Talk:Jessica Valenti/Archive 1

Use of the word 'shit' in Colbert interview

Someone has twice added mention of Valenti possibly uttering the word 'shit' during the Colbert Report interview to the article. The first time it was reverted by another editor; then this person re-added it with vaguer language that it was 'allegedly' said and that discussion is 'undergoing' [sic]. I did a Google search and found no significant mentions of this issue on Web pages or blogs; one or two blogs mentioned that they thought she said it, but not in a way that made it controversial or a subject worth including in a Wikipedia article. Dbalpert 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

I hadn't heard of Jessica Valenti before finding this page, but this article is horrid. Describing someone as a person "of color" is long out of style, there are too many weasel words (?) in the article, such as "withering" and "bitter", and I'm not sure that the Encyclopedia Dramatica reference should be included. I'm going to clean it up, so if anyone has any objections, and wishes to revert, let us discuss it here first. I am somewhat unsure about the ED reference - since links to ED are blacklisted, we cannot verify anything related to its content unless it is mentioned somewhere else. Since ED has officially been declared to be beneath Wikipedia's standards of notability (bullshit, of course), I don't think mention of it is warranted. Therefore, I'm going to delete the "Parody" section, but, again, please put any objections in this talk page. Bloodbeard 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section should probably be removed, honestly, but doing so would necessitate the inclusion of more content, which I do not feel up to. Bloodbeard 00:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Since people who are apparently involved in this affair (?) are editing this article, I'm wondering if it should not be deleted. It's barely encyclopedic, as it is. I am, however, not the one to make such a decision. Bloodbeard 22:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section completely unbalances the article. Unless there is any disagreement, I will remove it. Sections in Wikipedia must adhere to the Biography of Living Persons WP:BLP. In particular, the material cannot be a "Self Published Source" such as from a blog, but it has to be from an objective third party source. For example, a periodical or publication which references a blog. Otherwise, anyone could make a blog post and then write in their criticisms into Wikipedia entries. One might fear that it would create a blogwar on a wikipedia entry. I suspect in this case that people with an axe to grind with Valenti may be the ones editing this entry, rather than an honest attempt to bring forward the content of the article to be fuller and more complete. If someone could write a better, more objective Criticism section of Valenti WITHOUT using Self-Published Sources, that would be a good idea. Please note that posts must also qualify under the Neutral POV standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Steveng72 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad that someone found this page. I'm willing to help, but I really know nothing about the subject in question, and I don't feel like spending however many hours going around and reading the blogs of pseudo-intellectual feminists in order to get a feel for it. Not my idea of fun. So, for now, I think getting rid of the Criticism section was a good idea. The article looks much better. Bloodbeard 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the anti-racism blog circuit POC and WOC are the favored terms. It might be considered "out of date" in academia, but on the internet "non-white" is discarded as being too negatively-defined and all other terms as too limited and not inclusive enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.71.70 (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated change attempts by damiens.rf

User damiens.rf has been trying to make certain edits for the last three days. I believe these edits are an attempt to introduce a negative POV to the article by replacing factual assertions with "according to an interview for a blog" or "according to her own blog". I have been attempting to find more factual sources, but rather than either a) replacing them with [citation needed] to indicate the need for better citations or b) finding better citations, the editor has instead been reverting each change. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that these facts are false; putting qualifiers like "according to her own site" makes it sound as though there is doubt. Instead, let's firm up the sources.

In addition, damiens.rf has been trying to insert the qualifier "print-on-demand femminist[sic] publisher" to the reference to the publisher of Valenti's book. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, as it isn't something that contributes to the biography of Valenti. damiens.rf would be welcome to start an article on Seal Press covering the issues as long as it is notable and the article uses a neutral POV, of course, but it doesn't belong in the Valenti article. It appears that trying to put it in would have the effect of imposing a negative POV onto the book.

The editor's repeated attempts to introduce the same change rather than trying to fix the underlying problem seems to be a case of edit warring. According to the bold, revert, discuss policy, rather than trying to repeatedly make the same change, damiens.rf should explain his reasons for wanting to change the article and attempt to find consensus.

I personally have no stake in keeping this page exactly as is - right now it's mostly a verbatim copy of Valenti's stock bio for speaking engagements, and clearly it would benefit from improvement. But improvement is not served by trying to insert these negative qualifiers into the article. damiens.rf, please engage in a discussion here of what you believe needs to be improved about this article and we can all reach a consensus. Dbalpert (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, there's no need to refer to damiens.rf in the 3rd person. I'm open to conversation, while not necessarily inclined to confrontations.

