Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Reliable sources

Since a number of editors seem to be unaware of it, here is the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources: WP:Reliable Sources Content which does not adhere to these guidelines, posted anywhere within Wikipedia, will be removed. Repeatedly reposting the same material, and not seeking consensus on the talkpage, is vandalism. Euchrid (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It would also be helpful for editors with strong feelings on this subject to review Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.--Nowa (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of WP:TE on this talk page. Carrying out a discussion isn't not inherently tendentious--only insisting on forcing a conversation to keep going in spite of a clear consensus is tendentious (as are things like wikilawyering, civil POV pushing, etc.). If people can present good reliable sources criticizing Sarkeesian, the information may be appropriate for inclusion (though ideally not as a separate criticism section, per WP:NPOV). The discussion above clearly shows someone who doesn't understand our sourcing/OR policy, not someone who is editing tendentiaously. Also, Euchrid is wrong to say that reposting info w/o seeking consensus is vandalism. In fact, WP:VANDAL explicitly says that neither POV pushing nor edit warring are vandalism. They can still lead to being blocked, but they are very definitely not vandalism. Yes, there were major problems before, but the semi-protection seems to have solved the worst of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points.--Nowa (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there are already enough reliable sources for this article but if more are needed this New York Times piece discusses the Kickstarter campaign and harassment in question. The story appeared on the front page (A1) of the August 2nd 2012 US edition of the paper. [In Virtual Play, Sex Harassment Is All Too Real] --98.125.169.178 (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good article, thank you. I added an item from it. It may be time to rewrite that section; we can simplify both what the attacks constituted and the response from the media, it doesn't need this much space.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder why this blogger is a reliable source, but an article on a news site that responds to her ill-researched criticism is not reliable. Even when it showed that her points of view were condemning characters for the wrong reason. Talking about the destructoid article. The one that exhibited how unsuited she was for the task of criticizing women in gaming. Why is one random blogger a reliable source but another isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.238.200 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What blogger are you talking about? The above is an article in the New York Times...ie a professional journalist. DonQuixote (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben Spurr

Do you think you should include the name of the guy who made the flash game? I found this article saying who he is, plus others mention him. http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/7851/article/woman-receives-death-threats-for-confronting-bendilin-spurr-misogynist-game-designer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.220.42 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It seems like the game deserves maybe another sentence describing the response, though any more than that and it's veering too far away from the article's topic and onto gender-based conflict in gaming in general.Euchrid (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Article fails to mention trolls

The "Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment" fails to mention that many of threats against Anita were not sincere, and were made with the intent of provoking angry responses. This is important information. 69.246.119.186 (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

All that the article can discuss is the facts. Interpreting what was meant by the threats isn't up to us, and falls under WP:Original Research Euchrid (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that getting called on threats and intimidation, and then pretending that you weren't really serious, is a classic behavior of domestic abusers and other cowards and bullies. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that for every sincere threat online there are at least 800 that are blowing smoke. Its almost a staple of the internet. Youtube is full of people that will say they will kick your ass but have no intent of doing it. Even 4chan, the source of most fulfilled internet threats probably has a fulfilled to empty ratio of 1 to every 5k. With 4chan and Youtube being the primary sites of sarkeesian threats, it can safely be concluded that it was trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.238.200 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Article fails to mention criticism

