Talk:Tony Santiago

Notability
As a precautionary measure, since this article has been nominated for deletion before, please consider this information before taking any actions:

Tony has always been notable per our guidelines but we didn't have references online to prove so. Now we do.

Today, we can succinctly say he is notable per WP:GNG and WP:BLP since Tony:

Here are several references that establish his notability:


 * 1) Tony was an official historian for the Association of Naval Services Officers (ANSO). This information is not available online anymore but you can look it up by using the Internet Wayback Machine at
 * 2) Tony is the subject of a resolution by the 23rd Senate of Puerto Rico, this resolution is available at:  This was the most contentious point in the past as Tony was the only one able to provide it but the resolution is now available online through the Puerto Rico Office of Legislative Services.
 * 3) Tony has been the subject of a campaign by the Wikimedia Foundation entitled "Thank You":
 * 4) Tony has been profiled by the Wikimedia Foundation exclusively:  if you take into account that the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization recognized internationally you can easily see how this is a reliable source.

In the past, this article was criticized for its prose and I volunteer myself to fix such issues if anyone believes it should be improved. Feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will fix it.

I have known Tony for more than 9 years, if any of you need information from him please let me know and I will contact him directly by email, get the information needed, and post it myself on the article in order to avoid a conflict of interest by Tony editing it himself.

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Self-published" and "unreliable sources"(?) I do not agree.
Someone placed "self-published" and "unreliable sources" footnotes in the lead paragraph of the article. The "self-published" footnote is wrong because the source was a third party, not Antonio Santiago.

Regarding the "unreliable sources" footnotes -- I believe that articles by Wikimedia Foundation, and article profiles by Wikipedia, should not be deemed as "unreliable." What do other editors think? Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You may want to become familiar with the concept of a self published source. It has nothing to do with the subject of the article being the author of the source. --damiens.rf 17:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion. In this particular instance, I am familiar with case, common law and statutory developments regarding self-publishing, since I am an attorney with an active practice in publishing and intellectual property matters. I had already read the Wikipedia language with respect to self published source and, in fact, the language has a great deal to do with first vs. third-person authorship. You may wish to review it again, and note the operative words "own" and "self-published." Those modifiers are self-authenticating, and define the parameters of all subsequent language therein. But thank you again, for the suggestion. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And no, a facebook post is not a reliable source for claiming that a given wiki-editor is "the foremost authority on Puerto Rico's military history". --damiens.rf 17:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not refer to a Facebook source. I referred to the Wikimedia Foundation source. I believe it is worthy of consideration as a source, particularly on matters that relate to Wikipedia.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In this particular case the Facebook post is indeed a reliable source since it's a press release published on the official Facebook account of Kenneth McClintock, former Secretary of State of Puerto Rico and former President of the Senate of Puerto Rico. McClintock was an invited speaker at an official Veteran's Day ceremony held at the municipality of Guánica. The press release is a verbatim copy of his remarks as guest speaker. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, unfortunately for you Damiens, you do not come into this criticism with clean hands, as your personal attacks on the subject of this article are well-documented and we Wikipedians tend to have long memories.
 * Having said that, we are well aware that the concept of a self published source has nothing to do charcoal, rock and roll, immortality, and a million other things. Did I make my point??? That is, why don't you Enlighten Us and, rather than stating what it does not have to do, be brave and state what -in your wisdom- it does have to do with? Mercy11 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, the Thank you note from Tony Santiago is considered reliable for several reasons:
 * it was not published by Tony, it was published by Megan Hernández, Head of Annual Fundraiser, Wikimedia Foundation. Hernández, "[helps] our volunteer editors tell their unique Wikipedia stories to readers while raising our budget every year."
 * it's an official publication by WMF, not by Tony.
 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, the other footnote relates to a Wikipedia Profile, which was written and posted by Joe Sutherland and Victor Grigas at the Wikimedia Foundation. The profile was written by them, and published by the Wikimedia Foundation. Not self-published.  Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Footnote 7 of this article contains some helpful material. It links to Senate Resolution #3603, which was co-sponsored by Senator McClintock and passed by the Senate of Puerto Rico on November 20, 2007. For the benefit of our Wiki editors, I translated three relevant portions of it - and you can read the original by going to Footnote 7.


 * Here are the three relevant portions.


