Talk:Lia Chang

CV
This article is basically a CV turned into prose - a series of bullet points. This is what paid editors often do when they expand articles, and it is not good encyclopedia writing. Have been debating how to make this an encyclopedia article, and am not sure how. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack1956 and Ssilvers, who have been rewriting the article over the past few days, are certainly not paid editors and I am sure you did not mean to imply that they are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. i am talking about the base from which they started, and which i only said is "what paid editors often do". and i ams still scratching my head over how to make something encyclopedic. I haven't found sources that actually discuss her body of work, as it were. so we just have "she did this, she did that". Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Jack1956, Ssilvers, and I should also have mentioned DGG are moving the article in the correct direction, and I suggest giving them some time to continue their efforts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, Jytdog, improve the article if you can. I don't think it's in great shape, but I also don't think it's in particularly bad shape. It's somewhere in the middle.  However, I still think that the witch hunt that began with the AfD of this article has resulted in the deletion of useful material throughout the encyclopedia, so I think that a much more important project than working on this article is to restore the material across many articles that Damiens.rf deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I actually asked DGG to take a look at this. It was in bad shape when it was listed at COIN. It is getting into better shape. It is still essentially bullet points reformatted into paragraphs. I am not taking action, but thinking.  I'll add that you appear to be reacting to things I haven't done here. I have been listening to the community. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

archive?
article says: Since the 1980s, Chang has built a photographic archive of persons of color in the arts.

None of those sources says anything about her "building an archive of persons of color in the arts." Each of those is a publication contains a picture for which she is credited, and in which a person of color appears. This is not good WP writing, and the problem we are faced with, with the lack of sources that discuss her body of work. I note that if you search https://www.google.com/search?q="Lia+Chang+Archive" like that, you come up with some sites that include photos that are owned by the "Lia Chang Archive" - which appears to be some entity she created and assigns copyright to. But nobody discusses it. This is the kind of thing that is bugging me - that just seems like PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * agreed.  DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The first footnote says that Chang: "began documenting my colleagues and contemporaries in the worlds which I have worked - the arts, fashion, journalism - to insure that we as artists of color be properly represented." If you don't like "archive" what if we say that she "has built a body of photographs of persons of color in the arts"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not bad to support content like "Chang says that she has focused on documented the work of documenting people of color in the arts, fashion, and journalism" sourced to that interview, and get rid of that whole pile of primary sources. Much more encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC))
 * I think you're entirely missing the point. She did not say that she was documenting their work. She said that it was her intention to document the people themselves so that they would be properly represented despite the systemic bias against them in the arts world.  And, in fact, she actually *has* documented people of color in the arts, fashion, and journalism".  So, I disagree with you.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Ssilvers is correct about this. I also suggest that you try to find a wikiproject whose members might be knowledgeable about this subject and could help with sourcing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what i meant. documenting the people.  sorry, wrote it too quickly.  my point was that is encyclopedic and we don't need the pile of primary of sources. you guys are far too "hot" here.  Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I trimmed away those primary sources, some other unsourced stuff, and the pile of publications where her pictures have appeared. it is starting to breathe like prose now. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

[Left]. I do not agree with those changes, and certainly not with deleting any refs until this disagreement is resolved. Per WP:BRD, please slow down and gain consensus before making any of those changes! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What are we disagreeing about? Jytdog (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Resuming discussion below concerning Jytdog's proposed deletions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes
I seem to be late to the party, but there are two points that occur to me. First, the lead needs considerable fleshing out to comply with WP:LEAD. Happy to do this in due course if wanted. Secondly I cannot puzzle out why the journalism section has a citation header on it. It seems to me to be properly cited, and I'll remove the header as it is no longer applicable (if it ever was, on which I cannot comment). I have the firm impression that one editor seeks to delete material and another wishes to keep it. If I correctly read the matter, may I suggest that no substantive changes to the content should be made until consensus is reached on this point?  Tim riley  talk    14:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been working on the body of the article; would make sense to update the lead once that is done. What's going on here is that this article was raised at COIN as being subject to promotional editing, and folks are taking various approaches to improving it. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, please specifically describe why you wish to make each deletion or change that you wish to make, and then I can respond to you and see if we can reach a compromise. I think that we can reach a compromise, but not if you simply delete things without discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am checking out. Your editing standards are too different from mine and you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too hot for this to be productive, much less fun. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I've gone ahead to consolidate some refs and add a few and to expand the lead per WP:LEAD.  If anyone can add more third-party refs about Chang and her work, that would be helpful.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the recent work done by Ssilvers in adding more references, slightly reorganizing the content and expanding the lead has improved the article greatly so that it is now at the standard required by Wikipedia. Jack1956 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is now in decidedly better shape. A couple of very minor quibbles: the two listings of "IN REHEARSAL" should probably be in title case, I think: WP:ALLCAPS doesn't specifically mention shows, but I think the gist is clear. And the same list would, in my view, be easier on the reader's eye as a bulleted list. Just my two penn'orth.  Tim riley  talk    07:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. Done.  More tweaks coming. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The refs look internally inconsistent because of a mix of template and non-template citation format. Having nothing scheduled until later in the day I'd be happy to go through and make them consistent. For online refs there is also the question of whether to give an access date as well as a publication date (e.g. refs 19 and 21) or just the publication date (e.g. refs 7 and 8). I'd vote for publication date only. -- User:Tim riley, 6 August 2015


 * User:Tim riley, I agree -- yes, please do convert the templates to plain-text cites. I think, however, that we must give a publication date, where available, and if that publication date occurred more than, say, a year ago, one should also add an access date as a courtesy to indicate that the link has been checked more recently. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Not persuaded that we need both publication and access dates, but will follow your lead on this on this occasion. I don't rule out a knock-down-drag-out brawl if you propose the same on another article. Be that as it may, I'll tidy up the references as agreed.  Tim riley  talk    21:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lia Chang. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923175312/http://www.asianweek.com/2000/07/20/people-in-the-news/ to http://www.asianweek.com/2000/07/20/people-in-the-news/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)