Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jose Antonio Vargas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120429083731/http://joseantoniovargas.com:80/work/ to http://www.joseantoniovargas.com/work

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nationality?

Can someone explain how adding Vargas' nationality breaks the rules? Bbb23 claims that there was consensus to not include his nationality, but when I asked him to point it out, he childishly refused. I dug around on the talk page's history and archives and only found some discussion of it in 2013 (which was at that time, oddly enough, "Filipino-American"). Even if there was, consensus can change. But there doesn't seem to be any on his nationality. This user's only reason for reverting my edit was calling it a "biased change" (Is it a rule that editors can't make "biased changes" even if they're truthful? Show me that rule if it exists.) and he just didn't like it. So what is wrong with calling him Filipino since he is? THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 15:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that no-one is likely to engage with you if you pretend not to be aware of the reasons not to do this. You likely won't like the reasons -- that's your right -- but insisting that someone explain to you what is perfectly obvious isn't a promising strategy for discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Then explain what is so "perfectly obvious". THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 16:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do some research - you might read the article for starters. Nomoskedasticity is entirely correct, and I'm not going to explain this further either. (There was more than one discussion about this, fyi.) Please remember this is a BLP and subject to rules and practices regarding them. And by the way, I believe WP:5P2 speaks to your disingenuous question about biased edits. Tvoz/talk 23:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tvoz: What?! How hard is it to get a straight answer around here?! I believe you may have misheard me. Bbb23 said that I can't make any changes because I am biased. MOS:BLPLEAD says that the lead paragraph should include his nationality. I can even back that up with reliable sources. His desired nationality has no effect on his legal nationality. Find me a rule that says that we can't include the nationality of illegal immigrants or any consensus at all. Because frankly, I've only gotten really stupid answers so far. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

[moving this to the article talk page from my talk page where it did not belong.]

Well, I've spent a lot of time digging around for any sort of consensus relating to his nationality, but I've found nothing. Please stop beating around the bush. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 13:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As you've already been told by other editors, you appear to be trying to make a political point under the guise of "neutrality". Not going to work and I am not going to debate with you about this, as I said. And your rude comments aren't helping. BLPs endeavor to describe subjects in a manner consistent with how they describe themselves, especially when this is backed up by reliable, neutral sources. If you have done any reading whatsoever about the subject of this BLP, including but not at all limited to our article - indeed, dozens, hundreds or even more pieces written about him in major mainstream reliable media outlets and many, many tv appearances and even regarding his testimony at a Congressional committee hearing- you'd know that how one defines nationality is the central matter. We have appropriately chosen to not take a political stand here, omitting boiling down "nationality" to one word, and instead describing in words his complex identity: "Born in the Philippines and raised in the United States from the age of twelve", thus for the most part avoiding contentious arguments with people who are determined to get their political viewpoint into what should be a neutral biography. We do the very same thing in many articles, for example, Bee Gees, where arguments and edit wars over whether to describe them as English, British, Manx, Australian (or even American) were settled with this: "Born on the Isle of Man to English parents, the Gibb brothers lived in Chorlton, Manchester, England, until the late 1950s where they formed the Rattlesnakes. The family then moved to Redcliffe, in Queensland, Australia, and then to Cribb Island." And this not even in the first paragraph of the intro. Finally, and I mean finally, because I think you already know all of this but are pretending with comments like "I just want everything to be neutral like it should be" - the BLP MOS has no requirement for nationality - those are guidelines that are always subject to interpretation. Please stop this. Tvoz/talk 22:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tvoz: "BLPs endeavor to describe subjects in a manner consistent with how they describe themselves." Is that an actual rule? Because I'd actually love to see it. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with "rules", but that's not how it works here. There are policies and there are guidelines and there are suggestions and there is IAR. I've already explained why we do what we're doing in this article, as have others. And look up the definition of endeavor if you don't understand it. Stop it. Tvoz/talk 06:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

WAHHH! THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 12:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

