Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Masha Gessen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Her role in firing staff of Radio Liberty Moscow bureau

I think we should include info that she fired the entire staff of the Radio Liberty Moscow bureau [1] soon after meeting with Putin, although she denies her role [2]... My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, according to this publication (and also this, summarized (here (Russian)), the current director of Radio station just left his job because she literally "destroyed" the Moscow bureau of RL. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
So, this tells about Stev Korn who just resigned: "He also fired some of the best independent journalists in Russia so that Masha Gessen, his disastrous choice to run the Russian Service, could bring in her own team of far less qualified associates." My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Another publication: "Masha Gessen Expertly Ruined Washington’s Propaganda Horn: President of Radio Liberty Dismissed" – (Moskovskie Vedomosti, Dec. 25, 2012)[3], but that one is definitely biased. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion by Alexander Goldfarb, "Around the World", Letter to Korn in April 2012 (compare to this). New "Svoboda". My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional source

Personal Life

The existing section says both that she has two children and that she has three children. Which is it? MaxwellPerkins (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done – resolved. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely biased article, needs a re-write

She's a member of the "democratic opposition" despite the Putin "regime" winning elections that were deemed fair by the OSCE...Am I the only one who winced at all of this gratuitously biased language? Solntsa90 (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Such language is hardly encyclopedic, especially when it fails to be factual. Solntsa90 (talk)


indeed she is a nasty pos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:4D80:7CA:459E:7272:F2F7:1194 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, the term "democratic opposition" no longer appears in the article and calling her a nasty piece of shit hardly constitutes a legitimate objection. Based on this, I'm removing the neutrality tag. Please offer a more detailed rationale should you choose to restore it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources for what? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't bother. She's a zionist therefore any criticism of her is anti semitic and will be removed by the consensus of the neutral and zionist mods.86.137.75.216 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What sort of criticism has been removed? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed source

I have removed a patently unreliable source from this article; Breitbart is not useful as a source for contentious or negative claims about living people. We're not going to use a highly-opinionated, viciously-slanted Breitbart smearjob as a reliable source for the biography of someone they clearly politically oppose. Do not reinsert unreliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @Knope7: I agree about not using the mentioned source, as it's a far right-wing site which makes personal attacks with particularly sensationalised and sinister tone. The info in the 'Personal life' section is factual, as Gessen herself talks openly about her 3 children in the attached clip on that page. Nothing sensational or controversial about it at all, as the child was born to her partner, Oreshkina. Unfortunately and quite ironically, that execrable site seems to the only current source where the info is available on. I'm leaving the info itself with the option to source it when a neutral WP:RS is made available. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, {ping|TonyisTheWoman}}. I removed the information out of caution for a BLP, especially since Gessen has been a very vocal critic of two governments. I'm fine leaving it if it is something Gessen has talked about, although I think we should clarify further so that readers do not think Gessen is being accused of incest. Knope7 (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm open to any suggestions of rephrasing / elaborating. I do feel that it's quite clear that Oreshkina and Gessen's brother are the biological parents of the child and it leaves no room for further interpretations. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masha Gessen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masha Gessen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

They / their

Surely if you want to be polite use the invented pronouns in front of the person, but in articles about them use English. If not its just confusing, especially to non native speakers. 99.9999% of people reading this won't be the subject. Rustygecko (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rustygecko: Which pronouns were you objecting to? Irtapil (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Every time the article uses they when in English we use he or she. If not it is very confusing. English has a grammar which cannot be changed by a few activists. Wiki should not play their Woke game. Stick to standard English. Rustygecko (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is not proper English but a verbal political activism. Using it in the Wiki is a violation against the guideline of neutrality. By the way if someone answers, I prefer to be addressed with thy/thou/thee. ;-) --Querstrebe (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The Singular they is, in fact, proper English and it is objections to its use - like the ones found in this Talk section - that that typically represent verbal political activism. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"After Gessen tweeted about their firing, Putin phoned them"

The use of them is confusing. In English it should read "her" not them. 

Rustygecko (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The use of they in English as a singular is used instead of he/she when the sex of the person is UNKNOWN. in this case the sex of the person is known. Rustygecko (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Binary non binary

I should like to know what part of wikipedia policy permits the use of the third person plural pronoun to refer to so-called non binary or "queer" individual. This use of the pronoun "they" is confusing because it implies that more than one person is involved. Why was my correction of "they " to "it" (would accept "she" or "he") reversed?

