Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RfC on the lead

Looking at this RfC, I can safely and objectively conclude that there is obviously no consensus, so we should leave the lead as is for now. If you want to open up a new consensus, please start a discussion on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Should the lead describe Vargas as "Filipino-American"? Proposed text: "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino-American journalist." 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes -- he is Filipino by birth and was sent to the US by his mother at the age of 12, so he has lived most of his life in the US and considers himself American, having stated unequivocally "I am an American". Given that self-identification, it is appropriate to identify him with the ethnicity Filipino-American. The article did so for a long period; various IP editors removed "American" on the basis that he can't possibly be American because he isn't a legal citizen -- but our editing here should not follow this POV, on the contrary it should follow Vargas's own self-identification, per the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. "Filipino-American" doesn't imply he is a US citizen because it is manifestly an ethnicity; there is no such thing as "Filipino-American" citizenship. Vargas's notability has mainly to do with activism on behalf of undocumented immigrants in the US and the process by which they might gain full membership in American society; writing an article here that occludes his own membership in American society (even if lacking formal/legal citizenship) is not consistent with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No. Subject does not hold American citizenship or even legal resident status, which are indicated as the source of the nationality to be presented in the lead sentence by WP:OPENPARA. Citizenship is not something someone can assert, and "American", either by itself or in a compound word, is not an ethnicity, it is a claim of nationality or citizenship. Using the word in the context of the lead sentence in that way would be misleading to our readers not already familiar with the situation. We should not leave our readers scratching their heads wondering whether he somehow gained American citizenship in a way left poorly described in the body of the article. Yworo (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. I endorse Nomoskedasticity's comments. Additionally, I would point out what I said on the BLP noticeboard: Removing "American" would have Wikipedia take sides on a thorny, sensitive issue and would be horribly offensive to the subject of the article and to Hispanic-Americans in general. We have BLP policies for a reason, and that reason was because we offended a public figure in a serious way with inaccurate statements of fact. Let's not do the same thing again. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - and as I've pointed out, including "American" is not neutral, it's simply taking the other side in the debate. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No -- he is not a US citizen and his lineage isn't American, therefore he doesn't have so-called "American ethnicity." That would be knowingly misleading to say he is "Filipino-American." He acknowledges he is not a US citizen and his American family were naturalized, with non-American ethnicity. We cannot say he is American based on his personal views, which are biased based on his legal status and advocacy work. You are either American or not. Living here and espousing American values does not in and of itself make you American. We could all then claim to be whatever nationality or ethnicity we want, but that's unfortunately not how it works. Again, we cannot make ones beliefs or desires a fact. His self-described Americanism is detailed later in the article...there's no need to mislead readers in the opening paragraph. Again, keeping off American would not be taking sides on a thorny issue. It would be representing the facts. Additionally, this has nothing to do with Hispanic-Americans. Just because he has a Spanish name, doesn't make him Hispanic...he's Filipino. You might also want to consider that American citizens could be offended that anyone can be identified as American when in fact they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - Thank you for including that last comment about needing to differentiate from the appearance of being Hispanic. Some Native Americans have the same problem, having been given Hispanic names by Spanish missionaries. They may be purely native, but people mistake them for Hispanic simply due to the retention of the family name their ancestors were assigned long ago. Yworo (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No. A normal reader who sees that term will understand it to mean that he has American citizenship. He doesn't. It would be misleading, even if you can argue it based on technicalities. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No For precision, since the subject does not hold US citizenship. That to me is a requirement for stating that someone is Whatever-American, and that holds true for all nationalities and combinations thereof. If there is a reliable source where the subject has called himself "American" as something they consider to be an aspect of their cultural identity then that may be added and noted as such. However, it is not correct to use a widely-accepted notation in a situation where it clearly does not apply. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: In fact, the subject has written and spoken extensively about how and why he views himself as American, and some of that is now in the article, properly sourced. He of course does not claim to be a citizen of the US, but he identifies as American in all ways except for the paperwork. That is the crux of his public position, and that self-identification is and must be covered in the article, but as I say below, we are best off not using any short-hand identifier in the first sentence to avoid POV and BLP issues. Tvoz/talk 03:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The "spirit" of WP:BLPCAT applies only so far as "XXX do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. " In this instance, any tag, either "Filipino" or "Filipino-American" in the lead sentence will lack appropriate "disclaimers or modifiers" hence neither should be used. The details of the situation should be covered in appropriate detail in the lead paragraphs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Omit ethnic tag entirely. There is absolutely no need to identify every subject as a member of this ethnic, national, or religious group. In this case, as argued above, any succinct characterization meaningfully distorts the true state of affairs. Nor is this unique; getting acceptable language for V. S. Naipul or Pico Iyer requires great attention and finesse yet also distorts the picture. Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a journalist, filmmaker, and immigration activist. has the advantage of being true, succinct, and uncontroversial; it gives the reader what the reader most needs to know.MarkBernstein (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Handle in text: It is not clear exactly what the alternative to this RFC proposal is, or what a "no" or "yes" might yield, so I will spell out what I see here as the best solution. I agree with Gamaliel and Nomoskedasticity that this is a BLP issue and that using "Filipino" alone is utterly unacceptable and POV. I do think "Filipino-American" correctly describes the subject of the article, and is not an indication of citizenship, but rather it is a demographic description which could accurately be used. However, per TheRedPenOfDoom, and MarkBernstein, I think that this may be best handled as Bbb23 and Seb suggested - and how the lead is now worded - which is to not use either identifier in the first sentence, but instead unpack it, spell out in more detail the actual facts in an NPOV manner, in the lead and in the rest of the article which the intro summarizes. This works and does not take sides in the serious BLP issue. We further make clear how Vargas self-identifies, which I think is important here, without having Wikipedia editors take a position. As MarkBernstein said, we are not required to indicate nationality or citizenship in the first sentence or anywhere, and TRPoD is right about disclaimers etc. -sometimes it is best to go at it from a different angle. We also had the same kind of issue at - believe it or not - Bee Gees where there were warring factions who disagreed about whether they should be called English, Australian, or Manx; we handled it by leaving off the nationality, and the wars stopped. So, I support this wording: Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a journalist, filmmaker, and immigration activist. Born in the Philippines, and raised in the United States from the age of 12, he was part of The Washington Post team... etc. Tvoz/talk 02:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: How is it utterly unacceptable to state one's ethnicity when the subject refers to himself as such? (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/my-familys-papers.html) Again, Filipino-American would just be made up. We already know he's neither a citizen, nor does he have "American" lineage. There is no way to factually refer to him as such short of