Talk:Laurie Penny/Archive 1

"Apparently autobiographical"
A few details have been removed by User:Barbaraw9999, seemingly under the belief that I am Laurie Penny! I can promise you that I am not. (It seems the only basis for this assumption is that I added her full date of birth.) Feel free to add more biographical details - these items are included because they lend perspective to the nuances of Penny's idiosyncratic views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politico234 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the reference to her time as a burlesque dancer has been included because it lends perspective to her stance as a feminist, and because it has been the focus of some of her own journalism. It has actually been misreported on some of the gossip blogs like Guido Fawkes as her having 'worked' as a 'stripper' (which is untrue), and so I thought it sensible to include an accurate record with citations.
 * User:Barbaraw9999 undid one of my edits as "No evidence in links for 12 months working as burlesque dancer" - I refer you to her Guardian piece http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/15/burlesque-feminism-proud-galleries, which is an account of her time as a burlesque dancer. The second paragraph reads: "There followed a year of making eyes and flashing my knickers, until my body felt even less my own." Again, note that she did not work as a burlesque dancer, and that the article makes no mention of her accepting money for her dancing.
 * The reference to bulimia has been removed, again to the detriment of the piece. This is a loss to the article, as again, not only is it something which Penny has written about herself in an attempt to break down taboos and share her experiences, but the theme of women's self-images and the pressures on women to be thin recur in much of Penny's journalism, so her own experiences really do deserve a mention.

Concerns
Hi I'm Laurie Penny - I'm really concerned that this page just reads like a list of problems people have with me. it is a wholly inaccurate portrayal of my life and career, and I know i don't have any say over this but i'd rather it be taken down if it can't be made into a balanced, factual entry. In the 'politics' section, for example, it refers only to (untrue) criticisms of my work by key right-wing opponents. I'm aware that my work causes a lot of controversy, not insignificantly because i'm young and female and have the temerity to speak in public, but there are a great deal of people out there who truly appreciate what I do as well.

Stuff that's been missed off also includes: the Dispatches book I made, and my two forthcoming books.

And is there any need to refer to my eating disorder history and time as a burlesque dancer quite so prominently? It's hardly the most important thing about my life. I find it a sexist and stupid weighting of information, again something that unbalances the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.176 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note about this at WP:BLPN. I see that The Interior has done quite a bit of cleaning up. I am also watching the article and will assist where I can in order to ensure that WP:5P and particularly WP:BLP is followed. To avoid anyone complaining about potential COI issues, it might be best if you make suggestions here rather than edit the article yourself (although minor fixes like typos or grammar or URL corrections are fine). When creating a new topic on a talk page, please click "new section" at the top and sign your comment with a space then four tildes on the last line (see WP:TP). I suggest you wait a couple of days to see what happens, then post again on this talk page if you believe more needs to be done (for example, you could click the "[edit]" link in the right margin next to the "Concerns" heading for this section). Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I've changed the first sentence of the education section again to make it a little more accurate. I've taken my degree result out as well, because I don't understand the need for it - nobody else has it on their page unless they have a first. I really think if things i've done are being listed, someone should put down the good stuff and not just 'occasional columnist' - eg, my regular appearances on Any Questions, the fact that i'm a regular contributor to BBC Radio 4 and Radio 5 live, the dispatches programme i made for Channel 4, the Newsnight appearances, and the two other books i've got coming out! I don't think it's my place to put these on but I can if you like, and/or provide links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.176 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes you are encouraged not to edit your own article, see WP:COI and WP:autobiography- we could add a book section with the isbn numbers which is good informative for readers wanting to delve deeper about a subject, right now I am just seeing the one paperback which has a mention in the external - upcoming book releases are considered a bit WP:Crystal ball and promotional, when they are released we can look to add a section with the three books in it. I will watchlist this talkpage and if you have ideas for updates or additional WP:RS to support content please provide them here and I will look at adding them to the article. Also WP:SPS - self published sources, which we have a bit many currently in the article - what we want/need to assert notability is independent secondary reports about the subject of the article, more of such would be a benefit to the article, this is always a bit of an issue with journalist/bloggers/writers. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie: I'm removing the information about me joining a burlesque troupe. It was a very small part of my life, and largely irrelevant - it no longer informs my writing.
 * When someone is notable because of their writing, writing which covers topics such as education, the role of young people in politics, pornography and sexual politics, it seems to me that their own life experiences as a young person could reasonably be considered relevant, especially when they themselves have written about these experiences. Also, Laurie - if that is you - may I suggest you look at this page, which may have some info that will be useful to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#The_information_in_your_article_about_me_is_wrong._How_can_I_get_it_fixed.3F Hobson (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wholly inaccurate"
Some major changes have been made to this article at the behest of a person claiming to be its subject. The aims of any article, and in particular those where fact is difficult to tie down such as biographical articles, are verifiability and, as the (apparent) subject points out, balance. The clean-up of irrelevant issues such as degree result is reasonable, but the removal of well sourced, verifiable criticisms made of the subject is not.