 * In its first whereas clause (Exposición de Motivos) you will see the following (Spanish appears first, my translation is underneath):


 * "Antonio Santiago, un ex-miembro puertorriqueño del United Status Marine Corps y veterano del conflicto de Vietnam, se ha convertido en un importante historiador de la aportación militar boricua. Durante los pasados años, Santiago ha hecho uso del internet para difundir historias de sacrificio y heroísmo puertorriqueño en los campos de batalla, tanto como Editor del "Puerto Rican Military History Channel" de la revista mensual cultural "El Boricua", así como escritor para la revista electrónica "Somos Primos" dedicada a difundir el legado hispano."


 * (Translated) “Antonio Santiago, a Puerto Rican, former member of the U.S. Marine Corps, and veteran of the Vietnam conflict, has become an important historian of the Puerto Rican military experience. Over a period of years, Santiago has used the internet to communicate the history, sacrifice and heroism of Puerto Ricans in the field of battle. This includes his work as Editor of the Puerto Rican Military History Channel, Editor of the cultural magazine El Boricua, and writer for the Somos Primos on-line magazine, all of which are dedicated to communicating the legacy of Hispanics.”


 * Paragraph 4 of the whereas clauses cites Tony Santiago as:


 * (U)no de los principales aportadores de contenido relacionado con Puerto Rico en la enciclopedia electrónica abierta conocida como Wikipedia.


 * (Translated) "One of the main writers on subjects which relate to Puerto Rico, in the electronic encyclopedia known as Wikipedia."


 * Later in the resolution, Section 1 reads as follows:


 * Sección 1.- Se expresa el reconocimiento y agradecimiento del Senado de Puerto Rico al señor Antonio Santiago por su dedicación y entrega a la causa de ayudar a difundir a través de los nuevos medios electrónicos de difusión, información sobre distinguidos puertorriqueños y, en particular, aquellos que han servido con distinción en la milicia.


 * (Translated) "Section 1.- The Senate of Puerto Rico recognizes and appreciates Mr. Antonio Santiago for his dedication and commitment to communicating, through new electronic media, the information regarding distinguished Puerto Ricans and, in particular, those whom have served with distinction in the military.”


 * This Resolution #3603 is significant, in regard to sourcing for this article. The resolution establishes: 1)Tony Santiago was recognized by Sen. McClintock, 2) Sen. McClintock co-sponsored a resolution, which was passed by the Senate of Puerto Rico, 3) Senator McClintock, and the entire Senate of Puerto Rico, formally recognized the contributions of Tony Santiago to Puerto Rican historiography, and to military historiography in particular.


 * In view of this recognition by a highly credible institution (The Senate of Puerto Rico), Tony Santiago's contributions to Puerto Rican historiography are a matter of record, and this was also recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * Tony Santiago is not a Puerto Rican Senator, and he is not a member or writer for the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation articles were clearly and explicitly written by Joe Sutherland and Victor Grigas.


 * In view of all this, and taking into consideration the comments from Ahnoneemoos and Mercy11 above, the sourcing is consistent with respect to Mr. Santiago's historical contributions. With regard to reliable sourcing, I will add Footnote 7 to the lede paragraph.


 * I strongly recommend that any further editing in this particular matter, should be done via consensus rather than unilateral action. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This (invalid) closure needs to be revised. I checked the disputed sentence and its sources and find that not one of them is a WP:RS for this kind of statement. Several are blogs and other similar internet sources, and the Senate resolutions aren't pertinent either. We are dealing with a claim that somebody is the "foremost historian" in a given field. For this kind of statement, there is only one kind of legitimate authority that could potentially back it up: publications by historians. Real historians, publishing actual academic history writing in peer-reviewed print sources. That's what "historian" means, and if you are not engaging in that discourse or if your works are not noted and discussed in this discourse, then you are not an historian, let alone a "foremost" authority in history. The Wikimedia Foundation may be independent from T.S., but that's not what "self-published" is about – it's still a self-published blog in the sense that it's not subject to editorial quality control independent of its author. The Senate of Puerto Rico may be a very honorable institution, but politicians are not historians, so their opinions on who is or isn't a leading historian are irrelevant.

I am going to remove that statement, as a matter of WP:BLP enforcement, so don't revert it back in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not what a historian is. From Princeton (see ):


 * How do we define "authority"? By having "the confident quality of someone who knows a lot about something or who is respected or obeyed by other people" (see ).