The vast majority of people do not accept acknowledge or understand the use of the third person plural to refer to a single human being indidiuals describing themselves in such a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorickJenkins (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it is definitely not correct English to use "it" to refer to a person. There is some ambiguity with babies or dead bodies, but it is unambiguously not correct English to use "it" to refer to a living adult human. Including when speaking in past tense about the person whose body it was before they died, or when speculating about the baby when they grow up. (btw, both of those instances of "they" come entirely naturally to native speakers, you possibly didn't even notice them until i pointed it out.) Irtapil (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, singular they has been an accepted part of the English language for centuries and is supported by all major english style guides. The relevant wiki policy is MOS:GENDERID. Rab V (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I mostly agree, but as a point of interest, the older singular "they" for a hypothetical or unspecified person - e.g. "a writer sitting at their desk" - is slightly different to it's modern use for a specific non binary person. But it's still appropriate for both usages. Irtapil (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The vast majority of people do not accept acknowledge or understand the use of the third person plural to refer to a single human being indidiuals describing themselves in such a way - that is an entirely unsupported statement, and appears to be original research. Arguments based on POV and original research are not supposed to be taken into account when editing Wikipedia articles. Just so we are all on the same page. Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
This use of the pronoun "they" is confusing because it implies that more than one person is involved. There is a very simple solution to this non-problem: use names. In any context where it is unclear whether "they" refers to a group or a non-binary individual, refer to them by name. Just like you would in a sentence about two people who are both usually referred to as "he". Irtapil (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Name at birth

"Masha Gessen was born Maria Alexandrovna Gessen"

Sources:

  • "Masha Gessen". Brookline, MA: Jewish Women's Archive. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
  • "Please, join the Society of Slavic Graduate Students for a talk by Maria "Masha" Gessen" (PDF). University of Virginia Slavic Forum. 31 March 2017. Retrieved 16 March 2022.

Please explain:

  1. How is it OK to have a long encyclopedic article, in which Gessen is described already from the lead as "binary" and "trans", but without ever mentioning trans from what? You need to start somewhere to trans-ition, to move across (trans). Being assigned a sex at birth is the rule, and Gessen never made a secret about being assigned female sex at birth.
  2. Name at birth is a very simple, useful fact. Also, Gessen has never hidden it.
  3. In more general terms: the sex assigned at birth is nothing to hide, unless one decides to do so. If that were the case, I would be the first one to shut up.
  4. Jewish Women's Archive is a very reputable platform, staffed with excellent academics, very well aware of all issues connected to identity - gender, ethnicity, ANYTHING.
  5. University of Virginia Slavic Forum: Virginia U is reputable enough, its Slavic Forum I hope as well, or are you cancelling all things Slavic along with Putain? If you have an issue with the PDF being a poster, that we can talk about.

As we can see from Gessen's own intervention on this very page, Gessen has no problem with any of that. She's far too smart, grounded in reality, and non-quixotistic, as not to see how ridiculous that would be. This whole thing here adds being more Catholic than the pope to the other sin, of living in an abstract, reality-detached La La Land. Blind activism is a sin (against intelligence, against humanity at large, normally against its own declared raison d'être), but that's not an argument, it's a conviction and sign of sanity, so feel free to ignore.

PS: Are we REALLY having this discussion? Or is it just a bad dream, like the other guy's alternative universe, that one "made in Kremlin", this one "made in La La Land"? Arminden (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see MOS:DEADNAME, which reached its current form as a result of wide input of editors and has community consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. The threshold for including the pretransition names of living trans people is that they must have met the standards for Notability on Wikipedia while using (by choice) the pre-transition name in question. The sources you have provided so far do not meet this standard, so the pre-transition name will not be included based on these sources. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I was naive enough as to believe Israel/Palestine is the peak of madness on Wiki. His Majersty, Fritz III must have felt similarly. Adios. Arminden (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by consensus. Calling other editors mad is unhelpful. Rab V (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hitched

I don't see this one yet in the awards section:

— MaxEnt 01:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Recent edit summaries from an editor using an IP address say that the editor is Gessen's daughter. I reverted the edits but I figure it is worth a discussion. Knope7 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello - Masha Gessen here. I appreciate the reason for removing the changes. However, my daughter was correcting a factual mistake. My legal name, since 1989, is Masha Gessen. The way the article is currently titled is misleading and has caused a fair amount of inconvenience for me. Please retitle it "Masha Gessen." It would be accurate to say that I was born "Maria Alexandrovna," but not more than that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.1.244.6 (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it because that doesn't seem controversial to me (and because of policy), and I can only find one reliable source that refers to you as Maria Alexandrovna (this one, but only the introduction is not behind a paywall). But it would be really great if you could confirm this outside of Wikipedia because, for what I imagine are obvious reasons, trusting an anonymous person on the internet claiming to be Masha Gessen isn't the best way to go. Two possible ways you can do this are by Twitter or by contacting Wikimedia. You can check out WP:BLPSELF for more info. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo for infobox

The Wikimedia Commons category c:Category:Masha Gessen at present holds two photos: one from 2011 and the one in the infobox now, from 2015. An objection was raised on the WP Humanities reference desk regarding the subject's "miserable" appearance in the 2015 photo. My solution is to add The earlier photo already appears lower on the page; both are dated. I suggest it's not adequately justifiable to swap the photos having the earlier one in the infobox due to a subjective assessment of "appearance".-- Deborahjay (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masha_Gessen/Archive_1&oldid=1257269946"