Talk:Jessica Valenti

Controversials and Public View

I like my men like I like my garbage: tied up and outside.

— Jessica Valenti, Twitter

I Bathe In Male Tears.

— Jessica Valenti, Feminist Analysis

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)

I agree. AndrewOne (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

"Male tears"? Isn't that an old-timey euphemism for semen? 107.3.44.127 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

Podesta emails dispute

Wiki leaks entry

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?" 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(edit conflict) We've had article subjects indirectly ask their viewers to edit articles before... Sierrak28 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure if these precedents are meant to bolster my argument or not... — Javert2113 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

2016 Presidential campaign controversy

Jessica Valenti, the subject of this article, asked her Twitter followers how she could delete this section from her article.

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?

— Jessica Valenti, Twitter

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)

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)

Valenti tweet re: Wiki article

Thread retitled from "Subject of article is requesting her 218,000 Twitter followers to edit her entry to her specifications".

Can we get a formal opinion about the rules regarding celebrities requesting their followers to edit their own pages? Scotty burberry (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding archive link: https://archive.is/S14Gb Scotty burberry (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

While I would contest your characterization of that tweet, of note there is a reference discussion to prior cassess in the talk section titled "Wiki leaks entry" by user Sierrak28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:1507:AE32:F7FE:F6C9 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

First, please keep in mind, Scotty burberry, that as the notice at the top of the page reminds, WP:BLP policy applies to Talk pages as well as to the entries themselves; please take very good care to make sure all statements about the subject are fully substantiated by sources.

To speak to the issue of someone putting out a call for assistance with an entry. On the one hand, the subject did pretty much as we ask of BLP subjects who have concerns about material in the entry about them: please don't edit the page directly, instead ask for help. The subject essentially did that and we appreciate it. Now, had a WP editor sought help in the same manner, they might be admonished for WP:Canvassing; but in absence of an extradition treaty with Twitter, we really don't have a means of controlling behavior on that site! What's more, to the canvassing point, the Twitter attention seems to have drawn as much or more WP participation by the subject's detractors than supporters. So canvassing to get a favorable outcome is more or less moot, but WP:COI for all participants drawn in this way does apply. Luckily, we have quite a lot of editors having a look at this now, so I'm confident it will be decided on the merits of the sources, as we strive to do with all WP material. That's really the bottom line: however folks come to the page, they will still be required to adhere to WP standards. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Subject twitter and Bernie Sanders issue

I think this article needs to be locked.

The subject herself on twitter recently wa asking for her supporters to remove a section she disliked. The section was sourced.

I can see form the edit history it was removed without consensus and then put back then removed and a little edit war followed with threats of bans etc - all very heated.

Wikipedia is here to provide a well sourced and balanced resource - whether or not a subject dislikes an article about himself is irrelevant.

I've read the link to the NY Post article and it certainly appears as it might merit being included as it was a high profile issue.

I think the best way we can handle this is for everyone to cool down and see what sources we can find - either backing up the original or contradicting it then we can decide in a rational way.

I will state again, I think if you have come here because you're a supporter of Valenti and her twitter requests for friendly people to edit this, I would suggest recusing oneself and let's try to sort this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:40B3:B05E:543:A35 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

She did not ask people to remove a section she disliked, she stated that the section was factually incorrect and she requested that someone tell her how she might go about getting it amended as she did not think it appropriate to edit it herself. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a, shall we say, extremely generous reading of it - the issue clearly would be negative to Valenti or any journalist. She disliked it and asked for someone to remove it. What you state about "factally incorrect" would only have any bearing if it were a birthday wrong etc, clearly not the case here, it's a contentious issue so her opinion of it is totally irrelevant and her twitter feed is not an acceptable source and does not prove it to be factually incorrect. If you have sources either way please bring them in, I am open minded on this and just want to see thigns done properly - a person inviting twitter supporters to remove bits of wikipedia that have a source, even if not a top one, and their supporters doing it without any consensus is not the appropriate way to handle things. Can anyone find anything on CNN or BBC? Preferably not her supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:40B3:B05E:543:A35 (talk)

Will try to avoid repeating what I've said above, but relevant to this: here's a discussion from the Reliable Sources noticeboard recommending against using the New York Post as a reliable source on a controversial topic. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I would like someone to bring up better sources. Though her supporters rushing in to remove something that had a source without any consensus is not the correct way to do things on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:40B3:B05E:543:A35 (talk)

Hi 2A00:23C5:2385:9400:40B3:B05E:543:A35, if I may, would you please make sure to add a signature to your posts so we know who said what? If you put four tildas (this symbol: ~ ) in a row at the end of your message, it will automatically sign and date. Thank you, it's much appreciated.

