Talk:Nina Menkes

Article creation

18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But actually that isn't true – the article creator moved this to mainspace herself; she was not a member of WikiProject Articles for creation, the article was not reviewed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible copy vio?

This one is challenging. The bio on Menkes's official website (http://ninamenkes.com/bio/) is substantially the same as this page and includes a copyright tag at the bottom. Archive.org on that bio page only goes back to June 2013 for that page while this one was started in 2011. OnlyLoveIsReal777 has done most of the editing here and is primary focused on this page, raising some concerns about an undeclared conflict of interest as well as copyright violations. Given the similarity between this page and the official bio, either we're the copyright violation, or they are the copyright violation by copying without attribution AND claiming copyright on someone else's work. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Thanks for your diligence on this. As now indicated above, the text on the biographies are now freely licensed as verified by OTRS. Feel free to reincorporate text from old revisions as you see fit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's much question about the COI, Ravensfire – OnlyLoveIsReal777 was previously User:Nina Menkes. I don't see that anyone warned her not to attempt to write an autobiography here. On the assumption that she is notable by our standards, I've started a brief stub in the hope that someone else will want to expand it. I don't have any particular interest myself, only came here to sort out the copyvio – which turned out to be already resolved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Year of birth

So, User:Comtechan keeps changing Menkes's year of birth from 1955 to 1963, despite the references in the page that support the earlier date. For reference, here is what the Whitney Museum of American Art says about her on page 202 of Biennial 1987:

Nina Menkes
Born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1955.
Studied at the University of California, Berkeley (B.A., 1977); University of California, Los Angeles (1980–86).
Lives in Los Angeles.

The Reports of the President and of the Treasurer of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation give exactly the same facts (though with more detail of the date of birth). Is there any good reason to mistrust either of those rather notable American institutions? The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek also reports the earlier date, which is therefore listed in VIAF. Is it not more than slightly unlikely that Menkes completed her BA at the age of 13 or 14? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Comtechan, Justlettersandnumbers, and Sam-2727: I wrote a new version of this article in 2018 when I noticed this dispute, but in the end I didn't add it to the page. It doesn't contain her year of birth, but the extra detail does make clear roughly when she was born. I wonder if I should add it now as a possible way of resolving this. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the draft again, I see I wrote it in mid 2019. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Comtechan, Justlettersandnumbers, and Sam-2727: I'm close to the view that we should delete this article per WP:BLPDELETE/WP:IAR. We've dealt before with articles (usually created by or on behalf of the subject) where a borderline notable subject's wishes and WP policy are incompatible. Here we can remove the year of birth, but that means removing other biographical details too, so that we're left with a PR page. I wrote a much better draft of this article—longer, more interesting and more flattering—but inevitably conclusions could be reached about how long she has been around. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have of course thought of that many times during this long and tedious business. The problem I see there is that she is not marginally or borderline notable, but a fairly significant experimental film-maker. As such, she doesn't get anywhere near the amount of mainstream coverage that the makers of the standard Hollywood rubbish get, but I believe there's enough to torpedo any AfD attempt. Anyway, why don't we ask the opinion of Mary Mark Ockerbloom, who I believe actually added the content that's the subject of the complaint, and the references to support it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I wasn't thinking of AfD. I was thinking of simply deleting and salting, per BLPDELETE/IAR. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just to be sure I'm getting this right: I'm tagged in this because I was the person who first added the 1955 birthdate, based on the Whitney Biennial info. I gather the primary question is whether I am okay with her birthdate being ommitted from the article, given that someone keeps deleting it and creating irritating amounts of work for others putting it back? If so, I would accept removing the date. Regarding WP:BLPDELETE, I would agree with @Justlettersandnumbers: that it doesn't seem applicable. Are page protections or blocks a potential alternative if problems continue? Best wishes, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Only thing is that even though [1] is from a "rather notable American institution" it still doesn't seem to be a "high quality secondary source." It's more of a directory than anything. Same goes for the other source (at the end, there is simply a directory of people). These are not what I think of as "high quality secondary sources" which would be more of a source that is written in prose form and mentions the biographical details as part of that prose. I do agree that the article shouldn't be deleted. To make it less of a list of awards, I see information online about her (relatively unique) style of films which could be included in the article. Just a thought. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, and Sam-2727: just to be clear, I'm here as an admin at the moment, not an editor (if I add my draft to the page, that will obviously change).

