Jump to content

Talk:Chicago CRED

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

libretto

[edit]

The section is way WP:UNDUE, IMO. It's a third of the article about a non-notable performance piece, the description of which does nothing to inform the reader about the article subject. At most it needs a line, IMO. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, I don't even think it deserves a line here. All it's saying is that Smith did some of her research by talking to members. Maybe it deserves a line at Smith that links here. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't agree. I think its quite something that an actress like that wrote a full Opera after being inspired by this organisation. Perhaps her quote could be removed, but I think its worth keeping as note. Jack4576 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does it possibly help the reader understand the subject to know someone was inspired by it to write 1/3 of a non-notable performance piece? It's trivia in terms of this subject. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its just not trivia, its something people interested in this subject would be interested to hear about, in my view Jack4576 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to an interview with and an opinion piece and a review. Nothing seems to say anything more than that she used interviews with members for research. It's not about the organization. I'm just not convinced. We can see if others weigh in; we need consensus to include. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Opera itself is about the organisation and the interview goes into depth about that. So does the Tribune review.
I'd be interested to hear what others think. Jack4576 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say the opera is about the organization, and who is saying that? Valereee (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have requested 3rd opinion Valereee
The Chicago Tribune review describes what occurs in the opera; it is about the organisation.
The founder of the org is one of the characters fictionalised on stage, who has lines speaking to fictional people helped by the organisation. Jack4576 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri's removal is a third opinion. Valereee (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was removing it prior to consensus being reached; it didn’t seem like he was taking a position on the issue Jack4576 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've added this back again. We need consensus to include; you should revert until we have that. Valereee (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. — kashmīrī TALK 09:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is pretty straightforward: the organisation has cooperated with a third party to come up with an activity promoting the organisation (called "increasing the visibility" in NGO slang). An opera is there likely because the actress was willing to contribute pro bono; certainly not because the target population, i.e., people at risk of violence, is so fond of operas.
Yeah, opera isn't the most common form of promotional activity among NGOs – famous actors/actresses and sportspeople are the norm – so it could be mentioned in one brief sentence as an interesting trivia on that small NGO. But I wouldn't go for more than that. — kashmīrī TALK 13:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri, this is tangential, but for the sake of understanding...you think the Lyric Opera may have directly commissioned a piece specifying that it included (in some way that could be publicized) this NGO? My first reaction was that was pretty cynical. But I guess I've seen what seem to be examples of pointy commissioned pieces in my own hometown. Valereee (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Valeree, I should have added qualifiers like "I believe that...", as I'm nowhere close to CRED. From my nonprofit experience, there could be many different reasons: the actress could have contributed for personal reasons (e.g., a family member was helped by the organisation); the organisation saw this as the most feasible way to spend the budget allocated for awareness raising; or even because of certain political considerations. Charities don't usually operate in vacuum – decisions are heavily influenced by fund earmarking, costs (what comes free is prioritised), and easiness (what requires less work or human resources is preferred). Irrespective of that, I don't think that a libretto of an opera that has hardly ever been sung makes the charity more in line with WP:N. — kashmīrī TALK 19:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kashmiri. Valereee (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this settled, folks? Noticed a request at WP:3O - @Jack4576 can I remove it, or do you want another editor to further address it? Given my involvement at the AFD, I will refrain from providing a third opinion. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a 3O now thanks Maxna, can be removed now Jack4576 (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about ownership

[edit]

@Valereee:, super job on the rewrite. Awesome work.

I'm concerned that @Jack4576: is showing serious signs of WP:OWN as he/she has opposed pretty much every change with the exception of Valeree's rewrite.

