Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Inappropriate tag

because 1) the refs aren't bare URLS, each one has a text part that is the visible explanation of the URL and 2) the references are all web and none are print based. Welcome to the internet age. Lycurgus (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

I have raised WP:BLP issues over recent edits over at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jose_Antonio_Vargas. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

IP editors continue to make the claim that Vargas stated he was an illegal immigrant. He does not. He states that he is an undocumented immigrant; the only time he mentions the term "illegal immigrant" is when he says that he felt like he had that tattooed on his forehead - that is not an assertion of fact. Other people have put that appellation on him, but it is false to claim that he "admitted" to being an illegal immigrant. Please review WP:BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NatGertler here and have commented on the BLP Noticeboard about this - I am asking others to stop edit warring and discuss. "Undocumented" is a neutral term used in the source article that is self-explanatory; "illegal" is POV and introduces a conclusion that we shouldn't be making. Tvoz/talk 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I'm not arguing about which term should be in the article. "Undocumented" is a relatively recent POV "re-branding" of the issue. Mr. Vargas is clearly an advocate of those who are illegal immigrants, and naturally uses the POV term to make fuzzy whether or not what they are doing is illegal. Just to put my cards on the table: I absolutely support Mr. Vargas (he is an acquaintance who has interviewed me before, and we have some close friends in common) and I take a generally pro-immigration stance and think cases like his illustrate the idiocy of some aspects of current immigration policy. But even so, I think it is worthwhile to note that "undocumented" is not neutral, but a word designed and promoted deliberately to favor one side of the debate. I think none of this is absolutely conclusive about what this article should say. Even a word designed to push an agenda may be the correct word to use, per WP:COMMONNAME.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT category...

I removed this category since the subject's sexual orientation isn't really covered in the article. I was reverted since ITS IN THE FRICKING ARTICLE, ect...also, I like the edit summary about a user's frustration with other editors, maybe its time to find another project to work on!. If the subject's sexual orientation is notable and reliable sourced and self identified, and the subject writes on HIV issues, so that makes sense, then maybe, maybe, expand, work it into the article, if applicable (no opinion either way, though I am a minimalist/deletionist for the record). Then the categories make sense and would be approriate, otherwise I would leave out for now. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you did, 3, and am glad you mentioned it, as the text should have reflected the fact that Vargas is gay, and has written about it. I therefore agree with Moncrief's reinstatement of the cats to accompany the addition of relevant text. Tvoz/talk 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant

Which terminology should be used when describing Jose Antonio Vargas? Options:

1. "Undocumented immigrant" should be used.
2. "Illegal immigrant" should be used.
3. Both "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" are acceptable terms.

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your BLP noticeboard link appears to be to a cached copy, not the current one.173.15.206.101 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Link fixed. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

From BLP noticeboard (link):

Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article subject revealed in an article that he was an "undocumented immigrant", his phrasing. An IP editor has repeatedly tried to recast this term, and have included BLP violations in edit summaries. Subject has not been charged with a crime in this regard, much less convicted. Another editor added a category that is similarly problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a difference in the USA but it seems a bit of a fine point, perhaps unworthy of dispute over. Some papers are simply reporting illegal immigrant - MSBN for example - Pulitzer-winning journalist admits he's illegal immigrant - and civilliberty.com prefer Undocumented - Illegal Immigrants or Undocumented Immigrants? - I myself would suggest that as BLP requests us to write conservatively in regard to living people I would lean towards the less attacking terminology but its an emotive issue as you can see from the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I also removed a LGBT category since the subject's sexual orientation isn't coverd in the current version. (That went over like a lead balloon) Maybe add it going forward if that is worked into the article in an approriate way. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT id has been taken care of by adding text and reinstating cats - thanks for bringing it to our attention. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

← I agree with Rob here - BLP policy does indeed favor using less attacking, NPOV terminology, and "undocumented" is clearly less POV than "illegal". There are 2 IPs who seem to be single-purpose accounts editing with an agenda - see the edit summaries for these edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Undocumented immigrant" is a legal state that doesn't exits in the United States, only in completely open immigration/no extradition countries such as Argentina. The term in the US is "illegal immigrant"...this is used by the US government and it's legal system. As for edit warring, I suggest that you don't start a call for an end to edits after reverting the article to your POV. That's an action in bad faith on Wikipedia. 173.15.206.101 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the presented externals above there clearly is an option for both expressions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with the term "undocumented immigrant". It's often used in legal decisions as a descriptor. In any event, what requires that it be a correct legal term (or, as you put it, "legal state")? The term is used because it is supported by the source. Your belief that "illegal immigrant" is less POV is simply your opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if he is charged and convicted with something illegal then we can go with the illegal phraseology, until then the cited and less attacking expression seems to sit better within WP:BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's Wikipedias place to redefine terms (now an illegal immigrant is only someone who is "charged and convicted..."?) or to create/support new euphemisms. It smacks of original research. As for the statement that the article supports the use of the term...the article you are using to support that was written by the subject. Slight conflict of interest. The numerous other articles on the subject by independent journalists who refer to him as an "illegal immigrant" were removed as sources from the article during editing because they didn't support "undocumented immigrant". If I opened someone's head with a drill saw and then wrote an article about it describing myself as an "undocumented brain surgeon", would you go with that as the descriptor?173.15.206.101 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Undocumented" is a neutral word; "illegal" is a judgment call, with a negative POV. BLP policy is to go with the most neutral phrasing - as per NatGertler, BBB23 and Off2riorob above. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Have to say, I don;t think there was a need for this RfC, as the discussion at the Noticeboard was sufficient. Tvoz/talk 04:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the RfC tag and converted it into a normal discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I prefer "undocumented immigrant", which is not inflammatory, whereas "illegal immigrant" carries a clear negative connotation. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• How do the majority of reliable sources refer to him? Has the useage of either term caused a firestorm of sorts? If so, maybe include a brief note.....errrr, forget it, no opinion, I hate "labels" in BLPs since they are hard to pin down and make all parties happy..just curious what/how most RSs deal with it...good luck...--Threeafterthree (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• I just wanted to point out that "undocumented" is, as a matter of history and etymology, the POV term. The use of the term has been put forward in a pro-immigation attempt to reframe the debate in the US. There is no such legal status as "undocumented immigrant" - but there is such a legal status as "illegal alien" - the term is "used in many statutes" (according to Wikipedia). I am here to merely make this observation, not to argue which term should be used in this article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  That is no doubt true, Jimbo, but we're not making a legal argument here, we're writing about a particular individual quoting sources calling him "undocumented". And I would still assert that "undocumented" is more neutral here than "illegal", as Vargas' legal status has not been determined. I also don't think this is a big deal, however, but so far consensus seems to be for "undocumented". Tvoz/talk 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• As Jimbo pointed out, "undocumented immigrant" is actually the POV term as it has become a more sympathetic term generally used by immigrant advocates who allege that using the word "illegal" is derogatory. Also, there have been numerous sources calling him "illegal". Illegal immigrant is the appropriate term given that it is a precise description of immigrants who have an unauthorized occupancy in a country. Undocumented immigrant is a confusing term as many illegal immigrants overstay their visas or use counterfeit or fake documents. Truthsort (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Be that as it may, I agree with you being reverted in this edit. Whatever he is, it isn't correct to say "Vargas wrote that he is an illegal immigrant". It's pretty clear that he deliberately, politically, purposefully chose the wording 'undocumented immigrant'. We can't say he called himself an illegal immigrant, for sure. He didn't--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, then I propose putting quotes around it as well as to wikify his self-description to illegal immigration to the United States since the term is informal. Truthsort (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

