Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games/Archive 1

Possible area of expansion
There's not much on the reaction the videos provoked or any critical analysis of them (which may be because not much appears in reliable sources). -- Neil N  talk to me  14:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Next Episode announced October 29th 2013
Just a little late the next episode appearing soon "ish". http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/65461672933/heres-a-quick-sneak-peek-at-the-next-episode-of So, maybe this series will finish in a couple of years and somebody can finally evaluate its academic value.

Nosepea68 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexist harassment?
I see the harassment she got more as personal attacks as compared to literal sexist harassment. I see no evidence that she was attacked because she was a woman, but because she injected herself to community with which she obviously wasn't familiar with, and she had an agenda. There's equal amount (none) of evidence that she actually was familiar with gaming community and did it on purpose. For that I'd change the wording on the harassment a bit.

Original text says "triggered a wave of sexist harassment" -> "triggered a wave of sexually offensive and personal harassment"

Anybody have a take on that?

Nosepea68 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources say sexist harassment, and we reflect what the sources say. That last bit is your personal POV, which needs to be verified by a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I never intended them to be nothing more as Sarkeesian has gotten rid of the evidence except a screen cap on her website and that's never been analysed by a reliable source. (Genuine question, Should I mark my POV comments like I made something like POV: ?)
 * And the first bit is semantics. It seems words sexist and sexism are used in a different meaning than their literal definition are i.e. any hate against a person is sexist (or misogynistic) if it's aimed towards a female.
 * Nosepea68 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have to mark your statements as POV. Editors' POVs are allowed on talk pages. A NPOV is preferred in the article proper. That being said, we can cite POVs of reliable sources within the article, just not our own POVs. DonQuixote (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I applaud the heroic efforts of Don, Diego and NorthBySouthBaranof to clean up the horrible mess this fork was originally in, but I really see no reason for this article to exist. After Nosepea's blatant attempts to insert ostensibly negative material were removed, the contains nothing that isn't already better covered at Anita Sarkeesian. There is no information on the harrassment campaign or on the reception of the videos, and the only addition is the pointless episode list. And now the content editors have two weak articles to maintain instead of just one. It's not as if the original article just has so much good content that we need to worry about length; at any rate no one has suggested that. I'm leaning towards recommending we just redirect this fork back to the main article; nothing significant will be lost.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that we have the split in place, it lays the work for a much better organization, we just have to follow the manual of style. The level of content on the video series is undue weight on the biography article, as you and others have repeatedly stated at its discussion and edit comments, and has prevented the current sections to grow with more detailed explanations of what the current sources have said; we can simply move the Reception subsection here and leave an overview of the whole Tropes vs Women section written in summary style. The "subsequent harassment" section can conversely left at Anita Sarkeesian and summarized here, as it mostly deals with her and has a thin connection with the video series itself. Diego (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, this article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Given that these videos have just been released, they're not really notable other than the online harassment (which is already mentioned in the original article). Maybe later on, when these videos have had the chance to influence others works, they might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article but not as they are now. This is also why there's no reliable sources with criticism of her work; no reputable expert has found them notable enough, or had time enough, to critique as yet. DonQuixote (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are relatively few sources that deal with the series as opposed to just discussing it in light of its background, Sarkeesian herself, or video game misogyny in general. It's telling that the sources that do deal specifically with the series - ie, the reception - has been left out of this article while it exists at the main article. As we already have better coverage of this at the main article, it's hard to see the benefit of keeping this fork. So, shall we merge it back?--Cúchullain t/ c 13:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to simultaneously remove content about the series from Anita Sarkeesian as undue weight and want to merge this back for not having enough content. Either we have too much content, or too few; you can't have both. This article provides us with the opportunity to describe in some detail the contents of each video and the tropes contained in them, which would be totally inadequate at the biography. If you're concerned about duplicate content, the manual of style is precisely clear in what to do: use summary style in one article, and include details in the other. Diego (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DUEWEIGHT covers this article just as much as the other. Neither are going to include everything every blogger has ever said on the topic. And again, the other article already presents better coverage of the series.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You're conflating two different issues. In the context of the main article, which is about the online harassment and any background information, the minutiae of her work is just too much information which could be written in an article of its own. In the context of this article, there isn't enough information about the series (that is, the series hasn't gained any notability) to warrant an encyclopedia article. The bottom line is, Sarkeesian and her work aren't really that notable outside of academic circles and certainly not notable enough for encyclopedia articles. The only thing that is notable is the online harassment which have been covered by media. DonQuixote (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would oppose a merge. Per this edit, it's clear that material from high quality sources meeting BLP and IRS thresholds is being generated. The source added to the BLP by User:Cuchullain does not appear to discuss the harrassment, instead the source discusses the series itself. Soon more will be available, IMHO sufficient sourcing exists and is used on this page to meet GNG. While it's a bit inconvenient to watchlist another page and look out for ip and spa harassment directed at the subject and the connected BLP, I think we can manage it. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BusterD, it's funny you say that. The source you're referring to, Nate Carpenter's review in Women & Language actually does discuss the harassment (the link is through a database, but I can email it to whoever wants it). I've found a number of other academic sources that I'll be adding to the article soon. What I'm finding is that even the comparatively few sources that discuss the video series in and of itself, do so alongside, or in the context of, discussion of the harassment. In a vacuum there may be enough to justify a separate article, but as of now it will just duplicate the main one and cover little if anything that's wouldn't be better placed there. In my opinion, at this stage we can do a better job covering both topics together, as the sources almost universally do.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt this series will have any notability in the academic circles unless there's much more research done with a real academic touch. First of all she uses subject/object dichotomy totally wrong in the first episode. Transcript at http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/. In the second episode she has plagiarised (with minor changes) from wikipedia Women in Refrigerators and http://mediasmarts.ca/violence/narratives-violence-against-women-and-minorities. Transcript at http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/05/damsel-in-distress-part-2-tropes-vs-women/. There's no citation found anywhere in her work.

Also she is using some peculiar words in her videos and that have made _me_ think she is building on some previous work and replacing words with a synonym dictionary without citing the source. There's several previous scientific articles about gender roles in games and in academic study you (at least should) build your work on existing researches and cite them in your own work. With a little bit of google searches I found these: Alice Atkinson-Bonasio (2010), Nick LaLone (2009), Dmitri Williams, Nicole Martins, Mia Consalvo and James D. Ivory (2009), James D. Ivory (2006) and Tracy L. Dietz (1998). Some reading for me for the next time I'm insomniac.

Only time will tell if she can improve her work and academic/journalist integrity.

At the moment I have changed my pov a bit and I think she might actually be a real radical feminist and is doing a sloppy work with her TvsWiVG series.

Nosepea68 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempted redirect
I'm not sure we've sufficiently established page consensus to redirect or merge this material over to the BLP of Sarkeesian. I've specifically opposed it and it appears others (pagecreator and Diego) hold for this separate pagespace. I'd appreciate it if we didn't start a revert war over a redirect without gathering a clearer measurement. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

About to do overhaul...
Hey all.

