Talk:Alisa Valdes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AfterEllen.com[edit]

There was a lot of edit warring over this issue. As I see it there are three questions:

1. Should the original interview[1] where the subject discusses her bisexuality and its effect upon her work be included? Is this relevant to the biography? 2. If yes to question 1, should the followup story in AfterEllen.com[2] (where the subject denies that she is bisexual) be added? 3. If yes to 1 and 2, should the subject's subsequent blog post(now removed) affirming her bisexuality also be included? I think that number 3 is a definite no, as the source is gone. Owomnyc (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bisexuality claim is relevant, as the subject did say that her bisexuality was a factor in her writing. The first AfterEllen article is a source for this. The second article should be included as it affirms that the subject did indeed out herself. It would have been helpful to have the subject's own explanation, but she has chosen to remove it.

The problem is that the second article does not affirm that the subject outed herself- that was in the now deleted blog entry. As it stands now all we have is the original AfterEllen article and then the second "Visibility Matters" article which contains the subject's denials. I would suggest that we address the matter briefly in the article. Something like: "In an interview with AfterEllen.com, Valdes-Rodriguez discussed her bisexuality and its effect upon her writing. She later asserted that the interviewer misunderstood her statements and that she is not bisexual." That seems to be the most NPOV option.Owomnyc (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is important, but would urge caution with the claim that the interviewer misunderstood her. The whole controversy was over journalistic integrity. Given that Valdez-Roderiguez (herself a journalist)has admitted that she initially re-confirmed all the details of that interview, but then changed her mind, it is unfair on the interviewer to imply that she engaged in "outing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsrchicago (talk • contribs) 07:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely do not want to convey that any fault lay with the AfterEllen.com interviewer. Now that we have a a third party source [3] we can discuss the whole controversy in greater detail. How about this: "In a 2008 interview with AfterEllen.com, Valdes-Rodriguez discussed her bisexuality and its effect upon her writing.[4] Valdes-Rodriguez later publicly claimed that the writer from AfterEllen.com had mischaracterized her statements and that she was not a bisexual.[5] After Sarah Warn wrote a column about the controversy, Valdes-Rodriguez withdrew her accusations against AfterEllen.com and acknowledged that she did identify as a bisexual and was quoted correctly in the original interview."[6]Owomnyc (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an update on the situation: in an interview on a UK lesbian website Valdes-Rodriguez has confirmed that she is bisexual: http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/books-art/interview-alisa-valdes-rodriguez-on-bisexuality-and-the-haters/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.229.131 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation Letter[edit]

I think that information about the LA Times resignation letter should be included in the subject's entry. The letter is mentioned in most of the profiles of the author and is one of the main reasons that the subject is so well-known. Should the supposed "blacklist" information be included? I reinserted it for now. Essiedot (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutley agree that the resignation letter be included. Is there another source for the blacklist claims?74.10.192.97 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can produce a copy of said "letter," there is no proof such a thing exists, other than blogs. Repeated reference to something nearly a decade old and never proved to exist shows only that certain bitter people would like to do whatever they can to damage the author's (my) reputation through the anonymous and cowardly means of wikipedia. Unless a copy of such a document is proved to exist, you engage in defamation by purporting it to exist. End of story. Get a life. Move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.186.62 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The resignation letter is referenced in The New York Times[7], St. Petersburg Times[8], and even in an interview with the subject on the Today Show.[9] All RS. I do agree that the blacklist claims are poorly sourced and do not belong in the article.Owomnyc (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-class family claim[edit]

As has been made clear in the author's personal blog, her family was not middle class when she was born. They lived in a housing project at the time of her birth and soon moved to a four-room house that cost $75 a month, in rural NM. Check the author's own page regarding this. Whomever continues to insert this erroneous info does so in an attempt to discredit the writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.186.62 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear that this is the subject herself, given the argument about how editors are on a mission to "discredit" her. Other contributors have pointed to sources where Valdez-Rodriguez has clearly described herself as a middle-class Cuban.

Bipolar disorder claim[edit]

The author has never been diagnosed with this disorder. The reasons for continued insertion of it is to defame the author. Her own blog says this on the page linked at the end of the profile. To claim the author suffers from a medical diagnosis that she does not have is libelous. Unless you can produce a qualified source on this, it must not be continuously added, regardless of how much pleasure it gives you to pretend it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.186.62 (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality claim[edit]

The author does not identify as bisexual, though she often includes GLBT people in her books in an effort to be inclusive. She is married to a man and has been for 12 years. Please check her statement on this before attempting to put this in her profile again. Again, this information is unsourced and libelous. There was a Q&A interview with the After Ellen website which claimed the author was bisexual, but the author's official response to this (on her blog) is that she told the Web site she believed everyone to be somewhere on the Kinsey Scale, and that she herself was probably 95 percent straight, and 5 percent curious. This is not unusual, but it also does not merit a classification of "bisexual," especially if the author herself is married to a man and does not self-identify in this way. Toying with libel to post it.