US National

Does anyone know how Vargas isn't a US national, being descended from people born in the Philippines between 1898 and 1946? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.70.64 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We aren't here to discuss the subject, just how to write the article. Try the blogs. Tvoz/talk 19:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post

An IP wants to add material that says that the Post knowingly violated federal law. The IP includes a quote from the Vargas NYT article. The quote is accurate. The other assertion is NOT supported by the Vargas article. None of the material belongs because it's a side issue that has more to do with how one editor at the Post handled Vargas's comments to him, as opposed to Vargas himself. But the accusation is unsupportable, and the insertion is no doubt WP:COATRACK. I have reverted the addition twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the latest version, because it doesn't really follow the sense of the section - it's dropped in out of nowhere - and is potentially libelous. Also not written particularly well, as the Post didn't "continue to hire" him - he was already working there. And the level of detail about the POst doesn't belong here - this is not an article about them. It was an improvement over the original comment about federal law violation, but is still not appropriate as added. Finally, I warned the IP about 3RR which he/she is already in violation of - this is the place to discuss, and try to reach consensus about what, if any, of this can go in. Tvoz/talk 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Further, it would be better to find reliable secondary sources analyzing Vargas' article, and his relationship with the Post, than to use a long quote from his article - a primary source - and interpreting it ourselves. Tvoz/talk 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The original Wiki article provides a section on Vargas's employment at the Washington Post. The most newsworthy issue of the Post's employment of Vargas is that the Post was in violation of federal law for hiring Vargas, according to Vargas. It's well-known that hiring an illegal alien is illegal; it's also well-known, that if it becomes known to the employer that an employee is barred from employment as a result of being in the country illegally, the employer must immediately end the employment. The "continue to hire" language should be changed to "continue to employ." The reason this was newsworthy, is because, according to Vargas, the Post decided to continue employment for a period of five years. Now perhaps this should be placed on the Washington Post wiki, but I suspect it would be erased there, too. Should a new Wiki page titled, "Employment of Jose Vargas" be created? It seems prudent to provide such information on the existing page dedicated to Vargas, especially in light of the fact that there is an existing section focused on his employment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that your assertion would be rejected at the Washington Post article, and any article that you tried to create about Vargas's employment would probably be deleted. The Vargas article is about Vargas, not about the Washington Post. The section on the Washington Post details what he did there as a journalist, not any alleged problems he or the Post incurred vis-a-vis his employment. If the Post is ever chraged or penalized for hiring or employing illegal aliens, that might be relevant to the Post's Wikipedia article. You don't even have that. All you have is your own interpretation of federal law that you want to inject into this or some other Wikipedia article. It's not even a close call. It has no business being in the Vargas article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

IP71, please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - Wikipedia policies against original research. Saying "it's well-known that..." is not the way we source articles - you need reliable sources who provide their own analysis, and draw their conclusions, and tie that analysis to Vargas - not the assumptions that you are making, however true they might be. The standard here, for better or worse, is verifiability, not truth. Of course we want things to be true, but no matter how "well-known" something might be or how obvious a conclusion might seem to you, it's not something we add to articles unless we have good sourcing making the point. As for the specifics here - no, we aren't going to have an "Employment of Jose Vargas" article. Also you haven't demonstrated that the particular story about the Post that you selected out of his long Times article was more notable than the other stories he related - again, it's your own assumption and analysis, not that of independent sources. Tvoz/talk 03:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

re: "the particular story about the Post that you selected out of his long Times article was more notable than the other stories he related." The Wiki section is about Vargas's employment at the Post. The quote is from Vargas, and it's about his employment at the Post. It's consequently more notable (and obviously more relevant) than an excerpt about his employment at Subway, which he briefly discusses in the article. Now if you add a section titled, "Vargas's Employment at Subway," I suspect you'd want a quote from his article about his employment there. As for an independent source, I've located one, and I'll make the edit now. I believe this will meet all of your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your latest material has also been reverted. Some of the sources are political blogs and are unreliable. Even if those were removed, the material doesn't belong as it has nothing to do with this article or this section. You must stop trying to reinsert this material.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

