Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

Article fails to mention criticism

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

---

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)

Nobody is asking you to make an article that "says those things are true." we're asking for a more fair, neutral approach to criticism of Anita. This article fails to mention all the rational, legitimate criticism of her and her videos, opting instead to only mention the immature, hateful responses she received. Nowhere on this article is there even a passing mention of any substantial criticism of her works. This article comes off more "pro-anita" than anything. --Homor242 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide reliable sources discussing said criticism? To date, no one has been able to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a very good Destructoid article that summed up the legitimate criticism she receives very nicely. To my knowledge, it was completely ignored because it was a "non-notable blog" which is an absolute fallacy, considering Destructoid is, in reality, a popular and heavily relied upon gaming news site. There's also this article by The Moderate Voice which briefly discusses the youtube videos made by the user InstigationJournalism. http://themoderatevoice.com/153578/153578/ --Homor242 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Destructoid might be great at reporting on gaming news and such, but when it comes to social criticism or women's studies and other related fields, it has no qualifications whatsoever and as such can't be used as a source in that respect. Also, both are blogs, which are basically editorials, so the most we can do is mention that such blogs exist but we can't use them as sources. DonQuixote (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not social criticism or women's studies and other related fields, it's still all about vidya (if you don't believe, go and check every single illustration in Destructoid article). If anything, it only says how AS possibly has no qualifications (not whatsoever, but that whatsoever was yours - and maybe she's spending all this time since then doing a real research, who knows) to be the one to "make a difference" as many except her to do (quote: "With this much money involved, people want to be sure that Anita is doing everything she can to truly make a difference, and not provide a face-value assessment of the subject matter, that may misconstrue the original developer's intentions."). And as of The Escapist - The Escapist article is already being used here in article, but it was another article - one was being apparently "qualified" in social criticism or women's studies and other related fields (here I must say I've never heard about "women's studies" thing before reading this article, the thing doesn't even has a Polish Wikipedia article and I still don't even know how it translates) and one was not, somehow (because I've added it myself, and it quickly got removed). --Niemti (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry there's not an article about women's studies (badania kobiet?) in the Polish Wikipedia, although there is pl:Gender studies: there has been some good work done in the former Soviet bloc on these matters that's not the same as what scholars in the West do. There are articles here, in the Finnish, Swedish and German versions: do you read any of those as well as you do English? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Context absolutely matters. I'll take DonQuixote's statement further: even if Destructoid's article content is generally reliable for video game topics, blogs and editorials posted on the site are not, they remain unusable sources. Needless to say, Homor's other personal website is unusable as well.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course editorials are also "generally reliable". What's unreliable in this article, specifically? --Niemti (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, opinion pieces, especially when they're just the author's unedited blog, aren't reliable for anything other than the author's opinion, and even then it still must pass the various other BLP and RS criteria.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Think of it this way. If MythBusters, which is a fairly reliable source for their area of expertise, suddenly started criticizing Brian Cox's works, it's not going to mean that they are going to be cited as criticism for Brian Cox or particle physics because, frankly, that's not their area of expertise. It'll be even worse if the comments are on their blog. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's "author's opinion", but video games is their area of expertise - unlike Anita's. Her area of expertise is communication studies and "social and political thought" - and here she was talking about video games (she has neither any education or academic work in game studies, all she had previously published was a couple of vlogs, which were specifically the subject of analysis by Destructoid).

(EC) Er...she's not talking about C++-type pointers or pixel shading or AI implementation or anything outside her area of expertise (so no, nothing to do with game studies). She's talking about character archetypes, tropes, etc. which was the subject of her master's thesis. So...replace "game" with "movie" or "tv show" or "novel" and we'll have the same thing. That is, nothing to do with the mechanics or grammar or whatever but everything to do with how these things are perceived by society (communication studies). DonQuixote (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, she was talking about specific games and characters (chosen by her) and how she perceives them (as in: "but I was frustrated that I had to repeatedly", "I really enjoyed Bastion, but", "I'm really loving it, though I have to say", "I really appreciate the gameplay and some of the complexities of the Assassin’s Creed series, but I've been regularly disappointed", etc.). Read the article. --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Er...yeah, communication studies and not game studies. (All following emphases mine.) "I was frustrated that I had to repeatedly save the "busty" Nymphs in Distress"...doesn't have anything to do with game studies but communication studies. "I really enjoyed Bastion, but the only female character in the game doesn’t have any depth (to put it mildly); basically, her whole characterization was "The Female.""...communication studies, not game studies. "I really appreciate the gameplay and some of the complexities of the Assassin’s Creed series, but I've been regularly disappointed with the female characters for a whole host of reasons that we don’t have the space to get into."...communication studies, not game studies. So, no, she's not talking outside here area of expertise...which would be self-evident if you didn't misquote her. DonQuixote (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

the only female character in the game doesn’t have any depth (to put it mildly); basically, her whole characterization was "The Female. - and it's there where she (not "society", only the person named Anita Sarkeesian) was flat-wrong in her perception, and her statement. Because "The Female" (Zia) is relatively very well characterized, as opposed to the male protagonist (actually known only as "the Kid", and the players never learn anything about him). --Niemti (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

again, that she is "flat wrong" solely your opinion (or the opinions of other non experts). You would need to find reliable sources to support that analysis.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? And what validates your own opinion about Destructoid staff member Chris Carter as "non expert" regarding video games? Well, you can check yourself - here's the Wikipedia article, and here's the Wikia article about Zia (yes, "The Female" really has the name, while the Kid is only just the Kid), and you can check just anywhere else (even go play the game yourself, if you want/need). --Niemti (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that he is not an expert in videos games. that is entirely irrel. he is not an expert in the filed of social and cultural analysis - and that is what matters when we decide whether or not his is a worthy opinion to discuss Sarkeesian's cultural analysis. Dog Fancy's opinion about economics or physics or climate change is irrel - they are only a potentially valid source about dogs.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It was not "social and cultural analysis", it was Anita stating her own opinions about selected video games in an interview with a video game publication - in response to the question of Have you played any games that you absolutely adored in spite of their failings in that regard, or perhaps some instances where you are willing to overlook such discrepancies simply because you fell in love with the game?. HELLO? --Niemti (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested edit was not anything at all about her own words from an interview. If that is what you want to be considered for addition, then make another suggestion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What? --Niemti (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested edit below was NOT her words. it was your interpretation of someonelse's analysis of her words. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you okay? --Niemti (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's all her expertise in this field in her own words - and from the interview with Destructoid, no less: Because my dad was a networking engineer I basically grew up surrounded by computers and started playing PC games at a pretty young age. I also spent a lot of time with the NES and the SNES but what I remember most is the Game Boy. At around ten years old I begged my parents to get me one, this took some serious persuasion on my part because 1) my parents believed it was a toy for boys (at the time I didn't realize how gendered the marketing was, I mean, it's called Game 'Boy' after all) and 2) my mom had heard all the nonsense about how videogames are dangerous and would rot my brain. In the end, though, they gave in and I remember the sense of victory when I unwrapped it on Christmas morning. After that, the Game Boy and I were inseparable. Today, I would describe my relationship with gaming as complex, to say the least. There are a handful of truly amazing, artistic, creative and engaging games out there that I absolutely love. On the other hand there are so many more where I, as the player, am forced to choose between the ultra violent, emotionless space marine or the male fantasy style sex object. This is especially frustrating because there is an incredible amount of potential for the industry to push the envelope and create gaming experiences which employ more immersive storytelling, complex character development, and innovative gameplay. That's all.[1] --Niemti (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

1) since when is the study video game culture not a part of modern social fabric? 2) Sarkeesian is the subject of the article. whether she is the world's premier expert on the subjects she covers or the most looney wing nut, illustrating her views are appropriate for the article content so readers understand her place. 3) the random opinions of third parties are not relevant to this article about a living person. WP:BLP / WP:SPS / WP:RS etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the article was not even about the vlogs (which were not about video games) - it was about this very interview that she gave to them (Destructoid). As in: Destructoid (area of expertise: video games) analysing specific claims about various video games that Anita Sarkeesian has made in an interview with Destructoid. WP:BLP / WP:SPS / WP:RS etc. - quote the relevant parts. I don't know where you got anything about "modern social fabric". --Niemti (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP - content about living people requires the highest quality of sources, do not use self published material

WP:SPS - self published blogs can be used for non controversial content about the publisher/writer of the blog in the article about the writer of the blog. these claims are 1) potentially controversial, 2) not about the writer of the blog but about someone else, 3) not in the article of the person who wrote the blog

WP:RS - reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, particularly about the subject under discussion. Dog Fancy may be a reliable source for content about dogs, but it is not a reliable source about physics.

WP:OR - we cannot in the article make claims that are not specifically by by our sources.

