Talk:John Márquez

prod

being the first latino of this major city makes him notable i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 October 2006. (UTC)

army

whats the category for army vets? can someone add? {{help}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

family details

This statement was recently added, but it was unsourced and none of the existing souces backed it up, also it was poorly inserted into an awkward area below the links and refs so i have moved it here. it was added by an unregistered user.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• John Marquez was previously married to Cherly Marquez in which he has two sons from. He is presently married to Marie in which they have two daughters.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

image

can we get a picture of him?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 07:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Find sources

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

23 years???

I can't make his time in office add up to 23 years. He was first appointed in 1985 and defeated in 2008, which makes 23 years, but he was off the council for several years (I think 2001-2004). To me that means he served for 20 years, not 23. Am I right? --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds right, maybe he held some other position or started earlier, or his career spanned 23 years, in many cases these people leapfrog from various commissions and boards while between regular offices and are always present at city hall be it on a police commission or parks or water advisory board.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This 2008 ref 3 months before he lost re-election says 18 years.  The 2004 ref says 14 years.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We should just go by the Contra Costa County elections board results.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean.  The explanation for the missing two years is that he lost re-election in 1991 and was re-elected in 1993, that was in the wayback machine, and I've added it to the article.  Was it Rossami that found that wayback machine source?  We've got another source that says he was in office for 14 years in 2004, and that source is consistent with the source that says he was in office for 18 years in 2008.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

More sources

• San Francisco Chronicle LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Berkeley Daily Planet

accent

He spells it with the accent, on the ballot his name always has the accent, on the English version, and his biography for the ward he represents on the college board also uses it. News sources tend to omit the accents due to ignorance or as per their manuals of style, but the name should be written as per the individuals official policy on their name.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

ps.: please don't imply that I'm "ignorant". Also, please see WP:DIACRITICS.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have said nothing of the sort, but you are ignoring the sources that this man chooses to spell his name with the accent.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

yes you have, at least indirectly. And, no I'm not.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The uses in the article should match the article title. The diacritics advocates fought long and hard for that, so it'd be rather ironic to turn the principle on it's head for an article that doesn't use diacritics. You did find a couple of references that do use the accented character, which is at least better than bald assertions that are completely unsupported. I still find it extremely questionable whether or not the acented 'a' is appropriate here, based on the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. I also find the insertion of a reference specifically named "accent" to be rather pointy.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What part of DIACRITICS are you referencing by the way? It seems to suggest no prejudice either for but NAME suggests that how someone self identifies is most important. I believe most sources render it without the a out of not knowing how, or a technical inability to do so such as a policy on accents or software limitations. The name of the article should be moved back to the original title so that it does match yes. The preponderance is that he writes it that way, there is no evidence that he officially spells it blandly. Pointy or not it, I have a habit of naming references after whatever their onus is, but that is immaterial.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The part that says that there is no predjudice against either, and the self-identification part (basically the whole section). And also, Article titles says that the text should match the title (maybe it was the naming convention... everything is starting to blur together). Look, I don't know John, all I know is what I can see here and read in coverage out there. The references here are barely reliable (most are awfully close to the subject, but they seem to be being approved by someone else so I'm not questioning their base reliability), and the vast preponderance of them don't use the accented 'a'. You can claim technical limitations or anything like that till you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the character isn't used. The assumptions about what others are doing, and why they're doing it, is a bit out of line as well. As for the article title... start an RM. I've no objection to moving it back if it legitimately should be there.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