This article is biased because it neglects any criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, and instead focuses on defending her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.149.244 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please point towards a reliable source which mentions some criticism and it'll be included in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you also please be more specific about which statements you feel are defending the subject? Euchrid (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Regular lurker here, I found this: http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml 64.42.240.5 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That article has already been posted and then taken down as a non-notable blog. Euchrid (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How about these: Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI) and Anita Sarkeesian Part 2: Burqa Beach Party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI). What constitutes what counts as a notable source? --31.185.24.29 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This article lays out the reliable source guidelines pretty clearly - WP:irs YouTube videos count, for the most part, as self- published sources, and hence are not reliable. Euchrid (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So, because most YouTube videos are not reliable you are not even going to review these? I guess you could always just say it is non-notable if you don't agree with the message. --31.185.24.29 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. At Wikipedia we are obligated to write from a neutral point of view using reliable sources. Generally speaking, consensus does not consider self-published video rants on YouTube to be reliable sources. If you can locate some reliable sources that support your personal personal complaints with Ms. Sarkeesian it would be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that there is a heightened need for accuracy in this article due to the fact that Ms. Sarkeesian is a living person. Thanks. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's right, we have to be especially careful with sources when writing anything negative about a living person. The biographies of living persons guideline, which User:Karimarie linked to, is very clear on this. As a new user, I'd recommend that you familiarize yourself with things like that before criticizing others. Euchrid (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the first portion of "Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate". It is an interesting analysis, but as far as I can tell, it is anonymous and self published. In order for a publication (video, blog, or print)to be considered a reliable secondary source, it at least has to be published by a recognized publisher with editorial control. --Nowa (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's absolutely one of the most cogently argued cases I've heard, and I certainly wouldn't class it with the trolling and harassment that she's received. That doesn't change the facts of the notability policy, though Euchrid (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"it neglects any criticism of Anita Sarkeesian" I don't quite understand. Doesn't the section on her Kickstarter project make it clear that there is a lot of criticism of her?--Nowa (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to ask the same question. I thought censorship was against Wikipedia's principles? It's not just "YouTube videos", one of the video game journalist sites that covered her story was critical. 95.103.4.222 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which site is that--Destructoid? As explained above, that's just one blogger's personal opinion, which is not the sort of thing we include in Wikipedia. Look, this is extremely simple: provide us some good quality reliable sources that criticize her. Then we can include the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

censorship was against Wikipedia's principle You are confusing censorship with neutral point of view. Censorship is essential to Wikipedia. Anything that is not supported by a reliable secondary source gets censored.--Nowa (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Censorship is forbidding other people from saying things. Wikipedia can't do that. Wikipedia articles likewise cannot include everything anyone has ever said about a person. The fact that Sarkessian has been criticised is very well covered in this article - the majority of the Kickstarter section lists the things that were said. I know because I wrote much of it. If you want the article to say that those things were true, well I'm afraid that that isn't going to happen, in the name of neutrality.Euchrid (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no mention that she is a misandrist because blaming the media and blaming men as a whole are one and the same? Her statement that the so called "anti-feminist" trolls are the norm kind of implies that she thinks ALL men are like that. Or is that just me failing to tell the difference between the different forms of feminism? --58.7.110.248 (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Modern Feminism and Anti-Sex positivism