Laurie Penny writes: "In the 'politics' section, for example, it refers only to (untrue) criticisms of my work by key right-wing opponents." Firstly, Wikipedia guidelines state that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." These criticisms, whether the subject considers them to be fair or not, have been made, and can be verified as having been made, so the subjective issue of their truth is irrelevant. Furthermore it is rank hypocrisy to allow that blog posts she has made be admitted as 'truth' and blog posts made by commentators who disagree with her be disallowed as 'untrue'. Secondly, the Politics section did not refer 'only' to criticisms made of her work by right-wing commentators, but included several verifiable comments made by commentators on the far left, as even the slightest amount of research would have amply demonstrated. For this reason I submit that the Politics section be reinstated.

In addition, the critical response to her work in the Career section, which as an opinion journalist is part and parcel of her work, has been needlessly removed. Of course no article should be a "a list of problems people have with me" but to suggest that was the case is hugely disingenuous. The article also lists an impressive range of media appearances and writing credits, as well as her blog being shortlisted for the Orwell prize. Perhaps in the name of balance some reference might be made to her being labelled "the voice of a generation" by some bloggers. However to ignore the critical response to her work, criticisms made by "left and right alike", is actually introducing imbalance rather than eliminating it.

I also object to the characterisation of my inclusions as "partisan" in comments Laurie Penny made when deleting sections of the article she considered unflattering: they were deliberately chosen to balance comments made by Penny with left-wing commentators and right-wing commentators. If this biography continues to be airbrushed into a vanity article, Wikipedia should strongly consider protecting it to prevent inaccurate edits from both Penny and any "partisan" users.

As to the suggestion that it is sexist to record her eating disorder and burlesque performances in the Biography section, it is entirely fair to make mention of them since Penny has relied on them repeatedly in her professional writing for the UK's national press.

For these reasons I believe that the excised sections should be wholly reinstated with minor clean-ups, and the page considered for protection. Since I am one of the users apparently at fault here, I don't wish to exacerbate the issue further, so will defer to Off2riorob to make a decision on this matter.

Starcog 13:51 (GMT) 13 April 2011
 * -Hi, I support a middle position - if it can be well sourced and independently sourced,we can likely add it. I will note though that someones opinion of her in a self published sources would fail WP:SPS. If there is something you want to consider for replacing we can look at the externals and look at replacing it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I did earlier reorder some of the (now deleted) content - before the discussion above - under a "criticism" heading but then the laptop crashed before I could save :-( Reluctant to try to re-create at this point, as a new wikipedian on a clearly delicate topic, only to be immediately reverted but would welcome other views.  Yossarian68 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Starcog. Penny's airbrushing of her own profile with an 'approved' version that removes all references to controversy is unhelpful, sets a very harmful precedent for other articles, and definitely breaches both COI and  autobiography. Starcog's edit was certainly balanced, quoting as much praise as criticism.


 * Furthermore, the article as it stands without Starcog's edits seems a bit pointless. It contains plenty of interesting information, but it doesn't meet notability. The case for Penny's notability is made by the degree to which she is talked about by her peers, and is both praised and criticised. These edits really need to be restored, without airbrushing.