Second, I realize there's now a wall of text above, but if you read through, you'll see the substantive concerns raised about the material in question: it had sources but the material in the entry did not describe those sources accurately, so it's appropriate for editors to intervene on that. No additional sources are required to disprove something; our policy is that for any controversial material, but especially when it deals with living people, material can only be included if we have a reliable source verifying it. What's more, if someone raises concerns, we leave material out until consensus is reached on how to handle it (WP:ONUS). So removing it and coming to the talk page to open a discussion of concerns, as the initial IP did, was the correct way to handle things on here. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this removed version seems fine- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Valenti&diff=prev&oldid=833663044 98.248.144.87 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to elaborate a bit more on what I said above, it seems as though the existence of a controversy over a previous non-NPOV iteration is being used by bad actors to demand that the incident not be discussed in the article at all. The fact that an edit war in which a fairly-acceptable paragraph is being fought over on the basis that an unacceptable paragraph used to occupy the same space, is being treated as a "both sides" issue instead of an issue with the vandals is extremely unusual. 98.248.144.87 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I know it's long but please do see the Talk:Jessica_Valenti#Wiki_leaks_entry subhead, where I and others have spelled out our substantive concerns, which IMO apply equally to the version you cite. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how that cited versions meaningfully corrects any of the factual errors that led to the original deletion. 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:1507:AE32:F7FE:F6C9 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The version I linked states 3 facts- that an email was sent internally indicating that the Clinton campaign believed Valenti was assisting their campaign, that days after that email was sent, multiple articles negative of Clinton's opponent were published by Valenti, and that Valenti has denied that there was collusion. All three facts are sourced. The complaints above about the original deletion were that it made the claim that Valenti worked with the Clinton campaign to attack the campaign's opponent and its cited sources did not support that, which indeed cannot be known and isn't claimed by the linked snippet. The cited sources in the linked snippets support its claims. 98.248.144.87 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

For "Fact 1" - The revision states that Clinton campaign was working with Valenti which is not a claim present in the sourced article. Sourcing the Post aside, the strongest claim about Valenti in that article is that an there's an e-mail in which the Clinton campaign lists Valenti as someone they may reach out to. The article does claim collaboration but does not specify collaboration with Valenti anywhere. For "Fact 2" - just looking to the Talk:Jessica_Valenti#Wiki_leaks_entry subhead), the notion that Valenti became supportive of Clinton as a result of the email exchange is "actually disprovable as Valenti had discussed Sanders in the Guardian prior to the date in question (Jan 20, 2016) (e.g. 1, 2)." Specific to this revision, the terminology "anti-Sanders" is also absent from the linked Hill article which, in fact, explicitly refers to "pieces favorable to Clinton" immediately prior to the quote containing a reference to Valenti. 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:1507:AE32:F7FE:F6C9 (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It plainly does not say that, which can be verified by visiting the link I posted above. It states that Clinton stated that the campaign was working with Valenti, which, if you visit the cited source, she did. 98.248.144.87 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If the phrase "anti-Sanders" is a bridge too far for a set of pieces that criticized Sanders, we can simply say that the pieces are "critical of Sanders". It seems as though the entire criticism of this paragraph is based on some extremely pedantic parsing of certain phrases. The pieces were anti-Sanders- you don't need a quote from one source to describe the content of another source. 98.248.144.87 (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The now-deleted section literally said that the pieces were "criticizing Bernie Sanders", and that language is why the subject's Twitter fans deleted it. 73.157.220.128 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this language will be less contested:

In the October 2016 Wikileaks release of the John Podesta emails, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton campaign staffer Lauren Peterson had claimed in an email that Valenti had taken part in a conference call with the campaign in which stories critical of primary opponent Bernie Sanders were pitched. In particular, Peterson wrote in the email that racial justice and reproductive rights angles were a focus of that conversation. Two days after that email, Valenti published a series of articles critical of Sanders in her column in The Guardian, the first being titled "Bernie Sanders must deliver more than platitudes about abortion." In response to the email leaks, Valenti issued a statement saying there had not been collusion, stating: "Like many reporters, I talk to campaign officials but don't coordinate with them."

