Talk:Luisito Pié

Name issue
Pie was not born in Haiti. He was born in the Dominican Republic to a Dominican mother, who has her own name officially registered as "Marisol Pie Desquile", with the Spanish name custom of two surnames, instead of one. His father, who was born in Haiti, did not raise him, and did not gave him his surname. That is why Luisito is not named "Luis Beltrán Pie" or "Luis Bertrand Pie", but Luis Pie. Hence, the claim of a Haitian newspaper that his actual name is 'Louis Pierre' is untrue. Nika de Hitch (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Provide a source for that, I have warned you two times and you continue doing the moves and reverts. Seriesphile  ( talk  · ctb) 00:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the Junta Central Electoral website, which is the government body that issues birth certificates, his mother was born in 1977 in San José de los Llanos, to a man that they are not identifying that had a Cédula de Identidad (media outlets, citing the family, has said it was a Haitian bracero, a sugarcane-cutter), and that her name is registered as Marisol Pié Desquile. Pié is obviously a Spanish adaptation of Pierre, but it does not mean that it is their family name. Furthermore, despite it is against Spanish-language rules on orthography, the surname of that specific family was registered with an accent, meaning that their surname is not Pie nor Pierre, just Pié; so I turned out to be wrong in that affirmation, as many media outlets used the variant with no accent (there are plenty of Haitians and Dominican-Haitians registered as Pie) or even switched interchangeably between Pie and Pié in the same article.


 * In the biography there are already sources about the story of Luisito Pié's parents and his step-father. Nika de Hitch (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what I was trying to say but you continued reverting and moving the page without researching first. Seriesphile  ( talk  · ctb) 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the changes that I'd made I also added the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent and additional information about Pié's family that you erased when you reverted first. Nika de Hitch (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

From User talk:Virgrod: You edit recently made to the Luisito Pie article looks terrible. You want to make this article looks like a private investigation about him, with words like see image, that are not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Why are you adding references about a fact that the JCE, Dominican Republic highest institution in the subject had already clarified? That clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL, we should remove that part of the text right away. The article is protected and consensus should be reached before changing sensible content. --Osplace 19:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Osplace The fact is that there is currently an ongoing controversy about Pie, that covers both sides of the island. The press release by the JCE does not change the fact that there are OFFICIAL documents by the same JCE (which have been linked/sourced) which contradict parts of the press release. The JCE will need to further clarify which part of its own documents are true, because they do not agree with each other right now. The Haitian source says what it says (sourced and referenced). This is all relevant information that the reader should know. One possible way forward is to add a separate section "controversy on Pié's citizenship status" where this information can be put. Would you agree with that? Virgrod (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is different a statement about a particular thing that a popular rumor or someone disagreement about if he is or not Dominican should not be written in the article in that way. The piece of text you have introduced is read like a forum post. This is a wikipedia article about a sportperson. Nothing beyond that some racist people try to arise their feelings about his ethnic background, accepted and referenced, but since the official institution have already spoken about it, any other see this image' should be taken to the justice rather than this article, when a new official statement is released, she should then change whatever part is needed in this article. Osplace 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First I take issue with your disparaging characterization of my edit and with your patronizing tone. I do know the difference between a forum post and a wikipedia article. I know also the difference between rumours and SOURCED statements. Perhaps you missed that I provided TWO references, one for each of the two sentences I added. But let's review the facts.
 * I added TWO (2) sentences. The first was a direct response to the previous sentence that says that:
 * "His mother was born in San José de los Llanos to legal Haitian immigrants, thus, Marisol and her children had no problem with Constitutional Court ruling #168-13".
 * That is contradicted by the fact that a person with identical complete name, town and year of birth as Marisol is in an OFFICIAL list (linked in my edit) that includes the people who were affected by the court ruling. In addition to a direct link to the full text of the list, I provided a link to the EXACT part of that list that concerns Marisol. This is needed because it is a VERY VERY long list. I also provided a reference to an article published at the wesite of a very well known Dominican TV station. So, I fail to see what is here wrong or inappropriate since the information given is both relevant (it's a direct reponse to the PREVIOUS sentence) and it is backed up with links and an article from a reliable source.
