims were made about mis-use of funds, I was simply providing factual context for that from primary sources.

Barackaddict (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Yes. As I said in his WP:3RR hearing, it is inherently an inherently loaded statement. The organization received (at least) $350,000 from Intel sometime in December of 2014. The short amount of time to spend that without looking like gorging is why it looks lopsided. So in other words this is cherry picking. Unlike Susan G. Komen which doesn't receive bulk donations and spends most of its cash in a year, the criticism is pretty well honed. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, what do you think about mentioning that financial figures are released every year in the article instead? Brustopher (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brustopher: thank you for the advice. I realise now that I have not observed proper decorum and for that I apologise. I'll try to be less of a noob in future. Barackaddict (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity, it's a her. Secondly, the facts were not "Cherry-picked" as the two most recent years were added. I don't want to cherry-pick anything. Could you please suggest a way to get these easily verifiable and entirely factual statistics into the article?

Barackaddict (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of what I have to say has been covered by others above, but I'm responding after receiving a message from Barackaddict. I've also responded to their nearly identical request at Anita Sarkeesian.

There are multiple reasons this information is a problem, especially at this article. For one thing, the cited source was the 2014 annual report for Feminist Frequency, not specifically for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. There's no reason to use the 2014 report but to exclude 2015, and there's way to parse the relevance of the spending to Tropes vs. Women, considering that Feminist Frequency was very active outside this series. I could see that some elements of the annual report might be useful here, or at the bio article, but I see no reason to pick this specific bit of information out of the report. It's not, for instance, a budget on how much was spent on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, it's just a total of revenue taken in by the non-profit and how it was spent.

It's also apparent that the information is being misused or misinterpreted. As Zero says, it's not surprising that spending was lower than revenue for the year, as most revenue came at the end of the year. Nor or reliable sources treating this as significant, or even commenting on it. This suggestion seems DOA.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain, given that in every other edit the 2015 data was also included you can hopefully see that I have taken that into account. The reason to pick this specific part of the report out is because it is extremely noteworthy. Over two years the Non-Profit has taken revenues in excess of $750,000 with the stated aim to make informational programs, yet spending on programs was only 22.5% of revenue for the most recent two-year period. The Feminist Frequency about page reads "Feminist Frequency is a video webseries...". In my final edit, which is the one I would like you to pay most attention to as it took into account several other people's revisions, I placed the Feminist Frequency Annual Report figures after a sentence about criticism following a perceived lack of activity. The statistics only substantiate the point made and no analysis is included alongside them. The purpose of the edit was to add more factual basis to the production section of the article. Program figures and the proportion of overall revenue is highly relevant to the production section and in particular the preceding sentence.

I am completely open to revisions of the edit and would appreciate your feedback on how to improve it.

Barackaddict (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This fact isn't helpful, because readers don't have any context to judge whether or not 44% is normal or abnormal for a charity of this size. In order to make that assessment, we would need an analysis from a high quality secondary source. Just because something is factual doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia see: WP:TRUE Nblund (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It is analysis on Barackaddict's part that the data casts a bad light on Sarkeesian and her project; obviously this claim is not made in the annual report itself. This is exactly the trouble with (mis)using primary sources in Wikipedia articles. If their analysis was "extremely noteworthy", reliable sources would be discussing it, and they acknowledge that there aren't any. There's also the matter they keep eliding that the annual report's figures aren't for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games specifically, they're for all of Feminist Frequency, which has done various things besides this series of videos. Time to let this one go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nblund, let's take a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario I have convinced you to donate $100 to my Non-Profit so that I can produce programs to highlight an extremely important social issue that is dear to your heart. If in that scenario I spend only $22.50 of your $100 on the production of programs, how would that make you feel? Would that piece of information be relevant to the critical reception of the production of my programs and warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article about the production of my programs? Barackaddict (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for hypothetical speculation. If reliable secondary sources have discussed irregularities in the funding, then we can refer to that. Otherwise, there does not seem to be anything left to discuss. Sławomir
Biały 15:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, and in fact using the talk page to engage in "Primary (original) research" is a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, an issue compounded by the fact that we're talking about a living person. Unless there are primary sources making these claims, this conversation should be put to bed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Would that piece of information be relevant to the critical reception of the production of my programs and warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article about the production of my programs?

