Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas/Archive 3

Detention
Jose Antonio Vargas was detained at McAllen, Texas after visiting the border region in South Texas. Can someone elaborate on the story? Great50 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC) []
 * ✅ --Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As his Texas detention has been added, shouldn't his Minnesota detention in 2012 also be added? There are multiple reliable sources that verify that the event occurred, and the charge of recentism made in 2013 can now be discounted, as reliable sources written in 2014 still verify the 2013 2012 arrest.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion is no. The Minnesota incident was extremely minor - a traffic stop - and received minimal coverage. No one ever denied that it occurred, but just because something is sourced does not make it notable for inclusion. The Texas detention was directly related to his immigration status and received major national coverage, television and print - happening in the midst of a major immigration crisis. It was more significant to his life, which is the criterion we should be using regarding editing a biography of his whole life. Tvoz / talk 23:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The New York Times, does not "minimal coverage" make.
 * There was also significant coverage from other reliable sources, including the Huffington Post:
 * This event had just as much coverage as the Texas event; and has been mentioned in multiple articles about the subject's Texas arrest. Furthermore his arrest was related to his license being revoked by the State of Washington, due to his status in the United States. Therefore, to say the Minnesota arrest isn't as another editor has described as "directly related to his immigration status and received major national coverage", would be entirely false.
 * I don't see why this content is being objected to, it would be well referenced from non-partisan reliable sources, and can be worded neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tvoz -- not significant enough to be included in a biography of this person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it not significant enough, when multiple non-local news papers reported on the arrest?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it so important to you that this minor incident be included? Tvoz / talk 04:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That IMHO does not make a good rebuttal. WP:AGF.
 * Also I am not seeing an argument being put forward that the content had not received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.
 * This is a policy, guideline, and essay based reason why the content should be included. And may I remind other editors of WP:TALKDONTREVERT:
 * "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
 * That IMHO does not make a good rebuttal. WP:AGF.
 * Also I am not seeing an argument being put forward that the content had not received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.
 * This is a policy, guideline, and essay based reason why the content should be included. And may I remind other editors of WP:TALKDONTREVERT:
 * "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."


 * I am willing to work with other editors as to how the content should be worded, so that the content is worded neutrally, however as quoted from the policy, I am not seeing a policy based reason why the content has been excluded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore may I point towards the policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
 * "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."


 * There are multiple reliable third-party sources that document the incident. Therefore this negates WP:GRAPEVINE & WP:BLPREMOVE. This is why the Texas arrest should be included, as is the present case, and why the Minnesota arrest should be included as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing that has been stated here has anything to do with what the subject of the article might think. So WP:PUBLICFIGURE is irrelevant. Please stop wikilawyering. Tvoz / talk 23:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then there should be no reason to exclude content about it then, as it clearly meets the first part of the policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
 * "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article"


 * The event was noteworthy as it received significant coverage, and even this year (2014) it is still mentioned in the Texas arrest news stories (by multiple sources), it is relevant as it occurred to the subject, and it was well documented by multiple reliable sources.
 * Therefore per policy there is no reason to exclude the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

2011 License revocation
That was uncalled for. The event received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and meets with WP:PUBLICFIGURE and Biographies of living persons. Content was neutrally worded, and consisted of a single sentence. As for consensus, there has been no good reason to exclude the content, how does one sentence create undue content? I will be notifying BLPN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it was not WP:UNDUE, please re-read what it says:
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."


 * There is no view point that states that the State of Washington issued license of the subject of this article was not cancelled. The first source clearly stated:
 * "The state of Washington has canceled the driver's license of a journalist who, in a New York Times Magazine article last month, revealed that for 14 years he kept a secret from his U.S. employers: He is an illegal immigrant."

- The Seattle Times (21 July 2014 2011)


 * The article also clearly states:
 * "State licensing officials launched an investigation after Vargas' article appeared in the magazine June 22."

- The Seattle Times (21 July 2014 2011)


 * Therefore the argument that content was given undue weight does not match the policy, and if anything the policy actually supports its inclusion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I am not reading any policy, guideline, or essay based reasoning to exclude the fact that the subject's license was revoked in 2011, I will be re-adding the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no good policy based reasons to exclude neutrally worded, sourced to multiple reliable sources, content.
 * See WP:IDONTLIKEIT for bad reasoning to include the content.
 * Furthermore, please re-read Consensus:
 * "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."


 * There have been no substantive policies, guidelines, or essays, with reasons why they apply in this case to exclude the content; that content being:
 * "In July 2011, the State of Washington revoked Vargas' driver's license."


