Talk:Lisbeth Salander

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Novels: Crime Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Crime task force.

Lisbeth[edit]

Her description should include the fact she's physically small, described as waif-like at several places.166.84.1.2 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

This should be merged into Millennium Trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.208.78.2 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2009

Spoiler[edit]

It should have a SPOILER advertissment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.15.1 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Spoiler for current policy on such issues. Tomas e (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of inacuracies in this article. Salander set her father on fire when she was 12 years old, after he beat up her mother so badly that she (the mother, not Lisbeth) had to be institutionalized for the rest of her life and eventually died from the injuries.

Also, Salander is not a 'cracker' -- she doesn't use her hacking abilities for evil. She is consistently called a 'hacker' in the novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.215.112 (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The programme Asphyxia 1.3--as it is presented in the books--enables Salander to habitually bypass corporate and personal individual online security. It is not so much evil, but illegal. Read the article here and see what you think. On the first point, if there is an obvious inaccuracy, why not go to edit article and edit it with a page reference from one of the books, or another reference supplied. --Artiquities (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition hacker = cracker since hacking by nature is illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.215.112 (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking is not necessarily illegal. Most of what people hear about regarding hacking may be, but that's just because legal hacking tends to be a bit less exciting and certainly is less likely to make the news or show up in entertainment. Same with cracking - just bypassing or guessing a password is not, in and of itself, illegal. Plenty of companies have hackers and/or crackers (now most people use the terms interchangeably, but their original definitions were a bit different) on their payrolls, particularly computer security firms who need to test their clients' systems. Noble (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't use her abilities for evil" is a matter of opinion. She definately does use them for a lot of illegal activity however, including stealing a huge amount of money. (Admittedly it was illegally obtained to being with and by one of the books main villians but that's beside the point.) As I understand the terms cracker would be more accurate, but I suspect Larsson picked hacker because it's more widely known and understood. 109.150.170.157 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luftslottet[edit]

Although "air castle" is a 'literal' translation of "luftslottet", it seems to me that "the castle in the air" is a more appropriate translation given content of the novel (i.e., the secret section of Säpo) and the following quote:

"It was as though all his castles in the air had come toppling about his ears, the blue sky had turned to stony grey and the sweet waltz music had become a dirge." A Millionaire of Yesterday by E. Phillips Oppenheim

For some reason that I don't quite get, though, I'm unable to make this change without screwing up the info box. If you agree with my argument and can make the change effectively, please do so Bfx12a9 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations regarding Lisbeth Salander's psychiatric diagnoses, if any—avoid original research.[edit]

Per original research I have deleted the following sentence:

However, she displays casual indifference to inflicting extreme degrees of premeditated physical torture, which fits with certain (but far from all) types of psychopathy,^[1] whereas autistic people generally tend to have greater than average affective empathy.^[2]

^ Tunstall N., Fahy T. and McGuire P. in Guide to Neuroimaging in Psychiatry, Eds. Fu C et al., Martin Dunitz: London 2003.
^ Rogers K, Dziobek I, Hassenstab J, Wolf OT, Convit A. Who cares? Revisiting empathy in Asperger syndrome. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Apr;37(4):709-15.

I have not consulted the references, but I have reasons to beleve that thay say nothing about ~~Lisbath~~ Lisbeth Salander. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general issue related to conditions, not OR in relation to Lisbeth Salander. The important part is the sentence before the piece you deleted.

"Throughout the series, Blomkvist speculates that Salander might have Asperger's syndrome. Larsson himself stated that he thought that she might be looked upon as an unusual kind of sociopath, due to her traumatic life experiences and inability to conform to social norms."

The first of these is unreferenced, and would rely on some primary sourcing from the book itself. The second, and Larsson's comparison to Pippi Longstocking, is adequately sourced from the NYT.

I consider the text, as it now stands, to be problematic. Blomkvist might consider that Salander has Asperger's, yet her behaviour is far from Asperger-like. The point of the general psychiatric text that you deleted was to clarify this. The fictional Blomkvist might indeed hold this view, however it is not supported by current thought in the discipline - i.e. he is wrong. The article, as of now, gives a quite false impression that Salander either has Asperger's, or at least displays typical behaviour for it. She clearly does not - her described behaviour is not Asperger-like.

If you want to fix a problem with the article, then I think that first of all Blomkvist's speculation needs to be sourced. The piece you deleted should be restored, possibly with more explanation as to why these sources are there to contradict Blomkvist's naive diagnosis. Their application to Salander's personal case is self-evident (this could be expanded by citing instances from the novel, if you wish). If you have a wiki-absolutist problem with anything being considered "self-evident", then this whole section has to go, as it has a far worse problem on the same lines, that of presenting Blomkvist's uncited speculations as themselves being axiomatic. If anything has to go, it should start there. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Being mid-level autistic myself, I disliked that the articles originally simply claimed that a casual torturer was somehow representative of Asperger's syndrome, so I inserted the other mentions to show that this was likely an inaccurate assumption. Simply keeping Larsson's mention of her being a sociopath is fine thank you. Dave (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The subject is missing in the added clause, after "but"—clearly, Blomquist is not the subject. Should the subject be "that" or "she"?

