Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 14

Request for Comment: Video by the American Enterprise Institute
On September 16, 2014, this video was published by the American Enterprise Institute. The video shows brief images of Sarkeesian, but does not refer to her or her work by name. Since publication, a number of reliable outfits have picked up on this video. Polygon, Kotaku, Gamespot, Think Progress and an Opinion Peice by Polygon. My request is based on the previous, is the allusion to Sarkeesian heavy enough or relevant enough to include in her biographical article or series article? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as due weight is established by the coverage of the topic by reliable sources, and the sources above are telling us how Sommers' video is related to Sarkeesian:
 * Polygon.com: "[Sommers] mentions that Sarkeesian and others have faced serious threats."
 * Kotaku: "In [Sommers'] new video, she snarks about "gender police" and presents the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos about female tropes in video games as an attack on male gamer culture."
 * Gamespot: "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series. [...] Sommers says the "new culture critics" have latched onto these attacks, using them to prove that there exists a "patriarchal pathology" at the heart of gamer culture, when in fact this is not the case."
 * Thinkprogress: "That logic, evidence and humor was missing in reactions to feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian, whom Sommers calls out as an offending feminist critic." "Sommers argued that Sarkeesian’s and other critics’ anonymous death threats aren’t necessarily indicative of a negative, “patriarchal pathology” in game culture". "Sommers also compared Sarkeesian’s criticisms of video game culture to hypothetical attacks on women’s magazines for not being inclusive of men..."
 * Polygon again: "The person [Sommers] focuses on is Anita Sarkeesian", "To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism." "Sarkeesian's actual research is not addressed in Sommers' video, but Sarkeesian herself is an object of scorn and may now presumably be counted within the group of "women who have betrayed women," as Sommers' book is subtitled."
 * It is clear that these reliable sources don't agree with Sommer's analysis of Sarkeesian, but it's also clear that they do consider Sommer's video an analysis of Sarkeesian as a feminist critic. Diego (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. We already established consensus for the current content through extensive talking, largely by the same participants and using the same arguments, that led to the current wording and excluded everything else; this RfC should establish whether there's a new consensus that overrides the previous one, but I can't see why the RSs provided should be rejected when they were already accepted before. Diego (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes the video clearly is about her, even if the only reference is a video of her speaking, and every reliable source covering it has picked up on that fact. Editors seeking to exclude it are just looking for any excuse to minimize criticism of Sarkeesian. We should instead be talking about the inclusion of more criticism based on the large number of reliable sources that have touched on the matter as of late.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that reliable sources make the general connection, but we need to be careful about overuse/overquoting or using the video to make specific claims. Woodroar (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Should be included, as Diego had pointed out, WP:Weight is established. Many credible sources mentioned Sommers by name and it is obvious that Sarkeesian is the main focus of the video. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Enough sources have connected the video with Sarkeesian. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude here, include at another article like Sexism in video gaming. The video only alludes to Sarkeesian by showing her face in a discussion about "a new army of critics"; it does not refer to her by name, say anything about her series, or address any specific point she makes (it's also irrelevant to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games for the same reason). It's of tangential interest to the topic of this article at best. There is nothing else that could be said here besides the fact that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian, and we only say that much because a few reliable sources mentioned the connection. Moving the discussion to a more appropriate article would allow us to say more about it and the response to it.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * However, the RSs above (and below) connect Sarkeesian and Sommers, and therefore some mention is appropriate. Perhaps a sentence or two. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the reliable sources only indicate that Hoff Sommers alludes to Sarkeesian as part of her wider discussion. They don't say she mentions Sarkeesian by name, says anything about her series, or addresses any specific point she makes, because she doesn't. It's not encyclopedic here.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude where a third party has interpreted the source material we can represent the third party as they have provided the synopsis / established the reliability. However it should be clear that A - Sarkeesian is only inferred by third parties. B - the 'other content' is not strictly associated with either Sarkeesian as a person (and personal criticism isn't particularly biopic) or her series. The quotes provided by Diego are quite clear as to what we can and cannot say / present, and synthesising content / interpreting the video ourselves outside of the comments of reliable sources is exactly what is says on the tin - synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a valid concern. We could use a wording similar to Gamespots' "Sommers' video also uses footage from Feminist Frequent creator Anita Sarkeesian's video series".... Though we already took care that the current wording in the article is directly based on the wording at Polygon and Kotaku. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amended my thoughts having read the opening blurb a little more closely. If we are asking to use the video as a source then it is a Primary source, from youtube, of uncertain quality. A "Think Tank" is not a reliable source, be it Conservative, Libertarian or otherwise. However its content can be used when cited with context by another party (or with according caveats).
 * The primary source itself does not mention Sarkeesian, it is therefore completely inadmissible by itself.
