Talk:Jia Tolentino

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconWomen writers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parents involved in human trafficking

Users CodyBry and Tp4321 (both of whom have no edit history) made edits on an addition I made yesterday: CodyBry added that the teachers brought to the US were "here legally" (a defense made by Noel Tolentino's lawyer), and Tp4321 deleted the section entirely. This information is completely true and well within the scope of typical biographical information included on Wikipedia. (For example, Keanu Reeves' page mentions that his father "earned a GED while serving time in prison for selling heroin.")

I will re-add the edit and I am prepared to continue to re-add it.

Luiysia (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the information you're posting makes no mention of the article subject, and therefore is contrary to our policies on
WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and do not add again without gathering further consensus. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
As I'm sure you know by now Jia has confirmed her connection to this story herself; initially I found the connection thru this article [1] which clearly states her parent's names. How about
WP:WELLKNOWN? Jia doesn't exactly fit the bill of "individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" and this incident is VERY well documented and at least as relevant to her biography as her participation in college a capella. Out of respect for Wikipedia guidelines I will wait for further discussion to re add the section but this is not just "gossip." Luiysia (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Substance of the story appears to be rather different to the above, according to Tolentino herself [2]. Jheald (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how her article contradicts the statement removed from the article: that her father and grandparent were indicted on charges of alien smuggling, visa fraud (etc) and that her father pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the united states. Luiysia (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but feel that the subject's version isn't necessarily relevant. If anything, it's confirmed the connection themodelcitizen (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard agree. Luka0188 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Jia's blog response to the case was removed in a previous version, on the grounds that no secondary source had covered that response. Wear Your Voice magazine, a "a digital magazine for and by LGBTQIA+ Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) based in the United States," which claims approximately 90K followers on Instagram, has now covered (and criticized) the blog post. See here: [3]. I believe this means Jia's defense of her parents' actions in connected to U.S. v. Omni Consortium, Inc. is worthy of inclusion on the page. External links can include a link to Jia's blog post to avoid any WP:SPS issues. 121.7.19.118 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC) EfficientMantra[reply]

Not just a secondary source, how do you believe Wear Your Voice satisfies
WP:RS? Is it even a prominent viewpoint to report given the article's less than 400 views? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The Wear Your Voice source has a respectable following-- in fact, three times the Twitter followers as the publication (The Billfold) presently cited in the first reference of the article. I consider 90K followers on Instagram to be quite substantial. It makes more sense to me to evaluate the source according to the publication following rather the views for a particular article; many publications don't share article views for context. Based on the circulation size, I see no issues regarding WP:RS. Is there a particular point of concern about this publication? 121.7.19.118 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)EfficientMantra[reply]
My apologies. The reason I mention circulation size is not to gauge the site's reliability but to separately gauge whether including it would satisfy Wikipedia's policy's of
WP:REDFLAG issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WYV is not a news organization in the sense that Reuters is, but it is a news organization to the extent that, say, Teen Vogue is. Like Teen Vogue, WYV publishes "reported articles, features, personal essays, and critical analysis of current events, politics..." [4] The piece is not categorized by the site as an "opinion column." Instead of the "COLUMNS" section of the site, it appears in the "NEWS & POLITICS" section. It is also substantially sourced, with links to coverage of the case by a sizeable newspaper in the Philippines, as well as in a piece reported by In These Times [5]. The latter On these grounds I believe both the WYV and ITT links be added to the article. To add to the discussion below whether to apply the label of "trafficking" or "smuggling", the ITT article clearly labels the actions of the Tolentinos' company as "trafficking." The article unequivocally states regarding the company's treatment of workers that "Omni Consortium kept all their documents, did not allow them their own transportation, and threatened them with deportation if they complained about their unemployment status or looked for another job."
To summarize, the basic facts of the charges and pleas are in the public record and covered by a publication (In These Times) with a solid reputation and history. Had Jia herself not addressed her connection to the case, I could see the argument for not including it. However, her defense of the case was sufficiently controversial to prompt an outcry on social media which was itself sufficient to prompt coverage in The Insider [6] and Reason [7]. It is perhaps debatable how the issue should be addressed on the page, but it clearly should be addressed in one way or another. By rough count a preponderance of voices on this page supports this position.121.7.19.118 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)EfficientMantra[reply]
You will need stronger sources that discuss Tolentino and her parents together to include this information. Insider[8] is not adequate while Reason does not establish any facts. In These Times does not report the Tolentino's names, and I am still uncertain about the reliability of WYV that its assertions of facts merit inclusion or whether its opinion satisfies
Biographies are to be written conservatively and should focus on the author herself while shying away from sensationalism rather than reflect the latest uproar on social media. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]



The parents faced charges of smuggling, not trafficking

While social media users did accuse Jia's parents of being "human traffickers", the parents were never charged nevermind convicted of "trafficking". This isn't a nitpicky euphemism: trafficking entails forced labor, whereas People_smuggling involves people who *want* to enter a country and find work. Consequently, the criminal penalties for trafficking are much more severe than for smuggling.