First, blogs written by lawyers and journalists are reliable for the purpose of proving that "some experts and journalists" have raised questions, no? Secondly, where would you suggest information about Jose Antonio Vargas's employment issues at the Washington Post be located on Wikipedia? I assumed that information about Jose Antonio Vargas's employment at the Post would be most appropriately placed in the Wiki article on Jose Antonio Vargas, and secondarily within the subsection on Jose Antonio Vargas's time at the Post, but if you have a better suggestion, I'd like to hear it. His illegal employment at the Post generated a significant amount of controversy within newsrooms (the S.F. Chron, Seattle Times, Wash Post) and it seems odd that Wikipedia would have no place for an airing of the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are generally unreliable sources period. What is up for discussion here is whether material is appropriate to this article, not whether it is appropriate somewhere else on Wikipedia. Your argument that it relates to Vargas's "employment at the Post" is misguided. The section on the Post has to do with his journalism at the Post, not about some possible statutory violation by the Post. You've been told this before. You just insist on adding this material, and there's no basis for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I was told "it would be better to find reliable secondary sources." I located 5, some being from newspapers and a research organization, and still got erased. I'm told that a section in Vargas's commentary about his employment at the Post is not "notable" for the purpose of adding it to the section about his employment at the Post, an illogical response to say the least, which I tried to explain; still got erased. I've already been told that the same information would be removed from the Wiki entry on the Washington Post. The only option left, it seems, is to create a "Controversies" subsection on this entry, or perhaps on the Post's entry, as Wiki has done on a number of other entries? What took place was obviously highly controversial, as a number of lawyers, journalists, and think tanks have pointed out. Are "controversy" sections banned from entries on newspapers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Immigration status

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted the removal of content from the infobox. Now the term "illegal immigrant" maybe as controversial as "undocumented immigrant" due to the controversial nature of the underlying issue. As an advocate for the DREAM act, immigration amnesty, and as a self-outed illegal immigrant the subject made himself known for his illegal/unlawful immigration status. If there is a neutral term for this status I maybe OK with that, but removal of the status all together, as it is supported by multiple references in the article is not something I think is in the best interest of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As stated by Jimbo Wales it appears that the correct term in law is "illegal alien", this is a term I would be OK with using. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on WP:BLPN where this has been discussed before, as well as here. In the meantime, I will revert the article back until this has decided. There was a consensus on the "undocumented immigrant" vs. "illegal immigrant" issue, and you are (1) tampering unilaterally with that consensus and (2) by sticking "illegal immigrant" in the infobox you are creating a BLP issue. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, the article should remain without the negative material in the infobox until and if you can reach a consensus otherwise. Feel free to contribute at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no merit in Wikipedia editors (including Professor Wales) getting into discussions regarding their own views about what the right term is. This issue is easily resolved by sticking with what Vargas has said about himself in this regard (undocumented). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what Wales was told by User:Tvoz when Wales made the comment, although Wales himself made it clear that he was merely discussing his views on the meanings of the terms, not what should or shouldn't go in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of previous consensus, and I would like to refer to WP:CCC regarding the previous consensus. Keeping with WP:BRD, as I stated, I opened this discussion.

Both the terms "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" both are weighted terms that carry a POV, therefore neither term is neutral, therefore I suggest we then look to WP:WEIGHT. The use of the term "undocumented immigrant" is used by the subject as he is advocating for the passage of the DREAM Act (which gives amnesty to individuals who share similar immigration history). This is clearly documented in the article.

As for the proper terminology, as Jimbo Wales stated, is "illegal alien", the legal term.

As for different terms regarding the subject, even though one can counter with WP:GOOGLETEST, the intersection of the subject with the term "illegal immigrant" comes up with 226K hits; the subject and "undocumented immigrant" comes up with 681K hits, and the subject and "illegal alien" comes up with 174K hits.

This makes sense as the subject uses the "undocumented" term himself, and thus supporters or other advocates who would be rallied to his cause would be more likely to use the term. That being said completely leaving out the two other valid terms would not be keeping with WP:WEIGHT either.

Perhaps a footnote would be an appropriate remedy? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wales is not a lawyer, and even if he were, his opinion as a lawyer on what is the "correct" legal term would only be his opinion. Last I looked, lawyers often disagree with each other. And this isn't about what is the correct term - it's about what Vargas says about himself and about what other reliable sources say about him that is otherwise noteworthy, etc. Either way, sticking this in the infobox is over the top. As for a footnote, where would you want the footnote, and what would it say?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Only using the term preferred by the subject of the article would give it, and the point it attempts to advocate undue weight. As the term "undocumented immigrant" is used more often in relation to the subject, it has the most weight, and should be dominate, but due weight should be used for the other terms (even if used more sparingly).

Given the intro of this article highly emphasizes his Pulitzer Prize, his advocacy for the DREAM Act and his "coming out" as an undocumented/illegal immigrant I think we can agree that he is highly known for all three of those things, and as such should be included in the infobox, whatever that terminology maybe.

As for the subject's citizenship, this news article clearly shows that the Government of the Philippines will assist him as they would any other Philippine Citizen.

As for the footnote, if that is the compromised consensus that ends up being used, I think it would be after the use of whatever term is used in the infobox.

As another user has referred other editors at BLPN, I will notify the talkpages of related wikiprojects using the pls see template, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Keeping with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I have notified past editors who are interested in this topic. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, RCLC. As has been said, we went over exactly this ground more than once - the way the article is worded is precisely right, in my view. We are quoting Vargas, and indeed this is how he identified himself, and so we concluded that we should have the phrase "undocumented immigrant" in quotes, saying that he called himself this. Nothing has changed regarding this, no new information presented. I personally saw "undocumented" as more neutral than "illegal"; Jimmy Wales disagreed and wrote about how the terms have been used to promote one or another viewpoint. But Jimmy also clearly said that his opinion about how the words are used out there was separate from how they should be used in this article, which is talking about how Vargas describes himself - and I wholeheartedly agree. No one is "rallying to his cause" by quoting him. And he is our only source, of necessity, for his immigration status - not the article about the Philippine government - so it is appropriate that this is what we quote. Anything else is flirting with OR. I don't see any weight issue here - that might be true if this were an article about undocumented or illegal immigrants - but it is not, it is a BLP about a notable journalist - his life and career.