My edits are not intended to introduce a negative pov. But they are intended to remove an overly positive pov. Here are the main implicit pov I see in this article:

1. Publishing a book is a big deal. Self-publishing a book is not. When we read that someone published a book, we take for granted that it's not self-published. It's a matter of politeness with the reader to mention that the book in case was self-published.
2. It's completely unacceptable to use her own webpages (or what she said about herself on interviews) as reliable sources. I was being nice in adding "according to her blog.." to the statements, while it would be completely acceptable to remove the information and the unreliable source altogether.

I hope we can work together to improve this article. Would you consider contacting other editors once active on this talk page to help us? --Damiens.rf 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf, thanks. I'd love to hear other opinions from folks once active on the talk page. On your points:

1. The book was featured on the Colbert Report. That seems to qualify it to be a big enough deal of a book to not need a statement casting doubt on its importance. Also, when you say that you are trying to qualify it, you are saying you are trying to make it clear that it's less important. That sounds like POV to me, personally.
2. I agree that the sources are not good sources. But the facts aren't false, they're just not sourced well. Wikipedia has lots of unsourced information. Let's find real sources. Is your objection really that they don't have sources, or do you not like having the information in the article? Would you be fine with it if there were sources? For example, you've been making the change a few times on the point about her going to Stuyvesant High. Do you think she didn't go there? Is there a reason you don't want it said that she went there? That's not the sort of fact that people go around falsifying, is it? She appeared in the class notes run by some alumni. I just have a hard time thinking we need to doubt this; clearly, an even better source would be better. Dbalpert (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not completely sure the being "'featured on the Colbert Report" is enough to establish the "importance" of a book. But I would concede to whatever is the current standard on Wikipedia. This is a point where a 3rd opinion would be most welcome.
2. You have to understand that it doesn't matter what I believe to be true (or what you believe to be "fact"). We always need reliable sources. --Damiens.rf 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Agreed on a 3rd opinion. I tried to contact Bloodbeard but no contact info is available. Any ideas?
2. I understand it's not about what you believe. But Wikipedia has a lot of facts that aren't sourced for which I don't know if they're true or not. I'm not going around trying to put phrases that make them sound dubious on every article. What is it about her high school attendance that you feel is so necessary to qualify, here over any other fact on any other article, to the point that you tried 3 times to make the same change? That's just what confuses me. Dbalpert (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick note: FFF or my other book were not "self published." Seal Press is a women's press owned by Perseus Books, a very large press.JessicaValenti (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Althouse "controversy"

I keep having to edit out this graph - it's completely untrue and frankly, sexist. I came to "national attention" through my blog, not because of a horrible incident where another blogger wrote about my body. In addition, writing that I was wearing a "tight fitting" top is not not only untrue, it's biased and sexist. JessicaValenti (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wellcome. Can you point me to reliable sources for all this information? --Damiens.rf 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You want me to point you to reliable sources that comment on the tightness of my shirt? I'm sorry, that's beneath me and insulting to ask. If you're curious about my public visibility, I'd check out the history of Feministing.com and the fact that we had tens of thousands of readers way before any "controversial" picture was taken. The fact that I even have to argue this on this page is vile.JessicaValenti (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. I am interested in sources for the seal press claim (that you actually posted in another note). I agree that the "national attention" badly needs sources, and can be immediately removed per WP:BLP. I'll do some research on the subject and, if deemed notable, write a neutral paragraph about the "incident".

But since you're at it, could you help us to find independent reliable sources for some of the information in the article (those noted with "citation needed"). For instance, have you really been publisher by something called "Ms. magazine", "Bitch", "The Scholar & Feminist" or "Guernica"? Do you know where can we find some document showing our readers that you graduated from Stuyvesant High School in 1996? Or showing that you worked for all the places you mention in the "about use" of your blog?

Please, don't take it as if we're doubting what you say. Using independent sources is a policy (and a good practice) in Wikipedia. A lot of work has been done in your article. I would even say that it is, in terms of sourcing, an above-the-average Wikipedia blogger-bio. You can help us to keep the standard. --Damiens.rf 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find info on Seal Press here: http://www.sealpress.com/home.php

As for my high school or my work in various organizations, that's a near-impossible thing to "prove" with citations. I'm listed on various Stuy pages, even on Wikipedia, I'm sure that should be satisfactory. And not to get too meta - but shouldn't I be a first-source on myself? I mean, I know where I've worked and been published! In any case, I'll work on getting citations for my published clips, thanks. JessicaValenti (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed a "first-source" on yourself, and that's exactly the problem. We need independent verifiable sources, or otherwise anyone could claim to be anything. I'm sure you understand the difference between you saying you have a MA degree and the website of Rutgers School saying you have a MA degree. This difference is what we at Wikipedia call "verifiability.

You may be interested in reading some of our policies:

• Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, that deals with which sources are considered reliable.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability, that explains the importance of third part sources,
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, that covers the delicate topic of editing the article about oneself.
• and Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons, that mandates the removal of all unsupported potentially defamatory information in biographic articles.

And thanks for the sources you provided for the article. I've worked them into references. Let me know if you have some more (eg: about "Bitch" and "Elle magazine")--Damiens.rf 18:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Althouse "controversy" source and quotes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/06/gender.blogging

"One website, run by law professor and occasional New York Times columnist Ann Althouse, devoted an entire article to how I was "posing" so as to "make [my] breasts as obvious as possible". The post, titled "Let's take a closer look at those breasts," ended up with over 500 comments. Most were about my body, my perceived whorishness, and how I couldn't possibly be a good feminist because I had the gall to show up to a meeting with my breasts in tow. One commenter even created a limerick about me giving oral sex. Althouse herself said that I should have "worn a beret . . . a blue dress would have been good too". All this on the basis of a photograph of me in a crew-neck sweater from Gap."

"When feminist and liberal bloggers slammed Althouse for her attack on me, she argued that having been in a photo where I was "posing" made me fair game. When Filipovic complained about her harassment, the site responded: "For a woman who has made 4,000 pictures of herself publicly available on Flickr, and who is a self-proclaimed feminist author of a widely-disseminated blog, she has gotten pretty shy about overexposure."

EDIT:

i see Jessica has been editing the article and posting on the talk page. the purpose of the above source is to show how you have been attacked by Ann. keep up the werk sister!

Arabik (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also a good source for the controversy at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-funk/feministing-feminist-o_b_31572.html . The controversy did existed, and it seems it was covered by the press. At this point I'm inclined to believe the article should mention it, although we should exercise extra-care in regard to WP:BLP and be anal-retentive in regards to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --Damiens.rf 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed for her work as freelancer

The article currently mentions that Jessica worked as a freelancer for The Guardian, The Nation, TPMCafe, Guernica Magazine, The Scholar & Feminist and Alternet, but provides no reference for such big claims.

Until recently this problem was dealt with by using a reference that would say "See the "Essays" section on this article", with a useful wikilink taking the reader to the then existing "Essays" subsection of the "Bibliography" section, where Jessica's internet postings were listed.

The version of this article at 22:34, October 25, 2008 shows how it worked.

Now that the "Essays" section was completely wiped out, I'm wondering what's the best way to source that info.

Should we simply pick one article by Jessica in each source and use it as an "example article" reference? Should we reinstate the "Essays" subsection? Should we do something completely different?

All input is welcome! --Damiens.rf 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free, if you must, to reference them normally. It is absurd to have a huge long (and selected completely at random) index of articles written by someone who writes articles for a living. It wasn't done in any other article, and it didn't make any sense here either. Rebecca (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "reference them normally"? To use one at random from each publisher as an example? --Damiens.rf 12:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you need to individually reference each publisher, yes. Rebecca (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to agree that we need. --Damiens.rf 13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Then do it. Rebecca (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I have removed the "Citations needed" tag from the top of this article. Nearly every sentence and word seems to have a citation; this is not the issue that should be flagged. If there are individual statements that need citation, those should be tagged individually. If anyone objects to this removal, feel free to revert, but please explain why here. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I was going to do that myself, but you beat me to it. RMJ (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Damiens.rf, I think that's a valid description of Feministing. How does it violate WP:NPOV? It's a description of what she intended it to be, and that's what it is - not a major source, or a mecca, just a source. I've added a citation verifying. Thanks. RMJ (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

High school and name of baby

We know the subject looks at the article. Surely she knows the high school she attended and the name of her baby. For such information the personal knowledge of the subject is a sufficient source, see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's simply not acceptable. This ignores, for instance, the problems of conflict of interests and self-promotion. Such claims need to be sourced. --Damiens.rf 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think so, but the CN-tag may stay in the article :-)

