Talk:Jessica Valenti

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)