As for the infobox - I see no reason to address his nationality there - putting it in the infobox, it seems to me, is an attempt to make a point which is inappropriate for the infobox. Many infoboxes omit the nationality and other fields - see articles on The Bee Gees and numerous other English/British (depending on your point of view) individuals for example. Since Vargas's nationality/citizenship is appropriately explained in detail in the article, we're better off not trying to boil it down to one word in the infobox. (His point - he is an American, just doesn't have the papers. I don't think we should put that in the infobox either, but this is why it's not that simple. We are again veering into OR/synth by making a statement about his nationality there.) Similarly, the Pulitzer is more appropriately in an "awards" field, where I moved it, and the "known for" field is optional and should not be used to make a point either. We list his occupation/profession, we list his award, and adding any references to his immigration status to me is beyond the appropriate use of the infobox. Please note that this article was started in April 2009, long before Vargas wrote about his immigration status, and no one questioned the notability of the subject before his revelation, so it's questionable as to whether that is what he is "known for". It's a matter of opinion, and I think we're better off leaving it out of the infobox. Tvoz/talk 03:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, only using the term "undocumented immigrant", even though it is attributed gives the term undue weight. The other terms are used by multiple reliable sources, and mention that his status is described as X & Y should be stated in a neutral way that does not advocate either term, as only including one phrase IMHO does.

No one is questioning his notability, what is in question is the neutrality of the article's content.

Per VER & RS, it can be well documented that the subject is a Filipino person and is only a Citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, therefore it should be included somewhere in the article. If it is the belief of other editors that including that in the infobox gives those facts undue weight, that is definitely something that can be discussed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, if he is primarily notable for being a Pulitzer Prize recipient then information regarding his immigration status and his advocacy work while continuing to unlawfully reside in the United States should be reduced to a sentence or two, with the majority of the content regarding that be given it's own section within his Personal life section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. The infobox is the wrong place for this sort of information. Nor do I see it as being sufficiently important to put in the body (his citizenship). I don't see the article as non-neutral. And the Pulitzer for journalism is a big deal for a journalist and has nothing to do with his personal life.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement regarding the Pulitzer Prize being the primary reason why the subject is notable is meant to mean that since we can all agree that this award is the primary reason why the subject is important that it should be the primary part of the lead.

Thus any information about his ethnicity, his immigration status, his "coming out", and advocacy is given to much weight in the lead, and should be summarized down to a sentence or two. Any other content can be covered in a section in his personal life section.

As for two editors agreeing, majority opinion doesn't equal consensus, therefore further discussion is needed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that the Pulitzer is the "primary reason" why he's notable. I just said it was a big deal. We have more than two editors who disagree with many of your comments (Nomosk above). But I have no problem seeing if anyone else wants to contribute to this discussion. At this point, though, there is no support for your proposed changes to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The majority of the article is regarding his career as a journalist, and the prize he received due to it. Therefore, including a large section of the lead to the subject's immigration status and advocacy is not keeping with WP:LEAD, and gives that undue weight to smaller parts of the article. This is the reason why I am proposing a change in the lead.

Making no change regarding the term the subject prefers to use for his immigration status means that there is still a phrase given undue weight, especially given that other reliable sources have used other equally valid terminology. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In a recent edit another editor removed a wikilink related to an action that lead to the initial illegal immigration of the subject, stating in the summary:

incorrect wlink - that's not what family reunification is about

— User:Tvoz

However, in the section that the wikilink lead to stated exactly the action which occurred:

Some illegal immigrants seek to live with loved ones, such as a spouse or other family members.

— Illegal immigration#Family reunification

The action which created the illegal immigration is as stated in the article:

In 1993, when Vargas was a child of 12, his mother sent him to live with his grandparents in the United States without obtaining authorization for him to stay in the country permanently.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the wikilink. I generally dislike wikilinks to politically charged concepts as they often distort the material in the wikilinking article or at least apply an inappropriate editorial gloss. Here, although you quote the first sentence of the section, the rest of the section makes clear that the wikilink is inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23, that is exactly how I saw it. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Then should the first part quoted be a more appropriate connection?

As the subject is advocating legalizing illegal immigration, shouldn't a wikilink exist as the two are related?

Just because there is a majority opinion, that doesn't mean that there is a consensus.

Why have other editors not spoken about the footnote compromise that I suggested to provide balance, which this article presently lacks. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Advocating passage of the Dream Act isn't really the same as "advocating legalizing illegal immigration". The difference may be subtle, but it's important with respect to how we characterize what Vargas is doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is my proposed wording of the shortened section of the lead, which can be merged with the fist paragraph:

"Vargas describes his immigration status as being an "undocumented immigrant"." A reference would be found here. Then a footnote (which could be reached via footnote link and not directly in the lead) would follow as:

"The Washington Post describes the status as "illegal immigrant"; The Guardian describes the status as "illegal alien"; and the Philippine Daily Inquirer describes being an "undocumented immigrant" as being a "TNT"."

This would be following with the sentence:

"After writing an essay regarding his immigration status, which was published in the The New York Times Magazine, he became an advocate for passage of the DREAM Act."

(reasoing)Keeping it in the footnote means that the terms are not given undue weight and the listing is from most common to least common. This makes the article neutral IMHO, by not excluding reliable sourced material, but not giving those less used phrases in regards to the subject undue weight.

As for advocating passage of the DREAM Act, IMHO it can be condensed giving it due weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The two sources you want to use in the footnote demonstrate the problem with delving into this. The Washington Post cite is not really an article - it's a picture thing, and the phrase "illegal immigrant" is in the "headline". The Guardian cite is an actual article, and it uses the phrase "illegal alien" in the headline and then "undocumented immigrant" in the subheadline and then the phrases "undocumented alien" and "not a legal US resident" (and others) in the text. Sticking with what we've got is simpler.

I should add there are issues with using the word "illegal" as it indicates that a court has made a determination as to his status. There's no support for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly right. If we're going to say that someone has done something illegal (or, even worse, is illegal), we'd better have a source documenting a conviction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In the essay described in the lead the subject himself described his status as being an "illegal immigrant".

About four months into my job as a reporter for The Post, I began feeling increasingly paranoid, as if I had “illegal immigrant” tattooed on my forehead — and in Washington, of all places, where the debates over immigration seemed never-ending. I was so eager to prove myself that I feared I was annoying some colleagues and editors — and worried that any one of these professional journalists could discover my secret. The anxiety was nearly paralyzing. I decided I had to tell one of the higher-ups about my situation. I turned to Peter.

