Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 4

1554:

site that has (even a slight) bias towards her brought them up, why can't we neutrally say it? 3) They can talk about it other places. This is a series released specifically FOR YOUTUBE, it's not insane to think the conversation with pop culture should take place on the medium with built-in comment system it was released on. Anita doesn't have control on if people can comment on it via other social media, etc. The two places she has control over (her site her YT vid) she doesn't allow it. Just because people can talk about homosexuality in America doesn't provide a valid reason to overlook Putin banning it in Russia. She took money from the public, and she blocks the public's ability to do anything as simple as thumbs up/down everywhere she has the power to. 4) If it's not worth our time mentioning, why IS it worth our time to mention that it was briefly removed due to the autonomous nature of YouTube's flagging system? Anti-feminist videos (as well as vids on a wide variety of topics) have experienced the same thing, sadly it's not uncommon. FYI I'm all for providing criticisms on the content (positive & negative) from reliable sources. In fact, a lot of the stuff on her page is about this project and not her, we should probably discuss moving most of that page to an article dedicated to the video series and focus this article on the actual subject (Anita) and reduce this page to brief mentions of the project & major controversies. --

2379:, but still reflect what has been previously published on the subject. The "one sided" element of this article is based on the "one side" of the media reporting on Anita and events in her life. Moon landing conspiracists have been well documented over a period of multiple decades, and this is why there is an article on the subject. When critics of Anita Sarkeesian's videos provide properly published, verifiable criticisms of her, then they can be include in the article under neutrally written prose. If you wish to provide a perspective critical of Anita, her activities, and her opinions, please find sources which can be cited, find a media platform with a reliable history of fact checking and editorial oversight within which they can be published, and then someone can edit this article to include your concerns. Do not expect this article, or any article on Knowledge, to provide a soapbox for your unpublished opinion. We're not interested. -- 290:"reported that she was e-mailed images of herself being raped by video game characters", but this sounds like Lewis is the one being harassed, not Sarkeesian. Other lines are even worse, such as "Her Knowledge article was repeatedly vandalized with images of sex acts, which she complained about until it got news exposure. " Huh? Additionally, the fixation on describing things chronologically when the sources do not creates some awkward backtracking, such as "Helen Lewis of The New York Times (who had written earlier about her on New Statesman)", which is unnecessary detail. And the edit added a new source from Destructoid, a blog that has been discussed and rejected repeatedly here. Finally, while it's good to list the authors, few if any of the sources are opinion pieces and several are not newsblogs, so we don't need to overdo it.-- 1552:...to the tune of $ 150k. Nobody forced her to make a Kickstarter, she asked people for money- those people has the reasonable right to expect some level of professionalism. They probably also expected someone who labelled their site "Conversations with pop culture" to allow for, you know...conversations. Even if we take the possibility of threats as a valid reason to disable comments (has anyone who threatened rape on YouTube ever followed through with it? Or why she openly has a Twitter account where people can make also send her rape threats) it doesn't explain disabling RATINGS. You can't threaten to kill someone with a thumbs down. The people who funded this have the right to know if it was popular and thus worth their money. 2) On the Daily Dot being a reliable source. DD is currently deemed a reliable source on : --> 1059:

That Sarkeesian didn't post pictures of shoes isn't biting critique of her positions (and isn't critical of her at all, instead pointing out trolling behavior from one of her detractors), so this RS reporting has no business being included in the article, except to verify continued trolling behaviors on the part of her critics. Neither of the other two DD articles make critique of her positions either, instead reporting that comments are not allowed on her own YouTube posts and no longer allowed on her TED Talks video. These choices are discussed in the RS DD articles, but don't themselves indict or criticize her views as expressed in her videos to date. I could see these sources eventually used supporting statements discussing criticism of the subject, but in my own personal opinion, don't warrant inclusion by themselves.

3368:

validity when talking to a specific audience. So, using the marketing strategy, when talking to a women's study class in a college, most of whom probably don't game or care about video games in the least, she isn't a gamer because she knows the people she is talking to aren't gamers. When she purports herself as an expert on gaming and gaming culture, she is a lifelong gamer. Obviously, since the controversy, she will always use the lifelong gamer line, because it gives her validity to discuss what she discusses in her videos as well as gives her validity in deflecting criticism (valid and invalid criticism alike). Of course, blatant dishonesty and good marketing are often one and the same.

1328:. It's not our job to question what RS say; the fact is that an RS reported that people criticized her removal of the ability to comment on the videos. People keep coming here and telling us we should include criticism, and we say "only when that criticism is reported in reliable sources". This is exactly that: criticism reported in a reliable source. Now, we could conceivably provide context that is in that article; something like "In response to repeated rape and death threats, Sarkeesian disabled comments on her Youtube videos; some internet writers criticized her for this and claimed that she was limiting the ability for people to respond critically to her work." 2972:

is a victim of harassment - attempting to downplay the organisation of the harassment (via social media, reddit etc) and then to qualify her harassment as somehow justified because she "claims that gamers and gaming industry are misogynist, which is totally untrue" is circular logic. Quote mining meanwhile for stuff discovered (in the weakest possible sense) after the original attacks and then trying to contort them into a structured case invalidating her stance while building up a legitimacy of the criticism, and thereby the harassment, is patently the purview of Fox News investigation. OR, Synthesis, BusterD pretty much highlights all the failings here.

2732:"The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman. Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers. She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening." 2624:"The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian and New Statesman. Sarkeesian told the news show 16x9 that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers. She told The New York Times that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening." 154:. This is Sarkeesian's biography, so the retaliation against her is certainly relevant. However, the fact of her initiating the Tropes v. Women Kickstarter and the broad scope of the retaliation need to be given far, far more weight here than the vandalism to her Knowledge page, which, after all, was only a teensy bit of that retaliation. Even if the whole article were about the Kickstarter episode I'd argue against the use of the image on those grounds. A fortiori, since the subject of this article is Sarkeesian's life and career, the image should not be used here as it is much less illustrative of the topic than the Kickstarter image.— 576:

nearly a quarter of a million on and offline and has only released a single video in two years. Knowledge isn't for propaganda. If you go to 4chan to try and 'troll the internet' then get trolled back you can't then go bawwing and trying to pretend it was anything more than ships passing in the night seeing an easy target who would take extreme offense with minimal effort--the MO of most trolls online, naturally--and going for it. This reads like it was written by some elderly journalist who doesn't know what the internet is. The kind who prefixes the word 'troll' with "internet trolls" and other fuddy duddy things. :/

3736: 3268:'private detectives' shortly remarked upon what seems like quote mining parts of video games and lack of contextual knowledge, speculating that Knowledge might have been a primary source of her research and that she hadn't actually played any of the games due to turned-off wireless controllers in her Kickstarter promotion video. In the same video and in a TV interiew she proclaimed that there was a huge research project ahead covering hundreds of games and that she is an avid video game player despite her earlier claims to the contrary in a video lecture some 3 years ago. 1934:@Rjanag: Would you too stop implying that what I want to do is to include criticism of Sarkeesian? I've already explicitly stated that I don't want to include criticism for the sake of it, so you're either making a fool of yourself for stating that this is what I want to do, or rather you're calling me dishonest and thus failing to assume good faith. Given that I don't want to include EVERYTHING that was published, only those that are "encyclopedic" (whatever that means; at Knowledge it's usually synonym with "I like it") and related to the article topic, bringing up 3205:

reviews and articles I have written over the past 10+ years for various small press sites, but I am hardly notable enough to warrant my own Knowledge page. She was known only in a few select feminist circles and, from the looks of some edits that were removed, a few potential MRA circles as well. That's it. Until the whole Kickstarter controversy started, no one else knew about her in the slightest. So, the real question should be, why was someone without enough notability allowed to have a page on Knowledge to be vandalized in the first place?

3878:(Kickstarter takes 5%), so she was over-funded 26 times, had a professional video gear before she started this project, promised to play the games and do in depth well researched analysis, that all requiring enourmous amount of work. What she did was download Let's Play videos, used cut scenes and wikipedia articles about the games. I know there's no wikipedia reliable sources just because there's no way to make say screenshots in Anita's video and show exactly where it is taken from a wikipedia reliable source. 31: 1257:

she doesn't draw a salary from. It was almost definitely so that she could pay someone to do those nice fancy graphics and more money means "I can do this professionally, rather than just whenever I have time off from work". To the trolls reading this, did you notice that the last few videos included more (and better) graphics and included a lot more information past "here are a bunch of games with terrible presentations of women"? Did you spend any time at all thinking about

2663: 592:

demonstrate an extreme attention to detail, basically equivalent to that which would go into an academic journal article. And writing 3 high quality journal articles in 2 years is not an unusual pace for an academic. But, of course, I digress, because now I'm the one talking about things that don't belong on this talk page. I'm making a point, in case that escapes any one. So, BP or anyone else, as always--sources, or there's nothing to be done here.

2571:, is that it only briefly mentions criticism she's received (from feminists and others) and doesn't give it much (any) consideration. The piece is actually about the difficult situation faced by female critics of video game, Sarkeesian included. The current version is much better. One thing we do need to know is whether Paste is reliable and whether an editorial from it is an appropriate source; I'll leave that to other editors to determine.-- 2920:, that is, your first-person views. The charts you linked don't back your assertion; they merely present a best-selling list for those years and draw no conclusions. The Reddit, blogspot and youtube sources are merely criticism and aren't considered reliable by wikipedia consensus or by consensus here on the page. Please find sources which meet the criteria to back your assertions, and you'll find a more receptive group of editors here. 2740:

they are full of logical fallacies and outright lies. She might be lying because she had no contextual understanding of the games, so it's obvious she did not play the game herself, but most likely used wikipedia and Let's Play as a source. Her ethics and integrity should be questioned when she has received $ 158,922 for a video project in which she uses material free under fair use act. Just see her disclaimer at the end of her videos.

4106:. Most of them (people behind those organisations), after the online "investigators" have unfolded the fraud, have been brought to justice and convicted for collecting money without a permit as described in Finland's Money Collection Act . Because that act, crowdfunding in Finland is basically illegal for anything else but non-profits. That said, I now have to admit my national legislation is skewing my view. 1853:

criticism of Sarkeesian; it talks about the difficult situation she is in (a little bit), and then about women journalists in general (which is what most of the piece is about). The closest thing to criticism is saying that Sarkeesian does not speak for every woman in the world. That's not negative criticism, that's just a fact about the world; you could say that about any person or any thing ever.

1873:@Cuchullain: One more time, you haven't understood my point. Of course I want to use those sources, it's just that what's in them is not "criticism" (though it wouldn't be anything wrong if it were). As you rightly point out, no source that we'd deem reliable for BLPs has bothered to criticise Sarkeesian's work. What many 1841:. Knowledge is not just an aggregator of everything that was ever said about this topic. The fact that a criticism was made somewhere on the internet does not mean that it has sufficient encyclopedic value to go on this article. As Cuchullain explained, the task of Knowledge editors (note: there is a reason we are called 2472:), but there hasn't been consensus to include it. It seems akin to the "disabled YouTube comments" issue we discussed recently; it would be devoting a lot of space to something that's not been particularly prevalent in sources. In particular, I'm happy to be wrong about it, but I don't see that the "Web technology blog" 2618:"Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts"? No source again, no evidence that somebody even has had enough information to try to hack her said accounts. There's even less evidence that the editor she talked to had the required expertise to evaluate the evidence if Sarkeesian was to present any. 1710:

discussed Sarkeesian and her project, mention insignificant ephemera like turning off her Youtube comments. Even the Daily Dot piece that mentions the Youtube comments goes on to say there's nothing much to it. The article doesn't need to become a list of every single point that has ever come up in the sources.--

4034:, given your past disruptive edits to this article and clear, continued antipathy towards the subject it's pretty obvious that it would be almost impossible for you to write an article on the series that met Knowledge's guidelines. I had hoped otherwise, but at this point I'd advise you to let things be. -- 3007:, without apparent significant editorial controls. The Web site admits that basically anyone can sign up and post blogs on the site. That is not the mark of something we want providing information about living people, much less negative attacks on living people. Surely some better source can be found. 4090:

My intention was never to blatantly put "crowdfunding loophole" in the article, but to present it a way that a skeptic normal IQ person can draw their own conclusions. Even after the edits, I'm totally satisfied in the separate article of the video series. About Hollywood, I think the movie companies

3881:

There's much more on this Tropes vs. Women in Video Games I have found out I could start an article about it. What should I name it? Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women in Video Games looks daftly long. Will there be a link from this article to the one focusing on the video series funding, incentives

3472:

I didn't actually know Flight of the Conchords until I saw the actual video and so I was really excited and thought this is really cool and then I saw the video with them being serious and I was like wow that's really offensive. To me the song is positive just because I've only contextualized it in a

2953:

I will also add, Nosepea, that I do not know a female videogamer, especially those who like online gaming, who does not consider sexism in video gaming about as disputable as wetness among oceans or racism in the Ku Klux Klan. The only distinction is between those who cannot or will not stand it, and

2110:

I'm still inclined to include a 1 or 2 sentence summary of the DD article on this topic. To me, this seems like an "important" part of the Sarkeesian story: she had to close comments on Youtube due to heinous threats, this in turn caused criticism that she was trying to prevent feedback. I don't mind

1819:

If you don't want to introduce this stuff into the article, why are you bringing it up? At any rate, to repeat myself, "the article already contains substantial material on other reactions (the fact that supporters donated $ 160k, that the harassment generated discussion in the media, and that it led

1685:

reporting that several female professional writers are not always evaluating Sarkeesians' work under a not-strictly-positive light (Myers is but one analyst of many noticing the existence of non-harassing criticism of Saarkesian; there are many others of different reliability making similar claims).