This is pretty unequivocal:

Valdes-Rodriguez answered AfterEllen.com’s questions via email. In this interview, Valdes-Rodriguez speaks about being bisexual for the first time in the press. She also touches on issues ranging from outing to labels, and gives us a snapshot of her upcoming work.

AfterEllen.com: The Dirty Girls Social Club and Dirty Girls on Top center on a diverse group of female characters, including Elizabeth Cruz, who is a lesbian. What were some of the sources, personal or documentary, that led you to create this character?

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez: As a bisexual woman (who, as it happens, is faithfully married to a man and therefore living a “straight” life) I feel it is important to include homosexual or bisexual characters in my work. I am living proof that such things are not “choices,” but innate.[10]

Is Valdes-Rodriguez claiming this was made up? David Shankbone 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuals can, by definition, be in committed heterosexual relationships. Valdes-Rodriguez once again claimed to be a bisexual when she admitted that she lied in this dispute. She then refused to acknowledge it, posted on her blog about it,then deleted her own blog post. She attempted to discredit a creditable website. This dispute should be in the public domain and part of this entry.

Perhaps this whole entry should be deleted as it is impossible to find any accurate information on this woman. Jsrchicago (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Using Valdes-Rodriguez as a source about herself[edit]

I've done some rummaging to sort out some of these issues. One of the big problems is that Valdes-Rodriguez does not appear to be a reliable source about herself. I have found two major instances where she has made an unequivocal statement, and then later recanted that statement without acknowledging it, nor explaining why she made it to begin with, nor why it appears to be written by her, even on the same blog (with reader comments) where she later denies it. examples:

  1. In her "Farewell to David Foster Wallace" written September 2008 that has since been taken down (it remains in Google's cache[11]), Valdes-Rodriguez wrote, "To me, that sounds like the manic phase of bipolar disorder, something I am quite familiar with. Spurred by David's death, I am, today, here, going to go public with my own struggles with the disorder, which I have finally begun to treat and get a handle on. I have bipolar disorder/depression. I don't like it, and I'm not proud of it. But this very same monster that spurs me to ridiculous behavior in my personal or professional life (up to and including bulimia, and serious thoughts of suicide now and then) has also enabled me to pen entire novels in six days." On the same blog in August 2008, she wrote "I do not suffer from bipolar disorder and have never been diagnosed with such a disorder. I sympathize greatly with those who do, and have family members who do. But I do not."[12]
  2. In a written, e-mailed interview published September 2008, Valdes-Rodriguez told AfterEllen.com[13], "As a bisexual woman (who, as it happens, is faithfully married to a man and therefore living a “straight” life) I feel it is important to include homosexual or bisexual characters in my work. I am living proof that such things are not “choices,” but innate." On her blog in August 2008, she wrote, "I do not identify as bisexual, but as straight. I have been married to a man for 12 years, and have a son. Nonetheless, I believe most people are somewhere on the Kinsey Scale of human sexuality, and I make an effort to include fully-realized GLBT characters in my work."[14].

Unfortunately, these unequivocal, declarative statements all seem to originate from Valdes-Rodriguez, making her a problematic source on this article. From what I've seen, she has made no attempt to explain their contradictions nor why they all appear to be made by her. --David Shankbone 17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing we need to ask ourselves is whether either of these two issues is relevant to this biography or not. Easiest to leave them out. If we do decide that either should be covered, then we state as baldly as possible that the subject made one statement and subsequently made another statement. We don't need to say anything about whether there is a contradiction or which one is right. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are here to explain to people, and issues like sexuality and mental health are innate characteristics of who a person is, and their creative content (David Foster Wallace or Ellen DeGeneres are good examples). So I think they should be covered. The tricky question is how to explain the flatly contradictory statements? Such contradictions make it more imperative we educate as best we can, as we can't be the only people confused. The edit-warring on this article shows exactly why we need to figure out how to present this issue given the problem the contradictions present in writing the bio.--David Shankbone 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is Alisa. I have never been diagnosed as bipolar. I am not bisexual. This is pretty clear. Want to discuss it in court? Keep "publishing" lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.187.159 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as recent events have illustrated, we can not use the subject's blog as a source in this article. Entries on the blog are constantly changed or deleted, which then leads to edit warring. Owomnyc (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection[edit]

Sorry guys, but 4RR's quite enough. If you would, please discuss first, edit later. Don't unprotect by yourself, request unprotection at Requests for page protection. Regardless of the merits of the edits, repeated edit-warring slows the site down and is a detriment to everyone.

Please note that all articles are always protected on the wrong version. Kylu (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alisa Valdes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alisa Valdes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alisa Valdes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alisa_Valdes&oldid=1209325119"