Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Freida Pinto

Where's the dispute?
Freida Pinto

What's the dispute?
I added the text "....of Mangalorean and Goan origins. The name "Pinto" is of Portuguese origin, but that does not imply that Freida Pinto has Portuguese ancestors." which has been deleted several times without discussion. Present discussion against this text refers to a weeks-old version.

Mediator Comments

 * Opening case and reviewing the nature of the dispute. Trusilver  01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken statements and began discussion with disputing parties. Trusilver  19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusion appears to have been reached. Concluding mediation. Trusilver  02:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus reached. Mediation closed. Trusilver  03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
Although it is a near certainty that this dispute will arise again in the future, all parties are currently in agreement that references to the origins of the Pinto surname as well as references to Goa and Mangaloren Catholics not directly related to the subject are inappropriate for this article.

Archive of mediation (taken from subject talk page)
I have accepted and opened the mediation case for the subject concerning the wording surrounding the name "Pinto" and the circumstances surrounding it. While I am going through the past history of the subject, I would appreciate if everyone connected to the dispute gives their opinion on what should be in the article (or should not be as the case may be), providing diffs where necessary. Thank you. Trusilver 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether the phrase linking Mangalorean Catholics to Goa and the sentence about "Pinto" being a Portuguese name should stay or be removed. It has been argued that this is a "nationalistic issue", since the Portuguese guy here (me) thinks that this information is relevant and some Indian guys think that it isn't. Please check the previous section. Thank you.Velho (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want the input here or on the mediation page? My position is it (all discussion of name origins and whether or not the name origin reflects nationality) is irrelevent and unsourced original research WP:SYN and needs to be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My position concerning RedPen's argument is that there is no original research and especially there is no "synthesis of published material". The phrase "...of Mangalorean and Goan origins." is just a reference to what is said in Mangalorean Catholics. The sentence "The name 'Pinto' is of Portuguese origin." is just reproducing part of what is said on the corresponding article. True, this sentence comes just after that phrase, but juxtaposition is by no means a "synthesis".
 * Regarding relevance, please note that the origin of the name "Pinto" had already been discussed on this talk page. That sufficiently shows that there are people interested on the subject. Moreover, surnames usually give some information on a family's origins. The simple fact that an Indian has a European-sounding surname deserves an explanation, especially, in the English Wikipedia, when that name is not an obviously English name.
 * And a further argument on "nationalisms". Ethnicity-related subjects have always created a significant amount of disagreement in Wikipedia. The best way to fight these disagreements and to avoid harsh discussions is to give all consensually true information. That prevents speculation and doesn't leave anyone with some kind of reason for resentment. That's an important reason to keep the sentence on the surname "Pinto" and to explain that it does not imply or suggest that Freida Pinto has Portuguese ancestors. That's the whole truth. Velho (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you read the wikipedia definition of "original research" before you claim that there is none in the language that I believe should be removed. It does not appear to me that you have. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * RedPen, please spell out your argument. And please be charitable to me. I've been an editor in Wikipedia for some years now, I've read the page on original research more than once. Anyway, I insist, please clarify and complete your argument.
 * I also think that you might agree that this discussion is not on whether there is some "original research". That's surely not the main issue that brought about the discussion. Velho (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is "original research" in wikipedia because a wikipedia editor is making an analysis that is not verifiable as being published in reliable source. And until there is a source that discusses the "portugese" or other origin of the family name "Pinto" and how it relates or not to a person from India, until you have a resource that is discussing such nationalistic origins in reference to the topic of this article it is a violation of WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I get it. You are claiming that it is not verifiable that "Pinto", in Freida Pinto's name, is a Portuguese name. But: (1) That's what is said on the article on Pinto. Perhaps you should discuss it there. (2) If you think that the problem is the lack of a source, the way to handle it is adding the tag "", and not removing the information. (3) Here's a source for the origin of "Pinto": José Pedro Machado, Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa, 1981 (article on "Pinto". You have some information about this dictionary and its author in the Portuguese, the Spanish and the Galician Wikipedias. Or just google it. I hope that's enough. Velho (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 2) It is the burden of the person who wishes to include the information to provide reliable sources. 3) You are still making connections that have not been made by sources WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You misread me. The source is not Wikipedia, but Machado's Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa. I linked to three Wikipedias just to give you some easy access information on the dictionary. Velho (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, an attempt to use a reference published in 1981 will be WP:SYN because there is no way that it is discussing the topic of this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * RedPen, I'm starting to have doubts on your good faith. The source asserts that "Pinto" is a Portuguese name. The sentence to be included is ""Pinto" is a Portuguese name." Tell me about WP:SYN.