 * Incidentally, in her comments above, Penny refers to "(untrue) criticisms of my work by key right-wing opponents." She doesn't actually specify what they are, but I assume she's talking about the Guido Fawkes story about her advertising for female-only applicants for a below-minimum wage research assistant, since she has partially refuted it on Guido's blog. The actual story itself is pretty much a storm in a teacup, and personally I can believe that the £5.88/hour rate advertised compared to the £5.95/hour National Minimum Wage is more attributable to poor arithmetic than intentional breach of the law, especially since the figures given were approximate - "£500" for "about 85 hours". However, as the most rudimentary Google search will show, Penny previously prominently campaigned for a "Living Wage" of £7.85/hour, well above the NMW, making this noteworthy, and so however much of a mountain out of a molehill the story itself is, it does seem highly relevant.
 * Politico234 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie again: the reason the Guido Fawkes claims are untrue is that I never advertised for a 'below minimum wage' assistant. For that to be the case, I would have to have been offering a salaried position. As it was, I offered a commission rate of £500 for a specific job of work. It is important to me not to exploit people so I suggested an estimate which I believed would make it close to minimum wage. Critics on the right have leapt on this as an example of supposed hypocrisy, and the articles about it have included really quite horrific rape threats in the comments. This article as it first appeared was a hatchet job, including only the most extrapolated criticisms and attacks and intending to present me in a highly biased light. I'm not asking for some sort of panegyric, I'm merely asking for balance, and I believe that reinstating the original text would make the entry wholly skewed and inaccurate. I've also had a great deal of praise and support, and I'm not asking for that to be included here either - why not keep it to just the bare facts, if it must exist at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.176 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd refer you all to this, from the description of NPOV (neutral point of view) in the Biographies of Living Persons section: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content."

I have no desire for this to be a vanity article, I merely request that partisan commentators like 'Politico234', who clearly have some sort of agenda to misrepresent my work, not be allowed to twist my life history in the manner suggested. My writings on anorexia and burlesque, for example, make up about 1% of my published work: there is hardly any need for it to be shoved right up the top of the biography section as if it was the only important thing about me. I consider that a sexist and belittling curation of information.

I strongly suggest that the article be locked as it is, or at least that it be watched for further edits that betray the NPOV principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.176 (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We won't be presently protecting the article, it will still be available to improve and expand, but it will be watched for policy violations and all such will be removed and the users repeatedly making such additions will have their editing privileges removed at the earliest possible convenient junction.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Whole edition history
This article was started by an IP around 4 months ago (December 2010) but Jarkeld and My76Strat for some reason they know found it not notable enough or inadequately sourced or something like that and its creation was declined. Given the fact that those edits are not appearing in the history of this article, here is a link to it for the record. --81.159.253.191 (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Schooling
Laurie: It's entirely trolling and most of it is inaccurate (the stuff today about Brighton College, for example, is way off on the figures). If you want actual facts, you can always just email me. laurie dot penny at gmail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.176 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be according to this document: http://www.brightoncollege.org.uk/documents/Fees%20Structure%202010-11.pdf Full board, plus registration fee. But don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with you being monied. Should the fees information be added to the article? It's £29k a year for 6th form. Is this relevant information?

--86.147.135.230 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say... hmm let's see... how about... no. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * sigh* it's inaccurate because when I attended the fees were under half that much, and i was on an 80% scholarship anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.86.176 (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of inflation Laurie. And anyway, the fact states that the fees are *currently* £29k - doesn't sound that misleading. But congratulations on your bursary!

--86.144.175.167 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Partisan"
I note that once again the defence of deliberately balanced criticisms, a defence made in this case by Politico234, is being characterised as "partisan". Again, this is a smokescreen: the issue is that the article's subject doesn't feel that it is written flatteringly enough. I accept that a minority of the criticisms included in earlier edits were from sources of questionable quality. I apologise for their misjudged inclusion; I certainly had no intention of doing a "hatchet job" on Penny. However, as Politico234 puts it, "the article as it stands without Starcog's edits seems a bit pointless. It contains plenty of interesting information, but it doesn't meet notability. The case for Penny's notability is made by the degree to which she is talked about by her peers, and is both praised and criticised. These edits really need to be restored, without airbrushing."

