jose Antonio Vargas

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 Wiki 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)