No, that would be relevant to a journal article (secondary source). This is an encyclopaedia article (tertiary source). If you can't start with a direct quote, then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article. What you probably want to do is to try to get your analysis published in a reliable source. When that happens, we can probably cite you and put it in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cuchullain. Yes there are primary sources making these claims and I will cite them once more, these sources are the Feminist Frequency Annual Reports for 2014 and 2015. These are official, verifiable figures straight from Feminist Frequency.

@DonQuixote. If you look at my most recent edit that was removed by Zero Serenity before he brought a now dismissed Edit War claim against me, you will see that the figures were inserted into the article alongside no analysis as they were placed directly after an existing point being made which they were relevant to. My most pertinent question to the other editors is specifically this: would you support my final edit (no comment on the other edits required)? And if not, would you accept it with revisions made? Happy to alter it. Barackaddict (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Judging that edit, what's the importance of those figures? They have no meaning because they are out of place. Unless you can cite a secondary source that puts those figures within context, it's just trivia and unencyclopaedic. DonQuixote (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Think of it this way. Let's say we're discussing an article about To Kill a Mockingbird. If you suddenly quote paragraph five of chapter six, what's the purpose? You'll still need a secondary source to put that within context otherwise it's trivia, and if you start anyalyzing it, it'll be original research which you should take to a journal and not an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point about how relevant they are to articles about her. If we, for example, had an article about Feminist Frequency, then it would make sense to include said info. But the way you wrote it could be misconstrued as self-enrichment. I say the financials of the organization do not matter. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Barackaddict: At most, this selectively chosen data from the primary source has no clear relevance, and at worst, it makes the implication that this percentage is unusual and reflects poorly on the project. We can't state or imply anything that isn't said directly in the cited source. For the last time, if there are no reliable secondary sources talking about this, it's not going in the article. And that's besides the fact that you keep eliding, that none of the data is tied specifically to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, which is just one element of Feminist Frequency.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Barackaddict: The fact that the figures were included without analysis or comment doesn't help the issue: Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of facts, and statistics and figures need to be placed in context so that readers can make sense of them. I think multiple editors have said that, in order for this to be included, it needs to be discussed and analyzed in a high-quality secondary source. Barring that, I think this is pretty much a settled issue, and it's probably time to move on. Nblund (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

Please change the 'Background' and 'Harassment and response' sections of this article as it is filled with bias and inaccuracy. I don't want to be too forward but I would appreciate that the whole of this Wikipedia article be looked over by an unbiased editor as even a quick read shows obvious signs of bias. For example, the claim that people who disagreed with her video series are harassers (which is repeated multiple times throughout the article and likely forced into the sub-heading 'Harassment and response' where simply 'Response' could suffice. A small sentence regards critics' speculations on if she was putting the money to good use in the 'Production' section and a slightly longer inclusion in the 'Critical reception' section but it is mostly pushed aside.

In my personal and experienced opinion, someone has written this with an obvious agenda with only small comments on the critics of the Tropes vs. Women series (mostly painted as some sort of threat or non-significance). Again, in my professional opinion, I think that the only good things said about the critics in the article were left behind as an attempt to validate biased conclusions in the article and to present Anita Sarkeesian as a heroic victim if you will such as in the 'Harassment and response' section: "harassment of Sarkeesian had reached such levels that she announced that a threat drove her out of her home. She was quoted as having posted on Twitter, "Some very scary threats have just been made against me and my family. Contacting authorities now", followed by a later tweet, "I'm safe. Authorities have been notified. Staying with friends tonight. I'm not giving up. But this harassment of women in tech must stop!". This is most obviously referring to the bomb threat which had undergone investigation. What wasn't written in this article was how the police concluded that there was no evidence to suggest credible violent consequences or behaviour. And considering that this is in the response section I would at least expect some other side to the story to perhaps validate or invalidate the threats instead of misinformation or the accidental lack of information shown in this section.

I know this was a lot of reading but thank you for taking your time on it and I kindly ask you to take another look at this article. 77.96.13.157 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello 77.96.13.157! FYI: "the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." You've indicated sections you dislike. Please share what you would like these sections to be changed to. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources that we can cite, then that'll be a great place for us to start. DonQuixote (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

request - not all backlash equals "harassment"

The whole article implies that the only dissent of Anita's videos is in the form of "sexist harassment" and "misogynist harassment". INstead of taking only Anita's side, you could word it to say that she received "backlash that included harassing comments" this way it acknowledges that she got backlash, and that only some of it is harassment. I'll copy part of it here to show you what I think should be changed: "The series was financed via crowdfunding, and came to widespread attention when its Kickstarter campaign triggered a wave of sexist harassment against Sarkeesian.]] " How it should be worded: "The series was financed via crowdfunding, and came to widespread attention when its Kickstarter campaign triggered a wave of backlash, which included harrassment against Sarkeesian.]] " also notice that the reference to that part is a blog? Yet you don't include blogs that state that the series has its flaws. kinda suspicious, innit?