He self identifies that way! Bios are self submitted. They should but you moved the title and it should be moved back. The coverage doesn't matter, how he spells it is what matters. And are you arguing that Mr. Márquez's self-submitted biography is too close to him to be accepted as a reliable source?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There is not usually any way of knowing whether a subject prefers diacritics or not, so this standard is just nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would he use the accent in his own self submitted biography?LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did he submit his candidate statement without a diacritic?[1] Because he wants to be all things to all people. Kauffner (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is this being moved around so much? In the past week, it's been moved in one way or another at least three different times. This should be move-protected for stability's sake pbp 13:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No. It was moved once in what was clearly a controversial move. There was a cut and past move (not allowed for copyright reasons) which was reverted. I have now moved the page back to where it started. Any move in the near future will have to be with a WP:RM or it will be seen as disruptive editing. -- PBS (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • So one move, one cut-and paste, and the revert of the cut-and-paste...that makes three. I don't care where this ends up (nor do I want to move it), I just want it to stay there. And protection may be the only way to do it pbp 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy close for procedural reasons and the article moved back to John Márquez.

There have been two moves of this page prior to this request:

• 01:31, 12 October 2006‎ Qrc2006 m . . (moved John E. Márquez to John Márquez)
• 16:51, 27 April 2012‎ Ohms law ‎ m . . (Ohms law moved page John Márquez to John Marquez over redirect: Not a single reference uses the diacritics, in this instance.)

If Ohms law is correct then the article should probably be moved, but this was a bad faith move given that an editor of Ohms law's experience would know that such a move would be controversial and so should be made only after Requested move.

As this closure is a procedural one, it does not prevent Ohms law or another editor immediately requesting a move to John Marquez using the WP:RM process.

-- PBS (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

---

John Marquez → John Márquez – As per this man's official biography as a city council man and as a college board trustee here[2] (and also the official newsletter for the college board here)he spells his name with the accent, therefore we should use the spelling that he prefers. As per DIACRITIC there is no prejudice against this and as per NAME, specifically UE suggests we should use the foreign language spelling for several reasons. And lastly proper nouns should be used self-referentially not as others write them, i.e. Loreal may be easier for an English speaker to write or read but the company itself spells itr L'Oréal LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for an RM to restore the consensus name.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ohm turned it into an edit war and refuses to accept logic, when that failed he claimed it's not that he doesn't spell it with the accent but that the title has to match, so here we are. But since you agree and the consensus at the AfD for the accented now redirect is overwhelming I am going to get bold. I have been mostly focused on saving Leslie Daigle in the meantime.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Withdraw RM and seek admin help in restoring BLP to sources and status quo It's evident from page history that there has been a disruptive move counter to ongoing discussion, accompanied by overhasty deletion of sources without using historical view to check whether sources were correct (which they were). Per the header of WP:BLP, inaccurate edits to living persons should be restored immediately, you do not need a RM to move back to an American hispanic politician's own preference, no different from Beyoncé Knowles. The only problem is it looks like you've done a cut and paste in order to remedy Ohm's Law's move, and in doing so the edit history has been lost. You will now need an admin with sticky tape to repair.... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The subject's entire notability is as a politician. His name should be given as it is on the ballot, "John E. Marquez",[3][4] or as it is in the media, "John Marquez".[5] Kauffner (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My ballot had him spelled with the accent, which is how he spells it.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The City Clerk’s Office says otherwise. Did you look at the links I gave? It would be most unusual if he really appeared on the ballot with a diacritic. There would be a news story about it somewhere. I googled around and I certainly didn't find anything like that. The name of one of the parties was spelled with a diacritic in 2006 Dutch election. It created a lot trouble when they were counting the votes, so now they've ban special characters. Kauffner (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner, this isn't the time/place for a RM argument. If someone wants an RM to move this hispanic politician to an anglicized version then such an RM and discussion should happen after an admin has restored the page to where it was 2006-three days ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move: John Márquez → John Marquez

