Talk:Jessica Valenti

message: There are a lot of material out there (from feminists, egalitarians and masculinists) criticizing Jessica Valenti. We need to create a section about controversial. --Momo Monitor (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. AndrewOne (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

text: It is not intellectually honest to present words on a T-shirt worn by Valenti in a photo as though it were a quote by Valenti in something called "Feminist Analysis". Your link is not to anything written by Valenti, but to a blog post by Rachel Edwards on Honey Badger Brigade about said T-shirt, which would be not be a "feminist analysis" but an anti-feminist critique. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

text: There was a "That means semen" novelty Twitter account that responded to mentions of "male tears" on Twitter, and that definition was added to Urban Dictionary in 2017, but I haven't found any usage of "male tears" with that meaning in old literature. If you can find evidence of such an archaic usage, I'd love to see it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversials and Public View 

message: I'd like to add this to the Writing section:
In 2016 leaked emails from Wikileaks verified she was working with the clinton foundation to discredit Bernie Saunders (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18566).  Discredit sounds a bit dubious, was hoping there was better wording.  Maybe "In 2016 leaked emails showed she collaborated with Clinton
foundation on writing articles critical of bernie saunders"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find legitimate secondary news sources that make Wikileaks' documents mentioning Valenti meet Wikipedia's notability standards, then by definition it has to be included in this article. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is at least one usable article about Valenti being contracted by the Clinton campaign to covertly write "hit pieces" about Bernie Sanders being anti-woman https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/10/wikileaks-email-reveals-liberal-bloggers-coordinat.html VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That source does not corroborate the story the Valenti and Clinton teams collaborate covertly, it only states that the Valenti was mentioned in internal communications but does confirm they ever reached out much less that there was any collaboration.  I'm removing the passage the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:1507:AE32:F7FE:F6C9 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out; indeed the sources do not support the claim as it stood in the entry. Removal of the section seems appropriate because I think it would be WP:UNDUE to have a whole section devoted to saying a Clinton staffer mentioned Valenti as an opinion writer critical of Sanders, the verifiable piece of this. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon my interruption, but the subject, Ms. Valenti herself, has posted this on Twitter: "Hey, any Wikipedia-knowledgeable friends wanna help me out? Someone edited my entry to say that I coordinated with HRC's campaign to smear Bernie Sanders 🙄 and not sure how I can go about fixing?"https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/980530709126361088 While I don't object to the removal of unsourced material, I do worry about possible vandalism to the page due to this notice. Perhaps a WP:SILVERLOCK is in order, just until this dies down, say, three days? — Javert2113 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Valenti's Twitter aside (and it looks like a traffic surge from at least one other source), the entire section seems predicated on a fundamental misreading of all of source documents I've seen (and I did following the Wikileaks stories fairly closely so I don't believe I'd be missing anything this major).  If it's going to get changed back as I see it is right now, there needs to be a much more convincing explanation of that source than I can find or another source altogether.  And yes, a lock is probably in order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:1507:AE32:F7FE:F6C9 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: If you start reading from the beginning of this section, Valenti's request is entirely legitimate. Philip Cross (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Cross, I don't disagree, to a point. But Ms Valenti's request, however legitimate, is still her placing her finger on the scale and possibly attempting to influence WP:NPOV. I don't like that; and neither should you, as a good editor. That aside, however, the legitimacy of her request is not the main point: the edit warring that's going on, ever since she posted, is my worry. As such, I may be requesting that the page be placed under WP:SILVERLOCK for a few days. I would like to hear some opinions first. — Javert2113 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pending changes restriction instead? Difficulty here is that this is actually what we asked BLP subjects to do when they notice issues with their entry--do not make changes yourself, seek assistance. And, these IPs have successfully drawn the attention of experienced editors to a real issue in the entry. So if possible I'd rather we not lock everyone out (disruption by individuals obviously a different matter), but allow supervised participation and try to guide it toward our processes, i.e. developing consensus on the talk page. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Blast, really wish I hadn't gone in for a temporary WP:SILVERLOCK now. Pending changes works so much better; then again, the subject isn't that well-known, and the silver-lock would only be, at most, for a few days, till all this dies down. Still, it's not a bad idea at all. (Sorry about my unilateral actions...) — Javert2113 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I followed up at RPP--sorry I didn't answer your query here more quickly! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite all right! Hopefully this issue is resolved soon, and, quite truthfully, I would fully support the pending changes bit, if the admins want it. Thank you again, and have a great day! — Javert2113 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Valenti has not asked for the passage to be blanked. "Not sure how I can go about fixing", does not ask editors to do that. Philip Cross (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. I'll concede that point. It stands to reason, however, that "fixing" encompasses a number of actions, up to and including the blanking of the section, does it not? I'm honestly not sure about the provenance of the story, or even if it's true, or, really, much about it; but it is properly sourced, even if it may be slightly slanted. I would offer a better source, if I could, but I cannot. However, given the continuing edit war (which has only simmered down in the last few minutes, but will probably spark back up again once Twitter Moments hears of it), I have asked for it to be temporarily locked. — Javert2113 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've had article subjects indirectly ask their viewers to edit articles before... Sierrak28 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly unsure if these precedents are meant to bolster my argument or not... — Javert2113 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Each sentence in this section has a citation. Firstly, do the sentences misrepresent the sources? That is, do they say something that isn't cited, or something that jumps to a conclusion? Secondly, are the sentences factually incorrect? That is, has there been new information which invalidates the previous claims, and can that new information be cited? How should this section be "fixed"? The subject is using terms like "smear" or "conspiracy" which don't exist in this article. Can the article be "fixed" to a point where the subject is happy? Should it? 2601:1C0:7000:8405:B039:2F94:8BA4:A455 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking I may have been the first to blank here so I'll take this one - the New York Post source linked does not support the claims made on this page (this is discussed above) especially with regards to collaboration which is, of course, an incredibly strong claim and one I would much more readily contest than the "smear" terminology which, as far as I know, is basically a meaningless term in opinion writing.  My understanding from there was that the section wasn't noteworthy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:1507:AE32:F7FE:F6C9 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues with the contested material begin with the first sentence, the allegation about working with a campaign. That's simply not in any cited sources, and thus is a straightforward WP:BLP violation, which requires sourcing for controversial material. Next, the chronology the second sentence presents is not only unsourced, but actually disprovable as Valenti had discussed Sanders in the Guardian prior to the date in question (Jan 20, 2016) (e.g. 1, 2). After that, all we can reliably source is how a Clinton communications staffer viewed Valenti, and Valenti's explanation about seeking comment from her piece. In the entry's current form, I don't think that can be included without lending undue weight to something we have no RS to indicate Valenti was involved with beyond saying she wasn't involved. I could see us eventually getting better sources, for instance contextualizing that leak, its sources and effects, etc. etc., but, absent such analysis in RS, I think it's better left out. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Post article directly links to the specific WikiLeaks email which ties Jessica Valenti to the Clinton campaign. Do you believe the WikiLeaks email should be the citation instead of the New York Post? It is extremely disingenuous to repeatedly state that the linked citations do not support any of the claims made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.220.128 (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki leaks entry 

message: Jessica Valenti, the subject of this article, asked her Twitter followers how she could delete this section from her article.
This has, of course, started an edit war, and several people are blanking the section.
: I don't think it makes sense to read that / consider that as a deletion request.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:1507:AE32:F7FE:F6C9 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors got into an edit war to make sure that section was blanked and the article was locked immediately after that tweet was made. Not sure what other conclusion you could come to. 73.157.220.128 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 Presidential campaign controversy 

message: I've come up with a new proposed gloss focusing on WP:UNDUE concerns, rather than the absolute letter of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, since that longer version perhaps pleased no one. While bordering on trivia in presentation, this shorter gloss does have the advantage of not being particularly controversial since it only relays widely agreed upon facts, while preserving references for readers who wish to delve further into the matter themselves. -- Kendrick7talk 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorter version