Talk:Zinzi Clemmons

Due weight
please review the content policies at WP:DUE and the editing guidance at WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. It’s great to make bold changes to an article but if others have concerns, it’s not appropriate to simply revert to your version—we need to try to reach a concensus especially when adding controversial material. Could you please respond to the WP:DUE I raised in my edit summary? Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 allegations
Your edit was too bare and uninformative for news that was reported in many articles.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply . Two main points to consider. First, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS: We explicitly do not try to transcribe everything that has been published in news media and instead aim to give a succinct summary, from which readers interested in more detail may depart for more in-depth sources. Secondly, here the goal is to give a biography of this writer, which must give a balanced account of her life and career. That means, given that the rest of the entry is quite short, the description of this incident needs to be even shorter lest we give the impression it is, for instance, more important than the book she wrote. If you feel that even to give an encyclopedic summary (rather than news-level of detail), this needs more space, I would recommend working on further expanding other sections of this entry so that the overall account is sufficiently balanced. Does that make sense? Please feel free to ask about anything that may be unclear; I know it’s not always obvious how WP policies differ from journalism for instance. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for instance, the “balance” issue (due weight) would be different if instead of a biography of Zinzi Clemmons, you were writing an entry just about the misconduct allegations. I would not recommend starting one, at least not without discussing any need for it at the Junot Díaz talk page, but just to emphasize that how much space something is given will vary depending on what the main topic of the entry is supposed to be. Here, it is supposed to describe the full life and career to date of Zinzi Clemmons, so it shouldn’t be skewed toward a single issue. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Maybe you should expand other aspects of the page yourself; you've been editing the page for a while and should be more familiar with what to put. Moreover, you weren't up to date and didn't add that crucial biographical info at all. Again, your edits so far have been bare and uninformative. This is a biographical page and should contain biographical information. You are not trying to be concise, but persist in removing the information I added to the page.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * please review the policies I’ve linked to here and on your talk page. You’ve now violated WP:3RR and I see several other editors have also warned you about edit-warring. Per WP:ONUS, it is the responsibility of any editor adding material to gather consensus for it; I suggested one way to make the material you would like more suitable, but it’s not my job to do it for you. If you want it included, you need to work with me and any other interested editors to find a solution—continuing to impose your version unilaterally is disruptive to the WP process of building consensus and will shortly lead to a block. Please understand that WP is a collaborative process and these talk pages are here because the expectation is editors will discuss to try to find mutually agreeable solutions for the material for the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , if you have additional points to raise, please add them below. It makes it difficult for me to reply to all your concerns and misleading to anyone trying to follow along to add new questions to a message I’ve already replied to. Additionally, please assume good faith. You don’t have any basis to believe I am not trying to be concise: I proposed a shorter version, rather than deleting the information completely. If you have a different shorter version, please suggest it, because concision is exactly my goal here. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems you mistakenly tampered with my comments. Your version didn't give any information regarding the events and was bare compared to the prior information about Lena Dunham. Regardless, the information needs to be it's own sub-topic as it was widely reported. You've been on this page for a while, but completely avoided to add that information.
 * , I'm sorry, do you mind pointing out where I altered your comments? I'm sorry of course if I did, it would have been a mistake indeed but I don't see any changes other than threading the discussion (if you could make sure to do with your comments yourself, that'd be appreciated); I notice you accidentally deleted a word from your own comment here, but the addition I was requesting you please add below rather than in comments I've already replied to is, for instance, here.
 * I agree the Dunham section could be shorter. I'll trim it. ETA: needs improvement. I'll give it a go.
 * As for the header, I don't think it's appropriate; it suggests this is as significant as the whole section termed "Career". Wikipedia bios are meant to describe a person's whole life and career, and should not be unduly weighted toward what happens to have been in the news lately; see WP:Presentism. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not just a case of concision; the subject accussed another writer of misconduct in the #metoo era. The event was widely reported;thus, a major part of the subject's biography. It cannot be mentioned in just a vague sentence as you did. You removed my input without discussing it here at all.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be a major part of her biography if published, reliable sources treated it like a major part of her biography. Most of the sources on the #MeToo allegations are specifically about Díaz. More than a passing mention of the confrontation/allegations in our bio of Clemmons would be out of proportion to her coverage in published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right: I certainly think it should be included, but the question is how to cover it in accordance with WP content policies. My main concerns are to make sure we don't put WP:UNDUE weight on the episode and that it is described in an encyclopedic tone (i.e. giving a summary rather than quoting excessive detail). Innisfree987 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. But this seems copied and pasted from the Junot Diaz article. I will tidy the syntax up as it reads awkwardly.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * please stop restoring your version without consensus. Now multiple editors have expressed concerns; I was hopeful we had a version everyone agreed on, given your apparent agreement just above that you would only change the syntax, yet now you have reverted to your version for a fifth time in less than 24 hours. You are not participating in the consensus-building process and this is disruptive. Please revert your changes. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the information that needs to be there. You haven't added anything helpful so far. You didn't add the information in the first place, and didn't endeavor to read the articles to see what should go on the page. Instead, you resort to copying information from other pages irrelevant to subject. It's so lazy to me. I will work on making it concise now.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's simply not true that I added that sentence as I have stopped editing the section so that I would not be edit-warring; it's equally untrue that I haven't read about this extensively. Please stop making false claims and personal attacks: they are significantly disruptive to efforts to build consensus.
 * I feel like there's a misunderstanding here about how Wikipedia's consensus process works. No one editor gets to declare on their own that information should be included or how it should be conveyed. An editor may add material but it is just as valid and in fact an integral part of the process for others to trim it, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE in its collection of information. Removing non-encyclopedic information is not only a valid but an essential part of encyclopedia building. Please stop disrupting that process by adding your preferred version over others' objections.
 * Given you've crossed well over 3RR, please revert yourself to the last version by Sangdeboeuf and bring suggested additions here so that all may discuss them; it's not ok to keep edit-warring to impose your preferences. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to not know what details to put to provide a well-rounded overview of the information. Often, your syntax is problematic and awkward. I have made it more concise. As you can see, it has the same weight as the prior information about Lena Dunham. And everything there is cited.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)