I feel like the article should work in how she has consistently opposed other feminist movements and sex positive movements. She is much more conservative and pro-censorship and I feel the article needs to mention this in addition to accurately describing her worldview she puts forward. 74.70.148.40 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that? Euchrid (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I found one but I'm not sure if it's a RS. Would a comment from Anita on youtube be considered a reliable source since it is from her?174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be considered a primary source. Secondary coverage characterizing what she said on the video (in a reliable source) would be acceptable. Visit WP:IRS to find out what constitutes independent reliable sources. BusterD (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just reading through that now and I'm seeing "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" so would an article on her blog where she comes out against SlutWalk which is a sex positive movement be allowed because it is a self-published source about herself? Sorry if that sounds slightly convoluted. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be your personal interpretation of the primary source, and that's never acceptable. Clearly she's not describing herself as "pro-censorhip" or "opposing other feminist movements".Cúchullain ^t/c 02:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From her Slut Walk Article: "I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk, for the name and for the unstrategic organizing which sadly, seems to ignores the systemic and institutional issues of rape culture, victim blaming and well, radical feminism." I'm not sure how I could be interpreting that wrong as she clearly states her dislike of SlutWalk. I never mentioned "pro-censorhip" or "opposing other feminist movements" so I'm not sure why you're thinking I'm saying that she has those views. From my understanding (which I admit is limited) it should be allowed because it meets all 5 points of criteria for a Self-published source. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/05/link-round-up-feminist-critiques-of-slutwalk/ - Thought I should provide the article so it could be reviewed. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The initial poster certainly did use the terms "pro-censorship" or "opposing other feminist movements", and you responded directly to a question posed to them. If you want to say something different, please indicate what it is so we can determine whether the use is appropriate. To reiterate, primary sources may be used in some circumstances, sparingly and with great caution, but interpretation of primary sources is never acceptable.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I responded here since the OP and the header also indicate that this discussion is about potential Anti-Sex positivism views Anita may hold. I don't think any interpretation was made, her direct quote is "I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk". Since not many third party sources will likely be found on this topic but she herself admits it I think in this circumstance it should be allowed. 174.3.232.87 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's important to fully capture Sarkeesian's position in the Wikipedia article, but I don't think that the Slutwalk source is useful, for two reasons. Firstly, it's primarily a round-up of other sources, which aren't all saying the same thing, and as such aren't useful in an article about Sarkeesian, except to infer that she agrees withi them to some degree. Secondly, she doesn't elucidate her own reasons for being against Slutwalk to any great detail - it seems like an off-the-cuff comment, rather than a fully developed position, and not a sufficently prominent part of her broader argument / worldview to merit inclusion. Euchrid (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it's a roundup does not mean that it cannot be used, because the part being referenced is her personal opinion. And we cannot insist that she provides reasons for her position. The only grounds on which this can be opposed is WP:UNDUE--that is, whether her opinion on this random subject is important enough for inclusion. On that point, I'm not sure; I'd lean towards keeping it out, since I'm sure Sarkeesian has expressed lots of opinions in her blog and vlog, and we certainly don't want to list every single one of them. But we need to follow policies when we decide what to include or not include. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The source could, if we determined it necessary, be used to indicate that Sarkeesian is critical of Slut Walk. It cannot be used to indicate that she is "Anti-Sex Positivism", "Anti-Modern Feminism", or anything else that the source doesn't say directly. As to what it does say, we'd still have to have some reason to include it, and I don't see one. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a list of all the things the subject has ever said or written about. The fact that no secondary sources mention it is probably a good indication that it's not noteworthy enough to include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In the case of YouTube videos, I'm not sure we'd want to use these to establish any fact concerning a BLP without a reliable secondary. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This MS Magazine article may be a useful reference.--Nowa (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But on reading it, you learn that Sarkeesian has said some nuanced things about SlutWalk that don't fit the tidy sound-bite description of her which started this section. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Should this article include the nuanced things?--Nowa (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sarkeesian is a commentator, which means that she has expressed opinions on a wide variety of things. Trying to list every single one of them would bloat the article and violate WP:UNDUE. Only the core points of her position need to be in the article, and I don't feel like her stance on SlutWalk is one of them. Euchrid (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the original post in this section--Cuchullain and BusterD are absolutely right--even if we do use this source, we can only state exactly what it says, which is that she disagrees in part with the term "SlutWalk", not to say that she generally is anti-sex positive or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Interview with Global News