John Márquez → John Marquez –, per WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". The reference section of this article lists the subject's media coverage, pretty much all of which uses the proposed form. This includes both major media San Francisco Chronicle and local paper Contra Costa Times. His 2008 candidate statement gives his name diacritic free as "John E. Marquez", which is also how he appeared on the ballot, according to the Website of the Richmond City Clerk’s Office. Kauffner (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment. This is a bit difficult. The 2007 version of his city council biography clearly has the accent. A 2008 candidate statement at the city council website does not. A Spanish-language media story omits the accent (undated, but from the events described therein it is easily determined to be from 2005). The candidate's signature from 2008 does not appear to incorporate an accent. A City Council "acknowledgements page" does not show the accent, even though another person listed there is given as "Gisela Hernández"; googling "Richmond General Plan 2030" seems to indicate it dates from 2011 or 2012. User:Luciferwildcat's first-person accounts, as an apparent resident and voter, are compelling but not really verifiable. I'd like to hear more, though, and if any old campaign leaflets happen to be lying around, those might be quite helpful. I would give very strong weight to the preferences of a living person, if those could be verifiably determined. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  Here is his "biography for the ward he represents on the college board" (mentioned in an earlier discussion, above), which has the accent. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  Here is a letter written and signed by him, which has the accent both in print and in his signature. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Weighing all the evidence above, the person in question is apparently not a stickler for insisting on the accent on his name (and has signed his name both ways), but he has quite clearly not chosen to abandon the accent either. In particular, the sources that seem closest to having direct input from the person himself (e.g., a letter going out under his name and signed by him, and board member or council member bios on the websites of the organizations he served and written during his term of service there, which he very likely would have been asked to review for final approval) do seem to favor the accent, as opposed to sources created by third parties or sources with only incidental mentions of him in passing. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Additional comment: re: the now-closed previous move discussion above: I have a hard time making any sense of Kauffner's statement that the appearance of diacritics on a ballot would be an unusual event that warrants a news story, or his anecdote about some sort of insuperable technical difficulty in the Netherlands. That is simply not the case in the jurisdictions I am familiar with. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Usage of accents in English in California are rampant, but some that prefer the accent don't usually object when the news or when technical difficulties prevent it from being possible. But the ballots are all bilingual so they have the ability and they use it to include diacritics in the English version if they so which, I do believe it may sometimes cost extra for an English version to have accents as well. Technicial difficulites in the Netherlands for some people sounds like a problem for them, all languages are equal here and they need to download a plugin or look up a picture of the "letter + ´" in order to see it if that is a problem, nevertheless it is clear that the accent is in official usage even if it is not universally printed that way.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment, the Univisión article is not a reliable source as it is poorly written.

Agreed, it is rather sloppy and not proofread. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• 1 and 2 It states that Helms Middle School is in Richmond, El menor de 14 años Dante Bonner había justo acabado el 0ctavo grado en la escuela Helms de Richmond. (The 14-year-old minor Dante BOnner had just graduated 3ighth grade at Helms School in Richmond), furthermore the spelled 8th/eighth with a zero instead.
• 3 It states, Su familia dice reveló que el menor jugaba béisbol y shortstop. (His family says revealed that the minor played baseball and shortstop) so multiple issues, say-revealed makes no sense in English or Spanish and playing baseball and shortstop is like saying I am going to ride a roller coaster and side inside the car too. Furthermore shortstop isn't even Spanish, words like quarterback are mariscal and have translations, a shortstop is a campocorto
• 4 It is riddled with uneeded double spaces in the middle of sentences and redundancies like ,... miembro concejal de la ciudad de Richmond. a councilmember member for the city of Richmond. What the hell is a councilmember member?
• 5 So finally I would say its not at all surprising that they don't use the accent, I mean they don't know how to spell 8 without a 0!LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Kauffner, same question as too often with your RM proposals unfortunately; how did you arrive at the conclusion that San Francisco Chronicle website is a "reliable source" for the spelling of Spanish names? if the newspaper isn't a reliable source for the new French president then that suggests it is also going to be an "unreliable source" for spelling hispanic names. What evidence do you have that the newspaper is a "reliable source" for this context per WP:IRS?