 * My second sentence simply points out that a Haitian SOURCE explicitly indicates that he's true name is Louis Pierre and that he was born in Gonaive, Haiti. This SOURCE obviously contradicts the Dominican government account. But that isn't a rarity. Often times "official" versions of anything are DISPUTED by sources for a reason or another. I see no problem citing the Haitian source. AND citing the official press release. The reader doesn't necessarily have to believe the official/government version of anything.
 * To conclude, it is FAIR to give the "official" version, as well as to point out that some reliable sources (both in Haiti and the DR) disagree with the official version. I believe the reader should know that the official version is not universally accepted by all SOURCES. Virgrod (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Nationality
It appears there is some dispute here about his nationality. Unclear to me that it matters so much to Wikipedia, which side of the island he was born on, Haiti or the Dominican Republic. If there are reliable sources for two different theories, we can give both and not make a decision. Nationality for purpose of sports competition is another issue and the sports authorities have their own rules. We can simply report whatever they do. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understood your statements correctly we agree 100%. We can include the official (Dominican electoral board) version, as well as the fact that some reliable SOURCES disagree with the official version. (rumors and gossips of course we should NOT include)Virgrod (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about Luisito Pie, not her mother. I do not back any, the previous neither the Virgrod response, is not necessary.

''Pié was born in Bayaguana, Monte Plata Province, Dominican Republic to José Beltrán, a Haitian man, and Marisol Pié Desquile, a Dominican-born woman of Haitian descent. His mother was born in San José de los Llanos to legal Haitian immigrants, thus, Marisol and her children had no problem with Constitutional Court ruling #168-13 (es).[1][2] However, a person with identical name, town and year of birth as Luisito's mother is indeed in the official list of people who were "irregularly registered" in the Dominican Civil Registry (see image), and hence are beneficiaries of the special Dominican law for said people, law 169-14.[3] Furthermore, a Eventough a Haitian publication alleges that Luisito's true name is "Louis Pierre" and that he is from Gonaïves in Haiti,[4] he responded to the questions about his nationality confesing that he competed for all the 10 millions of Dominicans. ''

I do not know why this article should be the center of the questioning of his mother status. It is said that she is Dominican born from Haitian descent and we all agree that. Why should it be anything else in the article, there should not be any sentence backing or not if her nationality is in question or not. That will not affect Pie in any way. My proposal is leaving that part out of the article. About his suppose name my proposal leaves that part part and I have added his own response. --Osplace 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the discussion on his mother background is irrelevant. It is in fact critical. The status of his mother is critical because in the DR (as in most countries, including Haiti) the citizenship status of a child born within a country's territory depends on the legal status of the parents. Under Dominican law, if both of the child's parents are NON-permanent or illegal residents then the child is a foreigner (even if born within the DR). The child needs at least ONE parent that is a permanent legal resident in order to qualify for the Dominican citizenship. That is why the Electoral Board explicitly talked abut the mother on its press release. LP's father is definitely a foreigner and by all indications a non-permanent or ilegal resident of the DR (or perhaps he is back in Haiti). Hence, the status of the mother is central to the question of whether or not LP is Dominican, as determined by the law, as opposed to by how he himself thinks or feels. The status of the mother in turns depends on the status of her own parents. That is why the JCE explicitly mentioned her father, who supposedly had a "cédula".
 * The nationality of an international competitor is a very serious matter because international competition rules normally require that an athlete in a country's delegation be a citizen of that country (regardless of how he "feels" or thinks). If in fact LP has represented the wrong country then obviously rules have been broken. Hence, the controversy on his citizenship is a relevant and serious. This issue cannot be discussed without talking about his mother (and her own parents) since the Dominican law is written like that, as explained.
 * I would again propose that the discussion on these matters be moved to a section, based of course on sources (not rumors). We can agree to put at the top of the article the "official" version (per the electoral board press release) with a sentence pointing to the section on the controversy for the readers who may be interested. The sentence may read "There is however controversy on his name and citizenship status") (or something similar). This sentence should be linked to the section. I hope that is OK with everyone involved. Virgrod (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there is no open investigation neither in the Dominican Republic not in the IOC. We have an article about an athlete who have been representing his home country since 2013. He is a Dominican national, said by the official bureau, JCE, and never being questioned about this in any competition. The only questions about this are being made in the media, are those claims true? Unknown. Should ourselves be the recipient of those claims? Why? There are facts about him being Dominican, his mother is Dominican-born from Haitian origin, referenced. Nothing beyond that should be reflected in the article. I agree about all that you have said about the importance of his mother origin, I completely understand. But she is Dominican. If the JCE start an investigation and something changes, then, when the sentences is resolved, then we should reflect that about this article, because the article is about the athlete, not the mother. He is Dominican, his mother is too. There are claims, but not even under investigation. If the JCE resolve something different about his mother, then this will change LP status, then we should include that information in the article. There should not be any sentence linking to any claim, because those are just claims, he is Dominican, nothing beyond rumors. President Barak Obama have been claimed to be African, there should be a sentence linked to a section with the claims of his status? No.
 * For the article, Luisito Pie is a Dominican, period. We should just include a sentence, not a linked one, containing the claims about his nationality and name.--Osplace 21:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you for the reasons already given. I did NOT propose to open a section on an IOC investigation (there may or may not be one, since they do not have to make their investigations immediately public). However, there _IS_ a controversy, and there are reasonable sources about it. In fact, that the JCE issued a press release CONFIRMS that the controversy exists and is serious (why would the bother to issue the release?). Unfortunately, as pointed out and sourced in my edit, the JCE seems inconsistent with its own list of "irregularly registered people", and this has added fuel to the controversy, instead of killing it. Of course a wiki article is not a court to decide whether or not the JCE is telling the truth (or rather WHICH document of the JCE is truthful, if any). Precisely for that reason, the article should include information about the controversy. All this is definitely relevant information (particularly considering that he is an international competitor, as opposed to an artist or celebrity, etc). For these reasons, my position (and it seems EdJohnston's) is that the article should MENTION the controversy, so that the reader KNOWS about it. The reader (NOT you, or me, or anyone else) should DECIDE whom to believe.
 * I suppose we have all made our points clear. As a general rule, I believe we should err on the side of allowing the reader to DECIDE whom to believe (not us), but always on the basis of sources, not rumors. If we cannot reach a consensus among us, we will have to go up the hierarchy. (As for your own example, there _IS_ indeed material in wikipedia about the controversy surrounding Pres. Obama's birth certificate. You will find it if you search for it).
 * But the Obama article do not say, Obama is from the United States or Africa, we are not sure about it, there is a controversy why? Can you please cite where is the part of the birth certificate showing that Mr. Donald Trump ask him to show, the Obama birth issue, were is in the article? That would be very important because he would not be able to be president of the United States and there should be an open investigation, but it should not be public at this time'. Please nothing will change because you keep death your position, without noticing that JCE already cleared him and his mother of any issue, we should find mediation. --Osplace 14:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Back to LP, you are simply trying to impose a JCE PRESS RELEASE (without supporting docs of any kind) as the ONLY EXCLUSIVE source on this matter. The JCE is a body run by humans, not by God, and as such is fallible, susceptible to interests, pressure, etc. I have no problem accepting their press release as _A_ source, the government's. But the other sources should also be mentioned (including the JCE own list which seems to contradict its own release). No need to repeat all arguments already given. I do agree with you we need to put in motion the Wikipedia conflict resolution procedures. Care to start? (BTW there DEFINITELY IS an entire wiki article about the BO birth certificate controversy. Search for it.)