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The harassment campaign that started before she had made a single video was, by all measures, fuelled by sexism (and anti-feminism) and was misogynistic. All sources here, and in the main Sarkeesian article outline this. There is nothing "suspicious". The Marcotte blog is not the sole source for the harassment (see the actual link within the section, or the section below) and she is a notable, and reputable, voice on feminist matters. If you have such notable views or opinions in blogs that are critical, let us know. We have only been waiting 5 years for them. Koncorde (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So it's okay if a reputable woman rights a bog on Sarkeesian because she's feminist.

right.

I'm mearely suggestion rewording that phrase to acknowledge that not all of the backlash towards her kickstarter was harassment, be it gender fueled or not.

As for the source, it's still a blog.

So if Harrison ford wrote a blog about why the haters of Indianna Jones were idiots, it'd be included either on his page or on the Indianna Jones page.

Yet if I wrote a blog on why Indianna Jones haters are idiots, I'm just a onw-off person because I don't play Indianna Jones?

Or here's a better example: If I wrote a blog about advice for flying commercial jets, then it's just an oppinion peace by a random person in cyberspace, yet if John Travolta or the guys who flew the Concord were to write the exact same blog, it's all the sudden a reliable source because of the person who owned the fingers that typed it. What sound logic. Why don't we have Mariah Carey write the article on singing because she's a great singer? And we can use a blog she creates as the source? She must be reputable.

DO you see where I'm coming from with the blog thing?

A blog is a blog, be it from little Annie herslef, a feminist or an anti-feminist. unless WIkipedia is now a strictly pro-feminist encyclopedia? In that case this site may as well be shut down forever, because wp:npov means dick all when it comes to feminism I guess.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

By wording that part about the harassment differently to say "a wave of backlash which included harassment" (if you wanna include feminist buzz words like sexist be my guest) then it shows that not all of the backlash Anita got is harassment or sexist.

For example, these are some backlashes she could have gotten that wouldn't be considered "harassment" by a rational person:

• don't bother funding this kickstarter, because it's going to be the same crap that Jack Thompson said in 2005, only with sexism instead of violence.
• This is going to suck
• Feminism isn't going to solve these problems, better writers will.
• this isn't a feminist issue you idiot, it's a lazy writing issue
• why just women, why not men too? men have a plethora of tropes that they're lumped into, right?

Not one of those types of responses contain any of these kinds of phrases:

• "i'm going to rape you"
• "I'm going to kill you!"
• "you live at the address xyz and I'm coming (insert picture)"
• "bitch make me a sandwich!"

We can't just assume that it's all harassment because the pro-feminist side says it is. We don't know what exactly it said, so a phrase like "a wave of backlash which included hateful harassment' or "a wave of backlash which included sexist harassment" acknowledges both the non-harassment and harassment while not deminishing or ignoring the other.

In other words, either of the phrases I just mentinoed acknowledge that yes, Sarkeesian indeed did receive sexist harassment, but she also received non-sexist and non-harassing backlash. Because we don't know what is said, this phrase is the best way.

Leaving it status quo qould only push the pro-feminist side while ignoring the fact that not all of the backlash was harassing or sexist in any way.

"oh great another Jack Thompson" is not harassment.

Eric Ramus

We can't reword text in a way that doesn't reflect sources. This article is a summary of what reliable sources say. If you can provide us with reliable sources that say otherwise, that'll be great and we can reword the text to reflect that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's profeminism or profeminism?

Also DonQuixote, you are grounded grounded grounded grounded for tagging the answer status yes.

Also you haven'ta ddressed my comment about how a blog written by a feminist be they reputable ornot is still a blog.

So i'll ask again, how is it, that a blog by a feminist saying it's harassment is a reliable source, while a blog by a non-feminist acknowledging harassment isn't? I'd send you a few links I found but the captcha thing will not load, so I can't post them right now.

www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/08/tropes-vs-anita-sarkeesian-passing-anti-feminist-nonsense-critique

I'm sure that isn't a reliable source, and if it isn't then neither is the blog that is used.

I mean, you wouldn't use www.breitbart.com/tech/.../lets-stop-pretending-anita-sarkeesian-art-critic... as a source, would you?