Context makes a difference The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I direct you to a reply (on 4 June), to a comment made by you, by Dicklyon in Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Bios, Non-Bios & Diacritics that includes the sentence "I should think most books are reliable indicators of the spelling that they use, and that in aggregate they may be reliable indicators of usage in English". -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

PBS Replying indented here as I was redirected to comment. Dicklyon may well be correct that "I should think most books are reliable indicators of the spelling that they use, and that in aggregate they may be reliable indicators of usage in English" I would say that "most books [after 1990].. reliable indicators [in French, German, Spanish]" English books prior to 1990 and enlargement of the EU are less likely to be accurate for any language, particularly East European and Scandinavian. But in this case I cannot see the relevance, the reason WP:IRS has been stated here is directly related not to a book, but to the "Francois Hollande" level MOS San Francisco Chronicle website, and another local govt form which also appears to be Spanish-accent disabled. The principle of WP:IRS therefore stands true and relevant in this case.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply. "Reliable source" is Wiki jargon. It doesn't relate to the number of mistakes a source makes. WP:EN suggests "other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources" as RS for this purpose. Note that campaign literature is not on this list. Kauffner (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, as far as I know "reliable" is not jargon, "reliable" means reliable, as in the sentence WP:IRS "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" - there is here no encyclopedia, tertiary source, so we are left sifting through more or less poor sources. And major news sources (in this case local news sources) are not reliable for everything - among them French or Spanish spelling. Is there any newspaper in San Francisco which has competency at New York Times level (and NY Times itself makes mistakes).? If not on, the basis of the sources presented the same question stands as asked PBS below. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are we talking about "Spanish spelling"? WP:UE says "follow English-language usage". Kauffner (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"And major news sources (in this case local news sources) are not reliable for everything - among them French or Spanish spelling " Again I direct you to Dicklyon retort in Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Bios, Non-Bios & Diacritics that includes the sentence "I should think most books are reliable indicators of the spelling that they use, and that in aggregate they may be reliable indicators of usage in English". If the man does not have an international or national profile then local newspapers are reliable indicators of usage in English. Can you produce evidence that What is it that you think is the majority selling of this persons name in English language sources?-- PBS (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, sorry if there's no evidence that the sources qualify under WP:IRS as "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" then must reject this. Besides P. T. Aufrette has provided John Márquez' letter and signature. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  Say what? His signature is "John E. Marquez" -- no accent. Kauffner (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  I cited two examples of his signature, one without the accent and one with the accent. The latter was from a signed letter written by him, the former was his signature on a form. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  How the man signs his name is irrelevant for deciding on how to title an article. What matters is what is the common usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  What evidence did you assess to come to your decision to support this proposed move? -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose  If the man's name did not have the accent, there would be no cases in which he used the accent.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:AT this is not a valid reason for opposing the move. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the move is unfounded.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the proposed move unfounded? Which part of the WP:AT policy is being negated by this proposed move? -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator has presented an analysis of the sources used in the article and in other reliable sources. If no one disagrees with that analysis, then I do not see any valid reason for objecting to the move. For those who have opposed the move could you please present reasons as outlined in the WP:AT policy why this move should not be made (his signature is not a valid reason what matters is usage in reliable English language sources). -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • PBS, Kauffner has nominated the move per WP:DIACRITICS (part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), not WP:AT which does not have a diacritics section though perhaps Charlotte Brontë and François Hollande should be added), and as far as the issue here this would appear to me to be a WP:IRS issue rather than WP:AT. On what grounds is the signature of a person automatically not per WP:IRS "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" and must be rejected? If in this case it is being used as supporting evidence where there are no clearly highly-reliable sources (such as the San Francisco Chronicle has shown itself to be unreliable) it becomes a question of which is more reliable for John Márquez's name:

- A letter from John Márquez's office with print and signature?

- A newspaper which does not spell "Francois Hollande" (sic) correctly?