 * The JCE is the official institution about it, your paragraph with the list is a violation of the WP:SYNTH policy. I have read that article, but from the Barack Obama article there is no mention, neither a single link to that article, so do you agree removing everything? My proposal was keeping a sentence about it, but if you want to remove the unnecessary whole paragraph you have added is even better for the article. I am constructing an article about the athlete, the only thing that is keeping the article to shine is your paragraph. The material I have provided, hope is not challenge by you as well. --Osplace 03:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The complete personal life paragraph I have prepared reads like this:
 * Pie is 183 cm tall 57 kg, born on March 4, 1986 in Bayaguana, Monte Plata. He is the older of five siblings, the first two from his parents Marisol Pie, a Christian housewive and José Beltrán, a Haitian bracero who migrated to the Dominican Republic in 1986 who is also the father of his brother Bernardo, taekwondo national champion and Central American and Caribbean Games silver medallist in the 63 kg. His stepfather is the merchant Euclides Reyes, father of his three yourger brothers Cristopher, Jaime and Moisés.


 * How can we solve the dispute ourselves, without the see the image. --Osplace 03:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The only dispute here is caused by your negative to accept the FACT that there is a controversy on his background. You want to limit the article to the sources that agree with your preferred narrative (that his mother, and therefore he, is Dominican). As pointed out numerous times there are sources in both sides of the island that contradict that position, and there is an official document that seems to contradict the press release that says that his mother was born Dominican. There is no Wikipedia rule that I am aware that says an article can ONLY refer to government sources (or to a subset of government sources). If you know of such Wikipedia rule, please, back up your claim. Otherwise, please refrain from trying to impose a _personal_ restriction on this article. The most sensible course of action seem to be to have a section about the controversy so that the READER (not you) can choose which side to believe. Virgrod (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There has been some controversy, but many media outlets have ignored it, just focusing in that Luis Pie won the Olympic medal, and (after the JCE's news release) that he has the Dominican citizenship. It has been more a controversy among "common people on the street" than a "heavily mediatized issue". I assume that the section about his nationality issue must be written the most short way possible since this issue did not gained a lot of attention, in accordance with WP:UNDUE. Nika de Hitch (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "official document" you cite is not official, because the JCE already said that everything is ok, she is Dominican in a more recent date than the your "see image" source, that also violates WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The inclusion of the see image violates both, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH because there is not even an investigation about her mother nationality. If The source you are citing that host the see image violates WP:NOTRELIABLE. There is not consensus to include such a bias information violating WP:ONUS, because you have included that sensitive information after the article protection. Have Wikipedia let all content in yellow papers and bloggers be included, then WP:CRYSTAL should be erased. --Osplace 17:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First the fact that a document contradicts another does NOT prove that the first document is wrong. The list remains at the website of the JCE and was issued by the JCE because it was MANDATED by law 169-14 and it is the only official list that has ever been issued. Regardless, it is NOT our job to decide WHICH of the two documents is correct. We simply point out that both documents exist and they disagree. As pointed out in the new subsection the Teleradio América article (which also appears in other sites) is a reliable source. An image that appears in that article can be included simply for convenience of the reader, since the list is very long. Do you believe that the image disagree with the official list at the JCE own website? Kindly let us keep the discussion about rules in the new subsection, since it is getting too cumbersome to edit this subsection.I proposed in the other section to agree to a list of issues to be mentioned in the controversy. You are welcome to participate. Virgrod (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and the citizenship controversy
I have opened this subsection because Wikipedia policies are important, as well as for the practical reason that it is getting difficult to follow the discussion. So far, only two policies have been mentioned.