98.248.144.87 (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This continues to fail to respond to numerous concerns raised, including reliability of sources used, chronology, due weight policy and other issues. Please review WP:IDONTHEARTHAT: however unintentional, it can become disruptive to the project, insofar as it wastes other editors’ time, to keep putting up the same material without engaging the concerns of fellow editors, which is necessary to reach WP:Consensus. I know there’s a lot of text to read to be sure you’ve responded to all issues raised, but that’s more reason not to oblige people reiterate their unaddressed concerns over and over. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT applies here, but not to whom it applies. Here are the four claims I see up there, one of which I've addressed and the others I didn't think were worth addressing, but here we are:

• Regarding your claims that the NYP article does not support claims in the text above, that has been debunked in the very talk section you are linking with a user accusing you (accurately, I believe) of disingenuousness. The NYP article cites a wikileaks email that does indeed contain the text claimed in the text above (and in the deleted article text).
• Regarding your claims of WP:UNDUE, in your claim you misconstrued (accidentally, I hope), the nature of the wikileaks email. You claimed that Peterson merely identified Valenti as a pro-Clinton columnist, when in fact she had instead identified Valenti as a columnist to whom she had shopped a set of stories. Obviously, that content diffuses any claims of WP:UNDUE. Later you repeated your undue weight claims, seeming to forget about the wikileaks email altogether, claiming that there was no sourcing available which connected Valenti to the Clinton campaign, which I found odd.
• Regarding your claims of chronology, I find them extremely suspect and I think that's the reason they haven't really been addressed. The specific themes/angles that Peterson claims to have raised in the conference call were not brought up in Valenti's work prior to the alleged conference call. That is, Valenti wrote repeatedly that Clinton's record on reproduction rights was good, and said that it was better than Sanders' in both of the articles you linked. She did not criticize Sanders' record (or really Sanders at all) until after the alleged conference call. The two articles you link provide excellent evidence that Valenti's style changed after January 20th.
• Finally, your least-convincing claim, regarding NYP's reliability. Least convincing because you are either implying that (A) there is no other source that can establish the existence of the Wikileaks email, or (B) it is absolutely normal to blank a section over a minor source hygiene issue that can be corrected with a google search. Others in this talk section have already linked alternative sources, so the idea that I must personally "address" this is ridiculous.

What we have here is an eminently credible source (a leak of a Clinton campaign official's email in which she claims to have pitched stories to a journalist), the journalist publishing the stories the staffer claimed they pitched, and the journalist claiming that there was no collusion. And that last claim is credible enough, I suppose, there's certainly no evidence that the journalist would not have otherwise published these stories (although despite your claims to the contrary, there's certainly no reason to believe she would have), and perhaps the staffer heard that Valenti was going to publish them and took the credit. But these are reliable and straightforward enough that any other living human article on wikipedia would have had no problem cleaning up the paragraph and keeping it around as "controversy" content. The only thing that is driving the continued removal of this paragraph from this article is the twitter activity driven by the subject herself. I have not seen this central fact addressed, really, simply a lot of people saying that they're sure the subject didn't mean for people to blank the section, but also that was the right decision because of these minor hygiene issues. 98.248.144.87 (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll mainly respond to your last paragraph because I think it's where we have the most common ground to work from. The bottom line is that collusion really isn't substantiated by reliable secondary sources. So the matter is how Wikipedia handles unsubstantiated allegations about public figures. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we include them, but only if they are well documented, for instance if multiple major newspapers publish the allegations. We don't have the here; we just have her mentioned in passing in two RS (the New York Post not being a reliable source is much more than a minor hygiene issue on WP), and what the allegations against Valenti specifically even are requires a certain amount of interpretation by the reader, never well-received on WP (per WP:NOR). Absent "well documented" allegations in RS, we don't include them, which is to me the rationale for taking the whole section out. (Per WP:ONUS, we also as a rule take contested material out to work on it until we reach consensus; it doesn't mean it will be excluded forever.) And we definitely don't include original research to make insinuations not explicitly reported in reliable secondary sources (per WP:SYNTH).

I really urge all to please focus on these policy and sourcing matters as in the end, they are how we decide what goes into the entry, not any one's motives or personal opinion. My personal opinion is probably closer to yours than you might guess, but--mercifully--our policy WP:NPOV means editor personal opinion simply does not matter: we are obliged to follow how reliable secondary sources describe a topic (if they do), and then use them or not in accordance with other content policies developed by community consensus over the years. I know it's often not what people expect from WP, where it may seem like anything that happened can be included. As that's not the case, the learning curve for adding material can be steep, but I've linked to quite a lot of content policies and I hope they will be helpful in understanding where those of us who have concerns about the suitability of this material for Wikipedia (other sites have completely different standards, I know) are coming from, and aid in replying to those concerns so we can work toward a consensus solution. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why Wikileaks is not a primary source that is acceptable to you on this matter?