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Er...I'm saying nothing like that. I'm sorry that you view all reliable sources as profeminism, but that's your bias. As to your blog vs blog question, see identifying reliable sources as that's a good starting place for that. As for the two links provided, we already cite that article from New Statesmen and Breitbart has been assessed as an unreliable source. And not only has your question been answered, it's also mentioned in the FAQ and various Wikipedia policies about identifying reliable sources, neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This article and the main one have major POV issues and you guys are opposed to a soft POV tag on the articles. I'm always searching for reliable sources for the other side. But I don't see why you guys are opposed for a soft POV tag to be placed on both articles, more so tAnita's article than this one, but you guys protected that talk page, so I can discuss it there because I won't create an account.

can someone other than Cuchullain, 0serenity and DonQuixote please look at the issues here please?

It seams like the same 3 users are always patrolling the page and aren't willing to try to get an uninvolved admin here to review things from a different point of view.

I'm wondering if a ownership complex between these 3 is going on or if a feminist bias is going on here.

As for my views, I'm not too thrilled with the Gamergate side either. but these two articles seem heavily biassed twards a feminist POV, and acknowledging it is the first step in helping to fix a problem.

FAQ or no FAQ, there is a bias on these two articles, and that bias must always be acknowledged.

I once visited this article talkpage in 2015 and saw Cuchullain, 0serenity and DonQuixote there refusing sources, same at the talk page for Anita Sarkeesian. but it's only these three speciffic users, and it's always these three.

I'm pushing for some other users with a higher status or a different POV that is not necessarily feminist to chyme in too, and be heard by these three.

Sorry to attack you a little guys, but given how ultra-envolved you three are it appears as if you feel a little too protective about these two articles.

There are articles I feel protective of, but I do my best not to touch them, because I know I have a little bias twards them.

so I vote that if DX must close this request, then Cuchullain, 0serenity and DonQuixote help find an uninvolved high-reputation user to patrol these two pages for a little while, and either take a break or not be as involved as they are now.

Cuchullain, 0serenity and DonQuixote, I'm sure you 3 are amazing users, and have done much good for Wikipedia. But you three have a bias here, and it's an obvious pro-feminist bias. If any of you are feminists then at least admit it and then see if you can find a non-femniist to also weigh in too.

Thanks, and I hope you can at least get the spirit of what I'm pushing for, and that's neutrality.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Er...how is asking for the citation of a reliable source a feminist bias? Seems more like an academic bias to me. If you check the article history, you'll see that I haven't made that many edits. If you check the talk page archives, most of my comments were about the citation of reliable sources and (from an academic viewpoint) what constitutes a reliable source. If you check my contribution history, most of my edits have been the removal of unsourced content. Yes, I admit that I have a bias towards an academic tone, but I think you're projecting when you ascribe a feminist agenda onto me.

As for "major POV issues", if you can cite a reliable source that says something different from the sources summarized in this article, then that'll be a great place to start. DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You missed my point by 1000 miles DX.

I said that there should be a tag on this article this way people know that this and Anita Sarkeesian's article are a little biassed twards the feminist side of things.

Some sort of note at the top that will alert readers and editors to the possibility that there may be another side to the story, rather than just leaving it up to guess work.THis then allows more people who aren't pro-gamergate or anti-gamergate to come along with a source, knowing a possible goal to try to help fix it.

Without a POV tag however, people may see the article as "fine".

If you won't make my requested edit, then how about considering some sort of POV acknowledgement, this way uninvolved people will know where to go.

POV tags exist for a reason you know.

Eric Ranus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can show that there is a POV issue in this article by providing reliable sources that contradict the contents of this article, then it's just your POV that there is a bias. Unless you can do that, you're just giving off the impression that you're fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

then you are grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded until Anita Sarkeesian finishes trops vs. women in video games.

PS it's yuor POV that it's fine, and yours doesn't count, nor does mine.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

As already requested, can you please provide links to these critical sources that existed during the Kickstarter campaign (or at least before she made the first video), otherwise the intro is accurate. Koncorde (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we're talking about Backlash (sociology), not just disagreement. The backlash part was misogynistic according to sources. The notable part about the backlash was the misogyny and sexism. We could word the sentence better to make it clear that we're talking about sexist backlash and not just anyone who didn't like the kickstarter. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the sentence is quite clear that it was subjected to a backlash, and that backlash was what it was. There is no suggestion in the sentence that all criticism was or is sexist, or misogynistic, although as yet nobody has presented a criticism of her Kickstarter from the time of the Kickstarter, actually being critical without either being an example of one or the other, or both.