WP:UNDUE - we represent the views critiquing Sarkeesian's work in the proportion they are held and given by the academic community of those who know that subject. every yahoo on the street can have an opinion about anything, but we only care about and cover the experts opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not self-published, it's Destructoid/ModernMethod-published (and ModernMethod is a company), in association (advertising) with GameRevolution/CraveOnline (owned by Atomic Online, which is also a company). It's not a "self published blog", it's Modern Method published Destructoid editorial. I think Destructoid has a reputation of being a reliable source to discuss video games. Who wants to "make claims that are not specifically by by our sources"? No, we don't "represent the views critiquing Sarkeesian's work" at all. --Niemti (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And no, it's not like it's allegations that Anita is a Russian deep-cover agent, or anything like that. It's critical analysis of the claims that she has made in interview with them (as in: of her work, and in their area of expertise). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can host a blog site and have advertisers. in order for it not to fall in the SPS, you would need to show that the site provides an editorial oversight of the content. But even if it does have the oversight to not be a SPS, it still does not have the expertise in evaluating social and cultural critiques. Its area of expertise is games. and yes, anytime someone is charging that someone else doesnt know what they are talking about or were lying in an interview or other public statements it is controversial.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, like Bitch and YouTube who host Anita's vlogs. Proof that "the site provides an editorial oversight of the content" is that the (editorial) article by staff member Chris Carter was endorsed and prefaced with a note by another staff member, Henry Andrew Dixon. I'm pretty sure Anita would let everyone and their mother know if Destructoid "were lying in an interview or other public statements" about her, no? And everything about it you can check yourself - like about her claims regarding Bastion, where indeed Zia was much, much more characterised than the game's silent protagonist (who is actually even known only as "the Kid"), and yet Anita was complaining about the supposed lack of characterisation of... Zia (full quote: On the indie side of things, I really enjoyed Bastion, but the only female character in the game doesn’t have any depth (to put it mildly); basically, her whole characterization was "The Female."). --Niemti (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

you are failing to grasp the difference between covering what the subject of the article has done and what others say about it and are attempting to WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Come again? Maybe try with a full sentence because I really "failed to grasp" it. And about by advertising-association, I meant that GR/Crave/Atomic is handling the ads (Advertising on destructoid is available through [GR/C] Please contact them to learn more), maybe you misunderstood this part. The article was not "evaluating social and cultural critiques". It was evaluating claims made by Anita about a couple of specific video games and video game characters that were in an interview with a video game website (their own) - quote: Note that this has nothing to do with "privilege", or any sort of socioeconomic argument: this is simply a balanced view of some of the misrepresentations given for a few of Sarkeesian's examples from a gameplay and narrative perspective. --Niemti (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen so much useless white knighting. Add criticism, if you think people are smart enough to like her and see through what you deem bullshit, then what is the worst that can happen by adding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.53.123 (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

proposed addition

since we just seem to keep beating the same dead horse why in general your proposed source is not likely to be acceptable per policy, let's try specific. What is the content you would like to include, where, and supported by what source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably at the end of the last paragraph: Besides many negative comments that involved personal attacks against Sarkeesian, there were also some moderately critical voices that constructively addressed the perceived misrepresentations in her statements about video games, such as by Destructoid's editor Chris Carter.[2] According to The Escapist's Jim Sterling, however, "any attempt to seriously debate [with Sarkeesian] has been undermined by theats to rape her."[3] (rough draft). --Niemti (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, destructoid (or any of the youtube videos mentioned) is not a reliable source for communication studies so their criticism has no merit and shouldn't be cited. DonQuixote (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)that Carter is a "constructively addressed the perceived misrepresentations in her statements" is entirely your personal opinion about the article, so that is right out even there were no questions of reliability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

They weren't talking about "communication", they were talking about Anita's statements about video games in an interview for a video game website in relation to her project about video games. Jimquisition isn't even hosted at YT - as opposed to Anita's vlogs (that are indeed hosted at YT) - it's hosted at The Escapist's own server. --Niemti (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"My opinion"? Exuse me? Of course, it was constructive (At the very least, I hope Anita can learn from some of the above examples, and convey a more balanced view in the future. I really think that with the right material, she can make a change.). As opposed to "go back to the kitchen" or "IM GONNA RAPE U", which was surely not constructive, and which is covered quite in detail (including a quote from another article at very same The Escapist). See: constructive criticism. --Niemti (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That Carter deems his analysis "something she can learn from" is entirely irrel. and not an opinion that we can transfer into article content. that it is less insipid than "im gonna rape you" does not really establish anything other than its not as insipid. an you need to read WP:OR and WP:NPOV. that you or I might look at it and say "I think that's constructive criticism" is not an analysis that we can put into the article. there would need to be a third party that described Carter's work in that manner. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And regarding your ("irrel." or not) opinions, why do you think it's any "insipid" at all? Anyway, as I said, it's just a rough draft so maybe try and and propse a rephrase. --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, but most editors of wikipedia are non-notable. Anita doesn't have to listen to you...just like Brian Cox doesn't have to listen to me (even though I have physics degrees, it's not in particle physics) or even the cast of MythBusters (a well-known group who are considered reliable in their area of expertise but not particle physics). So, no. DonQuixote (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoever said anything about "editors of wikipedia", and what are you talking about? --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that. But the point remains, Anita Sarkeesian doesn't have to listen to Destructoid...just like Brian Cox doesn't have to listen to the cast of MythBusters. The point is that they're only required to "listen" to their colleagues in their respective fields or reliable sources of their respective fields such as journals or books. So if Carter wants to teach Sarkeesian "from some of the above examples, and convey a more balanced view in the future", then he should publish his analysis in a reliable journal rather than Destructoid. DonQuixote (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want her to do anything (maybe except her promised videos), I want to article to mention that not all response was either "I GONNA KILL U BITCH" or "please take my money". That was quite a lot of between, and I believe Carter (Destructoid), Sterling (The Escapist) and 'Men vs Tropes' (a parody project covered by Kotaku) provide some good anough examples. --Niemti (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

But Wikipedia doesnt care about "all the response". it cares about the 1) response of academics who matter, and 2) the insane death threaters whose response was covered by third parties- but we care about them only because their opinions and reactions have received significant coverage by other reliable sources. the responses of Joe Blow tangential-non-academic on the street dont matter - unless their opinions have also received wide coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

But Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. I don't know who's "Joe Blow tangential-non-academic on the street", and why are "academics" needed to respond to a Kickstarter project to make a series of YouTube videos about video games, or to analyse a related interview (still about video games) that was given by the author of the planned YouTube vlog series to their own website. The "insane death threaters" were just mostly adescelant trolls, which was never serious (as in: nobody actually wanted to kill her) and is just a part of the Internet "life" (which is not real). They're not "insane", they're just 13-year-olds being 13-years-olds (when I was this age the Internet was different back then, so me and my bros were doing rude prank calls, and leaving obscene messages on walls, and such). --Niemti (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

because ANYONE can have an opinion (and most people do) and post it on a blog. Big fucking deal. We are an encyclopedia and we use expert analysis to put things into perspective based upon the relative weight of those academic opinions. we include the opinions and analysis of people who are qualified to judge the subject. your gamer blog is not a qualified expert on social cultural expressions. he knows games. and I am done.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

HUGE "fucking deal", even. And that's where I stopped discussing anything with you (and reading, too). Bye. --Niemti (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I still dont think you are approaching this with the right perspective and it is clouding your ability to understand how to edit the article. For this article, we are NOT attempting to analyse Sarkeesian or her work. we are attempting to write an encyclopedia article about Sarkeesian based upon what third party reliable sources say about her work, and occasionally primary source materials / Sarkeesian's own words about herself and her work. We are not and cannot and will not insert our own analysis into the article nor use the analysis of inappropriate sources who are not experts int the appropriate fields to do so either. This article is not a justification of nor a debunking of her views - this is an encyclopedia article that says: This is Anita Sarkeesian and what she did/thought/wrote that people thought was worthy of notice.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, because I'm not "attempting to analyse Sarkeesian or her work" neither. The addition is to present full picture, that is that not all critical response was just "large number of negative comments, including threats of death and rape, racist abuse, and an extended attempt to have the campaign suspended" (speaking of which, what exactly was this "extended attempt to have the campaign suspended"? give me some sources talking specifically about it). Experts in the field of video games are qualified to talk about video games, including "perceived misrepresentations in her statements about video games" - they're not qualified to critically respond to her claims about films and film characters, that's what film experts could only do (and vice versa). --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Also: "Other, less-serious response to Sarkeesian Kickstarter project included a parody[4] Steam/Indiegogo project 'Tropes Vs Men' which rised $3,401, all of which was then donated to cancer charity foundations.[5][6]" --Niemti (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, your Destructoid blog piece isn't going in the article, period. You can stop going on and on about it. And we're not going to bend over backwards to include "other less-serious response [sic]" just for the sake of it. As with anything else, you'd have to show that it's both reliable and noteworthy to the topic of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, it's not "my" Destructoid "blog piece, period." And you've got to tell me why it "isn't going in the article", and convince me, as in some better way then the red-colored "fucking deal" person above. And no I don't except anyone to "bend over backwards", or forward for that matter. Also it was "other, less-serious response [sic]" and not "other less-serious response [sic]" - quite a difference [sic]. And also regarding "fucking dealing": curiously, I see no "academic opinions" [sic [sic]] about Anita in the article at all. How strange. --Niemti (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The piece doesn't belong in the article because it isn't a reliable source. There is nothing else to discuss here. Should a reliable source re-report on the destructoid blog, then we can consider inclusion. Here's a simple way of looking at it: until a reliable source says it, it literally does not exist for Wikipedia. Until it exists, we cannot comment about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

--Niemti (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough already

Please take a time out. Nothing new has surfaced. No new interpretations of WP:RS are going to materialize. 86 edits in under 3 hours is what I'd consider disruptive. Take this to IRC or a forum or something. WP:NOTAFORUM.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. While I have zero issues with reasonable critique of Sarkeezian's positions and expressions, I'm seeing no consensus for insertion of material based on the non-RS stuff provided. I agree with Peter's comment above some distance from this talkpage ultimately might benefit the discussion. Find some much better sourcing first. The sources which might seem acceptable in an article on a game product are woefully inadequate when used in a BLP. BusterD (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And I just found out that Niemti is subject to an RfC for disruptive behavior related to video game articles. What's particularly damning in light of the debate here is that one of the complaints (which is well-supported by links and diffs) is that Niemti has engaged in excessively emphasizing the sex appeal of female video game characters.

To me, that was really the last straw. I have endorsed the RfC and suggested that he be banned if he continues to engage in disruptive debate.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this idea to take a time out, as Wikipedia is indeed not a forum for general discussion on the article's subject, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. I have stayed clear of the above dispute, as I don't want to get involved, but I think at this point, some distance from the talk page would benefit this discussion. We have to find some better sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think this particular discussion has been a general FORUM discussion. it has been solely focused on policy application to particular content. the user has been (purposefully or not) just "not getting" how policy applies to the source and proposed content. note: comment stricken as the editor's next "reply" obviously moves into the FORUM-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It ceased being a meaningful discussion after the first couple of users were told the basics of Wikipedia policy concerning references. That was before Niemti, a fairly experienced editor, entered the fray. Anyone who can't present a relevant source by now should be told to do so or move on, not be argued with.