And failing that would the hill article which factually summarizes the wikileaks email not also suffice as a secondary source?

In general primary sources, which in this case is a communication from the Clinton campaign are treated as a gold standard in journalism and historical records. We don't really need anyone else's speculation on the subject because we know the Clinton campaign believed that Jessica was working with them from a source in the campaign.

Roeboto (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Roeboto: I think these are such good questions that get exactly to what I see as the heart of the issue, and I so appreciate your asking them; apologies for my delay in replying.

So! Primary sources. Exactly right that they are the gold standard for journalism or historical research. My concerns here relate to the way the project of Wikipedia is expressly not journalism or historical research. Those endeavors--at least the ones we consider reliable secondary sources--have paid experts to evaluate the legitimacy of new analysis of primary material. We have no such experts (...and it'd probably be contrary to the spirit of WP to hire them even if we had the money, but that's a conversation for another day): instead we have a rule that Wikipedia functions as a tertiary source, mainly summarizing the analysis printed by secondary sources that do have reliable editorial oversight, peer review, fact-checking and so forth. This is, IMO, a great relief as this thread shows it's not always such a simple matter to analyze the primary sources--we have the single email in question glossed in a large range of ways. So, instead the project says we should just depict it as reliable secondary sources do.

But in this case, this isn't so easy either, because the two we have (The Hill and Paste) which only partly deal with the subject of this entry, and additionally don't quite agree with each other in their characterization of how she fits in. What we'd usually do, faced with this difficulty, is just pull more sources, to get a sense of how secondary sources generally summarized the topic (including to note differing viewpoints if there are multiple significant views)...but here we're coming up a bit empty-handed for more sources. To me this says something about how noteworthy or not sources considered Valenti's role, and following that editorial judgment of reliable secondary sources (on noteworthiness, or not), is also part of WP:NPOV. As I mentioned below, this obligation is elaborated (by community consensus) in our content policy describing when we do and do not include unsubstantiated allegations.

Tl;dr: even after a couple days' reflection, I don't believe we have the sourcing to meet our own policy requirements for inclusion here, which indeed are very different from what journalism or historical research look for. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I find it exceedingly strange that the New York Post was a valid source for these claims, until immediately following Valenti's tweet. Please understand that it was absolutely never about one "bad" source, because 1) there are, demonstrably, multiple major newspapers publishing the allegations; and 2) the "better source" flag exists. No one is going around Wikipedia and removing sections which contain a reference to the New York Post. The section was blanked because the subject made a tweet to her Twitter followers, and opponents of that section are engaging in spurious bad-faith arguments on this page to keep it that way. If the New York Post, or WikiLeaks, weren't "reliable sources", then why haven't you similarly removed the WikiLeaks sections for Donna Brazile's article, or for John Podesta's article, or for the United States presidential election, 2016 article? 73.157.220.128 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Why I personally haven't gone into the entries you mention: mostly because my work on Wikipedia is principally focused on essayists, poets, journalists and other writers. I do not actually enjoy writing about politics on-wiki; I'll let you guess why! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As to your question about the Post: the answer is that was never a valid source in the first place, at least not for controversial material. Wikipedia contains a ton of unreliable sources, along with factual errors, slanted descriptions and straight-up hoaxes! Editors are so well-aware of the extent of the problems we advise readers as well as fellow editors: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The point being that something appearing on the site doesn't mean you can rely on it; on the contrary, we want everyone to look closely and see if it's reliable, and if not, please change it or start a discussion about this issue! Arguably that's what most regulars spend most of their time doing, which is why we have this conversation from 2015 where some editors weighed in that the Post was not a good source for controversial topics. We'd LOVE it if you wanted to join! Make an account! Stick around! We'd be thrilled for your help. (CC'ing Kendrick7 to make sure you've seen the RS noticeboard opinion; sorry to reply in bits and pieces, lots of threads here.) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

New version

Just to be clear I’ll comment momentarily on the newly proposed version, it’ll just take me a sec to summarize.Innisfree987 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I read the information that is being used as the basis of this information. It is the New York Post, a NYC tabloid that I typically would not consider a good neutral source for a citation — especially regarding politics. And then a WikiLinks leaked email is being used to support this so-called nefarious activity. Also another highly biased source. And a very biased set of tweets documenting something, but not clearly making an argument based on facts itself from independent neutral parties.

Valenti clearly explains what happens that proves this is both a non issue and is actually manufactured fake news. She was working on a story. She was confirming facts. She was not doing anything else. This so-called story is a continuation literally of the Hilary Clinton emails fake news. It has no place in the BLP of an established journalist and writer.