On nationality in the first line, there certainly seems to be an agenda by Wikipedia people watching this page. He is Filipino. It's that simple. He may gain US citizenship eventually but at this point that is what he would be prior to receiving official status. Even people with Green Cards are not called Americans until they officially take an oath. Nationality status is not something chosen by an individual. As one person posting mentioned, this is quite obvious and 'Filipino' should be in that first line. If Wikipedia is going to allow people to apply their socio-political agendas on these boards, there really is a lot that can change on pretty much ever single page. Wikipedia should be only about facts, not preferences. NaturalEquality (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your understanding of nationality appears to be narrow/limited. It is not necessarily equivalent to legal citizenship status. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are broadening the understanding of nationality yourself, you have literally changed the planet because there are probably a hundred million people or more living in other nations who speak the local language and live and work among the locals and have done so for decades and decades, many all their lives, yet they do not have nationality status in those nations. They are not considered locals and if they were to use the nationality of the nation they live in to describe themselves, they would be laughed at. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have lived abroad for decades as well in places like the Philippines yet they do not identify themselves as American-Filipinos and the locals do not identify them as so either. Vargas is not an American. He has no papers of any sort given to him under honest circumstances by the government that identify him as being one. If your interpretation of nationality is in any way correct, the entire Wikipedia website needs to be re-edited to identify millions of people as having new national identification. Please prove your point here about his nationality instead of leaving some vague reference of "narrow/limited". Otherwise, changes are needed to this page and other pages. NaturalEquality (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

One last time. We do not list "nationality" in this article boiled down to one word or identified as such. Instead, as has been explained to you already - like the Bee Gees article, for example, we choose to use a narrative sentence to explain this. We aren't interpreting here and we aren't making decisions about other articles - we are choosing how to explain this particular complex situation in a way that allows the article to be stable and consistent with principles of BLPs and supported by reliable sources. It seems to me that you are the one pushing an agenda, and it's really not going anywhere. Tvoz/talk 23:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeated edits to alter nationality

I've reverted the most recent attempt by The Diaz to make edits identifying Vargas as Filipino (in reality, edits intended to erase Vargas's identity as American). It should be obvious by now that this sort of edit will require consensus on the talk page first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Some details on Vargas's Past including his use of IDs

Here is information about his life in America. Well, for what it is worth here is the link to the details at the NY Times. NaturalEquality (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a point in disingenuously posting this, seeing as it is one of our sources and has been since 2011? This page is not for airing of your opinions about the subject, it's to discuss improvements to our article. Tvoz/talk 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC: Nationality/citizenship

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 first sentence in the lead section acknowledge his Filipino nationality/citizenship by saying: "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino journalist, filmmaker, and immigration rights activist." or not? THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 01:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY

Survey

• Yes. It is standard procedure to include one's nationality/citizenship in the article. WP:BLPLEAD states that "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" We all know that country is the Philippines, as the U.S. obviously doesn't consider illegal aliens to be nationals. Many reliable sources describe Vargas as Filipino too. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 01:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Also, reliable sources call Vargas Filipino, but no reliable source says that he isn't Filipino. Even if one did, we can all agree that it would be a lie, which would throw its reliability into question. WP:WEIGHT and NPOV kick in. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 21:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, it should say " ... is an American journalist ...". The guideline is that context should be provided for where the person carried out the activities that made the person notable. Birth place and ethnicity should not be in the lead paragraph, unless relevant to the person's notability. He worked for the Washington Post, wining a Pulitzer Prize (an American award for journalism). He should be refered to as an American journalist. LK (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Leaning no: I get summoned by bot to a few of these "what is the BLP subject's nationality" RfC's every year. Usually, the sticking point is over some arbitrary, idiosyncratic analysis or superficial debate about whether to use a hyphen, with little ultimate relevance to the subject's notability. This is a very different, nuanced and complicated case, and I can see why the editors here have had a hard time coming to a lasting consensus. On the one hand, Vargas is certainly a Filipino, at least in the legal sense (and did, afterall, live there until age 12, so it's not like its an altogether technical association without any deeper meaning). Also in the legal sense, he is clearly not an American citizen. In fact, that latter status is rather a major element of his notability as an encyclopedic subject, so at first blush, this makes it even more likely that we'd discuss his nationality in the lead sentence. But here's the thing: Vargas' notability also hinges on a very distinct perspective/mission to reanalyze what being an American means. This means that if we were to ramrod in a definition which clashed with (or even seemed suggestive with regard to) his perspective that being American is more than a matter of citizenship, we would be staking out territory on the "accuracy" of that view, a topic we would need to try to approach WP:Neutrally in the very next few sentences, and throughout the article. That's going to lead to content that is awkward/confusing at best, and non-neutral at worst.