naturalization. With regard to the Bee Gees, a quick search will tell you they could be referred to as all three of those that you mentioned, assuming they had Australian citizenship and that Manx refers to people who come from the Isle of Man. Vargas and the Bee Gees do not compare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:OPENPARA does specifically state to avoid mentioning ethnicity in the lead sentence. What should be in the lead is nationality. How precisely does one refer to a Philippine national in a way that doesn't look like it is emphasizing ethnicity? His ethnicity can and should be mentioned in the article, just not in the first sentence. Yworo (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm more referring to that it's odd the user believes it's unacceptable to call someone something they are, yet perfectly fine to call them something they are not. I'm less concerned about where something appears in an article than I am about something in an article being truthful and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I'm kinda baffled by that too. Yworo (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I certainly wasn't intending to baffle you, Yworo. As you said, what "should be" in the lead sentence does not mean it "must" be in the lead sentence. Rather than using the shorthand descriptor, spelling out where he was born vs. where he has lived the majority of his life, where he went to school, where he works and pays taxes, where he culturally self-identifies, is the best approach, because it allows us to remain neutral on how we define "American", to borrow his phrase. That's the crux of the matter, a big part of what makes him notable, and by insisting on calling him a "Filipino journalist", we are being inaccurate (he was not a journalist in the Philippines)and taking a position, and it is not clear if we mean he is Filipino by citizenship or ethnicity or residence or some other measure. As TrPoD points out, we would need further modifiers or disclaimers, and that puts an unnecessary burden on the lead sentence. Yworo, you already have said that you thought the solution of taking it out of the first sentence is the right thing to do, so why are you baffled by my saying the same thing? He is Filipino by birth, and American by all other standards - and there's no way to insure that our readers understand exactly what we woul mean by calling him Filipino or Filipino-American -in most articles it may not really matter, but in this one it is central. To IP 70.44.58.168, about the BeeGees, I was making an analogy, not saying they were exactly the same as Vargas. But you highlight the problem when you say "assuming they had Australian citizenship". Did they? They were born in the Isle of Man - perhaps they have Manx passports or maybe Australian, or British, and in fact Barry is a naturalized American citizen but he also retains British citizenship our article claims. I brought this up because it illustrates that sometimes we have to go outside of the usual guidelines for article writing in order to accommodate a particular set of circumstances, and to put an end to edit warring. There were factions edit warring on one or another of the BeeGee articles trying to claim them as their own. The only thing that made sense was to do what we're doing here - don't use the short-hand, and spell it out. Does that help to end the bafflement? Tvoz/talk 08:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"American by all other standards"....In fact he is not American by any standards....Living in America and sharing American ideals does not make one American. If either were the standard, then most of my foreign friends would be considered American, but it would be factually wrong and totally misleading to say that they are. Many people will be completely confused should the article not make it clear he is not American, not a US citizen, but that he self identifies as such. If it is determined that he shouldn't be referred to as Filipino in the article, that's fine, because leaving that out isn't misleading anyone...it's just not providing known information about who he is, reducing the quality of the article. In reference to your comments on the Bee Gees...."sometimes we have to go outside of the usual guidelines for article writing in order to accommodate a particular set of circumstances"...By this I suppose you mean you want to mislead readers to accommodate the goals of the subject of the article. Yes, sometimes circumstances are confusing. This doesn't happen to be one of them. Fact remains he is unfortunately not American. He says he is American to make a point and that is covered in the article. Wikipedia cannot anoint him as an American. I frankly still don't see why there was an edit war...it was going back and forth between factually accurate and false and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"By this I suppose you mean you want to mislead readers to accommodate the goals of the subject of the article. " - must you be insulting? I think I've made it clear that I think the way to handle this is to not use either descriptor in the lead sentence. Seb's wording does not mislead anyone, and is a reasonable compromise. Are you interested in settling this in a way that satisfies both sides of this, or are you only interested in your own opinion? Tvoz/talk 03:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean for that to be insulting. By what you wrote, I gathered that you meant that you were willing to write things that weren't true to accommodate the views of the subject. I support the current version of the article, with some minor reservations. It's factually correct the way it is now written; it does not refer to him as American, as he is not, but it does mention that he identifies as American. If by satisfying both sides you mean to refer to the subject as Filipino American or to refer to him as American, without saying something like "Vargas identifies/calls himself/believes he is American" etc, then no, I'm not interested. I find it disturbing that anyone would want to knowingly put false information into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes -- The lead sentence should describe Vargas as Filipino-American. The term "Filipino-American" does not strongly imply citizenship. Its basic meaning concerns a constellation of affinities that happen to be very strong in Vargas' instance. He has moved fluidly and effectively in prominent "American" circles and has had important successes in "American" areas of endeavor in the workplace. His support network includes individuals who hold American citizenship and are themselves successful and prominent Americans. Whether he is an American by citizenship is not the most important question that we are weighing. His Filipino-American status is abundantly established by his accomplishments in America. The lead sentence can be written to include that Vargas is a Filipino-American but does not hold American citizenship. This acknowledges his identity while acknowledging that he is not a US citizen. Proposed text: "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino-American journalist who is not a US citizen." Bus stop (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, the OP and his allies aren't going to like that. That "is not a US citizen" bit is precisely what they are adamantly opposed to saying, even though it's 100% true and the subject has said it himself. That's (apparently) why they have fixated on the "I am an American" quote. Yworo (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Go easy on the mind reading please. Tvoz/talk 08:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
To placate those who argued that "Filipino-American" strongly implies "US citizen" I've suggested adding the statement that Vargas is not a US citizen. But I don't really think this is necessary in the lead sentence. Vargas has accomplished a lot within the American society without the status of American citizenship. The term "Filipino-American", in the instance of Vargas, describes a person of a particular extraction who has moved purposefully and impressively in a society not of his extraction. The hyphenated term applies because of its aptness in describing the situation of the subject of the biography. Bus stop (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