Sarkeesian was recently interviewed by Global News. Not sure if there's anything useful in there, but here's the source: http://www.globalnews.ca/16x9/video/dangerous+game+tropes+vs+women+bullying/video.html?v=2299118976&p=1&s=dd#video. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that it's at least worth mentioning that it happened. Euchrid (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's just another interview, one of dozens. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge it's the first time that she's been interviewed on TV news, so it represents a new level of exposure and recognition. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, though. Euchrid (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Being interviewed = "a new level of exposure and recognition"? More like a new level of scrapping a barrel (the program was really stupid anyway, because people trolling on the Internet and 13-year-old gamers is not "news" and surely is not reserved to harrassing women). And hey, where's this web series of hers? Even her blog had no other updates for over 3 months since August 1 after posting a pic of posing with a pile of random games (which included LittleBigPlanet 1 & 2 for "research the sexism" in the games with no human beings or even organic life forms, and which is like her "playing a game" with a controller turned off in the trailer - she's such an expert). Also, a RS view on all this from a different perspecive: [1] (back from September, and of course over 2 months later the series is still "upcoming", forevermore). --Niemti (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you try to be more coherent? Once again, this is not the place for your personal criticisms of the article's subject. And there's nothing about that Escapist editorial video indicating it's a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia article, not a random assemblage of every internet commenter who has ever said something about the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sterling's a long-time professional video game critic and journalist with a lot of reviews, editorials and interviews (as in: conducted by him, mostly) for The Escapist, Destructoid and GamesRadar (at least, possibly also elsewhere). I'd actually turn what you said around and say there's nothing about Anita Sarkeesian indicating she is a reliable source for anything video game related. All she got was a lot of trolling/hate (mostly from 13-year-old boys who got a short break from calling each other a "faggit" and insinuating sexual realtions with each other's mothers over Xbox Live) and then exposing it and getting famous and a lot of money, for some reason (Sterling's also getting a lot of flak, for him being fat and includimng on Wikipedia, too, but he's just ignoring it, which is what most people do). Literally all her work she did on the subject was a May 2012 (which was half a year ago already) 03:54 vlog series trailer that she made for a Kickstarter bid, and which included her "playing" with a controller that was turned off. The rest was a moral panic over Internet trolls, and people giving her $158,922 to fund her self-described feminist fight for pixels' rights and for facing obviously 100% fake "threats", in the world where real women face real problems like that. --Niemti (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be seriously confused about appropriate article content and acceptable talk page dialog. Sarkeesian's reliability or otherwise on video game matters is totally irrelevant - notability as an article subject and reliability as a citeable source are totally different things. And please knock it off with your personal rants about the subject, they do absolutely nothing productive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Jim's Sterling opinion about Anita Sarkeesian's sudden rise to fame might be a valuable improvement of her Wikipedia article. --Niemti (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I watched the video by Sterling and pretty much agreed with his points. He can deal with a bit of controversy. To me, however, User:Niemti hasn't grasped Sterling's essential point. And based on the comment posted at 16:53 above it seems that user is unhappy about what is in pagespace here. We need reliable sources which back an assertion. Sterling might actually qualify, but what he said was that we're way past the point of arguing with her on the merits when we let our resentments get in the way. Heat has generated light. Like Niemti, I've been expecting any sort of activity on her blog or her YouTube channel. I've shown her stuff to my teenaged daughter to help her understand the challenges women go through in gaming culture. She's been getting media interviews, justifying her place as a media critic, but I expect a voice like hers to be more active. However, as it regards the article, I'm not seeing any reliable sources bemoan her raising $160K. I'm not seeing reliable sources complain her blog and channel have been largely inactive since the controversy. I'm not hearing any static from reliable sources that her entire public work on the subject was a trailer video. I'm not seeing reliable sources moan and groan about her fame and exposure. I am seeing gamers do so. I'm appreciative of the very reasonable points Sterling makes in the video Niemti linked, and appreciate that user linking it. I'm with Cúchullain here. What course does Niemti want us to take?BusterD (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Use it. --Niemti (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You want it; you do it. Just cite what you use. BusterD (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also all the time Wikipedia has been claiming that this video series actually exists, while there's no proof for this and for sure not a single episode was released yet. Which is really kind of like a reverse Innocence of Muslims situation (where the film itself was presented as a "trailer", while here an announcement trailer automatically became a "video series"). --Niemti (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff does exist, but we're discussing this stuff. The page makes zero such claims of existence; what we've documented is based on an announcement and an extremely successful Kickstarter campaign to fund the project (both of which were covered in a multitude of reliable sources). If you were trying to contend the series doesn't deserve its own article, you would find puny argument here. But as a page subject, the lady certainly passes the WP:NOTE and WP:BIO bars. To discuss her well-verified next project is a normal part of any artist's BLP. BusterD (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Really. --Niemti (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How can you claim that Tropes Vs Women is only 'announced' when there are six episodes available on YouTube? [2] Euchrid (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this one. Is she "best known for" this really? No, she wasn't known for this (and just look at this article). Btw: one of my own YT channels has nearly 3.5 million of views (since 2006), and yet I don't think it's notable (the old article was saying she had more than 1 million views, like if it was some kind of actual accomplishment). One of my other channels has over 2 million hits. But it's nothing. PewDiePie (no article, of course) has currently 736 million.