Just this mess of a Talk page illustrates the lack of a solid argument, a somewhat breathless and exhaustive hysteria, and the promotion of fake and/or unreliable “news.” The Talk page is bad enough. I think it besmirched the article a lot. I would put forth the discussion itself constitutes slander and should not even be present on Wikipedia like this. But I’m sure that won’t be supported here.

The motivations for this anonymous “editor” seems to do more with carrying out a personal vendetta and attacking a woman who is a high profile feminist. I for one am sick of this kind of bias. It has no place on this page or on Wikipedia. This is fake news. This is bias against women. It is unacceptable.

And yes I did a lot of work on the article just now as I think it needed cleanup so other editors could easily edit it. And it needed updating, probably could use a bit more content added. I have zero connection to Valenti. I follow her on Twitter along with 3,000 other folks. So I am an independent voice here focusing on reinforcing notability and improving format and content. - - Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(EC)Kendrick7, you've probably seen that I reverted the addition of your version of the contested material. Since there are concerns described in the above comments/sections that go unaddressed in this version, I felt it appropriate to discuss the material here to reach consensus before readding.

For my two cents, your proposal is an improvement that this removes the subject header and the earlier versions' factually disprovable claim about timing. Thanks! However it still relies on a problematic source, and now adds a new one; to me the sentence based on the new tweet is plainly WP:NOR for this, absent RS coverage. I continue to have concerns about whether we have the documentation to add this in a manner consistent with our policy on unproven allegations: to me all the RS verify are that the Clinton comms person viewed Valenti as likely to write pieces they liked, which I am not sure is WP:DUE inclusion on Valenti's entry. As I said above, I think if there were more RS, it'd be a different story. I do note this piece. But it'd be blatant WP:SYNTH to connect them; even to mention them side-by-side in the entry would insinuate something we don't have in sources (if anything I think it'd be more straightforward to add the latter piece on its own). So we still haven't found a version I regard as sufficiently solid to add, but I'm open to more proposals on phrasing we might be able to gather consensus around. I'll also look to see if I can't find more RS contextualizing the matter; I feel like I heard a lot about it so I'm surprised the best we can do is mentions in The Hill and Paste. (If we can't, that probably says something about whether it merits inclusion.) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There are several citations that are not the New York Post, and if you people believed that that one source were seriously the only problem with this article, the section wouldn't have been blanked. Blanking the section was a "personal vendetta", and is a very clear use of force, and its continued absence is an orchestrated effort from her and her 200,000+ Twitter followers to expunge her past behavior from the internet. 73.157.220.128 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: Provide the citations and they can be examined for suitability. What you have provided so far doesn't support anything beyond fake news. Also: You sound very threatened by the number of Valenti's Twitter followers. She is an established columnist for a very high profile newspaper who has been active online for over 15 years. I think you are connecting the number of followers to something that doesn't exist. I also believe that subjects of BLPs are allowed to complain about inaccuracies and mistakes on their Wikipedia pages and have those concerns addressed. I question the agenda you are displaying here. It undercuts any sort of ability to take your argument here seriously. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems like you need a refresher on not only the WikiLeaks emails, but also on the events that occurred after Valenti made her tweet. Is the credibility of the emails now in question? They certainly haven't been disputed in the past. Maybe you could point to some sources which discredit the emails, or maybe this one, specific email? You, and the rest of her Twitter followers, certainly could have used that to update the article, but Valenti herself admits to having been in contact with the Clinton campaign. Secondly, I think it's absolutely ludicrous that you, a self-proclaimed follower of Jessica Valenti on Twitter, would claim that the coordinated attack on her Wikipedia page in the last 24 hours amounts to "connecting the number of followers to something that doesn't exist". This Wikipedia article was virtually ignored until Valenti made that tweet — perhaps we should be questioning your agenda. 73.157.220.128 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