Bearing in mind the reasonable points made by Off2riorob, I would submit that the following passages from | my last edit, which I have duly modified and cut below, be reinstated:

"Her work has been criticised by left and right alike, including by Alex Callinicos, an academic in a leading position at the Socialist Workers Party, for her coverage and analysis of the 2010 UK student protests, and Alex Massie, a conservative columnist, for her reportage of protest movements in 2011. Penny's work has also been criticised by the investigative journalism magazine Private Eye, which reprinted some of her writing in its "Pseuds Corner" section. "

"Penny describes herself as a "feminist, deviant, reprobate, queer, socialist". She has been described by others on the left as an anarchist.  Penny has written for outlets that espouse ideologies such as communism, social democracy, and liberalism. "

--Starcog 21 April 2011, 17:50 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. I suggest it would also be appropriate to include/refer to/summarize some or all of the criticism from left and right here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100083065/is-penny-red-the-creation-of-a-brilliant-right-wing-satirist/

http://order-order.com/2011/01/18/sexist-penny-exploits-unemployed-offering-below-minimum-wage/

http://www.labourlist.org/uk-uncut-owes-a-lot-of-apologies

http://thethirdestate.net/2011/01/on-being-called-a-cunt-by-laurie-penny/

Yossarian68 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Order order is not a wikipedia reliable source neither is the laborlist, neither is the third estate - I haven't looked at the others.. Also note - one account is the policy here, if you guys both pushing the same addition here are commented by IP address or through association you are in violatin of policy and you should edit from a single account. Perhaps read WP:SOCKPUPPET - AND WP:MEATPUPPET - Also as I told you previousely, apart from the unreliability of some of the sources WP:RS we do not link to internal articles inside quotes as we do not know that was what the person meant when they said it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to confirm I am no-one's puppet although not sure how to prove that! On your substantive point, appreciate the sources may not be reliable when it comes to demonstrating truth of a fact however, I included as examples of criticism from left and right which they surely are? The point I want to see reflected is that Penny has attracted a range of criticism from left and right. How better to show that than provide links to exactly that? but then I'm new in these parts. And, please, some credit for discussing this here and not jumping in to the article. Yossarian68 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for commenting, as you are a new user supporting a previous new users exact same position about the living subject of this wikipedia WP:BLP you can understand the question... Everyone gets criticized by opponents and partisans and suchlike - its not likely very notable, Penny herself is only slightly wikipedia notable, lets not bloat the article with partisan trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also happy to confirm that I'm nobody's sockpuppet! If the admins want to look up my IP address and compare and contrast with the others here, go right ahead! I agree with the amended version suggested by Starcog, but also agree with Off2riorob's point that sites like order-order, Labour List and the thirdestate aren't valid references, as they are blogs. However, stories that are picked up by them and then later referenced by reliable sources are fine for inclusion provided the later reference is included, i.e. the ongoing "Laurie Penny called me a cunt at a public meeting" spat which kicked off at http://thethirdestate.net/2011/01/on-being-called-a-cunt-by-laurie-penny/ isn't reportable in itself, but was then written about by Penny in the New Statesman at http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/02/sexual-power-word-cunt-hint and then in the Daily Telegraph by leader writer [Harry Mount]] at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harrymount/100051064/the-glorious-row-that-shows-why-student-revolutionaries-will-never-take-over-the-world/, making it notable.


 * There is admittedly a downside to wikipedia's policies on verifiable sources in regards to this article. Penny has a large following on blogosphere and on twitter, and has attracted considerable praise on blogs. However, in verifiable, 'established' media, comments by established journalists tend to be pretty scathing and negative - so in trying to be balanced and offering both praise and criticism even-handedly, we have our work cut out because of wikipedia's policies on not relying on blogs as reliable sources.


 * Incidentally, Penny seems to have singled me out in her comments above as a "partisan commentator" with "clearly...some sort of agenda to misrepresent [her] work" . I can promise her that nothing is further from the truth. It all comes down to what can verifiably be reproduced from what is already in the public domain. I suspect we're already going over the edge of verifiability in including Penny's edits on attending state primary schools, and having a scholarship for her secondary school; but IMHO the article's improved by these minor details, and they seem fairly innocuous - there's no reason to doubt them, or to take them out.