1097:

Their is no need for us to "glean" about her use of other people's videos to construct her own. There is in fact legitimate criticism of her work out there, not just rabid mindless trolling. Now stating she "closed comments on her youtube videos" or that "she does not cite sources" are not judgmental

227:

It could use some work, but I've reverted your changes as they weren't really an improvement. Most importantly, bullets are bad prose and should be avoided in favor of a readable overview. The edit additionally mangled some of the wording. We don't need to list out the individual forms of harassment,

129:

the Kickstarter image for speedy deletion. That seems rather hasty. The Kickstarter image has been widely reproduced in the media, has been in this article for the best part of a year, and was removed from this article without discussion. In a case like this, the image should not be speedied quite so

3488:

There's no other way of conflict resolution in most of these games. With vidding you're very sort of... I don't want to use the word limited, but you are sort of limited to the lyrics of the song, right. And you.. and you can.. you are transforming the song and you're changing the meaning of it but

3367:

Except that she has stated in her TEDxWomen talk, and others, that she has been a lifelong fan and player of video games. It is notable enough to see that she either a. hasn't been what she has been claiming since the controversy began or b. like any good marketer, says what she says to give herself

2735:

There is NO pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture, it is all confirmation biased subjective views! And where is the source outside Sarkeesian's word that harassment is a norm for female gamers. If she just claims something it is not a reliable source. I can add a subjective viewpoint

2627:

There is NO pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture, it is all her confirmation biased subjective view! And where is the source outside Sarkeesian's word that harassment is a norm for female gamers. If she just claims something it is not a reliable source. There is no evidence that the

2443:

Non-trolling criticism such as her use of playthrough videos from youtube to create her videos, her directly dictating whole sentences from wikipedia, her lack of citations, her countering her own master thesis in what proper display of women in video games should be, cases of taking examples out of

1804:

about my motives. Can you clarify what do you mean by the article "making clear that harassment wasn't the only reaction", by pointing to the particular parts of the text that support that assertion? As explained above, I don't see how the article makes it clear that there were reactions by reliable

1553:

100 Knowledge articles. It's a site with paid writers, and if anything it's PRO-Anita: not only do they take her side in the comments disabling, at least one of their writers admits in another article that she's a contributor to Anita's site. Even then, they actually reported on the criticisms. If a

1037:

So your saying we should not post any of it then? Facts like she does not cite sources or has disable youtube comments are just that, facts, they should not needed to be cited by anyone to state on wikipeida. But I guess your saying we have to wait until a paid journal cites her use of other peoples

881:

I don't believe this would be helpful as of yet. Most of the media coverage remains tied to lingering effects of the harassment campaign (including the positive responses to it) rather than discussing the contents of the videos, and that can be dealt with as well here as at an independent article. I

211:

There was no logical form to the organization of that discussion. I rearranged it so that the references (and the points which they actually introduce) are in chronological order so that it more accurately reflects the events as they were reported (and re-reported). A bulleted form makes this easier

4064:

Your assertion that this is a "crowdfunding loophole" is unsupported by any reliable sources. Kickstarters are *supposed* to turn a profit for the person who does them, that's sort of the point - create something that people want to pay for, and make a living from doing it. You've not presented any

3267:

Because of the online harassment it is difficult to separate out the relevant and truthful criticism from the abusive insults relating to Anita Sarkeesian's video series 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'. Her video series provoked a huge outrage from various denizens of forums and Youtube, so online

2971:

Additional note; the word campaign is used largely by many secondary sources to describe the wave of attacks and harassment. In that way wikipedia is reflecting the choice of wording used which is maybe a touch hyperbolic IF there was no concerted effort by anyone to attack her. Additionally, Anita

2614:

The project triggered a "campaign of sexist harassment"? There's still no reliable source it was a campaign, it was just sexist harassment of some angry individuals. And the talk about misogyny (Slate) is not backed up anything but the target of the harassment is a female. She was not harassed for

2241:

A Youtube rebuttal of her videos would be acceptable if and only if the person making the video is known as an expert in the field--here, that would be feminism, feminist theory, feminist rhetoric, video games, popular culture, critical analysis, or something similar. They would probably need to be

2125:

If it were really an important part of the story, it would appear in more than one of the dozens of available sources. And that one source doesn't just note that such "criticism" exists, it specifically notes that it's irrelevant. Were we to use it, we'd have to say the same to accurately represent

1877:

done is reporting various other parties that have written about it - whether that writing should be called analysis, commentary, criticism is not my concern, but that we fail to acknowledge its existence is. The sentence "discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets" does not detail

1407:

The Daily Dot source does not need to be used as criticism of Sarkeesian. It's commentary about the harassment campaign and can be placed at the "Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment" section. Given that it's the main topic of an article by a reliable source, I think one sentence properly

1058:

infers. I've thanked that user for sources, offered a personal opinion The Daily Dot is the first arguably critical source I've seen presented which meets the standard for inclusion in a BLP such as this. I took the liberty of tacking on my views on the content of the DD's reporting on the subject.

911:

I think it should be noted that she has been critized her being called an "academic" video series when in fact she refused to cite sources on her videos, and she has taken video footage from let's players not mentioning them (should point out the irony they are guys who made the let's plays) oh and

591:

Please either provide reliable sources that cover things we have not already covered, or kindly keep your opinions (and they are that--your opinions) to yourself. As a side note, she's released 3 videos so far based off of the crowdfunding. And if you watch them you'll see (in my opinion) that they

538:

this discussion is moot. The article is about Sarkeesian, not Sarkeesian's claims, so whether or not some random vlogger disagrees with her claims is irrelevant and nobody watching this page cares. We can revisit this discussion if someone comes with actual criticism (not just disagreeing over some

3275:

Sarkeesian was also criticised for lack of courtesy, putting her video material together from Let's Play videos contributed by other Youtubers playing the game without giving due credit, a practice that is protected under fair use but nevertheless frowned upon. This has led to questions about what

3204:

enough to even have had a maintained Knowledge page to be vandalized in the first place. Obviously, now, she is. But, in truth, she never should have had a page on here to be vandalized. It would be similar to me having my own page based on the fact I am vaguely known in various gaming circles for

2739:

By the way this 'harassment' started not because she is a woman, feminist and self-proclaimed avid gamer (evidence talk the contrary!). It started because she claims that gamers and gaming industry are misogynist, which is totally untrue. The other thing is her videos doesn't stand under scrutiny,

2358:

The article is biased as all hell. This person intentionally created as much of a shit storm as she could in order to cash in via kickstarter, the article is massively at odds with reality. BLP should only go so far...not to even mention that she was the initial aggressor? To completely ignore the

1261:

that might be? Because the answer is that this has become what she does as a job, rather than a "whenever I get the time" kind of thing. Seriously, you are making yourselves look even stupider then when you demand to be able to make public rape/murder threats. Which is actually kind of impressive,

1256:

Literally every comment that mentions her using other people's "lets play" videos completely and totally misunderstands what the point of the kickstarter campaign was even about. She clearly was not planning on raising 6 grand to buy and play a bunch of video games, and certainly not for something

575:

This reads like the same kind of nonsense that Anita was putting out in her press releases trying to generate a storm in a teacup. The amazing atheist has exhaustively debunked a lot of her claims, citing some solid sources. Not to mention the entire kickstarter section fails to mention she raised

330:

I believe the two sections should be edited to include the following: Upon receiving $ 160 000 in donations, after making the online harassment she suffered public, criticism of her (or just "the harassment"?) intensified, prompting one person to create a video game of her getting beaten until her

3237:

That's not really the "real question" is it? That diatribe reads a lot like blaming Sarkeesian for someone creating a wiki article about her which was subsequently vandalised....the fact that she was harassed across a number of arenas somehow compacted down to an unnecessary bout of navel gazing.

2860:

Just go away, please. You are not going to successfully spread your campaign of vitriol and hate to this article. It's just a waste of your time and ours. Your points have already been asked and answered many times, and it's not worth going through them again, since your point is not to introduce

1342:

I'm not questioning the validity of the criticism, although yes, I do think it is invalid. The main source we're referring to, the Daily Dot article, is questioning the validity of the criticism. That said, it isn't OR to question the due weight we give to criticism, it is only OR to make our own

1308:

I guess my problem with stating this has to do with the value of the criticism. Using the Daily Dot article, yes, she was criticised for disabling comments, but as it points out, this didn't prevent people from engaging with her, and the comments had to be disabled on her TED video because of the

680:

That is why I said it needs to be balanced. I know we are making the argument that whether or not all feminist are misandrist but she states in her video vlogs that both all abusers are male and that all victims are female. It appears to be leaning on only one side which leaves her equality to be

364:

It could use some work, but as above, we don't need to be absolutist with the chronology, since the sources largely aren't. We could say something like "After the Kickstarter was announced Sarkeesian was subjected to harassment such as x, x, and x. She documented examples of the harassment on her

3992:

Sorry for being a n00b, OR is acronym of? Only understand POV from Koncorde's reply. And where you see my point of view merely representing numbers of her promises before the production as opposed to what she actually produced with reliable sources? People with opinions can produce neutral text,

3928:

This information looked so trivial that at first I wondered why anyone would want to include it in this or any article. Nosepea, thank you for making your intentions totally clear. No, the material is not appropriate in this biography, and it's unlikely to be worthwhile even on an article on the

2934:

If you read the article carefully, you'll see that it doesn't give credibility to Sarkeesian's views. In fact, it barely describes her work at all, just her opinions, which are stated as such. What it highlights is that 1) Sarkeesian was attacked with harassing comments and physical threats (you

349:

This does seem like a needed change; I hadn't realized the timeline was off. I'd personally change the first part of the sentence to "The Kickstarter campaign raised over %160,000, and also resulted in Sarkeesian being harassed online. After she made the harassment publish, criticism of her...."

3484:

I really struggled with this because one of the issues I found in the video games is that when there are women present they are overly sexualized and they act just the men, right. Like Tomb Raider's a great example of that where they are very busty and they're just shooting up and being just as

1709:

The wording can be improved but the article already contains substantial material on other reactions (the fact that supporters donated $ 160k, that the harassment generated discussion in the media, and that it led to speaking engagements. In reality few real sources, out of the dozens that have

1673:

reaction that was made by the world at large after Anita published the financed videos; which is clearly not true, and not the only thing that reliable sources are describing. It's true that few or none reliable sources have commented on the "Tropes vs Women", but that shouldn't prevent us from

319:

The Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment section states "On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a Kickstarter campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine gender tropes in video games." The article goes on to list forms of harassment Anita suffered immediately after the

4098:

I feel very passionate on matters that involves "separating fools from their funds", like pyramid schemes, quacks, homeopathy and other things I see unethical for example collecting money to children with cancer and take most of it to expanses. We've had several dodgy "non-profit" fund-raising

3312:. Though it may be interesting to document how the general public reacted to the videos; so far the article only mentions in passing the reactions to the delay. We can check how the sources already included in the article are describing the reactions of fans and opposers, and add some of that. 1852:

As a side note, you might want to read articles before you post links to them here. The Paste article you posted is certainly not, as you describe it, evidence of non-harrassing criticism. First of all, it doesn't "report" on anything, as it's an editorial. Secondly, it does not actually make

1767:

Are you still referring only to the disabled YouTube comments? There are two other points in my comment above for things covered by reliable sources that are missing from the article. When there's a perception of an article being biased for excluding reliable information, it's not OK to simply

3150:

If citing the very cite where she is employed, in an article she probably had input on, is not conflict of interest, I don't know what is. To use the word "harassment" in such a vague, open way is a very direct insult to anyone who criticizes her work and requires far better citing than a few

3061:

Her case is only really notable as part of the broader campaign of harassment so we only make a brief mention of the vandalism. As far as opposing views, reliable sources are, unfortunately, not generally critical of her so we don't have much basis for adding legitimate disagreements with her

1782:

As I said, the article already does make clear that harassment wasn't the only reaction, and that can be expanded. I didn't look much into your Paste article, but assuming it's reliable, it seems like it's grasping at straws to use that very brief mention as a reason to add "criticism" to the

882:

think we run the risk of half-assing two duplicative articles when we could just improve the one. And of considering the BLP maintenance issue this article has been, I wouldn't want to give the haters a second target unless we were going to make it really good. I don't think we're there yet.--

2772:

Even though that is a blog entry there is evidence in the screenshots that show she didn't do the massive research of hundreds of games but took the shortcut of using fair use to use already made videos by Youtubers that actually played the game. To many this looks like she is a con artist.