By Bus Stop's standard, we'd have to edit so many articles on prominent non-American citizen residents in the US who meet those same standards. I could also refer to my self by an additional ethnicity/nationality even though I'm not a citizen of that country and have no lineage from that country..but I wouldn't do so because why would I mislead people? When one will read "Filipino-American," they will read it as being ethnically Filipino and an American citizen. That's what this means in US discourse. Even saying he's not a US citizen will then completely contradict the other statement and baffle readers. Readers would perhaps think he has American lineage but his family sometime down the line left the US, became citizens of another country and US citizenship did not transfer to him, yet then he immigrated to the US. Referring to him as American or Filipino-American in anyway is simply misleading and confusing. Also, there is no "in the instance of Vargas"....those terms..."Italian American" "Cuban American" "Mexican American" etc.... are only references to American citizens of "First Country Named" descent. This is what all of those articles say and that is what the average reader will think because that is the only popularly accepted meaning in discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. A BLP subject is considered an expert on themselves. Insomesia (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • That's patently false; someone who thinks he's the King of China will not be introduced as such on wikipedia. The best we can do is "X is a so-and-so who claims to be the King of China." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I believe that's a straw-man argument. A person is most assuredly an expert on themselves, I don't see some exceptional claim that brings this fact into doubt. Is their some reliable source that claims he's not Filipino American? Let's look at it. Insomesia (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It Depends - What should be included per MOSBIO is the person's nationality at the time they became notable. What nationality does the subject hold and make sure we have multiple RS to support it. --Malerooster (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • MOSBIO says: "location, nationality or ethnicity". In this instance nationality alone is clearly inappropriate; the proposal is to use ethnicity instead ("Filipino-American"), particularly as it corresponds with location. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      • You say nationality alone is clearly inappropriate, which is probably the case. However, what is more inappropriate is making up that he is Filipino-American. We know he is not. As for the subject being an expert on themselves, that's the same as putting in Donald Trump's article that he's the most successful person in the world. Just because a subject makes a claim, doesn't make it true, especially when he also admits it is not the case and we all know he is not an American. He says he is American to make a point and that point comes across in the article. Wikipedia cannot validate his argument and remain neutral at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is nationality alone is clearly inappropriate? --Malerooster (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In combination with his occupation, we would have "Filipino journalist". But he hasn't lived (or even visited) in the Philippines since he was 12, and he has never been a journalist there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
hasn't lived (or even visited) in the Philippines since he was 12, and he has never been a journalist there Yeah, so what? Not impressed with that at all. Maybe go with the FACTS laid out below by Yworo. --Malerooster (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's easily worked around: "is a Filipino citizen who is a journalist in the US..." Isn't English great?! Yworo (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per WP:OPENPARA. Subject is not notable for being a Filipino American (per WP:COMMONNAME there is no hyphen). The subject is not notable due to his ethnicity. The subject is notable for being awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and his advocacy on "immigration reform" (related to his present immigration status). As with other biography articles, where the subject is not primarily notable based on his/her ethnicity, the matter of the subject's ethnicity is expanded upon in the body of the article. For instance see John Ensign and Jose Calugas. As they are not primarily notable for their ethnicity, the ethnicity of the subject is in the body of the article. Also see José B. Nísperos. The subject is notable for the award he received, and the fact that he is the first X to receive award Y. This is not the case with the subject of this article, that I am aware of.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Handle in text per Tvoz. Second somewhat distant choice is Filipino-American, not so much because it's a bad description but more because it's likely to create another ruckus sometime in the future. Ruckuses over this sort of thing and reruckuses are a waste of resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The creation of a "ruckus" should not result in the suppression of valid material of a descriptive nature. I'm struggling to understand how the descriptive term Filipino American is not applicable to Vargas. And if it is applicable, why wouldn't that description warrant placement in our lead? Vargas' notability in significant measure is tied to his dual identity as Filipino and American, though we know of course that he is not a US citizen. That is why we do not refer to him as an American. But his "Filipino American" status is central to his life. He has spent two decades as an undocumented immigrant. He parlayed two components of a "central conflict" into an act of making public his undocumented immigrant status. He did this in solidarity with others in a similar plight, and he did this because, as he puts it "I’m done running. I’m exhausted. I don’t want that life anymore."[1] Do biographies explore psychological states? We know that Vargas is not literally and legally an American citizen. But does any reasonable editor doubt that his identity as a "Filipino American" figures prominently into many of his life's decisions? This is someone who both spoke Tagalog at home with his grandparents and wrote journalistic pieces in English at a Pulitzer Prize-winning level. At our article Biography I find "a biography also portrays a subject's experience of…events". We should be representing the subject of the biography with representative terms. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's been made very clear that some readers find it confusing. When readers find a particular phrasing unclear and complain about it, we rephrase for clarity. That's basic copyediting 101. Yworo (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Please be more clear—what do you find confusing? Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Read all the responses. The confusion is clearly explained by several editors. Your ingenuous pose is boring. Yworo (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Another editor with an insult - or are you the IP? Tvoz/talk 03:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I see no insult. I'm merely mentioning my tedium with Bus Stop's pretenses of not understanding, which he uses on a regular basis. My guess is that it's some sort of Socratic method, which actually makes it a compliment. We're old friends, so don't get alarmed. Yworo (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just gotten some choice insults on my talk-page, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
<sarcasm>I'm sure you're just saying that because you don't like people with Native American blood.</sarcasm> Yworo (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, here's how it is not applicable to Vargas — follow the links: Jose Antonio Vargas is Filipino American — > Filipino Americans are Americans of Filipino ancestry and... — > Americans, or American people, are citizens, or natives, of the United States of America. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
At this article I find:
"The demographics of Filipino Americans describe a heterogeneous group of people in the United States who can trace their ancestry to the Philippines."
"69 Percent of Filipino Americans are foreign born, and 77 percent are United States Citizens."
"The census also found that about 80% of the Filipino-American community are United States citizens."
Doesn't this indicate that the term "Filipino American" includes non-citizens (of the United States)? Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Why would you think from that that the remaining 20% don't have legal permanent resident status rather than being undocumented immigrants? The former may reasonably be referred to as Americans, the latter may not. Yworo (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The question concerns the propriety of using the term "Filipino-American" in the lead. Here I read "Editor’s Note: Shortly after the publication of his tell-all essay in the New York Times revealing his undocumented status since age 12, Filipino-American journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize winner, sat down at his New York apartment for one-on-one interviews with television anchor Odette Keeley and editor Anthony Advincula, both of New America Media." Odette Keeley, in the video interview, also refers to Vargas as a "Filipino-American". Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