Since the Kickstarter there almost certainly has been some actual notable criticism of the series, but this still wouldn't change that sentence (and introducing in the lead "some people don't like the series" seems a bit of an odd inclusion). Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you guys are assuming that all of the backlash she got for the kickstarter was harassment, and that none of it is because people are tired of outsiders dropping in and taking an x-ray to video games and misreading said x-rays. Remember, the gaming community only just got done dealing with Jack Thompson 5 years before the kick starter, and they also had Pat Robertson, as in ultra-christian Pat robertson around the same time. Maybe people had enough with games being over-analyzed by outsiders.

My point is is that as the sentance is now, it assumes that all backlash she got was only sexist harassment. Because a feminist source doesn't acknowledge the people saying "good grief not another Jack Thompson" it's always sexist harassment. Remember, it's sexist harassment to say "good grief not another jack thompson" people, so if another critic of video games comes along after Annie's series is done, then don't say "good grief not another Anita Sarkeesian" because that's sexist harassment.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

While I quite agree that there were responses other than sexist harassment, I think the sentence is good (and correct) as is. After all, the announcement also triggered some positive responses. But it seems to me the focus here is on the clause "came to widespread attention." Widespread attention was not paid to idle well-wishers or good-faith fans of video games who wanted to correct what they saw as misinterpretations. The "widespread attention" facet was all about the sexist harassment, especially before any videos were produced. Without the sexism, I don't think there's any way the Kickstarter campaign would have been notable before the actual distribution of videos. At any rate, there you have my very predictable $.02. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@199.101.61.70:: As Peter just showed, your suppositions and anecdotes don't mean much unless you provide reliable sources that we can use to verify any of that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This comment was sensored bythe PC police Eric Ramus

PS, DH, if it's easier, just say @eric

199.101.61.70 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please stay on topic.

1. Do you have any evidence that any of the backlash against the Kickstarter was not about Sarkeesian?

2. Do you have any evidence that any of the backlash against Sarkeesian, prior to the release of a single video, was not sexist?

3. Do you have any evidence, at all, anywhere, at any time, that her Kickstarter received criticism prior to its release that was not about Sarkeesian?

4. Do you have any evidence, at all, anywhere, at any time, that there was criticism of the Kickstarter prior to it receiving $160,000 in support from people reacting to the backlash?

I ask, because in 4 years we have seen nothing, and you have presented nothing as yet that would change that first sentence. Koncorde (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What proof do we have that every single comment that she received was "sexist?" We don't know what the comments wer, and she admits that the screenshot is just a snippit of the comments she got. I'm sure that in thousands of comments there is someone saying "not another Jack Thompson!" Seriously, you just eat up Annie's side with no regard to anyone else. I wish you didn't have the user name sharing a name with one of the greatest inventions of the aviation world.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Ramus, again, no one is making an ontological claim here. The sentence at issue claims that the Kickstarter was particularly noted for sexist backlash. Is that a contention with which you would disagree? Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've redacted some pointless personal information here and on my talk page, per WP:BLP. It's irrelevant to any discussion of the subject, as the article needs to be based on reliable sources. 199.101.61.70, please do not add any comments of that kind again or we'll have to seek administrator intervention.

I agree with others above that the current wording is good and correct as it is. The fact that there was some non-harassment "backlash" isn't notable; the notable part is the sexist harassment, which drew media attention and generated a much higher profile for the project. It looks like consensus is against this proposed change, so it's best to move on. If you have any other actionable editing suggestions based on reliable sources, bring them up so we can vet them. Otherwise, this discussion will not get anywhere.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You forget, i'm in the processo f compiling a list of reliable sources of criticism of this series, which I will present in its own section. It'll take A while as I said, and I won't use my close relatino as a source, because it isn't reliable. Also when you remove something, don't be a terse tot and use words like (Redacted) Nobody likes terseness.

Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

What does criticism of the series have to do with the notable abuse received by/for/during the Kickstarter? Your argument was to change the first sentence, and now you are trying to introduce critical analysis, for which there is a section already?

Also "redact" is the correct term, so please don't try to tone police after accusing editors of being breaching NPOV and running to the Administrator noticeboard to try and get what you wanted. Koncorde (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Concord, you are grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounded grounged for 32 millennia! Why? because you promote terseness, and nobody likes terseness. Except you i guess.

Also I said I'd put it in a seperate section. It'd help if you guys paid attention to what I write rather than just scan it.