3877:

And I thought showing Anita Sarkeesian monetising on feminist "issues" in biography would be appropriate because the the big difference in incentives and actual produced material. For example Sarkeesian promised 12 videos and classroom Curriculum for a mere $ 26,000, she got around $ 151k

3271:

Further criticism was directed at Sarkeesian's sampling, saying that in order to say something useful she should make arguments regarding prevalence of a trope too, for which she should have used, for example, an annual chart of top 100 selling games instead of just picking out games that

1423:

I do want to state bluntly that I see no reason that anybody should consider the fact that she disabled comments as worthy of criticism, unless you consider, "Nyah, nyah, girly-girl bitches can't take the heat, hiding from us manly men like a girly coward!!!!" a biting critique of lack of

912:

she didn't tell them. It is clear she has some unethical practices, oh and lets not forget about the fact that she went to 4Chan in order to stir up trouble, why is there not a controversy line for her. Why does she get special treatment, she does wrong, why is she getting a free pass?

1309:

attacks that followed. If we mention that she was criticised for disabling comments on YouTube, we also need to balance that by saying that the validity of the criticism was questioned. Alternatively we need to question whether or not it is worth raising this as criticism at all. -

1223:

I'm not sure how her disabling of YouTube comments because of commenter behavior is a criticism of her work. If it's so bad and/or off the mark, why isn't this being critiqued in RS that can then be used on WP? Because YouTube comments are simply not the medium for actual critiques.

2164:

Before somebody starts with "youtube videos are not primary/secondary sources, because hurr durr": Let's call them "documentaries hosted on youtube" instead, delivering in 60 minutes more content and analysis than some 3-paragraph-editorial-articles, which ARE regarded as sources.

2242:

an academic with papers on the subject, or a pop culture critic with a history of giving commentary to news sources, or something like that. If such a person has done a response and/or rebuttal of her videos, we could probably include that. This is the same exception allowed under

2111:

adding, as a third point, that "feedback continued elsewhere", but, to be honest, that seems to be a pretty unnecessary point--of course feedback continued elsewhere, it always does; Sarkeesian's not some internet goddess who can prevent all feedback in all forums everywhere.

1727:

That argument runs against WP:NOTPAPER. There's no reason why we can't include all coverage made by RSs in feature articles. It's not up to us to second-guess RSs assessment of what's relevant to the topic. Deliberately excluding reported points of view will bias the article.

2374:

The importance of basing a Knowledge article on previously established research from verifiable sources is in making certain that editors are not contaminating the article with their personal points of view. It is the goal of every article that they must be written toward a

3508: 2881:

WHAT? Are you serious? This whole article contains BIASED information about MISOGYNY and SEXISM in gaming communities and gaming industry. Whole idea is just a radical feminism fad, there is no misogyny nor sexism there in the SCALE she says there is (words used pervasive,

1990:

Oh, I would have simply boldy added my changes to the article long ago, but you've been a little bit too eager recently to completely revert any change you disagree with (whether with policy-based reasons or without), instead of improving it to an acceptable status like

3549:

reported that Sarkeesian was e-mailed images of herself being raped by video game characters. Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts, doctored images of her were posted online, and negative comments were posted to her YouTube and Facebook pages. Her

2805:

Could you even mention that there is lots of rebuttals available in video format from Youtubers that have actually played the games she used in her research project. And at least put some stress on the fact that many of the claims can be sourced only to Ms. Sarkeesian.

647:

The article is not neutral, it is biased because it says all male gamers are rapist, misogynistic and female gamers are always innocent victims and can't do any harm like male players. Ergo there needs to be a criticism section of her from the Men's moment perspective.

4147:

Can this talk from "Suggesting additions to 'Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment' and 'Video series: Production' sections" to this point be cropped and linked (to talk history?) as it is quite irrelevant now as there's separate article of the video series.

1464:

source commenting on this one point of blog "criticism") essentially just says, "Sarkeesian disabled Youtube comments after previous death threats, and some irrelevant blog 'critics' have honed in on this one meaningless point to accuse her of 'censorship'; however,

724:

Since neither this article nor any of Sarkeesian's videos say any of those things, it's clear that 124.168.215.165 is either intentionally trolling, or has never bothered to either read this article or watch any Sarkeesian's work. So there's nothing to discuss here.

2499:

I've made a second, shorter attempt, with content supported by two independent professional sources. Describing notable ("with a small n") production issues is commonly done for audiovisual works, so this level of coverage should be now in line with WP standards.

382:

I agree with Cuchullain and Qwyrxian; it wouldn't be correct to say that the harassment happened "upon receiving $ 160,000 in donations", as much of it happened before that (and many of the sources explicitly say that that's probably why she got so much funding).

796:

into its own article. How do others feel? I think that the series probably has enough independent notability to have its own page, but I'm a little worried about duplication--Sarkeesian's notability isn't only from the events related to TvW, but much of it is.

3770:

also confirmed that the production quality of the videos had increased from her previous works, but didn't think the improvement justified spending the total amount raised, and said that disclosing the project finances would also help other video bloggers.

327:, gives the impression that he is upset with Anita for using sympathy to collect $ 160 000. That's quite different (still inappropriate, obviously) from someone making such a game just because she launched a kickstarter campaign about women in video games. 1285:. I don't know how to explain this to everyone: we are not here to comment on her videos, or to comment on the comments to her videos. This is not a place to either attack or defend Sarkeesian (though, of course, attacking is worse as it crosses over into 1022:

is a professional online publication and the writers are paid. However, the points made by the authors (that comments are disabled on YouTube, and that the subject DID NOT post pictures of Gucci shoes) seem pretty weak tea to label "criticism", IMHO.

2547:

I ask you to reword it into what you think would be an accurate description of it. It won't help merely discussing what you don't like of my writing; as I don't have a way to directly inquire into your mind to ascertain what you may find acceptable.

1681:

Excluding all other kind of commentary from reliable sources as "undue weight" only because it doesn't get the same volume as the analysis of harassment is creating a biased perspective of what RSs are commenting upon. We have feature stories like

323:

The video game was made after Anita received the money. The reasons given by the maker of the game are: "Anita Sarkeesian has not only scammed thousands of people out of over $ 160,000," followed by some crude language. His statement, found here

1459:

This is such a non-story that it's sad we're even debating including it. Even Qwyrxian's valiant attempt doesn't make this workable, as it doesn't accurately reflect the source. Hunter, Don, et al have it right, the source (which is still just

423:

Making the timeline clear would be important. This was more a series of escalations where Sarkeesian would respond, then some trolls would go further, she would respond again and so forth. Surely there are sources making the sequence of events

1253:(in the sense that, in her video on Bechdel Test at the Oscars, no she does not link to a source that specifically lists off Oscar movies that do or do not pass the Bechdel test, you can easily find out looking it up or watching them yourself) 1628:

It should be noted that Sarkeesian is an academic; when she says, "Conversations with pop culture", she isn't talking about comments in social media, she means "conversation" in the weighty and pretentious manner that academia uses the term:

3612:

that "The gaming industry is actually in the process of changing. That's a really positive thing, but I think there is a small group of male gamers who feel like gaming belongs to them, and are really terrified of that change happening."

1469:. When it's framed like that, it becomes obvious this is extremely weak tea and has no place in an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't bend over backward to include such trivial points for the sake of including "criticism" in the article. 253:. Contrary to your assertion, Ranze, the chronology is not what's important; rather, it's the overall set off events. Now, it is possible that the section could use some editing, but going away from prose is almost never the right plan. 3046:

A lot of people have their Knowledge page vandalized. What makes her case so notable? Why are those who disagree with and satirize her called 'harassers' and spoken of as if they were a monolithic entity? Where are the opposing views?

3151:

tabloids with NPOV conflicts. Opponents is a mild word that would fit nicely, as would critics or a few other words that you could find in a thesaurus. Or, if it's more warranted, try to separate criticism and the actual harassment.

320:

campaign was launched, including the video game made about her. The next section, titled reaction, states "Sarkeesian posted examples of the harassment on her blog, and supporters responded by donating over $ 150,000 to her project"

3135:

by reporting all major opposing views. In this case, all reliable media are describing the attacks on her as harassment, and few are reporting about criticism of her work or anything else; so we write the article with what we have.

2991: 864:

So what coverage do you propose to use? I haven't looked that hard but we have barely a paragraph on it here and most of the non-bloggy stuff focuses on the preceding controversy and is light on discussing the video series itself.

3513: 2588:

As a help for those editors to decide that, I've already pointed out that Paste is considered reliable at the RS noticeboard for pop culture topics, and the author is part of the staff and has a regular column on video games.

1938:

is irrelevant; there's no plot, lyrics or statistics to be included here, nor loose listings of unrelated items. But when the information included presents a skewed coverage of what's available at RS, we do have a mandate per

285:

I've reverted part of that as even without the bullets, the edits introduce a lot of mangled or unclear phrasing and a lot of unnecessary red links, and overemphasize the various types of harassment. For example, it says that

2326:

Perhaps, but it bears saying as our new friend hasn't remotely said what his "documentaries hosted on youtube" are to cover, only that they will be longer and therefore "better" than those silly written sources we currently

1203:

The Daily Dot pieces don't criticize her, I agree. The last one does document criticism of the disabling of comments on both her videos and the TED channel. This documented criticism might be argued to deserve bare mention.

2246:, in that if, for example, a well-recognized expert has a blog, we can use that blog (sometimes, for some material) as a source on the subject of expertise. Do you know of any youtube rebuttals that meet this criteria? 915:

I am not bring this up because she is a feminist, no, I bring this up because gender doesn't excuse deplorable tactics. Then again its clear she has played the victim card so much people think she is one....oh how sad.

168:

I agree with this logic. As WP editors, things which happen on WP can seem more important to us than things which happen elsewhere, but it's important to bear in mind that it was but one part of a far broader campaign.

2476:

is particularly reliable in this situation. In the very least it seems over the top to devote several sentences of space to the piece, compared to other, higher profile sources we've already included or could include.

2887:

So, wikipedia can hold FOX news type of political propaganda as stated facts and reliable sources. Sure, but this article is far from neutral you have just turned on protect the victim because Anita Sarkeesian plays

1686:

Others like the Daily Dot had noted the negative reactions upon Sarkeesian blocking comments and judging how the money raised with the Kickstarter campaign was used. Surely those are not direct criticism of the work

3130:

We use sources that are known for their editorial processes at fact-checking. If there were sources like those describing noticing other types of comments about her work, we would include them as well, to provide a

1527:

and responses to it. Comments need to be about specific article improvements, not general discussion of the article subject or soapboxing. Repeated violations will be considered disruptive and handled accordingly.--

2157:

I would like to point out their existence and include their criticism of her work, using them as sources. Because of -policies on Knowledge I fear my work will be in vain, because somebody will just revert them.

3933:. And I doubt that such an article is really necessary at this stage anyway, particularly if it's just going to be used as a vehicle for "showing Anita Sarkeesian monetising on feminist 'issues' in biography".-- 449:

It's only important if our sources consider it so. We're probably devoting more than enough space to the different kinds of harassment as it is; the sources usually only give it a sentence or two in a longer

3041: 2053:

We can't read your mind. If you had said "I want discuss adding xxx", we could have talked about that. We were responding to what you did say. And no one has reverted anything without "policy-based reasons"

1548:{{archive top=:There are a few ridiculous arguments here. 1) That "other YouTube vids don't cite source so who cares" negates the fact this isn't some amateur production. This is a professional gig, she was 3465:

It is very rare to take two very misogynist and sexist things and make them a positive. It's very few instances that will happen and I feel like this is one of those instances where I could successfully do

3350:

That's not what she said. Please stop misrepresenting sources as it wastes everyone's time. "I am not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this..."