— Jose Antonio Vargas

If not the Washington Post source, there are over 200K other sources. What other reliable source would other editors suggest instead? If not the Guardian, what other of the 174k other sources would other editors suggest instead?

It is very possible that the Guardian article uses multiple phrases to provide balance, something that I am attempting achieve in this article per WP:NEU, to do otherwise would leave the article unbalanced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

For the term "illegal immigrant" how about use The Slate, the San Francisco Chronicle, another source?

If the subject prefers the politically weighted term "undocumented immigrant" but recognizes in his own writing that it is a synonym of "illegal immigrant" and vice versa, to exclude one and not the other creates an unbalanced article, and thus does not keep with NEU. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of Vargas's comments. I don't believe the article is non-neutral. I'm tired of mostly going in circles here, so I really have nothing new to say. Three editors disagree with you and have backed up their disagreement with sound reasoning. A consensus against your position has been reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, as I see there still being a neutrality issue, I will continue my efforts. As consensus per WP:CON ("but that all recognize as a reasonable solution") has not been meet continued discussion is warranted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, you do love to cherrypick: "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution." (my emphasis) & "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It might not mean unanimity but as it presently stands, my opinion hasn't changed that the current article is unbalanced, and thus not keeping with WP:NEU.

I have attempted to find compromise, and would like to see if others can try the same. If not the footnote option, there maybe others, and am open to other opinions; that being said, leaving it as is, IMHO is not a solution and leaves the article unbalanced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Some changes have removed content supported by multiple reliable sources, and others have removed long established content in a way the supports a certain POV thus further unbalancing this article. For instance "who has spent years hiding it" which is supported by a reliable source, had been in the article since at least July 2011.

Due to the lack of neutrality of this article I will refer this article to WP:N/N. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please consult WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have directed individuals at N/N to comment at existing discussions locations; my notice stated previous actions regarding this discussion and did so in a neutral and civil way. Gathering other editors for additional opinions is allowed, and my statement kept with CANVASS#Appropriate notification. I can change my notification to a pls see template if it is felt that it can be more neutral. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL - this is what you wrote: "At present the article is unbalanced only written with one POV. Newly added content supported by multiple reliable sources, added with a neutral tone have been reverted. And attempts to find compromise that keep with WEIGHT and CON have been opposed. Assistance is requested in the talk page and BLPN." How neutral of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is felt that by others that such a statement is not neutral, which the sarcasm appears to indicate, I have stated my willingness to change it to something near to what a pls see template produces.

I have remained civil and sarcasm is IMHO not keeping with a tone of civility and good faith that should be followed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Change made, enjoy. That being said the initial statement in BLPN by the initiating editor was not neutral, IMHO, and thus could be seen as not keeping with CANVASS. If other editors would like to change it as a sign off good faith, as I had done mine, it would be appreciated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to start. Going to BLPN regarding issues with a BLP article is fairly normal. Nor does it require that the person (me) opening the topic has to be "neutral". I'm arguing there is a problem with the article; clearly, I'm taking a position. I don't have that big a problem with your going to WP:N/N. My problem was with your saying that your presentation at that board was neutral. As for civility, like so many of your arguments, it's a red herring. I've lost faith in your statements and your edits. Nothing requires me to AGF indefinitely, in particular when I think there's evidence you no longer deserve it. Your tone may be unfailingly civil, but I go by your actions, which I think are disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I viewed my statement as neutral, and as shown, I am willing to change content so it can be seen as neutral. Why is it that neutrality, and due weight, is so difficult to create in this article?

Why is is it that reliably sourced and neutral toned content removed?

Why is is that this article is continued to only emphasis a single POV?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take: as far as I'm aware, there are no sources that develop a POV either way about Vargas's immigration status, apart from that of Vargas himself. What does exist is different sources using different terms. What we need to do, then, is decide what term to use, at the few points in the article when a term is necessary. Given the unequivocal BLP policies preventing us from saying here that someone is a criminal ("Vargas did something illegal") if they have not been convicted of a crime, we're much better off going with what Vargas has said about himself. Again, there are not (to my knowledge) any sources that offer a "POV" to the contrary (mounting an actual argument as opposed to using a term), and even if there were it would likely be "undue" to include them unless they exist in significant number. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The initial discussion was specifically about term usage. Please see above. I have suggested as other multiple reliable sources use other terms that are synonyms of the term used by the subject himself, that a well sourced and neutrally termed footnote be created after the "undocumented immigrant" term in the lead with appropriate wikilinks.

If there are other compromise suggestions by other editors I would like to hear them.

What is the opinion of other editors regarding the expanded content which was reverted even though it was sourced by multiple reliable sources? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If it's only about terms and there are no sources developing a POV about the right term for Vargas, then there's no POV issue here -- the entire thing is being blown out of proportion. Enough already. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not only about terms, terms carry POV. For instance one can write an article about a conflict that occurred in 1982 with only describing the location as Islas Malvinas; so terms matter. For instance in this article, rather than calling the subject Filipino American, the subject can be referred to as Oriental; another instance of when terms matter look at the present discussion occurring regarding the Republic of China article.

As stated above, due to WP:WEIGHT I understand why the term "undocumented immigrant" is used; it follows BLPN & WEIGHT. However, keeping with WEIGHT other non-frige/extremely-small POVs should be included as well, thus why I proposed the footnote compromise; the other terms as seen above maybe used less often, but such usage are significant minority descriptions of the subject. It would not be immediately be seen in the body of the article, and would minimally include information of the other terms used to describe the subject's immigration status.