All these things have been pointed out, but he's still not an American citizen, despite what he calls himself or how the media refers to him. The use of the word has been reported as misleading my multiple independent editors. We won't be using it. Yworo (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As I've suspected from the beginning, Yworo's starting point here has to do with his feelings about undocumented immigrants. His post at 5:21 makes this plain. We can also see the inconsistency: non-citizens can be referred to as Americans, unless they're undocumented immigrants. Except that they have to be citizens. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That's defamatory. I have nothing against anyone, but I won't tolerate the misuse of the English language. WP:OPENPARA explicitly mentions permanent residents and this is not the place to change policy. If OPENPARA didn't say that, I'd personally exclude permanent residents as well, as also being inaccurate. Yworo (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, Bus stop, Demographics of Filipino Americans and Filipino American contradict each other. But let's make it simple... Somebody in the United States asks somebody else who lives in the United States "Are you American?" I've heard that before. According to you, the question doesn't make sense at all. So why do people ask? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they are contradictory, it's well known that few undocumented immigrants respond to census forms. We can assume that the percentage of undocumented immigrants included in those figures is near nil. Certainly not a significant percentage of that 20% Yworo (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No, they are contradictory. One clearly states the group includes citizens only, the other includes... whomever. But I'm more interested in an answer to the second part of my post. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's the obvious part. To Americans at least. Not sure who lives where around here. :-) Yworo (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Seb: sometimes people just don't make much sense. Or, sometimes they have narrow views about what makes someone an American. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Others clearly simply ignore common sense and WP:COMMONNAME. Yworo (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
So essentially what you're saying is that we should go with your preferred version because the majority of people in the United States don't make much sense and most of them are narrow-minded idiots? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Not at all -- there was no "because" there, nor was there "most" or "majority". But I do think that we shouldn't let the limitations of people's understandings get in the way of good presentation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Good presentation is what people understand, not what you think they should understand. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
And here I thought an encyclopedia was designed to help educate people, not to reinforce their prejudices. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to vocabulary and the way words are used, you are indeed mistaken. Glad we cleared that up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Nomoskedasticity, encyclopedias are supposed to educate people, not mislead them or present them with knowingly false information. You want to present your opinion as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
What reliable sources are being used to refute this information? Insomesia (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Refute what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Rather obviously what you have been arguing about. Is there reliable sources that state he's not Filipino American? Let's look at the most credible ones to see if they have a point. Insomesia (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't need sources for that because that's not what I want the article to say. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The article itself includes numerous citations that wouldn't allow Wikipedia to say that he's American. The author also acknowledges he's not American though is making a point when he does call himself one. There's also the definitions of Filipino American, Mexican American, Irish American, Italian American, etc. Additionally, the standard isn't refuting something, it's proving something. We can't just make up a fact like so and so "is the richest man in the world"...now prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk • contribs)
(You need to frickin' sign your posts, IP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC))
In other words, no, you have no sources that he's not Filipino American. Ergo we default to the subject of the BLP himself which says he is Filipino American and other evidence has been presented that confirm multiple uses of the description are used and he falls into one of the categories of people who can reasonably be called Filipino Americans. What remains is your opinion that it shouldn't be so but that remains just an opinion, not a reliable source. Default to Filipino American. Insomesia (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This document from the California State Library says "Filipino American describes a Filipino who has come to live in the United States permanently", not requiring citizenship. This bill from the Virginian State legislature (I think!) explicitly includes non-citizens as "Filipino-American". Of course there are also plenty of sources that only include US citizens in this class. My point is that the meaning of "Filipino-American" isn't so set in stone as many people here believe. Zerotalk 12:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
not requiring citizenship. Did you add that part to to the first citation above?--Malerooster (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The 2nd cite talks about "fellow citizens". --Malerooster (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
"Filipino-American journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize winner, sat down at his New York apartment..."[2]
"LOS ANGELES—'What do you want to do with me?' Pulitzer Prize-winning Filipino-American journalist Jose Antonio Vargas asked the members of the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday."[3]
"Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Filipino-American journalist, posted this on Facebook as he sat in the front row at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas where US President Barack Obama announced on Tuesday an overhaul of the US immigration laws."[4]
"'It was stunning,' observed Kelley. 'The star of the hearing was José Antonio Vargas [the Filipino American Pulitzer prize-winning journalist who announced publicly in 2011 that he was undocumented]… I think [it was] the first time an undocumented person who has come out as an undocumented person is testifying before the Judicial Committee.'"[5] Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, the sources you quote don't require neutrality. In fact, New America Media describes itself as an "advocate". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Seb—do you find any source indicating the inapplicability of the term "Filipino-American" to Vargas? Is this RfC primarily concerning the policy of WP:NPOV or is this an RfC primarily concerning the policy of WP:RS and the policy of WP:V? We have satisfied our policy of WP:NOR by providing sources such as the above. I think the onus is on editors such as yourself to show in what way the edit including the term "Filipino-American" that is being discussed in this thread runs afoul of our policy of WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with that assessment. I'm not advocating stating that he is, nor that he is not. The solution is to explain the controversy in words other than the equivalent of ticking some ethnicity-checkbox. And for that, there are ample sources already given, I don't need any new ones. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Seb—you are speaking of the "solution". The "solution" to what? Vargas is reliably sourced as being a "Filipino-American". And by the way, this can be hyphenated, if we choose to quote a reliable source. Your concern is that the term "Filipino-American" may imply that Vargas holds citizenship in the US. That seems like a fair concern. The "solution" is a second sentence. That sentence would read something like, "Vargas is not a US citizen." If the two sentences run consecutively, one clarifies the other. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The solution to the conflict here, obviously. You pretend that everything is clear and no problem at all. Well — why are we here then? Apparently, there are people who disagree with you. Or are you also taking the stance that they "don't make much sense" and need to change the way they use words? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Anything can be explained in an article (in my opinion) if it is reliably sourced. It is also reliably sourced that Vargas is not a US citizen. Therefore first we should create a sentence that includes a reference to his identity as a "Filipino-American". We should follow that with a sentence clarifying that Vargas is not a US citizen. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
To most people that will sound like Vargas is an American who is not American. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The policy of WP:OPENPARA is rather clear, unless the subject's ethnicity is primary in the subject's notability, the subject's ethnicity should not be included in the opening paragraph or the lead section. The subject is primarily notable for being awarded the Pulitzer Prize and for his advocacy regarding immigration. It wouldn't matter what the subject's ethnicity is in regards to his advocacy. The subject could be Mexican, Russian, Nigerian, or any other ethnicity; it does not impact his advocacy or how he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
If you see my opinion above, I gave examples of other biography articles where ethnicity is excluded and included in the lead paragraph, and why that happens to be the case.