I decided against the information about her child and her deseases. That stuff was not ok for a BLP, especially when unsourced and with no significance for (to? on? my english....) her notability/profession/feminism. Adornix (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that information about her child is not relevant, and even has some privacy concerns. --Damiens.rf 15:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Current edits

By the way, what's with the current high profile editing in this article? Has the subject filled some complain somewhere? --Damiens.rf 16:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

High profile? This is not Pippa Middleton :-) Adornix (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

and by the way:

Attention to the article resulted from a post on the Gendergap mailing list. Just a request for information about how things worked. I had never heard of her. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

several

Though Wiktionary says "more than two or three", the New Oxford American Dictionary states: "more than two but not many." :-) Adornix (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem was most that the wording was somewhat (unintentionally) misleading. When you read "Ms Val wrote several books, among them book1 and book2", you're likely to believe the person wrote considerably more that three books. --Damiens.rf 16:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

true. Why not "three books"? "Author of books" sounds terrible. Adornix (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be ok with that, and I agree that "Author of books" sounds terrible. --Damiens.rf 17:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

books

Two questions. First, isn't the sections "Writings" and "Books" repetitive? They contain the same information in prose and list formats. I believe the "Books" section does the work, the other being unnecessary.

Second, why was the book section edited not to use the all too useful {{cite book}} template. I know this template was initially intended to be used on reference sections, but it turns out it does a great work in standardizing the formating of lists of books. --Damiens.rf 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the Writings section could be removed. Why do you keep removing that she's written several books? I think it's four, written or co-written. What's wrong with "several" in the lead?

I removed the template because it was bolding the names, which looked odd, and wasn't needed. It's just as easy to write it manually. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See above for the discussion on several. I still prefer that with the templates, since they maintain standardization. Would you mind if I put them back? --Damiens.rf 17:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a reason above for removing "several". I've added four to the lead, because it's not three. You're welcome to restore the templates if you feel they add something, but could you do it without repeating the name? We know that she's the author; it's only where there's a co-author the name needs to be added, but not in bold. I don't know why the template has started doing that (one good reason not to use them -- centralized control). :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Guardian Top 100 Women

Guardian Top 100 Women list Could someone add this content into the article where appropriate. I suggest in the lead, and in the body of the article where her blogging is discussed. Thanks, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. [1] [2] Good find. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

SPS

Damiens, re this edit of yours, no self-published sources in BLPs, unless written by the subject. See WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS. Plus, it seems to be a dead link anyway. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict/clash. It's not a case of self-published source, but of a primary source for the accusation. --Damiens.rf 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a self-published blog post, with other self-published comments below it, so it's not allowed per BLPSPS. The secondary sources discuss what it said, so we have a source anyway. We don't need to link to it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Blog posts are allowed as primary sources for text discussing the blog post themselves. Yes, we need the secondary sources discussing the controversy, but the link to the item itself is useful and is usable. --Damiens.rf 18:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Althouse

The article mentions how writter Ann Althouse accused Jessica of this and that. Since Ann is a living person, this is the kind of information that needs good sourcing. I've added a reference the article where the accusation in question purportedly took place: "Bill Clinton, lunching with the bloggers". --Damiens.rf 18:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See above. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Althouse criticisms

Should this article mention Althouse's criticism of Ms. Valentini? Isn't Wikipedia, by doing this, just steaming the gossip and feeding the troll? --damiens.rf 01:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Since some editors have moved favorably to the maintenance of this section (one of them even expanded it), I added the photo that caused the controversy, so that editors can see what Althouse was criticizing. --damiens.rf 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a photo that was used to harass me for months; its presence here - the close up of my "posture" especially - is tantamount to harassing me further. Please take it down. The fact that this "controversy," which was essentially one blogger talking about my breasts, even merits mention on my Wikipedia page seems bizarre and sexist to me. Lots of other people have harassed me as well; should Wikipedia list every instance of that as well? JessicaValenti (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're right that this controversy should not be mentioned here. But as long it's mentioned (and it's grows around this photo) the image use is justified.