3091:

by Knowledge's standards as it has been covered by various reliable sources independent of the topic. We follow what the coverage says; the reliable sources call the harassment "harassment" so we do too.--

2419:

I'm particularly bemused by our anonymous critic's assertion that Sarkeesian, by pointing out the well-known sexism of video games and proposing a study of them, became "the initial aggressor". Talk about

513:. Either discuss what is actually stated in the article, and make suggestions based on reliable sources, or stop the conversation. Further disruption will result in blocks or protection of this talk page. 3952:

That's why I asked first instead of putting it in the article. If I would have put it in, it would have appeared in the history of the edits, but I didn't do that. IMO people should grow awareness about

1886:

reaction of media was discussion on "pervasive sexual harassment in the video game culture". The article needs to include some instances of other non-harassment-related discussion to balance that false

3016: 2720:

Where's the reliable source that she was targeted by an "online harassment" campaign? Online harassment is enough said. There's no evidence that there was an organized campaign behind the harassment.

3565:

Sarkeesian posted examples of the harassment on her blog, and supporters responded by donating over $ 150,000 to her project. This further enraged the harassers; one man made an internet game called

1920:(As for the reliability of the article above, Paste is considered reliable at the RS noticeboard for pop culture topics, and the author is part of the staff and has a regular column on video games). 2611:

Where's the reliable source that she was targeted by an "online harassment campaign"? Online harassment is enough said. There's no evidence that there was organised campaign behind the harassment.

1768:

dismiss it as"not encyclopedic" without discussing the point, as doing so is a violation of NPOV and CONSENSUS. Do you have anything to say about those other points or are you indifferent to them?

4643: 3335:

Anita claims, contrary to her public statements, that she does not play video games nor does she have an interest in doing so. I think this new information needs to be included in this article.

2444:

context, ignoring sexism against men in video games, etc, etc, can't be posted on wikipedia until a reliable source makes reference to it, thus wikipedia is no more bias than its sources are.

1098:

statements: anyone can "glean" what ever they want from them, we would not be telling people what meaning they should derive from these facts. We would be merely presenting these facts as is.

212:

to understand, easier to verify and discuss, and easier to understand the progress of ideas. It was otherwise much too lumped together, especially consider the large about of references used.

3747:

series in 2012, but pushed it back explaining that the additional funding allowed her to "expand the scope, scale and production values of the project". On January 2013 Sarkeesian launched a

3569:, where users could punch her image until the screen turned red. The people behind the campaign awarded each other "Internet points" for the abuse on forums; Sarkeesian argued that they had " 1369:

article. I think Qwyrxian's sentence is a perfect start, but needs to be accompanied by a short comment stating the (obvious) point that critics were still able to respond to the video.

3725: 2359:

criticism of her 'work'? This is the most one sided wikipedia article I've ever seen....the moon landing tinfoil nutjobs get more of a say than the reality of the situation does in this.

2621:"and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information"? Source, please. The only source is Anita Sarkeesian herself saying so to an editor, hardly reliable. 1249:

Who the hell on youtube cites any sources ever? And while she doesn't directly post sources, what she does say is all pretty easily verified by a 5 second search on google, or godforbid

1189:

Presuming that you are referring to the Daily Dot piece, it doesn't criticise Sarkeesian. It notes that there was some criticism of her, but mostly the article criticises the critics. -

3960:

profit), instead of putting it to the purpose they are asking it for. I for one don't understand even why this person have a wikipedia page at all. She's not that significant or famous.

2628:

editors or Sarkeesian belong to any online gaming community nor has Sarkeesian provided any evidence that she have researched it say for example interviewing females that plays games.

2736:

also; I really want more female gamers to an online game I'm playing and I really don't think that gaming belongs to us, therefore there is no online harassment against women at all!

1365:

doesn't actually make the criticism, just reports on it and defends Sarkeesian.) So I think if we're to report on it at all, we need to include the criticism of the criticism in the

1999:

encourage us to do. I wanted to try to explain the changes beforehand to you, but it clearly doesn't work - instead you just keep guessing the changes that you think I shouldn't do.

4240: 1246:

be mentioned in the second or third paragraph of the Kickstarter Campaign section because saying "she wont allow me to publicly threaten to rape her" is not a criticism of anything

3055: 2353: 793: 4374: 3165:

This post just shows that you don't, won't or can't correctly interpret what you're reading. The article contains a dozen or so reliable, independent sources, including the

2729:"and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information"? Source, please. The only source is Anita Sarkeesian herself saying so, hardly reliable. 122:, and given that this is a biography, it seems somewhat inappropriate to include it here. I propose we stick with the Kickstarter image, which has longstanding consensus. 3481:

Like I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping of their heads. It is just gross hence this is my react.. response to that.

3223:

analogy, Knowledge has a garbage collection routine in terms of notability issues (as well as other things). Any non-notable articles are routinely tagged and/or deleted.

1000: 2368: 663:

You must be reading a version of the article hosted on a different site as the one on here doesn't include such statements. I suggest you go and complain to that site. --

611: 2939:

have said about misogyny. Your point that this is not a "campaign" (i.e. an organized effort) is a good one; you can propose an alternative wording for that sentence.

1750:

source mentioning it only to largely dismiss it as irrelevant. Not particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic. There are other parts of the article that need work more.--

923: 2723:

The project triggered a "campaign of sexist harassment"? There's still no reliable source it was a campaign, it was just sexist harassment of some angry individuals.

4554: 1472:

Why are we event bother discussing this rather than the half dozen at least other pieces Daily Dot has run on Sarkeesian, several of which actually discuss her work?

1004: 850:

Academic coverage is not a requirement to have an article; otherwise, we wouldn't have articles on the vast majority of tv shows, entertainers, sports players, etc.

3781: 2861:

neutrality, but to try to remove reliable information to make Sarkeesian appear to be the "bad" person in this whole event, which is just vile and counterfactual.

2802:

The editor should at least watch the videos Anita has made and then when they are not in written form accept good quality video rebuttals as sources of criticism.

2364: 3116:

that somehow proves anyone who disagrees with her is a muh soggy knees-tastic rapist bigot. Do we cite Syrian state TV when writing the page for Bashar al-Assad?

1083:

she cite sources or allow comments when plenty of other YouTubers don't. But that's just my opinion and, like yours, it doesn't warrant inclusion in the article.

2539:

Again, I've posted a second different description of the Paste Magazine article. If you still disagree that it reflects the article contents, in the spirit of

365:

blog, and supporters responded by donating over $ 150,000 to her project. This further enraged her harrassers; on man made a game..." I'll take a stab at it.--

3344: 3303: 700:

has about the contents of the videos is, "the video series Tropes vs. Women, which examines tropes in the depiction of women in popular culture." Kindly read

4459: 3103: 953: 462: 444: 3262: 1571:

Thanks for your commentary, but YouTube comments and ratings are academically unimportant so the lack thereof has no encyclopaedic value. Sorry about that.

107:

JohnnyMrNinja removed the Kickstarter image without discussion and inserted the screenshot of the vandalised biography in its place; that insertion has now

4117: 3758:

series, "Damsels in Distress (Part 1)", was released on March 7, 2013. The delay led some critics to question how she was using the money. Jesse Singal of

3369: 3206: 1267: 746: 509:

from the history, because they make patently false claims about both this Knowledge article and the subject, who is a living person, and thus protected by

163: 3082: 178: 4157: 3840: 3410: 3035: 4484: 3238:

Articles are created often on wikipedia, and only when flagged are they taken down. This is a founding principle of Knowledge open contribution system.

629: 267:

That is easy to resolve - just remove the bullet points. I've restored the attributions of opinions to their respective authors, which are required per

4085: 3326: 2453: 2120: 1486: 3232: 3214: 1649: 1619: 1598: 1580: 1395: 615: 3871: 3627: 3189: 3160: 3145: 3125: 2992: 2436: 1132: 3247: 1377: 1302: 969: 2680: 2598: 2583: 2526: 2509: 2236: 2066: 2008: 1985: 1832: 1814: 1795: 1777: 1762: 1737: 1722: 1504: 1454: 1436: 1107: 1092: 719: 674: 302: 144: 4428: 3971: 3764:

noted that the production values of the new series were high, saying "so far, she appears to have put the money to good use." Fruzsina Eördögh of

3539:

magazine described as an "absolute avalanche of misogynist abuse," in which "very access point they could exploit was used to try to get to her".

3362: 2966: 2948: 2412: 2212: 1068: 1047: 1032: 994: 754: 601: 4393: 3987: 3377: 2981: 2294: 2276: 2138: 1951:: the implication that I didn't read the article I linked to, or that I wanted to use it to support some kind of criticism, are quite offensive. 1849:) is to filter the deluge of information that exists in the world and retain the much smaller chunk of information that is actually encyclopedic. 377: 359: 280: 262: 228:

and there's no real need to put them in the chronological order in which they were reported, as several of the sources discuss several at once.--

4026: 4004: 2469: 829: 201: 2929: 2388: 2048: 2034: 1964: 1929: 1868: 412: 398: 3945: 2339: 2314: 2185: 2092:

An advantage of including the "criticisms" in this article is that we can present them together with the criticisms of the criticisms, as per

894: 806: 240: 4137: 4049: 3923: 3895: 3526:. The campaign was featured as a campaign of note on the official Kickstarter blog, and reached its funding goal of $ 6,000 within 24 hours. 3500: 3454:"It's a soundtrack of one song, except I'm doing video games -(using footage from games, not necessarily self-made)-. So that's not a fandom 3429: 2255: 102: 2631:

To me it seems that when Anita plays the victim card it validates anything she says and then the neutrality of this article is compromised.

1352: 1337: 876: 859: 845: 1213: 1198: 1184: 4417: 2126:

it, but I don't see the need to introduce details the source itself says are irrelevant into what's meant to be an encyclopedia article.--

740: 3076: 777: 690: 657: 438: 343: 1683: 2684: 585: 3829:

All the added information should be from reliable sources as they point to Anita's self-maintained material and Kickstarter numbers.

4340: 2776: 1484: 1361:) criticism here, we risk giving it an air of legitimacy it probably doesn't deserve, given that no reliable source has made it. ( 1151: 787: 2615:

misogynist reasons but because she was outright lying in the very first sentence she said in her Kickstarter Project promo video.

792:

Amidst Truthiness's ranting on his own personal opinions above, there was one point I felt worthy of consideration: splitting out

522: 2900: 2557: 1837:

Diego Moya: since you seem interested in parroting WP:NOT subpolicies such as NOTPAPER, here is another one for you to consider:

558: 334:

Perhaps the wording could be modified. Any edit that accurately portrays the facts will be a welcome improvement to the article.

2831: 2818: 1175:

describes above could be included, and I'd submit the two DD articles as RS citation. I'd like more, but I'd accept those two.

325: 2870: 1408:

summarizing the article gives this commentary its proper weight. Qwyrxian's sentence is thus adequate and should be included.

221: 3774:

Parts 2 and 3 of the series were released on May 28 and August 1, 2013. The second video was briefly removed due to abuse of

1955:

Both of you are fixating on criticism, but that doesn't mean that it's the only thing that could be written in the article.

769: 682: 649: 607: 4703: 4530: 4519: 4508: 4621: 4285: 3523: 3418:

Sigh. I like video games. I play video games. I'm not a fan of nor do I play first-person shooters. Not a contradiction. --

3336: 2181: 919: 570:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3321: 3112:

unbiased. You can't use a site that openly champions a cause as a reliable source for critics of the cause, much less the

2104: 1742:

It is absolutely up to us to exercise editorial judgement regarding the significance of different viewpoints and how much

1661:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

643:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3620:

conference, discussing online sexual harassment and the nature of online communities. In June 2012, video game developer

3173:- no "tabloids", and no "NPOV conflicts", whatever that means. They describe the situation as "harassment", sometimes in 2912:. Your assertions lack reliable secondary sources. None of the claims you've made above are backed by sources which meet 2493: 1473: 1154:. I am slightly leaning towards thinking we should include something about being criticized for not allowing comments. -- 126: 3296: 1694:

level of coverage to comply with neutrality requirements, "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view".