 * Politico234 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blogosphere and twitter trivia and partisan spats related to such is not what wikipedia BLP articles are about. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole, 'laurie penny is a sexist' debacle doesn't need to sourced from order order - she still has the offending job advert on her blog! However, though do agree that using these articles as a primary source is unnacceptable, using them as illustrative of the strong opinions that LP evokes is useful, and notable for understanding her 'character' within a historical perspective.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.175.167 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If reliable secondary sources don't much care whether the job advert is "offending" or not, then Wikipedia doesn't either. The blogs and primary sources may indeed be useful for illustrating strong opinions about Penny; so go forth and use them to write and publish an article in a reliable secondary source about such things, and when there is enough such material in reliable sources then it might become due weight in this encyclopedia article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * the problem would seem to be that Penny's notability is mainly due to the "Blogosphere and twitter ... partisan spats" that her writing generates. More experienced wikipedians than I might help advise how this can be overcome in the article in light of Off2riorob's comments. Yossarian68 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Starcog here, feel free to examine my IP, I'm also not a sock puppet or meat puppet. I understand the concern, but don't think we're actually all supporting exactly the same position, we have all made different concessions at various points.  I am now unconvinced, as it seems are many, that this article should have been created in the first place.  If the article is maintained, then surely http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100083065/is-penny-red-the-creation-of-a-brilliant-right-wing-satirist/ as suggested by Yossarian68 at least is an acceptable source? -Starcog 04:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it states the name of the satirist in question... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that might be missing the point of the article? Starcog 16:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well if the article is just making a point, it's just an opinion piece, right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to remember the point of including some reference to that (and perhaps other) online articles. It is not to support a claimed fact that Penny really is the creation of a satirist but as support to the fact that her writing has generated criticism (from notable commentators). There are I am sure also examples of praise but I can't find them.Yossarian68 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Balance
As has been mentioned above, this article is very, very far from balanced. Laurie's writing, intentionally or not, courts controversy and it is only fair to showcase that criticism as well, perhaps under a 'criticism' section? I'm not talking about personal attacks, I'm talking about valid criticism. After what happened with Johann Hari, you would think that we would be able to get a handle on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janemccallion (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not recommended to create criticism sections. Notable criticism can be included in the body of the article in relation to the time or the praise it is in opposition or rebuttal to. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I say, it's the very fact that the way she writes does and has courted notable criticism that I think warrants this type of section. And while it may not be recommended, other polemical writers such as Richard Littlejohn and Paul Staines *do* have a 'criticism and controversy' section on their respective pages. I'm not talking about turning this page into a bitchfest, obviously, but I think that it is only fair that criticism of her work be accommodated. Janemccallion (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2011
 * There are many things at many articles but I prefer to focus on the correct manual of style wiki guidelines - integration of criticism to the relevant location avoids the undue listing of opinionated partisan attacks. Perhaps you can offer some noteworthy criticism here for perusal and investigation. Are you talking about the primary bloggers and private eye? What in the article now requires rebuttal and balancing by criticism? Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "There are many things at many articles but I prefer to focus on the correct manual of style wiki guidelines". That's an interesting sentence. You sound as though you perchance want to keep the criticisms out of the Laurie Penny page. Did you go scampering off to edit the 'controversy' sections out of pages about right-wing journalists? Somehow I think not..
 * It would merely be part of Laurie Penny's story (as would her real name, which we seem a little shy of telling people) to note the reactions she has had from pretty much everywhere, we could list bloggers, historians, journalists - she has certainly provoked a large amount of criticism, telling parents how to bring up their kids on Channel 4, and when asked if she had kids, saying "I don't see why that matters" and other hilarious episodes.
 * Occasionally I see people claim that wiki is 'unbiased' and I'm tempted to point to your comment as a counter-example--81.159.195.53 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Incident with David Starkey
Why is lie about Starkey swearing at Penny being repeatedly re-inserted? It is - A: Not really a notable event, and B: provably untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belboid (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right about Starkey not swearing, I no longer attempt to restore that part of Penny's quote. The debate was not a major event either, but it is worth mentioning given the coverage, and the prominence of Starkey. Philip Cross (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the flow of the paragraph is correct. The author makes it seem as though Starkey's comments were a response on miss Penny calling him a racist. That is incorrect. He shared the story about the debate because she asked a 'personal and invidious' (Starkey's words) question about his private domicile and his tax status. It was not because she called him a racist. That is a significant distinction, the paragraph makes it seem as though Starkey is petty and can't stand being called a racist while actually it was because he was being attacked on issues of his private sphere. Steven vc (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Row about IWCA and racism
Why is this being edited out? Its properly referenced, it has links to the Tweets in question and the article in question. The shameful censorship of this issue seems like another example of LP's priviledged media position. Disgusting behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.31.148 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Tweets are not considered reliable sources, but if this incident gets into the (serious) press, and thus might be considered notable, it may well end up being included indefinitely. Philip Cross (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is rubbish. The Tweets can all be confirmed as accurate by looking at @pennyred timeline. This is censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.31.148 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Given that much of this article is links to self published sources (i.e. Laurie Penny's own blog), the whole article needs a re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.31.148 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If tweets are not considered a reliable source, than surely reference 6 should be removed. KeithLolman —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Limited use of sources published by the subject is acceptable per WP:BLP provided they don't involve claims about third parties. The material being discussed above involved a claim about a the IWCA, whereas ref 6 is just information about her. January  ( talk ) 13:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. WP:SELFSOURCE. Vashti (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal
-- Gary  Dee  08:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Potentially Malicious Site: (Blackhat seo SPAM)
 * hxxp://www.zero-books.net/	"cheap cialis"
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/c9c587653c7f7dcde0e752953ea6e749c1c5ac0bc40b7666456cc3a2749f69df/analysis/
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.zero-books.net
 * hxxp://www.johnhuntpublishing.com/login-v2.html		"viagra for sale"
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/4b4d76d141ef57c5bf20b8f9a71a12d1e7bbbd0e354eb6519e56b7979638604b/analysis/1374134964/
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.johnhuntpublishing.com