 * As IDONTLIKEIT appears to be the prevailing reason for exclusion, I will again appropriately canvass for more sane editors to see that this content, in some form, is included in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As you well know, there is no consensus for this change at present. We don't operate unilaterally here by imposing one's own preference in an article when there is no agreement among editors to add it and in fact opposition by editors. This is not the first time you've flooded the talk page with your arguments in favor of one change or another, but volume here does not equal consensus. This is not the way it works, as you know. You presently have no support for adding this, so the answer is, wait and see if others agree with you. Short of that, repeating your arguments and filling the talk page with them is tendentious editing, and re-adding because you are convinced by your own arguments is edit warring. Please stop it. Tvoz / talk 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about me the editor, but about the content. Why should the content be excluded? Please provide a policy, guideline, or essay based reasoning why it should be excluded, and how that policy, guideline, or essay applies in this case. Please don't make it about me, make it about the content. WP:AGF. I believe we're both here to improve the article, therefore, please tell me how excluding this content improves this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As we have both been arguing, it is WP:UNDUE in this BLP. If you don't want the deficiencies in your editing practices to be discussed here, they can be discussed elsewhere if you prefer.  They will be, if you add it again without an evident consensus.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , give it up, repeating yourself ad nauseam, as you've done before in this article, is not collaborative, no matter how "civil" your comments are on the surface. Indeed, it's disruptive. No one agrees with you. Nor has any of your myriad messages on project talk pages to come here had much of an effect (your comments there are neutral, but the number of projects is over the top). I have stayed out of this discussion because I have vivid memories of your previous misconduct in this article. My suggestion to other editors is to that they ignore you unless you change the article on your own, in which case you'll be reverted as having no consensus for your edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it undue? If anything it should be here due to WP:DUE given the multiple reliable sources that verify the content that has been removed? Just saying it is undue doesn't make it so. Also since BLP is brought up may I refer to BLP. It is verified that the subject of this BLP did write that he is, in his words, a "undocumented" immigrant; what my edit did was include the verified event that after the publishing of his essay, his driver's license was cancelled in July 2011.
 * "State licensing officials launched an investigation after Vargas' article appeared in the magazine June 22. They sent a letter to the Northgate-area address he had used when he applied, giving him 20 days to prove his state residency. The letter was returned unopened. A spokeswoman for Vargas said he had no comment."

- Seattle Times (21 July 2011)


 * Is the canceling of the subject's driver's license being contested as not having had happened? Is it being contested that it was not a consequence of stating that he is an "undocumented" immigrant? (something that I am not synthesizing but can be verified here) How is one short, brief, neutrally worded sentence too much content regarding one of the results of the subject's 2011 essay?
 * I am not adding unverified criticism of the subject, I am not attempting to make this article an attack page. I am just attempting to add verified, using multiple local and national reliable sources, to add brief and neutrally worded content.
 * Why include the Texas arrest, and not the license cancellation? Both have been verified by multiple reliable sources? Why does one have weight and the other doesn't?
 * This is not about me, this is about content. Please, answer the questions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So question, why is it that the Texas arrest is seen as being worthy of inclusion, while the also verifiable 2011 license cancelling, and 2012 arrest not included? All three events received national coverage from multiple reliable sources? Why include that after the 2011 Essay, that the subject received an award, yet not include other resulting events (such as the license cancelling)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

American vs. U.S. Citizen
In the article, we should clarify that with pride he feels very strongly being an American, even though, legally he is not a U.S. citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.48.107 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is accomplished already with the use of his quotes - especially in the "Immigration law advocacy" section. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article should neither serve to advance the position of the subject, nor be an attack page on the subject. Thus this article must follow the pillar of WP:NEU. Just a friendly reminder, as from reading this article does not appear to be balanced per Biographies of living persons.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please list one or two specifics, general claims are not very helpful in providing resolution. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Content has a generally neutral or positive tone regarding subjects legislative accuracy. It states awards received relating to advocacy, and positive outcomes of advocacy; however it does not provide balance in including critical reception of the subject's advocacy or negative outcomes of revealing that the subject is, in their own words, an "undocumented immigrant", such as the above discussion regarding the cancellation of the subject's State of Washington issued driver's license.
 * I don't want this article to become an attack page, at the same time I don't believe the article should serve as an extension of the subject's advocacy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear. You say you're just offering a friendly reminder, but then state that "does not appear to be balanced". So it's more than a reminder. Do have sources that would help us provide "critical reception of the subject's advocacy"?
 * I'd suggest these that took just 2 minutes to find googling "jose antonio Vargas" criticism:
 * Luis Serrano, "An Open Letter to Jose Antonio Vargas" on Huffington Post
 * Jim Geraghty, "Jose Antonio Vargas and the End of Driver’s Licenses" in National Review
 * Adam Martin, "The Media World Is Deeply Conflicted Over This Vargas Story" at The Wire
 * And the second of those would get the driver's license issue covered in a meaningful context, and not, as most often advocated in the discussion above, as a stray fact. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the above comment. I have found in editing this article that others have blocked my attempts to add neutrally worded, well sourced content. Therefore, I won't be editing the article itself for sometime. However, if we can work together in creating content with the plethora of reliable sources that I have provided (and have been removed from this article), that I think would better this article's balance.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ummm......no thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am confused. Please enlighten me? Is it that others do not want to collaborate in creating neutrally worded well cited content to bring balance to this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)