None of this helps your cause. Sure, use articles about Hilary’s emails from 2016 to support this bogus agenda you are pushing here. We all know how this was complete hooey and is why we have 45 in Office. It’s transparent evidence of your agenda here so there is that. And WikiLeaks? Ha! Ha ha ha ha. These are not neutral arguments. At all. But by all means infect Wikipedia with this nonsense. If other editors won’t stand up to you and shut this down then I have nothing further to say. It’s unethical what you are doing here and it’s clear that this is bias at work. But I can’t be the only one objecting here. — Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The above comment lays bare the agenda by some editors here to make sure the paragraph is not included, not because of sourcing issues or various other problems, but because you believe that a well-sourced version of this controversy (that is, a clinton staffer described a meeting with valenti in which a course of action was suggested to valenti by the campaign, valenti verifiably took that course of action, valenti claimed the two are not related) does not belong in this article, because you believe that it reflects badly on the subject of the article, and you feel that that reflection is unwarranted. That's not the meaning of the BLP policy- any controversies must be well-sourced and no claims made that aren't supported by the sourcing, but that is not actually an issue here despite the straw-grasping by some. Here is an acceptable source, it describes the email, and the email is accurately described by the text. You simply feel the email should not be permissible in this article for reasons that you have failed to elaborate on. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302228-emails-clinton-camp-coordinated-with-bloggers-to-smear 38.104.129.210 (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly frank, what kind of weirdo claims that a contested wikipedia paragraph put Trump in office while accusing an opposing editor of having an agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.129.210 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you able to explain the following in any detail: the "bogus agenda", and later, "[my] agenda"; "We all know how this was complete hooey"; which arguments are "not neutral arguments" 73.157.220.128 (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Innisfree987. I've now given all this a great more deal of thought than I ever imagined I would when this tweet of Valenti's, whom I'd never heard of before today, flitted in front on my eyes.

It's not truly in Wikipedia's power to solve the sorts of professional hazards which exist in Valenti's line of work.

Primarily, that journalists, as a class, like nothing more than to gossip about other journalists. And yet, living journalists are often Wikipedia's only sources for articles about other living journalists. That's just life on what Thomas Carlyle termed "the Fourth estate".

And alas, as a future hagiographer might put it, whatever Valenti's regrets, she willfully entered the political fray and the war of letters, and, in the High Holy Month of the October Surprises in the election year 2016 CE, this small amount of "dirt", that she may have rubbed shoulders with the powerful, has indelibly landed upon her.

Political sources can be biased, and Daniel Halper, in particular, perhaps sees "Clinton conspiracy theories" when he closes his eyes at night (I had to look up him up too[1]). Still, we don't suspect an unworldly bias when Professor Fisherman writes an article in Rare Fish Magazine about a new rare fish, because that's exactly where and by whom we'd expect to find such information. The New York Post, a major newspaper in Clinton's state, in the same City as Clinton's campaign headquarters, publishing an article by a journalist, who keeps his readers apprised of this exact kind of thing, is much the same. The matter is, as they say in the trades, on his beat. I can think of even less flaws in The Hill's use as a source; I'm not really aware of any concerns.

So I do really think the refs have to stay. I'm very open to your ideas for a better gloss of them though. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kendrick7. Haven't yet said how much I appreciated your considered reply (very much!) Want to make sure I'm responsive to it (as we agree is necessary) while limiting, as much as possible, what I add to a now-unwieldy page--forgive me if I don't strike the best possible balance, you can at least count on this as my good-faith effort!

We agree completely that hagiography or deflection of reliable source coverage (which you're right, very often does disproportionately focus on other members of the media--much as few subjects do better at the Oscars than movies about movies!) is not the business of the encyclopedia. The opposite, in fact. What I find troubling here is that--despite the usual media interest in media!--is that we actually have so little on Valenti, only two pieces of secondary RS that are each only partly about her, and no mentions at all in the broad follow-up coverage of the leaks. In the absence of, e.g., coverage in "multiple major newspapers", I see us stringing together: an unreliable secondary source, two short mentions in reliable but not "major" secondary sources, and parsing of a primary source; all in a way that adds up to something UNDUE as far as reliable secondary source coverage can validate (it's seeming impossible to write anything that gives adequate context without actually being longer available reliable secondary sourcing describing Valenti), on the wrong side of WP:SYNTH, among other content policies. Like I just described above, that we don't have coverage that better contextualizes her place in this...says something to me about how reliable secondary sources regard her place in this, or not. So that's why I haven't proposed a different gloss; at this time, I don't see the available sources are giving us enough to work with, within the bounds of our content policies.

