Loading
  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why isn't there more criticism of Sarkeesian or her work?
A1: Wikipedia policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that special care is to be taken in any material on living people. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand, and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources. See the talk page archives for previous discussions on individual sources.
Q2: I found a YouTube video/blog entry/customer review/forum thread that presents criticism of Sarkeesian's work.
A2: Those kinds of self-published and/or user-generated sources do not comply with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. In particular, the biographies of living persons policy prohibits any self-published sources in articles on living people except for a few very specific cases. Including such sources would a) tarnish the quality of Wikipedia's information and b) potentially open up Wikipedia to legal action.
Q3: I think I may have found a new reliable source that presents a viewpoint not yet covered in the article(s).
A3: You are welcome to bring any source up for discussion on the talk page, and the community will determine whether and how it may be included. However, first check the talk page archives to see if it has been discussed before.

Reversion

Hello @Sangdeboeuf: You used the edit summary see MOS:CAPLENGTH. Why do you think this is a special situation? Invasive Spices (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Sangdeboeuf, obviously, but I was looking up the cited policy when they reverted your edit, and I would have reverted if they hadn't. You cited MOS:CAPTION, which says In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject (emphasis mine). I see that Sangdeboeuf cited MOS:CAPLENGTH, which gives plenty of examples of biographical infobox captions, all of which include the subject's name—save for Elvis Presley, where it mentions an iconic film and scene that he is known for. It seems to me that the MoS calls for "Sarkeesian" in the caption, both explicitly and implicitly. Woodroar (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, the image does not simply depict the year "2011". Per WP:CAPTION: One of a caption's primary purposes is to identify the subject of the picture ... Be as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject. "2011" does not tell the reader who the subject of the image is. The existing caption "Sarkeesian in 2011" does so succinctly and practically. It's normal to caption portraits of biographical subjects this way. MOS:CAPLENGTH gives the example "Cosby in 2010" for Bill Cosby. Not a special situation at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Active Years

Anita Sarkeesian
Sarkeesian in 2011
Born1983 (age 40–41)
NationalityCanadian-American
Education
Occupations
  • Media critic
  • public speaker
YouTube information
Channel
Years active2009–present
GenreCommentary
Subscribers213 thousand
Total views33.7 million

Last updated: August 1, 2023
Websitewww.anitasarkeesian.com

Pinging @Sangdeboeuf and JeffSpaceman: I saw your reversions and figured we should discuss it here especially since this page has Contentious Topics measures in place. The "Years active" section in the infobox (copied here for reference) specifically refers to the YouTube channel feministfrequency and is under the "YouTube information" section of the box. Its "About" page links to the official Feminist Frequency websites and social media only, not Sarkeesian's personal website or social media. The channel is specifically part of the FF organization, not Sarkeesian's personal channel (I don't think she has one of her own that I can find, unlike other social media where there is one for her and one for the organization).

Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? The Wordsmith 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I think that we should remove YouTube from the infobox, given that as you note, it is not directly used by Sarkeesian. Thus, we can keep the years active as running through the present. I don't know if I was looking right at the YouTube information section, I merely thought it was talking about her activity in the world of media criticism, hence why I changed it to "2009-present." I think removing YouTube from the infobox would probably be our best bet here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "years active" is ambiguous in a biography of a person, since it could seem at first glance to refer to the person or their website, blog, YouTube channel, etc. I understood "years active" to refer to Sarkeesian herself. In any case, the latest video was posted a little over a month ago, so it seems premature to call the channel inactive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Anita Sarkeesian". Virtual International Authority File. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
  2. ^ Greenhouse, Emily (August 1, 2013). "Twitter's Free Speech Problem". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
  3. ^ "About Feminist Frequency". YouTube.

English templates

I have a general question: should we consider using either the {{Use Canadian English}} template or the {{Use American English}} template in this article, since the subject was born in Canada but identifies herself as Canadian-American? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]