Talk:Elvera Sanchez

Not Cuban

Elevera Sanchez was not Cuban. Sammy once quote in his autobiography that his mother was Puerto Rican. Hence, this book is reportedly hearsay and it has never been authorized or verified for facts. Sammy made numerous comments such as one when he guest starred on the popular sitcom the "Jeffersons" where he mention is Puerto Rican heritage in a quote. Therefore, if the man went to the grave acknowledging his Puerto Rican ancestry and his estate can't certify that the author's claims are in fact authentic, then it is nothing but hearsay. I have heard many times of actress Vanna White being Puerto Rican, however none of it has been verified by Vanna, the claimant, etc.. Therefore it is heeresay and shall remain so. If the author of thebook can provide proof of a birth certificate than so be it, but in the early 1900's Puerto Ricans were the main exodus to New York due to the fact of the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917. Cubans who migrated to the United States after the end of the Spanish American War had to go through immigration since their island was not treated as a U.S. territory but a protectorate for 4 years until Cuba achieved independence in 1902. Those who immigrated to the United 'States went to Ybor City, Florida. Cubans began to appear in masses in the years preceding and following the Cuban Revolution of 1959 when they went to Union City, New Jersey to work in the numerous textile industries once found there. I believe the author's claims are non-sense. [user: XLR8TION] 'ticle should be reverted. Show me a reference. Until then it is nothing but hear-say.[user: XLR8TION]

It is not hear say, the book is very thoroughly researched with interviews with Davis' own family. There is no reason to doubt its veracity. Arniep 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The book was not verified by Elvera's Snachez's family. Altovise (Sammy's wife) is not a blood relative. Again you must show concrete proof or this is nothing but hearsay. The article will revert to original text due to numerous sites that verify Elvera was Puerto Rican. Puerto Ricans and Cubans speak in different dialects. While understable, one can distinguish one another. I am sure if Elvera was Cuban, the newly arrived Puerto Rican communities in Spanish Harlem in the early 1900s would be able to determine this. The same can be said of Dominicans who arrived in New York in the 1970s. They can never pose as Puerto Ricans due to their dialect. Please provide substantial concrete proof or article will be reverted back in less than 24 hours XLR8TION

Elvera was not actually born in Cuba, nshe was born in New York City to the children of Cuban immigrants as is explained in the article. Arniep 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I have tried to reason with User:Arniep in regard to his continous reverts in the Sammy Davis Jr. and Elvera Sanchez articles, see:[1]. Arniep insists on posting his version and his version only. Arniep cites as proof the following transcript from an unathoritized bio, a book written without the permission of the Davis Estate by Wil Haygood. The transcript can be found here:[2]. For some unknown reason Arniep refuses to accept the overwhelming fact that every reference to Sammy Davis Jr., and his mother point to the fact that Elvera Sanchez was of Puerto Rican descent and "not" Cuban. Nor Arniep or the author of the book cite official documnets to back up these claims.

These are only three sites of the many which state that Davis' mother was Puerto Rican: Bio of Elvira Sanchez in IMDB, Sammy Davis Jr. and Tribute to Sammy Davis Jr.. In every other biography of Sammy Davis Jr., it is stated that his ancesters were Afro-American and Puerto Rican. In his own autobiography "Sammy : The Autobiography of Sammy Davis, Jr. by Sammy Davis, Burt Boyar, Jane Boyar", Sammy Davis claims that his mother was Puerto Rican. How could we doubt his own words?

Another thing, tghe author claims that Davis denied his "Cuban" ancestry because of the "Anti-Castro" sentiment. This does not make any sense since it would be almost impossible to keep his whole family and his friends quiet for so many years. If that was the case then way didn't Desi Arnaz of "I Love Lucy" fame, Cesar Romero and Celia Cruz do the same?

I have tried to reach a "middle ground" with User Arniep by offering these new versions: Elvera Sanchez and Sammy Davis Jr. as a solution but, Arniep refuses to cooperate and instead of having an open dialogue about the issue, continues to revert.

I have no personal interest in either article. My main concern is that commonly accepted facts and not "hearsay" be posted in Wikipedia articles. To quote Sammy Davis himself: "I'm colored, Jewish and Puerto Rican. When I move into a neighborhood, I wipe it out!" Tony the Marine 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. A note to Arniep, Your temp block was due to the violation of the 3 revert rule. Nothing personal.)