 * The secondary sources and comment about the video made in reliable source is admissible within the context of exactly what is said about Sarkeesian, or exactly what is said about the Trope series. Koncorde (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * do not use - per POLICY WP:OR we may not use sources to make claims that are not explicit in the source. Vague references via pictures are not explicit in the source and requires outside knowledge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not OR if RSs make the connection. RSs have made the connection. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * what reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * if reliable sources say "Hoff Summers says X about Sarkeesian" we could theoretically use what the reliable sources have said HS claims, BUT if the reliable sources are saying "HS says Sarkeesian cherry picks information in her critiques, but HS herself has cherrypicked information." we would need to use the reliable sources in context as saying HS's critique is weak. And if the reliable sources are saying that HS critique is weak, poorly constructed, and not valid, we would really not have any incentive or reason to include such a weak, poorly constructed and invalid critique. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You forget that Sommers' video is itself a reliable source for WP:RSOPINION (and WP:RS/AC may be applicable for her attributed opinion, as Sommers is an academic). It reliably documents the libertarian point of view, so it needs to be included per WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS with due weight (which is proportional to the sources we have covering her video). WP:NPOV doesn't care whether a critique is considered weak by others in the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, it still requires us to show both sides. Diego (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sommers' video can't be used for any material discussing living people per WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS. The only reason we're talking about it at all is that other, reliable sources have mentioned it.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sommers' video is not self-published. Diego (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a YouTube video with no credits released on the channel of a conservative think tank. What kind of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy does this have?--Cúchullain t/ c 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a video from an academic published by a conservative think tank, an organism dedicated to creating public opinion; we can be pretty sure that it accurately captures the right-wing advocacy of ideas from the people publishing them. That's why I mentioned WP:RSOPINION as the appropiate policy. The weight is established by the news sources covering it, establishing it as a significant opinion, not by its own fact-checking - there's no possible way to do fact checking for opinions other than being sure that they really come from the people making them, which it's clear in this case. We held an extensive discussion before, the arguments in this RFC were all presented there and they led us to the version currently in the article. There aren't any real new arguments here that could change that previous consensus. Diego (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter how many reliable sources connect the original Sarkeesian, we cannot use the original because HS decided to be coy and not explicitly mention any names. We can only use what any reliable sources have said about it in the context that the reliable source talks about it. Of the links above that I have looked at vaguely come close to "reliable", they have all criticized HS's analysis and so we would need to do that as well. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me to use vaguely reliable sources at best to shoehorn in a commentary that has been discredited. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not how Achieving neutrality, Attributing and specifying biased statements and Biased or opinionated sources instructs us to cover a neutrality dispute or bias in the sources. In all cases the policy is to include the relevant sources, sticking as closely as possible to their wording, and making abundant use of attribution. Diego (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. "
 * Just to clarify, are you suggesting that we use the video as a source here, or are you suggesting we use the sources which link the video to Sarkeesian. aprock (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that we keep the exact same content we have now from the previous consensus. The video might have not been enough if used all by itself, but that's not how it's being used. All the content in the article is directly sourced to independent reliable sources, as you and Konkorde are suggesting. The various RSs covering it are signaling it as an argument significant enough to be taken into account, if only because they thought it was relevant to the topic to the point they feel the need to discredit it, instead of merely ignoring it as irrelevant. Diego (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude here, as said. Needs to be more explicitly about Sarkeesian. Could mention that secondary sources assumed it was about her, but only if there's a place for it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion here and at the Tropes page. Like User:Cuchullain and User:TheRedPenOfDoom above, I can't see inclusion if the source doesn't specifically critique the subject or her work. TRPoD points out that WP:OR doesn't allow us to use sources which don't explicitly cover the subject. If a reader must use inference or outside knowledge to understand the source, the source can't be applied per synthesis. The Sommers video covers the broader subject matter, but doesn't address the subject of this pagespace. For my part, I'm disappointed the Sommers video DOESN"T critique the subject; we've been needing negative critique and Sommers is the closest thing to an expert who has approached coverage of video blogs like Sarkeesian's. I'm hoping for better. BusterD (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The source specifically critiques the subject, as recognized by Polygon, Kotaku, Gamespot and Thinkprogress. Actually the opposing arguments are contradicting each other - one argument says that the video is not about Sarkeesian; the other says that, according to RSs covering the video, its depiction of Sarkeesian's arguments is wrong. Both things can't be true at the same time. Diego (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude on this, and of course both can be true. When applied to Sarkeesian, the arguments are nonsensical so it's not necessarily contradictory to then assume that the arguments weren't meant directly for her. It is relevant however that the video is only ever mentioned in the context of criticising it. I'd much rather hold out for something more substantive than "this one lady said something once that may have been in part about the subject".Cupidissimo (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude, as it has really nothing to do with Sarkeesian herself. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude. The video isn't specifically about Sarkeesian or her work. Should be in CHS's own article or, as suggested above, Sexism in video gaming or other similar, general articles. DonQuixote (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I should note a number of the parties pushing to exclude this material now previously agreed to include it, but apparently now are reneging on that earlier consensus, which is a fairly good sign that they never wanted to compromise in the first place. The editors trying to keep out criticism always tell those of us who want to include criticism that we need multiple reliable sources covering criticism of her and here we have it in spades, yet now they resort to using their personal analysis of the video to push their own POV. Even though Sommers shows video of Sarkeesian when talking about gaming critics and makes a bunch of references that are clearly about Sarkeesian and her video series, the fact Sarkeesian remains "she who must not be named" in the video is being given as a reason to exclude this, even as numerous reliable sources got who and what she was talking about and explicitly note this as criticism of Sarkeesian.