For what it's worth, I'll be eager revise my position if/when more robust sourcing turns up. Your pointing to the essay on deadlines feels very fruitful for thinking about this: to me the ideal timeframe is, include as soon as we have the sourcing to do so within content policies. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wishing we had better sources is certainly a fine sentiment, but I don't think that obviates our responsibility to grapple fairly with the various secondary sources we have available, which elucidate for us the various primary sources involved. There is no one thread which can be pulled that makes the tapestry unravel. So, in dealing with that reality, I will try again to come up with a better gloss over the next few days. I invite your help, but without it, I will simply do the best I can under the circumstances. I see no reason not to bury this far down the page where I put it last time, with the hope that the kinds of readers who dig that far into this person's biography might best be able to form their own reasoned opinions. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You’re certainly welcome to put forth new proposals but with multiple editors expressing concern about the material’s suitability for inclusion at all on the basis of currently available sources, it will need consensus to be added to the entry. For my concerns in particular, it would also help a lot if you could please explain why you are taking a different view of the content policies I cited like WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which to me clearly indicate that no, when we don’t have adequate sources, we don’t include the material and just hope for the best in terms of readers interpreting insufficiently contextualized information. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and given it another shot.[2] I'd be tempted to add a few more tangential sources for context, such as what the "backlash" was[3], or Valenti's October tweets that The Hill itself links to[4] but I suppose I will see how this goes first. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to reply more thoroughly yet but I do intend to; the problem of giving adequate context while not making the section overlong is a major concern. Propose again that we try workshopping proposals on contested material here on the talk page rather than readding to entry per ONUS/avoid edit-warring. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well... my version is, at least, only one paragraph. I had something shorter in mind when I started typing, but it got away from me. Feel free to take a crack at glossing the sources yourself in either in the article or here; surely you know the WP:BLP rules, so I don't care either way. There is no hurry, but do keep in mind that WP:ONUS is not a blunt instrument which can be wielded so as to avoid writing the encyclopedia indefinitely. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Kendrick7. Will you kindly revert for the time being? Several editors have expressed concerns for whether it should be included at all, which can be an entirely valid view on writing an encyclopedia entry (pick your favorite MEDREF example), not necessarily a means of avoiding it. I think in this case--especially what with professional integrity now being bandied about--it's appropriate to seek consensus here before adding to the indexed page.

Obviously if you put up a version here and no one replies for a period of time, you can take that as a lack of objection; I certainly would. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC) (If it makes a difference, I've been slow to reply mostly because I took some time to work on other things and see if my view of this changed; it didn't really but seemed worth a try. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

I've reverted, for now. I'll try to think of a better context in which Valenti's denial makes sense, but I thought that was pretty mild. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Although I have stopped following this page I wanted to continue to object to what I considered a manufactured fake news story that has no place on a BLP. I believe Valenti clarified on Twitter both the timeline and the context for what seems very clearly to be a non-event / non-issue. So I continue to object to this information being added to her page. I think it's false, it has nothing to do with Valenti, and is not reliably sourced information. I am repeating myself again and again, so am going to try and stay out of the discussion, but wanted to reinforce my objection. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I also maintain it is very strange how many times presidential campaign hearsay has been demonstrated to be without merit and how it continues to be re-added to this page. While this is outside the scope of Wikipedia, since the primary source itself (WikiLeaks) provides not evidence for anything other than a favorable opinion of Valenti by the Clinton campaign, I am fairly confident no reputable sources are going to contain the "smoking gun" that so many editors are fairly transparently reaching for. That siad, if there is going to be a section on the presidential election I would be much more interested in a survey of Valenti's work related to the election and her coverage in the broader media environment (which is probably noteworthy) rather than this continued fixation on a fundamental misreading of WikiLeaks. Clearly there's interest in the election coverage as related to Valenti, and providing something in that space may head off future edit wars. 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:583B:73ED:7AE:3B03 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Since you do not have consensus and actually did not try to respond here to the several editors who continue to raise concerns here, but went ahead and readded material as you preferred anyway, I suggest it's time to seek dispute resolution. Do you have a preferred venue? To me WP:DRR/DRN or WP:BLPN seems appropriate; I think we're past WP:DRR/3O. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me WP:Requests for comment/Biographies is another option. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I do consider it quite remarkable that, subsequent to the WP:CANVASSING on Twitter by the subject of the article[5], that various sources, including but not limited to, a notable author, Daniel Halper, writing in The New York Post[6] -- one of the oldest newspapers in America which was founded by Alexander Hamilton, The Hill[7] -- a D.C. paper nearly a quarter century old whose good repute does not seem to have been called into question at any point in this discussion, The Observer[8] -- which was founded in 1791 and is the "world's oldest Sunday newspaper" and is a "sister newspaper" to The Guardian, that all of these have ceased to be reliable sources for our biographical purposes on this article. The Hill piece in particular relies on three independant primary sources: the email,[9] the column written in The Guardian by the subject of this article,[10] and the subject's own response to the ensuing controversy.[11]; so, I can't see to how this matter somehow isn't "about" Valenti. As such, I do believe my last edit fulfills every aspect of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I've tagged the dispute for now; I'm happy to have this discussion in another venue as you see fit, as I think the arguments against WP:PRESERVE given the cornucopia of sources we have are on extremely thin ice. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes that seems to be way to go as we seem to remain crosswise: from where I sit, the primary sources are irrelevant to satisfy our content policy issues, which require sufficient secondary commentary; we have a noticeboard opinion advising against using the Post on controversial topics; and beyond that we have brief mentions (the Observer says her name once). Meanwhile, new material contextualizing this topic comes out daily (just this week: 60 Minutes; CNN) but AFAICT (maybe others have differing opinions?), SYNTH means we can't include the developing context, because the outlets continuing to report the story evidently don't consider Valenti a significant part of it and make no mention of her at all. Which to me gives us our bottom line, as a tertiary source.