Jack you gotta move on. This is not your article. Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Toddst1 but claiming this is WP:OWN is pretty baffling.
So, let me get this straight... you're saying that, despite being happy with an article being entirely rewritten outside of my original prose, that;
(1) my disagreement that 'social outreach' is too vague, and
(2) polite request to include a short snippet about the opera
amounts to WP:OWN?
Get off your high horse mate. Jack4576 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at this talk page. You've edit warred in the article several times and aren't accepting anyone's opinion here until you're figuratively hit over the head with it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you twice, that's not an edit war on any definition.
If I've accepted Valereee's rewrite, isn't that an example of an opinion I've accepted?
Engaging in a polite discussion isn't warring my friend Jack4576 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JFWIW, it's not actually accurate to say I reverted you twice, that's not an edit war on any definition. It is an edit war -- reversions back and forth instead of discussing -- just not one that automatically justifies a block. But just because it hasn't reached 3 reverts doesn't mean it shouldn't instead have been handled via discussion instead of reverting. We place it at 3 in hopes people will come to their senses before someone has to step in to prevent further disruption, not because we think only 2 reversions before bothering to discuss/find consensus is just fine. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would make you guilty of edit warring too then. I note your reverts occurred before consensus was reached by a 3rd opinion on the issue having been provided Jack4576 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so? You added it, I opened the section above at #libretto, said I didn't think it belonged in the article, removed it. You added it back, and I said you should probably revert yourself while we discussed. Kashmiri then removed it.
We don't need consensus to remove something. It's adding it back that needs consensus. I didn't even have to open a section before removing, I just did it because I feel it's best practices to go ahead and open a discussion on anything that someone else might object to. Valereee (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no distinction in the consensus requirement for either adding something or removing something Jack4576 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There actually is, per policy explained at WP:ONUS. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your eyes deceive you, my good fellow? WP:ONUS addresses verifiability, dear colleague, not the subjective editorial choice of content's inclusion or exclusion. Let us not confound the two Jack4576 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fellow. And you're incorrect. ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Valereee (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Well, given we have consensus from kashmiri that one brief sentence is appropriate, I well amend the article to include that. Jack4576 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my single opinion represented consensus. — kashmīrī TALK 19:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my opinion, plus your opinion, versus Valereee’s opinion Jack4576 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's accurate that the opera is about the org. Not sure it's DUE to explain the details. Would prefer to just delete 'about the organization'. Valereee (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The review in the Chicago Tribune describes the Opera as a portrayal of the org on stage Jack4576 (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, Wikipedia is not press clippings, and DUE is a policy. — kashmīrī TALK 06:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you’ll have to explain the relevance of that policy to this situation here, I’ve read it twice and I don’t see the connection Jack4576 (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, what exactly does it say that describes it as a "a portrayal of the organization on stage"? Can you give us a quote? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... the article describes the play, including the characters that appear on stage, including their lines; such as Arne Duncan's appearance on stage, and his interactions with a fictional recipient of help from CRED. I'm confused as to what more you need? Jack4576 (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, your view is that when an organisation gets a video done about itself, it should be described on their Wikipedia page, right? — kashmīrī TALK 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman, not worth responding Jack4576 (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly WP:OR. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not synthesis to say that an article describing something, is a reliable source to establish that the thing being described; occurred. Jack4576 (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, what I'd like to see is the actual quotes from the Trib that you are summarizing as "a portrayal of the organization on stage" so other editors can assess your assessment of context. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read the article yourself please? Jack4576 (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's behind a paywall for me. That's why I'm asking. Valereee (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained what the article contains. If the paywall is an issue I suggest you take steps to address that. I am not going to COPYVIO by pasting its text here. Jack4576 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I can't see it, and at this point I'm not sure I trust your capability of assessing.
Not every source is available to every editor for free. I tried newspapers.com, wayback, my own lib, and the WP lib, and I'm not feeling particularly motivated to go the extra mile after this interaction.
You can add copyvio to the list of policies you don't fully understand yet but think you do. Valereee (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. If you want me to copy over actual text from the article just so you can have a look at it here, that's a breach of copyright.
In the meantime, feel free to maintain your position on the article's contents without having actually having bothered to read it yourself. Quite the valuable contribution. Jack4576 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this mess, it's clear that Jack4576 has sufficiently proven my point. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page. People are talking. Water is wet. Jack4576 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you're disagreeing with everyone else here while repeatedly being shown as wrong and/or ignorant of basic editing principles. Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel the need to point that out ? Jack4576 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because your poor conduct needs to be stopped as is being discussed on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is currently a discussion at ANI about Jack4576's repeated poor conduct and reference to his conduct on this page has been included. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Inclusion of Opera about this organisation being mentioned on this page

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include a mention of the opera. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This article from the Chicago Tribune describes and reviews an Opera performance titled "The Walkers" that was written about this organisation, a performance also discussed by its creator in this source from the Washington Post.

Should this Opera receive mention in this article about the organisation on which the Opera was based? 08:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack4576 (talk • contribs)