 * I am afraid you seem to have made a mistake. An insecure site certainly, assuming my Opera browser is correct, but our computers will not be infected by accessing it. As I have said in the edit summary my Norton software gives the Zero Books website the all clear. The reference to "Viagra for sale" above suggests your computer may have have become infected, see "Wikipedia Warns Users About Malware Injecting Ads Into Its Pages", PC World, 16 May 2012. Philip Cross (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW McAfee Site Advisor gives Zero Books an all clear - I'm not sure what the other links listed above are, nor why they are here. Arjayay (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal II

 * Let us See: STEP 1
 * As we can see here:
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.zero-books.net
 * the link: hxxp://www.johnhuntpublishing.com/login-v2.html as a referrer in the HTML section of www.zero-books.net.
 * Next Step checking this HTML-SRC:
 * REFERENCE HERE:
 * http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=36d9d0e70ec4309195b9ea9f87982794da85612e
 * IF you want to download the HTML Header to analyse, and search for that Link, you can do that here:
 * GET FILE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/dec/getfile?hash=35cd/6f930761815deda95ae726bddd7ecc1e9bfd
 * STEP 2:
 * As we can see here:
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.johnhuntpublishing.com
 * The Johnhuntpublishing-Link includes:
 * hxxp://www.indiastudies.org/?aw5ka=535382 AS A REFERRER
 * THE HTML-SRC of this link (indiastudies) can be downloaded from here (for analysis):
 * http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=562822446907682aa2ec3eab1722555c1c280d2f
 * THE GET FILE IS HERE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/dec/getfile?hash=8bdd/e408f5442ec7db5a48ba122181b1645e2615
 * THE (HIDDEN) LINKS THAT CAN BE FOUND HERE ARE:
 * THIS IS CLASSIC Blackhat SEO SPAM.
 * THE MALICIOUS THREAD BESIDES THIS IS THAT THIS LINK ALSO INCLUDES A BROWSER EXPLOIT:
 * JS/Exploit-Blacole.cw
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/7bda12e014fbea3c7e40dd6120ae082ac0414fd22ee4be41f51352bc8db1dc19/analysis/1374156502/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/96ef783eeedd0aee71e7d00ead72625a7426222bdc0265036bb9c16edb5b5e28/analysis/1374156503/
 * THOSE FILES CAN ALSO BE FOUND HERE: http://jsunpack.jeek.org/?report=562822446907682aa2ec3eab1722555c1c280d2f
 * GETFILES ARE:
 * http://jsunpack.jeek.org/dec/getfile?hash=9c2e/29741fb3a1d12e84d107c2e34e2e5ad3b3c2
 * http://jsunpack.jeek.org/dec/getfile?hash=0ff0/7cb9e424c535bc524169034e9650557f7361r
 * Final Destination via EXPLOIT (REDIRECT) WILL COME TO THIS DOMAIN:
 * hxxp://www.directrxonline.net/viagra_generic.php
 * http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/www.directrxonline.net
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.directrxonline.net