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tut tut. Consensus can change, after all. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a change in consensus so much as two people deciding they no longer wish to compromise as they see an opportunity to push their POV and other POV-pushers hopping on board. None of you are citing anything in the reliable sources themselves or in policy. You are just using your personal assessment of what you think about the video. Unfortunately, there appears to be far too many of you who like to substitute your own biased opinion of the issue for policy and reliable sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pssst, Tarc, you've linked to a policy that says "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Diego (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The material shouldn't have been added in the first place for the reasons given above. The exceptionally rough "consensus" to include it before was based on a much narrower participation than this RFC has attracted. Making serious allegations about other editors without evidence is unlikely to swing the debate in your favor; please stop.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only one person pushing for exclusion cites any policy and it is an irrelevant policy. We have numerous reliable sources directly attesting to the video's relevance to Sarkeesian. People voting to exclude are basing it on their own personal opinion that the video has nothing to do with Sarkeesian. For fuck's sake there are only two real people shown in that video. One is Sommers and the other is Sarkeesian. I doubt anyone here honestly believes the video is not about her and reliable sources generally agree the video concerns Sarkeesian. The reality is that you want to minimize criticism of Sarkeesian as much as possible and are using any excuse you can muster without any regard to policy or sources. It is POV-pushing plain and simple.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguing from the position that policy is irrelevant is nonsensical. As noted above, the sources don't say much more than footage of Sarkeesian was included in CHS's video.  Is that really what this is all about?  Including content that says footage of Sarkeesian was in a youtube video?  aprock (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am arguing from the position that the policy on original research is irrelevant here as multiple reliable sources state the video concerns Sarkeesian. No original research is required to connect this video to Sarkeesian as multiple reliable sources have already handled it. Please review all the sources Aprock. Many of them say much more than what editors pushing to exclude mention of the video are saying. It is not lost on anyone familiar with the subject that Sommers posted this video at the time she did, showed footage of Sarkeesian speaking and only Sarkeesian as she criticized feminist gaming critics, and reiterated several common criticisms of Sarkeesian's work. Reliable sources do recognize that this video was really about Sarkeesian and note several of the critiques directed her way. When she talks of feminist gaming critics, this is clearly a catch-all term meant to include Sarkeesian as Sarkeesian was shown when she was saying it. Sommers never utters her name as though Sarkeesian were Candlejack, but that is neither here nor ther- -- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hoff Sommers merely alludes to Sarkeesian in the video, and the reliable sources discussing it just reiterate the fact that she alludes to Sarkeesian in the video. The source that contains the most about the Sarkeesian connection (the op-ed) argues that what Hoff Sommers does imply about Sarkeesian is wrong. That's what we're dealing with.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There has to be some word for starting your argument with "original research is irrelevant here", and then launching into extensive WP:OR with statements like "It is not lost on anyone familiar with the subject that Sommers posted this video at the time she did" and "When she talks of feminist gaming critics, this is clearly a catch-all term meant to include Sarkeesian". What is "clear" to "anyone familiar with the subject" is precisely the kind of original research we don't need here. aprock (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't need anyone familiar with the subject to make the connection, the reliable and notable sources mentioned above do that for you. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted several times, the sources say little more than that footage of Sarkeesian was in the video. That's really it. aprock (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the quotes Diego provided. The sources clearly say more than that. I only mention the rest because the editors pushing to exclude it understand what the video is about and know that reliable sources confirm as much, but they still express a position that the video has nothing to do with her.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. I've read the sources multiple times.  Even Diego's quotes highlight this.  The only source which goes beyond the fact that Sarkeesian is shown in the videos is the ThinkProgress source.  What you have is a single dubious source (the web front for a liberal think tank).  Is that really your idea of a reliable source?  aprock (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude here - As the material is not about Sarkeesian personally, but part of a broader debate about video game culture, it would make sense to include somewhere like Sexism in video gaming or maybe Video game culture, but not in Sarkeesian's biographical article. This article is for describing Sarkeesian's life and work; it's not an appropriate forum for debates about the merits of her viewpoints, especially when such criticisms barely (or don't at all) mention Sarkeesian herself. Kaldari (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude After reviewing the sources, only one of them discusses Sommers views as relating to Sarkeesian. That source (ThinkProgress) is critical of Sommers' views, citing evidence that they are not correct.  It's difficult to see adding the video based on that source.  Additionally, it's not at all clear that ThinkProgress (an outlet for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress) is a suitable source for a WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ORLY?
 * "Showing footage of documentary maker Anita Sarkeesian, Sommers mocks researchers as "gender activists and hipsters with degrees in cultural studies," while acknowledging that they make "some valid points.""


 * "She claims that those who disagree with feminist critics have used "logic, evidence and humor" to state their case, although she mentions that Sarkeesian and others have faced serious threats."


 * -Polygon
 * "In her new video, she snarks about "gender police" and presents the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos about female tropes in video games as an attack on male gamer culture."


 * -Kotaku
 * "To Sommers, Sarkeesian is contributing to a culture in which men and boys are threatened by the rise of wrong-headed and radical feminism."


 * "In her ugliest moment during this video, Sommers goes so far as to question who might be behind threats against Sarkeesian, asking "if it was indeed gamers who sent the threats.""


 * -Polygon
 * Per NPOV, there is no way you can justify excluding material about this video without disregarding policy and sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not serious are you?
 * Your first quote says "showing footage of Sarkeesian", then doesn't address her at all afterward.
 * Your second quote says "the likes of critic Anita Sarkeesian's videos", which is specifically not Sarkeesian.
 * Your third quote is from an opinion piece and only usable for what Colin Campbell thinks, not Sommers.
