Talk:Romance Writers of America

Section heading for current difficulties that RWA is facing

​I'm not tied to any specific heading for the last section on the article, but I don't think Implosion works. I haven't seen it used in any of the reporting on this story.

When I do a search on "Romance Writers of America", news feed view, these are the headlines and ledes at the top of my search results, and how they describe the situation:

• (headline) 'A lack of transparency, accountability, empathy, and sincerity' created race and diversity 'firestorm' for Romance Writers of America
• (lede) "The Romance Writers of America, grappling with the backlash to a racism dispute..."
• (headline) Romance Writers of America cancels annual RITA awards contest amid racism controversy
• (headline) As racism scandal escalates, Romance Writers of America board president resigns
• (lede) "The president and executive director of the trade organization, which is reeling from disputes involving racism and diversity..."
• (lede) "The Romance Writers of America ended 2019 reeling from the backlash to its handling of a racism accusation."

So we have firestorm, racism dispute, racism controversy, racism scandal, and racism accusation. I think we can come up with an appropriate section heading that reflects WP:RS. Nearly every news report on it includes racism. Thoughts on alternative headers? Schazjmd (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to a different section heading (this isn't my favorite either), but I don't want to use "controversy". While the initial articles covered this as a controversy or firestorm, the tone is shifting. It's no longer just about the initial dispute, but more about what it means for the organization now that publishers and authors are abandoning it and they can't keep a Board. What if we change it to "Diversity and Inclusionissues" and expand with information about the RITAsoWhite issues from a few years ago? It's all connected. Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Karanacs, I like "Diversity and inclusion issues" better than "implosion" or "controversy", but does that minimize the emphasis all the sources are putting on "racism"? How about "Diversity and racism issues"? Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding: are this Guardian article and this NPR interview good sources for RITAsoWhite? I didn't get RS hits on "RITAsoWhite" and am not at all familiar with this org's history, so wanted to confirm that these are about the issues you're referring to. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

D&I does include racism and the backlash against those who call it out. This is really a LOT bigger deal than just Milan's comments. Recent articles are doing a better job at adding the context (and a Jezebel headline today talks about the organization imploding). I think that's normal as a story progresses. Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The section is much stronger now, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

'PRO' is what?

'PAN' stands for Published Author Network. But you haven't told us what 'PRO' stands for. Valetude (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Valetude, it doesn't stand for anything. Their PRO "track" is for authors who have completed a manuscript but not yet published (as the article explains). Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I knew which category it catered for. But it still looks like a mistake to the first-time reader. Might be good if it did stand for something. Valetude (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's up to the RWA. :) Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

reverted edit

I came to this article because this reference put this article in Category:CS1 errors: archive-url. The citation is malformed. {{cite web}} requires |url= with an assigned value. Whenever |archive-url= is present in any cs1|2 template, the template also requires |url= with an assigned value. This same is true for |access-date=; the cs1|2 template must have |url= with an assigned value. These requirements cause this {{cite web}} template to emit three red error messages and to place this article in Category:CS1 errors: archive-url (along with Category:CS1 errors: requires URL and Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL):

{{cite web | title = Submission Guidelines | publisher = Dorchester Publishing | access-date = 2007-04-30 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070430230010/http://www.dorchesterpub.com/Dorch/SubmissionGuidlines.cfm | archive-date = 2007-04-30 }}

"Submission Guidelines". Dorchester Publishing. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Notice that the citation's title ("Submission Guidelines") is not linked to anything.

Because I am cleaning up articles in Category:CS1 errors: archive-url, I fixed the {{cite web}} template with this edit (here is the fix):

{{cite web |title=Submission Guidelines |website=Dorchester Publishing |access-date=2007-04-30 |url=http://www.dorchesterpub.com/Dorch/SubmissionGuidlines.cfm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070430230010/http://www.dorchesterpub.com/Dorch/SubmissionGuidlines.cfm |archive-date=2007-04-30}}

"Submission Guidelines". Dorchester Publishing. Archived from the original on 2007-04-30. Retrieved 2007-04-30.

No error messages, and the article was no longer included in the error category. That didn't last long.

With this edit, Editor Anita5192 reverted my edit with the edit summary: Have you seen where this URL leads?

In answer: Yep, I have; that is why I removed |url-status=dead and did not make it |url-status=live. As long as the original |url= value is not offensive, (porn, hate, etc) there is no reason to remove the original url.

I think that my edit should be restored.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because the URL reads in part, "dorchesterpub" and "SubmissionGuidlines", yet points to a website that appears to be in Japanese. This is evidently not what the website was originally, so perhaps the site has been hacked. In any case I don't think a hacked website or a Japanese website are useful on the English Wikipedia, so I reverted it.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know why you reverted. Of course the original url has "dorchesterpub" and "SubmissionGuidlines"; the original url is not to be modified (dead urls do come back to life).

Simply reverting because you don't like it that the link in the phrase "Archived from the original on 2007-04-30" doesn't time out or point to a 404 page but instead, links elsewhere, is not sufficient justification for removal of the url from the citation. You appear to be ignoring the fact that without the original url, the citation displays no links. Readers wanting to use this citation to verify what has been written in the article have a much more difficult task because without the original url, the the citation doesn't provide a title link.

Reading between the lines at Dorchester Publishing suggests that Dorchester is defunct. The citation is nearly 14-years old. Surely there is a better, more current, source.

The correct solution is to restore my edit and for you to find that better source. It is not a good thing to show our readers the red error messages when those errors can be so easily avoided.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)