Eric Ramus

GLory Man UNited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.61.70 (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If brevity is the soul of wit, then truly I say, terseness is generally okay and sometimes to be desired on Wikipedia. Dumuzid (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing impolite about redacting comments that violate Wikipedia policy. In fact, I was trying to avoid just removing or archiving the comments entirely. Moving forward, no more personal information, and no more general discussion of this or other topics. If there are actionable suggestions based on potential reliable sources, make them, or move on to other things.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Critical Notes - contradictions ?

Good Evening to all of You !

I'm pretty surprised that the section "4.2 Critical reception" isn't really balanced. On Youtube and on other Blogs there are many critical and very remarkable Contradictions to Sarkeesian of Youtubers who are uploading Gaming-themed Videos for years or other Gamers. Could someone add (or just bring forward) the critical responses from known Gamers of Youtube ?
So far the whole article is quite onesided, it seems to me. If required I will list the links here. Furthermore there is no mention of the notorious video of 2010 (?), where Sarkeesian is stating herself as not very intereseted in Games (or I've just read over it).
Here in Germany Sarkeesian's work is just starting to become known so I'm not (yet !) very into this issue as a whole.

Thanks for reading and I have deeply to apologize for my bad English, but as mentioned ealier I'm actually German.
Best regards. --84.59.192.81 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Youtube and blogs are not considered reliable sources. Not here and not in acadaemia. DonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello to You, too !
Maybe my English is worser than I thought so You missed my point. The critics from Youtube and other blogs are the reliable sources for the EXISTING of contradiction. My request to a competent person was to look after English sources. Because I am (You obviously see, why) neither confident in my English, nor with my knowledge of the topic.
I just googled a bit and found 3 articles:
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/08/tropes-vs-anita-sarkeesian-passing-anti-feminist-nonsense-critique
https://superlevel.de/spielkram/the-sarkeesian-effect-scheisse-rein-scheisse-raus/
https://superlevel.de/spielkram/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/
I can't evaluate the Reliability of these 3 articles, especially the middle. Furthermore the last 2 are German. But reliable or not, these 3 articles also prove the existence of contradiction.
Greetings and may You have a nice evening!--84.59.192.81 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Guten abend! And I fear that is the extent of my German. Not to be linguistically biased, but the latter sources are perfect for German Wikipedia, but much less use here on the English version. The New Statesman is a good place to go, but I am not sure what contradiction you see there? That article seems to be in line with the Wikipedia page, saying, for instance: "...what Sarkeesian is doing is standard pop culture criticism, of the kind that films and books have been subjected to for decades - and TvsWVG is pretty good." I think the "contradictions" you mean are contentions that Ms. Sarkeesian is outright lying or at least misspeaking, but I don't see that in your English article and I am not qualified to judge the German articles. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Any claim that goes into the article must be backed by a reliable source. The mere fact that something exists, or is covered in unreliable sources, is not sufficient to include it. Looking at your links, we can include the Ian Steadman piece. It's actually already included at Anita Sarkeesian and in the past we discussed expanding on the coverage. Of course, its central point is that the "critiques" of Sarkeesian are typically "anti-feminist nonsense". I also don't speak German so I can't judge superlevel.de.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Superlevel looks like a self published blog (or blog aggregate) and reading the article, seems to agree entirely with the existing Critical Reception section.

The first article is about the series and comments that it is stuffy, and production (well, "style") is the same as previous. Everything else is largely pro the videos, or agreeing with her stance; in particular referring to how "anyone who has played games in the last 30 years knows the situation" (paraphrasing for English interpretation). His main criticism is that the delivery may not do the content (or intended content) justice, and that the audience is so divided that the other side is implacable anyway.

The second article is discussing the "Sarkessian Effect" and is initially satirical, and then basically sums up the whole effort by comparing it to The Room (suggesting that the "Sarkeesian Effect" is to journalism / documentary, as Tommy Wiseau's opus is to film making). I am not seeing any critical comment of the series, and only passing reference to Sarkeesian with the context of the film. Koncorde (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Producer page

Noticed the TvW series [series producer] has a page but don't see it linked here. --87.117.202.59 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked the article and in the infobox he is listed as a producer and his name is linked to his article page. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Metaleater, Liana K

Liana K's opinion is not particularly notable, and Metal Eater is not a reliable source for coverage of it. We shouldn't include a large paragraph cited entirely to an article from an obscure site about some youtube videos. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