Again, I'm proposing to delete under BLPDELETE/IAR. Note: WP:IAR. It is clear, given the article's history, that including Menkes's biographical details is causing her distress. If you read some of the interviews she has given, you'll see that she has not offered her age to interviewers. As I recall, the NYT mentioned this. So this is obviously something that matters to her, given the sexism and ageism that women face in the film industry.

In writing her draft, I found other biographical details that indicate roughly how old she is. Perhaps I should email the draft to one of you so that you see what I mean. Therefore, it is not simply a question of removing her year of birth, which I agree should be done.

The situation means that we can't write a full biography without causing the subject distress. We have to write one that waves mysteriously over certain issues in her early life, including what she did when she left school, what year she graduated, prizes won, etc. So we are faced with either writing a biography that upsets the subject or writing a PR page. Given that choice, the most ethical option might be to delete and salt. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It is true that her age can reasonably be inferred from biographical details currently in the article. By "writing her draft", do you mean that you have been trying to rewrite the article to be less of PR page, but ran into the problems you mention with the large sections of biographical details being omitted? I suppose that between a PR page and a deletion, I would support the deletion. I still feel that it is possible to write it less like a PR page without including biographical details, but maybe this is not the reality here (generally avoiding writing BLPs myself and only doing cursory research into the subject). Sam-2727 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I rewrote the article from scratch in 2019 to try to create an article that Menkes would not find objectionable. I found more sources and it is considerably expanded. It's more flattering than the current article, because it discusses her impact in more detail, but Menkes probably would not appreciate it, because it strongly implies how old she is by virtue of the early details. She left school, she did certain things after school, only after that did she begin her first degree, and so on. Therefore, I felt awkward about adding it to the page. Would you like me to email you the draft? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"It is clear, given the article's history, that including Menkes's biographical details is causing her distress." Do we have a specific request from her personally to delete the page? If so, then I would accede to her request. But I'd rather not infer that irrevocable deletion is what she would want, just on the basis of the page history. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm suggesting deletion regardless of the subject's wishes, because we're not able to write a biography that (a) doesn't distress her and (b) is a biography and not PR. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Once again a discussion begins, then people stop responding, so nothing gets decided. @Comtechan, Justlettersandnumbers, Sam-2727, and Mary Mark Ockerbloom: please suggest an alternative solution if you think it ought not to be deleted. Also pinging Sphilbrick who has dealt with this. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin it would be great if you could email me the draft just so I could make sure there isn't a third alternative option of rewriting the article somehow (although I trust you on your assessment of the draft). Unless an acceptable alternative way to rewrite the article is found, which I doubt given that you tried, I agree with you that deletion is probably the best course of action here. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, thanks, I'll email it shortly. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reading the draft of SlimVirgin, I concur that the inference problems with DOB in the draft article are fairly unavoidable and there's likely no way to fix them without having an article that seems to be a promotion for her films. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested Edit 24 April 2022

• What I think should be changed: The addition of Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power (2022) Jennuzzo (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Jen Nuzzo
• Why it should be changed: Menkes' feature documentary Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power (2022) premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, Berlinale and CPH:DOX. It will also screen at the JEONJU International Film Festival, Thessaloniki International Film Festival, Beldocs International Film Festival and Docaviv International Documentary Film Festival.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Jennuzzo (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

References

No information on film subjects

Somehow this article manages to tell me nothing about the content of her films, despite the overkill details of which festivals each one played at. How about some brief non-spoiler synopses? Not even the article for the single film that has one tells you what the film is about. Tonsil Crypt Ossuary (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)