 * Osplace alleged that citing the JCE official published list of people "irregularly registered" and the JCE press release violated WP:SYNTH policy. First, citing 2 sources and simply pointing out that both sources disagree with each other is by no means the same as WP:SYNTH. This is defined as to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this case, each source, the list (by its own definition) and the press release each explicitly states its own conclusion. They just disagree with each other (although they are issued by the same body). Second, a third source (the Teleradio América article which appears also elsewhere) explicitly concludes that there is a disagreement between both JCE documents. Hence, by citing this third source there is zero possibility of synthesis.
 * Nika de Hitch alleges that per WP:UNDUE policy the section on the controversy should be "written the most short way". I agree in principle, if nothing else because the article should be concise, while providing all essential information. There are however two problems: (i) how does one quantify how much coverage the controversy is getting? and (ii) how to account for the fact that in the DR most media outlets are owned by very few individuals, and the owners can impose their own criterion to limit coverage (even if the public at large is very interested)?. For this reason I believe we can simply agree to a list of important issues that should be included in this section, and provide appropriate sources. As I see it the most important issues are:
 * (i) The fact that the JCE press release contradicts the JCE own official list
 * (ii) That according to multiple sources the mother speaks with a foreign accent (this clearly strongly contradicts the JCE claim that she was born and raised in the DR)
 * (iii) That both LP's step-father and other sources have explicitly indicated that Dominican authorities at first refused to grant him a Dominican passport, and only did it after sports people exerted "influence".
 * (iv) That one or more Haitian publications claim his name is Louis Pierre and he is from Gonaive, Haiti.
 * I suppose you agree the previously listed issues are serious and should appear in any fair discussion of the controversy. Do you suggest any other? Virgrod (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You are wrong. The Teleradio America source is against WP:NOTRELIABLE: "publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist" and against WP:STICKTOSOURCE that says: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources" and you have read a name, you do not know neither the people from the source you are citing if is the mother of LP, it is their own investigation, because that cite is not saying the person in that list is exactly the mother of LP, the violates WP:NOR, then covering your point i). For the point ii) That is completely violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. A lot of people born in bateyes from Haitian parents speak like the persons around them Haitian creole, born and raised in DR, not a reason to contradict JCE, again your own investigation. If you can show a reliable source saying that all people born and raised in DR most speak with any foreign accent to prove thy are Dominicans, then I will buy you that one. For the point iii) I will not refer myself to that without references, you have none. For the point iv) I will lead you to my first suggestion, when I stroke out mostly everything but that, here in the third paragraph. Your whole investigation about him is a WP:SYNTH violation. You asked for official information policies here in Wikipedia and I have responded to you that if all those claims were given credit here, then we should delete WP:CRYSTAL. My point is delete everything about it, neither his sports citizenship neither his nationality is being judged or under investigation. What if a racist person says, "He is so black to be Dominican" or someone else claims that his last name is clearly from Haitian origin? Is anybody denying that he is from Haitian origin? No, is clearly expressed in the article, he is a Dominican from Haitian origin. Both parents are from Haitian origin, is expressed and referenced, anything else should be included.
