Talk:Shelley Haley

Controversy/criticism
It has come up that several editors would like note of some controversy or criticism to be included here. I am not familiar with the topic, but found these sources:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/opinion/black-cleopatra-netflix.html
 * https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/05/10/a-new-docu-drama-about-cleopatra-has-riled-officials-in-cairo
 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/23/when-cleopatra-was-alive-she-wasnt-categorised-by-colour-of-her-skin
 * https://theweek.com/race/1023435/netflixs-cleopatra-controversy-explained

I would suggest any new or inexperienced editors read:
 * WP:FORUM
 * WP:BLPTALK
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:RS
 * WP:SOURCE
 * WP:NPOV

I don't intend to work on this article further at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of bibliography & awards
Recents edits by removed the bibliographic and awards sections. I was surprised by the removal of selected works, since there seems to be widespread inclusion of journal articles for academics, which is mentioned in the manual of style. The MoS uses books as an example, but also includes a paragraph on "books and articles" - as such I suggest to that Haley's articles at least are added back to the article. It also states that:
 * "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet."

I see these guidelines as being inclusive of articles and chapters in books, and would welcome further discussion. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is very rare for journal article to warrant individual mention based on secondary sources, unlike with books: we regularly remove articles and book chapters. It's resume material and Wikipedia is not for resumes. The list of awards just restored by User:Srsval makes this even worse--seriously, a "Merit Award" and a "Certificate of Recognition"? These things aren't noteworthy, and half of them are sourced to her own resume/faculty page. Oh, two of them are from the university she teaches at--that's so local that it's really resume material. PS: you skipped commenting on "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged"--which means that a few of the book chapters, when mentioned explicitly in reviews, could be appropriate. But lectures, panel presentations, encyclopedic entries? That's a whole nother ballgame. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, Srsval just restored the whole lot, claiming "help to establish notability and significance" (and accusing me of vandalism)--that's complete nonsense. She is plenty notable and doesn't need a resume to prove it. This is just really poor editing. What makes it worse is that her actual work (right now footnotes 7 through 14, or more than a third of the total number of references, are to her own work. That's not how you write an encyclopedia. A quick Google Book search proves there is PLENTY of secondary material to build on, but it seems that the easy road was taken here. Note 33, the review by Setzer, could have been used to describe her actual work, but now it's just to verify a line on the resume. How many actual academic articles and reviews are cited to support text? How much of this content is sourced to organizational websites, blogs, and faculty pages? No one is doing her a service by replicating her resume here. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)