When was metaleter deemed unreliable? 2600:1012:B028:8B5B:9544:7E0:9FE2:D709 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I did, just then, with a cursory inspection of the site & its editorial policy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I am not seeing where you did so. I checked the RSN and there is nothing currently (or in the archives) citing MetalEater as unreliable. Regarding Liana K she is indeed notable and well-known as a video-game journalist. Interesting how male journalists are not challenged, but when a female like Liana dares to write about video games, everyone is up at arms saying she is "not notable" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.69.123 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

user:dumuzid Your edits always seem to be well thought-out so I am surprised by your objection to this as undue. It's a few sentences from a well-known video game journalist (in a publication that has never been challenged in any way as unreliable) in an otherwise large article. I realize Liana may be Unconventional, but not all journalists wear a suit and tie to the office, particularly in the gaming field! Is there something i am missing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.69.123 (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Liana K is a well known feminist gamer. Also the article is not copied from the videos but the articles were written by Liana K, she writes for the website and the website is merely a "platform" for her views. Also I found an article in the same website by the same author cited in another page.Gamergate_controversy#cite_note-MetalEater2-140. UmdP 11:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

They are going to ignore you (like they did above). Female video game journalists are the bane of gamergaters.

In a list of three people, Liana Kerzner was one of the 'such as' who expressed concern over how the harassment movement was being exploited by right-wing voices. We can't use Metal Eater for statements of fact (such as 'arguments being countered'), only opinion, and Kerzner's opinion is not notable enough for an entire paragraph on this page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There aren't much feminist gamers and she is among the most known. Also there nothing is a solid fact here. For example views of movie critics are not facts but opinions and in this case she gives counters the statements of the FF with of her own opnion. She has the most detailed criticism of the videos here. (Also why are so many anon users here?) UmdP 12:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Liana K is a perfectly suitable source for her own opinion. Her opinion is relative, she herself is notable video game journalist, and not a controversial inclusion. Her opinion should be attributed to her. Koncorde (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I can assure one and all that my edits are not THAT well thought out! And I am not opposed to Liana K. But the edit here struck me as undue weight, and, as I said, I'm not sure about Metaleater. I could be convinced that it's an RS, but I am not seeing it based on my cursory investigation. I'm honestly surprised there isn't some coverage of the Liana criticism in a more mainstream RS. That would certainly help things. Happy weekend, all! Dumuzid (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Metaleater and these articles specifically were discussed before here and at the main page here. The site is questionable, and there's no indication that op eds published by it represent significant viewpoints about the topic when we have so many sources of far higher caliber. As such it should stay out barring some new evidence/upswing of consensus that it's such an important source for the topic that it must be included. I'll also point out that these discussions would have been easy to find simply by searching the archives, and that edit warring as UMDP has engaged in is never acceptable and is very likely to lead to blocks and page protection if it continues.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• (Johnuniq's talk page stalker -- take this for what it's worth) Leave it out I've looked a bit into UMDP's recent edits on this matter, and claiming that the reverting of his edits is "censorship" and lecturing experienced editors about how Wikipedia is not censored would be grossly inappropriate even if I thought the content was worth including, which I don't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of edit warring over a minor thing like how different people view video games. The article was lacking on how the videos were recieved and wished to expand it. Also I did not say that reverting my edits as "censorship" but the removal of the content which was done without properly on the proper details other than a vague excuse on being unreliable or undue. Thank you - UmdP 19:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

UMDP: As the one who introduced the material, the WP:BURDEN is on you to defend it. Rather than edit warring, you should have brought the matter to the talk page. Don't add the material again and there won't be any further problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There is an interview in tech raptor where Liana discusses the Tropes series. Is tech raptor considered a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B028:8B5B:9544:7E0:9FE2:D709 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. An interview is a primary source, so the reliability of the interviewing agency is irrelevant, as an interview cannot possibly lend notability to her view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We can't use an interview to source an opinion to someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B028:8B5B:9544:7E0:9FE2:D709 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

TechRaptor is listed as not a reliable source for video game topics at WP:VG/RS.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: It really looks like the IP is trolling. Everyone here has said that the problem is that Liana K's view is not notable, and now they are seriously arguing over the "reliability" of a primary source? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

How about you AGF instead? I was trying to find other sources quoting Liana in an effort to establish notability. user:dumuzid said he was surprised there were not more mainstream sources referencing Liana. My intention was to find some so as to establish notability. Does that not make sense?