I will be doing an exhaustive overhaul to this article when I can make a schedule for it. I will remove "stuff" that has only value in BLP and has little to nothing to do with video series. Meanwhile do not think I am not monitoring that no "stuff" without real encyclopedic value is put to the article!

Nosepea68 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're going to edit this highly contentious article, you need to be able to string a sentence together in English, follow what the sources say, and resist your compulsion to disparage the subject. Excising whole sections without discussion, as you did here, is not productive.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the last time User:Nosepea68 edited the page an entire section was blanked, I asked that user to discuss changes here before making them. I encourage all users to discuss a way forward before wholesale stripping of cited content. I agree with User:Cuchullain that Nosepea68's tendency to minimize the importance of the subject doesn't indicate an encyclopedic view. BusterD (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving on with this
Hey,

I think the section "Harassment and response" should be only like synopsis in this article and the better explanation of it kept in the BLP and here a link to the section in BLP. Also in that section you should start that the harassment started prior to her funding ended, not sure if there's many RS to back it up, but at least on some (tv-videos) of her public appearances she said something like "I haven't even said anything yet.". I admit that's just from my memory and it's not infallible as you know.

Great thanks to User:Zero_Serenity for adding a bit more flesh on the bones in short summaries. I would like to add some myself, but I think I better not as I consider myself going biased there if I did. Thanks also to User:Cuchullain for moving redundant stuff from BLP to this article concentrating on the series itself.

Also I think the background section should be moved to BLP, with only a short summary in this article with a link to the BLP.

Thanks for bothering to read, not so sleep depraved this time, Nosepea68 (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Something fishy with the dates...
See "On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign" and "Sarkeesian started funding her Tropes vs Women in Video Games as a Kickstarter project on June 4, 2012" double you tea ef. No time to check sources at this moment. Talk yo you laters. Nosepea68 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Working Titles
As Anita has said here, the working titles of the series are apparently not tied to any specific episode order (DiD turned into three episodes for starters). I removed them from the grid that tied them to specific episodes and moved them elsewhere since it doesn't make sense where it is anymore. Zero Serenity (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the video series Anita Sarkeesian has made. For it to be encyclopaedic it should contain any information that is relevant to this series. So, whether you like it or not every episode had a pre-production name. This article is not about what she tweets nor it is about what she has done or hasn't done. It's simply an article about the video series.Nosepea68 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As you don't seem to care to leave harassing messages on my talk page, I'm just going to ignore you. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no indication in up-to-date reliable sources that the titles are valid. As such we should avoid them until new information emerges.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of information
I reverted Nosepea's attempt to excise cited information for a second time. In addition to removing cited material, it made pointless style and formatting changes and also surreptitiously altered (cited) wording that had been discussed at the main article before it was copy-and-pasted here. Since this is the second time Nosepea has attempted to blank this same content without consensus, I ask that any future removals be discussed first.--Cúchullain t/ c 05:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is a common time to wait for a reply then? My question originally was about moving the "harassment" bit to the BLP. I added even a link and kept wording I didn't like. I just hope this article will not go for the revert war as Cuclu started. I hope that I can keep this one as encyclopaedic I can. Nosepea68 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Both BusterD and I already explained to you why excising the material is a bad idea. I don't think anyone is interested in explaining the exact same thing over and over again because you refuse to get the point.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I reiterate strongly my suggestion to User:Nosepea68 to discuss any wholesale deletions before performing them. Edit wars are disruptive, even when done in slow motion. Over and over again that user has demonstrated disdain towards an encyclopedic view of both the BLP subject and the video series. While that user and I have agreed occasionally, more often I find that editor's poor attitude, basic lack of competence with the English language, and unwillingness to hear what others are saying troublesome and tiresome. Frequently the editor has used these talk pages to discuss opinions of the subject instead of trying to improve pagespace. If Nosepea68 continues to edit here without gathering support on talk, I believe it will be necessary to escalate this situation to a process or attendance from uninvolved administrators. This is no longer a content dispute; this has become about one user's stridency. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I warned the user here that patience is wearing thin and that continuing along this path will lead to blocks and bans.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Length of Content Summaries
I'm trying to establish a good length in my head that seems consistent and informative enough. Hahnchen, I'm not going to just flat out revert your change, but I do think it is a bit short on details there. Anybody got something to add? Zero Serenity (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with you expanding upon them. The main motivation for making the change was to use recognised terms such as tokenism vs. stuff like "the Smurfette principle". - hahnch e n 20:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to disparage your good work, but to be honest I don't see these as particularly helpful or encyclopedic to begin with. If it's totally necessary we should be able to summarize each episode in a few sentences at most.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that we'd want to keep episode summaries reasonably brief, no more than a short paragraph. If we're going to characterize in any way, we'd need reliable sources making those characterizations. I'm comfortable that such will eventually be available, but don't see any except for episode one so far. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For episode summaries, it's acceptable to go to primary sources. - hahnch e n 15:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please note my intentional use of the word "characterize". BusterD (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe sometime this weekend I'll binge watch the series again and see if there's anything else worth mentioning. I'll probably keep it to five sentences at worst and stick to broad ideas (like mentioning Tokenism) as much as I can rather than specifics (like spiking Mass Effect). Zero Serenity (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can come up with something descent. But if we're going to do anything more than a sentence or two we need to consider moving them to the prose instead of an info box.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you keep the same high standars for the short summaries as you keep on the other things. Nosepea68 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts about this article
Hey,

to me it seems I'm not the only "SPA" editing this article (Zero Serenity). I tried to uphold the original video names Anita Sarkeesian promised during the Kickstarter project https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/ and I was edited out. I was called SPA and for OR for trying to add the names for the videos she used when promoting the project. I find it very disturbing that now there is a majority of the editors watching this article thinking that I'm trying to make black to white. I'm trying to provide the best knowledge we have from open sources about the video series.

So, please enlighten me if there is better open sources about the names of the videos, because if they are behind a pay-wall I have no idea how that information could be added to an open source encyclopedia for free.

Nosepea68 (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article already mentions the original titles, of which one has turned into 3 episodes, and the other has changed from Mrs to Ms. As a result we cannot reasonably assume the other titles will be either one offs or multiple use, or stay the same. There is also no purpose to mentioning what may or may not be created unless the next episode and title is announced in a reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nosepea, you're the only single-purpose account I see here. You've made virtually no edits to any articles that aren't related to Anita Sarkeesian and you've made your bias against the subject as clear as day. Your recent edits just further confirm the fact that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"Harassment and response" as a list?
The section "Harassment and response" is partly written as a list although without arguing it outright, I do have to question why it is currently presented in this format and not as a simple paragraph. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Poor original writing probably. Got a suggested replacement? Zero Serenity (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest simply merging them together into a paragraph is appropriate sentence structure for that format. It just seems random and out of place with the rest of the article layout at the moment. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fan-art commercial "Fair Use"
I just found out that there's a fan-art picture used in the TvWiVG Kictstarter promotional video without artist's permission and she's never been told it's been used for promoting this video series funding.

http://cowkitty.net/post/78581402103/how-do-i-deal-with-my-artwork-being-stolen

http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

Original picture http://atomicginger.blogspot.com/2009/05/princess-daphne.html

The artist in question is asking from Sarkeesian in an open letter if Sarkeesian has legitimately licensed the picture or does she have a 501(c)3 status (non-profit) as she claims in the interviews she's given. The main problem Tammy sees is she's not asked for permission, credited or told about the use.