We can't keep treating every single upset game aficionado who pops up here with presumptuous views and zero relevant knowledge of gender studies as if was a first.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite what I call "apology". Anyway, as of unfounded allegations of the constructive criticism being "presumptuous" (synonyms: arrogant - presuming - conceited - overweening - insolent) - Carter was actually extremely polite (and also very sympathic to her personally as well to her cause), in fact more than Sarkeesian who says things like I'm going to look at the damsel in distress, the fighting f- toy[7] (with "f-" obviously not standing for "feminist"). And he specifically said this was not, quote: a personal attack on Anita in any way, nor is it meant to debate the etymology or efficacy of modern feminism. She actually seems like a cool person, I just take issue with some of the "tropes" that she has chosen to bring to light. This is meant entirely as an in-depth look into some of the games that she feels are perpetuating a negative female stereotype, and not an attack on her personal character -- as a result, I'd like to ask that your comments here also refrain from any personal attacks. His article was also not about gender studies at all, quote: Note that this has nothing to do with "privilege", or any sort of socioeconomic argument: this is simply a balanced view of some of the misrepresentations given for a few of Sarkeesian's examples from a gameplay and narrative perspective. (bolded as in original, I don't think more than "zero knowledge of gender studies" is needed for this, just like "zero knowledge of physics" despite how both of them - Sarkeesian and Carter - talk about Kat and her physics-bending powers, in a video game). Maybe you should just read it first/eventually. As of people attacking blogs, YouTube, etc, as unreliable sources. Sarkeesian is a YouTube blogger herself, but that's only her - all of those people that I brought up here are in fact not (her fellow) YouTube bloggers, even their vlogs are not hosted on YouTube, but like Anita's work as a YouTube-based vlogger for Bitch, they're being paid for their (journalistic) work. And once again, the article contains no "academic opinions" that are being demanded for (even partially/mildly) critical views, yet are not demanded for support and endorsement. As such - The Escapist is somehow okay for the opinion of The Escapist referred to the commenters as a "misogynist horde", but not for pointing out that Sarkeesian became well-known (called a story of the year even) only after that and due to what Wikipedia calls absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse (directly quoting yet another opinion, which no, was also not "academic") that undermined any attempt to seriously debate her. Only then the very same publication is suddenly totally not okay, at all, and also somehow. And maybe you go and propose something else (and better?) to eliminate this article's (quoting the official survey of Wikipedia readers) "minimal bias" and imrpove it's vastly incomplete state (the same survey)? --Niemti (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK now its clearly moved to FORUM, striking my comment above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is entirely not true, and I actually used Sarkeesian as an example of the allegations of "excessively emphasizing the sex appeal of female video game characters" (it's in the very last sentence at Mai Shiranui, and here's the proof it was me: [8]), I wonder how "particularly damning" was that. Articles created by me include, for example, Grace Nakimura, her reception being exactly what TV Tropes would call "trope averted" regarding female game characters and sexyness. And so I demand an apology from the user Isotalo. Not because it would be "particularly damning" if it was true (it wouldn't be, at all), but because he was posted a false statement about me precisely because he thought it would have a "particularly damning" effect.

And this is not a "disruptive behavior", because I'm not alone in this, and I didn't even neither started nor re-stared this thread. In case if you din't notice: the article's objectivity rating is exactly 3/5 (which stands for "minimal bias" on Wikipedia's own scale), with "complete" being only slightly above 2/5 - that's how general public feels about it (and I didn't even rate it, myself - but nearly 200 people did; for a comparison, the sameMai Shiranui, where I created most of the content, "excessively emphasizing the sex appeal" or what not, has the objectiveness rating of 5/5 and actually it's rated 5/5 on all points). Trying to fix this (according to the readers) deeply flawed article by constructively proposing (without engaging in edit wars or personal attacks or "even" swearing in style of "big fucking deal", see above) is not "disruptive" at all. It's exactly what the talk pages are for.

Destructoid, being far from "just a blog", is actually a reliable source about video games, and the article was about video games - and Sarkeesian's planned vlog (which is covered by this article, very prominently so, and which is about video games). It is being used as a source in more than 2 thousand Wikipedia articles. Same with Kotaku, for that matter. And The Escapist is even already used here, for an opinion (even quoted directly), and yet I don't see anyone complaining about it, saying "it isn't a reliable source". And again: I don't see any "academic opinions" in the article. --Niemti (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Escapist

While I don't agree with adding any other blogs, I do agree with Niemti that the Escapist article is not a reliable source and should be removed. Does anyone object to that? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me and it's not a blog. It's just about double standards of when it is and when it's (allegedly) not okay in the very same article, in the very same section, about the very same subject. I think it's this (to quote Wikipedia survey about the article) "minimal bias" at work. --Niemti (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As the person who added the reference to The Escapist, I don't mind it being removed. I put it there in the early days, before there was much coverage to draw on. Now we have sources like Wired I suppose that it's not necessary to rely on the lesser sources. I'll see if I can find something more reliable to replace it, but in the meantime go for it. Euchrid (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, maybe I phrased that badly. What I should have said is, "In the process of trying to explain to Niemti why one source s/he is suggesting is not appropriate per WP:RS, another source has been raised which also probably doesn't meet WP:RS. As such, the correct solution is to remove the other source, not add a second one that is inappropriate." So, I guess it's not that you called for that one to be removed, but your discussion has sparked further checking and now I think that removal is definitely correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And it won't change anything and the article will still be regarded as both "minimally biased" and very incomplete (pretty much correctly so). --Niemti (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It will remain that way to you. One editor. Who hasn't yet produced reliable sources. Look, if you're absolutely certain we're wrong, start an RfC. If not, then there's really nothing more to be done wrt your suggested addition. I'd rather concentrate on the issue that I think we might be able to get consensus on--removing another non-RS from the article. Anyone else care to provide an opinion, either way? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Niemti has been warned many times about misusing this talk page as a platform for his disruptive rants. It seems unlikely he'll be responsive to his RfC; at this point an article ban, if not a topic ban, is in order.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, duh, I had naively assumed Niemti was a new user who unaware of how Wikipedia works and was just slow in "getting it"; however, it appears that was a mistake, and this discussion has just been trolling. That'll learn me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're both wrong. While I agree that Niemti is not getting the underlying problem (the need for RS), I don't believe he is a troll, I don't believe he is using this page as a forum (every discussion has been explicitly related to changing the article), and, in fact, consider both of your comments to be personal attacks. I recommend you strike them, as they only embolden those who oppose Sarkeesian for unfounded, misogynistic reasons. Given the extreme hatred and vitriol that's been aimed at Sarkeesian, calling a good faith editor (albeit one who is wrong) a troll and "ranter" is misplacing blame.

In the meantime, I'm removing the Escapist piece, as no one has justified how it rises up to meet WP:RS, or, even if it does meet RS, how their opinion is important enough to meet WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to bring some perspective to this discussion, but the fact is that Niemti has repeatedly disrupted this talk page with off topic rants, much of it quite disparaging to the subject. There are examples in this very thread. At such a sensitive BLP this is unacceptable, and he's been warned enough times already. This is beyond his refusal to get the point that poor sources and material aren't going in the article.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and good move on the Escapist source.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Since Niemti has caused disruption on this talk page with off-topic, disparaging rants to the subject, this is clearly not acceptable and he has been warned enough times already. Also worth noting that he is User:HanzoHattori, who has recently returned from a ban and indefinite block for incivility and an inability to work with others. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Find yourself a different hobby already. --Niemti (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with all due respect, please drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. You have made your point, and I have already moved on. This article is a sensitive BLP, and by disrupting this talk page by using it as a forum for disparaging others or the subject of the article, this is seriously unacceptable behavior. The Escapist source has been removed by Qwryxian, as no one has justified it rises up to meet reliable source guidelines or how their opinion is enough to achieve undue weight per his concerns, and I agree with this removal. At this point, I think it's time to move forward. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Close this discussion?

At this time, I think it's time we should simply move forward. Destructoid and Escapist are not considered reliable sources and should not be in this sensitive BLP. May we close this? Votes below:

1. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion: not a voting matter. This discussion will be closed when everyone involved stops coming back to add their criticisms of other editors etc. No further action will be needed, beyond maybe archiving the thread some day. -Pete (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. I guess that's fair enough. With that said, no further action is needed, and I think it's pretty safe to assume that we should archive the thread. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't threads just get archived automatically over time? A number of them were quite recently. If it's triggered by inactivity, then this is having the opposite effect :) Euchrid (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is set to be archived by bot after 3 months of no activity. The bot will take care of it when folks stop yakking.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I implemented the bot myself, and I also posted a notaforum notice above due to the previous discussion (This notice should stop other users from doing so). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is everything wrong with wikipedia. It's an advertisement for Anita Sarkeesian's product. Criticism, which is included in even the least topical articles, is completely ignored here because of an arbitrary definition thrown together as to what a reliable source is, yet they are all more reliable than Anita's sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.52.214 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Former vandals

I am hoping that the folk who vandalized the article earlier were tagged so that we can prevent the scum from ever editing here. Please tell me that someone was paying attention. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean back in June? All edits to Wikipedia article are recorded in the history tab. The majority of vandalism is done through IP accounts, though. Euchrid (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sarkeesian's is not the first, nor the last, article to be vandalized with ill intent. We'll deal with this the same way we deal with all other types of intentionally destructive editing.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Harassment" and failure to deliver on her Kickstarter project

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

---

All of the sources for the supposed harassment against Anita are gaming 'journalism' sites like Gamespot. Many gaming journalism sites present valid criticism of her work but aren't mentioned because apparently they aren't reliable sources. What's with the double standards? Especially since Gamespot in particular have famously done dodgy things in the past. These things are even mentioned in the Wikipeda entry for Gamespot. This entire article reads like an Anita Sarkeesian press-release.

Also why is there no mention in the Kickstarter section of the fact that she has not delivered anything promised by the Kickstarter even though it is well past the due date, and the subsequent upset she has caused the people who gave her money?