As for the lead of Filipino American and Demographics of Filipino Americans. A consensus was formed before I began editing back in 2009, that followed the reliable sources that the term Filipino American is inclusive, not exclusive. That it covers the many citizens and legal immigrants, and the fewer illegal aliens who are of Filipino ancestry/descent in the United States. Therefore, yes the subject would fall within the scope of both articles. The inclusiveness of the term though does not alter the definitions of Americans, — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs)

I think we should simply state the reliably sourced fact that Vargas is not a US citizen after the reliably sourced fact that Vargas is a Filipino-American. Two consecutive sentences: "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino-American journalist. Vargas is not a US citizen." Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you said that. We can all repeat what we've said earlier. I see a close of no consensus coming up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Seb—our default position should be for the inclusion of reliably sourced material unless a good reason can be argued for omitting that material. You are arguing for the omitting of certain reliably sourced material. It is incumbent on you to present a good reason that the material in question should be kept out of the article. Do you have a source suggesting that the term "Filipino-American" should not be used as a basic characterization of Vargas? I have presented sources above that indeed characterize Vargas that way. I feel that sources matter. What source carries with it the implication that the sources that I have presented which indeed characterize Vargas as a "Filipino-American" are actually misrepresenting Vargas? If you don't have sources then it is merely your opinion that we should not be characterizing Vargas as a "Filipino-American" despite sources supportive of that terminology. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've explained it. You're simply being stubborn and twisting what I said into what I haven't said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)However, the subject's ethnicity has no impact on his notability. Please see WP:OPENPARA. I am not saying that the subject falls within the definition of Filipino American,I am not saying that the subject does not fall within the definition of Filipino, and I am not saying that the subject falls within the definition of American; what I am saying is that per the guideline, which is formed based on a wide consensus, the subject's ethnicity shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. The matter of the subject's ethniciity can be handled in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the first Filipino Pulitzer Prize recipient was Carlos P. Romulo.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Please find reliable sources for your point then. Plenty of reliable sources, and reliance on discourse precedent, have been pointed out that he's not Filipino American or American. I don't see why you're so adamant to have him called something he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "Filipino American" or omit ethnic tag entirely - There are clearly legitimate reasons to call this guy either Filipino or American. So either call him both or simply don't mention it at all. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
He is notable for being openly an "undocumented immigrant" (the term the subject prefers)(a.k.a. "TNT" (tago ng tago), illegal alien, etc.) and an advocate for reform of United States immigration policy. He is also notable for being a Pulitzer Prize recipient. His ethnicity plays no factor into his immigration status, his advocacy, or his work that lead to the Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, per WP:OPENPARA, as his ethnicity is not a factor as to why the subject is notable, it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph.
His ethnicity maybe mentioned multiple times, in reliable sources, but it has no impact on why he is notable. His ethnicity can be stated later in the body of the article, there is no need for it to be in the opening paragraph.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Except that we do the exact same thing on thousands of other articles where the exact same argument fails - that their ethnicity itself might not be the source of their notability. That's a double standard making Filipino Americans, or at least this one, meet some standard that simply doesn't exist for loads of other articles, many of them good and even featured level. Insomesia (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast - Ok. Partially agree in that it's probably more accurate to say he's notable for his "immigration status" than his "ethnicity". Unfortunately though, those two categories sorta overlap, because using the adjective "fillipino" could be an ethinic or national identifier. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
There is little reason to fail to mention that Vargas is "Filipino-American". This is a succinct introduction to the subject of the biography. Reliable sources use that terminology. "Filipino-American" tells us more than just ethnicity. It is suggesting a life in transition from one country to another. Vargas' notability involves accomplishments as a journalist and reasons pertaining difficulties of immigration. Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Please re-read OPENPARA:

Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

  1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
  2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
The context of the subject is going to be where the subject is a citizen, national or permanent residency.
As I have shown the ethnicity of the subject is not relevant to why the subject is notable. If the subject's ethnicity was any different it would not effect his advocacy, his work in journalism, or the Pulitzer Prize. He is not the first of X to do Y.
Therefore the context of the subject is going to be as I stated:

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident...

In this case the subject is a citizen and national of the Philippines, who does not have legal authorization ("undocumented", "illegal", etc.) yet resides in the United States.
In most cases, in other articles, the person's ethnicity is the same as the person's nationality, so it may appear that the person's ethnicity is in the opening paragraph, where it is not the case.
Please see the examples I gave above where the person's ethnicity is excluded from the opening paragraph, and where it is included in the opening paragraph and why as to the reasoning behind this guideline which I am referring to.
Furthermore, due to the contentious issue of the subject's legal status in the United States, I believe past consensus has been to side step the issue and leave it out of the lead paragraph in order to do so.
I am not contesting the verified information of the subject's ethnicity, I am following the guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You say "Furthermore, due to the contentious issue of the subject's legal status in the United States, I believe past consensus has been to side step the issue and leave it out of the lead paragraph in order to do so." There is nothing "contentious" about the subject's legal status. He is not a citizen. Reliable sources support both that Vargas is "Filipino-American" and "not a citizen". I think our article should make these two assertions, in two consecutive sentences, with citations after each assertion. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
We don't yet have a reliable source indicating that he's Filipino American. It's ironic because this also has to do with the subject of his "Define American," which seeks to start a discussion about what an American is. Seeing as how they are beginning to reopen that discussion, this is further reason why we shouldn't mention this at all....if what it means to be an American or "Ethnicity"-American is evolving. I'm sure many who didn't support him being called a Filipino American in the opening would also oppose any reference to it in the body, too. Again, Wikipedia doesn't get to decide who is what ethnicity or has what nationality. A user has already pointed out how NewAmericanMedia is an advocate. As for the Inquirer article: (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/63159/fil-ams-laud-obamas-good-news-for-1m-filipinos), while I am not 100% positive, I believe the writer of this article is Filipino (as the Philippine Daily Inquirer is a Philippine media source) and therefore may not have full comprehension of who would "qualify" as Filipino American. More importantly, the article itself lauded President Obama's immigration overhaul as "good news" and calls Vargas a "popular" public figure. The article doesn't present any opposing views. It is therefore a "questionable source" that we cannot cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources), as it is overly promotional. The Highbrow Magazine link only refers to a story written in NewAmericanMedia. Highbrow Magazine also refers to itself this way: "Highbrow Magazine® is a politically liberal, general-interest magazine covering News & Politics, Media, Arts & Entertainment, Food, and Travel."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 February 2013
Do you have any sources of your own to bring to this discussion? I notice that you have not brought any sources of your own at all. Your opinion is that "Filipino-American" is somehow incorrect terminology but you are apparently unable to bring any sources to bolster that argument. The term "Filipino-American" is a descriptive term. We have sources describing Vargas as a "Filipino-American". The objection has been raised that "Filipino-American" implies US citizenship. Therefore I suggested that we state that Vargas is not a US citizen. This is the total wording that I suggested: "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino-American journalist. Vargas is not a US citizen." I don't think that we have to suppress the terminology used by sources because a few editors don't like it. The terminology is very appropriate, in my opinion. The individually was born in the Philippines and lived with his grandparents (who originated in the Philippines) in the United States. He is educated in the United States and has achieved prominence in the field of journalism in the United States. To me he is very much "American" despite lacking US citizenship. Importantly, sources refer to Vargas as "Filipino-American". No doubt these sources are keenly cognizant that Vargas is not a US citizen. They are nevertheless using the terminology because it is somehow apt. We are allowed to build articles from sourced material. Characterizations of biographical subjects are part of creating a composite picture derived from sources of the individual written about. You can't just choose to suppress sourced information because you have a vague objection to it. And you can't just choose to suppress sourced information if the objections you raise are easily remediable. In this case, the objection that the term "Filipino-American" may mislead the reader into thinking Vargas is a US citizen is easily addressed (remedied) by simply stating right after the "Filipino-American" description the sentence reading: "Vargas is not a US citizen." Wikipedia has to be responsible. We are exercising responsibility by taking the steps of providing citations and correcting possible misunderstandings immediately after those potential misunderstandings arise. But I don't think we are required to write bland articles. Passions may run slightly hotter than normal on the issue of immigration to the US. As responsible editors we can include material favored by some and disfavored by others if that material is reliably sourced, not contradicted by other reliable sources, and not misleading to the reader. In the final analysis the reader should come away from the article with an understanding of the full range of views that have bearing on the subject or the biography. Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Summary - there does not appear to be a consensus to describe the subject as either a "Filipino journalist" or as a "Filipino American journalist". Therefore we are pretty much bound to leave the lead more or less as it currently is, without either nationality or ethnicity in the lead sentence. If there is any dispute about this, go ahead and count/list responses, etc. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yworo—Your initial argument in this thread was that referring to Vargas as a "Filipino-American" would be "misleading to our readers"[6]. Is this objection not addressed by following the sentence containing "Filipino-American" with a sentence reading "Vargas is not a US citizen"? I hardly think the reader is going to be mislead, assuming of course they read the next sentence. Do you have any sources to bring to bear on this discussion? Do you have any sources that may cast a shadow of doubt on the appropriateness of the term "Filipino-American" in this instance? Your edit summary reads: "when people start repeatedly asking for sourcing a negative, it's time to summarize".[7] You are not providing any sources whatsoever. Do any sources use any language that suggests that Vargas should not appropriately be referred to as "Filipino-American"? Please tell us why our Wikipedia article should not refer to Vargas as "Filipino-American". This is language used by some sources. The sources that I found a few days ago are posted above at 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC). Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not changing my mind, no matter how many tl;dr words you post. Neither, it appears, is anyone else. I'd think you'd know when to cut your loses and focus on some other interminable argument. Yworo (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yworo—your objection was that the terminology "Filipino-American" might mislead a reader into believing that Vargas was a US citizen. Is this objection not addressed by simply stating that in fact Vargas is not a US citizen? Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it's an apparent conflict and also violates the strong suggestion of WP:OPENPARA that we not detail ethnicity in the lead sentence. And I don't accept the argument that in this case the ethnicity is significant to the notability, since the subject would be just as notable were they to have a different ethnicity. There, I've repeated what I've said above since you don't seem to be able to extract my meaning from my multiple comments. Satisfied? Of course not... I didn't agree with you so now I will have to watch another 12 non-persuasive wiki-lawyering type comments from you. Sheesh. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The Philippines is a poor country, relative to the United States. The reason that Vargas came to the US "illegally" is because "his mother could not afford to"[8] send him to the US "legally". The term "Filipino-American" displays the disparity in the economies of the relevant countries. The motivation for Vargas' immigration was enhanced economic opportunity. I don't think WP:OPENPARA is intended to keep relevant information out of an introductory paragraph simply on the basis that the information happens to pertain to "ethnicity". The term "Filipino-American", besides being an indicator of ethnicity, can also suggest immigration, as it does in this instance. A term such as "Filipino" may be purely about "ethnicity", but a compound term such as Filipino-American is not just about ethnicity but also indicative of transition between different cultures and countries as we see concerning Vargas. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What I hear: "Whine whine whine whine whine. Whinity whine whine. Whine WHINE whine. etc." Have I mentioned that I'm done discussing with you? Please kindly stop posting responses to me. Go interminably pester someone else. Yworo (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What I hear is "Filipino-American" has multiple meanings and interpretations and one of them applies so we should use it. However, precisely because there are multiple interpretations possible, we should not use such terminology. However, in a WP:BLP we need to be as precise as possible and leave as little as possible for interpretations that are not specifically sourced. ergo... you have provided the overwhelming rationale for why we should NOT be using the term .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Did I say "Filipino-American has multiple meanings and interpretations"[9]? I said nothing of the sort. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
yes you did say: "The term "Filipino-American", besides being an indicator of ethnicity, can also suggest immigration, as it does in this " ie it has multiple meanings. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom—It is a composite term. The "Filipino" part of it is an indicator of ethnicity. But the full term, "Filipino-American", suggests the spanning of two cultures, represented by the two named countries in the composite term. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Clarity in a controversial BLP is an absolute requirement; and as you have proved, the term is subject to ambiguity that we absolutely need to avoid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, you just stuck bananas in your ears when other editors said so. Yworo (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yworo—"Filipino-American" is a descriptive term. It probably has no absolute definition. But when a reliable source characterizes a person as "Filipino-American" we have justification for using the same terminology. "Verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.[10]" We should not be removing reliably sourced material based merely on the opinions of a few editors. Bear in mind that neither you nor anyone supporting your position has brought any sources of your own. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What part of the fact that you have no consensus on this and you aren't convincing anyone did you fail to understand? Yworo (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yworo—sources are calling Vargas Filipino-American. That should be your only concern. Don't worry prematurely about wp:consensus. This is a Talk page and an wp:RfC. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not the only concern. Nor should it be, and you've been told that by multiple editors. The rest of us are willing to use a bit a common sense. The horse is dead, please back away from it and drop the bludgeon. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We cannot redefine "Something-American" to suit one's own political goals. Again, you don't have reliable sources. You keep asking about my sources....I don't have to write about them every time. Try googling what the word means yourself or looking at the respective wikipedia pages... In fact, a quick google search won't yield any reliable source calling him Filipino American. One reliable article calls him a "Filipino journalist" (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/jose-antonio-vargas-kicked-mitt-romney-event-202956423.html). In his Senate testimony, he made it a point to refer to his family that holds American citizenship as Filipino American (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/02/jose-antonio-vargass-immigration-testimony-156900.html). However much editors may want him to be an American or support him, unfortunately we cannot truthfully call him Filipino American or American. 70.44.58.168 (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
70.44.58.168—you say "We cannot redefine 'Something-American' to suit one's own political goals. Again, you don't have reliable sources.".[11]
The Los Angeles Times writes: "Vargas, a Filipino American, was part of a Washington Post team that won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting and had written a profile of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for the New Yorker before announcing himself as an illegal immigrant."[12]
The Los Angeles Times refers to Vargas as a "Filipino American". Would the Los Angeles Times be a reliable source? Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment An ethnicity is a strong political label, usually uncontroversial, but plainly not so in this case. I think the current article lead, which does not use these labels, addresses these issues evenhandedly and concisely, and so we needn't use a shorthand that aligns with one point of view or another. RayTalk 22:54, 27 February 2013 (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.

Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources

One editor, User:Bbb23, has blanked content verified by multiple reliable sources. The editor claims in their edit summary:

This material does NOT belong in article

Yet the content is about the subject and is related to the subject's immigration "reform" advocacy. Here are the reliable sources used to verify the content:

  • Don Tagala (9 October 2012). "Undocumented Pinoy Pulitzer-prize winner nabbed, released". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  • Steve Karnowski (8 October 2012). "Jose Antonio Vargas Arrested, Government Declines To Take Action Against Undocumented Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist". Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  • Matt Pearce (9 October 2012). "Illegal immigrant journalist avoids deportation over traffic stop". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  • Julia Preston (8 October 2012). "No Immigration Charges Filed Against Activist in Traffic Stop". New York Times. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  • Beth. "Reporter who wrote about life as undocumented immigrant arrested in Minnesota". Minneapolis Post. Retrieved 20 February 2013.

That being said, I don't see why this content does not belong in this article, as it is directly about the subject, his immigration status, and his advocacy effort. Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I will inform WikiProjects, which this article falls under, of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Ridiculous. This is obviously relevant material, properly sourced. The removals are inappropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems relevant. If it's not, someone should explain why. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's trivial and violates WP:UNDUE. Bbb23 was right to remove it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies to opinions or viewpoints. What is the viewpoint being disputed here? —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) ::per the NPOV nutshell "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." and Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." Including such detail about a traffic stop that resulted in no charges let alone convictions and hyping it to the level of a presidential decision is not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The reliable sources verify that the subject was charged with a crime, as explained by the content which was removed; however, the subject was not charged with violating federal immigration law, as explained by the content that was removed. This event relates to the notability of the subject as the subject has been verified, and is a self proclaimed, "undocumented immigrant" and the subject's efforts regarding "immigration reform". How this is undue and not relevant to the subject, I cannot fathom; I disagree with those who hold that opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps if the incident were presented in a different light, it would seem less like hype and more like biography.—Stepheng3 (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no legitimate, NPOV reason to include this. TRPoD is right -just because something is sourced does not mean it is appropriate to be included. In fact the only charge we know of was merely a misdemeanor, one which usually is adjudicated with just a ticket, so to call it a "crime" here is inflammatory, as was the way the article insertion had been written - nor is it supported by reliable sources it linked to. Nothing came of this traffic stop and as a BLP - with this talk page also covered under the policy - this is coming dangerously close to a violation of the policy. Bbb23 was completely right to remove the addition, and this conversation should be ended and archived. Tvoz/talk 08:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
First let me say that NPOV does not apply to talk page discussions, and perhaps I could have worded it alleged crime, but there are multiple reliable sources that verify that the subject of this article was arrested and charged with violating the law (a crime). NPOV does apply to content on the article page though.
The only time crime is used in the removed text is within the direct quote from the text sources to the New York Times, and is properly attributed.
As far as BLP is concerned, WP:GRAPEVINE does not apply here. This event received significant coverage from multiple major reliable sources therefore it is not a question of WP:UNDUE. It is a verified event regarding the subject of this BLP that received significant coverage in multiple major reliable sources.
If BLP applies here than other events covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources should be removed from other BLPs as well. The alleged use of steroids by Barry Bonds should be removed; the alleged events at Chappaquiddick should be removed from the Ted Kennedy Article, and on and on.
To this I say NAY.
If others disagree with the wording of the content, we can have a civil discussion and reach a consensus regarding wording, however to remove (blank) content that meets the criteria that I have shown apply, the blanking would therefore not be defended under BLP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I support the position of RCLC. Sure, it has to be worded neutrally, but it is significant in light of the subject's immigration status. Specifically, the material about how, while the subject was detained and could have been subjected to immigration policies regarding this, he was not. The alleged crime itself is really not that important and should be downplayed as much as possible, while focusing on the treatment wrt immigration status, which is highly relevant. Yworo (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this an example of WP:RECENTISM? I'm not sure. If it is to be included, I think it should be be digested down to a sentence or two. What is the upshot of all this? Is there a source commenting on the significance of that little scrape with the law? And is the significance relevant to the biography or is it more relevant to larger themes such as the President's policies on immigration? In the final analysis this is more an article about Vargas than an article about immigration policy. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I think those are really the right questions. The sources talk about what happened -- but if this is significant then it would have to be significant in the sense that there is analysis of its meaning. The incident itself is not significant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
By all means, boil it down to the focus on the significant portion, which there undoubtedly is. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
What is the significance? A source has to tell us that. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
And the sources do, so go ahead and read them. Yworo (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I was just looking over the sources that RightCowLeftCoast used in the article[13], and I find the term "Filipino American" used in reference to Vargas: "Vargas, a Filipino American, was part of a Washington Post team that won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting and had written a profile of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for the New Yorker before announcing himself as an illegal immigrant."[14] This is interesting vis-a-vis the discussion on this Talk page in the RfC above. The Los Angeles Times is surely a reliable source. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yawn. Yworo (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, I see we already had that source. But how was the Los Angeles Times deemed an unreliable source? Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
As to the question about RECENTISM, the event occured in October 2012, therefore it isn't really that recent, it is even before the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election, and after his more recent testimony in front of Congress (which was removed, also by Bbb23).
I agree with Yworo; if we look at the multiple major reliable sources the go into the significance of the event.
As to the Filipino American statement, let us leave that to the discussion in the other section of this talk page, there appears to be no consensus for including Filipino American to the lead paragraph, or lead sentence for that matter. Additionally, the Los Angeles Times reliable source uses the term "illegal immigrant" in describing the subject of this article, however there is a consensus of other editors to not use that term in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