Which of these two sources is "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context"? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"A newspaper which does not spell 'Francois Hollande' (sic) correctly" You are making assumptions that there is a "correct" spelling when all that an article title needs to reflect is common usage not some notion of correctness. If we were to do that then every article title would be at the official name, but the article title policy does not recommend official names over common names. Do you have any evidence that the spelling in reliable secondary sources (as defined in WP:SOURCES) habitually carries an accent mark? If not what is your assessment of the proportion of reliable sources that do? -- PBS (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi PBS,

No, it is not an "assumption" that there is a correct spelling for François Hollande, there is a correct spelling, at least in quality sources, which is, which is why the lede of the en.wp article François Hollande does not begin "François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande, or among cheap media, and among people who prefer not to reflect French spelling Francois Hollande." "Francois" (sic) is not an alternative spelling in a 'high-MOS' encyclopedia such as en.wikipedia.org, this is an error. If you believe that it is not an error and is an equally valid spelling, then why is it not in the article? Why not add "Francois" to that article if it is also a correct spelling?

WP:AT is not the only guideline, and does not touch upon the subject. If you feel that WP:AT is not clear then as above perhaps Charlotte Brontë and François Hollande should be added.

WP:SOURCES evidence that sources "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" spell French name François as "François" and Márquez is found in the sources themselves, e.g. News about Gabriel García Márquez, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"If you believe that it is not an error ..." from that comment I can see you have still not got what I am saying. I am not saying that either spelling is an error. I am saying that a survey should be carried out and whatever is general usage in English language sources should be used to determine the spelling that should be used. I have no idea what is the most common spelling used in the case of François Hollande or John Márquez, just that arguments based on "correct" spelling should be disregarded unless they are based on a thoughtful analysis of a survey of reliable English language sources. As yet you have not produced one shred of evidence that Kauffner's (the proposer of this move) proposal is at fault. Instead you bring up a link to the NYT about another man entirely, which is not evidence of the usage in reliable English language sources of the common spelling of "John M[áa]rquez" name. -- PBS (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As a source for his actual name, the subject's candidate statement at city clerk's office and his campaign committee filling trumps campaign literature. But this line of reasoning misses the point. An article title is not necessarily the subject's true or correct name. It should be the most common form of the name, the form most likely to be familiar to the reader. By this standard, major media is an excellent source. Stripping diacritics off names is standard newspaper practice, not a mistake. Judging from his fillings with the city, the subject's full name doesn't have a diacritic in it either. Kauffner (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No it should be the proper way they spell their name. Just because it is frequently misspelled does not mean it should be written as such. If William Clinton's name was frequently spelled Birr Clinton and appeared as such more in print than Bill Clinton does not mean we should change the article name to anything other than Bill Clinton. Why are you all wasting so much time to mispell this guys name? Are you all mad that at Latinos or Spanish usage in America?LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"No it should be the proper way they spell their name. Just because it is frequently misspelled does not mean it should be written as such." I think you need to reread WP:AT. The "article title" (NB not "article name") should reflect common usage in reliable sources not the official name. However the man signs his name carries little weight, as any signature is going to be on a primary source, and Wikipedia policy places more weight on secondary sources. Do you have any evidence that the spelling in reliable secondary sources (as defined in WP:SOURCES) habitually carries an accent mark? If not what is your assessment of the proportion of reliable sources that do? -- PBS (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi LuciferWildcat, "mad at Latinos or Spanish usage" it probably doesn't help to ask whether there is any xenophobia or racism involved in opposition to full spelling of Latino/Spanish names. The more concrete problem, as PBS points out above, is that some important guidance like WP:AT doesn't include a clear guidance to go to reliable sources for a title like Gabriel García Márquez. If Gabriel García Márquez was added as an example to WP:AT, which it can easily be, then that would increase use of reliable-for-purpose NY Times standard quality sources for Spanish names. If you want to promote use of quality accurate sources for Spanish names in en.wp that would be a better way to go forward. That's a suggestion, but one long overdue on WP:AT. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course WP:AT already has "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence." but what it doesn't have is the information that "Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen" are only spelled correctly in reliable sources. In unreliable-for-European-spelling sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle website these would be incorrectly spelled "Besancon, Soren Kierkegaard and Gottingen" (sic). So WP:AT doesn't support use of Spanish-accent-disabled sources for Spanish names, doesn't follow tabloid and low quality sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"are only spelled correctly in reliable sources" that is implied as the only sources examined are reliable sources, this has been true since the adoption of reliable sources into the WP:AT policy in June 2008. "tabloid and low quality sources" should not be used for the content of articles as all information in articles should only be based on reliable sources. Such reliable sources are quite acceptable as an indicator of usage in reliable English language sources even if they do not use the same spelling as is used in foreign language sources. In this case there is coverage of the subject of the article in reliable English language sources, so their spelling of the man's name is what should be used to determine the article title. Do you have Iio what do you think is the common usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner, (i) I'm sorry could you provide evidence that the Richmond city clerk's office allows Spanish accents on candidate forms? Because your statement "campaign committee filling trumps campaign literature" is the exact opposite of what most people would understand - that expensive campaign literature is likely to be higher quality than an input on a local government website. (ii) the San Francisco Chronicle is not "major media" it is a low-MOS cheap newspaper that doesn't have the editorial opex needed to employ Spanish-language proofreaders (unlike the New York Times). (iii) Stripping diacritics off [Spanish] names is not standard newspaper practice, it is tabloid newspaper practice. Low-funded, tabloid newspapers with minimal editorial resources (again unlike the New York Times). If you had an article in New York Times where "John Marquez" was anglicized and in the same article names from Category:Hispanic and Latino American people in the United States Congress were not, then you'd have a case. But so far you haven't said anything to support the claim that the San Francisco Chronicle, which remember cannot (for reasons of cost) spell "Francois Hollande" is per WP:IRS "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" What you've said is that it sells a lot of copies. So what? What has selling lots of copies got to do with being more reliable than a letter from the man's own office? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Iio the Wikipdia article on San Francisco Chronicle does not make the claim that it is a tabloid either in the British meaning (see The Sun (United Kingdom)) or US (see National Enquirer). What reliable sources can you cite that claim that it should be considered a tabloid? --PBS (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi PBS, we don't need to have a digression about the meaning of wikt:tabloid, the issue for the San Francisco Chronicle is that, like most tabloids, it is a newspaper with low quality MOS. The issue with this move, as with most diacritics related moves is "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Would you consider that a newspaper which does not spell "Francois Hollande" correctly is per WP:IRS "reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" for whether "John Marquez" has a accent? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2012‎

Apart from your opinion that the San Francisco Chronicle is a tabloid do you have any reliable sources that says so (BTW Tabloids like The Sun do have a MOS -- whether it is of low quality depends on what you mean by low quality)? The point is that if it is a tabloid then it should not be used in this article as a source. As neither you or any other editor proposed the removal of the San Francisco Chronicle citations and the information that it supports from the article, one can conclude that the San Francisco Chronicle is a reliable source and not a tabloid. -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

PBS,

Firstly does my indenting of this line meet with your view of how indenting should be done on Talk pages?

Secondly, it is not just my "opinion" that the San Francisco Chronicle has a typical wikt:tabloid MOS, that has already been shown by linking articles. And yes The Sun also has a low MOS, but then nobody would ever consider a xenophobic rag like The Sun a reliable source for accents on foreigners' names, would they?

By "low quality MOS" as before I still mean low quality in relation to the subject of this RM, specifically the reliability of the San Francisco Chronicle as a source which does not give European accents (per example given "Francois Hollande") to be used in preference to John Márquez' own letterhead and signature, which the NY Times MOS would allow, if he were in NY not San Francisco.