A Second Possibility to check it (on a far more undeep level) are these links:
 * https://www.google.lu/search?q=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr#client=firefox-a&hs=rzo&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=www.zero-books.net+%22viagra%22&oq=www.zero-books.net+%22viagra%22&gs_l=serp.12...4823.4823.0.7039.1.1.0.0.0.0.103.103.0j1.1.0....0...1c.2.21.psy-ab.hMrW883B_-s&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.Yms&fp=775eda0be17fd8d8&biw=1600&bih=693
 * https://www.google.lu/search?q=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr#client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=www.zero-books.net+%22cialis%22&oq=www.zero-books.net+%22cialis%22&gs_l=serp.3...65818.66931.1.67272.6.6.0.0.0.2.237.923.1j3j2.6.0....0...1c.1.21.psy-ab.4eVxIztJx1s&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.Yms&fp=775eda0be17fd8d8&biw=1600&bih=693
 * https://www.google.lu/search?q=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr#client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=www.johnhuntpublishing.com+%22cialis%22&oq=www.johnhuntpublishing.com+%22cialis%22&gs_l=serp.12...208896.208896.2.209848.1.1.0.0.0.0.270.270.2-1.1.0....0...1c.2.21.psy-ab.NBlcAl88-GA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.Yms&fp=775eda0be17fd8d8&biw=1600&bih=693
 * https://www.google.lu/search?q=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr#client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=www.johnhuntpublishing.com+%22viagra%22&oq=www.johnhuntpublishing.com+%22viagra%22&gs_l=serp.12...35490.37345.3.39268.6.6.0.0.0.0.112.604.2j4.6.0....0...1c.1.21.psy-ab.cJ4NWy7PyC0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.Yms&fp=775eda0be17fd8d8&biw=1600&bih=693
 * https://www.google.lu/search?q=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr#client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&oq=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.1.299822.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..21.psy-ab.MxTPCAsbCxw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.Yms&fp=775eda0be17fd8d8&biw=1600&bih=693
 * https://www.google.lu/search?q=www.indiastudies.org+%22viagra%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr#client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=www.indiastudies.org+%22cialis%22&oq=www.indiastudies.org+%22cialis%22&gs_l=serp.3...15396.16695.2.17442.6.0.6.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.21.psy-ab.PFhYA7nhEhM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099,d.Yms&fp=775eda0be17fd8d8&biw=1600&bih=693
 * To keep it short: If someone will click the link from Johnhuntpublishing-Link at www.zero-books.net, in case he has no Security Software, or an updated OS, could be harmed by infection. All in all, as a threat like this is being detected, there is a no-go, for having links like this in a Wikipedia-article; evidence enough for removing those links once more. -- Gary  Dee  16:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Attribution of opening quote
Hi, I edited the opening to remove the explicit credit to Laurie for the quoted text, as to my eye that credit was superfluous and ugly. It was reverted quoting WP:MOSQUOTE. However, that policy states "However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section.". As formatted, it seems very clear that the text in quotes is from the subject of the article. Thoughts? Vashti (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this was clearly a topic of great controversy and debate, I have been and gone and done it. Vashti (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Birth Name
Why has her birth name and information regarding her father been removed, when they are both referenced? Aside from it being highly "rumoured" that her real name is Laura Barnett, in the Herald article she confirms her father was Ray Barnett and the Twitter reference provides a response from Laurie Penny to a Tweet by Guido Fawkes confirming that she is Laura Barnett. 2 independent references confirming her birth name.

Wopper786 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is still synthesis to use The Herald article in the way you suggest and Twitter is not a reliable source. Even though there is no evidence Laurie Penny's account was hacked when the tweets you refer to were posted, the issue about her real name really needs a properly edited published source for it to be added to the article. In the UK, there is another journalist named Laura Barnett who has written for some of the same publications as Laurie Penny. So avoiding identifying Laurie Penny by her likely birth name prevents potential confusion. It is frustrating, but sometimes we editors need to wait for a citation which will resolve an article's obvious omissions. Philip Cross (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No original research involved. Here's another ref confirming she works using her mother's name https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/490228737242574848. A Twitter post from the subject is of course reliable.

Wopper786 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Twitter is not a reliable source, as you have been told several times now. The Herald article specifically states that Laurie Penny was born in London (not Westminster). Given your obsession with using Twitter as source, you will know that Penny has tweeted that this article's sometime reference to Westminster is in error. Philip Cross (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also not really interesting or notable, whether she uses her mother's name or her father. Euchrid (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)