So are you saying that this author is lieing, and that he has not spoken to Davis relatives at all? Don't you think they might have complained in the media by now? Arniep 12:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The author can not claim to speak for the Sanchez family. Altovise and Sammy's other wife, May Britt, just can't claim that their ex-mother-in-law was of a certain nationality because that would be frivoulous. Both Altovise and May are NOT BLOOD RELATIVES! Furthermore, communism only became a menace after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution took place in 1959. How can author claim that Sammy and his mother feared Fidel Castro when they were already bonafide vaudeville stars for over 40 years. Sammy was entertaining since his youth when Fidel Castro was also in school. Any celebrity's family can decline commenting on unautorized biographies. Many books have been written on James Dean claiming he was bisexual, and even books about the Clintons, the Bush Family, and the British Royal Family have thrown in some absurd claims, yet no one in these families have commented because most of what is put in a book is fiction. Have you heard of Oprah's book club title "A Thousand Little Pieces?" Enough Said. XLR8TION

The author spoke to his mother's blood relatives who said they were Cuban Americans. I'm not sure what else can be said to convince you. Arniep 18:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the names of the blood relatives? Do you know the author personally? The author then should have an official website dedicated to his work (many non-fiction authors so have websites devoted to their new releases) showing proof. Again hearsay if it can not be proven with birth, baptismal, and wedding documentation. Example: Singer Luis Miguel (Mexican superstar) denied he was born in Puerto Rico for many years. When a birth certificate issued in San Juan with his parents' names and signatures was found in the archives of the island's registry, he came clean and confessed. However, due to his upbringing in Mexico, he claims that he is much more Mexican than Puerto Rican. It took a single piece of paper to prove a "hear-say" was in fact the "truth" . Once again, please show me the proof. Birth certificates and baptismal certificates did exist in the US and Cuba for hundreded of years. If the author was a legit writer he would have contacted the Cuban Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Washington to seek assistance in scholarly research. This is not a violation of the US trade embargo against Cuba if he was to communicate with Cuban officials in regards to researching an entity. It's all hearsay until now. I can say my sister's father-in-law is Somalian, yet until I can show documentation, its' gossip. XLR8TION

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. That an book was published that claims he is of Cuban descent is verifiable and relevant. Stating it as fact would violate NPOV, but stating that the book claims one thing in contradiction to Davis' own claims is not "gossip". Wikipedia editors are explicitly forbidden from researching the validity of external sources, as you are suggesting with wedding and birth certificates, by the Wikipedia:no original research policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To the user who constantly is changing this article, please stop. This is the last time. You MUST have a reliable author who uses LEGIT sources. Not an unauthorized biography with no names of people and hearsay. This is getting to repetitive. Please save your time and energy and do research at a library that can be valuable and informative to this topic. Further attempts without at least 3-4 references will prompt consideration of a ban on future articles. XLR8TION

I'm sorry, but you can't make such an ultimatum with any authority. Declaring the terms under which another editor may edit an article is a violation of the article ownership policy. Demanding 3-4 references is unreasonable for merely stating that an unauthorised biography claims something. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the person who is using a book recently published to erase over 80 years of history can't provide more than one reference. I have seen at least 20 websites saying that she is Puerto Rican. I have discussed this with person who simply can't show more proof. The article should stay as it was originally was. I live in New York and I am sure if I was to pull Ms. Sanchez's birth & death certificate it can validate that she was Puerto Rican. Author of Sammy book lives in Washington. If he was a credible witness he wouldhave included a photograph of documents in an index section of the book. This is not the case. Hearsay should not be used on this site. Evidence is needed before history can be re-written. XLR8TION