I'll post the matter to RfC/Bio; clearly I have an opinion here but most of all I'd like the matter to be decided by consensus on how policy applies, and that seems like the surest way to have additional BLP-experienced comment. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh gosh. What's more, I'm afraid you've got the wrong Observer. Your ref doesn't go to the British Sunday paper, but rather to the media outlet formerly known as the New York Observer--which was owned, when that article was published and throughout the 2016 election cycle, by Jared Kushner. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ack, well that's a good catch! I've struck my remark. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: I appreciate your newest proposal as I do think it is closer to giving the necessary emphasis on the relevant context (by pointing the entry for which there are unquestionably sufficient sources) but as we just agreed--I thought--to seek more input to find consensus on whether this should be included at all, could you please stop readding over multiple editor objections, and instead participate here until we reach consensus? It's starting to feel like edit-warring.

As a note, WP:RFCST advises, It may take Legobot up to a day to list the RfC, so be patient. So if there's no immediate feedback, it may yet be coming. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the content dispute is already prominently tagged, I thought it simply easier to propose an alternate compromise (which I'd been considering for a while) in article space, per WP:BRD. The free exchange of ideas is what the tag is meant to facilitate, although perhaps under better circumstances where the references themselves are not called into doubt. However, there have been other editors besides yourself in this dispute who've expressed a slightly different set of concerns, which the alternate gloss is meant to address. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

Do available secondary sources here satisfy our content policies (for instance WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRESERVE) regarding inclusion and handling of unsubstantiated allegations? Please note the extensive discussion above, which unfortunately has not resolved the issue. Thanks in advance for your input. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot): You are going to have to better familiarize yourself with WP:RfC guidelines and put a finer point on your question if you expect anything at all productive to result from the ensuing discussion. RfCs are meant to put forward a brief (and neutral) summary of a disputed edit or issue, touch upon the span of perspectives voiced so far, and ideally present a striaght-forward inquiry about pragmatic solutions, whereby respondents can either A) choose from options, or B) return feedback on a particular proposed solution, endorsing or rejecting it. While these are not the only ways an RfC can proceed in all circumstances, respondents need at least something more than being asked to make a vague assertion about the general quality of an article with regard to sourcing or BLP issues. Even if we take the stance that its a fair ask to request that every respondent read several giant walls of text to get caught up (and its really not) you're still setting the discussion on a collusion course with pointless acrimony, meandering debate, and entrenched bickering if you don't ask specific questions about specific content, but instead ask (in the broadest general terms) if the article is "acceptable" with regard this or that major policy.

So, please amend the RfC posting to tell us which allegations you do or don't feel are adequately sourced, and which sources you do or don't think are adequate to support it--ideally with diffs showing the disputed content. But please also do so while presenting the counter-arguments neutrally and in a fashion which you believe accurately reflects the perspectives of the proponents for the other approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Having had some time to ruminate on this, given the nature of the Valenti's work and the types of harassment she tends to receive, that the fact other journalists listed within the same primary source haven't experienced these kinds of edit wars (I am most familiar with the work of Jamil Smith but of course there are others) suggests that the main complicating factor in this discussion is not the sourcing or the allegations but the many strong opinions about Valenti herself. As such, I think the unsubstantiated allegations should not be incorporated until not only is consensus reached on their inclusion here, but it is also reached for other journalists. I do maintain the long-term solution is a brief summary of her work and influence during the election (which I believe is absolutely noteworthy) and which I think would be sufficient to meet any legitimate concerns about what is or isn't included in this article. 2606:A000:AEC5:7E00:B557:F58E:F2A7:C89C (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Shorter version

I've come up with a new proposed gloss[12] focusing on WP:UNDUE concerns, rather than the absolute letter of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, since that longer version[13] 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. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)