← You miss the point about "recentism" - it is about longevity of "importance" or lack of same. This was a one-day story - not only does it not stand up to the 10-year test, it doesn't even stand up to a 10-day test, or even a 2-day test. There was no RS'd story after an initial one-day flurry of articles, and you haven't presented any evidence of any analysis or even continuing coverage of what ended up as a minor incident. Not even any followup stories about what happened when he went to court. There is no significance beyond what we already mention in the article about his being "in limbo" - i.e., not charged or detained by USCIS - since he revealed his immigration status, despite his very public appearances. That is implicit in the article and adding this incident is unnecessary and POV. And to connect this to Barry Bonds or Chappaquiddick, in addition to being an example of what we don't do - i.e., WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it also shows a lack of understanding that those matters have been extensively written about, for years, and are in many ways defining, central matters to those bios. To suggest that this even slightly approaches that makes the POV problem crystal clear. Tvoz/talk 00:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of WP:Recentism because Vargas first found out that his identity papers were forged when he first applied for a driver's license as an adolescent. This is a biography of Vargas. The significance of the driver's license in 2012 is part of a lifelong struggle with driver's licenses, which is part of a lifelong struggle with documentation required for other things. He couldn't go abroad on class trips because he didn't have the valid documents. He couldn't apply for financial aid for schooling because he lacked certain forms for verification of facts that would have been of little significance had he just been an American citizen. He is not a criminal. He has broken the law numerous times but he would be a model citizen if he were a citizen. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop I believe makes a good argument as to why the arrest is relevant, and is part of a longer thread of the subject regarding the subject's issues that have arisen due to documentation. Even the subject's preferred label of "undocumented immigration" goes directly to that being a central issue that is relevant to the subject.
As for the argument that the event did not receive coverage in the days after the arrest, which occurred on 5 October 2012, if we look for significant coverage that occurred a week after and later, we will see multiple significant coverage articles:
Although one could be considered American ethnic media, it is still significant coverage of the event more than a week after the event occurred.
If others believe that the content can be better summarized, and/or more neutrally worded I look forward in collaborating with other editors towards wording that a consensus can be formed around. However, I civilly disagree that the content should be removed outright.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
the longer thread of events has to be "threaded together " by some reliable source, not us. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would the NYT and other RS even publish an article about the traffic incident unless they thought it was notable? Surely they don't do this for every undocumented person, nor do they write an article about other notables for a similar traffic stop. The obvious reason is that his status and advocacy for undocumented persons is of interest to their readers. This can be included in a unassuming sentence.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The mere fact of publication in the NYT and other newspapers is, naturally, not a reason to put something into an encyclopedia -- if it were, we'd have a lot of work to do every day just to keep up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
However, there are articles that survive on NYT and news article significant coverage alone. The question is is the event notable. We have shown that it is through the indication of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. If this were a separate article it would survive AfD, yet here it is removed?
Moreover, other less notable "undocumented immigrants" are detained for driving without a license (NYT), or lesser traffic violations such as turning without use of a turn signal (CNN).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, using the argument used by Nomoskedasticity, content exist because of "The mere fact of publication in the NYT and other newspapers is" then whole articles such as the 2013 Southern California shootings, shouldn't exist. I can provide other examples, but let me post it before it is rebutted using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. That being said the reasoning is not consistent with common practices on WikiPedia. Also, I have shown that WP:GRAPEVINE doesn't apply here. So unless there is a valid reason to exclude the content I say that the content should be restored.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait, you're arguing that the traffic stop of Vargas would be notable as an event and we could have a separate article on it? That's priceless. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The event received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, it received continued significant coverage by at least three reliable sources, as I have shown above. This meets WP:EVENT, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.
Those who oppose inclusion have pointed towards POV and UNDUE, those of us who have supported inclusion have shown how UNDUE does not apply, and have stated that if more neutral wording is needed that we are willing to reach consensus. No, I don't like it, is not reason for exclusion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It is my humble opinion that there is a plurality of editors who support inclusion; that is consensus IMHO, as consensus is not unanimous (as has been pointed out by others to me in the past). We are awaiting a response from MC regarding the alleged BLP issue. It is my opinion that if MC does not provide a valid reason for exclusion by 8MAR2013, the content should be restored.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion most of what is of relevance to this article, concerning the incident of October 2012, is contained in this one source and can simply be conveyed to the reader in a sentence or two. I don't think this incident has as much to do with Vargas as it does with the recent application of immigration law to infractions of aspects of immigration law. Law enforcement has some leeway in how to apply immigration law, meaning that all infractions do not result in identical consequences. The New York Times quotes an agency spokeswoman: "ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes the removal of public safety threats, recent border crossers and egregious immigration law violators, such as those who have been previously removed from the United States."[15] Could Vargas have been detained longer? Probably. Could there have been other repercussions? Probably. The incident of 2012 probably sheds light on the application of immigration policy to a certain class of individual which Vargas probably falls into: he is not engaged in criminal activity; he has not just recently entered the United States, he arrived about 20 years ago; and he is a very accomplished journalist, contributing constructively to the society that he is a part of. I think that his minor brush with the law is of minor interest to this article. I would suggest that we use the following wording in our article:
"Vargas was arrested and briefly detained by officials in Minnesota for driving without a valid driver's license in October 2012. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were contacted but Vargas was released without any immigration charges being filed." Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I say be bold and add it.
BDD, Stepheng3, Bus Stop, Yworo, Little Green Rosetta, and myself (6) support inclusion of the content. Nomoskedasticity, TRPoD, Tvoz (3) support exclusion of the content. consensus is not unanimous, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. That being said, it appears that CONSENSUS of editors have been reached. Therefore, I will follow the consensus and re-add the removed content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I figured this is where you might be headed, and I was wondering a day or two ago if you could count. Since the answer appears to be... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Incivility is not welcomed (WP:AVOIDYOU), and does nothing in advancing the conversation. I see that the editor above reverted the re-addition of content even though a clear consensus of more than a simple majority of editors has evolved. This appears to go against the consensus and the edit summary "or let's not" is not sufficient reason for removal. This is not a bold re-addition of content, but a re-addition which has the support of the majority of editors (a consensus) who have been involved in this discussion.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and consensus need not by unanimous. Just because three editors object to the content, and the majority oppose exclusion of the content, that is not a reason for removing the content.

If the reverting editor wishes to open up an RfC regarding this content, or wishes to take this to DRN those are two additional options.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Still on "three"? Is the meaning of Bbb23's action opaque to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, RCLC, but you are making assumptions here. I do not support the re-inclusion of the original text, which length makes it WP:UNDUE. I support the inclusion of a single short neutral sentence as proposed by Bus stop above. (OMG I am agreeing with Bus stop!) Yworo (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I always said that I am willing to compromise about wording; if a summarized version of wording is acceptable to the majority of editors, it is something I am willing to agree to. That being said, we should not limit it down to a single (NYT) references. There are multiple references which can be used to verify the events that occurred, as well as unused references which I have provided which provide an outcome to the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The DRN discussion has been archived here:
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Abandonment of "illegal immigrant" by AP, etc.

The source for this passage doesn't indicate that the AP has stopped using the term because of Vargas's actions. I'm not sure it belongs in this BLP. Is there a source that makes the necessary connection? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point - but the way I reworded it, it doesn't say that it was a direct result, just that they did make the change and Vargas commented on it. I think it's ok as edited but I'm open to discussion -I'm not completely sure. (Did find the original link to be rather revelatory, and not exactly a surprise.) Tvoz/talk 06:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jose_Antonio_Vargas/Archive_2&oldid=1136854860"