A book is a reference, and a citation to that book is all that is required to support the statement that the book claims something (assuming, of course, that it actually says what it is being stated to say). Furthermore, this isn't rewriting history—a statment in this article that says an independed/unauthorised biography claims he's Cuban while he claimed while alive that he's Puerto Rican is exactly the kind of statment that Wikipedia is encouraged to contain. It should be presented fairly according to NPOV, but it should not be omitted entirely, at least not for the reasons you have given so far. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The book was supported by interviews with the statements of surviving niece and grand niece of Elvera Sanchez who both confirmed that her parents were of Cuban parentage. This is further backed up by a comment made by the niece of Jesus Colon who said that when she met Elvera in 1999 she mentioned to Elvera about her Puerto Rican heritage and was told that she was not of Puerto Rican descent (BTW I don't think the link just posted of a Puerto Rican impersonator's website is more neutral on this issue than these other sources). Arniep 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This link shows that Enrique Aguiar, grandfather of Elvera was born in Havana [3]. Arniep 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter, and doesn't do anything for the argument to include the information. Our own research to validate the author's research for the book is inadmissible, as I've said in more detail below. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The link is not sufficient. Certification does validate a document. The Cuban government regardless of ideology will validate and certified a document for any Cuban born on the island. The Hall of of Records that suffered a great fire after the 1959 revolution was that possessing records of land/property ownership. All birth records were still intact. A law in Cuba states that regardless ithyou obtain another citizenship but were born on the island, you are Cuban. Hence, a naturalized U.S. Citizen who was born in Cuba could be drafted into the Cuban army if he was in Cuba at the time a war broke out. The main idea of the revolution was to include, not exclude. Hence, the author had the ability to get any certification validated by the Cuban government and such valuable institutes as the Schomburg Center that would have benfited him. He obviously did not take the route of a legit scholarly writer.

Further examples of certification: (1) In recent years there has been claims that Christopher Columbus was not Italian, but in fact Catalan. Due to the treatment of Catalans by a centralized Spanish government, the author claims that Columbus posed as a Genoan (Italy did not exist as a unified nation yet) seaman in order to secure funding. They claim that documents show that he did not speak the toungue spoken in Genoa (Italian was only spoken by 5% of the population during the years Italy was divided into feudal states). The author did not provide proof from either the Casa de Indias in Seville or another reputable archive. Hence, the claims are only hearsay.

(2) Former Puerto Rican governor Luis Ferre was born in Puerto Rico of Cuban parents (as many other celebrities such as Carlos Ponce, Barbara Bermudo, etc.). Regardless of this, the Ferre family has always said they are 100% Puerto Rican. One must be aware that although two islands, both islands were the last Spanish outposts in the New World. While they had different governors, the Spanish Crown did not believe in individualism and therefore treated the colonies as one. This was a typical move to prevent the breakup of the Spanish state by such regional entities as Catalans, Canary Islanders, Basques, Galicians, etc.. The word of the Ferre family is respected by scholars. Louie Velez, a well-known Sammy impersonator has performed for Elvera, Ramona, and Sammy's children during a dedication ceremony in Las Vegas in 1992. His owns words of hearing that Sammy "was Puerto Rican" (see link in main article) from his mother (whom I am sure was in the presence of his sister) is much more valuable than say an extended family member or an obscure writer trying to make a quick buck from someone's legacy.

Finally, in another example of dedicted research and certification, there has been a dispute between researchers in Spain and the Dominican Republic on the wheareabouts of Christopher COlumbus's remains. After much bickering, both govenrnments authorized scientists to extract DNA from ther remains and use tests to help solve the mystery. A group of scientists from various nationalities spent up to five years researching this before certifying and at the end they validated that the remains found in Seville, Spain were authentic while the ones in Santo Domingo weren't. While the news help solve a mystery, the Dominican government refused to accept these findings and promote their capital as a tourist attraction with Columbus's remains as a spotlight. Regardlessly the extensive research and dedication to ending the feud was well-done and help closed a chapter of history. Cerification can come a long way. XLR8TION

The link is irrelevant and so would be any certification that you are suggesting. Wikipedia disallows editor's own reseach from appearing in articles. I've covered this in more detail below. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• User:Saxifrage has a made a valid point in that the mention of Haygood's allegations should not be omitted as long as it is stated as such. Nither should the commonly accepted fact that Elvera Sanchez or Sammy Davis Jr. are of Puerto Rican descent be deleted. That's way the versions which I offered should be acceptable to all parties. If a consensus cannot be reached then that up with a mediator. However, let's refrain from an edit-war. Tony the Marine 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Arniep and XLR8TION, you are engaging in original research as soon as you start to make a case for or against the validity of the book as a source. As entertaining an academic pursuit as that is, Wikipedia explicity disallows that kind of research from appearing in or even affecting its articles. The book has seen print, and it makes a claim about the descent of these two. Davis made a contradictory claim while he was alive. That is enough. Both statements should be in the article, and (according to the guidance given us at WP:NPOV) should be presented in such a way that Wikipedia does not endorse either as "truth" and gives sufficient context so that the reader, the one we all serve, can make up their own mind with all relevant information. Wikipedia merely reports what the rest of the world says—we do not create or validate knowledge.