[3] She was a nobody, before becoming notable due to being trolled for her Kickstarter project and turning this into a huge scandal and herself into a poster girl for every woman being harrassed on the Internet (or at least mass media portray her as such). Tl;dr: she wasn't and isn't "best known" for some old vlogs she did. --Niemti (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you please try to be a bit less sarcastic? It's actually kind of obscuring the point that you're trying to make, I'm honestly not sure what changes you're suggesting for the article. If you're trying to argue non-notability, I think that the sheer number of third party sources demonstrate that that's not the case. Euchrid (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I also don't know what User:Niemti wants. This page is for discussing improvements in the article, not for complaints about her (arguable) success. Say what you mean, please. If you want to make changes in pagespace, edit boldly. BusterD (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sarcastic. Contrary to what Wikipedia has been claiming (for last several months?), AS is not "best known for ... her video series Tropes Vs Women" (the old one). She is actually not "best known" for her blog, neither. She is "best known" precisely for the controversy related to her Kickstarter project (for which only the announcement trailer and a few thank-you type photos were released in almost 6 months now). Which is also what Sterling said (and obviously he was right, as Anita's pre-controversy Wikipedia article on a non-notable blogger testifies). --Niemti (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the need to change the 'best known for' reference, fine. But can you please correct your grammar? "She is best known for her announced video blog series "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" to examine tropes in video game depictions of women" is a mess. Euchrid (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw (notability): Jennifer Hepler was a target of similar attacks earlier that year, that were also reported in the media (less in non-gaming media, sure, but she has some actually notable work as a writer for her credits), and yet she never had a Wikipedia article. Anita's article was created in late 2011, and the content until the controversy was: "a blogger for Bitch with over 1 million views on YouTube who has earned some degrees". Like Sterling said, just making this Kickstarter bid, getting trolled for this (and it was very Hepler-style trolling), and publicizing it, gained her a sudden rise from a total nobody (who surely didn't deserve a Wikipedia article, back then) to "one of the biggest stories of the year" (besides the wild success of the bid, of course). Which is what she is "best known" for. --Niemti (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, for the last time, quit with your incoherent personal rants about the subject. They make it near to impossible for anyone to decipher any actual points you have. As to that, you can add a line about the kickstarter debacle to the intro if you want, but stop removing the other material. The lead should summarize the *whole* article, and your personal opinion notwithstanding, that stuff is verified and relevant.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That was not a constructive edit (-172 and removing all the improvements that I did recently) and the intro was never "summarizing the *whole* article" anyway. Now, where was "that stuff" "verified and relevant"? She was basically unknown before the controversy (she was known only in some feminist circles). If there was AFD for this article from April 2012 would be surely deleted for the reason of lack of notability (it was rather listing things she was "best unknown for"). Btw: PewDiePie's account apparently made 18 million NEW views just since yesterday (he also has nearly 3 million subscribers) and yet he's still not notable - Anita with her "accomplished" vlog of (according to Wikipedia) mere 1 million views was not notable even more. Now she has over 4 million views, which is a huge leap (relatively), despite not publishing any new videos since then - these 3 million new views, and a big fame (especially among gamers), and the notability (also on Wikipedia), and the money (from donations), all of it was only due to the massive trolling response to her trailer video for a Kickstarter project, which she then media-savy way used to start a huge moral panic (a smooth move, I'll admit) instead of just ignoring it, or do things like counter-attack literally using her vagina, which is what Hepler did, and so this is what she is "best known for" (note: best). Or just see how much of the currently article is discussing that (most of the article). Nothing's there just my "personal opinion", that's facts, and so stating she was "best known" for the old Tropes Vs Women series is absolutely incorrect, it's misleading, and confusing (it even confused me). Also I'd not call it "the kickstarter debacle", it was actually a huge success, at least for her, and on so many levels. --Niemti (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That was not a suggestion. This is a WP:BLP. Do not post any more of these disparaging, inscrutable rants. The next time you post anything about this subject that isn't tied to a specific, actionable article improvement, you'll be reported for repeated BLP violations and disruption and will very likely find yourself blocked from editing.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

" Sarkeesian's work has been utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses"

How is "This is a free event. Refreshments by Natural Bridge will be provided." at "The Women's Center's 36th annual Conference on Women" now "material for university-level women's studies courses"? Yes, it was the cited source - besides her own blog's "About" section. And in the blog, she claims that she "facilitated classroom discussions about online video making for women at Occidental College and Hunter College." and "Feminist Frequency videos are often included on course syllabi and screened in traditional classrooms and by educational organizations." which may or may not be reliable claims (no proof of that, and no details at all, and how often is "often"?) and I don't see any specific mention of her "work" (the Feminist Frequency videos, presumably) having "been utilized as material for university-level women's studies courses" in these claims anyway. --Niemti (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: "and she has spoken at universities on the topic of female characters in pop culture" - backed only by her blog post where she only claims she "will be giving a presentation on March 15 in the Stevenson Union". What is "Stevenson Union"? It's a campus area at Southern Oregon University that contains four resource centers, student program offices, a food court, meeting and banquet rooms serving groups up to 275, an alcohol and smoke free nightclub, a bookstore, a convenience store, and administrative offices" holding "over 1,200 meetings annually, with over 400 special setups". And even if it counts as "at university", it's not a plural "universities". --Niemti (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)