Further note: The picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tropes_vs_woman.jpg might not be usable for wikipedia without permission from cowkitty. http://cowkitty.net/me

Artist herself perhaps a reliable source? Nosepea68 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * An encyclopaedia is not a newspaper. We don't report these things. If enough reliable sources, such as newspapers, report on this then we can cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a small chance that the entire discussion could be moved here from Anita's own article. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion cannot simply migrate here, as it's a formal RfC that must continue in the original page until it's closed. It could be migrated by removing it from the other page and moving all its contents here, but that would require agreement by all participants, and I don't think it's worth the effort. Diego (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean it in a simple function, there instead just seems to be a lot of talk yet no action. Although granted a resolution there is required first I suppose. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems there's been a resolution of some sort. Anita has been offered to use the fan-art free just by providing proof of Feminist Frequency's non-profit status to Tammy. Sarkeesian has decided to remove the fan-art in question claiming it's "a gesture of goodwill".

http://cowkitty.net/post/79912196471/update-3-you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had Nosepea68 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a mention of this incident to the article. It's mentioned in these news articles: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133115-Feminist-Frequency-Removes-Fan-Art-From-Tropes-Vs-Women-Banner http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132778-Anita-Sarkeesian-Stole-my-Artwork-Claims-Blogger Bjornredtail (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This was discussed in a long RfC at the main article and the consensus has been against including it at either article. The general consensus is that it's a minor footnote and the available news coverage is too weak to justify adding this material about a living person.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But, this isn't about Anita, it's about the work itself. So, I'm not sure it should be subject to extra scrutiny for a 'living person'. The reason I read on this talk page seems to suggest that the reason it was not included was the lack of third party news sources, as stated by User talk:DonQuixote above. I found and cited journalism about this incident, so I don't think that applies anymore.


 * I've found a number of additional sources that could be cited about this incident:

http://gamepolitics.com/2014/03/10/fan-artist-upset-over-feminist-frequencys-use-her-art#.U1SYUqaVvVM http://www.destructoid.com/fan-artist-asks-feminst-frequency-to-stop-using-her-art-awaits-response-271685.phtml http://www.cardozoaelj.com/2014/04/08/sarkeesian-and-copyright/#.U1SX8qaVvVM