Though, if you found a third or more sources that commented on the validity of the book, that would be admissible in the article. To say that the book is wrong or somehow invalid on your own research, or to say that Davis was lying or speculation on why he might do that, are both topics that require sources to be in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation of the book

The impression that the other users have given about this book is just completely misleading. The book is backed up by Davis' relatives as the information on Davis' Cuban ancestry came from his own blood relatives not ex-wives as has been claimed above. The book received very good reviews, the only criticism I could find by credible sources was that it was too long:

The Washington Post Taking us back to vaudeville's racially charged origins in minstrelsy, [Haygood]'s brilliant at pegging his subject's forerunners, from dancer Bill "Bojangles" Robinson -- a great star in his day, and no relation to the pathetic "Mr. Bojangles" of Davis's later hit -- to the tragic Bert Williams, a black performer who, in a gruesome stylization that persisted into Davis's own childhood, appeared in blackface. Haygood is also a vivid and provocative writer, with a knack for setting the scene and making atmosphere double as analysis. —Tom Carson

The New York Times Mr. Haygood provides often gripping accounts of Davis's experiences...and writes with an informed appreciation of the performer's varied gifts. He does not dwell on Davis's decline in his last decades...But he does not shy away from documenting Davis's relentless need to ingratiate himself with celebrities and his spasms of self-doubt...he does a vivid, immediate job of conjuring the many worlds the performer traversed, and shows how the issue of race, in his own mind and in the minds of his fans and detractors, shaped his career and life.—Michiko Kakutani

Charles Spencer, Sunday Telegraph, 15 August 2004 One of the best, and sometimes one of the saddest, show-business biographies I have ever read. [A] sad, illuminating book. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Christopher Silvester, Sunday Times 1 August 2004 Haygood writes with such headlong energy as well as novelistic insight and compassion about this tortured song-and-dance man.

MQ Magazine Most significantly, he hardly knew his Cuban mother. It doesn't take a psychologist to recognise that the love he so sought from his audiences and professional associates was a desperate replacement for love he never received from his mother. Haygood documents how throughout the sixties and seventies, Davis lavished time, money and contributions to hangers-on as well as to public figures, ranging from Martin Luther King to Richard Nixon, in a bid to be loved and accepted. He died of throat cancer at the age of 64 ­ a tragically early end to an extraordinary life, which is meticulously covered by the author. Indeed, if there is a fault in the book, it is that it is too long (around 500 pages).

more at Barnes & Noble

Samuel L. Jackson is basing a film based on the book [4]. It is just not credible that it all the extensive information on his Cuban ancestry in the book was a fabrication as someone in a reputable publication would have commented on it by now (it was published in 2003). Wil Haygood's biography of Adam Clayton Powell received very good reviews and his own history of his own family The Haygoods of Columbus: A Family Memoir was awarded the Great Lakes Book Award so there is really no source that questions his credibility or competence [5] that I can find. Arniep 14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuel L Jackson playing Sammy? Come on that is like Snoop Dog doing Shakespeare. The estate of Sammy has authorized an authorized biography based on his autobiography, "Yes I Can," with plans for actor Eddie Griffin to play him. I don't think the family wants and will authorize many variants of Sammy's story like many celebrities such as Amy Fisher and JFK have had in the past. The true reviewers of a book are the readers themselves. Press critics tend to vouch for certain parts of the books and overglare most of the book. I myself worked for publicity for a major book company and have seen this firsthand. What came out of Sammy's own lips and was written on paper and authorized by the artist himself in his memoirs is credible. I am sure the author has no idea of what it is to be Hispanic/Latino and how to sort out nationalities. Again, hearsay from extended family members is not as valid as hearing Ramona Sanchez's own words and her validating the author's claims utilizing documents and photographs. If one thinks immigration here in the USA is extremely difficult now, back in the early 1900s it would been very hard to forge documents for foreigners here in the USA. Elvera's father would have to have shown proof that he was born in Cuba upon inscription of the child in New York City. The state of New York managed the city's incription until the 1930s, when the city was granted autonomy in operating their own registrar for the five boroughs. Once this was in place, the city laxed their requirements requiring proof of citizenship. Hence, there are many illegal aliens in the city with children born in the US due to this fact. Mr. Sanchez would have to shown proof of his landing papers at Ellis Island. Again, author has weak argument. An indez with photographs and documents is not a hard task. Www.findadeath.com , a website devoted to celebrity deaths, can obtain death certificates with no problem (they are displayed in actual form on the website). I am sure they can do the same with birth certificates. Author should have been a legit sound writer and shown documentation. Furthermore credible interviews used in a book should be notarized by a notary public in the event of a slander suit by a celebrity and/or his family. The interviewees can deny saying this if they are facing the risk of losing money due to a lawsuit. This is a general legal practice that an author's publisher's legal department would undertake. XLR8TION