927: 3152: 3117: 2360: 2146: 1563: 1482: 1275: 4261: 2568: 2016: 314: 4122:

Well color me surprised. And I owe you an apology. Good job on producing pretty neutral text for the new article. --

4065:

reliable sources suggesting that anyone didn't know what they were paying for when they funded Sarkeesian's project.

2303:(a well-known blogger of tech culture) published a video about Sarkeesian and her work I think we could use that. -- 1703: 1539: 1417: 1242:

Commenting was stopped because she received death and rape threats in the comments section of her videos. It should

490: 4671: 3940: 3184: 3098: 2578: 2521: 2488: 2334: 2271: 2133: 2061: 1980: 1827: 1790: 1757: 1717: 1669:

The problem with the article as written is that it makes it look like harassment and misogynistic comments are the

1534: 1499: 1233: 889: 457: 372: 297: 235: 94: 4354: 3462:

I'm not actually a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot of video games in the process of making this.

3978:

It's also a massive load of OR, Synthesis and POV as the proposed wiki has an intent behind it to present a POV.

3406: 3292: 3071: 2650: 2376: 1479: 1012: 433: 119: 112: 108: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 4541: 4497: 4325: 3509:

Suggesting additions to 'Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment' and 'Video series: Production' sections

1008: 982: 4555:"Anita Sarkeesian's First 'Tropes vs. Women in Games' Video May Come Out Next Month, But Her Tumblr's Live Now" 4211: 1318: 1165: 159: 140: 1690:, but the're still points of view that have been documented by reliable sources, and as such they should have 1475: 620:...also doesn't mean that he's an acknowledged expert. So, no, he can't be used as a source for this article. 4081: 3012: 3584:

to mainstream media attention, with discussions occurring in a range of publications and outlets, including

2465: 2264:

for material on Sarkeesian herself or any other living person, except their own writings about themselves.--

2223: 2021: 1855: 1805:

sources that are not related to the discussion of harassment; that's the deficiency that needs correction.

727: 545: 495: 477: 385: 187: 4592: 4306: 3616:

The campaign also led to speaking engagements on related topics. In 2012, Sarkeesian was a speaker at the

1477: 1015: 4076:. I have created the separate article you submitted through the AFC process, but with significant edits. 3220: 2672: 1783:

article. However (assuming it is reliable) we could probably use it for other additions to the article.--

1586: 1293:. We don't want this talk page to be yet another front in the troll vs. academic battle surrounding her. 206: 3063: 1289:). I think that from now on we should keep either collapsing or deleting every comment in violation of 540: 425: 38: 4578: 1075:

We can also glean "facts" about her clothing choice or how many times she says the word "the", but we

816:

series in general would be more useful. I don't think there's great danger of either subject failing

2534: 1604: 773: 686: 653: 155: 1943:

to complete it with elements of the under-represented arguments. I'd rather have you take a look at

999:

Thanks Ben. The blog clearly does not meet WP:IRS, but based on two previous discussions at WP:RSN (

834:

Is there enough academic coverage aside from the reaction it generated to create such an article? --

4077: 3930: 3559: 3540: 3340: 3008: 2606: 2177: 287: 2096:. Readers who only encounter the "criticisms" off Knowledge may never encounter their rebuttals. 3373: 3210: 3200:

I'd just like to point out that, after looking back at her earliest page history, she was hardly

2540: 2039:

Do you mean, the comment where I say "Surely those are not direct criticism of the work itself"?

1996: 1594: 1559: 1271: 750: 4180: 2767: 979: 3555: 3156: 3121: 2777:

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1l6lsw/internet_sleuths_uncover_anita_sarkeesians_past/

2449: 1944: 1467:

there's nothing to it as it hasn't stopped vigorous discussion about the videos in other forums

1103: 1043: 990: 475:

Her next video just came out, so I'm sure we can expect some vandalism; let's keep an eye out.

4714: 3735: 245:

I just want to clarify that Cuchullain is not only expressing a preference, but our rules--we

2097: 1820:

to speaking engagements)" And of course, as I also said, this can be improved and expanded.--

1746:

they receive. In this case, we don't have any actual reliable sources making this case, just

1370: 946: 581: 47: 17: 3751:

web page called "Bits of Tropes Vs. Women in Games" previewing samples of the first video.

3624:

invited Sarkeesian to its offices to present on the creation of female characters in games.

2193:

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. The medium doesn't really matter - it's

4375:"She's Not Hiding From The Hate She's Getting For Examining Video Games. She's Exposing It" 4193: 3937: 3394: 3317: 3280: 3228: 3201: 3181: 3141: 3095: 3088: 2961: 2944: 2638: 2594: 2575: 2553: 2518: 2505: 2485: 2431: 2331: 2268: 2169: 2130: 2058: 2044: 2004: 1977: 1960: 1925: 1824: 1810: 1787: 1773: 1754: 1733: 1714: 1699: 1644: 1614: 1576: 1531: 1496: 1450: 1431: 1413: 1127: 886: 625: 454: 408: 369: 339: 294: 276: 232: 2544: 8: 4402: 4153: 4113: 4000: 3967: 3891: 3836: 3496: 3402: 3288: 2917: 2896: 2827: 2814: 2795:<--- Anita Sarkesian (misspell) as contact person of a handwriting "university" scam. 2646: 2468:

addition pending discussion. Such an addition has been brought up a few times (including

2173: 1520: 1229: 825: 3908:. And yes, I would think adding a link to it from this article would be a no-brainer. -- 2792: 2781:

There we have more information of the Anita Sarkeesian dug out. For example this video:

4072:

and completely irrelevant - nobody gives a second thought when a Hollywood movie costs

4022: 3983: 3905: 3586: 3581: 3545: 3243: 2977: 2866: 2692: 2676: 2662: 2421: 2321: 2290: 2251: 2116: 1590: 1555: 1333: 1298: 1290: 1282: 1088: 934: 855: 802: 705: 704:

properly and refrain from giving your opinion on the contents of her videos as this is

597: 518: 355: 268: 258: 135: 118:

The image of the vandalised biography is available in the sources cited, as well as in

1441:

Have to agree that Sarkeesian disabling comments on YouTube is about as noteworthy as

4429:"Why should Anita Sarkeesian have to work for free in return for misogynistic abuse?" 4017:

is a subpart of that same issue. So far you have produced anything but neutral text.

4010: 3577: 3562:, and there were efforts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information. 3052: 3031: 2925: 2459: 2445: 2408: 1391: 1209: 1180: 1099: 1064: 1055: 1039: 1028: 986: 965: 174: 4471: 3608:

that online harassment and threats have become the norm for female gamers. She told

3385:

Here's a video of what she said when she was promoting her Kickstarter and whatnot:

1171:

I'm leaning the same way (barely). I agree that a sentence mentioning the criticism

4648: 4444: 4310: 4244: 3760: 3617: 3604: 3535: 2261: 2232: 2030: 1864: 1743: 1489: 813: 736: 577: 554: 486: 470: 394: 3438:

Whole transcript as I with my limited english skills picked it up from 12:45-: -->

2197:

is doing the videos. We're not going to consider Joe Random who hosts a website a

1281:

I understand the frustration, Hamilton-wiki, but your comments above also violate

4236: 4134: 4046: 3934: 3920: 3868: 3530: 3313: 3224: 3178: 3137: 3092: 2955: 2940: 2590: 2572: 2549: 2515: 2501: 2482: 2478: 2425: 2328: 2265: 2127: 2055: 2040: 2000: 1974: 1956: 1948: 1935: 1921: 1879: 1838: 1821: 1806: 1784: 1769: 1751: 1729: 1711: 1695: 1638: 1608: 1572: 1528: 1493: 1446: 1425: 1409: 1348: 1314: 1194: 1121: 1117: 985:

Anyways I think a section characterizing criticism against her would be notable.

883: 621: 451: 404: 366: 335: 291: 272: 250: 229: 217: 4439: 3023: 764:

I will have you know I have both seen her videos and read the Knowledge article

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4330: 4149: 4109: 4100: 4031: 3996: 3963: 3887: 3856:

be relevant in a separate article about the campaign but not in a biography. --

3832: 3492: 3398: 3284: 3276:

she has done with the $ 158,922 given to her to use on her Kickstarter project.

3132: 2909: 2892: 2823: 2810: 2726:"Attempts were made to hack her Twitter and Google accounts"? No source again. 2642: 2400: 2384: 1940: 1225: 821: 4485:"From Samus to Lara: An Interview With Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency" 4169: 3445:

NeilN are you on a payroll from Sarkeesian for lying in such a trivial matter?

3388: 2784: 2756: 2751: 2746: 2481:

is important. The rest of the recent additions by and large look good to me.--

4345: 4095:

and actually deliver a full product for their "post-production crowdfunders".

4018: 3979: 3598: 3239: 3004: 2973: 2913: 2862: 2688: 2286: 2247: 2243: 2112: 1992: 1801: 1524: 1442: 1329: 1294: 1286: 1084: 1019: 983:

http://www.dailydot.com/society/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-backlash/

942: 851: 798: 593: 514: 510: 351: 254: 151: 131: 2704:

Only slightly differently worded repost of the above post by the same user.

2563:

I'd say it's certainly better now. The problem with the earlier version, as

1969:

I think perhaps the issue is that you're not making clear what you actually

1800:

I have no particular intention to "add criticism to the article", so please

4099:

organisations in Finland giving only a fraction to the cause and one major

4069: 3954: 3730: 3592: 3570: 3309: 3048: 3027: 2996: 2921: 2404: 2396: 2198: 1634: 1387: 1325: 1205: 1176: 1113: 1060: 1024: 961: 906: 535: 170: 3108:

Feminist websites (Feminist Frequency, Salon.com, slate.com, etc etc) are

4215: 4197: 3957:

loopholes that some people use to fund their lives (low first goal -: -->

3519: 3442:

Show me where she says I'm not a fan nor do I play first person shooters?

2564: 2300: 1076: 817: 4672:"New Anita Sarkeesian Video Calls Out Gaming's 'Women in Refrigerators'" 3711:

Video #12 - Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games (at $ 26,000)

3489:

at the same time I was restricted to what.. the lyrics that I had here."

3026:

is shockingly bad and doesn't even represent Digital Journal very well.

1116:

comments on these facts, asserting that they mean something, then it is

4593:"Anita Sarkeesian is not stealing Kickstarter money to buy Gucci shoes" 4123: 4092: 4035: 3909: 3857: 3576:

The initial campaign of harassment helped bring the issue of pervasive

3419: 3352: 2304: 2202: 1603:

The unfortunate Rebecca Black is an product of YouTube; otherwise, see

1344: 1310: 1190: 1172: 1155: 866: 835: 709: 664: 213: 191: 2743:

I can even show a source that proves the harassment is NOT pervasive:

1120:

to do so, since it implies that these facts are somehow meaningful. --

4596: 4103: 4014: 3766: 3551: 2473: 2380: 606:

TAA is a bastard, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything.

4692: 3473:

way to critique male domination in our media and also video games.

1589:

to name one) so there is encyclopedic value. Sorry about that. --

2761:

Now how many games did Ms. Sarkeesian pick on any of those lists?

3775: 3708:

Tropes vs Women in Video Games Classroom Curriculum (at $ 24,000)

3522:

campaign to fund a new series of short videos that would examine

4558: 4378: 3748: 3621: 1481:

There are various other reliable sources now available as well.

4307:"Feminist Take on Games Draws Crude Ridicule, Massive Support" 2695:

while they become accustomed to Knowledge and its intricacies.

4341:"Dear The Internet, This Is Why You Can't Have Anything Nice" 3332: 2768:

http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

980:

http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

4622:"Anita Sarkeesian, I Love You. But Please Show Us The Money" 3882:

and production if I manage to make a neutral one about that?

3042:

Is calling vandalism of her Knowledge page "harassment" POV?

4715:

http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2006/en20060255.pdf

3718:

Incentive videos 12 in total (10-20 minutes in length each)

3529:

The project triggered a campaign of sexist harassment that

3003:

The "Digital Journal" piece inserted in this article is a

2954:

those who love their games so much they play on anyway. --

937:, in particular, "Criticism and praise should be included 4440:

Why Gaming Culture Allows Abuse... and How We Can Stop It

3664:

Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6 (at $ 7,500)

1637:, where one "engages in a conversation with the text". -- 3695:

Zelda, Peach and FemFreq stickers to over $ 50 donations

2354:

This article is biased and ignores criticism of her work

4241:"Online Misogyny: Can't Ignore It, Can't Not Ignore It" 3308:

That's too detailed, and the links you provide are not

2154:

Many of them longer and more in-depth than her videos.