Throughout the series, Blomkvist speculates that Salander might have Asperger's syndrome, but does not at all fit with the condition.

I'll be back to study this more later, but isn't it still original research? Should we really second-guess speculations by fictional characters, even if we are right per se?

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more quick points:

1)

I agree that it's a good idea to have ~~Blomkvists~~ Blomkvist's original statements sourced. I guess it would be unproblematic to use the books themselves for this.

2)

As for the veracity or relevance of ~~Blomkvists~~ Blomkvist's original statements, wouldn't if be wikilike to adduce a proper reference that says that Blomkvist is "wrong"? Otherwise, if an editor uses himself as a reference, we end up in original research. Not that I don't see the problem, but if we feel that Blomkvist is "wrong", then there should be a reliable source that has already made the same assertion.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the present wording, I'm not sure I have understood the sentence. In the clause beginning with "but", who is speaking? Is it the editor, or is it still Blomkvist? Is it Blomkvist saying that she does not fit with the condition?

Throughout the series, Blomkvist speculates that Salander might have Asperger's syndrome, but does not at all fit with the condition.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR can be avoided by strictly quoting Blomkvist (the accuracy or inaccuracy of his statements is totally irrelevant), and then by quoting RS (of WP:MEDRS quality) that state that he's wrong, or whatever those RS actually say about Blomkvist's (inaccurate) speculations. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That summarizes my position neatly.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point being, we want reliable sources that say that Blomkvist is wrong. Not sources we put together that say things about diagnoses in general.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete the entire section.

What's worst of all is to leave the section as it now is, where a fictional character can incorrectly diagnose another character, and this is then presented as an unchallenged case study of Aspergers. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. This isn't a BLP violation which should be deleted immediately. This can be fixed without immediate deletion. I'm working on it right now, so wait.

Whether it is in fact accurate or not, it is true that a fictional character speculates about an unlikely and incorrect diagnosis, although an understandable error for an amateur to make. Even aspie readers claim she is one of theirs! Our job is to just state what is written. It's the character's opinion and speculation, not an official medical diagnosis made by a real person about a real person. We describe the literature and story as it is, inaccuracies and all. Since we know this is an inaccuracy, it's a good idea to find RS which correct and balance the situation so readers can see that the fiction is wrong, and that reality would be otherwise. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished for now. I've added significant sourcing, rearranged a bit, and made other copy edits. I hope this is seen as an improvement. I think we've gotten around the OR problem this way, while retaining all the necessary details and opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley 23:02, Jan. 15

I see no point in deleting the whole section, and I think Brangifer's edits are ~~good~~ excellent for now.

It's absurd that we as editors should second-guess the veracity of statements made by characters in novels. The different statements on Lisbeth's possible diagnoses made by characters in the books are encyclopedically relevant, and the question of their "correctness" is totally beside the point. The trilogy is certainly not a "case study" of Asperger's. Last time I checked, it was fiction.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article, post Brangifer, is certainly improved. Although Blomkvist's Asperger diagnosis remains unchallenged, its now diluted by other material and reads less as the usual literary "All people with Aspergers are psychopaths" fallacy.

I'm less happy with the EL added to Bitch magazine, especially as it's uncommented and isn't used as a ref for any specific point. This is a horribly sloppy piece of writing: its confusion between autism, Asperger's and (the staggeringly rare) savant syndrome is just part of it. Its queer politics is over-simplistic too, grabbing Salander as a separatist gay dykon whilst glossing over her straight, albeit brief, relationship with Blomkvist. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern about the Bitch article. Unless it has anything we can use in the article, it's probably not good enough to stand alone and can be removed. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with the psychiatric section[edit]

The current wording makes it sound as if Teleborian and even Bjurman made accurate, reliable assessments of Lisbeth's mental health. It is made clear that they don't like her but I think it's more important to state that both had an alterior movtive for wanting her commited and, prehaps more importantly, never actually performed a proper examination of her in the first place. This is covered in general terms in the section about The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets Nest, but if anyone reads just the character profile (and many do) the impression is that a psychiatrist officially diagnosed her with all kinds of terrible things and only her lover was willing to see her in a better light. The actual change would probably be fairly simple - replacing the words "officially diagnose" would be a big step - but as I said I don't want to do anything without consensus when it's obviously a controversial section. 109.150.170.157 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.articlesbase.com/book-reviews-articles/the-millennium-trilogy-understanding-lisbeth-salander-3323523.html
Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisbeth Salander. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202182740/http://www.larssontrilogy.com/ to http://www.larssontrilogy.com/

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) 20:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Tunstall N., Fahy T. and McGuire P. in Guide to Neuroimaging in Psychiatry, Eds. Fu C et al., Martin Dunitz: London 2003.

[2] Rogers K, Dziobek I, Hassenstab J, Wolf OT, Convit A. Who cares? Revisiting empathy in Asperger syndrome. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Apr;37(4):709-15.

[1]

[2]