The Tolentinos faced two different indictments (see the case docket here [9]): the original trial included charges of violating 8 USC 1324 (Conspiracy/Alien Smuggling) and 8 USC § 1324(a)(2(B)(ii) (Alien Smuggling for Profit). It ended in a mistrial, and for the re-trial, the prosecutors filed a superceded indictment that dropped all the smuggling charges. And the Tolentinos ended up pleading guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to defraud the government [10].

Note that some of the smuggled teachers did allege human trafficking – here's a redacted Application for T Nonimmigrant Status dated Nov 29, 2007 [11], where the applicant makes far more salacious claims than are found in the indictments. However, the Facts section (pages 6-7) of the application notes that "the traffickers were not charged specifically with trafficking, they have been charged with Conspiracy/Alien Smuggling/Visa Fraud". Note that Tolentino is only mentioned once in passing in this application, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ultimately denied the application for T status, stating:

Based on the foregoing, the applicant has not established that she has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, or that her physical presence in the United States is on account of a severe form of human trafficking in persons, as required by sections lOl(a)(lS)(T)(i)(I) and (11) of the Act

edit: for more context, here is another T Visa application [12] relating to the Tolentinos/OMNI, in which the USCIS office found that "the applicant has established that she has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, and that her physical presence in the United States is on account of a severe form of human trafficking in persons". Doesn't change my other comments on this, but didn't want to give the impression that the USCIS had decided against all OMNI victims' allegations of trafficking. /end-edit Dansnguyen (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on how exactly this should affect the wording of the pertinent section. It's technically true that Jia was accused by social media users of having "human trafficking" parents, and the fact that her parents were only accused of smuggling may not be a big deal. However, since her response is basically an attempt to exonerate her parents of both legal and moral culpability, I do think the distinction is important: trying to claim your parents are actually innocent of H-1A abuse (e.g. it was paperwork errors) is much different than claiming your parents somehow got railroaded on charges of modern-day slavery. Dansnguyen (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, as always what people are saying on social media, is no concern of us unless unless it's sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources. Anyway this is an article about Jia Tolentino not here parents. Information on any crimes her parents may or may not have committed are not relevant here unless established so by reliable secondary sources per
WP:BLPPRIMARY. Until and unless someone presents reliable secondary sources establishing the relevance of her parent's convictions to Jia Tolentino, there's no point discussing this further. In the Keanu Reaves case, such reliable secondary sources are in the article. If people continue to add the information without reliable secondary sources, they may be blocked for violating BLP. Please remember that BLP applies to all living people including her parents who I'm guessing are probably still living, maybe even her grandparents. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to be clear, I put together this subsection because, at the time, the current article included a sentence about her defending her parents against "human trafficking" allegations. I don't have an opinion either way about whether the article should mention it at all, but just wanted to provide links to the primary legal documents and to point out the exact charges of their indictments, vis-a-vis how the allegations have been described outside of the courtroom. Dansnguyen (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I should clarify that my message was directed at this entire thread and all participants, as well as anyone who has already or will edit on this issue, rather than addressed specifically at any certain editor. Because of the way this thread has developed, including with this subthread, there is IMO no clear way to ident or locate my reply to make this clearer, as I do not feel it would help to start another subthread and adding it to the main part of this thread may mean it's more likely to be missed or misunderstood.

Anyway similar sources (a press release I think) have been added to the article by other editors though [13]. While other sources were added and I did not check if all any of the added details were sourced solely to such sources, I'm always wary of such additions given the risk such sources are being misused to source additional details not covered in reliable secondary sources. It's a moot point for now, since AFAICT no one has presented any reliable secondary sources establishing a connection to Jia Tolentino but if things change, editors need to bear in mind that they should not be using such sources as the sole source for any information.

As things stand, most of what we are getting seems to be utter nonsense. For example [14] other than being unsourced, makes claims which don't appear to be true. (The details available thus far suggest that even according to this initial indictment and court case, this was not a case of human trafficking but at most people smuggling. Further the dates on the stories suggest the conviction was long after Jia Tolentino was born. And previous discussions and the details that have been added suggest that the conviction was not for people smuggling let alone human trafficking but instead conspiracy to defraud the United States and was only for her father.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information should not be reinserted without reliable sources making the connection to comply with

WP:UNDUE. If reliable sources are not reporting this situation connecting it to Jia, her article shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Revisiting this topic

Seeing as this is a bit of a contentious topic, I wanted to lay out my argument and sources for why this topic should be covered in this article. I have to admit that I was quite shocked to find the entire subject omitted.