1018:

Kevin Baker at the same site approach the RS standard.

3558:

with images of sex acts. Her website was subjected to

3469:*Too many private detectives on the dance floor plays* 2789:

Yes a video that has links to sources in description.

1358: 4418:"Internet trolls an online nightmare for young women" 3679:

Positive Female Characters! - Video #11 (at $ 15,000)

3177:, and we follow what our sources say. End of story.-- 2793:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/01/prweb197342.htm

1519:

Collapsing post containing substantial violations of

1324:

I think that your desire to question the validity is

960:

Do you have a single source for any of these claims?

2935:

won't deny that, do you)? and 2) it reports on what

939:

if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources

4579:

Feminist Frequency - "Damsels in Distress (Part 1)"

1878:what kind of discussion ensured, and it implies as 1585:

YouTube ratings are mentioned in several articles (

1266:

tl;dr: people are stupid and I'm irritable today.--

3778:'s "flag" system, though it was quickly restored. 2151:There are very many rebutal videos to her videos. 1343:conclusions in the article about the criticism. - 4286:"In Virtual Play, Sex Harassment Is All Too Real" 3673:Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9 (at $ 12,000) 4619: 3815:August 1st 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 3 2217:Wow, the videos are longer then hers? Then they 1492:above noise level in deciding what to include.-- 1077:require reliable sources to say that's important 4394:"Internet Trolls Up Their Harassment Game With 3721:Project was funded $ 158,922 on June 16th 2012 125:After changing the picture, JohnnyMrNinja also 4552: 4476: 4326:"Kickstarter campaign leads to cyber-bullying" 3809:March 7th 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 1 3514:Kickstarter campaign and subsequent harassment 2999:for the purposes of criticism of living people 2798:The other link seems dead link to webarchive. 2395:If you dispute the neutrality, please provide 1445:not using Twitter as a source of peer review. 1079:. Personally, I find it laughable that people 4300: 4298: 3812:May 28th 2013 The Damsel in Distress - Part 2 3739:Title card used in the Tropes vs Women videos 1038:videos as source material before posting it? 768:I started to argue over what she believes. -- 4615: 4613: 4590: 3743:Sarkeesian initially planned to release the 3692:Better video gear to improve professionalism 3670:Mrs. Male Character - Video #8 (at $ 10,500) 3259:Can somebody add the following to her page: 2019:the Paste piece as an example of criticism. 943:guideline about identifying reliable sources 4304: 2785:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo 2757:http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2012/Global/ 2752:http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2011/Global/ 2747:http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2010/Global/ 2399:supporting your points. Knowledge is not a 2299:Depends how SPS is defined. For example if 1238:Some things I think need to be considered: 4295: 4256: 4254: 3782:Damsel in Distress Trope Series in numbers 3389:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw 3327:Anita Sarkeesian Does Not Play Video Games 2848:The following discussion has been closed. 2709:The following discussion has been closed. 2161:So I seek advice on how to do it "right". 1386:in the article? 'Obviously, she's wrong.' 978:I don't know if these qualify as sources: 4610: 2285:. Which is what is being suggested here. 1357:This is a tricky one. By reporting the ( 4669: 4460:Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying 4280: 4278: 4276: 4274: 4262:"Game Theory: Making Room for the Women" 4235: 4191: 3734: 3676:Man with Boobs - Video #10 (at $ 13,500) 3272:specifically showcase the trope itself. 1678:commentaries made by reliable sources. 4448:. Issue 57. Retrieved February 1, 2013. 4391: 4251: 3667:Women as Reward - Video #7 (at $ 9,000) 2281:But SPS can be used for material about 14: 4641: 4635: 4546: 4372: 4323: 505:The statements here could arguably be 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4482: 4416:Zerbisias, Anita (January 28, 2013). 4338: 4305:Watercutter, Angela (June 14, 2012). 4271: 2262:no self-published sources can be used 1488:As with anything we need to consider 103:Kickstarter Image vs. vandalism image 4531:Anita's Kickstarter 3rd stretch goal 4520:Anita's Kickstarter 2nd stretch goal 4509:Anita's Kickstarter 1st stretch goal 4355:"Harassment via Knowledge Vandalism" 4170:Anita Sarkeesian is Not a Real Gamer 3518:On May 17, 2012, Sarkeesian began a 2657: 941:" (emphasis added). Knowledge has a 566:The following discussion is closed. 403:I think Cuchullain's edit works well 25: 4644:"Taking on games that demean women" 4620:Fruzsina Eördögh (March 19, 2013). 4553:Stephen Totilo (January 30, 2013). 4353:Sarkeesian, Anita (June 10, 2012). 4068:Moreover, the "cost per minute" is 2916:. This means that these claims are 2545:"don't get stuck on the discussion" 1953:That both of you are obsessed about 23: 4591:Kevin Morris (February 13, 2013). 4462:, 16:9, accessed November 4, 2012. 4260:Lewis, Helen (December 25, 2012). 3331:At the 12:20 mark in This video: 1118:inappropriate emphasis on our part 812:Seems like a broader scope of the 24: 4728: 4427:Casey, Paul (December 10, 2012). 4192:Marketos, Cassie (May 21, 2012). 1054:I've drawn no such conclusion as 4483:Petit, Carolyn (June 12, 2012). 4373:Totilo, Stephen (July 3, 2012). 4212:"Tropes vs Women in Video Games" 4181:Vicsor's view on Anita's sources 3651:Background Decoration - Video #5 3642:The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2 3602:. Sarkeesian told the news show 2661: 1657:The discussion above is closed. 1011:by Gavia Baker-Whitelaw and the 788:Video series as separate article 639:The discussion above is closed. 29: 4708: 4697: 4686: 4663: 4642:Singal, Jesse (June 22, 2013). 4584: 4572: 4535: 4524: 4513: 4502: 4491: 4465: 4453: 4410: 4392:O'Meara, Sarah (July 6, 2012). 4385: 4366: 4324:McHugh, Molly (June 11, 2012). 3929:series, were one created. It's 3902:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games 1150:Using the source was discussed 120:List of Knowledge controversies 4704:Project updates at Kickstarter 4670:Hamilton, Kirk (28 May 2013). 4339:Lewis, Helen (June 12, 2012). 4317: 4229: 4204: 4185: 4174: 4163: 3756:Tropes vs Women in Video Games 3745:Tropes vs Women in Video Games 3648:The Sexy Villainess - Video #4 3628:Kickstarter Project in numbers 3501:16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 3430:15:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3411:15:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3363:21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC) 3345:20:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) 3322:09:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3297:09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3190:13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC) 3161:01:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC) 3146:09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 3126:03:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 3036:05:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 3017:05:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 2982:19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2967:18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2949:08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2930:23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2901:08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2871:22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2832:07:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2819:08:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2669:This user is new to Knowledge. 2599:14:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 2584:13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 2558:10:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 2527:19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 2510:18:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 2494:17:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 2454:19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC) 2437:20:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 2413:19:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 2389:19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 2369:18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 794:Tropes vs Women in Video Games 249:want prose when possible, per 13: 1: 4091:there take their profit from 3792:Minutes of video analysis: 73 3639:Damsel in Distress - Video #1 3104:16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC) 3083:15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC) 3056:15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC) 1382:An attempt to put criticism, 4472:TEDxWomen - Anita Sarkeesian 4158:09:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 4138:14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 4118:11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 4086:08:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 4050:22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 4027:22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 4005:19:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3988:18:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3972:20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3946:16:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3924:14:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3896:14:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3872:14:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3841:14:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 3645:The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3 3524:gender tropes in video games 7: 4438:Cross, Katherine. (2012). " 3378:15:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 3248:17:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 3233:15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 3215:14:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 2340:14:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2315:14:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2295:14:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2277:14:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2256:03:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2237:02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2213:02:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2186:01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2139:19:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 2121:00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 2105:23:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 2067:14:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2049:07:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 2035:20:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 2009:07:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 1986:17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 1965:16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 1930:17:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 1869:16:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 1833:19:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 1815:19:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 1802:don't make wild assumptions 1796:19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 1778:22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1763:18:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1738:18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1723:17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1704:16:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1650:00:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1620:00:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1599:00:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1587:Friday (Rebecca Black song) 1581:23:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1564:23:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1540:13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 1505:14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1455:14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1437:13:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1418:07:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 1396:13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1378:13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1353:09:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1338:08:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1319:08:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1303:05:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1276:01:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 1234:19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1214:22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1199:18:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1185:17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1166:17:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1133:17:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1108:16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1093:16:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1069:16:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1048:16:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 1033:15:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 995:14:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 895:14:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 877:02:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 860:02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 846:01:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 830:00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 807:00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 778:10:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 755:21:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 745:It's sort of cute though.