What's even more bizarre is that her youtube videos are used as sources in this article as to what her opinions are, yet youtube videos aren't accepted as reliable sources against her arguments. This boggles the mind. Why are arbitrary definitions of a reliable source being acceptable when it suits the opinion of the article's subject, but being rejected when they don't?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.52.214 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We cover what the reliable sources cover, in proportion that the reliable sources cover it. If you do not provide reliable sources to support your suggestions for article content, it will seem that you are simply utilizing the talk page as a forum to vent your personal views - which is not allowed and will result in them being removed from the page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not vented my personal views, i am just asking why this article is actively being left unfinished? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.52.214 (talk • contribs)

She has screenshots of rape threats against her and you're putting harassment in scare quotes? There are multiple sources about the harassment, including Slate, Wired.com, and Huffington Post. I'm also not aware of any "due date" on her Kickstarter project. Asarelah (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's because there isn't one. I've donated to plenty of Kickstarters, including Sarkeesian's, and they take time to produce results. There is also no mention of upset among donators because, well, there isn't one.Euchrid (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Take for example theoretical physics. Journals, such as the New York Times, can describe Brian Cox being harassed, but their "criticism" of Brian Cox's work is seldom considered valid. Similarly, Brian Cox's youtube videos can be used as sources for explanation of his works but other youtube videos can't be used as criticisms of his works because they're not considered as reliable sources. So, please find some sources that are considered reliable in regards to Sarkeesian. DonQuixote (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Brian Cox is a theoretical physicist recognized and well respected in the scientific community. Anita Sarkeesian is a youtube celebrity recognized by who exactly?

Same rules apply to everyone, and that's the point. So please find a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml

The reason it's hard to find genuine 'reliable sources', is because much like this article, most sites seem content with regurgitation 'facts' directly from her mouth. If a credible, established and respected journalism website is less credible than a woman who made some youtube videos there's something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.52.214 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

your opinion may be interesting, but if you want to spread it, you will need to do it elsewhere. cough up the reliable sources for your suggested content or we are done here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A "credible, established and respected journalism website" is considered a reliable source for journalism. It's not considered a reliable source for theoretical physics or cultural analysis or anything else that's not journalism. And, as been mentioned before, that Destructoid article is no more reliable than a Destructiod article on theoretical physics. DonQuixote (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The destructoid article isn't a news story, its an op-ed piece. Asarelah (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's not considered a reliable source for theoretical physics or cultural analysis or anything else that's not journalism. And, as been mentioned before, that Destructoid article is no more reliable than a Destructiod article on theoretical physics." - what? WHAT? The article is about video games (or "videogames", as they spell it), nothing else. Destructoid is an independent video game-focused blog based in San Francisco, California that was founded in March 2006.[1][2] It has since grown into one of the most widely read video game sites on the Internet, reaching more than 3 million unique visitors per month.[3] The article is a critical response to the interview given by Sarkeesian to Destructoid, in which she discussed video games. And Sarkeesian's supposedly produced YoTube vlog series about video games is the very reason of her fame and notability (she has had a Wikipedia article but it was created and kept in a clear breach of Wikipedia notability rules, her being nothing more than an un-notable YouTube vlogger she was prior to June 2012 and this so-short stub of an article also containing misleading information). while the only previous major foray by Sarkeesian into the subject of video games on YouTube, her wildly inaccurate piece about Bayonetta where she says "something, something and so forth", was since tossed into memory hole by her as too emberassing but several other accounts have it mirrored, like here, where you can see how reliable is she. --Niemti (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

the article is NOT about "video games"- it is about a person who is analyzing the culture related to video games. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And how much the article was breaching WP:N? I'll give you example - I happen to read the blog of Marko Attila Hoare. But he's not just a blogger, he's also a respected historian (researcher, author) and more (humanitarian aid, war crimes prosecution). He's actually notable as a person, and he's more notable than his blog (which is just one of his side-projects). While Anita Sarkeesian before "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" (pre-June 2012) was just a

feminist video blogger and activist who focuses on women in popular culture[1][2] and their associations with tropes.[3] She maintains a YouTube channel, which has had more than one million views.[4] She also blogs for Bitch Magazine under the name of FeministFrequency and also has her own website.[5] Her videos have been part of university Women's Studies' courses.[6] Sarkeesian earned a bachelors degree in Communication Studies from California State University-Northridge in 2007 and a Master’s degree in Social and Political Thought from York University in 2010.[7]

That was literally her whole article on Wikipedia before the Kickstarter thing and the part of "Her videos have been part of university Women's Studies' courses" wasn't even true. "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" made her a celebrity and video games is even in its title. In absence of the series' actual existance (it's still unreleased and there's even no proof she did any real work on it at all), and her general total lack of blogging activity, her interviews are the only part that can be scrutinized and criticized by the actual experts in the field (like Destructoid). Morever: as prior to this she was not notable (and unquestionably so), and it is that Kickstarter project and reactions to it that is the subject of most of the current article, the article should be rather renamed, re-focused and moved to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, or more generally to Feminist Frequency that would also cover her previous YouTube videos. --Niemti (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also as of "She has screenshots of rape threats against her and you're putting harassment in scare quotes?" - I'm receiving a plenty of abuse, including "death threats", on YouTube. Practically everyone does and OF COURSE it's nothing serious. Yes, I'm also getting falsely flagged-down too, including also for "terrorism", but so what? It's just YouTube users being YouTube users, it's nothing special at all. (Last week, The Angry Video Game Nerd got both of his main accounts briefly "terminated" due to false reports/trolling, but he didn't even comment on it.) And regarding "She maintains a YouTube channel, which has had more than one million views" from the original article about an un-notable video blogger on YouTube, my own YT channels all have more than 1 million views, and the previously mentioned nerd has over 424 million views plus over 54 million on the other one, which is because he's actually successful, and notable as a YT vlogger "analyzing the culture related to video games" (just his latest video where he discusses the Atari Jaguar CD, uploaded 4 days ago, was watched by more than 457,000 people already). --Niemti (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The notability of this article before reliable sources began reporting on her was suspect and should have been discussed. However, since reliable sources started mentioning her, she became notable. So the state of the article before is irrelevant to the state of the article now.

And Destructoid is an expert in reporting on video game news. It is not an expert in cultural analysis or theoretical physics or economics or sea fauna or medieval literature. Therefore it's not a reliable source in this regard and the above article isn't worth anything.

Finally, please stop ranting. This is not a soapbox. DonQuixote (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources are mostly discussing the Kickstarter project and specifically, reactions to it, and by "reactions" I mean the trolling campaign (which, once again, is also the subject of the most of the article). And this the article needs to re-focused and renamed - especially since it's a continuation of the old Wikipedia article that should have been deleted. It can be Reactions to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Kickstarter project or Tropes vs. Women in Video Games controversy, or it can be just Feminist Frequency (with a broader scope, including the actually published YouTube videos). I'm not ranting. --Niemti (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To me it does appear that User:Niemti is ranting and using this talk page as a soapbox, by repeating over and over again the same basic criticisms and referring to the same sources. Other stuff does exist on Wikipedia, but we're discussing this stuff here. It doesn't appear Niemti is getting any closer to garnering consensus, however. I oppose the move changes suggested above and again oppose the insertion of Destructoid as a source on this BLP. If Niemti wishes to request a page move, appropriate forums exist for such a request. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The other stuff does not exist on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the red links above and Feminist Frequency being just a redirect (and it was always just a redirect). And "this BLP" is either a problem or an excuse, with the source of it being the fact that this article is a continuation of an original which was created and kept in a clear violation of Wikipedia core content policies, while as the current article mostly (13 out of 26 refs, but including most of reliable sources and third-party sources) discusses the Kickstarter project and reactions to it. I'll make a request to move. You can propose the title and scope of the article that can satisify you - possibly just Feminist Frequency, which would also encompass her website feministfrequency.com (currently offline) and her YouTube account "Feminist Frequency", including all the videos prior to the video "Support My Kickstarter Project - Tropes vs Women in Video Games". --Niemti (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And to clarify: No, I'm not 124.169.52.214 (or 68.112.149.244, or 64.42.240.5, or 31.185.24.29, or 95.103.4.222, "something, something and so forth"). And no, I won't call upon /v/ to flood the /v/ote on the request to move (but they'll probably show up anyway). --Niemti (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

So I see there were no alternative name/scope nor counter-arguments put forward, "Feminist Frequency" it is. --Niemti (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

---

Anita Sarkeesian → Feminist Frequency – The rationale for the article rename was presented by me in the discussion in the just section above. ([9]) A possible alternative for a narrower scope for the article (not covering the earlier YouTube videos): Reactions to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Kickstarter project / Tropes vs. Women in Video Games controversy.

To recount in short: The current article is a continuation of the original article written on then completely un-notable video blogger which was created in 2011[10] in a clear violation of Wikipedia core content policies including Notability and Original Research (the last version prior to the controversy, in April 2012:[11]). It went under radar because almost nobody was visiting it, precisely due to the subject being not notable. (Compare April 2012: [12] to just last month, that is December 2012: [13]) Since then (following the publication of the YouTube video "Support My Kickstarter Project - Tropes vs Women in Video Games" and the both extremely negative and extremely positive response to it and their extensive press coverage), the article got vastly expanded but is mostly (a great most of reliable third-party sources from the mass media) covering the Kickstarter project to make YouTube videos critcizing aspects of video games and the reactions to it, which is the actual focus of the article. However, the article in this current form (a continuation of the original) is being policed by BLP rules that several editors strongly believe is blocking additions of things such as commentary from video game journalists as supposedly being outside the scope of the article and/or unreliable in such circumstances (see the talk page for examples). The article should be thus repurposed to eliminate this problem (or excuse) while still covering basically the same thing it does now ("Feminist Frequency" being the name of the blog website and the YouTube account).