 * What more information should I gather to make this relevant? Bjornredtail (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies everywhere, including in articles not specifically about a living person, as well as images, categories, Talk pages, and usernames. Woodroar (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please ready the lengthy RfC where it was decided to exclude this material. The basic idea was that the coverage that exists in reliable sources isn't sufficient to add this material about a living person; adding it would give undue weight to a very trivial point. And yes, as Woodroar says, this material is indeed about Sarkeesian, so WP:BLP applies.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if most of the arguments there apply here. This is not biographical information. It's a criticism of the work itself. WP:BLP specifically doesn't apply to legal persons such as corporations such as Feminist Frequency. This is a notable controversy about the work itself. Even if it's would give undue weight to a trivial point regarding Sarkeesian herself, it is not given undue weight as part of an article about the work. Therefore, any decisions to exclude that material from Anita's article doesn't necessarily apply here. Moreover, this material is verifiable, it's not  Original Research, and it  cites its sources.  Preserve appropriate content.Bjornredtail (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP "applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia". This material is about something Sarkeesian did (using fan art), and it was on the Kickstarter. This series, the "work itself", didn't even exist. Sorry, no avoiding BLP on this one.
 * The arguments made in that decisive RfC definitely do apply here. In fact, they probably apply even more here, since this trademark issue isn't actually connected to the series, but to the kickstarter that ended up funding the series. It's even less appropriate here than it is at the main article.
 * As for the content itself, again, the issue is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE. The sources are also pretty lacking. Some real sources did pick up the story, but they just confirmed this was an minor news footnote that didn't amount to anything. It's not a significant viewpoint that should be included in the article especially given the BLP concerns.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The kickstarter is a big part of the story about the work. The work wouldn't even have this Wikipedia page if not for the attention that the Kickstarter campaign brought to Anita and Tropes vs Women. Perhaps criticism of the kickstarter and whatnot should be separated into a paragraph or two elsewhere in the article, but information about the kickstarter absolutely belongs here.
 * Anita herself says Feminist Frequency was responsible for the graphic . Even if we regard all criticisms of works created by Anita as being covered by BLP, the BLP doesn't apply to works of Feminist Frequency.
 * WP:NPOV specifically states: "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there." Now, I do think my addition of these facts about this issue does meet the highest standard of neutrality, but I'm open to changes in how it's phrased and I'm open to finding additional reliable sources. I'm open to improvements, but I think that these facts are relevant to the article and should be included in some form.
 * Even if we were to accept all comment on all works from Feminist Frequency are in fact biographical facts about a living person, and even if we accept that the this is a minority viewpoint as per WP:UNDUE, we can find many prominent people withing the gaming community and withing gaming journalism who support the view that Anita used fan art in the original logo, and modified the logo after criticism about it. Anita herself is a prominent person in the gaming community and she acknowledges the facts of the matter exactly as The Escapist reported them. This isn't the flat earth society here. Therefore, it should still be included in some form. In the other thread, someone suggested that in a 400 page biography of Anita this would be a mere footnote. I'm not convinced we can say the same about a 400 page book about Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. --Bjornredtail (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And how many pages would this take up in such a book?--probably not more than a paragraph at most. Still not enough for an encyclopaedia article. This minor kerfluffle is just trivia at the momement. DonQuixote (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough material in the world to write a 400 pages article from reliable sources, so that criterion looks a bit silly; if there was enough material for it, it could very well happen that this incident had enough weight to appear at a split article.
 * I would like if, instead of depending on criteria based on the feelings of editors (like with "how much space would this occupy at a 400-pages article"), we could work to establish a set of objective principles to decide what sources are reliable with respect to this topic, and what subjects that have been covered by RSs can be considered to have enough weight; and that we would review all the currently available sources through this lens, rebuilding both articles from whatever references happen to survive this focused scrutiny. Diego (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like it if editors made themselves familiar with the full range the available sources for the topic rather than just finding random things on Google. If they did, they would likely find it hard to justify including stuff like this, which most everyone else finds insignificant.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bjornredtail, I'm sorry, but this is a BLP issue, whether you like it or not. The fan artist accused Sarkeesian of potentially infringing her copyright, this is a claim about Sarkeesian. End of story. Additionally, this isn't an article on Feminist Frequency, it's about Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. The kickstarter campaign is significant to this article and certainly should be (and is) discussed here, but this bit of trivia is a different story. In the previous discussion it was widely agreed that it was significant for the reasons we've explained and shouldn't be in the article.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By that standard, the SCO Case  was a BLP issue, because SCO was accusing the Linux Kernel devs of infringing on their copyright. In no way was the BLP policy ever intended to apply to everything that a corporation (Feminist Frequency in this case) that a person works for does. Even if it was no way was the BLP policy ever intended to remove verifiable facts from reliable sources.
 * Tropes vs Women in Video Games was produced by Feminist Frequency, the non-profit corporation. No, this article isn't about the nonprofit corperation, but the fact that they are a nonprofit corporation matters to our little dispute about BLP here.
 * So, I ask again, what sources could I possibly find that would make this relevant enough for inclusion? Why are the sources provided 'weak' and somehow not enough? What changes to the content would possibly allow for the inclusion of this information? What criteria for inclusion am I missing here? Bjornredtail (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You're coming at this from the wrong angle. You want this minor incident to be mentioned somewhere in this article and so you ask what sources are reliable enough to cite. That's not how encyclopaedia articles, or even academic term papers, are written. The question we should ask is, "What are all the sources saying about this video series?" And if enough recognizably reliable sources (Time, NYT, ABC, etc.) mention this incident in great detail, then it probably should be mentioned in this article, otherwise you're just scraping the bottom of the barrel. DonQuixote (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. The BLP issue aside, there's no need to continue this conversation unless there's something new on the table we didn't already decisively cover in the thorough RfC.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bjornredtail has asked how many sources are needed, in what amount of detail, and how would you tell that they're reliable. That is a valid question to make. So far, every time a new reference is presented that makes a controversial statement, it's been met with "I feel that's not reliable enough", which is not a compelling argument. Diego (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're conflating several different things. When it comes to critical analysis, then the reliable sources have to be peer-reviewed sources. When it comes to events, then the reliable sources have to be sources with fact checking. This issue deals with the level of notability, which deals with the number of reliable sources covering it and the level of detail. Your lack of understanding of what constitutes what is causing the friction. DonQuixote (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's ask this directly, with no beating around the bush: how would you, DonQuixote, determine that there's enough coverage in reliable sources to include this incident? Does a procedure exist that you'd follow to make such decision? Diego (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Enough reliable sources covering this issue with enough detail to make it more than just trivia. As it is now, it's just trivia. If you want to be even more specific than that, if you can write a 10-page paper on just this issue alone (while citing reliable sources), then it's probably not trivia. DonQuixote (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, as did the vast majority of other participants in the RfC. I don't know what's difficult to understand about that, or why these questions continue to be asked as if the answers would be different.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, Wikipedia is not a forum, no Original research, screw it. I gotta ignore these rules to answer. The reason people seem to be going after Anita or anything related to her is the misguided notion that video games will be sterilized or not as fun as long as people exist to challenge the status quo in such a way. In the even worse scenario, the feminists are coming to take away their video games as some sort of censorship. It's absurd notions like this that prevent serious conversations by more people. Zero Serenity (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero, please keep your comments tied to discussing changes to the article. You obviously know that general discussion of the subject is inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the participants in the RfC cited WP:GOSSIP, because at the time it was an unconfirmed accusation. Now it isn't, and now it has resulted in a change to the series's logo. It has been covered by reliable sources within the videogame community, such as Desructoid. And, given the complexities of the community reaction to Anita as a whole as well as the complexities of Copyright law, I do think I could write a 10 page paper on just this topic alone (but that would be Original research). The problem is this is a subjective test that is based on the editor's feelings on the matter. As it is, we have a tautological definition. We determine that there enough reliable sources to include the information by seeing if there's enough reliable sources to make it more than just trivia. Bjornredtail (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. The RfC opened on March 12 and closed on April 15, over a month. The disagreement was resolved by March 18 and nothing more came of it. No fewer than twelve editors weighed in after that point, and not a single one supported including the material. We went over the available sources in detail and the consensus was that this material wasn't significant enough to include.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception
The reception section is extremely misleading, while the harassment, etc has been given its own section, it is also part of the reception. Separating it tries to separate this as reception to the videos and the individual. If one skips to the "Reception" section one might be mislead into thinking she's had nothing but positive response to what she's doing.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes complete sense since the harassment was not indicative on her work since it wasn't done when it was started. Hence it cannot be "reception" since it was never "given" at the time. Besides, there is no real notable source of criticism for her series. Zero Serenity (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's standard practice to have a dedicated Reception section when there's enough material for it. Here there is, and it's probably the best sourced section in the entire article. And Zero is right, there are relatively few reliable sources that critique the videos specifically, as opposed to Sarkeesian and her thoughts more generally. Almost all of the ones I've found are included already, and they're all represented accurately.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are enough sources to have a dedicated section to the "harassment" then there are enough sources to talk about it in the context of the reception. She received harassment as a result of releasing her videos. That's a reception to the blog and what she was doing.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reception sections are for how the subject has been received by the critics. As in, reliable sources, which have had a much different response than the internet trolls. Much of the harassment started before there even was a series; it's not "reception" in any meaningful way.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you are showing your bias. Reception you don't like=internet trolls, reception you like = reliable critics. I would suggest that if you can't look at a subject objectively that you might want to move on to something else to edit that you can be more impartial about. The harassment was a response to her making and attempting to make this series. Just because it started before she released the first video doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with the reception. The idea of it was received and reacted to by people. The reception was notable in that it was covered in reliable sources. An attempt to white wash that as you have here shows an obvious bias. The only people who could take issue with it, must be "Trolls". I suggest you read WP:NPOV and check your own bias at the door.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia has a strong "bias" toward material that appears in reliable, published sources and against things that don't. Please familiarize yourself with the verifiability policy, the reliable sources guidelines, and Neutral point of view, in particular WP:WEIGHT. The reception section is for what relevant critics think of the series; it fairly represents the response from the noteworthy critics we've been able to find. The harassment is already covered in other sections and the main article, and will ultimately reflect what reliable sources have to say about it (ie, that it was harassment and trolling, not "critical reception".) The "bias" towards reliable sources is fundamental Wikipedia policy; if you don't like that, I don't know what to tell you.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cuchullain, you're assuming that the IP editor is not familiarized with our policies and guidelines, but that's an uncalled assumption to make - not all IPs are used by unexperienced newcomers. The point that IP has made, and that you have failed to acknowledge, would be that the selection of references for that section is not based on the principles not the letter of WP:NPOV nor WP:RS. Given the nature of several discussions of sources around these talk pages (with people requesting that commentators had degrees in social sciences to write about the video series - but only when their criticism were negative; and the reliability of sources being ultimately based on gut feelings), I'd tend to agree: a reader will not get an accurate idea of what the reception of her work was, and the "only reliable sources" card has been abused as an excuse to exclude whole themes that have been covered by RSs in some form. Sure, there have also been poor references that weren't solid enough to be included, but not all of the omitted sources were like that. Diego (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego, enough with the lecturing. If you really want to check condescension on the talk page, start by not being condescending yourself.
