Talk:She Has a Name

Removed text

• Plot summary

The drama centers around Jason's infiltration of an Asia-wide brothel ring.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baffle gab1978 (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose selectively merging 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name back into this article. I understand that a split was initially found desirable because the volume of material was overwhelming the main article, but in my opinion, that volume of material is itself the result of an excessive and unencyclopedic amount of detail. WP:NOTNEWS is one relevant idea: here we aim to preserve information that is important in the long-term, but both of the sub-articles include a great deal of material on the day-to-day events of the tour, pull quotes from the local paper of every city where it was performed, etc. that can be condensed or removed. Compare this article on a 1970 production of A Midsummer Night's Dream: it's a production of one of the major plays of the English canon, and the production itself revolutionized productions of Shakespeare and has been discussed in literature for decades. This simply isn't the case for She Has a Name: it's clearly notable enough for an article, but it's, at best, too early and too local to demonstrate the sort of historical importance that might justify a bunch of sub-articles. This level of coverage might be suitable for the play's website, but on Wikipedia, it has the effect of functioning as promotion for the play. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge. (FWIW, I'm the GA reviewer for the main article here.) I realize this faces an uphill struggle, with two of the parts having reached GA and one FA, but this content seems unnecessarily diffuse to me. For having three articles devoted to the topic, I would expect hundreds of articles in scholarly journals and major media on the subject, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. As Roscelese points out, instead, there's a heavy reliance on local newspapers to flesh this out. By merging and narrowing the focus to higher-quality sources, I think the resulting article would improve substantially. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. These articles are not padded with fluff; they present a significant amount of valid, encyclopedic information. To merge them and condense them would be to either have a very lengthy article or to remove worthwhile content. The information found in these articles has already been pared down significantly. A play does not need to be as notable as A Midsummer Night's Dream to justify subarticles. Consider that She Has a Name has only two subarticles while A Midsummer Night's Dream has dozens of subarticles. A merger is not justified. Neelix (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, seems like a merge for merge's sake. The resultant article, even if merged selectively, would be very large, and that doesn't serve our community well, particularly in the era of mobile browsing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it'd be a merge for a merge's sake; as I stated above, there's a really unencyclopedic level of day-to-day and local detail here that has a promotional effect. Is there anything I can do to assuage your concerns about length? For instance, draft a merged version in talk space. I'm not concerned about length since enormous amounts of unsuitable material will have to be removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What material are you seeing as unencyclopedic? The contents of the three articles seem quite encyclopedic to me. If you would like to see a draft of a merged version, just look at the pre-split version of the main article. Neelix (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Let's see...the complete tour itinerary? The reviews from blogs? Sentimental audience response? Shall I go on? This is a promotional brochure, not an encyclopedia article, the nod at critical dislike notwithstanding. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The complete tour itinerary has already been removed; if you are referring to the "Performances" and "Talkback panels and fundraising" sections, it is quite encyclopedic to include information about the people and institutions associated with the tour. Where are there reviews from blogs? I don't see any in the sources used. It sounds as though you are calling for a deletion of 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name, not a merger. Neelix (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, per Neelix and The Rambling Man. Also, I'm not sure about the wisdom of merging a recent TFA. BOZ (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, essentially per The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - when I first came to the "Critical response..." article as GA reviewer, I was initially skeptical also about whether a full article was appropriate. However, having reviewed that article I would now find it very difficult to argue that the content is meaningless or the article not deep enough to stand alone. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge, and trimming. All three articles are far too large, exceedingly trivial and wordy content forks and never justified this bloat and content-forking to being with. Neelix is sadly not yet able to see the forest for the trees in these articles, which were split without prior discussion or consensus. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese -- For an official WP:MERGE proposal, you of course need to follow the precise instructions in WP:MERGEINIT and post it publicly, with merger tags on top of all three articles, and the merge discussion listed with all other public merge discussions. Therefore this discussion is not an official merge discussion, as it is only visbile to people who happen to visit this particular Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, Softlavender, this proposal is from a year and a half ago. I'm pretty sure the top tags were on it at the time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

Categories

Several categories were recently removed from this article. I believe that they should be readded. Here is my reasoning:

1. Category:2009 plays - The first version of She Has a Name was written in 2009; a reading of the play was given in 2009, and it was also given an award in 2009.
2. Category:Child sexual abuse in literature - She Has a Name is a piece of literature about child sexual abuse.
3. Category:Plays set in Canada - While most of She Has a Name is set in Thailand, there are several scenes set in Canada depicting Ali.
4. Category:Thriller plays - Stephen Waldschmidt, the director of the performances of She Has a Name, called the play a thriller.
5. Category:Tragedy - This play is a tragedy, in the same way that Shakespearean tragedies are tragedies.
6. Category:Works about rape - The opening scene of the play is a rape scene, and rape is a common theme in the play.
7. Category:Prostitution in Canada - Discussions of She Has a Name have been consistently intermingled with discussions of prostitution in Canada; Kooman, the playwright, has spoken of the play in these terms, and the talkback discussions during the tour dealt prominently with the subject.

For these reasons, I recommend that the categories above be readded to the article. Neelix (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

These are either redundant or unsuitable.

1. If we included a separate year category for every time the play had a minor revision, there would be no point to the year categories at all. We already put it in 2010 and 2011 to cover both the one-act version (first given a reading in 2010) and the full version (premiered 2011). The number of times that Kooman reworked it before it ever saw the light of day aren't particularly relevant category-wise.
2. Redundant to "Works about child prostitution."
3. A small enough part of the play that it's not appropriate.
4. We need more than a self-promotional comment or a passing mention in a review in order to give the play a genre - it's not the end of the world if not all plays are categorized according to genre, and we don't have the body of sourcing necessary to call it either a thriller or a tragedy. (FWIW, it doesn't resemble a Shakespearean tragedy, contrary to your comment.)
5. See above.
6. I'm inclined to think this is also redundant to existing content-related categories. Can you make a case that rape is a theme of the play over and above its already being a play about human trafficking and forced prostitution?
7. I don't see that that's supported by the article text - in fact, one review even criticized the play's presentation of human trafficking as a non-Canadian problem.

I'd like you to reexamine your motivations for wanting to include these categories. It seems like you're just trying to increase the visibility of the article by putting it in as many categories as possible, however unsuitable, but remember, Wikipedia is not intended as a vehicle for promotion. The only categories that should be used are those which are appropriate for the article based on its content and on our categorization system. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no motives for promotion or visibility. I am here as an encyclopedian; I therefore wish the article and the category lists to be complete. I am not questioning your motives in getting the categories removed; I recommend that we focus our discussion on article content rather than on editors. Please see my responses below:

1. "Category:2009 plays" states that the category is for "plays written or first performed in 2009." The play was both written and first performed (via a reading) in 2009. I think that it would strike readers as very odd if the earliest year category for the article was 2010 while the article text itself clearly states that the play received an award the year before.
2. "Category:Child sexual abuse in literature" and "Category:Works about child prostitution" are not redundant; not all works are works of literature, and not all sexual abuse is prostitution, therefore neither category is a subcategory of the other.
3. OK, I can accept that reasoning for removing "Category:Plays set in Canada".
4. The Tragedy article states that a tragedy is "a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes in its audience an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in the viewing." That statement describes She Has a Name very well, and its application to the play is bolstered by most of the sources in the article.
5. If you do not feel that Waldschmidt's quotation is sufficient, than I am satisfied for "Category:Thriller plays" to be removed.
6. The most prominent rape scenes in the play do not fall within the scope of forced prostitution; no one gets paid as a result of the rape of number 18 at the beginning of the play, nor does anyone get paid for the final implied rape scene. Even if all of the rape in the play was forced-prostitution and human-trafficking-related, not all rape in general is forced prostitution, not all rape is human-trafficking-related, and not all human trafficking involves rape. "Category:Works about rape" is not made redundant by "Category:Forced prostitution" or "Category:Works about human trafficking".
7. The "2012 tour" section states that discussions of the play as it toured focused on the subject of human trafficking in Canada.