And to further clarify: the video "Support My Kickstarter Project - Tropes vs Women in Video Games" was, as for now, a final published work of both the Feminist Frequency blog and its author(s), as "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" is still not being presented in form or shape, which is why the article should not be renamed "Tropes vs Women in Video Games". Niemti (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

oh fergawdsake get over it and get on with your life. SPEEDY NO the sources used such as Globe and Mail and Slate talk about the individual Sarkeesian but not about the "Feminist Frequency". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The articles that you posted have titles "Woman's call to end video game misogyny sparks vicious online attacks" and the other one is not loading, but the urls is "blogs/xx_factor/2012/06/13/online_misogyny_reflects_women_s_realities_though_in_a_cruder_way_than_is_customary_offline". You're wrong, their discussing precisely the reactions to the YouTube video "Support My Kickstarter Project - Tropes vs Women in Video Games". Did any of these publications ever discussed any of her multiple previous videos? (There were no videos after it, of course.) --Niemti (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

again, get over it and get on with your life. the sources i linked that support the content of the article discuss Sarkeesian in a significant manner and DO NOT discus Feminist Frequency AT ALL. We go by what the sources use. If you cannot understand or live with that you need to get off wikipedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that writing "again, get over it and get on with your life" and "If you cannot understand or live with that you need to get off wikipedia" are not quite proper arguments in a discussion. Please try to rephrase in a more formal form, and less ad homine way. Also, if youn't like "Feminist Frequency", please consider Reactions to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Kickstarter project / Tropes vs. Women in Video Games controversy, or to prospose your own name, just as I asked yesterday, --Niemti (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You have exhausted beyond any possibility all the possible assumptions that anyone could make that you are actually here to improve the encyclopedia and that any further attempts at "discussion" are in violation of WP:DNFTT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Exuse me, but your attempts at bullying me out are not particularily impressing me at all. If you don't have any arguments to put forward, please refrain from any further disruptive commenting in the proposal (and everywhere else for that matter). --Niemti (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment(ec) Just a comment, but changing the nature of this article still won't make the Destructoid article reliable (or any other article of its ilk). That bit has nothing to do with BLP issues. So, what you'll find is that you're just wasting your time with this rather than actually going out there and finding some reliable sources (specifically sources that are acknowledged as experts in cultural analysis, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Please show me the policy that a video game website can not comment on a YouTube video about video games, or an interview given to them in realtion to it (an interview about video games). You know, something like In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. (which might or might be not revelant in this case) and such. --Niemti (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"However, the article in this current form (a continuation of the original) is being policed by BLP rules that several editors strongly believe is blocking additions of things such as commentary from video game journalists as supposedly being outside the scope of the article and/or unreliable in such circumstances (see the talk page for examples)."...yeah, not off topic.

"Commentary from video game journalists" about topics outside their area of expertise, precisely cultural analysis and other related fields, ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. See WP:RS. So that bit that I quote, strike out the "policed by BLP rules" because that's absolutely false. It's policed by WP:RS rules. DonQuixote (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And you know the video game websites are writing "cultural analysis" articles (or making videos, too) about video games (the games themselves, the community, and the industry) all time, right? And I say they're quite qualified about it. But anyway that's really all quite OT to the discussion. --Niemti (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Er...I quote and debunk what you wrote above. So, no, it's not OT if I address one of the arguments that you make in regards to this discussion. And those hypothetical video game websites you speak of can write whatever they want...it doesn't mean that they're reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's OT and you didn't "debunk" anything. But we can discuss it another time. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Er...I responded to something your wrote, so it's not OT. So please stop trying to avoid the issue. It's not about BLP rules but RS rules. Not OT, and definitely debunked. DonQuixote (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not "debunked", and another time. --Niemti (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I can't tell if this is serious or not, but just to be sure, I oppose such a move. The proposal is incoherent, and the move doesn't make any sense. I'm not defending the article, if someone is unhappy with it, send it to AFD. But this transition makes no sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want it deleted, and it also can't be deleted, because the main of the article (extreme reactions to the YouTube ad video for a Kickstarter project to fund an announced vlog "Tropes vs Women in Video Games) was broadly covered in the gaming media and non-gaming media as well (just as I wrote). This extreme controversy and its media coverage made "Support My Kickstarter Project - Tropes vs Women in Video Games" notable. But at the same time it can't be an article about the YouTube videos in the series, because as of now they just don't exist - so it can be either defined narrowly (discussing just the controversy, which is also an option), or broadly to ecompass the whole blog and not just this one video and the reactions to it. And no, deleting the article just to make another that will talk about the same thing instead of just moving it and quickly re-editing the contene just makes no sense. Is everything clear now? --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And yes, of course "this is serious". Which is why I've even asked here yesterday if anyone has any comments or counter-proposals (including for another name and/or scope) regarding it before I officially launched the proposal, to make the process smoother and less controversial for regulars here. --Niemti (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

its been clear for a while you dont like it because you cannot use unreliable sources to trash a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"its" been clear for a while that I've stated everything myself and I don't need anyone to be wrongly putting things into my mouth. --Niemti (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And since my motivations have been questioned (actually very aggresively attacked, by Red), I'll tell you about myself and my work on Wikipedia. When I heard about Kony 2012, it annoyed me, because I knew it's inaccurate (I was interested in the conflict before the video came out). I didn't like it and I clicked dislike on YouTube. But when I came to check its article on Wikipedia, I found that this article was, well, retarded. It was being like just one big one-sided attack on the video, and these arguments have been mostly stupid, or at least badly written, and badly sourced. So I've got annoyed at that, and I started editing. I gradually turned the original Controversy section to something presenting both the positive and the negative reactions, equally (literally, these big sections are of about equal size). It got compeltely rewritten, grew in size a few times, while I chased off the tin-foil hatters away. It's now a GA, you can take a look at it (go, do it). Nothing of this would be possible if this was a biographical article about the director of the film (who yes, has an article - a small article, but it wasn't the first film that he's directed and he's also a rather major NGO charity worker who was for many years). And also if you'll look at this article right here (and I happend to be the #1 editor of the article "Anita Sarkeesian", editing it since 2012-07-18, while Red, who's always so very active aggresively attacking me here on the talk page, has contributed a grand total of 0 edits to the article), you'll find out only constructive edits. Enough? --Niemti (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, proposed move is to a more limited scope article and would doubtless involve removing notable information from the article to not end other than to reduce the perceived significance of the subject. Cheap gaming of the system. Euchrid (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

But what would be this "notable information from the article"? It can actually stil cover the revelant info about the author of the blog (or the video, in the more narrow scope version, but I think all of the blog would be actually better). There's not much of it anyway (because it's mostly a single event biographical article, a rule for which I've cited above). Is a trivia about the details of her education from the Background section (nothing special here) this "notable information"? I don't think so. You? (Actually, it's so little of that even this could be kept, and even this still can be in "Background" for the controversy article.) These literally two sentences about her other work (and right now it's an ungramatical single coontinous sentence) can be actually kept, I think she's mostly a singular author of the blog so it would be still relevant and I don't really care about that. --Niemti (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - If I understand the proposal correctly, the central purpose of the move is to stop BLP considerations from influencing the content. Given the obviously close connection between the living person and her project, and further given evidence on this talk page and elsewhere that the article's current topic is a frequent target for slander and the like, BLP considerations are quite clearly a necessity here. The claim that the above-linked original version of the article (prior to the kickstarter fiasco) presented a "completely un-notable video blogger" also appears to be false based on the presence of multiple independent reliable sources covering the topic. Frankly, had this request been phrased in such a way that it did not appear to be an effort to make an end-run around WP:BLP then I'd have given it more weight. -Thibbs (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Kickstarter fiasco" was actually a huge success, "multiple reliable sources" were not present back then. Now it's a blog called "Feministing" (which is apparently controversial, according to Wikipedia), a dead link,[14] and being cited in two small paragraphs in the Observer's article in the Tiny Furniture column. Wouldn't call it a notable blogger, much less a respected critic (remember: most of film critics who are used at Rotten Tomatoes don't have articles on Wikipedia, and so many of video game outlets used by Metacritc don't have Wikipedia articles either - and most of video game critics as well, and literary critics, overall a great majority of all kinds of employed critics and employed bloggers mostly don't have articles). And that so few people were coming to read article, despite her continous work all the time, is just an ultimate proof of the lack of notability prior to the publication of this one video (now she's not released any more videos for over half year, yet there are still hundreds of people not per month like before it, but per day). If this video would not spark the controversy (and was not that successful, due to it), the article would have remained in the previous state and if it was eventually nominated for deletion, it would be surely deleted as a biography of non-notable person - also because there would be practically no one to defend it (because almost no one watched it and very few people heard about it). The subject that is actually notable compromises most of the current article anyway, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it should be the subject of the article. --Niemti (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Feministing, Sewanee Today, and KUOW-FM all seem to be reliable sources. None were broken in 2011 (the date of the link you suggest above demonstrates the subject to be "completely un-notable"). And there's no point litigating the past since it has little to do with the requested move. I say continue to keep BLP a consideration for this page. -Thibbs (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And what exactly Sewanee Today was saying? That she held a free event conference, sponsored by something called "The Women's Center" (which is a "student-led movement"), with "Refreshments by Natural Bridge".[15] So what? That's not notability. At all. And I'm really surprised that I even have to point it out to you, especially since I specifically wrote to you: always check the sources. And the fact that the current article is a continuation of that one is the key point of my proposal! --Niemti (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

it matters not one whit of a cat's ass what sources may or may not have existed with either insignificant or substantial content about a particular subject at some point in the past. Right here and now there is significant content by reliable third party sources about Sarkeesian that establish Notability for a stand alone article about her. If you feel there is also significant content for some other related topics in addition to Sarkeesian, that may indeed be a possibility. BUT no matter what the named subject of the article, crank-ass-poorly-sourced content about a living person will NOT be allowed on those pages, either. BLP applies to ALL content and ALL wikipedia pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first five words of the Sewanee Times ref are these: "With keynote speaker Anita Sarkeesian". That alone suggests notability. Non-notable bloggers are not invited to give keynote addresses at Universities. Notable ones are. But even if we imagine that the original article covered a non-notable figure you seem to acknowledge that she is notable today. There is no point in moving the article to a different title simply so that you can add BLP-violating material to the article. -Thibbs (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

She was invited by a social justice club of students. You should really learn what's notability. Also, the "BLP-violating material" in question is stuff like that. Absolutely horrible, I know (except not at all). But that's all going OT really, again. --Niemti (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing indicating that she was invited by students. And I'm not sure how that matters considering that the university surely had the final word on invitees. But do you actually still think that proving that the earlier version of the article fails to demonstrate notability has any bearing on whether we should rename the article? Because let me assure you that it doesn't.
As far as Destructoid's usability as an RS is concerned I have cited it myself several times and find it to be generally decent. But... 1) I haven't looked at how you wish to use it here, 2) I am happy to follow the consensus that was evidently established previously, and 3) I don't think the article should be renamed just so that you can cite Destructoid. This current discussion seems to be the most recent phase of an ongoing argument you have with the other editors at this talk page who have agreed that Destructoid is inappropriate for this article for BLP reasons. It's hardly reasonable to suggest that the article be renamed just so that you can insert this one reference without worrying about BLP. -Thibbs (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? REALLY? "With keynote speaker Anita Sarkeesian, sponsored by The Women's Center's 36th annual Conference on Women." What is Women's Center? "The Women’s Center is the home of the student-led movement which actively promotes equality and social justice through education, support, and mentorship within the Sewanee community and beyond." And what's notability of the stuff they're doing at their SJ club? Let's see: "A series of casual lectures on a variety of themes followed by a question and answer session — takes place over catered lunch to fit busy schedules."; "Weekly group meetings in collaboration with University Health Services to discuss books with relevant themes."; "Casual, issue-based programming including discussions and film screening"; etc.[16] Enough? Because that's getting just so incredibly silly. (Oh, and also here's their "2012-2013 Women’s Center Executive Board and Residents":[17]) --Niemti (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with this comment. Euchrid (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm "trying" to tell you the club is run by students and their activities are not notable. And I don't know who told you that the article should be renamed just so that I jus "can cite Destructoid." Maybe you should read it again and with more care than when you analyse and confront the sources (I know hardly anyone ever checks the sources for veryfication, but I specifically told and you still didn't).