 * First, you are NOT the ultimate judge here of what is a reliable source. The fact that you personally dislike or disagree with the article does not make it unreliable. Teleradio América is a well-established TV and radio station active for decades. The article (which also appears elsewhere) simply lists a number of unanswered questions and serious issues about this controversy, and it is is heavily sourced with a lot of links. If you find a factual inaccuracy please, indicate it. The problem with the JCE official list is not just the name. There is a complete agreement with the complete name, the year and the town of birth of the person in question. That is what my edit said "A person with the same name, town and year of birth...etc". Again, this is not a court where we have to prove anything, we are just reporting relevant sourced verifiable FACTS. The accent issue has been pointed out by sources. There is a linked video where she speaks. The reader, NOT YOU, should judge whether or not she speaks with a foreign accent. We do not have to decide whether it is true or not. What we are doing is providing SOURCED material for the reader. That article and other sources contain links to a video where the step-father himself admits that the authorities refused to give him the Dominican passport. Other sources say the same. There is no investigation. There is a CONTROVERSY and we are providing SOURCES for it, without deciding who is right or wrong. It is quite clear that you simply want to prevent the reader from knowing facts that are relevant to the article, but that you dislike. We are not getting any closer to agreeing. Suppressing sourced verifiable and relevant information is NOT an option. Neither it is for us to spend the rest of our lives arguing on this. So, the only solution is to set in motion the WP procedures to settle a dispute.Virgrod (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I am not judging anything. Yes the article appears elsewhere, like here here and here and neither are reliable sources, those are quite repeaters,the reproduce any media article without any filter. The TV station is well-established, that not means anything. GossipCop is well established, but it just yellow journalism. The same you saying "said "A person with the same name, town and year of birth...etc" means you are not even sure what you are saying, you should take that out! That exactly is WP:CRISTAL. Your sources are not reliable and not say what you sometime pretend to say, now you have backed up accepting you are not even sure. That is why Wikipedia cannot handle this kind of gossip, that is WP:CRISTAL. "Other sources" do not work, seriously please provide those sources, if they exist I admit that should be in the article. About the accent, please in any discussion this will be accepted as a prove of anything. Are the legal Chinese relatives that have been living in the Dominican Republic for decades not Dominican just because they do have accent? They were born and raised just like Dominicans sons of legal established Haitians who are born in bateyes, because I hope you know what are bateyes. Well a batey is The Caribbean name for a residential area on a plantation for its workers. I am explaining to you that Haitian came, had children that were born and raised here among Haitian people, having then being speaking in Haitian creole their whole life. But that means nothing, you will not prove anything listening an accent in a Video, that it WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:OR. I calling back the Obama birth certificate and the Barack Obama article. Seems that you forgot to answer about that. Would you like to include that "controversy" in the Barack Obama article? You should try, but first you have to reach consensus and you have no reach anything here and had introduce sensitive material after the protection, I have not. No controversy in the article. I am repeating that I am backing the name in Haiti and if the authorities refused to give him any papers, everything sourced. His mother conspiracy theory no, anything about it. --Osplace 23:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First the article also appears at almomento which is a well established source, not a repeater, as well as elsewhere. Anyhow, no site repeats everything since it would quickly run out of space, so the editors must use certain criteria to choose which material to include. But that is besides the point. You have zero evidence that there is anything whatsoever wrong either with the article (which is heavily sourced) or the news organizations carrying it, including Teleradio América, which has been on the air for decades. You have provided ZERO evidence against the reliability of the sources, other than the fact you dislike the content. The cited article makes the point that the fact that a person with IDENTICAL FULL NAME, small town and year of birth is in the mentioned list ADDS to the controversy, and neither the JCE nor any source has claimed since the article came out that that person is not the same one mentioned in the JCE press release as LP's mother. Again, this is not a court hearing. It is simply an article providing INFORMATION from sources to the reader, so that the reader (NOT YOU) decides what/whom to believe. The reader may choose to discount the source information given or to believe it, or to do further investigation. It is UP TO THE READER, not you. Anyway, there is no point in going in circles. You have made your point which basically is that anything that differs from the JCE press release, even official documents from the same body that issued the release, is unacceptable to you. I strongly disagree with you, and have given ample arguments why. We need the WP conflict resolution, not continuing this.Virgrod (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I am reading into it all now. I'll give some feedback shortly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Team, Great to see such a spirited discussion. I am nominally a volunteer on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and am presenting my points here because they are more suited for a talk page. Wikipedia has a clear set of policies dealing with controversial articles appearing on WP:CONTROVERSY. When facts are disputed between reliably sourced materials, then it is a good idea to quote the original sources and reference them. As an English language editor I wont be able to assess the quality of Spanish sources, but, if the sources are reliable then they can be quoted as long as we try and maintain WP:NPOV. Care should be taken that facts are mentioned accurately and things that are too far fetched are avoided completely. Hope this helps -Wikishagnik (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)