There is no verifiable evidence that Elvera Sanchez was of Puerto Rican descent but there is verifiable evidence that she was of Cuban descent. Her mother Luisa Aguiar was brought up by her American mother Ida (nee Henderson) so I don't think there would be any problem of nationality. Sammy Davis hardly knew his mother so his comments on her ancestry can't really be considered to be a reliable source. Also, the author specifically states he spoke to Elvera and her niece and grand niece who both told of their Cuban ancestry. Furthermore the niece of Jesus Colon stated that Elvera had said she was not Puerto Rican. If the author had lied about interviews he said he had made it would have been in the news and there has been no news on that or any criticism. Arniep 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

XLR8TION, read more carefully: Arniep said that Samuel L. Jackson is "basing a film" on the book, not that he is going to play Sammy Davis Jr. This reminds me of the time when Clint Eastwood (a big jazz fan) was trying to get the film Bird made. His agent was talking to a studio exec, and when he mentioned that Clint Eastwood wanted to make film about Charlie Parker, the exec expressed his credulity that a white guy could play the black jazz master (or words to that effect). -- Jalabi99 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

User: Saxifrage and I have agreed to work on the versions which are acceptable to Wikipedias standards and policy. Both Users XLR8TION and Arniep have cited verifiable sources. The versions will be acceptable to Wikipedias Standards and to the Pedias Standards only. This is enough of this nonsense. Lets act like mature people and put an end to this discussion already. Tony the Marine 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you cannot exclude me from editing this page. I am not Cuban and I have no biases in relation to this article. Sammy Davis is not a reliable source as he hardly knew his own mother. Many people know little accurate information about their own ancestry so only information that is clearly thoroughly researched is acceptable. Arniep 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, there's no suggestion that you will be excluded even if that were possible. You must stop arguing the merits of the book though. They are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy—in other words, you are right, but not for the reasons you have given. Since you are right that the book's claim should be in the article, please, please, please stop trying to justify the book's research. It's completely irrelevant. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Tony did suggest that I should be excluded from editing the page "I will warn (ask) User:XLR8TION to not interfere and you can do the same with User:Arniep.". I wasn't justifying the book's research, I was merely saying that it is a reliable verifiable source whereas what people may say about their ancestry unless backed up by documentary evidence cannot be considered reliable sources. Arniep 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Other comment

Dear Arniep: The only way this argument will end, and the way it should be, is to write Elvera Sanchez is of alleged Puerto Rican background, although "(name)" book claims she is of Cuban ancestry. If the National Enquirer says Oprah dated an alien and she claims she didn't who are you gonna believe,. the National Enquirer? Antonio nonsensesout Martin

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arniep"

Please read my comments above. Arniep 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable information on descent

So far, from this Talk page and the article, I am aware of the following claims about Sanchez' descent that are verifiable:

• The Haygood book claims she is of Cuban descent. The source is acceptable under the verifiability policy.
• The Davis' autobiography Yes I Can! is cited for Davis' own words that she is Puerto Rican. The sources is acceptable under the verifiability policy. From XLR8TION, I have also heard that this is citable from a number of websites. I cannot comment on their compatibility with the verifiability policy since I have not seen them, but they would be useful as a further citation that is easier for the reader to access than a book.