You're confused, Nimeti. It was me that you were attempting to insult with your patronizing suggestions, not Euchrid. -Thibbs (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, though it's not like he hasn't been patronizing and condescending with me as well :) Euchrid (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How does this have anything in the least to do with why you want to move the article to "Feminist Frequency"? If you would like to argue the finer points of whether or not being a keynote speaker at a university goes to the notability of a video blogger then please feel free to bring your concerns to WP:N/N. If you're here to make the case for renaming the article then please explain how any serious person could agree with your contention that the policing of this article by "several editors" for BLP issues is a "problem (or excuse)". And how renaming the article even avoids this "problem". -Thibbs (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To recount again (while rephrasing and explaining the things that I thought should be obvious, but there were so much unexcepted bad-faith in these responses I have to "boast" about myself just to clear it up): the fact that the article is a continuation of the old article (that shouldn't have exist) while covering mostly this one event (see also Wikipedia rules on one-event biographies, that "generally" should be avoided), makes it incredibly hard to expand and improve, including in relation with WP:POV issues (and yes, I'm pretty good at improving such articles about controversial viral videos, I could even try and make this one a GA when/if the YouTube series is finally released and gets additional coverage and probably a good amount of critical reception). It's basically like a reverse of the Kony 2012 situation (that I didn't like, but I also didn't like the stupid ways it was being lynched on Wikipedia with pretty much ignoring all the positive feedback) - and here's my work on it since then in stats (sure, "Support My Kickstarter Project" didn't get nearly that much media coverage and only 283,110 views as of right now, but anyway). OK? --Niemti (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, congratulations on your contributions and all. Nobody's saying you aren't an active editor. I've seen some of your edits and for what it's worth I think they can be pretty good sometimes. Your prolific edit history has as little to do with your proposal as your lengthy history of disciplinary problems, though, and there's no need to continue "boasting" about yourself. Any bad faith I have in relation to your proposal comes from the fact that you phrased it in such a way that it looks strongly like you're trying to come up with a way to get around the consensus of several editors regarding BLP issues. Coming to the article as an outsider (yes that's right, I have not made a single edit to this article before and I don't intend to either) I see a reliably sourced body of text that all relates to a single individual. You've suggested renaming the article to one of the major projects of the living person in question (currently a subsection making up about half of the article), and you've suggested that you want to do this to avoid the "blocking" of your "additions" by others who find that your edits violate BLP. That raises red flags for me. Given that the living person and her project are so closely connected and that the living person is apparently the target of slander and the like, I don't think that any effort to dodge BLP (including renaming the article) will improve this article. If you think that the additions you wish to make don't violate BLP and that BLP is being misconstrued by others then WP:BLP/N is the place to voice those concerns. But renaming the article seems pointless to me and unnecessarily reductive. -Thibbs (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's an alternative proposal (and I tried to decide the name and scope with the regulars in the previous discussion, only to be rudely cut by Red who closed the discussion). The main proposal is "Feminist Frequency" (didn't you notice it really?), which, as I said, would include all her blogging activity and which is actually subject of the great most of the article. And this can easily also briefly explain who is she (the current article also does it briefly, also because there's just not much to write about itwithout getting into irrevelant details). The problem is, once again, that people just came to this pre-existing article (that shouldn't have exist) when the shit hit the fan (this was including for the initial Wikipedia vandalism that the current Wikipedia article discusses). Which was a totally obvious thing to do, but it was back then and now is now (especially since there was not really much happening on AS front ever since then and it's still largely a single event biography). --Niemti (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But of course "Feminist Frequency" is just as much a project of the living person as "Support My Kickstarter Project - Tropes vs Women in Video Games," so everything I said above applies equally: Renaming the article would be needlessly reductive. And BLP would still apply to the article because the person and her projects are so closely connected and because—as was pointed out above—BLP applies to all articles. -Thibbs (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Only in this case, or in case of any blog or YouTube video (film, game, book, album, whatever) that is "a project of the living person"? Like, with this Feministing blog having a sizeable "Controversy" section, are they all dead or what? --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that other articles are crap and have inappropriate content is not a good basis for building an case for allowing crap to infect another article. "Controversy" sections are almost ALWAYS inappropriate and almost ALWAYS have stonewall defenders who keep saying "Its right here on the web so it must be allowed in this article!!!!11!!!!. Hmmmmm sounds familiar. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's not "Controversy". It's "Praise and criticism". Btw: !!!!11!!!! Also, stop constantly cutting into a conversation like that, yours is/was above, not here - and in the section just above this one you had not only just ostentatiously ignored my proposal to discuss thing first with you and find a middle ground of some kind, but you even unilateraly closed the discussion. Someone really should teach you some manners. --Niemti (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The lack or existence of a "controversy" section doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the proposed renaming. -Thibbs (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but because the works have it rather as "reception". --Niemti (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Also she's not really "a target of slander", she's only a target of some extremely primitive trolling attacks (something similar to that situation earlier,[18] for example, and others like that) - like the mentioned Wikipedia vandalism was like just inserting a photo of oral sex from the Commons and changing her ethnicity to Jewish at the same time (and I wouldn't even know it if she didn't make and post a screenshot to show to everyone, because Wikipedia had these edits quickly deleted). It's not like the attacks were conducted in any media outlet or by any kind of public figure. And it was, of course, in response to this very video, nothing else. The reactions to the video (negative and positive, plus the coverage) is the alpha & omega with the actual content of this article and it can't be split. Also if this series will ever get finally released, that basically the still same "single event" is going overtake all the other content even more - and that's even despite how video game journalism allegedly can't be used with the current form of the article (or at least except Kotaku, apparently). --Niemti (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the attacks made in response to the video (slander, trolling, or however else you want to think of it) were personally directed at the creator rather than at the content of the video is the focus of many of the reliable sources, and it demonstrates that the two topics are very closely connected. If more press is generated by the final release of the series or other projects and then efforts to expand this article change the focus away from the person and direct it more to her projects then perhaps at this future time we can think about moving or splitting the article. But it looks like there is not a lot of support for your current proposal at present. If you do plan to re-propose something like this in the future then I'd caution you to avoid describing BLP "policing" by several editors as a problem that needs to be eliminated and I'd suggest that you avoid getting distracted by irrelevant issues like whether or not months-old versions of the article properly demonstrate notability. -Thibbs (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The trolls have came to vandalize the article only because it was existing (itself in a violation of Wikipedia policies). Which makes me wonder now - if they had created the article, would the Wikipedia then keep it, too? (Probably.) YouTube comments were not just ugly personal attacks (and there are plenty of these all across YouTube, it was not something really special) - she just cherry picked some really bad apples from among over 14,000 comments (all while completely ignoring things like questions, suggestions or constructive criticism in a way most people ignore trolls). That's true, it's here, you can read it:[19] Anyway, it's still one-event biography, plus some extremely minor and forced stuff (like being briefly cited by Hermione Hoby from The Guardian/Observer - but Hoby herself has no article!). --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't speaking generally about vandalism to this article. Nor was I talking about harassment that she self-published about. I was talking about the notable personally-directed harassment described by sources like the New York Times as "abuse directed at the blogger" (NOTE: not "at the blog"). The fact of the matter is that the one-event is so closely connected to the person that a rename is needless. All of the notable harassment was directed at the person, not the blog. -Thibbs (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They're citing this blog[20] and its in turn citing - guess what? Anita's blog where she was complaining by cherry picking a few comments (from the thousands of them) and posting a screenshot of the deleted Wikipedia vandalism (and they even re-post this screenshot, by linking directly to her blog as an original source). They're Helen Lewis (with no Wikipedia article like most bloggers, and she was actually the author of both of these blog posts - so she was citing her own previous post which was citing Anita's blog) is also citing her TEDx talk, where she did exactly the same. And I'll cite you something from this very blog: It's not the first time this happened: Bioware's Jennifer Hepler was similarly hounded out of town for expressing some fairly innocuous statements about videogames. But, hey, guess what - somehow, we don't have a Jennifer Hepler article! And not only because Hapler didn't handle it the way Anita did (or because she had no article made on her back in 2011), mostly because we have BioWare and Dragon Age II instead (and criticism of them is there, including "Controversies" for BioWare alright). And yes, Jennifer Hepler & BioWare were even in this Wikipedia vandalism. --Niemti (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times is an RS because they have a teams of editors that vet the material they publish and they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. That means that their decision to publish on a topic means that it is notable. If *I* wrote to them and told then that *I* was getting slandered at my blog then they wouldn't print the non-notable story and nobody would care because I'm not notable. The fact that NYT decided to publish *this* story means that their team of oversight editors recognized that the story *was* notable. Indeed the slandering/trolling/abuse is clearly notable even despite your efforts to discredit the link I provided, and the abuse/slander/etc is directed at the person, not the blog. And that last part is important because it's the only thing that has anything to do with the proposed renaming. Arguing that the abuse isn't notable or that it is only corroborated by unreliable sources does not lead to any natural conclusion that we should rename the article. Like the discussion of a "controversy" section and the earlier arguments regarding the August version of the article, the claim that the NYT source is unreliable is just arguing for the sake of arguing and obfuscation of the central issue. But recognizing that the notable abuse that arose from the incident (and that arguably made the incident notable) is directed at the blogger and not at the blog does lead to the obvious conclusion that the article need not be renamed. -Thibbs (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only a blog post (artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/game-theory-making-room-for-the-women/), not really a "story" (ie: a literal news story, an editorial, a column, featured interview, whatever). "Editors" are not even mentioned in the article blog on Wikipedia, for a good reason. Also, I'll just cite this Helen Lewis blogger again, as to demonstrate something to you by using this source that you brought again, again: Meanwhile, her YouTube video attracted more than 5,000 comments, the majority of them of a, shall we say, unsupportive nature. The c-word got a lot of exercise, as did comments about her personal appearance, and a liberal sprinkling of threats of violence. Now click [21] and see how many "c-words" (identified in the post as "cunt") are really there or was it completely blown out of proportion by this blogger that was citing Anita directly (and that's including by hotlinking the pics posted on FF). You can use the browser's search option and even count her supporters using this word (because it's YouTube and people just talk like that there) and I can tell you: there are for example only 3 instances of "cunt" (or "cunts") in the first 500 newest comments (newest as before they were turned off), which is less than 1% of them, and following pages are similar, too. The raid (I guess by the same people and at the same time as the Wikipedia raid) was clearly an abberation, and it's like saying that Anon raids blocking stuff at Habbo Hotel was "the majority" of all activity at Habbo or whatever (which is also not true). Tldr: most of the critical comments even on YouTube (and YT is infamous for having stupid or hateful comments just everywhere) were actually not personal attacks, and especially not severe personal attacks - contrary to what the NYT/NS blogger Helen Lewis (your favored source) claimed by citing AS claims directly. And you can check and see yourself. Is this blogger still a "reliable source"? And seriously, I told you to always check sources thoroughly like what, 4 times already? --Niemti (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is totally and completely irrelevant to the proposed move. The vast bulk of this thread is made up of your arguments that 1) the August 2012 version of this article fails to demonstrate notability, 2) there is no "controversy" section and there should be and 3) regardless of WP:NEWSBLOG, the NYT's blogs are not RSes. Not only are these lengthy arguments just fluff in the wind compared to the numerous on-point objections to your proposal, they also give reviewing editors the impression that you are just arguing with anything and everything regardless of its relevance to your proposal. If you want to explain why (we need to rename) a properly-sourced article on a single living person where the bulk of the content concerns personal insults made against the person and not her blog then please feel free, but if your only interest is in taking the discussion down tangential roads to nowhere then this has ceased to be a consensus-oriented discussion and has turned into Nimeti's personal battle arena - a place where I have no interest in wasting my time. -Thibbs (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You should also read the Wikipedia policies what you cite: These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.) That's in addition to checking sources, thoroughly, and always. In case if you still failed to get it: your favored source is from an author of only 1 blog post on NYT and all her "story" was based on her other blog that was directly repeating after AS (including hotlinking to the images at FeministFrequency), allegations that are not even actually completely true, without any real journalistic process. And that's you who has brought it to the discussion, as an argument of some kind for something, not me - I just only demolished it. And once again: most of critical comments on YouTube (despite YT being so bad in general) were in reality not personal attacks (and especially not "threats of death and rape, racist abuse"), and yes, you can verify it yourself. But of course there was actual media coverage. Like, here, in the real article by your favoured source, that is NYT (it's only a part of the article): [22] And, guess what, it clearly attributes the source of that to "Anita Sarkeesian’s campaign in May to raise $6,000 on Kickstarter to document how women are portrayed in video games" and then proceeds to call it "the reaction to Ms. Sarkeesian’s project", and also "Supporters of her efforts, aghast, donated more than $150,000, further angering her critics" (as in: the critics were also angered by the people other other than AS in this case). Of course. Because that was a reaction to exactly that (the whole Kickstarter project). Which I'm saying here about all the time. Convinced yet? And, as I said so many times (including in the very frst paragraph of the opening statement!), the blog can be about FeministFrequency (in general and including that, which would be very similar to the current article actually) OR it can be about strictly about Reactions to the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Kickstarter project / Tropes vs. Women in Video Games controversy - and I honestly excepted people (people other than Red, at least, and Sjones of course) to state their opinions to choose between these 2 very different scopes, instead of completely misunderstanding EVERYTHING that I wrote no matter how many times I repeated, rephrased, explained it further, or how well I argumented for it and demolished the counter-arguments (like with you here, and for so long time you completely refuse to even admit it). --Niemti (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend going to the reliable source noticeboard about whether the deputy editor of New Statesman and author of the linked NYT ArtsBeat article is reliable under WP:NEWSBLOG or not, but I can't imagine what the point would be. There are plenty of reliable sources showing that the personal attacks against AS are notable and in fact are quite possibly the only notable aspect of the whole incident. My point from the start has been that the attacks were personal in nature and that the attacks were the notable aspect of the incident. Whether or not the NYT piece is reliable or not is immaterial to this point and is nothing more than a distraction which you have ginned up in order to "demolish" as a strawman. Are you claiming that the personal insults arising from the kickstarter fiasco were not what made the press take notice? -Thibbs (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And you still chosse to ignore the part of but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process (and ignore me). The attacks are notable and the attacks were the part of the reactions to this single notable event. If she never started the project, and instead, let's say, stopped the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting while it was in progress (and then gave a lot interviews and stuff), this single event would also not make her independently notable, and she was not notable prior to it (and the "Women Vs" thing goes on still, qithout an end in sight and with nothing else really happening since then as there were not even any blogging activity from her). If you read the actual news story article at NYT (which you still refuse to better use it instead of a more convenient blog post, no matter that their team of oversight editors recognized that the story *was* notable, to cite you), she's introduced as just one "Anita Sarkeesian" - the author of this project which was linked and an owner of "YouTube and Facebook pages", northing about her being a critic or a blogger (not to mention "prominent", "well-known", "respected", "award-winning", whatever) - as opposed to the people such as "Stephen Toulouse, who was the head of enforcement for Xbox Live from 2007 until February", that had actual prior notability and who are introduced properly. And much of the article is about the professional gamer Miranda Pakozdi, who is properly introduced too, but has no article on Wikipedia despite "a backlash — on Twitter, in videos, on blogs and even in an online comic strip — has moved the issue beyond endless debate among gaming insiders to more public calls for change" in her own case. This biographical article is a continuation of a policy-violating article, is based on a single notable event, and as such should be turned into an article about either just this single notable event precisely or the whole blog in general, due to the biographical article policies on Wikipedia, no less. As I said. More than once (or twice for that matter). And I seriously feel like talking to a wall. Good night. (And I already told you the Kickstarter project was a complete opposite of a "fiasco", which is also a reason it was notable. You just never listen to what I say to you.) --Niemti (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again please bring your off-topic concerns about the NYT article which doesn't even appear in this Wikipedia article to WP:RS/N. I'm confident that they will be able to explain to you why your views on reliability are off the mark here. That source is only one of many, and I'm delighted to see that you seem to finally acknowledge this fact above. When you say that "The attacks are notable" then I wonder if you realize that the attacks (including death and rape threats and racism) were directed at the person Anita Sarkeesian. Did you know that? It makes sense if you think about it because how could you rape a blog? And what would it mean to make racial comments about a blog? These are personal insults and their notability clearly demonstrates that the author and her projects are very closely associated. So you won't be able to skirt WP:BLP "policing" by changing the article's name. The only thing that such a thing will accomplish is to reduce the scope of the article needlessly. The rename proposal is not needed and is not appropriate at the present time. If her projects receive considerably more attention from the RSes in the future and the article becomes significantly more about her projects than about her then we could talk about renaming or splitting, but for now it's not needed and I worry that it might lead to efforts by editors to insert BLP-violating material into the article. I can see that you're frustrated by the lack of support you're receiving here, and I understand that you feel as though everyone is misunderstanding everything you are writing and nobody is listening to you even though you repeat it over and over in more and more forceful ways, but sometimes when the whole world seems to be wrong it may be time to re-examine your own position as well. Perhaps this just isn't the right time for the rename. As BusterD suggested below, I think it might be time to drop the WP:STICK... The aggressive insulting tone really isn't a very good way to win support for your views. -Thibbs (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy no - this is getting absurd, and comes across as a more polite version of the ongoing hate-Anita-Sarkeesian-the-uppity-chick campaign, by an editor who thinks calling an article "retarded" is serious discourse, and has told us that death threats are perfectly normal discourse and should be ignored. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious charge, so maybe go and show me any proof of my participation in "hate-Anita-Sarkeesian-the-uppity-chick campaign" in any way. Since July I edited this article more than anyone else, it was all constructive edits (starting with basic cleanup, ending with actually checking sources - and note that no one even corrected these two sentences being one taht I just pointed out, and I guess no one will unless I do it). Even elsewhere on Wikipedia, I was fighting off the retarded misogynist attacks somehow spoiling there from the controversy. (Like that: [23]) So, where's exactly was this "hate campaign"? You should apologize to me and refrain in the future. --Niemti (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this enough consensus against the move for snowball to be relevant? Euchrid (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really, because I refuted pretty much of all these arguments, and also much of this was not arguments but just false attacks against me personally (and by the people who never edited this article). Anyway: good night. --Niemti (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