Further, it's not as if omitting a term which delineates a nationality in the opening sentence leads to ambiguity here, as it would in many other BLPs. Rather, much of the remainder of the lead provides the full story and context for why this is a complicated and pointed question with regard to Vargas, giving every reader more than enough information to come to a conclusion for themselves. Nothing is being hidden--indeed the subject's notability is a much larger and better covered topic in this lead than most. Balancing the factors here, I believe the most neutral, encyclopedic, and pragmatic approach here is to not explicitly label Vargas a Filipino or an American in the lead sentence. But his place of birth, the circumstances of his immigration, and his legal status (and to some small degree his perspectives on immigration) should be mentioned in the lead, if not the lead paragraph, in order to fill that gap. Having just re-read BLPLEAD for this discussion, jsut to be on the safe side, I'm convinced this approach is completely consistent with both the wording and the spirit of the guideline. And honestly, the present wording of the lead strikes a decent enough balance of these factors. I would advise against straying too far from the approach that seems to have been established here so far, which seems well reasoned to me. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and on a side note, I notice an awful lot of speculation above (coming from both "sides") about the supposed motives of the opposition. Please stop this: it is entirely possible to come down on either side of this issue without having the intent to erase (or augment) either his Filipino or American status. In any event, editorial motivation is a completely irrelevant factor in a content determination (and one which behavioural policy on this project asks you to not spend time opining over). Argue the point, not the editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• No -- I agree with LK, we should emphasise the place where he undertook the activities for which he has become notable. There's nothing all that important about his legal citizenship, certainly not to the extent of having it mentioned in the opening sentence. The rest of the lead section does what is needed in that regard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) This is slightly familiar. He does have a Philippine passport making him a Philipino. We know he wants to be an American, and is basically a permanent resident here from what I can tell. the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident. So that means "Philippine-Phillipino-American". I think Philipino is an apt and just identifier for the Subject. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• No As has been discussed and explained numerous times - the wording we use, Born in the Philippines and raised in the United States from the age of twelve, more fully and accurately characterizes his background than one or two words would. This satisfies BLP lead requirements and is appropriate for the intro section which is a summary of the rest of the article where we go into more detail regarding his specific status. We are not required to list nationality or citizenship per se and in this particular case it would be misleading and contradict the rest of the piece. User: Snow Rise captures the problem quite well and points out why this is a case where we need to be creative in our choice of words - this was carefully crafted to be neutral and practical and has allowed the article to be stable for a long time. As I've mentioned before, it's the same approach we took at Bee Gees where a longer description of their background (Born on the Isle of Man to English parents, the Gibb brothers lived in Chorlton, Manchester, England, until the late 1950s where they formed the Rattlesnakes. The family then moved to Redcliffe, in Queensland, Australia, and then to Cribb Island.) finally ended the arguments about whether they should be described as English, British, Manx, Australian, or even American. And here it is even more important, because it is central to his bio. Finally, there is overwhelming reliable, neutral sourcing for this. Tvoz/talk 06:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• No. Given his unique circumstances I would leave it as it is. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• No per MOS:BLPLEAD context. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• No, but it should be more clearly covered in the body of the article. (summoned by the bot) I understand where the concern comes from....this article does follow the PC rulebook...with the activist being from one side of the political spectrum, that the article is worded and focused the way that he would want it. But making a big point of his technical nationality, and in the most prominent place in the article is not encyclopedic and is biased in the other direction. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• No. The first sentence of the lead need not and should not say "Filipino journalist" etc. This may be technically true but that pointed fact can be spread out and interspersed with related facts that are integral to the story of Jose Antonio Vargas. He is an "immigration rights activist". We learn that in the first sentence. In the second sentence we learn that he was "[b]orn in the Philippines and raised in the United States from the age of twelve". We then briefly mention prestigious awards and then it is on to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead where we pointedly say "[i]n a June 2011 essay in The New York Times Magazine, Vargas revealed his status as an undocumented immigrant in an effort to promote dialogue about the immigration system in the U.S. and to advocate for the DREAM Act, which would provide children in similar circumstances with a path to citizenship." There is controversy surrounding the man, no doubt about it. But by spelling out the controversy in a measured way we actually enhance neutrality. That is accomplished by the interspersing of related facts. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Lawrencekhoo: The only mention of context in WP:BLPLEAD is: "3. Context (location or nationality);" (location would be "in the United States", nationality would be "American"). The only mention of notability relating to nationality is "…the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.". Vargas is notable for being a Filipino illegal alien living in the United States. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 07:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the sources and our content, it seems to me that he is notable for being an illegal alien living in the United States, period. The Filipino element seems tangential, insofar as his notability is concerned. Anyway, even if we grant your word ("Vargas is notable for being a Filipino illegal alien living in the United States."), all of that detail seems to be well-covered in the lead as it is written. What is required here is that we present a full and neutral picture of the facts and the source of the subject's notability. Those priorities do not require (and are sometimes incompatible with) a rote, pro forma approach; not every lead sentence of every BLP has to follow the same precise formula; the approach has to be based in part on the particular complexities and needs of covering each subject. This is why BLPLEAD is written in fairly broad strokes, and also includes a few "generally"- and "usually"-type terms. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: While I thank you for your vote, the only thing that seems to be keeping you from voting yes is his organization. Vargas isn't even considered a U.S. national. He is an only illegal alien and the country that considers him a citizen (and a national) is the Philippines. About your skepticism which I assume is because of his organization, you admitted that he wasn't an American citizen and you admitted that he is even notable for not being American. But what I'm hearing is that you don't want his nationality said because of him owning an organization that wants to redefine "what it means to be an American". Define American is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline and it should not be a factor in this because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. His article isn't meant to advocate for or against him nor is it meant to promote any pro-illegal immigrant propaganda or the false claim that he is American or stir any doubt that he is Filipino. I can also provide many sources that call him Filipino at request if you need. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 16:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diaz. I don't think you've really parsed my comments to mean what they were intended to mean. I don't believe the current reading suits because it supports or promotes Vargas' stance on his "Americanness"; it doesn't, and insofar as I can tell, it was written to avoid taking a stance in Wikipedia's voice (either way), which is good. And while I did state ("admitted" suggests the person you are discussing with made an incorrect or false statement previously and then had to backtrack, while these are my first comments here) that he is notable for being a non-citizen immigrant, I did not say that he is notable for not being American; those are two very different (if obviously interrelated) things. And because of the context, that distinction very much matters here in how we present the information to the reader. We shouldn't phrase anything in such a way as to prejudice the reader (even in a minor way) as to the subject matter of the content that will follow, especially if we don't need to in order to present a full and detailed description of the context. And the way the lead is written now seems to balance these needs as well as the might be under the circumstances. It doesn't in any sense obscure his Philippines origins, or the status of his citizenry, but rather puts both of these facts rather explicitly forward, but with proper context rather than just the one word you want to hang your hat on here.