As regards "As neither you or any other editor proposed the removal of the San Francisco Chronicle citations and the information that it supports from the article, one can conclude that the San Francisco Chronicle is a reliable source and not a tabloid." please see again the words of WP:IRS. Does WP:IRS say that because a source is reliable for 1 thing it is reliable for everything, or does it say as Unscintillating says below that "Sources that are generally reliable are not automatically reliable for all information"? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you prefer the PR letter to his finance report? Kauffner (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner, because his personal letter is per WP:IRS (i) "reliable for the statement being made" and (ii) "is the best such source for that context." The lack of accent on a 2008 signature on a tax form may be a reflection of whether tax forms allow accents in print, and the signature has conformed, in which case it may belong with non-quality source incapable of giving Spanish names (San Francisco Chronicle) you have provided. Which of the two signatures is most recent? As for websites you must provide evidence that a website can and does generally represent Spanish names for the lack of a Spanish accent to become a meaningful piece of evidence. Otherwise you're just listing unreliable-for-purpose sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Usage in primary sources is less relevant than usage in secondary sources. It does not matter whether or not the reliable English language sources are in your opinion "incapable of giving Spanish names" what matters is the usual name (including the spelling) that they use, not the motives for those spellings. -- PBS (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, per P.T. Aufrette's comments. bobrayner (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So when it is just an accent why are some of you so opposed to spelling a name correctly?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether there is a correct spelling or not is debatable, however the WP:AT policy was renamed article titles (from "naming conventions") to underline that the article title should reflect usage in English language reliable sources, not what editors think is correct. For example the title of the article Elizabeth II is not her correct title or name, the title of the article Barack Obama is not his correct official name, and the title used for the Genocide Convention is not the correct official name, but all of them reflect usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

PBS, it has been noted before that examples from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) are not good examples for non-royalty BLPs. Barack Obama does not have an accent. And the WP:AT example of a correctly spelled name is Søren Kierkegaard. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth II does not follow the guidance in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) it is an exception due to common usage. I struck correct official and replaced it with official for clarity. It does not matter whether or not the official name includes accent marks or none English alphabet letters, Barack Obama andd Søren Kierkegaard are examples of usage in reliable English language sources -- this article title should be decided by usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Iio you have quoted from policy WP:IRS "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." several times while ignoring the last retorts made after you block quoted the statement (here is a convenience link back to that thread). While the policy IRS does not cover article titles -- that is covered by the policy WP:AT (NB WP:AT is a policy document, not a guideline as you stated above at 22:36 on 6 June 2012) -- the IRS statement (that you quote) is not a contradiction of the AT policy guidance. AT policy guidance is only interested in usage in reliable English language sources. If a source is a reliable English language sources for the information within an a article, then it is a reliable source for usage of the name of a person in English. So for determining English language usage for a name reliable English language sources used in an article are "the best such source for that context" unless the usage in those cited articles do not reflect the broader usage in reliable English language sources (if this is true in this case please present evidence of this). -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources that are generally reliable are not automatically reliable for all information, see WP:IRS, which has a concept "reliability in the context".  And as per WP:Editing policy our reputation as an encyclopedia depends on reliable information.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of the name as reflected in reliable English language sources for the article title reflects "reliability in the context". Using a name not from reliable English language sources does not reflect "reliability in the context" as it is either OR and/or a SYN -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