 * I'm not sure where to begin with the rest of your comments. "Reception" sections are for, well, how a subject (in this case the video series) has been received. I've changed the name to "Critical reception" to make it more clear, though this may be unnecessary. At any rate, as always the sources do matter. See every FA- or GA-quality article on a series, film, book or game for that. Here we have an academic journal (Women & Language) and internationally reputable newspapers (New York Times, Boston Globe, and Newsweek) that give actual, substantive reviews of the videos. These should be reliable by any standard. We also have some online sources whose reliability hasn't been challenged. However, comments, even a lot of them, by anonymous internet trolls are not reliable sources.
 * Of course the harassment itself is discussed in reliable sources and these are already included in this article as well as the main one. I have no idea where you get the idea that this is being excluded. Inserting it into the reception section would just duplicate what we already say earlier in the article. It would also inaccurately present the harassment as a "response" to the series, when in reality it started well before there even was a series to respond to. And finally, it seriously risks presenting a false equivalence between actual reviews from reputable publications, and viewpoints from non-notable people that are only mentioned in reliable sources several removes from their origin. The most we could say would be something along the lines of, "the harassment continued after the debut of the video series", but we'd need a source that specifically says that.
 * Again you're making insinuations that "positive" sources are being included here that aren't reliable. And again, you've given absolutely no evidence of this happening. If you have a problem with a source, bring it up here, and we'll remove it if it's unreliable. However, bad sources flying in under the radar is not a license to add even more.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diego, it's not an unfair assumption at all given the limited edit history of the IP.
 * I believe the idea behind the "Response" section, and now reflected by Cuchullains recent change, was that it was for critical response to the videos. If you have Reliable Sources that deal "Critically" with her work, then they should be included and cited in the Critical Response section. That's pretty much the be-all and end-all of the argument. The discussions regarding pretty much all of the rejected sources that have criticised the work is that they are the personal opinion of unqualified individuals posted to blogs, or have focused upon basically unquantified demands for Sarkeesian or the Project to "show them the money". Aggregating bloggers with different opinions is a dick waving competition that anyone can achieve by JFGI. Aggregating those opinions on wikipedia is not encyclopedic. Koncorde (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pointless assumption that has nothing to do with the debate, IPs, accounts, things change. As an administrator he should really know better. If you need to get into a pissing contest, my wiki career started before yours did, and at least one regularly used noticeboard was started by me, and I spent a countless amount of time debating all those policies and guidelines. Now that that's done, can we get back to discussing the actual article? A reception section is for the reception, not just one kind of reception that you or someone else deems appropriate, but all reception. If reliable sources have commented on that aspect of the reception to her creating this series, then it should be part of the reception. It doesn't matter who was the source of the reception,only if it's been covered or published reliably. Which apparently it has since it has a section on two articles. Suddenly trying to change the title to "critical reception" is yet another attempt to impart bias on this article. If we can't defend the whitewash, let's just change the way we whitewash it.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to point at other wiki articles or established patterns, but Critical Reception is really a very well defined part of movie, book, and video game articles on wikipedia. Reception is typically a larger section where it is broken up into the distinct "critical reception", "controversies", "accolades" etc. We could create a "Response" section, and then list the current "Harassment and response" under it - but it wouldn't change the definition of "Critical Reception" or the intent, meaning or content. If you have reception articles please supply them. Koncorde (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have missed this followup. Anon, nothing in your original posts or your current account's edit history suggested you were familiar with the policies and guidelines, so you received general advice on the policies relevant to editing the article. If you're really an experienced editor you should understand folks aren't going to assume some kind of special knowledge when you don't give any indication of it. It's certainly nothing to get worked up about when you make the choice to edit anonymously instead of under your own account. Moving on.
 * As far as the material goes, we're just talking past each other at this point. As I said, repeatedly, of course properly sourced material on the harassment is appropriate for the article in its proper section. And as I also said, some of it is even appropriate for the response section for the series if it's an actual response to the series and not just more background material. I see Koncorde has noted that Suellentrop's New York Times piece mentions harassment continuing after the series began, so that's clearly something to include. We might could even add that the harassers also complained about Sarkeesian disabling YouTube comments based on sources like these though obviously they're very thin compared to the Times. The problem is in trying to treat the words of harassers as relevant, and claiming harassment tied to a funding campaign from before the series was even made as a "response" to the series. And finally, yes, "Critical reception" sections are very well established in articles, found in virtually every GA- or FA-quality article on a work like this, often as part of a longer section including other aspects of reception, such as its popular legacy (TV ratings, box office, etc). If we want this article to get to that level of quality, it's going to have that type of material. If we have other intentions for it, well, then I suppose we'll just stay on the merry-go-round.
 * Koncorde, I appreciate you having a go at improving the section. I'm afraid I'm not sure moving all that material to the reception section is for the best, however. As I say it conflates harassment that began before the video series was made with critical responses to the series itself (this may partially be the cause of some of the confusion below). Additionally, it removed all reference to the harassment from the Kickstarter section, although it's a very big part of that information. In previous threads we've discussed keeping most of the harassment material at the main article while including enough summary here to provide a good encyclopedic background for the subject, though the previous state of the article was pretty weak. I hope to do some more work here in the next few weeks and will probably add some of the harassment material back into the Kickstarter section. At that point we can discuss whether and how we should have it in the reception section as well.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet you continue with the assumption of bad faith. If you're really an administrator you should know better. Don't you think? My edit history contains edit summaries, summaries which link to policies and guidelines, and meta-level discussions on noticeboards. You think there is nothing in my edit history prior to this discussion which would indicate a familiarity with wikipedia and how it's run? Are we supposed to be taking you seriously?
 * I think the main confusion comes from misunderstanding what "response" means. People responding to the announcement of a product, are still responding to it. They might not be responding to the finished product, but that's irrelevant. It's still a notable response to the project, regardless if it happened before it was 100% complete. Following that logic any critical reception written before the entire series was finished and released shouldn't be included right? Who says at what point suddenly people responding to the existence of something is valid. Critical reception sections may exist in other articles, but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and the section was intentionally introduced to separate the debated content.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific problem still not addressed here? I can't quite follow your complaint. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anon, your defensiveness about "assumptions" being made of you is pretty strange considering how ready you are to throw around assumptions about other editors.
 * Once again, no one has argued against including material on Kickstarter harassment, in fact it's always been in the article. And no one has argued against including material on harassment that was in response to the actual series in the "response" section. However, including the Kickstarter harassment in the "response" section means either (1) not discussing it in the part of the the article that discusses the Kickstarter project, but instead inserting it along with material about the actual video series, which is ridiculous, or (2) including it in both places, which is redundant. If our goal is to get the article up to the standards of GA, FA, or just decent article writing, that idea doesn't wash.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @zero Serenity, yes an attempt mainly to try and pretend that a valid response to the subject of this article is something less than it is. it comes across as a white wash and implies some kind of inherent bias. This started with a dispute over including the content in the "Reception" section of the article, but that was headed off when the section was changed to "Critical reception" only, and without discussion. The only defense given for making that change is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, because as we all know GAs are carbon copies of one another. While it was more or less fixed last month, there is an issues with characterization on the part of an involved administrator who continues to contribute to an article that he's currently got his administrative tools tied up in.
 * @Cúchullain Did I name you? no. I spoke to a general misunderstanding. You on the other hand have essentially made false assumptions and frankly bold face lies in an attempt to discredit my argument. I also find it interesting that the person doing so is the one who has put an indefinite page protection on this page to prevent any opposition to your point. So without making any assumptions I might direct you to WP:INVOLVED and suggest you pick exactly which role it is you're going to take on this and the related page.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "This started with a dispute over including the content in the "Reception" section of the article, but that was headed off when the section was changed to "Critical reception" only, and without discussion." There was lots of discussion regarding this, this section included. The change of the header resolved the obvious confusion between "reception" and "critical reception" and was quite clearly based upon your complaints, therefore @Cúchullain was pro-actively responding to your concerns. My subsequent edit then re-formatted the section to create a more traditional Reception outline (something Chuchullain had reservations about, but didn't otherwise oppose) - this is the standard editing process. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was and is not the "defence", it's just a common style and a well accepted practical format and the changes make sense when the content is not reflected by the title of that section.
 * Again, if you have the articles that you wish to have included be it reception, response, criticism then please supply them. Koncorde (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no proposal made here to change the reception section to a "Critical reception" section. That was done right here by Cuchullai, an involved adminstrator, in an attempt to head off the discussion of including this content in that section. He made no proposal to do so and did it unilaterally. You've attempted to get the information together which is nice, but don't try to pretend this discussion was something it wasn't. The discussion was about including that content. He didn't want it included and as that section was labelled it should have been. He changed the title so that the discussion was essentially cut off at the knees. Since it wasn't "critical" reception you couldn't even talk about doing it, all while making bad faith assumptions and flat out lying about my edit history to back up his position,  Limited or not, it was clear I had more than a passing familiarity with wikipedia. all from someone currently using his admin powers to protect the page. That's the current state of things, and if you don't remotely see a problem with that (At least one person did), I don't have any regrets about retiring my account.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No "proposal" is required to edit the article, just like I didn't propose my subsequent amendments, just like I am sure you haven't proposed many of your edits. Cuchullai being an Administrator is irrelevant as he is an active contributer to this article and long has been. The section was already a "Critical Reception" or was being treated as such, it was quite clearly misnamed. It was quite clear that the issue was the naming convention of the section - and his change clarified that problem. Cuchullai had discussed that same section several times, so I (with context) understood his intention quite clearly.
 * Just because the section header changed it does not change what can and cannot be included in the article so there is no "cut off at the knees" - it is after all just a case of adding a new section header, or as I did - re-composing the sections. Your accusations of WP:INVOLVED does not prevent Cuchullai taking part in the edit process, and nobody else has complained about his activity as an Admin. If you feel so strongly I suggest you report his activity as Abuse on the relevant board.
 * Again, I ask do you actually have anything to contribute to this article or are you just voicing a personal grievance? If it's the latter - please take it to his talk page or raise a grievance. Koncorde (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anon, this has never been about "including" content. The material you're talking about was already included, and literally no one wanted to change that. You just didn't like the arrangement. A good portion of the edits made here for several months has been an attempt to work with you, despite your shrill and accusatory attitude. You were concerned that the "reception" section contained only critical reception, so I changed the heading to better reflect the contents (as we pointed out, this is a very common section arrangement in well written articles). You didn't like that either, so Koncorde moved the Kickstarter harassment (again, material already in the article) to the reception section. You appear to like that better, but at this point there's no mention of the harassment in the section that's actually about the Kickstarter project, and the series' reception section now has substantial material on things that happened before there ever was a series. And this happened moths ago, and still the combative attitude continues. Perhaps others have the stomach to continue interacting with you, but I'm just about done.--Cúchullain t/ c 11:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect link in "Critical reception" section of main page
There is a link in the first line of the "Critical reception" section, Damsels in Distress, which points to a movie. However, I think that the original author made a mistake, and that the original author should have linked to Damsels in distress (redirects to Damsel in distress)

