Talk:Donda (company)

DONDA Members

I intend to list DONDA's members in the article and had already done so, but Woodroar (talk) reverted my edit and apparently does not think such a list is appropriate, for reasons unknown. Before reverting Woodroar (talk), I would either like to build consensus on this topic or if there are many others who object, then I will not revert. Since DONDA is essentially a nickname for West's entourage, I, for one, find a list of DONDA members highly relevant to this article. Wikipro43245 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that listing members of the group is relevant, as long as the sources support it. The issue is that the sourcing was subpar and didn't meet WP:BLP. We need reliable, third-party sources suitable for claims about living persons—you may have luck looking through WP:RSP—and those sources need to unambiguously state that the person was a member of DONDA. This eliminates many interviews, credits, ties to DONDA projects but not DONDA itself, and so on. Woodroar (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you might be unaware that DONDA isn't actually an organization, a registered company, or any kind of official entity, and that could be causing some confusion. Much like Elvis Presley's Memphis Mafia, it has been widely reported by the media that DONDA is simply a moniker to refer to West's extended entourage, employees, friends, and collaborators. I would be happy to add new sources affirming this concept. Therefore, since DONDA isn't an actual organization, an individual doesn't need a third party news source to declare them a member of DONDA for that individual to be considered part of West's wider DONDA entourage. Merely having a strong personal or professional association with West makes one part of DONDA. Having said that, I'm open to changing verbiage from DONDA members to something like DONDA affiliates, if doing so would be more precise. Wikipro43245 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case but thank you for the clarification. Ultimately, it really does come down to what sources say. If reliable, third-party sources refer to a person as being a "member", then we'd want to follow suit. Likewise for an "affiliate" or any other term. (And if the sources disagree, then it gets complicated.) Maybe we'll have to describe different people with different terms. Like with bands where you have members but also guest vocalists or people who performed some auxiliary role, we have to reflect the sources. We can't, say, find someone's name in the credits and list them as being a band member if the sources don't actually say that. We also can't use a source saying that someone worked on a DONDA project and then call them a "member" if the source doesn't. This is true of card-carrying, dues-collecting organizations and loose-knit ephemeral art projects. Our basic role as editors is to summarize the sources, and doing so accurately is especially important when it comes to living persons. Woodroar (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Understood and you raise some fair points. This is a confusing topic and it's difficult to parse since media organizations themselves can't declare an individual a member of DONDA, and Kanye hasn't made any public announcement himself. The DONDA moniker simply refers to his entourage, friends, employees, and collaborators. There is no actual membership. As you suggest, maybe it's best if we use a catch-all phrase such as "Individuals who have worked on DONDA projects". We can just take the projects from the DONDA article, which already have sources, and list all the important individuals who worked on them. Wikipro43245 (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's essentially the opposite of what I've been saying. We need reliable, third-party sources, not primary sources, and these sources don't cut it. And we can't just make up our own phrasing or use synthesis to connect projects to the group. I've left a message on your Talk page about these issues. Woodroar (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't use synthesis. I took projects that are already discussed in the DONDA article with strong third-party sources and listed key individuals who worked on those projects (also backed up by a wide variety of sources). I then wrote an individual description for each person to identify exactly what their role was. And I used precise wording to note that they've simply worked on major DONDA projects in a key capacity. I didn't call them members.

Again, I reiterate, DONDA is not a real organization. Since it doesn't actually exist, there is no third-party source that outlines its members. It's just a moniker to refer to Kanye's entourage. If you're a member of Kanye's entourage, you're automatically part of DONDA, as has been reported in the media. I understand we can't create our own list of members without third-party sourcing, but we can create our own list of key individuals who have worked on DONDA projects with third-party sourcing. I had done so and I'm not quite sure why you reverted my edit when identifying key individuals involved with DONDA projects is highly relevant to this article.

Wikipro43245 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"DONDA is not a real organization. Since it doesn't actually exist, there is no third-party source that outlines its members." Then we're stuck and can't list any members, or affiliates, or whatever you want to call them. Look, we can't use West as a source to say that these people are in his entourage and work on his projects, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. And we can't use these other individuals as a source to say that they're in West's entourage and work on his projects, also per WP:BLPSELFPUB. That leaves third-party sources. And we can't combine one third-party source that says "[person] worked on [project]" and another third-party source that says "[project] is connected to [DONDA]" to claim "[person] is in [DONDA]" because that's synthesis. Those connections have to be made in one source, and it has to be a reliable, third-party source that's suitable for making claims about living persons. That's a high standard, but it's a high standard by design. If no third-party sources are willing to make that claim, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you feel that the connections are being made, then we should discuss them here on the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok this makes sense and is reasonable. If a third party source (not Kanye) both identifies a project as a DONDA project and simultaneously notes an individual as being involved with that project, then we can properly identify them as being affiliated with DONDA, correct? Say a third party source says that DONDA designed specific album artwork and also identifies an individual involved with the design - we can then claim that individual has worked on one (or more) projects with DONDA. I'll start pulling good third party sources and we'll try to list as many individuals as we can using this standard.

Wikipro43245 (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes...or, well, probably. As is often the case, so much depends is based on what the source is, what it says, and so on. Thank you for taking a look! Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

Cyanied (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Kanye West's ninth studio album, Donda, is set to be released later this year. It is named for Donda West, West's late mother. Unfortunately, he did not release the record, and fans patiently were waiting for the album to drop.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Donda (album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Past tense?

The article's lede is written in the past tense, as if the company has ceased operations. However, it makes no mention of the venture being discontinued. Any insight? ~~Mattevt | Hit ^{me up} 01:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)