you have blathered at each one, but actually refuted none.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep on making aggresive attacks against editors, while never putting counter-arguments. And never actually editing the articles. --Niemti (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Calling out disruptive editing as disruptive editing is not making personal attacks at editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And if anyone is inappropriately maligning editors it is your completely false description of me with "and never actually editing the articles." when just today alone I have added significant sourced content to at least 2 different articles in the past few hours and remove large blocks of copyright violation from others. As a matter of honor, I demand that you retract your egregious and unfounded characterization of me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case you're the greatest hero of socalist labor that I ever had a honor to meet, now please point out where exactly are you there and then tell me why can't you ever edit it, while you have always time to disrupt a discussion about improving the article (while I at first wasn't even discussing anything here and yet you'll find no "inappropriately maligning" edits somehow). --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A user's number of edits on a specific page doesn't give them any special ownership of it, nor does it represent the quality of their interpreatation of policy. I'm in second place on that list, but I'm not going to demand more of a say in the page's future than anyone else. Euchrid (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's super cool, and now: why didn't anyone correct this error in the article that I pointed out to you (all of you)? Because you know what, I specifically checked if I'm the only editor who's actually willing to keep working on the article, as opposed to just arguing on the talk page. Apparently, I am, and I need to do this, and everything else, because no one ever will, if I won't. Right? Right: [24] Q.E.D. --Niemti (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the melodrama. Control yourself on what you claim to "need to do", adhere to consensus, and avoid ownership issues. If you don't, we're right back at ANI again, simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A difference is that I actually work on the article (a lot and for a long time), while some people with "ownership issues" can only hurl dirsuptive and/or abusive and/or threatening (and melodramatic) comments on the talk page, while never working on the article (for some unknown and mysterious reason that I don't care of). You won't ever me finding commenting about any article that I don't work on - why should I. But Red, who can't stop accusing me of an unwilingness to improve the article or maybe actually a willingness to hurt it whatever (it's pretty puzzling me), has made 43 edits on talk page and yet 0 edits to improve the article - and also I don't remember him ever putting forward any constructive suggestions as to what to do to improve, excepting of shouting down the others' proposals (very rudely, using the phrases like "fucking deal"). You won't ever see me coming to stay at some talk page of an article that I don't edit just to boss around and attack actual editors through a clearly abusive language (while still not editing), which I guess is probably strange from my side and I'm doing it wrong and I should start acting like that as well (because I'm almost only editing instead of stirring up the talk page dramas with "ownership issues" on the articles that I never even worked on, which it seems is looked upon as a more proper conduct). --Niemti (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having trouble with a user, but what do you want me to say here? "Niemti, this one user was rude to you, and hasn't edited the article yet, feel free to ignore consensus supported by all these other editors?" I also find it very hard to believe that any ownership accusations are baseless considering your responses on this talk page, and how many other editors have raised this concern with you in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring like what, am I going to move it anyway? It's rather most comments here ignoring my responses (along with the further arguments/explainations). --Niemti (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference between "ignoring" and "not agreeing", but even beyond that, your long, rambling responses are usually hard to decipher, making it difficult to give a point by point response, and your condescending attitude probably leaves people with little motivation to try to decipher what you're getting at... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Forgive me if this has been discussed already, as these past discussions are pretty long winded and are difficult to skim, but for the record, WikiProject Video Games does not classify Destructoid as "reliable", they classify it as "situational", as in, sometimes it can be used, like if special criteria are met, such as it being written by an especially notable author, or if the story was picked up on by other reliable sources. See WP:VG/RS. So, for the record, Destructoid isn't even useable much of the time in video game articles, let alone articles outside that scope, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems the primary reason User:Niemti wants to move the article is so sources which don't pass BLP-type scrutiny can be applied, an argument I have a hard time wrapping my head around. The page was snowball kept in June, so Niemti's assertion the subject is non-notable isn't supported by consenus (which is how we apply policy and guideline here). While I confess I myself suggested Niemti test consensus by requesting this page move, I oppose such a move, and it appears that like before, Niemti has failed to muster any sort of consensus for an assertion. The user has long since passed the the threshold of reasonableness in this talkspace, and unless that user drops this continuing "melodrama", I believe the user may soon deserve community sanction of some kind. BusterD (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"In June" was already, and freshly so, in wake of the single event in question (the controversy about this one Kickstarter project and its quite extensive media coverage), and I don't like repeating myself (repeatedly). Also, it's not quite a "melodrama". (But I think you could find a major "melodrama" here elsewhere.) I also already very clearly stated it's not even a new proposal for a deletion at all (which is also something that you should have deduced from the automatic section name "Requested move"). --Niemti (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There's something of the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT recurrent in most of User:Niemti responses here. I noted the recent AfD to demonstrate consensus toward notability. That the page was arguably insufficient for notability at page creation or before the controversy is irrelevant; lots of stubs are created which deserve improvement. Niemti can deny melodrama, but I quoted the word because another user raised it (accurately, IMHO) in this discussion. The bottom line is that no other users seem to be agreeing with Niemti's positions. Absent consensus, Niemti should drop the stick and walk away from this pagespace, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't "recent", I'm not talking about a deletion of anything at all (like I said and repeatedly so), and you should read it again because you clearly completely misunderstood literally everything that I wrote. --Niemti (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the observations and concerns provided by BusterD and Sergecross73. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This has gone far enough. It's patently disruptive. I've started a thread about this at ANI here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Anita Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency are essentially the same entity, so we should look to whatever established Wikipedia policy and precedent have established for similar articles. I have to point out, however, that the way BLP is being invoked is quite dodgy - WP:BLP does not trump WP:NPOV, and yet BLP is being invoked to write an article that is coming from Sympathetic Point of View, not Neutral Point of View. NPOV means that evenhanded discussion of WP:VERIFIABLE sourced criticism of the article subject, if such exists, is included. I am in agreement with the essay WP:CONTROVERSY in that regard. So far, I see such information is being excluded from this article, with the only mention of criticism she's received is Sarkeesian's being the object of a harassment campaign. I will note that merely presenting a glorified resume of Sarkeesian's career followed by a description of her as an object of unfair abuse does not exactly constitute a neutral treatment of the subject. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Article as it stands is nothing but a promotional piece that violates WP:NPOV