 * Your continued inability to represent sources properly is nothing short of disruptive. aprock (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned the issue is not the sources about the video. The sources about the video are fine, but when their strongest point are allusions only it's weak sauce. I mean take a look at the quotes you picked out to support your case? They're the concrete links? Again, that's some serious weakness. The video itself, by itself, on its own, we could maybe say "An image of Sarkeesian was used in a video by Hoff Somers while she said stuff about feminists and gamers" which is pretty much what we said originally - and that was a stretch in order to try and expand the criticism. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't bring your "misrepresenting sources" crap here too, please, especially when you can only claim it by cherry-picking and misrepresenting the quotes I give out. Those sources explicitly connect the video to Sarkeesian and thus warrant mentioning it here. How does it look when a bunch of editors blatantly supportive of Anita Sarkeesian try to suppress reliably-sourced criticism of her and her work by misrepresenting or outright ignoring reliable sources? It looks like POV-pushing and that is because it is POV-pushing.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of reliable sourcing is horribly misinformed. Just above, you tried to use an opinion piece for establishing due due weight.  You've been around long enough that you should know you cannot do that. aprock (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How are opinion pieces not relevant? This is an opinion piece by a staff member at a major gaming media outlet. If they think Sarkeesian is relevant enough to the Sommers video to publish that piece then I think that is important.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Now you're actively advocating for WP:RSOPINION pieces to be used for establishing due weight and to introduce content beyond the author's personal opinion. aprock (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact..." The information being introduced isn't factual, it's the authors opinion on the subject of the article. Due weight is established because notable sources have felt it important enough to mention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite. And as such, it is a WP:PRIMARY source, and cannot be used to add content to a biography of a living person per WP:BLPPRIMARY. aprock (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a joke. The primary source is Sarkeesians videos on her opinions.  The secondary source is the AEI published video that critiques Sarkeesians videos.  The other sources are tertiary sources that recognize the AEI video as a critique of Sarkeesian's video. The POV pushing of this article isn't even trying to be disguised anymore. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't match wikipedia policy.  That there are so many policies and so much jargon is one of the downsides of wikipedia.  If you are interested in seeing how policy defines those terms, the best place to look is WP:PSTS.  The basic version is that the first source to make a claim is the primary source.  Sources which discuss the claim are secondary sources.  Depending on the claim, a source can be both a primary and a secondary source. aprock (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are allowed in BLPs, especially when it is an opinion piece from a reputable outlet written by a member of the staff. Certain primary sources are not allowed, but this is not one of those sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. aprock (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If that were a reason to remove this content, then 90% of the "Awards and commentary" section should be removed too, as most of them are opinion pieces as well, just like the Kotaku and Polygon ones. Diego (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not trying to justify my own proposal, but I just went with the sources that had been posted before. I welcome more if they pass RS. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Exclude Here - here from RfC. This video belongs at Gamergate controversy - if anywhere. Watched the clip; it's an editorial on #Gamergate - not Sarkeesian - from what appears to be a conservative think-tank. The flash of Sarkeesian's face doesn't make it about her. This is BLP, stringent rules apply. EBY (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude here A video which does not mention her by name, or engage with her specific arguments by name, simply cannot be used in her BLP. Throwing images of her face into this video falls far short of any reasonable standard for including mention of an advocacy video into a BLP. By the way, Legobot asked me to take a look here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article content isn't sourced to the video, it's referenced by the reliable sources that explain how it's connected to Saarkesian, and we quote those. Diego (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The RfC has been open for two weeks, and stale for one. I'm going to request an uninvolved admin to close it, as User:Zero Serenity seems eager to act upon it. Diego (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources about the video by the American Enterprise Institute
, the RfC close makes it clear and explicit that it only applies to using the video directly as a reference, it does not justify removing the content agreed on the previous consensus over secondary sources. Please stop the disruptive removal of sourced content. Diego (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that several editors have removed the coverage of the Sommers video against the previous consensus and the results of the recent RFC that recognized the validity of commentary based on the secondary sources alone. I'm challenging the neutrality of the resulting section with this content removed as failing to give due weight to critic views, as the removal of sourced criticism is against WP:NOTCENSORED. Diego (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which part of that policy are you citing? I don't see any part of that policy which supports your contention. It merely says that some content may be objectionable, and does not contain any mandate that we include any particular content. It states that merely "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal" but I hardly think the reams of discussion above can be fairly interpreted to mean that "being objectionable" is the only reason cited for its removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For my part, I wasn't that enthused about the insertion, and to my eyes the RFC was about using the video in the pagespace, not the narrow question of whether the video could be used as citation. To my reading, the overwhelming consensus of the RFC was that the video was not about the subject and shouldn't be used in this pagespace. The Sommers video doesn't directly critique the subject, so should't be applied. Please assume good faith; this has nothing to do with censorship; instead it has to do with applicability, and the RFC settled the issue with significant participation. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC found no consensus for including either the video or the secondary sources. As such, it was highly disappointing to see it reverted back in. The "neutrality" tag is unproductive, considering the disputed material was never in that section to begin with. Barring any evidence of a real dispute about the section contents, the tag should be removed.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC found no consensus for excluding them either, and we have a previous consensus to have the secondary sources (to which you agreed yourself), so it was highly disappointing to see it removed in the first place. How is it that the sources supporting the content have been acceptable for months, and suddenly they can be removed with JUSTDOESNOTBELONG arguments?
 * @Cuchullain, the content you have removed from RealClearPolitics includes "Sarkeesian theories sometimes rely on radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin", which is not at Tropes... article and is not about the videos but about the person, so it can't be removed on that basis. And the removed content was located at Awards and commentary, I placed it there myself and has been there for a few weeks, when I changed the section title from "Awards and recognition" to the more neutral "Awards and commentary". The tag should not be removed until the dispute is settled.
 * @BusterD - if you had that reading, you didn't properly read the RfC close, which explicitly address that distinction (" Despite the RfC prompt, most of the discussion focused on whether the video itself (as opposed to the secondary sources) could be suitable for use in the article"). The RfC didn't reach any agreement about what to do with the secondary sources, so the previous consensus still holds. Diego (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC found no consensus to include the material, meaning per WP:NOCONSENSUS we don't include it. The dispute has gone through an RfC, which had a far wider participation than previous discussion, making it harder for one or two editors to railroad in material that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Given that this dispute has already been through a community discussion, perma-tagging the section is not productive.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship
Hello everybody. I read this article but have failed to confirm the citizenship of the subject. I suppose it's nice to identify as a "Canadian-American" but that isn't enough to obtain citizenship. Due to her birth in Canada and since I couldn't figure out whether the parents were there as diplomats, that would make her a Canadian citizen by birth on Canadian soil.