70.92.72.208 (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * fixed. Good catch.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Aja Romano edits
It's disappointing to see this and this happen with no discussion here. Both the material and the "scare caveat" that Romano "contributed" to Feminist Frequency were introduced last night by disruptive single-purpose account Nosepea68, and the caveat's relevance have been challenged by three different editors now. It shouldn't have been restored without discussion. Daily Dot and indeed this same reporter have been discussed a number of times at these articles (including by Diego Moya) and the consensus has been that's it's acceptable (I'm a bit iffy personally but I accept the consensus). Obviously it doesn't mean we can't return to the question, but we shouldn't make decisions based on the word of a disruptive SPA.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The connection is not something that Nosepea invented, I made it explicit because it's something that was stated by Romano herself in this article. The connection between Aja Romano and Feminist Frequency hasn't been discussed before as far as I'm aware, and it may imply that the source is not independent - and thus less valuable as a reference. (BTW discussion through edit comments is as valid by policy as any other form, there's no need to lament anything about it). Diego (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's acceptable in some circumstances doesn't make it right here. The material was introduced by a disruptive SPA and challenged by several other editors, it definitely should have been discussed before being restored.
 * In this case the source (added by same SPA who immediately undermined his own addition with the caveat) is used to cite a statement of fact: that Sarkeesian turned off comments and ratings for her videos. Either it's a reliable source for that fact or it's not. As I said at reliable sources noticeboard, previous discussions of Daily Dot (again, specifically including Romano's pieces) have generally determined it's okay to use. Daily Dot exercises an editorial policy and Aja Romano is one of their staff writers (not a blogger or freelancer). In general it seems to satisfy at least some criteria of being a reliable source for internet news topics.
 * In addition, the source doesn't say she's a "collaborator" of Feminist Frequency, which implies she's working with them somehow, it says she's a "regular contributor". In fact, the second article you added the caveat to doesn't have a disclaimer at all. "Contributor" could mean she's writing for the site, but I don't see any evidence of that. More likely she just donated to it as per this.
 * Honestly, I'd be amenable to taking out the flagging material as insignificant (it's only mentioned passingly in the piece). However, I don't see a reason to remove it on the grounds that it's "not independent", let alone to add our own caveat, for a simple statement of fact.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternative sources exist via other DailyDot articles by Gavia Baker-Whitelaw, Forbes by Paul Tassi, and TedX just within their own statement of why they disabled their own comments feed for her videos. Aja's status as a donor is questionable (however it doesn't invalidate anything she says per se), but we don't have to rely upon her if that comment requires citing / referencing.
 * And yes, I can't believe we bit on Nosepea again whose edits were once again medacious with malicious intent. Koncorde (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Aja Romano pays money to Sarkeesian so that she can write. You don't consider that it makes her "not independent"?.
 * And please discuss the content, not the editor. I'm not interested in Nosepea's opinion, but when an argument is valid it doesn't matter who originated it. I'm interested in that the Reception section is written from independent sources, not people who financially sustain the series. Diego (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anything to suggest any inaccuracy in the statement made? If there is, then we move onto the content. If there is nothing to suggest inaccuracy then quite frankly the fact she is writing for the DailyDot trumps any affiliation. Is Aja Ramona a professional staff writer? Yes. Does the Daily Dot have an editorial board? Yes. Does the Daily Dot provide disclaimers on each article remarking any potential conflict of interest? Yes. Is the Daily Dot considered a reliable source? Yes. Then we're done here. If there is inaccuracy in the source, then a comparative or contrasting source must be used in order to refute it or provide counter argument. Is there any suggestion that any contrasting or counter argument exists within any reliable source? No, in fact her statements are backed up by similar statements in other reliable sources. The end result is any attempt to frame Aja Ramonas article as anything other than a piece written by a professional staff writer for the Daily Dot is a far greater POV push as effectively it becomes a wikipedia "editorial". Koncorde (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend that you take this issue to either WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N and discontinue edit warring on this BLP-related article. We demand high quality sources for BLP's, and you need to ensure this is the case before inserting content in a BLP.  Dreadstar  ☥   21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see it's already at RS/N Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, but I don't see a notice on this talk page. Dreadstar  ☥   22:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * update with permalink: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174 Dreadstar ☥   17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Genre?
For some reason the Genre is listed as Video game culture. Stop me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't that be the topic and the genre is "Educational Video"? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. I don't think they are really an "Educational" thing though, but that would be my opinion. The television Infobox may not actually be the most appropriate infobox? Koncorde (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