Now why is no one commenting about the removed content? There has been no valid reason given for its exclusion. There was a statement about "UNDUE, POV, and misleading" however I don't see how it is any of those. It adds further detail, and corrected some of what was written in the article. It does not mislead as it is a statement of facts, furthermore it is supported by multiple reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Per CANVASS#Appropriate notification I have informed WP:NPOVN of our present conversation. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity in opening paragraph

The subject being Filipino American, (no hyphen) has nothing to do with the subject's notability in regards to WP:ANYBIO as the Pulitzer prize does not emphasis ethnicity. If he is primarily notable due to his advocacy for the DREAM act, then his ethnicity also doesn't matter, as being Filipino American is not subject to one's immigration status, as per the terminology used in said article, and used by the U.S. Census. Therefore, per WP:OPENPARA, IMHO his ethnicity doesn't factor into his notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Vargas is a journalist. Part of what he's written about is on the issue of his immigration status. Therefore, his nationality/citizenship is relevant to his notability. As an aside, you are still insisting on making citizen=Philippines rather than Filipino and on wikilinking Philippines. Both are wrong. Per WP:OVERLINK: "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." Per the example in {{infobox person}}: "nationality = American". And per the doc, nationality and citizenship are used somewhat interchangeably, so the example would apply to both. These are fairly unimportant points, so I am trying to avoid reverting your edits unless they're more substantial. But you might want to consider self-reversion based on the above.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

His immigration status is relevant to his notability regarding being an advocate, but his ethnicity is a non-factor. He can be in the United States illegally/undocumented regardless of whatever his ethnicity maybe. Furthermore, one can be Filipino American and be a U.S. Citizen, U.S. National, legal resident, or alien; additionally being a Filipino American does not require one to also be a Citizen or National of the Republic of the Philippines. To relate the subject to the term can be seen as perpetuating the perpetual foreigner stereotype. That being said, he is an Overseas Filipino and a Filipino American (who within the scope of the Filipino diaspora are all Overseas Filipinos). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you lost me at the end, but his immigration status is relevant to his nationality/citizenship, not to his "ethnicity". As for stereotyping - and to paraphrase Archie Bunker, the archetypal bigot - was that a slam? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We seem to both agree that his immigration status matters, perhaps we need to find a compromise way to state his without involving his ethnicity but his nationality. There is a phrase used in Tagalog that fits his status, TNT or "tago ng tago", however it is slang and translates to "hiding and hiding" which may be considered derogatory. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are three instances from reliable news organizations where the subject of the article and the term intersect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't use compound ethinicity-citizenships in the lead sentence, per WP:OPENPARA. If the subject has dual citizenship, then he would be referred to as "Filipino and American". If he is not an American citizen, then he is not of American nationality. However, the fact that he is not an American citizen is relevant to his notability, which calling him any sort of "American" dilutes as well as misleads the reader. Yworo (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion now at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Latest edits

As evidenced by my comments at WP:BLPN, I have lost patience with RightCow and his edits to this article. The latest is putting Vargas's essay and the Dream American material in a section called "Activism". He also sneakily wikilinked "undocumented immigrant", which redirects to the article illegal immigration. In continuing his non-neutral, against-consensus edits, RightCow does what he normally does, happily cites to policies and guidelines he believes supports his agenda. At this point, it's become an edit-war, so I can't keep reverting or modifying his edits. Others can do what they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I did add the wikilink to undocumented immigrants, this is clearly seen in the article's history. Where the wikilink goes to is not my doing, and if one looks at [said wikilink's history I have not edited it in the past. Yes, there is policy that supports its inclusion, UNDERLINK.

relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question.

"Undocumented immigrant" is used in the article, and has its own redirect article. If the redirect is incorrect or a stand alone article be created in its place, that can be discussed or done boldly by any interested editors.

My agenda, as stated multiple times, is that the article does not keep with a major pillar of Wikipedia. At its present state it does not meet NEU as it limits itself to one POV, and excludes all others.

I have asked that others meet me half way and compromise (keeping with CON), as I have done, and assume good faith.

Newly added content that has been reverted, kept with VER and was supported by multiple reliable sources, including sources already used by this article.

If a more accurate/detailed paragraph about a part of history which relates to a paragraph in the lead section is not needed that can be discussed. At the time of reversion no attempt to discuss the reversion was made by the reverting editor.

When I first came to this article it had a whole paragraph relating to the subject's activism and immigration status in the lead. Within the body of the article the size of that section of the lead had significantly more weight than what could be found in the lead. Additionally it excluded other significant minority opinions that were not fringe. I attempted to compromise by proposing a footnote, this was meet with opposition.

Since changes were not agreed to to the lead section, in an attempt to keep with LEAD, since there was a whole paragraph regarding the subject's immigration status and advocacy I attempted to expand those parts of the content to warrant the second lead paragraph's size, yet it is opposed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The second lead paragraph's size is too great in comparison to the amount of text devoted to the topic in the article. The lead should have a short sentence regarding Vargas' immigration law advocacy and that's it. The lead also should not have any references in it since all that info should be in the main body and sourced in the main bodu. Vargas journalism is what he primarily is about, particularly since he won the Pulitzer Prize. Just becase he's using that fame to further his immigration law advocacy doesn't mean that immigration law advocacy should be the focus of the article or have a bright light shined upon it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your points about the lead and have edited it accordingly. Let me know what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of critical well referenced text

Removal of text that is critical of the subject is in violation of WP:BLPN:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

Removing text that is well sourced is opposed to one of the primary pillars of Wikipedia, that is WP:VER. Only allowig text that is inline with the subject's policy position is opposed to another primary pillar of Wikipedia, that is WP:NEU. This is censorship, and shouldn't be supported. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not for the first time telling you this: this is a BLP of an individual's whole life and career, not an article about immigration. Sourcing "criticism" to Malkin's vile screed is not going to stand in a BLP - and thinking that as long as you also add something supportive you have created "balance" misses the point. You further misrepresent the situation, as you have done elsewhere before, by suggesting that the only thing removed in that edit was criticism; in fact, the editor (who is not me) also removed the Daily Kos source you added which was supportive - neither one belongs there, as they don't represent some kind of notable debate that was going on regarding the subject. Just because something can be sourced does not necessarily mean it is notabisle for inclusion. Further, you have been repeatedly trying to shoehorn into this article terminology that you favor. You have been reverted, it has been discussed - it also was discussed previously - and you have received no support from any other editors. Several editors here now disagree with your position, and quite a few others last year when we reached consensus on the terminology used and how it is stated (quoting Vargas). Yet you insist on continuing along, citing an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines, and ignoring the fact that you have no consensus for your changes. I think you might find more satisfaction editing the articles on immigration, where debates about terminology might be more appropriate - although of course I am not speaking for the editors there - but you have received no support here and this has gotten very tedious. Please stop slapping on tags and banners and trying so hard to get around what is clearly the sense of the other editors here. If others disagree, I'm sure they'll speak up. Tvoz/talk 22:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The above statement above is in violation of WP:CIVIL, see WP:AVOIDYOU.