Can anybody figure out what her nationality/nationalities are? I think that should be fixed in the article by either a) providing proper references which mention her dual or US citizenship or b) revert to just Canadian. JakobusVP (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Err, citations 2, 3 and 4 all describe her as "Canadian-American" and we go by those reliable sources, they are cited in the first paragraph of "background" with the qualifier of "identifies". That's pretty much all the investigation we do. All reliable sources denote her as Canadian-American (or says she identifies as). Koncorde (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources describe her as Canadian-American. We are not immigration status investigators and what you have "failed to confirm" is of no relevance to our article. I have restored the description of her identity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia not supposed to be about the presentation of verifiable and concrete data? The opening paragraph describes her as Canadian-American, based on what she identifies as. The infobox states that her citizenship is Canadian-American (which isn't even a citizenship).
 * Can her citizenship be confirmed by any source? - JakobusVP (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia operates. Wikipedia editors do not conduct "investigations" — we restate and summarize what has been verifiably published in reliable sources about a given topic. It is verifiable that multiple reliable sources describe Anita Sarkeesian as Canadian-American, therefore, so will we, and that's the end of it, until and unless there are reliable sources which state otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be turning into a pattern. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's an easy thing to think is important and very easy to get tied up in citing sources. Dan Potts (footballer) was a difficult article for this sort of thing because it introduced all kinds of issues related to assumed nationality, actual citizenship, representative nationality etc. Truth is, even if he represented the USA he would still be "English", or "British". The solution for footballers, as it should be for most articles unless we have any evidence otherwise, is to not mention their nationality but to state who they are and what they do and allow the narrative to explain the other stuff. Here however there are multiple sources doing that for us - end of argument. If they turn out to be wrong then that's their fault. Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine to restate what sources have published, but the fact remains that no country describes their citizens as "Canadian-American" since that citizenship does not exist. There are two separate citizenships if you replace the hyphen with a comma.
 * @Zero Serenity Who's attacking anybody here? JakobusVP (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nationality
I simply changed the line to "nationality" and linked to Canadian American, which should suffice. This is how it is listed at Jim Carry, and we cna follow that example too and add "citizenship = Canadian and American", but IMO it isn't a critical aspect of Sarkeesian's bio. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bart Baggett Connection
In light of a recent article detailing Anita Sarkeesian's early career and connections to , shouldn't this be included in her page? It's all on-record information that can be verified by looking at the archives of her own website so it's not like this information is in dispute and it .Xander756 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Present a reliable source for all negative claims about a living person, or they'll be redacted per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have redacted your redactions. Please do not edit my comment again. That is not how discussions work. The source is her own blog. I said that already. I believe her own website is a reliable source for information about her is it not? The article "Anita Sarkeesian Unmasked" from Guardian Liberty Voice can also be searched up on Google. This comment is to start a discussion on the relevancy of her early career. This information, and her working for Baggett, is NOT IN DISPUTE. The conversation here is whether or not it should be included on her page. I believe it should.Xander756 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And I have re-redacted them — the Biographies of Living Persons policy governs all content on the encyclopedia and you may not present unsourced or poorly-sourced negative claims about a living person anywhere on the encyclopedia. Please do not violate this policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Guardian Liberty Voice" is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the first autofills for Guardian Liberty Voice when I attempted to google it was "guardian liberty voice scam". I have a feeling it's not going to pass the reliability check. Parabolist (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a fact she worked for him as shown on her own blog here https://web.archive.org/web/20070912100534/http://www.neonandchrome.com/events.html Xander756 (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't really care what an Internet Archive site says. Can you provide a reliable secondary source which discusses the issue? If not, it doesn't belong here, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't care that her website listed her as working for him for many years? Are you calling her a liar? Xander756 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia is, or how Wikipedia works. I suggest you read the verifiability policy and the biographies of living persons policy. They should help you understand how we write articles, and particularly how we write articles about living people. Hint: If you have to scrounge around in web archive sites to find something, it probably doesn't belong in their biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost every result for "Guardian Liberty Voice reliability" returns articles about how it is a content farm clickbait scam. I really reccomend getting your news from somewhere that produces actual journalism. Parabolist (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is her personal blog. Stop talking about Guardian Liberty Voice. Are you anti-gamergate or are you objective? Xander756 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Her personal blog says she worked for someone at some point. Of what relevance is that, and where does it contain anything which supports the derogatory and highly-defamatory claims of a link to fraud and deceptive behavior that you made above? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are generally acceptable when published by the article subject themselves as a way of verifying statements, but per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles should be written using the balance (or existence) of secondary sources to determine how to weight things. An old apparent resume you found on the Internet Archive that lists occasional part time work (most of those are listed for 1 day seminars etc,) might be acceptable as a way to verify that statement if WP:BLP compliant secondary sources discussed the statement, but it does not make the statement worth including in the first place per Wikipedia policies.  Having taken a look over GLV (including a convenient summary of their rather lackadaisical editorial policy,) it does not appear that they meet the standard of sourcing required by Wikipedia to make severely negative claims about living people.  Do not restore the comments about either of the people whose names you mentioned.  Please note that I am acting as an uninvolved admininistrator enforcing WP:BLP in this situation, and providing an interpretation of our policies in an effort to assist understanding how ENWP BLP and sourcing policies apply to an article to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to, not weighing in on the actual content beyond that.  If you find sources that do meet our standards for writing about living people, it's fine to bring these claims back up.  Until then, do not restore the redactions.  As a general rule, if you restore a redaction made by another editor on WP:BLP grounds without first establishing consensus that that edit didn't violate WP:BLP, you're likely to run in to trouble, especially if you do so more than once. Without a reliable source, making claims of the nature that you made about either person you spoke of is not acceptable here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You should not be redacting discussion about information found on a primary source just because Xander756 (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So what you've presented is that 10 years ago, Anita Sarkeesian managed/coordinated several handwriting analysis seminars, among other events. Of what relevance is this to her present-day life and works? We are not a compendium of trivia, we write encyclopedia articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically as this would class as a person's biography page their past is inherently relevant to the present otherwise why state about any persons early life or in this case Anita's education or see David Beckham, this is not the Tropes vs Women / Feminist frequency project page but a persons biography which should include early life and career choices. Thus also relevant on this page would be her worth with Neon and Chrome and Bart Baggett. For those who need more sources which has archived versions as early as 2006 oh also confirmation from a blog that this is the official site So it's my take that this is a biography page and not simply a page to advertise her work. Am I wrong in that ?Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:11, 01 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't write biographies based on blogspots and web archives. We write biographies as we write articles, generally, based on reliable secondary sources. As none of the above links are reliable secondary sources, we're not going to include any of that. In this biography, what we're looking for is material which has already been published in a reliable secondary source, such as The New York Times, PBS NewsHour, Wired, Mother Jones, The National Review, etc.