PBS, I would prefer it if you would please refrain from personal language like "ignoring." As Unscintillating says above sources that are "generally reliable" are not automatically reliable for all information, in this case reliable for the purpose of this RM, which is the spelling of John Márquez' name. It has already been repeated demonstrated that e.g. the San Francisco Chronicle is a low quality and unreliable source for spelling European names compared to even the New York Times. The onus is now on others, such as Kauffner, or even yourself if you wish to defend e.g. the San Francisco Chronicle's website's reliability for spelling European names to provide an example of the San Francisco Chronicle spelling an accented Spanish name correctly. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone back and answered here, the San Francisco Chronicle website is not a book, and again we know it doesn't spell Spanish names fully, at least consistently, we've already seen that even in their literature column. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So do you think that English Scottish and Irish newspapers are more reliable than the NYT for the spelling of European names because they are European! But in this case it is academic as we are not talking about a European name we are talking about an American name. The San Francisco Chronicle (and other American newspapers judged to be reliable sources) are reliable source for the names of American politicians. You write above "there is a correct spelling, at least in quality sources". You can not have it both ways correct when it suits you own preferences and incorrect when it does not. There is a paragraph in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which is based on a comment I made on the talk page of that naming convention. It is true for all article titles: "In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title." In this case the man is not notable to have an article in another encyclopaedia so we can put that to one side, as I suspect can a Google book search. So we are left with the sources in the article (which if they are cited must be reliable or they should be removed along with the information based on the citation) and other reliable English language sources not used in the article, if they do not diverge then that is the name we should use for this article title. We are interested in the "correct" as in the spelling meaning the common usage in reliable English language sources, so do you have evidence which of the two spellings "John Márquez" or "John Marquez" are more commonly used in reliable English language sources, or the ratio between the two. If not why are you expressing an opinion on whether this page should or should not be moved? -- PBS (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

PBS

re "So do you think that English Scottish and Irish newspapers are more reliable than the NYT for the spelling of European names because they are European!" - can you link what this relates to? Because I can't see anything I would have said above to cause this comment. Guardian and Independent have NYT MOS and can be relied on for French Spanish German names.

The context was this statement "And major news sources (in this case local news sources) are not reliable for everything - among them French or Spanish spelling. Is there any newspaper in San Francisco which has competency at New York Times level (and NY Times itself makes mistakes).?" For the name of a local politician Californian newspapers used in an article about the politician are a reliable source as an indicator of English language usage. The point you make about whether or not the NYT is more reliable than Californian based newspaper is in danger of falling into the dubious logic that because it is a European newspaper The Times is more reliable then the NYT. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again The San Francisco Chronicle the reason it is not a reliable source for spelling of European names is there in the links given. Please click them. Or run any other European name on the website's search engine.

"In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title." is true "in general" but often doesn't apply to spelling of European names. This is why the phrase "in general" is there, because there are exceptions, and, for example, spelling of Slavic and Scandinavian names is one.

If the words "in general" were not there then there'd be a contradiction between all en.wp Scandinavian and Slavic Latin alphabet BLPs being at diacritics and English sources not being at diacritics. Only 2 or 3 editors on en.wp actively promote the belief that low-MOS English majority sources should be used to spell Eastern European living people's names. You are one of them, Kauffner is another. But only a couple of tennis and hockey articles are where your argument states they should be according to your interpretation of the guideline above. This is a fact, unfortunately, as category:Czech female tennis players or category:Hungarian artists or category:pick one shows. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

PS I did not realise when I was editing Jose Maria de la Cueva, 14th Duke of Albuquerque today that it is one of your articles. But it is an interesting illustration that pre-1850 we do have "English names" on en.wp. If this was a BLP it would, per José María Aznar etc. etc. etc. be spelled per Spanish orthography. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What you say is not so. If the majority of modern English language reliable sources use "José" then the article should be moved. It makes no difference if the subject of an article is animate or inanimate, alive or dead, what matters for an article title is usage in reliable English language sources (There was a debate recently at talk NCROY over the use of "duc" or "Duke" with no decision made). This is just as true for articles about living Scandinavians as it is for Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"San Francisco Chronicle ... Or run any other European name on the website's search engine." sfgate's search on Tony+Blair seems to work fine on that European name. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment something else that should be considered here is WP:AT#National varieties of English, the article title should represent common usage among reliable American sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)