From this, it follows that Wikipedia cannot (according to NPOV) favour either source. They have equal standing under Wikipedia's policy. We do not have to and may not tell the reader (as the current version of the article does [6]) which source the reader should believe. The reader must be allowed to make up their own mind—and, given that most people are likely to believe Davis' own words, likely they will conclude that he is Puerto Rican. That may or may not be correct, but it is not our job to seek truth but only to document what the world says.

This is how I see the state of things now. Are there any problems or questions? I will endeavour to clarify anything that is currently unclear about how the policy says this should work. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

All the sources that state Davis's mother was Puerto Rican come from Davis' own comments. I believe that what a person says about their ancestry cannot be considered a reliable verifiable source unless there is good evidence that the person is extensively knowledgable about it i.e. they mentioned names, dates, places etc. We should not apply equal weight to unsourced unproven comments which have proven to been untrue in a reliable source. Arniep 21:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. That he said something is sourceable. We are not concerned with proving or researching the basis for claims. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about proving or researching. I am talking about what is and what is not a reliable source. If someone makes a statement without backing it up with some evidence such as names, dates, places or documents, it should not be considered a reliable source. Arniep 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From our conversation at my talk page, I hope this is cleared up. To summarise for others, there are good reasons why Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and reliable sources does not require this. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is cleared up really. I do not believe that Sammy Davis' statement's on his mother's ancestry comply with WP:V or WP:RS. Arniep 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Careful, you have to say what a source is being used to support. There are two parts to every thing that can be tested by WP:V or WP:RS: a statement, and a source.

Here are some pairs with my judgement of whether they pass the tests:

• Fail: "Davis is of Puerto Rican descent", supported by his own words.
• Fail: "Davis claims he is of Puerto Rican descent", supported by his own words.
• Pass: "Davis claims he is of Puerto Rican descent", supported by documentation of his own words (in, say, his autobiography).
• Pass: "His authorised autobiography, Yes I Can!, says that Davis claimed that he is of Puerto Rican descent", supported by a citation to that book (assuming that it actually does say this).

So, yes, in some ways you are right that his words do not satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. His words alone do not satisfy anything (they're spoken and gone on the wind, so we can hardly cite them!), but a document that says what he said can be used as a source, and satisfies policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Davis does not meet the requirements for secondary sources on WP:RS whereas in my opinion the book does. Arniep 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not proposed that Davis be used as a source. Rather, his authorised autobiography is being proposed as a source. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Davis is the author of his autobiography. Arniep 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference as far as WP:V is concerned. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest News

I have an intellectual relationship with Prof. Olimpia Colon who happens to be the niece of Jesus Colon (Who's bio I wrote). I e-mailed her in regard to Sammy Davis Jrs' mother and this is what she had to say:

Hola Tony:

On Oct. of 1999 I attended the Schomberg Center, for a commemoration of the 100 New York Black. The Schomberg Center paid all the expenses for me and my son Nelson López Colón, transportation and hotel. I have picture of the event, also the pamphlet handed out with all on the honorees, with photos and a brief biography. On the last page they state the Honorable Mention, when you see those names and know that Jesús Colón was chosen, I felt so proud.

Sammy Davis Jr. was one of the chosen and his mother was there. Since I am handicap and use an electric wheelchair, a van was provided for use and the elderly. Once in the van she was sited in front of me, very proudly I asked from what part of Puerto Rico she from was. Very indignant she replied that she was not puertorrican, that a neighbor had spread that rumor and she did not want me to repeat it.

I have a friend that is a croupier, and he had told me that when Sammy came to PR and stayed at the hotel, when this was mentioned to him he was rude in his reply and had treated them as inferiors. Like mother, like son.

You can write to the Schumberg Center in NY, write to Dr. Dodson he was the coordinator of that activity and has been with the center for many years, I think her name was Josephine, some say her last name is Sánchez. What ever you find out let me know please. My son is my witness I felt very bad for inquiring but I am glad she is not puertorrican.

Maybe at CUNY they might have some more information, it is necessary to clear this up because we are proud of what we are, he who is not should not be acknowledge as so.

