Talk:Jovita Idar

Recommendation to semi-protect following high traffic from google doodle
The past hour has included two IPs making edits to replace uses of Mexican/Mexican-American with Latina/Latinx-American. Today's Google doodle is driving a number of searches and page hits, consider some degree of temporary protection for this article. 138.87.155.153 (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed on protection. I came here not knowing much about the person, but poorly worded language insisting that she is a terrorist and anti-American was populated here. I don't think Google would honor a terrorist, so I was immediately suspicious. A vandal also said she quoted from Mein Kampf and that she caused the Hindenburg disaster, WWII events, the Cold War, and an event in the future. This page is being actively vandalized.--SWarp


 * Just removed vandalism from this article. The article needs to be kept under lock and key for the time being. Inunotaisho26 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I requested page protection. Please allow admins time to respond. NedFausa (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the spelling with an acute accent?
Sounds like a great story! According to Spanish grammar, the last name shouldn't have a diacritic mark ("Idar" is good). Aug 11, 2020

None of the sources that I clicked discussed this issue. Why is her family name spelled with the accent on the a? According to standard Spanish orthography that's totally unnecessary, as Idar would be pronounced with stress on the second syllable anyway. Also, not all of the sources spell it that way, but maybe that's because they're in English. Anyone have some information on this? Ntsimp (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * since you originally moved page Jovita Idar to Jovita Idár (diacritic), please respond to 's query. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It does indeed seem like the use of a diacritic is incorrect here, as evidenced by the quoted Tweet. Jay D. Easy (t&#8202;•&#8202;c) 00:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the accent a while back. Can't say I recall my reasoning, but I was likely working from an encyclopedia, perhaps Women in World History which lists Idár as a name variation. I've no objection to its removal. gobonobo  + c 09:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it. Ntsimp (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Stable version uses "American" in lead.
It seems like the stable version did not include ethnicity in the lead per WP:MOSBIO. Should this be changed? I reverted to the last stable version and have started a discussion here. --Malerooster (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONTEXTBIO states: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. If ever there was a case where ethnicity is relevant to the subject's notability, it is Jovita Idár. She was born into a family of proud Mexican-American activists, and carried on their legacy. She was not ashamed of her ethnicity, which was integral to her public identity. It is absurd to remove this essential fact from the lead. NedFausa (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Please allow consensus to form here before changing from a stable version, that is how the project and consensus works. --Malerooster (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per NedFausa. The subject's ethnicity is very much relevant to their notability, as they actively championed the rights of Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants. Jay D. Easy (t&#8202;•&#8202;c) 00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Malerooster

 * 00:16, 22 September 2020
 * 00:21, 22 September 2020

This indispensable content should not be removed without consensus. NedFausa (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. This material should not be added without consensus, which you can get here. --Malerooster (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * this is not how consensus works. I cannot help but feel that your reference to the "stable version" is purposely undefined and vague. Which supposedly stable version are you referring to? The last version of the article before Google's Doodle brought a heap of new edits starting on 21 September was saved on 19 August. This version clearly defines the subject as Mexican-American.
 * More importantly, let's adress the fact that "maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war." Jay D. Easy (t&#8202;•&#8202;c) 01:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jay D. Easy, of course this is how consensus works. The stable version I was referring to had American in the lead for over two years I believe until it was changed in the last few days.--Malerooster (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Meaningful and effective change"?
"Meaningful and effective change" is a vague cliche, it's meaningless and feckless. 2601:701:C000:CCC0:3993:6D9C:A5DC:E0B7 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)