Jump to content

Talk:Junot Díaz

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

Duality

[edit]

Can anyone back up the line in the intro about 'the duality of the immigrant experience'? This sounds like lazy jargon to me. I don't think it belongs in the intro. Unless it can be cited then it is POV or OR, surely. Millichip (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Duality":More than observational; this would suggest that Junot Diaz has never been on this particular Wikipedia site to correct any presumptions about his writings and, yes, you are quite correct in pointing out that some politicomiscreantrecidivisticsesamestreeta'hole was allowed to reinterpret a revolutionary, contemporary Pope biographer of the human spirit and times who never once related his oeuvres to "immigration".BeyondPassiveResistance (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The passage in question seems to have been removed long ago, so the issue is dead. However, even if Diaz did come here to edit the article, his comments would have to be sourced, meaning he would have to rely on things he has said in the media or on things other people have been written about him. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early Years

[edit]

What happened between 1974, when he came to the US, and 1991-2, when he went to college? More detail is needed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.225.204 (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

npov

[edit]

This article seems to me to have NPOV problems. He may be a very good writer, but the article is completely unbalanced. --75.83.69.196 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people are saying that, but here's the deal. He's written one novel. It won the Pulitzer (arguably the highest honor in the world). I'm sure there is a negative review out there, and we should highlight (if you bring it to our attention), but it's going to skew positive, because of the voluminous praise and awards it received.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

NPOV - One-sided selection of critical reviews (there were many negative reviews of Oscar Wao)

216.57.39.35 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching

[edit]

Isn't he teaching at NYU now? I know he's been a professor there for at least one year. He was offering workshops when I was there in 2010. http://cwp.fas.nyu.edu/object/cwp.ne.Diaz.2.24.10 ? Might want to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.115.130 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing individual essays and stories

[edit]

Biographies are for listing books, not individual essays and stories. The article is not for promoting his work or to inflate profile. Span (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse and personal life

[edit]

What about his spouse? There is no section about his personal life.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Junot Díaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Junot Díaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Junot Díaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junot Díaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle of Higher Ed

[edit]

@Wayn12: nowhere in this source does it say that the letter's signers are "academics of high-reputation", whatever that means. In any case, it is not the impartial wording called for when writing about living people. Neither does the source mention Zinzi Clemmons by name. Also, per MOS:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". What is the rationale for undoing this edit? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The academics are mentioned by name after the article, with their degrees and the institutions they work for. It doesn't mention the person, but continues (or transitions) from the prior sentences, which mention her. I will add the Chronicle of Higher ed to the article now.Wayn12 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the education. will make it impartial now, though a lot of the info on the page seems partial at the moment```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayn12 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the source specifically comments on the academics' "reputation", then mentioning it is original research and doesn't belong in the article. Likewise to state that the letter is about Clemmons. I'm moving the material, sans editorializing, to the article body now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf: Indicate why you keep removing cited information from the pageWayn12 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relocating material per MOS:LEAD guidelines is not removal. Nonetheless, I think that mentioning the letter in the lead section is giving it undue weight without any independent sources to back it up. Why should any reader care what these professors wrote? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf: Quit complicating things. There is no undue load anywhere. The accusations are mentioned and the responses to the accusations by academics is crucial information. If you feel like there is an undue load, remove everything about the accusations entirely and move it to the body of the article.Wayn12 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...the responses to the accusations by academics is crucial information according to whom? How are they connected to the issue at all? Please note that viewpoints are presented according to their prominence in "published, reliable sources" according to WP:WEIGHT. Editors' personal beliefs about what is important are not relevant; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. If there are reliable, independent sources that comment on the professors' letter, then feel free to add them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valdes allegations

[edit]

My apologies if this is in the incorrect section, as today is my first time editing an article, and I don't know how to directly message Sangdeboeuf for deleting my comment, but Valdes had alleged "misogynistic abuse" after Clemmons allegations, even though in 2008, right after Diaz won the Pulitzer Prize she wrote "good time to brag about having slept with Junot once or twice, back in the mid-90s. I’ve always had a thing for geeky boys"; Valdes further wrote that while Diaz was not a good fit as a "boyfriend" he was "so utterly right as a writer and mentor. It was Junot who first encouraged me to write novels, and I will never forget it. Never." Why is this being deleted if it was posted on her blog and is in contrast to her 2018 allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewomanistlives (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digging up a years-old article to contrast with reporting on current events would be improper synthesis and in this case misuse of a primary source. If and when a current, reliable, published source comments on the earlier blog post, it may be appropriate to mention it. Until then, it gives the post undue weight in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Sangdeboeuf Hi, the information I was removed was removed because it has its own heading in the article. I don't understand why it should be right at the beginning of the page. Please state your reasons for reverting my edit. Thanks

Wayn12Wayn12 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". The fact that the harassment allegations have their own section in the article is exactly why they also belong in the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bulwark, Cathy Young

[edit]

This references an article by Cathy Young, and an extremely dubious twitter account and tweet, as “proof” that one of the published authors was lying about her accusations against Junot Diaz. Young has written countless articles with misinformation about sexual assault, siding with the accused and releasing information “exonerating” them such as text messages showing the victim was on friendly terms with the abuser. Which is essentially the norm in cases of rape, and certainly NOT evidence that the accused is innocent. (Victims are often abused by family, romantic partners, and friends.) Young also writes for at least one online magazine that spreads racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, and other far right propaganda. I do not know why she has a particular agenda in favor of sexual abusers and against the abused, but that is her repeated agenda. Elleoneiram (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short stories

[edit]

Once upon a time, there was a robust section of his published short stories. I'm not sure what happened to that. But I noticed "Monstro" was listed as a 2020 publication, when the story/novella/whatever was first published in the May 28, 2012 issue of The New York Times. Anyway, curious about your thoughts why the 2020 version is used instead of the first instance. Also, wondering about reinstating the list of short stories. Chyken (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual-assault allegations in lede

[edit]

I realize this may be a controversial edit, so I wanted to flag it here first. I think the allegations of sexual-assault against Diaz are now notable enough to be included in the lede. I'm fine with also including that MIT cleared him, if that presents an acceptable compromise, but, in terms of press coverage, the MeToo allegations have gotten far more attention than the MacArthur Fellowship (which is currently mentioned in the lede).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Junot_Díaz&oldid=1252198718"