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First, just to keep things clear, lets leave all discussion here on this talk page rather than moving it over to the mediation page. The reason for this is simple, it keeps things as easy as they can be and provide a greater ease of understanding for anyone walking into this conflict unawares. Second, the entire dispute really appears to fall under a single issue, with all of the policies and guidelines that surround it. The question is: Is it relevant and necessary to include the information surrounding the origins of Pinto as well as that of Mangalorean Catholics in the context that is laid down in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As it stands, there must be extraordinary reasons to include peripheral information into an article that is not directly related to the subject. Does the exclusion of this information in any way damage the reader's comprehension of the article? Does the exclusion of this information change the context of the article? If the answer to this is no, then the information is not appropriate to the article. Keep in mind also that it is not general practice to include the etymology of a subject's name in their article. My question is this: The addition of the disputed information requires a very compelling reason to add it that goes beyond simple trivia. Does such a compelling reason exist? And if so, can it be properly sources to fall within the verifiability policies? Trusilver 19:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My first argument for relevance is that an average English reader will want to know why an Indian person has a European name. That was shown on this very talk page when the subject came up before my intervention. The proper way to give that information is to have a link to the articles on Goa and on "Pinto". So, these two words should be included. My second argument is that this is an ethnicity-related discussion. Discussions of this kind are in some sense "delicate" and should be settled by not removing true information. Velho (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A third argument for relevance: please google "freida pinto surname" (without the quotes). You will get "about 17,700 results". Please read a few lines on those pages (the ones where "surname" is not there for some other reason. People want to know where "Pinto" comes from. Velho (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Another possibly reliable source: Interview with Shri Udar Pinto. Velho (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems definitely reliable: Goanet. Velho (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same information on an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. I guess we cannot go more reliable than this: Social Anthropology, vol. 2/2, pp. 115-132, 2007 (subscription required). Velho (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) your claim "an average English reader will want to know why an Indian person has a European name" is unsourced POV.
 * That's for sure. But unsourced POVs are allowed and in fact necessary in talk pages.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) message boards are clearly not WP:RS, is a self published item and not a reliable source. Social Anthropology would be a reliable source, but unless it is actually discussing the origin of "Freida Pinto" it is WP:SYN.
 * Quite a claim! :-) Social Anthropology asserts that "Pinto" is a Portuguese name. The sentence to be included is ""Pinto" is a Portuguese name." I'm appalled that you think that this is WP:SYN.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) google searches are not treated within wikipedia as any measure of anything-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not only commonly used in talk pages, they surely make a point on relevance. Please note that this article is on Freida Pinto, and not on the relevance of its mentioning the origin of Freida Pinto's last name. The question of relevance is a metadiscussion about what the article should contain. In this metadiscussion, every good argument is acceptable, whether sourced or not.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just one point to note as I'm reading through this: The above statement is incorrect. Every good argument is not acceptable, sourced or not. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is WP:V. We do not include information in articles that does not have a proper source. We do not use sourced material in a way that is inconsistent with its original intent or in a way that is not directly correlating to the article's subject (see WP:SYNTH). If you will notice, it is not a policy of Wikipedia to put an etymology of each subject's name, whether it is common, uncommon or any shade of gray in between. Instead of running off on tangential information in articles not related to the subject itself, we simply Wikilink the tangent. in this case it would be Pinto (disambiguation). Velho, I think you misunderstood what I said earlier. In order for this information to exist in an article, there has to be a very exceptional reason for it to stay besides just trivia. What I mean by that is that there must have been some sourced instance that the subject's last name became a matter of debate in a way that directly pertains to the etymology of Pinto. Is there any instance of this that you are aware of? Trusilver  01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Trusilver, one of the core policies is to use only sourced material, as you said, in articles (that's why I presented sources on the origin of the name Pinto), but that surely does not apply to discussions on talk pages, at least not to those regarding whether some information is or is not relevant for a Wikipedia article. There are no sources on what is relevant or not for a Wikipedia article. All the sources I provided are very clear sustaining that "The name Pinto is of Portuguese origin." That's the sentence I think should be included in the article. A second issue is relevance: I provided a few separate arguments on that. Velho (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way: Pinto (disambiguation) redirects to Pinto.Velho (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing, Trusilver: You said "...there must have been some sourced instance that the subject's last name became a matter of debate in a way that directly pertains to the etymology of Pinto." I think you could agree that articles do not include only debated information. That is surely not the criterion for relevance. Let me state again my argument concerning relevance: (1) It is relevant what people may want to know. (2) A fair ammount of people wants to know the origin of Freida Pinto's surname. (3) Therefore, this information is relevant. I'm fully aware that (2) is not a sourced piece of information, but I don't want to include (2) in the article. (2) is only metainformation, which can be checked using Google and this very talk page (see the first section above), as I suggested before, and which is relevant only for the question of relevance. For the question of relevance, sources don't count, only Wikipedia's policies and common sense count. Velho (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies are unsourced too.Velho (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies are not articles. The policies reflect the consesnsus of the editing community.
 * No matter what " what people may want to know", we only publish what others have already published about the topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, others have already published that ""Pinto" is a Portuguese name." Please check this section for the sources. Wikipedia policies and talk pages are not articles. Velho (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A fourth argument for relevance. The sequence " ...of Mangalorean and Goan origins. 'Pinto' is a name of Portuguese origin. " is as relevant and related to Freida Pinto herself as the immediately preceding sequence " ..., a Christian community in Mumbai... ".Velho (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source that is discussing the topic of the origin of her family name - in relation to Freida Pinto and not Pinto in general, please provide the source and we can figure out how and what information may be incorporated into the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom
 * The point that Red Pen of Doom makes is a valid one, Velho. It is not our job to make the determination of "What people want to read about." It is our job to generate encyclopedic content on the subject within the parameters given to us by Wikipedia policy. Ignoring WP:V isn't something we do just because we feel like it. A good example of the difference between a notable mention of the etymology behind someone's name would be Barack Obama. There is significant media attention given to his name in multiple sources (and even then, I must note, there is nothing about controversy concerning his name anywhere in his article) and thus there would be a compelling argument to explore the significance of his name. In situations where there is no sourcable evidence of issues surrounding the subject's name, there is simply no reason to put off-topic information in the article... This is something you might want to take up on a Manual of Style talk page rather than on a specific article because this is general practice. Trusilver  16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Trusilver, I can't help having the idea that you did not read what I wrote. I am absolutely not ignoring WP:V. The sentence to be included in the article is ""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin." That statement is fully sourced (please just check the sources above). A different question concerns relevance. I gave four arguments for relevance and you did not consider any one of them. Could you please answer this paragraph making a distinction between the two points?Velho (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bring us the source please. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again? This is the source for the sentence ""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin".Velho (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the source does not discuss the topic of this article and as such it is a violation of our WP:SYN policy - applying 3 party analysis to content other than directly analysed by the original source. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence to be included (""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin.") is a direct concern of this source. Therefore, our WP:SYN policy is not violated.Velho (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a source that makes the connection with respect to the topic of our article Freida Pinto and not Pinto in general and it can go in. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of relevance to the article, not of verifiability. Relevance follows WP policies and common sense, not V. WP:V states that content should be verifiable, it gives no indirizzo on which content should be included in which articles. Can you make a distinction between V and Relevance, RedPen?Velho (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it is becoming obvious to me that this dispute is over drastically different views as to what is relevant to the article. Wikipedia policies and past practice dictate pretty well what is appropriate for an article and what is not. However, I feel that this debate has reached an impasse and needs some other views as to how to move forward. I propose that I start an RFC for this article in the hopes that we can get a clearer idea of community consensus concerning this dispute. Do I have an agreement from both of you that the community decision given by an RFC will reflect the appropriate course of action and act accordingly? Trusilver 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was going to request one but held off because the mediation was requested. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea too, but I would like to make a concession before you go on with that. As the article stands now (after RedPen's latest changes), I do agree that it would be inappropriate to include the sentence " "Pinto" is a Portuguese name. " It wouldn't fit the rest of the article. It wouldn't be reasonable. Everything I said before concerned a status quo (just changed by RedPen) where some more information was present (e.g., the sentence on Magalorean Catholics and their being a community in Mumbai). I think (1) it was not a good idea (and actually also not very fair) to make these latest changes, I think (2) the article is worse now, and (3) I am sure that the changes will be more or less reverted within a few days or weeks (as soon as RedPen relaxes a bit). I will not make it happen, I'm just predicting it. So, if it is ok for you, I would just leave it this way for some time and we would ask for a RFC when the article becomes larger and more informative than it is now.
 * I must also say that I'm a bit disappointed that Trusilver never addressed my arguments, even after a brief summary I copied to his User talkpage (that's the paragraph starting with "Trusilver, I can't help..."). But I will not waste our time arguing over that.
 * What do you say? Velho (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I didn't address your arguments because I'm not a party to this dispute. My job here is to clarify and elaborate on existing policies and guidelines in a way that hopefully clarifies the dispute, and if that's not possible then to find different avenues for resolution. All I do is tell you what policies, previous consensus and common practice dictate. I don't argue with you over your interpretations of what I tell you. You need to make your case to the other disputing parties, not to me.
 * Second, Velho, could you please clarify your position. As it stands now, it seems that you are suggesting that we remove your language from the article rather than get an RFC. Could you please state your position on the preferred language for the article before we move to RfC, I don't want there to be any vagueries. Trusilver  22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't get this one: "...suggesting that we remove your language from ...". Remove my "language"? :-o What are you talking about?!
 * "Remove your language" = "Remove the disputed text which you wish to be inserted into the article". Trusilver  02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. A few hours ago, RedPen removed several sentences from the article, including the one I was defending. My suggestion is a little more than a suggestion: I hereby take the solemn obligation (if it seems right to you) of not trying to reinsert the disputed sentence or any related information for a few weeks. I will also stop arguing about this subject. I will be back with my arguments and the issue about wikilinks to Goa and Pinto when the article becomes larger and more informative than it is now. Then we'll go for a RfC, if necessary.
 * Do you think this is ok? See you! Velho (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it seems that we have reached at least a temporary agreement in the dispute. Red Pen, do you find the resolution to be acceptable? Trusilver  02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently the article does not appear to be making any claims about nationality or ethnic sources of surnames which are not appropriately supported by reliable sources about the topic at hand, and so I am satisfied to let the article grow from its current form and revisit if necessary in the future. Thank you for your help in clarifying positions in this discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus, although temporary, is a great thing.Velho (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, good luck with the article. I really suggest an RfC should this issue come up again as community consensus would be a great help in this instance. Trusilver  02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)