I would be grateful for your responses; I hope that we will be able to come to a mutually satisfactory decision about these categories. Neelix (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. OK, how would you feel about removing one of the other year categories? Perhaps adding back 2009 and removing 2011? I may be misremembering which event related to the play's creation the category date relates to - I'm just sure that so many years are not appropriate (even two may be too much).
2. I'm not sure you understand how categories work - not all child sexual abuse is prostitution, but child prostitution is child abuse, so this category is already in the abuse category. The article is where it needs to be for people to find it; the encyclopedia does not benefit by adding it to redundant categories.
3. Great.
4. Like I said, we don't have the necessary body of sourcing. If the play is worthy of scholarly attention, we'll see in what genre scholars decide it belongs. It's not your job nor mine to analyze the play and decide (and if you asked me, I'd strongly disagree; despite the modern corruption of the term, not everything that's sad is a tragedy). Wait for reliable sources to make the call.
5. Good.
6. Obviously not all rape is forced prostitution or human trafficking related, but I'm not sure why this is supposed to be an argument, since the rape in this play is. ???
7. I see passing mentions of it in some of the show announcements, but it's still not the case that an association at two or three removes requires a category. To quote from WP:OCAT: "Not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category." To bring in the Midsummer analogy again, we don't categorize the play under nuns/priestesses, donkeys, or Roman mythology, even though these are all things that actually appear in and are relevant to the play, unlike prostitution in Canada vis-à-vis She Has a Name.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Category:2009 plays - Why is it a problem to have three year-specific categories? I see nothing in the guidelines suggesting that this is a problem.
2. Category:Child sexual abuse in literature - If two categories are not subcategories of each other, then they are not redundant. It does not matter that Category A and Category B are both subcategories of Category C; if Category A is not a subcategory of Category B and Category B is not a subcategory of Category A, the two categories are not redundant and both (if they are both applicable to the article) should be included.
3. Category:Tragedy - I do not see why a source needs to specifically use the word "tragedy" to provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the play falls into that category. The two elements of tragedy, as defined on the Tragedy article, are depiction of human suffering and invocation of catharsis; both of these elements are well-sourced throughout the article. This is not primary research.
4. Category:Works about rape - Please see "Category:Child sexual abuse in literature" above.
5. Category:Prostitution in Canada - This is a Canadian play about prostitution. Surely, that fact alone is enough to demonstrate that this article belongs in this category. Neelix (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Because categories are intended to reflect facts in the article and help users navigate, not to publicize the article?
2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that it's a problem if this play isn't in a category about a broader topic but that specifies literature. I disagree that it's a problem. It's already in a more specific category with regard to topic, and adding the broader topic would be redundant. The reason "Works about child prostitution" isn't split into literature, TV, etc. is presumably because that would be overcategorization.
3. If you don't see why things need to be supported by sources, you don't understand how WP works.
4. You're not attempting to answer my point. I'll copy and paste it. Obviously not all rape is forced prostitution or human trafficking related, but I'm not sure why this is supposed to be an argument, since the rape in this play is. ???
5. I'm not sure that's how it works - "prostitution in Canada" would seem to be about, well, prostitution in Canada - but you could ask around.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

1. All three of the year categories reflect facts in the article and help users navigate. What is the problem here?
2. No, you've misunderstood me. I don't want the article to be in any broader topics that the article is already more specifically in; the "but that specifies literature" part makes the category more specific, and avoids the redundancy.
3. This fact is suppported by sources, as I have stated above. That a particular word does not appear in the sources does not mean that that word cannot appear in the article.
4. I am answering your point; the issue for "Category:Works about rape" is the same as for "Category:Child sexual abuse in literature"; neither of these categories is a parent category or subcategory of either of the other categories, therefore neither of them is redundant.
5. It would appear that we disagree on the limitations of this category. Perhaps we should request a third opinion on the subject. Neelix (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think a third opinion would be best, as you clearly stopped listening several comments ago. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that I have thoroughly considered all of your comments, but I am glad that you are in agreement that seeking a third opinion would be wise. I will post a notice of this discussion on the WikiProject Categories talk page. Neelix (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've read through the above discussion, here are my thoughts:

1. Year categories - the intent of these categories is, I believe, to highlight when a work was released to the world. The fact that it was written in 2009, or even "read" in 2009 and 2010, does not suffice; I don't think it's helpful to have it scattered in multiple categories. Rather, we should keep it as Category:2011 plays, as that was the year it actually premiered with actors, live audience, and a full performance.
2. re: Category:Child sexual abuse in literature - my quick reading suggests that the major theme is child prostitution and trafficking, and that is certainly a subset of Child sexual abuse. the "works about child prostitution" is already a sub-set of the broader "Works about child abuse", so we don't need a second category to highlight this. The child prostitution category is the most specific, and works the best here.
3. re: Category:Tragedies, I agree, we need to wait for sources to call this tragedy - and not just call it one, but for it to be WP:DEFINING about this work - e.g. I'd like to see people say "Tragic plays, from Shakespeare like Hamlet or modern versions like She Has a Name, are more and more popular" - or "She Has a Name is a recent tragedy written by XXX and currently on tour in YYY"
4. re: Category:Works about rape, again, I haven't seen the play, but it seems that rape is not a major theme - rather the rape is incidental to the major parts of the story, which is child prostitution. If someone were compiling a list of works about rape, would this be on it? OTOH, in a way, child prostitution itself is a form of statutory rape, so perhaps Category:Works about child prostitution should be put as a subcat of Category:Works about rape? This may not work, however, since statutory rape is differently defined by different countries
5. re: Category:Prostitution in Canada - this is not a category for works, I'm not sure they belong here. If we had Category:Works about human trafficking in Canada then it might work. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us with a third opinion. I have removed "Category:2010 plays" as you have recommended. I am content to leave "Category:Tragedy", "Category:Works about rape", and "Category:Prostitution in Canada" out of the article. I have replaced "Category:Child sexual abuse in literature" and "Category:Works about child prostitution" with "Category:Child prostitution in literature". I hope this change meets with everyone's approval. Neelix (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess WP:UNDUEWEIGHT doesn't apply to article length, but

This article is over 5000 words, with another nearly as long on the 2012 tour of this play that, let's face it, just barely scrapes by WP:NOTABILITY. By contrast Death of a Salesman gets about 3200 words. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an issue with the coverage of Death of a Saleman, not this play. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree and raised the same issue up above on the talkpage, without success. It's not an issue with the coverage of Salesman, it's about the inclusion of immense amounts of trivia in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As the article is presently undergoing featured article candidacy I recommend that both of you (and anyone else interested) raise any issues you may have there. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on She Has a Name. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213022928/http://www.calgaryjournalonline.ca/september-print-issue/arts-a-entertainment/1719-human-trafficking-portrayed-through-local-theatre-project to http://www.calgaryjournalonline.ca/september-print-issue/arts-a-entertainment/1719-human-trafficking-portrayed-through-local-theatre-project
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213022928/http://www.calgaryjournalonline.ca/september-print-issue/arts-a-entertainment/1719-human-trafficking-portrayed-through-local-theatre-project to http://www.calgaryjournalonline.ca/september-print-issue/arts-a-entertainment/1719-human-trafficking-portrayed-through-local-theatre-project
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joysmith.ca/main.asp?fxoid=FXMenu%2C3&cat_ID=27&sub_ID=106&sub2_ID=40
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213022928/http://www.calgaryjournalonline.ca/september-print-issue/arts-a-entertainment/1719-human-trafficking-portrayed-through-local-theatre-project to http://www.calgaryjournalonline.ca/september-print-issue/arts-a-entertainment/1719-human-trafficking-portrayed-through-local-theatre-project

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) 07:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

She has a name.

This is an important part of this discussion..

A real child in the real world suffered and this is the first thought I had about the play..

Without any need to explore the subject matter any further..

It is the most ignored CRIME IN THE HISTORY OF CHILD TRAFFICKING ISSUES..

There is a child who is today in all countries of this planet being raped beaten and praying for death ..

The tragedy is the very fact that no one knows her name Connie Ford Johnson (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Community reassessment

She Has a Name

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Starting an overdue GAR for this article six years after Neelixgate and after two separate articles, quite overstuffed themselves, were merged into it. This is a 5000-word piece on a minor community theatre play created by someone with...quite the penchant for 5000-word pieces on minor parts of the anti-sex-work movement. I think this deserves a fair shake nonetheless, and I don't enjoy reviewing at the best of times, so I'm putting it to the community. Vaticidalprophet 05:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delist. I'll grant that the play has some legitimate notability for the purposes of having an article (although due to the Neelix of it all, I wouldn't be opposed to somebody deleting it and restarting from scratch either), but the article is indeed very overdone for the notability level that's actually on the table — which means it's not the kind of thing we should be highlighting as a model to aspire to. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)