Don't take this as an endorsement of anything and everything said by Niemti and Iamcuriousblue on this page or elsewhere, because I am not familiar with it. I do think, however, that many of Niemti's suggestoins changes are entirely valid and, in fact, necessary based upon our WP:NPOV policy. This person is famous for criticizing what she perceives as sexism in video games as well as the misogynistic backlash. Saying that we cannot include video game blogs as sources because it's not about video games is nonsense. Saying that Destructoid is not a reliable source does not seem to be backed up by what WP:RS actually says, as Destructoid is actually one of the biggest and most well-respected blogs. That argument is shown to be self-serving, however, when less well known and poorer quality blogs are allowed as sources when they are supporting Sarkeesian. If you want to be very strict on sources so Destructoid cannot be used, then a lot of other sources should be removed (as well as the content they are being used to support).

The Destructoid article is not misogynistic at all, and is written by the Destructoid editor, who is reliable for the purposes of analyzing video games. Removing a reliable source who happen to disagree with some of Sarkeesian's points with logic and sanity while using primary sources created by Sarkeesian herself and mentions only of irrational responses is trying to paint an inaccurate picture that there is no criticism of anything she says.

Now, I am certainly not advocating giving WP:UNDUE weight the other way, but a simple, objectively-worded sentence stating that Sarkeesian has been criticized as concluding that certain specific games contain only negative female stereotypes while ignoring many traits or characters that portray women in a positive light, or something like that (exact wording to be hammered out by all parties), is badly needed here. Otherwise the strategy seems to be to portray everyone who disagrees with her in any way as sexists harassers. DreamGuy (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there are no sources cited that support her views. The only things that are cited, apart from her own works (which is used to describe her works), are sources that describe events and interviews. That is, none of the "pro" sources are cited for any type of analysis with regard to her work. Similarly, Destructoid (or what have you) can be used as a source for events and interviews but cannot be used as a source for any type of analysis with regard to her work. So no, this article doesn't have any positive or negative criticism of Sarkeesian's work because there hasn't been any reliable source (that's acknowledged as experts or as reliable in the relevant fields) that have been provided.

As for Destructoid being a well-respected source, as mentioned somewhere above, see WP:VG/RS. DonQuixote (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, Destructoid is classified as "situational", not "reliable". This means it's to be used with extreme caution. With this level of opposition to it's content, there's not way there is support for it to be used here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Destructoid is classified as "situational" per WP:VG/RS, we should simply use it with extreme caution. As there is a high level of opposition to include Destructoid in the above discussions, there is absolutely no way to add this source in this BLP, period. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with including criticism is that so far as anyone can tell, none of it has been made in reliable sources. The Destructoid piece is literally the closest thing anyone has found, however, it isn't actually a feature, it's just an entry in one writer's blog. That disqualifies it automatically, without getting into the discussion over whether that particular writer has any qualifications in the field of media criticism that would make his voice noteworthy to the topic. The fact that thus far no reliable sources have published a similar opinion implies it's really not significant to the topic as of yet.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Destructoid's op-ed (an article it is not) says nothing that any number of upset gamer aficionados haven't already tried. The gist of these attempts at taking her down are consistently irrelevant to Sarkeesians analysis and hopelessly ignorant of her aims and methods. They always boil down to two basic arguments:

• background story or details of in-game canon are enough to explain away skimpy clothing or gender-stereotypical behavior (as if canon was generated out of thin air rather than by game designers)
• overtly sexist details can be "canceled" by certain positive traits (as if sexism and certain positive character traits are mutually exclusive)

The only way something this shallow could be included as a source would be if someone with more qualifications, or competence in the field of media analysis, commented on it. For example Sarkeesian herself. If you can find that, we might have a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, you have no business labeling the article as a "promotional piece", especially not if you're trying to distance yourself from Niemti and Co.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Since Destructoid is classified as "situational" per WP:VG/RS - while Kotaku is classified as always "reliable", according to which the horrible "gaming journalism" like that[25] (for example) is always excellent sources. Except it's rather rather, as Hideki Kamiya wrote,[26] "desperate" and "sensationalist". I'll also note that the Kotaku article has a total of 3 sources, 2 of them from Kotaku itself (Destructoid has 41 sources). WP:VG/RS is a joke. Also, I re-thinked it, and instead of renaming this article should be merged into an article covering the whole subject of video game controversies involving females (industry insiders, gamers, and outsiders too). In other words: not merely a move like I originally wanted it to be, but it should go to AfD and redirected to such article (not existing yet and to be created). --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)