So it's OK to keep content that is positive about the subject of the article, but OK to remove content that is not? This is in direct violation of BLP and NEU.

Attribute information that is well referenced to reliable sources that do not create undue weight is in keeping with BLP and DUEWEIGHT, removal of any content that maybe critical of the subject is not. The actions on this article to censor this article to maintain an only postive POV of the subject flies directly in the face of what Wikipedia is about and two of the pillars of Wikipedia.

I have attempted to compromise, I have not added anything that creates UNDUE WEIGHT, I have remained civil through out, and I have only added well sourced content from reliable sources. I have done nothing wrong, and will continue to do so. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no consensus for a "compromise". You have no consensus to add the tag, which is just a backdoor method of inserting your own comments into the article. Give it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The above statement above is in violation of WP:CIVIL, see WP:AVOIDYOU.

Tags are added when any editor expresses concern regarding an article, there doesn't need to be a consensus to add a tag.

I hope that this is not the case, but what has been occurring may fall under WP:TAGTEAM:

Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. Tag teams are usually reluctant to request opinions from the wider community, as that would upset the appearance of consensus that they are attempting to portray on a particular article.

Pushing a certain point of view in disregard of the neutral point of view policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable Wikipedia policies, or by imposing or blocking edits that advance or suppress particular points of view. This may involve editing in concert to whitewash an article by excluding all criticisms, giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, or excluding everything except uniformly positive or uniformly negative information.

In not allowing well sourced content from reliable sources that stands in direct face of WP:NEU by creating an only positive POV.

In not allowing well sourced content from reliable sources that stands in direct fact of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise.

Now I am willing to discuss how to present said content in a balanced manor that doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT but to censor the content all together violates the spirit of Wikipedia. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What critisism of him do you want to add? That he's an illegal immigrant? That he was sent to America as a child without papers? Youreallycan 01:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see above in the other sections on this talk page of previous discussions. Criticism and praise of the subject's actions relating to his advocacy was removed, even with reference (it was also hosted in a third party site here).

"Undocumented immigrant", the term carries with it a weighted POV that is supported by the subject of the article. Attempts to introduced attributed reliably sourced content has been removed, and others will not attempt to reach a compromise as how best to incorporate such reliably sourced content. Incorporation of such terms in a balanced manor will create a more neutral article.

The actions, as described by the subject himself in a reliable source, goes into further detail about how he arrived in the United States, such detail has been seen as unbalanced. A compromise as to what level of detail should be added would be nice, as a higher level of detail would provide more context to how the subject arrived to the United States.

Certain wikilinks have been removed, even though they abide by WP:UNDERLINK. A compromise as to what wikilinks to related articles should be included would advance this article's balance.

Due to failure of other editors wanting to discuss the disagreements civilly has lead me to refer this ongoing discussion to the Mediation Cabal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see anything you want to add. That he has been criticised by opponants of immigration for being an immigrant? Youreallycan 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the multiple deletions by other editors of content that I have added in the article's history. I have assumed good faith that other editors believe that they are abiding by applicable guidelines and essays, even if they do not believe the same of myself which is disappointing and have stopped civilly discussing to reach a compromise. Please search the article's history if one is interested in the multiple reversions leading to an only positive POV presently presented in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

POV statement

How is the reversion and reinclusion of the statement "severe anti-immigration legislation" making the article more neutral? How is removing a wikilink to the law that the documentary discusses not keeping with WP:UNDERLINK? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for opinions regarding the above reversion at WP:NPOVN, this notification abides to WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. Reversions of adding of tags shows that others are not assuming good faith.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Illegal and undocumented

As a representative survey of relevant literature, 600+ articles use Jose Vargas & illegal; 50+ articles use Jose Vargas and undocumented. The weight of source material is heavy towards using 'illegal' rather than 'undocumented.' Wikipedia's Undocumented immigrant redirects to Illegal immigration and not the other way around. Then there is Jimbo's comment that "undocumented immigrant" is actually the POV term[10] It's not right to mischaracterize how Jose Vargas characterizes himself (he calls himself undocumented - Jimbo again[11], but it also is not right to favor using undocumented ouside of how Jose Vargas characterizes instead of illegal merely because undocumented may put Jose Vargas in a better light. There does seem to be a POV effort trying to present Jose Vargas in fa favorable light, rather than a neutral light. Work towards presenting views fairly and without bias either for or against Jose Vargas. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not just a numbers game (like WP:COMMONNAME) but a BLP issue. Illegal is a heavily charged word and, as mentioned before, it requires more than just an accusation or passing allusion but a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. The redirect is a red herring and can't be used to justify changing the language (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS); I don't agree with the redirect but there are lots of weird and politically charged redirects and wikilinked articles at Wikipedia. Also, discussing this issue would be more constructive without assuming POV on anyone's part.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a POV issue with this article, and although, as I have documented above there is a preference online to describe the subject's immigration status as "undocumented immigrant", there are also substantial minorities that use other terms as documented above. While ONLY using undocumented immigrant does create, IMHO, a positive POV of the article, there should be a way to create a neutral POV within the article that preserves the primary use of the term "undocumented immigrant" while noting other description's of the subject's immigration status. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Define America video subjects

Is there a term of phrase that we could use that would not be as POV-laced or would be more neutral? Not "undocumented immigrant", not "illegal alien", but some other phrase? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally the second half of the sentence can be removed

which would allow undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship through education or service in the military

Information about the DREAM Act can be found at the wikilink'd article and is not necessary in this BLP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Introductory section

What is the purpose of keeping the following in the lead section:

...which would help children in similar circumstances have a path to citizenship available to them. A year later he wrote a cover story for TIME about his continued uncertainty regarding his status since this revelation. Shortly afterward, the Obama administration announced its halt to the deportation of young undocumented immigrants eligible for the DREAM Act, which, although he would not qualify due to his age, Vargas hailed as "a victory for DREAMers".