 * As you appear to be a new editor, I encourage you to review Wikipedia's core content policies, most notably verifiability, reliable sources, and the biographies of living persons policies. These are core to how we write on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that's a primary resource in it's own right. The Website itself list's Anita Sarkeesian as the seminar co-ordinator. The web archive link is to prove it's verifiable that it has been on said page since 2006 and isn't some recent addition or the result of a hacker etc. If you want more verification that Handwriting university is operated by Bart Baggett. Those pages do exist and as such are can verified as a primary sources for this information. As such her involvement in Bart Baggett's work is not something in doubt hence could be included. The only doubt over this would be how much of other activities and issues surrounding it she is part of which could easily be left out. As I said previous work / early life information is present in many other biographies of living people. What is different in this case ? Is the website of Bart Baggett saying Anita worked with him not evidence enough they worked together? The only thing in wikipedias rules in not to interpret the sources. Simply stating the connection between Anita and Bart Baggett is not breaking any rules WP:PRIMARY as it can be verified by checking the site. Additionally her name appears on two press releases I'm not quite sure how the website itself and press releases from the group don't count as verifiable sources of information for the connection. They are not biased and as such their inclusion and the inclusion of the information they contain alone is not against Wikipedia's rules. It would only go against Wikipedia's rules if people were to add additional interpretation to said source. Under Wikipedia's rules they do not ban all self published sources only claim self published expert sources unless by an established expert are to not be used. In this case Bart Baggat would be the one responsible for the site and as previously stated it can be shown he owns said website thus claims that Anita was on his staff are valid. Infact source 20 on David Beckham uses such a press release from a school as evidence he attended said school. Are we to say a press release by Bart Baggat is a lie ?  Dwavenhobble (talk) 06:52, 01 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're just not understanding. Those aren't reliable secondary sources. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. The primary sources you cite have not been discussed by reliable secondary sources, therefore we have no reason to believe that any of the information in them belongs in her biography. Which means they won't be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Except as I am demonstrating by pointing to 20 on David Beckham such information is being used already without a supporting secondary source. I take it Liberty Voice isn't being allowed as a secondary source to back this up nor Breitbart. As per WP:BLPPRIMARY, augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. As per WP:PSTS Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge Thus as this in not an interpretation of the source it is directly reading said soruce stating Anita was part of said organisation then it is admissible under the same rules being used for David Beckman source 20. If you are suggesting we cannot accept Anita Sarkessian having worked with Bart Baggat despite two press releases and the actual website stating as much we cannot accept the press release by the school in David Beckham Dwavenhobble (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, you have read the policy but you're still not understanding it. Yes, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia unless restricted by another policy — which is exactly what the Biographies of living persons policy does, restricting the use of primary sources in biographies.
 * I have redacted the Guardian Liberty Voice link as violative of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Do not reinsert it, as its content is unsuitable for Wikipedia in any way. If you want to complain about something in the David Beckham article, start a new thread on that talk page and complain about it. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in other articles doesn't justify doing it here.