Hasta pronto,

Olimpia Colón Aponte

I respect Olimpia Colon and accept what she told me as a fact. I thereby believe that Arniep is right in his assertion however, in any version that is written, it should be mentioned that "it was commonly believed that she was of Puerto Rican descent" Tony the Marine 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, this kind of thing is inadmissible. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect that you respect Olimpia's word, however, I feel that until the author (Haygood) or another source can clarify this via press release from the Schomburg or via Sammy's official website, that his autobiography stands for who he was. There can be a strong possibility that her heritage was made up, however, it should be noted that whover claims diffrently should certify their claim via a notary public. I, for example, have to get everything I notarize in regards to a legal case I am a claimant. That way I can't go back against my word nor claim that someone wrote my words on my behalf. I think that would be sufficient in not compromising journalistic and research integrity on a subject. I don't feel anything has been proven without authencity of an e-mail and/or testimony that has been transcribed and certified. This prevents this topic from being reopened again in the future. XLR8TION

Wikipedia is not a court of law. Neither is it a newspaper. Wikipedia does not engage in original research and so it never proves anything. It states claims, and says where those claims come from. That is all. Both biographies make claims, and they are citable. Therefore Wikipedia may and must include them. End of story. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, as I said before I think you do not have a full understanding of Original research as the policy does not prohibit an editor from making judgements on the reliability of a source. If a person makes claims about something and that there is evidence that were not knowledgeable about that subject or could not back up a claim with solid facts, and then a third party reliable source makes a claim that contradicts the original claim made by that person we are allowed to say that one source is more reliable than the other. If this was not the case we would have to report any claim made by anybody without any caveat with regards to the reliable source which had contradicted it. For example if a person claimed during their lifetime that they had heard that a person they did not know too well was a Russian Jew, but this was later proven to be untrue by a reliable source, or that a circus performer had claimed that they had discovered the theory of relativity before Einstein, to say that we would have to make these statements without commenting on their reliability is nonsense. Arniep 13:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You make some good arguments, however they are still missing the point. We are not evaluating people's knowledge and familiarity here. We have two books on the subject, that say two conflicting things. Books are reliable sources. Therefore, we must include both. There is absolutely no way that policy supports not including what the authorised Davis autobiography says.

Now, what I am trying to get out of this conversation is some agreement on how the article should be written. All this is a side-track. What wording would you propose for the article? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but all books cannot be considered equally reliable sources (and claims within them) as each other. Either your reading of policy is incorrect or the policy itself is flawed. As to the claim that Elvera may have imagined she was Cuban this is not supported by the daughter of her sister and her daughter who both agree. Arniep 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask plainly: are you suggesting that the contents of the authorised Davis article should not be included? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but we should say something like:

"Davis claimed in his lifetime that his mother was Puerto Rican, however, research made for a 2003 biography backed up with interviews with Davis' own family suggest that he made this claim due to the political sensitivities of the time (in the 1960s) and his mother was in fact born in New York of Cuban heritage.". Maybe then some quotes can be made from each book. Arniep 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not bad, but it's still trying to tell the reader who to believe. I would write:

Davis claimed in his lifetime that his mother was Puerto Rican(citation goes here). However, the 2003 biography (title goes here) suggests that he made this claim due to the political sensitivities of the time (the 1960s) and his mother was in fact born in New York of Cuban descent.

This states the bare facts of who said what without spoon-feeding the reader. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be left to the reader to decided on what facts have been presented by all parties to determine what is true. Point in case: my late grandmother never denied her heritage ever in her life, however in her final years as the effects of Alzheimer's Disease crippled her she would say that she was another nationality, curse, and finally fall into a deep spell of unconciousness. Ergo, although she claimed to be another nationality, with proof of certificates from her and her offspring, baptismal records, etc... It was proven that negative effects of that horrible disease diluted her thinking and personality. Same can me said os anyone. The e-mail claims that the person met Elvera in 1999. Elvera died in 2000. Sometime senility and dementia can mess up one's thinking. You must add all these factors and allow anyone researching Sammy, Elvera, etc.. to conduct further research to conclude his mother's lineage. As the Saxifrage has stated Wikipedia is not a place for original research, therefore, it is up to the reader to perform original research on their own time to decide if the material presented in thise article can be debated. End of story. Bring this topic to an end. XLR8TION