 * Tony has been regarded as someone with "the confident quality of someone who knows a lot about something" regarding the military history of Puerto Rico by five highly reliable sources:
 * By the Association of Naval Services Officers which declared Tony as an "official ANSO Historian" (see ).
 * By Kenneth McClintock, first as President of the Senate of Puerto Rico, and then as Secretary of State of Puerto Rico. The Secretary of State of Puerto Rico is charged with "[promoting] the cultural relations between Puerto Rico and foreign countries" and with "[providing] assistance to people who visit the island with educational or research purposes through the Bureau for Cultural Exchange and Technical Cooperation." Both the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico and the President of the Senate of Puerto Rico are highly regarded authorities and their regards constitute a remarkable attribution to the claim about Tony.
 * By Luis Fortuño, as Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, who recognized Tony's authority as a military historian by stating that "[Tony] has devoted himself to preserving the history and accomplishments of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. military" (see ).
 * By the 23rd Senate of Puerto Rico which declared that Tony had become "an important historian of the military contributions of Puerto Ricans" (see ; translated into English for your convenience).
 * By Primera Hora which declared that Tony writes "the history of some of the most prominent Puerto Rican military servicemembers" (see ; translated into English for your convenience).


 * Second, nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it state that the term 'historian' is attributed solely on publishing "actual academic history writing in peer-review in print sources" as you claim. I ask that you provide a policy where Wikipedia states such in order to back up your claim.


 * Third, WMF is under editorial quality control. The content was not published by Tony, it was published by somebody else under employment by the Foundation.


 * Fourth, nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it state that only other historians can bestow someone else as a historian as you claim in your argument. Once again, I ask that you provide a policy where Wikipedia states such in order to back up your claim that "politicians are not historians, so their opinions on who is or isn't a leading historian are irrelevant." There is no law, rule, statute, or policy in the whole universe that establishes that the opinion of a politician on who is a historian is irrelevant.


 * Fifth, per WP:BLP, statements on biographies on living persons must be verifiable. As these attributions have been referenced first by providing a link to McClintock's remarks, and then by providing a link to Fortuño's remarks, by providing a link to the Senate resolution, by providing a link to ANSO, and by providing a link to Primera Hora, they must be allowed on the article. I ask that you refrain from giving orders as you are in no way or form authorized to restrict what content is included or removed on an article. You are an administrator: your authority relies on technical matters, not on content disputes. I also ask you to please refrain from removing references and reliable sources from this article. If you believe that said content must be removed I ask that you instead follow our dispute resolution process instead of unilaterally ordering to not revert it back.


 * And finally, as the aspect in contest here is wether Tony is Puerto Rico's foremost military historian or not, I have reverted your removal and instead removed only that particular adjective. As you have been provided with several reliable sources about what constitutes a historian by independent secondary sources (Merriam Webster and Princeton) I ask you to please cease removing said content from the article (save for the word "foremost" which you may feel free to remove as we don't have multiple sources to back that up).


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

...effectively becoming the first person ever to be recognized by a legislative body for contributing to Wikipedia
Is this information backed up by some reference? --damiens.rf 19:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's on wikinews. We published it when he was recognized back in 2006 (or was it 2007?). Let me see if I can find it. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I was able to dig up that has not been deleted yet:


 * 1) Signpost article about his award:
 * 2) @Phoebe (current Vice-Chairwoman of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation) noting this might had been the first time a Wikipedian was formally recognized by a legislative body:

I can't find resources online that assert this sentence verbatim but we all know this to be true since at that time (Wikipedia was only 6 years old back then) nobody else had been formally recognized yet (others would follow after Tony). If this is not enough for you then feel free to remove the assertion but I can guarantee you that you would be removing something that is a fact that we just can't corroborate  online . Perhaps we can contact the Wikipedia Foundation public relations team so that they provide us with some fact checking?

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no urgency in removing this. This is not the only unreferenced information in this article, let alone in Wikipedia.
 * I have not much experience in contacting WP P.R. people. I can try that, but I believe you (or anyone else, to be fair) would do it better than I could. Should I try it?
 * --damiens.rf 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, give it a try at least. @Matt is a storyteller and he would love to get his hands on this. Contact him by email though. He doesn't use his Wikipedia account often. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)