JJ Mccullough
Would the thoughts of a former columnist to HuffPost Canada count? I mean, since we're dealing with opinion on all sides here, I'm not sure how "reliable" is quantified.

http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2013/03/10/a-rebuttal-to-anita-sarkeesians-tropes-vs-women-episode-1-damsels-in-distress/

http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2013/08/05/another-critique-of-anita-sarkeesians-ongoing-tropes-vs-women-video-series-with-focus-now-being-placed-on-the-third-damsels-in-distress-episode/ 146.146.7.2 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, this looks like a self-published blog. WP:SPS says "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." In this case, I don't think JJ follows established expert in feminist theory or video games (his blog anyway seems more about politics), though you're welcome to prove that wrong. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 10:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The piece could have been counted as reliable if it was published through The Huffington Post, as it has an editorial staff and a review process "with a reputation for fact-checking". Being self-published, it's a one-man work with no accountability, and thus it's unlikely that it can be used. Even if the opinions were verifiable, his opinion would not be significant to the topic, and including it would be undue weight for the article (except if he was directly involved with the subject, which is not the case here). Diego (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

FAQ Page
I know just made this with the same content as the Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ. But perhaps instead of just copying content, perhaps we should just have one FAQ since it will just be all the same info. Thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A template might work. DonQuixote (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm playing around with template:Sarkeesian FAQ. There still a bug in it. It should probably be expanded more in terms of being a derived template from template:faq or use template:round in circles. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just put up a working template:Sarkeesian FAQ. The faq is now located at template:Sarkeesian FAQ/FAQ. DonQuixote (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the SFAQ template might be excised from mainspace, so I modded the FAQ template itself instead. Old FAQ location is now in both places. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note for posterity : more discussion of this FAQ is to be found at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian (and later, whichever archive of Talk:Anita Sarkeesian that thread gets sent to). -sche (talk)

Why is there nothing about the valid criticisms against her?
I have seen plenty of videos arguing against Anita and bringing up very valid criticisms against her points. Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, Mr. Repzion, several female gamers and developers, and countless other people, so how come none of this is mentioned? The fact is, the majority of gamers do not support her, so why should that not be mentioned at all? Not to mention gaming journalists have no journalistic integrity and should hardly be considered a reliable source. Gaming journalists are championing her as a way to get hits on their websites so they can charge advertisers more to place ads on their site, while the people I mentioned before have nothing to gain by criticizing her. So it's only rational to say that those who spoke against her are far more reliable sources then gaming journalists, many of whom don't have college, left alone journalism, degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.121.121 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 26 August 2014‎
 * YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. Your opinion and my opinion have zero impact on this pagespace. What the sources say is crucial. If you can find critical sources meeting WP:IRS, please bring them forward. Without sourcing, such criticism cannot be applied to the page without being reverted. There's a lot of discussion on this subject in the archives of Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Please read those archives to learn more. BusterD (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet her videos are considered a reliable source? They are cited numerous times here. Yet they don't conform to any condition. They are self-contradictory and misleading. They have no place on Wikipedia.Capilleary (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but her videos are only being cited for summaries of themselves. They're not reliable sources for other topics and aren't being cited as such.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reception
I've found this article from The Verge that describes the video series as "subjective cultural criticism" that can be "reasonably disagreed with in places" (though it then goes on noting that this is not what happend). I think that would be a good addition to the Reception section as it clarifies that Sarkeesian does not intend the content of her series as absolute empirical truths about gaming, nor critics reviewing her work are considering it as such, but rather as analysis of specific of the games being reviewed. Diego (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a good source to use. It's a well regarded technology website and Adi Roberts is a correspondent whose work has been cited by other reliable sources. It would be a useful source for documenting the continuing harassment.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection
I've fully protected the article due to the current edit warring/content dispute. Work it out here on the talk page. Dreadstar ☥   16:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dreadstar. I think we've reached agreement, though it may still be worthwhile to leave this protected due to the greater disruption, so long as we've got people checking back to respond to editing requests.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear, I'll leave it for now and we can see how things go. Dreadstar  ☥   18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Learned Fangirl
Before the release of the first video, mostly lamenting about the lack of said series and warning against becoming professional victims: http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2013/02/24/im-a-feminist-gamerand-im-over-anita-sarkeesian/ Lack of nuance, using the worst examples as if they were the norm, treating steps in the right direction as "ironic": http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2013/05/31/digital-damsels-in-distress-a-simplified-version-of-a-real-problem-in-gaming/ More lack of nuance, lack of counterexamples: http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2014/06/18/digital-decorating-sarkeesians-women-as-background-decoration-part-1/ Overall, all three links view the series in a positive light, but show legitimate criticisms of the series that none of the sources in the "Critical" Reception section show. 69.254.215.168 (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to just throw these away as WP:SPS, WP:RS and a bit on the WP:UNDUE. But these don't seem that bad...at least they don't seem improperly critical. Unfortunately reading these is leaving me with the same impression I already had. These articles seem a bit nitpicky, but otherwise are pretty clean and unfortunately not worth mentioning in the article. I will congratulate you on seemingly finding something that is critical of this body of work that isn't just tired nonsense (and surviving my rounds of reversions), but it's still not quite what we can use. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 01:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. It doesn't appear as trollish as others. Its a shame that we can't include it in the main article. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