-- 741:14:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 720:06:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 691:05:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 675:05:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 658:05:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 630:12:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 616:08:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 602:11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC) 586:10:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC) 559:18:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 523:11:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 10: 4733: 4194:"New Projects Are Sci-Fly" 3931:indiscriminate information 2514:It looks good to me now.-- 2147:Rebutals - how to add them 2015:Well, you are the one who 491:00:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) 4074:$ 1.78 million per minute 3702:3rd Stretch Goal $ 26,000 3686:2nd Stretch Goal $ 20,000 3658:1st Stretch Goal $ 15,000 3560:denial-of-service attacks 3333:http://vimeo.com/13216819 1007:), I think The Daily Dot 970:22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 954:06:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 928:05:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 463:18:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 445:17:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 413:15:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 399:14:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 378:13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 360:09:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 344:05:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 315:Problem with the timeline 4542:Anita's Kickstarter page 4498:Anita's Kickstarter page 4396:Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian 3567:Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian 3476:*The following sentence* 3457:*The following sentence* 2851:Please do not modify it. 2843:Hiding uncivil comment. 2712:Please do not modify it. 1659:Please do not modify it. 1424:intellectual courage. -- 641:Please do not modify it. 568:Please do not modify it. 539:irrelevant detail) from 303:12:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 281:22:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 263:22:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 241:12:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 222:04:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 202:04:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 179:03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 164:03:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 145:02:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 3754:The first video in the 3554:article was repeatedly 2260:To reiterate, however, 4334:. Digital Trends, Inc. 3795:Games referenced: 192 3740: 3175:the title of the piece 4581:accessed May 28, 2013 3789:Number of episodes: 3 3738: 3633:Original goal $ 6,000 3133:neutral point of view 3005:self-published source 2377:neutral point of view 331:face becomes bloody. 42:of past discussions. 18:Talk:Anita Sarkeesian 3114:outright namecalling 3066:The Devil's Advocate 496:Neutrality disputed. 428:The Devil's Advocate 156:alf laylah wa laylah 4403:The Huffington Post 4078:NorthBySouthBaranof 3959:over-funding -: --> 3610:The New York Times 3009:NorthBySouthBaranof 1947:that you should be 207:Harassment campaign 188:listed for deletion 186:The image has been 4359:Feminist Frequency 4290:The New York Times 4266:The New York Times 4070:original synthesis 3906:Potter Puppet Pals 3741: 3587:The New York Times 3582:video game culture 3546:The New York Times 2422:blaming the victim 2403:for your opinion. 1973:want to include.-- 1949:following yourself 1605:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 569: 4693:FeministFrequency 4292:, August 1, 2012. 4239:(June 13, 2012). 4011:Original Research 3943: 3852:The added detail 3578:sexual harassment 3414: 3397:comment added by 3300: 3283:comment added by 3187: 3169:, Slate, and the 3101: 2878: 2877: 2838: 2837: 2809:Peace, Nosepea68 2699: 2698: 2673:assume good faith 2655: 2641:comment added by 2634:Peace, Nosepea68 2581: 2535:Re Paste Magazine 2524: 2491: 2337: 2325: 2274: 2189: 2172:comment added by 2136: 2064: 1983: 1830: 1793: 1760: 1720: 1666: 1665: 1537: 1502: 1326:original research 1056:User:BerserkerBen 892: 784: 783: 567: 460: 375: 300: 238: 143: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4724: 4717: 4712: 4706: 4701: 4695: 4690: 4684: 4683: 4681: 4679: 4667: 4661: 4660: 4658: 4656: 4649:The Boston Globe 4639: 4633: 4632: 4630: 4628: 4617: 4608: 4607: 4605: 4603: 4588: 4582: 4576: 4570: 4569: 4567: 4565: 4550: 4544: 4539: 4533: 4528: 4522: 4517: 4511: 4506: 4500: 4495: 4489: 4488: 4480: 4474: 4469: 4463: 4457: 4451: 4414: 4408: 4407: 4389: 4383: 4382: 4370: 4364: 4350: 4335: 4321: 4315: 4314: 4302: 4293: 4282: 4269: 4258: 4249: 4248: 4237:Marcotte, Amanda 4233: 4227: 4226: 4224: 4222: 4208: 4202: 4201: 4189: 4183: 4178: 4172: 4167: 4130: 4129: 4042: 4041: 3993:don't you think. 3958:publicity -: --> 3941: 3916: 3915: 3900:I would name it 3864: 3863: 3761:The Boston Globe 3426: 3425: 3413: 3391: 3359: 3358: 3310:reliable sources 3299: 3277: 3185: 3099: 3079: 3074: 3068: 2964: 2958: 2853: 2840: 2839: 2714: 2701: 2700: 2665: 2658: 2654: 2635: 2607:Reliable sources 2579: 2541:WP:EDITCONSENSUS 2522: 2489: 2434: 2428: 2397:reliable sources 2335: 2319: 2311: 2310: 2272: 2227: 2209: 2208: 2188: 2166: 2134: 2062: 2025: 1997:WP:EDITCONSENSUS 1981: 1859: 1828: 1791: 1758: 1718: 1647: 1641: 1617: 1611: 1535: 1515: 1514: 1500: 1434: 1428: 1162: 1161: 1130: 1124: 890: 873: 872: 842: 841: 814:Tropes vs. Women 731: 716: 715: 696:The only remark 681:questionable. -- 671: 670: 549: 541:reliable sources 536:reliable sources 501: 500: 481: 458: 441: 436: 430: 389: 373: 298: 236: 198: 197: 138: 134: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4732: 4731: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4713: 4709: 4702: 4698: 4691: 4687: 4677: 4675: 4668: 4664: 4654: 4652: 4640: 4636: 4626: 4624: 4618: 4611: 4601: 4599: 4589: 4585: 4577: 4573: 4563: 4561: 4551: 4547: 4540: 4536: 4529: 4525: 4518: 4514: 4507: 4503: 4496: 4492: 4481: 4477: 4470: 4466: 4458: 4454: 4415: 4411: 4390: 4386: 4371: 4367: 4322: 4318: 4303: 4296: 4283: 4272: 4259: 4252: 4234: 4230: 4220: 4218: 4210: 4209: 4205: 4190: 4186: 4179: 4175: 4168: 4164: 4127: 4125: 4039: 4037: 3913: 3911: 3861: 3859: 3804:Videos released 3784: 3733: 3728: 3630: 3531:Amanda Marcotte 3516: 3511: 3423: 3421: 3392: 3356: 3354: 3329: 3306: 3278: 3265: 3081: 3077: 3072: 3064: 3044: 3001: 2997:reliable source 2993:Digital Journal 2962: 2956: 2849: 2710: 2636: 2609: 2537: 2462: 2432: 2426: 2356: 2308: 2306: 2225: 2206: 2204: 2199:reliable source 2167: 2149: 2023: 1857: 1667: 1662: 1645: 1639: 1615: 1609: 1542: 1432: 1426: 1262:I'll grant you. 1159: 1157: 1128: 1122: 1114:reliable source 909: 870: 868: 839: 837: 820:independently. 790: 785: 770:124.169.215.165 729: 713: 711: 683:124.169.215.165 668: 666: 650:124.169.215.165 645: 644: 608:112.213.168.173 572: 563: 562: 561: 547: 525: 498: 479: 473: 443: 439: 434: 426: 387: 317: 209: 195: 193: 136: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4730: 4719: 4718: 4707: 4696: 4685: 4662: 4634: 4609: 4583: 4571: 4545: 4534: 4523: 4512: 4501: 4490: 4475: 4464: 4452: 4450: 4449: 4436: 4409: 4384: 4365: 4363: 4362: 4351: 4331:Digital Trends 4316: 4294: 4284:O'Leary, Amy. 4270: 4250: 4228: 4203: 4184: 4173: 4161: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4107: 4101:pyramid scheme 4096: 4066: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4029: 3994: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3961: 3884: 3883: 3879: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3830: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3813: 3810: 3806: 3805: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3793: 3790: 3783: 3780: 3732: 3729: 3727: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3719: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3709: 3703: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3693: 3687: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3677: 3674: 3671: 3668: 3665: 3659: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3649: 3646: 3643: 3640: 3634: 3629: 3626: 3515: 3512: 3510: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3470: 3467: 3463: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3433: 3432: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3337:216.246.130.20 3328: 3325: 3305: 3302: 3264: 3261: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3235: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3167:New York Times 3070: 3043: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3022:I concur. The 3000: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2951: 2932: 2910:User:Nosepea68 2908:Greetings new 2890: 2889: 2884: 2883: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2855: 2854: 2845: 2844: 2836: 2835: 2801: 2764:More sources: 2716: 2715: 2706: 2705: 2697: 2696: 2666: 2608: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2461: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2440: 2439: 2416: 2415: 2392: 2391: 2355: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2297: 2215: 2174:RicardAnufriev 2148: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1932: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1850: 1835: 1664: 1663: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1544: 1543: 1518: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1470: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1306: 1305: 1264: 1263: 1254: 1247: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1073: 1072: 1071: 973: 972: 957: 956: 920:76.178.136.203 908: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 832: 789: 786: 782: 781: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 678: 677: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 573: 564: 533: 532: 531: 530: 527: 526: 504: 499: 497: 494: 472: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 432: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 316: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 208: 205: 184: 183: 182: 181: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4729: 4716: 4711: 4705: 4700: 4694: 4689: 4673: 4666: 4655:September 19, 4651: 4650: 4645: 4638: 4623: 4616: 4614: 4598: 4594: 4587: 4580: 4575: 4560: 4556: 4549: 4543: 4538: 4532: 4527: 4521: 4516: 4510: 4505: 4499: 4494: 4486: 4479: 4473: 4468: 4461: 4456: 4447: 4446: 4441: 4437: 4434: 4433:New Statesman 4430: 4426: 4425: 4423: 4419: 4413: 4405: 4404: 4399: 4397: 4388: 4380: 4376: 4369: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4348: 4347: 4346:New Statesman 4342: 4337: 4336: 4333: 4332: 4327: 4320: 4312: 4308: 4301: 4299: 4291: 4287: 4281: 4279: 4277: 4275: 4267: 4263: 4257: 4255: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4232: 4217: 4213: 4207: 4199: 4195: 4188: 4182: 4177: 4171: 4166: 4162: 4160: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4139: 4136: 4135: 4132: 4131: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4108: 4105: 4102: 4097: 4094: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4051: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4043: 4033: 4030: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3962: 3956: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3944: 3938: 3936: 3932: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3918: 3917: 3907: 3904:, similar to 3903: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3886: 3885: 3880: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3870: 3869: 3866: 3865: 3855: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3831: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3814: 3811: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3794: 3791: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3779: 3777: 3772: 3769: 3768: 3763: 3762: 3757: 3752: 3750: 3746: 3737: 3720: 3717: 3716: 3710: 3707: 3706: 3705:Incentives: 3704: 3701: 3700: 3694: 3691: 3690: 3689:Incentives: 3688: 3685: 3684: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3669: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3661:Incentives: 3660: 3657: 3656: 3650: 3647: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3637: 3636:Incentives: 3635: 3632: 3631: 3625: 3623: 3619: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3606: 3601: 3600: 3599:New Statesman 3595: 3594: 3589: 3588: 3583: 3579: 3574: 3572: 3568: 3563: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3547: 3542: 3538: 3537: 3532: 3527: 3525: 3521: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3480: 3475: 3474: 3471: 3468: 3464: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3444: 3441: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3431: 3428: 3427: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3390: 3386: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370:UncleThursday 3366: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3324: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3301: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3273: 3269: 3260: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3236: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3207:UncleThursday 3203: 3199: 3191: 3188: 3182: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3134: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3096: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3080: 