Support: it is unlikely that this opera is notable enough for its own entry, inclusion of some information about the opera in the page for Chicago CRED would be a good way to document that this organisation was the subject of a cultural performance in Chicago in my view. I think that is an interesting enough fact to be worth mentioning.
Additionally, as can be seen within the review, the founder of the organisation and the beneficiaries of the organisation were all portrayed on stage. The play was written by Anna Deavere Smith.
I think this is all interesting enough, but prior discussion on this talk page has shown other editors disagree. I am opening this up to RfC to obtain some other perspectives. Jack4576 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Opposing arguments seem to say that the opera is about gun violence stuff in general, but this review which can be accessed through archive services clearly indicates that it’s pretty specifically about this organization. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu: Can you please provide the quotation that says that? Several of us have been trying to verify this but the OP refuses to provide a verifying quote. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While Jack's behavior is indeed concerning, I do not see why you don't think the way I accessed it was worthy of a redaction. There are several paragraphs on the opera's coverage of CRED, and I think quoting them all would be long enough to be a copyvio. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply @Aaron Liu:. I'm not saying anything about redaction, I just can't seem to work out how to access the article using the method you say. I think Valereee has referred to this above. Please help us out. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can just click on the link I provided (the one you replaced with a ç). The service provides a static snapshot of the webpage so dynamic stuff like a paywall won’t pop up. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't realize I clobbered the link.
Yes, the review says it includes characters from CRED. Mentioning the opera might be suitable for one of those weak "In popular culture" sections if anywhere. Toddst1 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Jack4576 has asserted that the Opera is based on CRED. Several editors have engaged on this talk page and attempted to verify this, but have been unable to do so since the OP but the OP refuses to provide a verifying quote from the source that is behind a paywall. Based on the discussion above and the proponent's refusal to provide a quotation, the opera being based on CRED appears to be abject WP:OR. The mere existence of this WP:POINTy RFC (and the other one above created within a week) illustrates Jack4576's repeated refusal to either accept consensus or persuade others of the validity of their point. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should defer to users that have accessed the articles. I'm not going to copy-paste copyrighted material to this talk page. I've already described what is contained within, and this has been confirmed by Aaron Liu. Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron's comments seem to indicate that he concluded it is about CRED, rather than the source stating it. See WP:V and @Valereee:'s request above. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"clearly indicates that it’s pretty specifically about this organization" Jack4576 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above, Now that I have been able to access the article, I believe this is a mere mention in popular culture. I would never advocate for an "In popular culture" section to be added to any article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that such a notable mention in popular culture should be able to give the reader an idea of how notable this nonprofit is. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this organization is not under question and a pop culture feature doesn't support WP:CORP either. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RfC is a little fuzzy. For me there are multiple questions -- whether to mention it, and how, for instance -- and I don't see the sources describing the libretto as being "about the organization". I think that's going too far, from the sources. It's described as being about gun violence in Chicago, it describes interviews with people in the organization as being part of the research, and there are characters in the libretto that are fictionalized versions of real people. (As an example, from the WaPo piece, Duncan doesn't even remember the anecdote about him that is included as a seminal moment in the libretto.) That doesn't make it about the organization. And if no one is saying it's about the organization, why are we even mentioning it? (Thanks to Aaron Liu for finding an archived version of the Trib piece to share, but nowhere in that source does it say the libretto is about the organization.) Valereee (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As AaronLiu has noted above, “clearly indicates that it’s pretty specifically about this organization” Jack4576 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After rereading, it is indeed not specifically about this organization, but the organization has a kinda prominent role in this opera, like having several characters. Therefore I still support it as it gives the reader an idea of how notable Chicago CRED is. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how would this libretto, to-date shown on a total of five dates during March-May 2023 and definitely not being about the organisation, be suggestive of WP:LASTING notability. — kashmīrī TALK 10:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an NEVENT notability discussion ... Jack4576 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, I’m not sure where it says five dates and I’m not sure why any significance of the opera beyond the Tribune review is needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu, it's a Chicago media review of a Chicago production, which is pretty routine. It's a little shaky for supporting noteworthiness for inclusion when anyone questions it. What I'd like to see is one of the non-local media coverage (something other than interviews) calling it "about the organization" or whatever. I think it's possible it's out there, there is coverage outside of local media, I just haven't seen it. All I've seen is that the librettist's research included interviews with people associated with the organization, which for me wasn't enough. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry for the ping if it was unwanted, reply tool fat finger! Valereee (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    More specifically, “The Walkers” trains its focus on the efforts of CRED (Create Real Economic Diversity), an organization founded in 2016 by Obama-era secretary of education and South Side native Arne Duncan (portrayed here by actor Jeff Parker). CRED continues to offer educational support, job training and mental health services to Chicago youths ensnared in gang culture by working directly within the afflicted communities. (According to CRED, nearly 75 percent of gun violence in Chicago takes place in just 20 of its 77 neighborhoods.)
    — The Washington Post (via a mirror on MSN)

    Aaron Liu (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron Liu in the interest of resolving the above discussion, would you be willing to draft an appropriate section to include the above? I have a feeling that would step us toward consensus more effectively than if I were to do so. Jack4576 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron Liu, thank you! Okay, for me trains its focus allows us to say the libretto is about the organization, which for me gets it over the hump for noteworthiness to include. Valereee (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kashmiri, @Toddst1, do you have remaining objections? Valereee (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Jack has wasted enough of our time here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean do you now think this is enough to include the opera in the article? Jack may be Jack, but we have an article to write. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like "In popular culture" sections or mentions. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why though? When I said notable I’m not talking about Wikipedia notability, I’m talking about giving an idea of the impact for the reader. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an encyclopedia. WP:POPCULTURE sections almost always devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where you got that from, but most of them don't. The article you quoted only says "when poorly maintained". Plus this opera is the only time I know of CRED being in popular culture so it doesn't seem like it's going to get too big. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You got your answer from me. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to see an "In popular culture" section, either. They're just trivia magnets. But I could see adding to the final paragraph, "In 2023 Anna Deveare Smith wrote a libretto, one of several for an opera about gun violence in Chicago, that focussed on the organization's work." Valereee (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Todd is arguing that all mentions of pop culture mentions are bad using arguments on entire section. I think reliably sourced mentions should be good. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the information in line with the above discussion and User:Toddst1 has removed it again. Todd, please let it go. Both Valereee, myself, and User:Aaron Liu have decided per the above discussion that some mention is warranted. Jack4576 (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this as the RfC isn't closed yet and the way you added it was unsourced. I'm filing a closure request. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WP:CHICAGO, WP:ORG. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link correction: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Organizations, rather than WP:ORG Valereee (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_CRED&oldid=1256554675"