If you think the topic should come to an end, then I will perform the necessary edits to the articles to bring them in line with the policy—which they currently are not. Otherwise, what I hope to come out of this discussion is suggestions and debate on how to word the article to take into account both sources in a neutral way. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted because we're not done here. Having a wording is not enough: we also need to agree on how to cite it and where to put it. Furthermore, Arniep's last edit included a bunch of changes that had nothing to do with the wording under discussion and so do not reflect consensus. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made edits to remove original research and comply with NPOV. I have reservations about concluding this early, since XLR8TION has not weighed in on these changes. Without a clear consensus the article is likely to remain unstable. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and original research

From this edit:

The book claims that Elvera was in fact born in New York, the daughter of Cuban Americans Marco Sanchez, a cigar salesman and Luisa Aguiar, information which was obtained from the daughter and grand-daughter of Elvera's sister Julia and from contemporary documentation.

Everything from "information which was obtained..." to the end is uncited, because the book claims that this is true and the article is stating that this is true. Either this needs to say "the book further claims that this information was obtained..." or it needs a citation to yet another source (i.e., one that isn't the book itself). Without one of those, it is original research.

Furthermore, even with those additions, the amount of space that would then be devoted to one point of view on Davis' heritage would be undue weight as detailed in the NPOV policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Based on contemporary documentation and statements from the daughter and grand-daughter of Elvera's sister Julia, the book concludes that Elvera was in fact born in New York, and was the daughter of Cuban Americans Marco Sanchez, a cigar salesman, and Luisa Aguiar." Less awkward than your proposed version, and does not seem to me to give undue weight. That said, the undue weight portion of the NPOV policy is not an invitation to try to bind viewpoints you dislike into a Catch-22, whereby they cannot be included without citation, but also cannot contain the citation. Phil Sandifer 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I do realise that last point, I think I just didn't clearly enough separate the two issues. I do think even that this wording still gives undue weight, but it's borderline and definitely reads better so I wouldn't disagree with that version being in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are going a bit overboard saying it gives undue weight just mentioning her parents names. Also, if we are not to put undue weight on the 2003 book we need to remove any birthplace from the header. Arniep 01:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not referring to the mention of her parents, but the bit about what sources the book uses. On the point of birthplace in the header, you are right that it needs removal but for a different reason—saying that she was born in New York would be Wikipedia taking the side of the Haygood book. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant re the birthplace. I don't think saying what the source of the information on her parentage is claimed to be is putting undue weight. Arniep 13:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is she from Cuba or from Puerto Rico? The last word

You know something? I don't know why Arniep and XLR8TION have got such a bee in their bonnets over whether Sammy's mom was from Puerto Rico or from Cuba. Neither of you are even related to the woman, yet the way you two are going at it, I fully expect to see you at a duel at dawn or something. :) I think it is time for the two of you to go to neutral corners. The most fair thing to say about the whole thing is something along the lines of In her lifetime her son claimed that she was of Puerto Rican descent.

Transferred comments

An anon editor has removed comments from this article several times without comment, and the editor left this apparent on his/her talk page Antonrojo 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC):

There's apparently FOUR separate features in the works based on the life on the legendary entertainer Sammy Davis Jr. says The New York Times. The four contenders consist of:

"In Black and White" (the INCORRECT version with NO ENDORSEMENT FROM THE ESTATE) Denzel Washington stars in and may direct Wil Haywood's biography for Universal & Imagine Entertainment.

"Sammy and Kim" Andre Benjamin (aka Andre 3000) stars in the film which deals with Davis's affair with actress Kim Novak in the 1950s.

"Yes, I Can" Based on Davis Jr's own 1965 autobiography and whilst no actors have been set, this is the ONLY one Davis's widow has ENDORSED.

"Yes, I Can" Documentary A documentary also based on the 1965 autobiography and Burt Boyar's filmed interviews with Davis. (Comments by 24.186.160.20, copied by Antonrojo 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC) from user's talk page)

Anton, I have reverted the text to its' original state before the deletes. I do not understand why this anonymous editor is doing this. I have it on my watch list as well as the one for Sammy Davis Jr. Thank you for your assistance and the references.--XLR8TION 16:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Elvera or Elvira

In Spanish the spelling is Elvira, not Elvera. Chvsanchez (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability and references

There has been a lot of discussions on this page but this article needs to show notability and not just being the mother of someone famous thus notable. The references actually point out the sons name and there needs to be some to reflect the name on the article. Otr500 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)