3075: 3069: 3067: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 2998: 2994: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2965: 2959: 2952: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2933: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2886: 2885: 2880: 2879: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2852: 2847: 2846: 2842: 2841: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2794: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2782: 2779: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2769: 2765: 2762: 2759: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2632: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2612: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2582: 2576: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2546: 2542: 2528: 2525: 2519: 2517: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2486: 2484: 2480: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2464:I've removed 2455: 2451: 2447: 2442: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2429: 2423: 2418: 2417: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2341: 2338: 2332: 2330: 2323: 2322:edit conflict 2318: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2312: 2302: 2298: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2275: 2269: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2220: 2216: 2214: 2211: 2210: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2152: 2140: 2137: 2131: 2129: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2101: 2095: 2094:The Daily Dot 2068: 2065: 2059: 2057: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1978: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1933: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1861: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1834: 1831: 1825: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1794: 1788: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1761: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1721: 1715: 1713: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1679: 1677: 1672: 1660: 1651: 1648: 1642: 1636: 1632: 1627: 1621: 1618: 1612: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591:TheTruthiness 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556:TheTruthiness 1551: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1532: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1506: 1503: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1485: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1476: 1474: 1471: 1468: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1443:Roger Penrose 1440: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1429: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384:any criticism 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1374: 1368: 1364: 1363:The Daily Dot 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1268:Hamilton-wiki 1260: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1153: 1134: 1131: 1125: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1020:The Daily Dot 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 997: 996: 992: 988: 984: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 971: 967: 963: 959: 958: 955: 952: 950: 944: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 896: 893: 887: 885: 880: 879: 878: 875: 874: 863: 862: 861: 857: 853: 849: 848: 847: 844: 843: 833: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 808: 804: 800: 795: 780: 779: 775: 771: 767: 756: 752: 748: 747:Hamilton-wiki 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 733: 723: 722: 721: 718: 717: 707: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 692: 688: 684: 676: 673: 672: 662: 661: 660: 659: 655: 651: 642: 631: 627: 623: 619: 618: 617: 613: 609: 605: 604: 603: 599: 595: 590: 589: 588: 587: 583: 579: 571: 560: 556: 552: 551: 542: 537: 529: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 503: 502: 493: 492: 488: 484: 483: 464: 461: 455: 453: 448: 447: 446: 442: 437: 431: 429: 422: 414: 410: 406: 402: 401: 400: 396: 392: 391: 381: 380: 379: 376: 370: 368: 363: 362: 361: 357: 353: 348: 347: 346: 345: 341: 337: 332: 328: 326: 321: 304: 301: 295: 293: 289: 284: 283: 282: 278: 274: 270: 266: 265: 264: 260: 256: 252: 248: 244: 243: 242: 239: 233: 231: 226: 225: 224: 223: 219: 215: 204: 203: 200: 199: 189: 180: 176: 172: 167: 166: 165: 161: 157: 153: 150:I agree with 149: 148: 147: 146: 142: 139: 133: 128: 123: 121: 116: 114: 110: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4710: 4699: 4688: 4676:. Retrieved 4665: 4653:. Retrieved 4647: 4637: 4627:19 September 4625:. Retrieved 4602:19 September 4600:. Retrieved 4586: 4574: 4562:. Retrieved 4548: 4537: 4526: 4515: 4504: 4493: 4478: 4467: 4455: 4443: 4432: 4422:Toronto Star 4421: 4412: 4401: 4395: 4387: 4368: 4358: 4344: 4329: 4319: 4289: 4265: 4231: 4219:. Retrieved 4206: 4187: 4176: 4165: 4146: 4133: 4124: 4073: 4045: 4036: 3955:crowdfunding 3919: 3910: 3901: 3867: 3858: 3853: 3851: 3773: 3765: 3759: 3755: 3753: 3744: 3742: 3726:Video series 3615: 3609: 3603: 3597: 3593:The Guardian 3591: 3585: 3575: 3573:" misogyny. 3566: 3564: 3544: 3534: 3528: 3517: 3420: 3393:— Preceding 3387: 3384: 3353: 3330: 3307: 3279:— Preceding 3274: 3270: 3266: 3258: 3174: 3171:Toronto Star 3170: 3166: 3153:96.54.76.154 3118:96.54.76.154 3113: 3109: 3087:Her case is 3065: 3045: 3002: 2936: 2918:WP:SYNTHESIS 2891: 2850: 2822: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2797: 2791: 2788: 2783: 2780: 2775: 2771: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2755: 2750: 2745: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2711: 2677:remain civil 2668: 2637:— Preceding 2633: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2617: 2613: 2610: 2567:best put it 2538: 2463: 2446:BerserkerBen 2361:92.15.61.236 2357: 2305: 2282: 2222: 2218: 2203: 2194: 2168:— Preceding 2163: 2160: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2099: 2093: 2091: 2020: 1970: 1952: 1883: 1874: 1854: 1846: 1842: 1747: 1691: 1687: 1680: 1675: 1670: 1668: 1658: 1635:hermeneutics 1630: 1549: 1547: 1521:WP:NOTAFORUM 1466: 1461: 1406: 1383: 1372: 1366: 1362: 1307: 1265: 1258: 1250: 1243: 1237: 1222: 1156: 1149: 1112:But until a 1100:BerserkerBen 1080: 1040:BerserkerBen 987:BerserkerBen 948: 938: 918: 914: 910: 867: 836: 791: 765: 763: 726: 710: 701: 697: 679: 665: 646: 640: 574: 565: 544: 506: 476: 474: 427: 384: 333: 329: 322: 318: 246: 210: 192: 185: 124: 117: 106: 75: 43: 37: 4564:3 September 4487:. GameSpot. 4216:Kickstarter 4198:Kickstarter 3541:Helen Lewis 3520:Kickstarter 3024:Baron op-ed 2957:Orange Mike 2427:Orange Mike 2301:Xeni Jardin 2221:be better! 2054:recently.-- 1945:some policy 1887:impression. 1847:aggregators 1640:Orange Mike 1610:Orange Mike 1427:Orange Mike 1291:WP:NOTFORUM 1283:WP:NOTFORUM 1123:Orange Mike 935:WP:BLPSTYLE 933:Please see 706:not a forum 702:the article 698:the article 578:BaSH PR0MPT 288:Helen Lewis 269:WP:NEWSBLOG 190:(again). -- 36:This is an 4093:box office 3935:Cúchullain 3731:Production 3556:vandalized 3304:Discussion 3225:DonQuixote 3179:Cúchullain 3093:Cúchullain 2573:Cúchullain 2516:Cúchullain 2483:Cúchullain 2479:Due weight 2329:Cúchullain 2283:her videos 2266:Cúchullain 2128:Cúchullain 2056:Cúchullain 2041:Diego Moya 2017:brought up 2001:Diego Moya 1975:Cúchullain 1957:Diego Moya 1922:Diego Moya 1822:Cúchullain 1807:Diego Moya 1785:Cúchullain 1770:Diego Moya 1752:Cúchullain 1730:Diego Moya 1712:Cúchullain 1696:Diego Moya 1674:including 1573:DonQuixote 1529:Cúchullain 1494:Cúchullain 1490:due weight 1447:DonQuixote 1410:Diego Moya 1173:User:NeilN 884:Cúchullain 822:—chaos5023 622:DonQuixote 452:Cúchullain 450:article.-- 405:Will McRoy 367:Cúchullain 336:Will McRoy 292:Cúchullain 230:Cúchullain 95:Archive 10 4597:Daily Dot 4311:Wired.com 4245:Slate.com 4150:Nosepea68 4110:Nosepea68 4104:Wincapita 4032:Nosepea68 4015:Synthesis 3997:Nosepea68 3964:Nosepea68 3888:Nosepea68 3833:Nosepea68 3767:ReadWrite 3618:TEDxWomen 3552:Knowledge 3493:Nosepea68 3399:Nosepea68 3285:Nosepea68 3263:Criticism 3219:To use a 2893:Nosepea68 2824:Nosepea68 2811:Nosepea68 2679:, and be 2643:Nosepea68 2474:ReadWrite 2460:Money use 1882:that the 1880:synthesis 1367:Daily Dot 1251:wikipedia 1226:Cap020570 130:quickly. 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4674:. Kotaku 4221:June 14, 4019:Koncorde 3980:Koncorde 3571:gamified 3485:violent. 3407:contribs 3395:unsigned 3293:contribs 3281:unsigned 3240:Koncorde 2974:Koncorde 2863:Qwyrxian 2651:contribs 2639:unsigned 2287:Qwyrxian 2248:Qwyrxian 2182:contribs 2170:unsigned 2113:Qwyrxian 1936:WP:IINFO 1839:WP:IINFO 1330:Qwyrxian 1295:Qwyrxian 1244:probably 1085:Woodroar 852:Qwyrxian 799:Qwyrxian 594:Qwyrxian 534:Without 515:Qwyrxian 471:Heads-up 424:clear.-- 352:Qwyrxian 255:Qwyrxian 251:WP:PROSE 113:reverted 4678:13 July 3776:YouTube 3580:in the 3543:of the 3202:notable 3089:notable 3062:work.-- 3049:Euniana 3028:BusterD 2922:BusterD 2689:helpful 2685:patient 2671:Please 2405:Jim1138 2401:soapbox 2098:Adrian 1941:WP:NPOV 1843:editors 1388:Jim1138 1371:Adrian 1359:idiotic 1206:BusterD 1177:BusterD 1061:BusterD 1025:BusterD 1009:article 962:Euchrid 947:Adrian 507:deleted 171:Euchrid 152:Andreas 132:Andreas 127:flagged 39:archive 4559:Kotaku 4379:Kotaku 4009:OR is 3749:Tumblr 3622:Bungie 3110:hardly 3078:cntrb. 2995:not a 2937:others 2914:WP:IRS 2882:norm). 2693:polite 2691:, and 2565:Rjanag 2327:use.-- 2244:WP:SPS 2102:Hunter 1993:WP:BRD 1845:, not 1744:weight 1688:itself 1525:WP:TPG 1375:Hunter 1287:WP:BLP 1081:demand 951:Hunter 766:before 511:WP:BLP 440:cntrb. 247:always 4445:Bitch 3536:Slate 3466:that. 3314:Diego 3138:Diego 2941:Diego 2591:Diego 2550:Diego 2502:Diego 1676:other 1345:Bilby 1311:Bilby 1191:Bilby 273:Diego 214:Ranze 111:been 109:twice 16:< 4680:2013 4657:2013 4629:2013 4604:2013 4566:2013 4223:2012 4154:talk 4126:Neil 4114:talk 4082:talk 4038:Neil 4023:talk 4001:talk 3984:talk 3968:talk 3912:Neil 3892:talk 3860:Neil 3837:talk 3605:16x9 3596:and 3497:talk 3422:Neil 3403:talk 3374:talk 3355:Neil 3341:talk 3318:talk 3289:talk 3244:talk 3229:talk 3221:Java 3211:talk 3157:talk 3142:talk 3122:talk 3073:tlk. 3053:Talk 3032:talk 3013:talk 2978:talk 2963:Talk 2945:talk 2926:talk 2897:talk 2888:one. 2867:talk 2828:talk 2815:talk 2681:calm 2647:talk 2595:talk 2569:here 2554:talk 2543:and 2506:talk 2470:here 2466:this 2450:talk 2433:Talk 2424:! -- 2409:talk 2385:talk 2381:Cast 2365:talk 2307:Neil 2291:talk 2252:talk 2233:talk 2228:anaɢ 2219:must 2205:Neil 2201:. -- 2178:talk 2117:talk 2045:talk 2031:talk 2026:anaɢ 2005:talk 1995:and 1961:talk 1926:talk 1884:only 1875:have 1865:talk 1860:anaɢ 1811:talk 1774:talk 1734:talk 1700:talk 1692:some 1671:only 1646:Talk 1631:i.e. 1616:Talk 1607:. -- 1595:talk 1577:talk 1560:talk 1550:paid 1523:and 1451:talk 1433:Talk 1414:talk 1392:talk 1349:talk 1334:talk 1315:talk 1299:talk 1272:talk 1230:talk 1210:talk 1195:talk 1181:talk 1158:Neil 1152:here 1129:Talk 1104:talk 1089:talk 1065:talk 1044:talk 1029:talk 991:talk 966:talk 924:talk 907:ahem 869:Neil 856:talk 838:Neil 826:talk 818:WP:N 803:talk 774:talk 751:talk 737:talk 732:anaɢ 712:Neil 708:. -- 687:talk 667:Neil 654:talk 626:talk 612:talk 598:talk 582:talk 555:talk 550:anaɢ 519:talk 487:talk 482:anaɢ 435:tlk. 409:talk 395:talk 390:anaɢ 356:talk 340:talk 277:talk 259:talk 218:talk 194:Neil 175:talk 160:talk 4442:". 3854:may 3533:in 2195:who 1748:one 1462:one 1259:why 1013:two 141:466 115:. 4646:. 4612:^ 4595:. 4557:. 4431:, 4424:. 4420:, 4400:. 4377:. 4357:, 4343:. 4328:. 4309:. 4297:^ 4288:, 4273:^ 4264:, 4253:^ 4243:. 4214:. 4196:. 4156:) 4116:) 4084:) 4025:) 4013:, 4003:) 3986:) 3970:) 3894:) 3839:) 3590:, 3499:) 3409:) 3405:• 3376:) 3351:-- 3343:) 3320:) 3295:) 3291:• 3246:) 3231:) 3213:) 3159:) 3144:) 3124:) 3047:-- 3034:) 3015:) 2980:) 2960:| 2947:) 2928:) 2899:) 2869:) 2830:) 2817:) 2687:, 2683:, 2675:, 2649:• 2597:) 2556:) 2508:) 2452:) 2430:| 2411:) 2387:) 2367:) 2293:) 2254:) 2235:) 2184:) 2180:• 2119:) 2100:J. 2047:) 2033:) 2007:) 1971:do 1963:) 1928:) 1867:) 1813:) 1776:) 1736:) 1702:) 1643:| 1633:, 1613:| 1597:) 1579:) 1562:) 1453:) 1430:| 1416:) 1394:) 1373:J. 1351:) 1336:) 1317:) 1301:) 1274:) 1232:) 1212:) 1197:) 1183:) 1126:| 1106:) 1091:) 1067:) 1046:) 1031:) 1016:by 1003:, 993:) 968:) 949:J. 945:. 926:) 865:-- 858:) 828:) 805:) 776:) 753:) 739:) 689:) 656:) 648:-- 628:) 614:) 600:) 584:) 557:) 543:. 521:) 489:) 411:) 397:) 358:) 342:) 279:) 271:. 261:) 220:) 177:) 162:) 137:JN 91:→ 4682:. 4659:. 4631:. 4606:. 4568:. 4435:. 4406:. 4398:" 4381:. 4361:. 4349:. 4313:. 4268:. 4247:. 4225:. 4200:. 4152:( 4128:N 4112:( 4080:( 4040:N 4021:( 3999:( 3982:( 3966:( 3942:c 3939:/ 3914:N 3890:( 3862:N 3835:( 3495:( 3439:: 3424:N 3401:( 3372:( 3357:N 3339:( 3316:( 3287:( 3242:( 3227:( 3209:( 3186:c 3183:/ 3155:( 3140:( 3120:( 3100:c 3097:/ 3051:/ 3030:( 3011:( 2976:( 2943:( 2924:( 2895:( 2865:( 2826:( 2813:( 2653:) 2645:( 2593:( 2580:c 2577:/ 2552:( 2523:c 2520:/ 2504:( 2490:c 2487:/ 2448:( 2407:( 2383:( 2363:( 2336:c 2333:/ 2324:) 2320:( 2309:N 2289:( 2273:c 2270:/ 2250:( 2231:( 2226:ʨ 2224:r 2207:N 2176:( 2135:c 2132:/ 2115:( 2063:c 2060:/ 2043:( 2029:( 2024:ʨ 2022:r 2003:( 1982:c 1979:/ 1959:( 1924:( 1863:( 1858:ʨ 1856:r 1829:c 1826:/ 1809:( 1792:c 1789:/ 1772:( 1759:c 1756:/ 1732:( 1719:c 1716:/ 1698:( 1593:( 1575:( 1558:( 1536:c 1533:/ 1501:c 1498:/ 1449:( 1412:( 1390:( 1347:( 1332:( 1313:( 1297:( 1270:( 1228:( 1208:( 1193:( 1179:( 1160:N 1102:( 1087:( 1063:( 1042:( 1027:( 1005:2 1001:1 989:( 964:( 922:( 891:c 888:/ 871:N 854:( 840:N 824:( 801:( 772:( 749:( 735:( 730:ʨ 728:r 714:N 685:( 669:N 652:( 624:( 610:( 596:( 580:( 553:( 548:ʨ 546:r 517:( 485:( 480:ʨ 478:r 459:c 456:/ 407:( 393:( 388:ʨ 386:r 374:c 371:/ 354:( 338:( 299:c 296:/ 275:( 257:( 237:c 234:/ 216:( 196:N 173:( 158:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index