Jump to content

Talk:Naomi Klein

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

Citing Encyclopedias

[edit]

@Vif12vf: Hi. Small point that doesn't require all the following explanation, but here goes anyway. According to the guidelines at WP:RSPRIMARY you can cite another encyclopedia. But also according to MOS:LEAD the lead can be free of citations for non-controversial facts, especially ones that are supported by citations in the body. So it all comes down to WHY the IP editor wants the citation. They mentioned Klein's date of birth. I assume that is supported in the body, but haven't verified that yet. A previous editor had removed the middle initial "A" which was not supported by the encyclopedia citation that you removed. So I currently support your removal of the citation, but disagree with your reason, and should an editor want to use it to support some fact I would support that. I hope this makes sense. Cheers.DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Not to be Confused with …" hatnote is a joke

[edit]

NOTE: See also Naomi Wolf talk.

The "Not to be Confused with Naomi Wolf" hatnote is a joke, and does not belong in this article. Sure, some people allegedly confused the two on Twitter (the premise of Klein's 2023 book), but that does not justify the inclusion of that tag: it's mentioned in the section discussing the book, and that's sufficient. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The only reason not to provide clarification and disambiguation is if it is somehow tendentious. Like if you were to say "John Doe" is not to be confused with "Party Clown". You are implying that John is a clown. Here however there is no pejorative I can think of. Klein certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with the association being called out. Until Klein's book came out, I myself had confused them. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to mentioning this confusion in the lede. I only heard of either of these people because of this supposed confusability. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support including the note. I have confused them myself, and Klein has written extensively about the confusion. cagliost (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her parents were "war resistors"

[edit]

This term should be reserved for those who escape conscription. Did BOTH her parents really escape conscription? It seems unlikely the military was forcing young women to fight in vietnam. Doesn't seem likely that her mother would be facing conscription. Maybe the father was facing conscription, but I think this should be verified as well, not simply assumed to be true based on the familys testimony. I think calling them war resistors is a cheap attempt to build up their status as an activist family. 70.80.72.64 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed the source to this sentence, that her parents were "war resistors", is a link to a youtube video - surely not an acceptable source for wikipedia (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.72.64 (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]