In the light of your request, I will once again go to the appropriate forums and raise the question about either or not we should be using this image. --damiens.rf 14:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I never heard of this controversy before, but looking into it, its amazingly shameful pandering from althouse that she encouraged that bullshit.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• Some idiot IP tried to edit an external URL in the article to direct to an attack page. I reverted it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not the first time they post the same url. What's up with this girl that she attracts so many attacks? --damiens.rf 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• She's not a girl, she's a woman, and your question could be seen as quite offensive, Damiens. I'm going to archive this page now, and hopefully it will be used from now on only to discuss policy-compliant content. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

High School

Her HS is commented out. The school is notable, and she's mentioned in the list of Stuyvesant High School people.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-links

Two editors (User:Nick Number and I) have properly removed self-links, and had our edits reverted by User:Damiens.rf, whom I assume to be acting in good faith. Policy against self-links has been pointed out in edit comments; boldface links are not supposed to be used for emphasis. @Damiens.rf: please discuss before reverting the removal again. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

{ping|Lwarrenwiki}}: "boldface links are not supposed to be used for emphasis" Where does that comes from? The citation template could just ignore the autorlink parameter on these cases, or show an error message. But instead, it chooses to bold them. There must be a reason.

If we don't like bolding such links, we should change the template instead. --damiens.rf 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This suggestion has already been discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and there does not seem to be consensus for making such a change. There isn't a compelling reason to make an exception to the existing guideline from Help:Self link. Nick Number (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've responded at Help talk:Citation Style 1. (Also, the citation template doesn't cause the bolding; it wasn't a feature deliberately added to the citation template. The bolding happens everywhere on Wikipedia – every self-link on Wikipedia gets bolded.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't know the was just a side effect of it being a self-link. I thought it was a decision made by the authors of the cite template. Things make more sense to me now. --damiens.rf 15:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Links to social media sites

I think the external links to Valenti's Facebook and Twitter pages should be removed due to WP:ELNO. I removed them and was reverted. That policy says one should generally avoid linking to "Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists," except for WP:ELOFFICIAL. According to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, "Normally, only one official link is included." We're already including her official website in the external links. Relevant here: "However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says." We have a link to her official website, and that's enough. We needn't create a handy list of her social media accounts. It comes across as promotional. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. All Wikipedia pages aren't required to look alike, but it's instructive to look at other BLPs of people in the same categories as Valenti. Inclusion of social networking sites is very far from the norm (i.e., my brief survey didn't turn up a single one). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

I recommend deleting this article. There is little information of substance to support why this person has a record here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencilsketcher (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, she's little more than a blogger. Why should she be represented here? Bringing feminism to the internet? So? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.73.3 (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)

There are procedures to get an article deleted. Feel free to start one, but it will get laughed out of town. Mezigue (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

A comedian creating a stir with an offensive joke would usually warrant a "criticism" section. So why isn't there one for a blogger so blatantly controversial as Valenti? Is it because we're not allowed to criticize them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia avoids Criticism sections. Frex, Michael Richards is a comedian who created a stir with an offensive joke. But our article about him has no "Criticism" section; rather, we have a "Laugh Factory incident" subsection under "Career". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Regardless of my opinion on someone's views, frequently I search public figures on wikipedia specifically for their 'criticisms'/'controversies' sections to get a NPOV understanding of what the criticism is about, as it's often hard to find that elsewhere online without a lot of searching and reference-checking. - SBee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.153.186 (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"I like my men like I like my garbage: tied up and outside. #choreplay" - https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/573592179286876160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.181.65.191 (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Valenti's quip is remarkably offensive, but that is an editor's subjective opinion, and that opinion does not mean that I find it suitable for a Wikipedia article. The question for editors is whether it was discussed or reported in reliable media sources. The tweet itself is a primary source, not appropriate for the article in the absence of media attention as indicia of the notability of Valenti's tweet. Can you cite any such media reporting? If not, the tweet is impermissible original research. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Valenti's subsequent riff on #choreplay was a bit funnier. "I like my men like I like my dishes: clean and stacked on top of each other #choreplay" [3]. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jessica Valenti. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726010935/http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/19/anti-choicers_switching_up_str_1/ to http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/19/anti-choicers_switching_up_str_1/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Why a link to radical feminism under "see also"?

I thought Feministing was primarily a liberal feminist site. Perhaps Valenti herself falls more on the middle or something (I have genuinely no idea; haven't read any of her works) but I've never heard of her being called a radical feminist (usually spending my time in radfem circles). Am I missing something? 2A02:908:C30:3540:221:CCFF:FE66:68F0 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Radical feminism and missing citation

I was distracted by the link to radical feminism in the see also because it never mentions in the article that she is a radical feminist. Also, it says that her father was a buddhist in the background section but there is no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcbecker (talk • contribs) 04:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)