I haven't edited in a while (and now I remember why). Just so I am clear, Liana K is not notable for this article. It does not matter what else is found - the determination has been made correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:b028:8b5b:9544:7e0:9fe2:d709 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Her opinion alone is neither WP:RELIABLE nor WP:DUE. If it gets picked up by reliable sources, then we can discuss if/how to include it. Woodroar (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the honest and civilized answer. So if reliable source talks about Lianas view on the Tropea series, that could conceivably be fine. An interview alone is not enough because it is just her opinion is that correct? Again it's been a while... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B028:8B5B:9544:7E0:9FE2:D709 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically, we try to write in proportion to the available sources, plus we value fact-based journalism more than opinion pieces and often-cited sources more than obscure ones. So when we look at an opinion viewpoint published by a single obscure site, it's hard to justify mentioning it at all. If you look at articles written by some of the prominent game journalists, they can get shared or commented on by multiple high-profile and often-cited sources like IGN or Polygon or even The New York Times. The fact that her view didn't find a wider audience is an indication to us that, at this time, it's not worth writing about it. Of course, that can change and we can always revisit it. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. I figured as a game journalist her opinion might be notable but under the circumstances I can also understand how it is not. Sorry if it came across as "trolling". I can assure you that was not my intention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:b028:8b5b:eda9:7dcc:259d:4316 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Fix This and Anita's article

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3897284/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

IT ACTUALLY GOT UNFAVOURABLE REVIEWS FROM MOST PEOPLE, JUST BECAUSE YOUR SPONSERS LIKE IT, DOESN'T MEAN MORE THAN 14% OF PEOPLE LIVING LIKE IT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddox121 ForgotHisPassword (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User generated content is not considered notable or reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User reviews are not reliable. Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, an independent charity with no sponsors; its articles are written by volunteer users. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we maybe add "user-generated" sources to FAQ #2 above? I can imagine this coming up again, and it would be good to not have to repeat the same explanation over and over.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, a concerted campaign by dedicated haters wouldn't purposely leave negative reviews would they? Surely not! I'm just surprised that there aren't more. Koncorde (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues, lack of criticism, even though notable critics exist

Sarkeesian's work has been heavily criticised by many notable people, even fellow feminists and academics. Liana Kerzner, for example, a feminist and a veteran game journalist with decades of experience in the field, has written many published articles in opposition to Sarkeesian's interpretation of objectification theory (the very premise of most of the latter's work), characterising it as sex-negative and antithetical to the feminist cause of destigmatising female sexuality and its expression. Kerzner has also criticised Sarkeesian's tendency to use various forms of body-shaming language, her stance on sex-work, and her understanding of cultivation theory, all of which are relevant to her work in Tropes vs Women. Yahtzee Croshow, arguably the most notable video game journalist in the world, has also made various statements in direct criticism of Sarkeesian's work and its intellectual integrity. Christina Hoff Sommers, another feminist and a published authour, has criticised Sarkeesian's moral position on self-objectification. There are dozens of different notable people who have been published in notable sources that have criticised Sarkeesian's work in a meaningful academic way. Even some of the sources already cited in this article contain some criticism of her work, yet only the praises are mentioned, and quotes that are negative or critical are curiously absent. I would have made these changes myself, but since the article is locked, someone else should fix this problem. Noxteryn (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose your changes here with reliable sources supporting them (WP:VGRS may be helpful), and they can be discussed - if there's a consensus for their inclusion, they'll be included. Remember that any claims about a living person must meet stringent sourcing and due-weight standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also push back on your claim that only the praises are mentioned and quotes that are negative or critical are curiously absent - it's simply false. I note several passages which are negative or critical - notably Steinberg's view that Sarkeesian failed to cite evidence for some of her arguments, Berlatsky's point about Sarkeesian's description of sex workers, and Young's strident argument that the series used "selective and skewed analysis." These are all critical views, and they quite neatly disprove your claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Links, quotes and links again. In the case of Kerzner, is this just dissenting theories, because "Reception" is for specific criticisms of Tropes vs. Women, rather than any theoretical frameworks it uses (we can't escalate criticisms upwards indefinitely or every article would have a long section about disagreements over metaphysics)? But Croshow and Sommers are likely relevant, if they're specifically commenting on Tropes vs. Women. You can effectively make the changes yourself by copying and editing the source text of the page/section and then making a direct "replace the old wikitext with this wikitext" edit request. But, as with a normal edit, you'll need to make sure there really is an NPOV issue and not a false balance case, and if someone disagrees then further discussion will be needed. — Bilorv (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find this article from Houston Press that offers some criticism [1]. X-Editor (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)