Indeed, any time we use a simple statement like "X is a Canadian geologist" or "Y is a Saudi-American author of...", we are using generic terminology which may end up proving controversial. This is because terms denoting nationality are inherently vague and our WP:reliable sources (primary and secondary) do not all use the same exact metric to arrive at a statement of an individual "belonging" to a given nation. It's just that for most biographical articles, those terms are neither particularly controversial nor a topic which is itself a part of the subject's notability. But, as I noted in my !vote above, these discussions are not exactly unheard of on Wikipedia, either. In such cases it is best to take an approach which most neutrally presents the full context. Of the options discussed here so far, I feel the present wording of the article (avoiding calling him either Filipino or American in the opening sentence, while going on to explain where he was born, when he immigrated, and the notable public discourse on his status in America) is the most transparent and neutral approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: "But making a big point of his technical nationality, and in the most prominent place in the article is not encyclopedic and is biased in the other direction."

How?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 22:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@THE DIAZ: First, I think that I'm with you in spirit, but not to take it to the degree that you advocate. First, if you look at all of the coverage, the fact that he is in the US illegally is certainly very prominent, but that of technical country of citizenship is less so. So IMO this would get reflected in the article coverage, and then, by the lead being the summary of the article, in the lead. And IMO weight is given in many ways besides just amount of words. The position of being in the lead sentence of the lead is one of those. Second, one could say that there is a tussle going on between the people who would say that by various methods he sort of is an American and just has the little "documentation" problem. The other would be to emphasize that he is not an American, he is here illegally. Stating country of citizenship is a way to make that statement. Labeling the person overall by that status (e.g. Filipino journalist) takes that an additional step further. So my own approach to NPOV would be to not go quite that far in the most prominent sentence in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: NPOV means neutrality based on reliable sources. Is there any reliable source that falsely says that he's an American? (If so, the reliability of said source should be questioned.) There are ones that call him Filipino, but no reliable sources that say that he isn't. It's the same reason that Richard Spencer is being called a white supremacist. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: I hesitate to debate you on this because I think I'm with you in spirit if not in degree. But reluctantly here goes. First, if one follows my recommendation, it would call for including what you wish but not in the first sentence in the lead. IMHO your argument to me has some structural problems. You started with a vague statement of wp:NPOV and then moved to a specific which is not covered ther. Certainly policies would prohibit saying that he is an American citizem and encourage saying that he is a Philippine citizen. But that is not a discussion about whether to put put such in the first sentence of the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: What's the best wording for this article in your mind? THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 02:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

IMHO (my quick idea) On the core issue: take his talking points ("I am an American. I just don't have the right papers") out of the lead, and, then leave the rest of the lead as it is with respect to that question. North8000 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I utterly oppose this idea, although I know it is made in good faith. This is who he is. Tvoz/talk 01:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)