 * What I'm telling you is that absent any reliable secondary source discussing Anita Sarkeesian's previous work experiences, they do not warrant space in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What he's trying to stress, Dwavenhobble, is that according to WP:BLPPRIMARY, primary sources can't be the first used on any subject, as they come directly from the prioprieters of whatever is on point for discussion. We get that various parts haven't been updated since 2006, we get it. We aren't worried, at least here, that they've been hacked and are trying to perpetuate thoughts of another in order to gain favorable sourcing. We're just saying that it has to be backed up by something secondary, completely displaced from the situation, in order to really have a quality standard that wikipedia is going for. Wikipedia wants competitive articles that show both sides objectively. Strictly speaking, objectivity doesn't exist. It just doesn't. But we can at least try to get sources that separate themselves from those the sources are about. I couldn't write a page about myself because in my unconscious arrogance, uncontrollable and of which I'm unaware, I would miss things. Even if I had editors that were telling me they were brutally honest, they'd be dealing with and knowing me directly. It renders the arguments convoluted. Thank the other editors for their input. It's helpful.Chewbakadog (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The way things have been going and the seeming disparity between the sources considered accepted and those being rejected I honestly think at present it might be worth having a back end page on Wikipedia discussing what sites can and can't be considered secondary sources considering certain sites such as many Gawker group ones are being allowed as secondary sources. As I said there are secondary sources but they're being rejected by editors. Also again in this case it is not an interpretation of biased representation being expressed in both the press release and the website itself it's a simply piece of information not an interpretation of said information. Also it is not Bart Baggat's page it's Anita's thus it wouldn't be Bart Baggat talking about himself but about another person. Dwavenhobble (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no way to list all possible reliable and unreliable sources. The best way to bring a particular question about sourcing to a broader consensus is through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where community discussions are had on the reliability of particular sources in each given context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that maybe, just maybe, the disparity between the accepted and rejected sources has something to do with the quality of the sources and not with the content of those sources. This seems like Creationism/Evolutions: All serious material favours one side vastly but the other side keeps trying to achieve "balance". That's not how it works. We reflect what's out there rather than creating a balance where no balance exists. Cupidissimo (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you consider an image footnote about Sarkeesian in a gallery about 125 women, by an unsigned journalist, to be a high quality source? Because that's the quality level of accepted content. Would you abide to that acceptance criterion to all content at reliable magazines that anyone wants to include? Diego (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing to do is to challenge that particular source/wording if you feel that it is not supported. Instead, what you're doing amounts to "There's some parts of the article I feel are poorly sourced, so I should be allowed to add some other poor sources". Nope. Cupidissimo (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The poorly sourced part has been challenged, and has been restored. According to you. what am I expected to do when different sources are subject to different quality standards depending on how nice they are to the subject of the article? Diego (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cupidissimo is right, if you want to challenge material, the way to do it is to well, challenge the material, not to just insert more poor quality material. In this case you didn't make any discernable challenge, you just removed some stuff and then brought it up after the fact in this unrelated thread. This should answer whatever challenge you have; the material appeared in Newseek. I couldn't find it on their website, so maybe it only appeared in print, but I found it through my library. Clearly a major publication including the subject in a list of women of impact is worth a mention, and carries far greater weight than PR websites and creepy deleted personal webpages.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues with a multiple sources violating said rules
Having been informed perilously of the no original research and no X reporting on X rules I wanted to run a potential issue by other editors here. Source 5 in the Wiki sources is Anita's own website which directly contravenes X on X rules and WP:BLP relating to primary sources. As Anita is being the source of information about her Masters Thesis and not as required by WP:BLP rules a secondary source or a primary source used to back up the secondary. The same is true for source 13 as again it's her own site so a primary source not secondary as also is 56. If we are to reject Bart Baggett's website and press releases as a source for him and Anita having worked together then by the same rules source 5, 13 and 56 need replacing in this article as they are primary sources not secondary and constitute X as evidence for X. Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:11 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources are permitted in biographies when they are verifiably authored by the article subject, subject to some other restrictions. The material doesn't seem to be unduly self-serving and doesn't make claims about other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Except it would violate part 5 as those sections of the article are based upon the source 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources. 3 it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; said sections of the article do rely on those sources including that she was invited to Bungie unless someone can present a secondary source backing this claim up. Dwavenhobble (talk) 02:40 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This source is fine to establish an uncontroversial personal detail like the name of Sarkeesian's master's thesis, per WP:BLPSPS. Similarly, this source is also fine for verifying Sarkeesian's own statement to indicate that the engagement at Bungie helped inspire the series (though this doesn't seem like all that significant of a point). There was formerly another citation verifying that Sarkeesian had spoken at Bungie; this should be restored if the info is kept. This is just being used to indicate when the video was released, which is also not controversial. Of course production information isn't something that needs to at this article, but attempts to move it all over to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games were reverted. None of the sources involve "claims about events not directly related to the subject", and obviously the article is not primarily based on these three sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like this from Bloomberg Businessweek verifies the engagement at Bungie and that this was an inspiration in creating the series. I guess it is worth a mention. I'll add that source here momentarily, and also add it to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, where it really belongs.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we might have her birth year wrong
...nails painted gold, Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student... This would mean she was born in 1983, right? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it. Good catch.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Cathy Young
The Cathy Young article is already included at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games per discussion here. In fact, most of the wording introduced here on "selective and skewed analysis" is almost exactly the same, and as it's about the series specifically, it's better placed there than here. The other line about "Sarkeesian [sic] theories sometimes rely on radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin" is not at all what the source says. As far as I can tell, Young only mentions Dworkin in saying that another critic of Sarkeesian cited an earlier column Young had written about Dworkin (which had nothing to do with Sarkeesian); by way of explanation she passingly notes that Sarkeesian "sometimes" relies on Dworkin's theories, without saying how or why this is significant. Either way, the line is pointless ("Young says that Sarkeesian cited someone, mic dropped") and seems to be really reaching to justify including the source here in the main article, considering that Young says basically nothing about Sarkeesian herself (and precious little of substance about her videos).--Cúchullain t/ c 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure it should be included anywhere since it attempts to review a series that is incomplete. I have the feeling this article may come to eat its own words eventually. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By that logic we should remove all positive references about the video series as well. Besides it's pretty speculative to not include a source because you feel they might eat their words in the future. Are you sure you're not looking for arguments to exclude any criticism here? PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether to include this source at this article, and there's no consensus. You've been asked to keep your comments focused on content, not contributors before.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree; there's no particular reason we should care that a theory was once cited - a throwaway mic-drop line is not meaningful. So which theory did she cite, is it a theory that's very controversial or a theory that's widely accepted? Who knows! Absent context beyond "let's try and link Sarkeesian with someone controversial," this doesn't belong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Cuchullain (continued from above) I should have phrased that differently but i stand by the opinion that this line of reasoning leads to bias. And I'm surprised you don't agree. As long as there's a section in this article about the critical response to the video series, there's no reason to favor positive over critical response. The arguments brought forth by ZS are in no way (that i can see) specific to Young's article. And imho not applicable to the criticism section in general, although one could argue to move the whole section on the video series to the separate article. But as it stands, i think this line of reasoning leads to bias. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no reason to favor positive over negative criticism...but that's not what's happening. We're favoring a well-researched and well-written encyclopaedia article over a poorly-sourced, poorly written article.
 * DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is on whether the fact that the tropes series is not ready yet is a reason not to include critical articles. Or if the feeling some people have that the author will later swallow their words is a reason not to. Please leave your opinion on how much you like the article out of the discussion, or back it up by sources. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're responding to one comment that's at this point two weeks old, and not addressing the fact that various other editors have weighed in with reasonable arguments against including the material in question. There's no consensus to add the material; it's high time to move on.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're responding to one comment that's at this point two weeks old, and not addressing the fact that various other editors have weighed in with reasonable arguments against including the material in question. There's no consensus to add the material; it's high time to move on.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding to comments about the Young piece that Diego Moya made, for whatever reason, in this unrelated section. He claims that Young's passing and unsupported statement that Sarkeesian "sometimes relies" on the theories of "radical anti-sex feminist Andrea Dworkin" is somehow a significant statement that ought to be included in a BLP. As we already explained a month ago, Young is only referencing Dworkin by way of explaining her own connection to a different source, the Gamesided.com piece by Mytheos Holt. Specifically, Holt cites a an earlier piece Young had written about Dworkin (which was unrelated to Sarkeesian) in his own criticism of Sarkeesian. Young's passing comment does not establish how Sarkeesian "sometimes relies" on Dworkin, let alone indicate how this would be significant. So as before, no dice. Young's piece is already cited at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, but Diego claims that Young makes claims that are relevant to this biographical article rather than the article on the series. In reality, she doesn't say anything about Sarkeesian herself that bears including here, either in this passing comment or her other statements about Sarkeesian. I will reiterate that it's frustrating to have to go over the same points with the same editors weeks and months after the issue is settled.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That will continue to happen as long as the critical response sections are very one-sided.PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article reflects the reliable sources. As soon as the sources change, so will this article. Insisting on artificially creating a "balance" where none exists in the actual coverage is a bias in itself. Cupidissimo (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently strict adherence to (use of?) the wikipedia policies can lead to a one-sided coverage, in this case only positive. It's quite obvious that the used references don't reflect all common opinions, for example a critical patreon project called "The Sarkeesian effect" is earning $9K per month and critical youtube videos by Thunderf00t get a similar amount of views as Sarkeesian's videos lately and lot of likes. And obviously all the negative comments and death threads don't reflect a general misogynist attitude, but also a disagreeing with the philosophy of Sarkeesian (and inability to properly express it). Otherwise all women starting a kickstarter and youtube videos would receive the same response. So editors will keep coming in here with the best intentions to correct the bias in this article, however well it reflects sources that fit the WP policies.PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we're not going to ignore Wikipedia policy simply because some people don't like what the real sources have to say.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to. I gave up trying. I'm just pointing out that in this case the policies result in a bias as compared with popular opinion.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but popular opinions don't make an encyclopaedia article. Tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and textbooks, are based on what experts and reliable sources have to say. This keeps them from being littered with fringe theories. DonQuixote (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case the policies result in bias against an opinion which is clearly not just "an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters".PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just your opinion, and you're not an expert or a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Above i gave several examples that demonstrate it's a common opinion. Probably not the majority opinion, but common nonetheless. Not just my opinion. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And, as it has been pointed out, they're not experts or reliable sources either. DonQuixote (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor do i claim them to be. And nor do they need to be to have a valid point, by the way. But that's irrelevant. All i say is that they represent a common opinion, which is not represented as a result of Wikipedia policies.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why we're getting frustrated, because you keep ignoring things and talking around in circles. From above:Sorry, but popular opinions don't make an encyclopaedia article. Tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and textbooks, are based on what experts and reliable sources have to say. This keeps them from being littered with fringe theories. DonQuixote (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring that. I'm just pointing out why editors keep coming in who, with the best intentions, try to balance the take on Sarkeesian's theories. Because, in this case, it's not a fringe theory or the opinion of a small minority, no matter how many policies you throw at them.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, yes, it appears that opposition to Anita Sarkeesian is pretty much a small minority. Otherwise, we'd see more critical sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a discrepancy between critical sources (that comply to the Wikipedia policies) and popular opinion. I've given several examples to show that it's not a small minority opinion. Talking in circles indeed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you cite The Sarkeesian Effect as among your best evidence that it's not a small minority opinion suggests that it is, indeed, a small minority opinion. The 396 people giving them money wouldn't fill a subway train. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's 396 people actually giving money to support a documentary about criticism on Sarkeesian. One can only guess as to how small of a tip of the iceberg that is. Besides, you're cherry picking, which is exactly one of the criticisms on Sarkeesian. That goes to show how unproductive this dialogue has become, so i'm gonna stop responding here.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "One can only guess" you say. That is correct. And we don't guess around here, we quote. Cupidissimo (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion stopped being productive nearly a month ago. There's no consensus for any change to the current status quo. From here on, either present new evidence or propose a specific, actionable change.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't really expect me to put more effort into that are you? Some editors in here (not you) fail to even acknowledge that the current state of the articles on Sarkeesian and her videos is a little one-sided and that we're in need of some good critical sources that will pass the hefty scrutiny here. What i'm going to do is to sit back and read this talk page every now and then to enjoy the show of new editors coming in here all the time who, without an agenda, just feel the articles are biased and who, with the best intentions, want to balance that only to get the feeling that there is no will to add any criticism. And how some people will keep telling themselves that those editors who want to make the articles less one-sided are just a loud minority and that no one in their right mind would have any valid criticism. It's going to be a laugh. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)