Talk:Carmen Maria Machado

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: DrodNelMan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZionMoore. Peer reviewers: Gabyhanze, Anavasquez32502, Zac.israel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Junot Díaz controversy

Does this really merit a whole paragraph in the article? Machado tweeted some stuff that "sparked outrage in some quarters of the internet", according to Vulture. Outrage on the Internet is hardly a significant event in 2018. I haven't seen any sources that make this out to be an epoch-making event in Machado's career; most of the coverage in fact focuses on Díaz, his literary output, and reactions to the same. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we are supposed to be writing an encylopedic bio, not a chronicle of Machado's recent social-media usage or an analysis of something Díaz said to Machado once upon a time. I would suggest something like the following text as much more in proportion to the significance of the event:

In May 2018, Machado criticized the author Junot Díaz on Twitter following allegations of sexual harassment on Díaz's part by the author Zinzi Clemmons. Lila Shapiro wrote for Vulture that Machado's tweets, in which she accused Díaz of bullying, sexism, and misogyny, were "one of the more ambiguous and divisive footnotes" to the Me Too movement.

–Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree it merits at most a brief mention. When we have a reliable source characterizing it a "footnote", there's an argument to be made it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all--our goal is to hit the major topics, not magnify something beyond how sources treat it. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd support omitting it entirely. It's somewhat concerning when you have to basically recount the entire incident in order for it to make sense in the article; it's a sign that the incident is not all that notable to begin with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's just it--it requires too much non-biographical material even to get to the point to grasping where Machado is tangentially involved. I'll take it down for now and then if at some later point someone has a succinct, source-supported version to propose, I'd suggest they workshop it here for possible inclusion? I could perhaps envision something like, "In May 2018, Machado was one of several writers who alleged [what is best general term?] by writer Junot Diaz." But in absence of a solid solution, I think it's better to remove than put undue emphasis on it. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I totally disagree. It merits a mention as this was a widely discussed issue in the literary world, especially during the ongoing #metoo movement. It was widely reported in reputable sources and the tweets was a main catalyst that triggered the controversy mentioned in the pages of others involved.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

So, I have not seen a reliable source supporting the claim the tweets was a main catalyst that triggered the controversy; can you supply a reference for this assertion please? Second, bear in mind that a topic described on one pages does not imply it automatically merits mention on others (WP:OSE); for reasons Sangdeboeuf has summed up well, when an incident requires a great deal of backstory about others just to get to the role that the subject of this entry played (which a reliable source you cited describes as so minor as to be a "footnote"), it calls into question whether the incident is really relevant to this subject's biography, which is what we're tasked with writing here. Finally, if it did need to be mentioned, could you suggest--for discussion here on the talk page, please, so as to avoid edit-warring on the entry--a version that would be sufficiently succinct and focused on Machado's biography, not excessively descriptive of events only tenuously connected to her? Like I say above, I don't rule out the possibility of an adequately succinct, focused version of this could be written; I just haven't seen or been able to come up with one. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you revert the information back. You insist on having a conversation on the Talk page, but reverted the info, without even replying to what I had to say here. I do not understand why Sangdeboeuf thinks the information doesn't need to be on the page, yet he/she has used the link I provided on the other pages. It should be mentioned, but not in its own heading.

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I did immediately respond to what you said here, including directly quoting your comments, and the conversation about them is still on-going, so no, it would not be appropriate for me (or anyone) to add the material back when we clearly do not have consensus. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Innisfree987 The New York Times, Vulture, and Boston Glober articles are all reputable sources that place the subject in an important role in the controversy. If you took the time to read the articles that I cited in the other articles, you will see that there. The writer is known to be a feminist writer and her role in this controversy or event is not a footnote. All the articles that report on this event, mention her at length.

-Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wayn12: many things that are "widely reported" for a brief time do not belong in an encylopedia; Wikipedia is not the news. The author of the Vulture article that you describe as a reputable source is the one who describes Machado's involvement as a "footnote" to the #MeToo movement. We are trying to write an encylopedic bio, not an article on the "Junot Díaz controversy". I haven't seen any reliable source that describes the "controversy" as especially relevant to Machado's biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Here are the articles. I even used one to cite one of the edits I made

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/books/junot-diaz-accusations.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/junot-diaz-sexual-misconduct-allegations-2018-5/?r=AU&IR=T%7Cpublisher=[[Business

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/books/junot-diaz-cleared-of-misconduct-by-mit.html

-Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

To review those sources:

NYT, 5/4/18: a single sentence describing Machado

Business Insider, 5/4/18: reproduced Machado's original tweets but wrote only a single sentence of secondary source analysis

NYT, 6/19/18: five sentences, two of which just seek her general commentary on the episode, rather than describe her tweets or other role. We don't include every instance a person is cited as a commentator on a topic, only when the commentary discussed them.

This is becoming an interesting lesson to me in WP:Recentism; the more closely I look at sources, the more dubious the claim of significance seems to be, even though I too initially guessed it was worth inclusion.

Meanwhile, Wayn12, by once again restoring your preferred version over other editors' objections, you are continuing to edit-war despite being repeatedly alerted to the fact that you're violating WP policy. Please revert yourself and participate in the consensus-building process instead. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources establish that the event is significant to Machado's life and career, in my opinion. NYT #1 says that Machado said that Mr. Díaz had become angry with her when she was a graduate student and had argued aggressively with her for an unusually long time after she criticized one of his character’s relationships with women. Why should a reader of this article care? This is more about Díaz than about Machado. Business Insider offers little more than Machado's own Twitter page would – just that Machado said her experience with Díaz ... was a display of misogynistic rage. Once again, so what? NYT #2 says that Machado has faced accusations that she lied about the nature of the exchange – accusations from whom? This looks like another reference to Internet "outrage" as mentioned in Vulture – and that she stands by her characterization of the back and forth ... and says she tweeted about it [to] make a point ... [and] said she found M.I.T.’s decision to retain Mr. Díaz depressing but not surprising, etc. Well, good for her. But as Innisfree987 points out, a biographical article is not for documenting every sound bite that comes from a person. In all three sources provided by Wayn12, Díaz is the main subject, not Machado. This material belongs at his bio if anywhere. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)