3O Response: declined: I had to remove this post at the 3O main page because of "lack of thorough discussion" per the instructions. Feel free to repost this later. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't something we can use, as it's a personal webpage. However, Kristin Bezio is an academic, so if she has published anything on Sarkeesian's work we should be able to use that.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
this page has serious violations of Wikipedia's policy on remaining neutral. how is it that criticism of Jack Thompson describes both sides, yet this page depicts criticism that disagrees with Anita as "harassment"? Sure, she's been harassed, but not all criticism are considered harassment. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Ok...which of the things depicted as harassment in this article is marked incorrectly and is really an example of criticism that disagrees with her? DonQuixote (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

well for one thing, the reception page as no example of criticism that disagrees with her, even though they exist. Instead, there's the harassment claims, which is depicted in this article as more important than reception. sure, harassment and threats are a serious issue, but shouldn't we strive to demonstrate both sides of the argument in an effort to maintain neutrality?(Emigdioofmiami (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Ugh. WP:RS. Read it. Then tell me about both sides. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a common misinterpretation of WP:NPOV, that all sides get a equal seat at the table. WP:VALID explains that fringe or minority views are covered proportionately, if at all. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

here's an example: http://gamesided.com/2014/09/08/sarkeesian-truth-part-1-straw-feminist-trojan-horse-censorship/ (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Here's a rebuttal. In short, you're citing the opinion page of a paper. It is not reliable. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Zero Serenity said, please read the FAQ at the top of this page, and understand that this is brought up constantly, which is why there's a FAQ there in the first place. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Classic misdirection. How is "well for one thing, the reception page as no example of criticism that disagrees with her" even remotely related to "yet this page depicts criticism that disagrees with Anita as 'harassment'"? You didn't answer the question posed to you. Why is that?
 * As for the linked article, Holt's critical analysis of Sarkeesian's work is only citable if it goes through the peer review process and gets published in a scholarly journal. See To Kill a Mockingbird for an example of Wikipedia's handling of critical analysis. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets look at this part from the second paragraph of "Reception": "Nate Carpenter reviewed the "Damsel in Distress" video positively in the journal Women & Language. Carpenter commended the series for rendering the ideas and language of media criticism into a format accessible for a general audience. He judged it limited in failing to analyze the cultural milieu that perpetuates damaging tropes, but overall found it an "intelligent, engaging, and entertaining point of departure" for viewers interested in media studies." Ok, here's one problem: the journal cited only posts an average of about 2 articles per year, and none of the articles are written by Nate Carpenter. You know what this means? I've uncovered that someone is posting false sources in an effort to create a bias. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Er...please exercise a little reading comprehension. The journal publishes two issues per year. And all this has been discussed a few sections before this: . And it has been established that this journal has been in publication for 30 years. The only one posting false things in order to create a bias, it seems, is you. DonQuixote (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? What difference does it make if the journal has been in publication for 30 years. where's the article about Tropes vs. Women in Video Games? We're not given a direct link. If it's un-linkable, then it's not a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigdioofmiami (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have never required that sources be available online. Some magazines will publish a few articles online, and newspapers are doing so more frequently, but academic journals rarely do so. See WP:PAYWALL. Woodroar (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was able to confirm the article - it is available through EBSCOhost, which provides the full text of the article. Full text is also available through Westlaw. ProQuest has back issues from 1986 to 2007. - Bilby (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you can go to your university library and request a copy, either a copy they have or through inter-library loans. DonQuixote (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

who is Nate Carpenter
who the hell is Nate Carpenter, what makes him a scholar and why is his webpage, that writes 2 articles per year in which there is not a single article writen by Nate Carpenter , used as a reliable refference in this wikipedia article??? User:Poroboros — Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Women and Language is an academic journal, edited by professionals and scholars in the field, and is presumptively a reliable source. That's why it's used. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)
 * I am an academic, and I know that many "academic" journals are just personal initiatives. There are widely seen videos that argue convincingly that this journal is not even listed in Impact Factor analyses, that this page is a scam, and wikipedia is not acting properly.  I hope this is not true, but I really do not understand why "Tropes vs. Women" should be on a serious encyclopaedia.    AnnSec (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RS and the FAQ at the top of the page should answer all of your questions. As far as your claims go, "widely seen videos" can say whatever they want to say because they are by definition "personal initiatives"—we call them self-published sources—and unusable in this article. Woodroar (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, if you read the citation it's a journal published by Michigan Technological University. You know, an academic institution? Also, there are not two articles in said journal, not that you actually read it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 11:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "not a single article written by Nate Carpenter" - I checked the reference, and it does lead to an article written by Nick Carpenter for Women and Language as per the cite. In regard to the "his webpage" - are you referring to a page by Nick Carpenter, or are you referring to the journal site? If the journal site, the journal is published twice a year, rather than publishing two articles per year, so there may be some confusion. Publishing twice a year is not unusual for academic journals. I do not know of a website run by Nick Carpenter. - Bilby (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just trolling and/or disruptive point-of-view pushing. Nathan Carpenter is an academic from Michigan Technological University who has specific expertise relevant to this subject. The source is a review in Women & Language, a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on, well, topics of women and language, published by that university. Per the WP:SOURCES policy, this is about the best kind of source we could hope for for this material. The complaints about the piece range from irrelevant to just plain false.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Everybody can see that the "journal" http://www.womenandlanguage.org is just a wordpress blog. I myself could open a blog, call it a "refereed journal", put myself as editor with my affiliation at my University, approve papers that claim that donkeys fly, and cite it from wikipedia.  The issue behind this promotional page is clear, and Wikipedia must fix this to defend its good reputation. AnnSec (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is "published by the Humanities Department at Michigan Technological University" and there is a print edition. If you feel this is insufficient, feel free to take it to WP:RSN. Woodroar (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a magic talking BS-detecting dog, and I know that many people make things up about themselves online. I'd hope an academic could figure out how to click the journal's "About" page. There you'd find the full description of the publication, its editorial board and staff, the journal's ISSN (hint: it's 8755-4550), and links to EBSCO databases that provide access to back issues.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree. There's no real evidence that Nate Carpenter even has all these credits. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
 * In the comment you replied to, Cuchullain explained exactly how to gain access to the article. This is quickly moving into WP:IDHT territory. Woodroar (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that it has been published for close to 30 years under its current title (the name was changed in 1984, and the databases have issues going back to 1986), so this isn't a new publication. It is not a top tier journal, as far as I can determine, but it is a well established academic journal. - Bilby (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And I am looking at that article right now. It's legit. If is an academic, maybe a teacher, then I wish their students well, and they can always email me if they need to know how to use a library or a database. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Negative reception
Hello, yes, where are the negative reviews??? there are thousands of videos of people giving negative reviews to Anita and her "show". Thunderfoot for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poroboros (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the FAQ. Criticism needs to pass the reliable sources and due weight criteria to be considered for inclusion, and self-published videos don't cut it.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Videos
Shouldn't it be worth noting in the article all the criticism Sarkeesian gets for her inaccuracy? As noted above, the videos contain many factual errors pointed out by several individuals. The fact that the "Critical reception" section has little to nothing at all in a negative highlight is arguably quite biased. It's disgraceful that a topic such as this only points out one side of the story, and as some others have previously stated, included relatively worthless references.

Both sides of the case should be referenced on such a debated topic as this, and clearly one side is clearly preferred. The fact that there isn't any criticism at all to these videos is shameful. GG360 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We've been waiting for reliable sources containing such criticism for 2 years. Please provide some. Koncorde (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * After reading the existing discussions on proposed sources, please. --Neil N  talk to me 21:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why can't one do their own research, write it down, and use that?Coyotetrotters (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the person doing the writing is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, they can do that and we can use it. But we're not here to do our own original research, if that's what you're asking. Woodroar (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)