Readdition of above appears to not keep with WP:LEAD. Additionally, the content is given to much weight, thus not keeping with WP:DUE. Actions of the Obama Administration does effect the subject of the article and thus should not be included in the lead section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

He is closely associated with this topic, as evidenced by the dozens of interviews he has done about the Time article and this policy change in the last week from Bill O'Reilly and Mike Huckabee to MSNBC's Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton, and CNN, ABC, CBS, and numerous others. The actions of the Obama administration on this topic are inextricably tied to Vargas and his work, and is totally appropriate for the lead. A lot of the wording referred to above has been in the article for some time, and remains valid for the intro; if anything we need to expand the section on his immigration work, not shrink the lead. Lead sections are supposed to summarize the article and be sufficiently thorough to stand alone as mini-articles. So this belongs there. Tvoz/talk 01:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And there is the issue. The content that was readded to the intro section is a copy of content already in the body of the article in the section you are talking about. Prior the information about the subject's advocacy work regarding immigration policy was already included in the lead in a sentence or two.

Additionally as there is is a discussion regarding the lead, I believe that it was inappropriate to remove the tag.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, we need to expand the text which I'm working on, as outlined above. The prior intro did not have the updated information, therefore presenting an incomplete picture. Tvoz/talk 17:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

RCLC, if you want to continue this discussion, fine, but I agree with Tvoz. The material belongs in the lead. Therefore, if anything, as Tvoz says, the lead is too short, not too long. I will again remove the template as it's unsupportable. Your history on this article does not demonstrate that you are willing to comply with consensus or edit this article in a neutral manner. You stayed away from the article for a good while. I suggest you haven't learned from your past stubbornness and you might want to consider leaving the article alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU.

The lead does need work, the content that was removed, and readded is an almost direct copy of what is in the body of the article, and does not specifically relate to the subject of the article, and thus should remain in the body; moreover to emphasis the removed and readded content in the lead gives undue weight to that one event (please see WP:RECENT). Additional work is also needed in that a sentence or two should be used to summarize the content of each section in the lead as per WP:LEAD. If there is not a consensus to improve this article then so be it, however that does not mean that there is not a sound reasoning behind the tag. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Non Encyclopedic POV

Which sources are inappropriate? Which language should be changed to prevent POV? Why delete the entire entry instead of line item edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffy013 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How is the following non encyclopedic POV: According to Vargas, the Washington Post violated federal immigration law by employing him, noting that Peter Perl, the Post's managing editor for personnel, sat on a park bench adjacent to the White House and had a 20-minute conversation in which Vargas told Perl that he was an undocumented immigrant, and consequently barred from legal employment. As Vargas wrote: - (talk • contribs) 11:18, 13 February 2013 (EST)

as you have been told on your talk page, it is WP:UNDUE focus on a particular issue/facet of the subject. And in addition, the content is non-encyclopedic. (and new subjects go at the bottom of the talk page.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There are also BLP issues -I agree with the reverts by TRPoD and others. Tvoz/talk 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead/opening

This edit is precipitous, prejudges the discussion in progress at BLPN, and lacks consensus. I see no reason why it shouldn't be reverted. The instruction "now leave it" is curious -- perhaps Seb could elaborate? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You guys are busy determining what the "correct" wording should be; since you cannot agree, the contentious part should be left out entirely until you've solved it. That's simple WP:BLP. Therefore, leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation of "contentious". Contentious in the context of BLP means contested in reliable sources; it doesn't mean "editors are arguing about it." Do you have any reliable sources that indicate Vargas is not a Filipino-American? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not a misrepresentation. Obviously, the crux is the word "American" and there are quite a few people who disagree with you here. So go and come to a consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with the current wording: "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a journalist. Born in the Philippines, and raised in the United States from the age of 12, ..." It's perfect. Yworo (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's perfect, then you shouldn't have been edit-warring to describe him as a Filipino journalist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hint: I wasn't the one edit-warring. Yworo (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get the point of not indicating that he's Filipino, the point of Wikipedia would be to provide as much relevant information as possible, no? That he's not American is settled fact, confirmed by multiple sources within the article. Having said that, leaving his nationality vague is better than misleading people into believing he's American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It does indicate his nationality with the phrase "born in the Philippines". The word "Filipino" seems to attract people who want to change it to "Filipino-American" and vice versa, leading to interminable edit wars. Using "Filipino" or "Philippine" is unworkable if neither will stay put. Do you have a proposal for phrasing that you believe is better that won't attract edit warring? Yworo (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of things attract edit warring. That really isn't a valid criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's used as a method in many cases of contested nationality. Very frequently with the Irish. (See, I can use WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST too!) Yworo (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No frankly I just thought stating facts wouldn't have been controversial. The article itself makes it semi-clear he's not American but it also only hints that he's Filipino when in fact that's his nationality. There are many American citizens who were born outside the US, for example, but don't necessarily have the nationality of the country where they were born. So saying he was born in the Philippines doesn't necessarily settle his nationality, but just hints at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd prefer it say "Philippine journalist" or "Phillppines journalist" myself. To me that's more clearly a nationality rather than an ethnicity. The nationality in the lead is the nationality of the individual, not the media in which their works appear. Thus, many actors who appear in Hollywood films are Australian or British, but we have some small number of editors insisting on calling them American based on the fact that the films are American or they have a residence in the US, but that's not how we do things. However, I think the likelihood of getting consensus on this is close to nil, so it's better to leave out nationality and ethnicity altogether. Our readers are more important and we are not supposed to take either side in any kind of dispute like this. Yworo (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing above discussion

Could someone uninvolved please put an archive box around the above discussion as "No consensus" and remove the RfC tag? Yworo (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Please let the discussion run its course and a bot will remove the notice. Insomesia (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)