The following sources discuss Tolentino's parents offences and legal troubles. While I would agree that they are not the most reliable sources I think together the demonstrate some notability: [15], [16] [17] with a passing mention here [18]. They all specifically link the incident to Jia Tolentino and her public response to it showing, I think, it's notability in relation to this article. The story has also been the subject of many podcasts and less reliable sources which, although not useful for referencing, show a public interest in the story and again reinforce its notability.

Tolentino herself responded to the story in this blog post, once again linking this to her. The facts of the case are pretty well laid out in multiple RS: [19] [20] [21] [22] (there also appears to be a few stories in the El Paso Times which I haven't dug out yet).

I don't think the whole story needs to be explicated on this page but at least Tolentino's reaction to it with some background. This doesn't count for much but when Tolentino's blogpost came out in May 2020 it created a huge spike in people googling her and the WP article was found wanting.

As I said earlier, this has been discussed previously so I would appreciate some support before I or others edit. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: I found more sources discussing the story in relation to Jia Tolentino including Business Insider: [23] and (less reliable) [24] Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors previously in this discussion: Luiysia, FuriouslySerene, Jheald, themodelcitizen, Morbidthoughts, Dansnguyen, Nil Einne Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. This matter is contentious and subject to the scrutiny of the
WP:UNDUE weight to social media and blog blatherings. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I listed four sources above that speak about this topic exclusively in relation to Tolentino which seem quite balanced and, on second look, more reliable than I first thought (they are certainly not all opinion pieces esp. the Rappler article). At what stage does omission become a NPOV issue? Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those four sources (they're all commentary articles) have little weight in overcoming
WP:BLPNAME. Further, about Rappler[25]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The conclusion of this discussion seems to be that Rappler is a reliable source with a proper fact-checking process so not sure of your point. I have also linked to a Business Insider mention above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a conclusion. WP:Consensus is not a vote. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Read the actual discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly isn't a smoking gun discrediting the source either. Almost all sources have their reliability questioned at some point. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also
WP:BI Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Most Wikipedia articles would be thrown out if we just relied on this handful of sources. Like the page explains, you need to consider the wider context. No one seems to have an issue with Tolentino being an employee of many of the sources references in her article. Gotta tip my hat to
WP:GLOBAL too for the ruling out of Filipino sources here.Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OTHERCONTENT: This is a very contentious matter about an American journalist whose parent and grandparent are Filipinos. The focus of Tolentino's article should be about the journalist, not her family. BLPNAME confirms this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I would completely agree if there wasn't
WP:SIGCOV linking this to Tolentino and if she hadn't responded to this herself at length in both a blog and a twitter thread. The arguments against inclusion here remind me of Freud's kettle (RS don't talk about Jia → They do mention Jia but are commentary → They are not all commentary but are not reliable → This isn't linked to Jia) which has kind of made me more in favour of inclusion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No, don't include. No sufficiently reliable sources mention Jia Tolentino. Create a page about her parents if you think this deserves coverage in WP. We need to be careful per
WP:BLP. If the best argument is because a website called Rappler makes an offhanded comment about Jia, then that's not enough. I really don't get why some editors keep trying to include this information, when it appears to have little to do with her. --FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Do not include. Per FuriouslySerene. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously happy to go with the consensus on this but I think it is reasonable that editors have questioned why this isn't included. Something happened in May 2020 that saw a huge surge in public interest in Tolentino - I think it is safe to assume that this is to do with her public responses to the story. Naturally this doesn't justify inclusion but I think it's a pretty normal question to ask. I had barely heard of Tolentino before this story consumed my feeds for a week. Perhaps this is
WP:TOOSOON. Would be happy to bet that there will be enough RS talking about this in the next 5-10 years. Until then... Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe or maybe not. It's been a year later and the occasional badgering on social media about this issue does not necessarily merit news. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I agree with Vladimir.copic that it's strange that the article makes no mention of this topic, not even a sentence. I can see the argument that the focus of this article is Tolentino herself and not her parents, but she's a public figure who has specifically addressed these court cases because they've become so well-known. The court cases also involve immediate relatives, who very often get at least passing mention in our biographies (think children or spouses of a subject). In that context, omission of any mention feels strange to me. Regarding interest in the subject herself, I think people who write, particularly in high-profile publications, about others and political topics invite criticism of themselves and those around them. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure consensus will have changed as no new sources have emerged. I do find it funny that participants in this discussion bagged
Rappler is now recognised as a reliable source. I wonder if this will change people's opinion about this source. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it's funnier that RSP states that staff content by
WP:NEWSORG). Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think this caveat in the RSP is to separate out user generated content from the IMHO section and the x.rappler.com platform rather than a focus on the exact employment status of writers. This piece comes from neither of those sections. If you read my comment above I'm not arguing for any changes. I just actually found it funny (in a non facetious way) that I was part of this discussion and a a couple of months later there is a Nobel Prize and tonnes of news coverage about Rappler's work. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because Rappler has been established as a reliable source, I've noted their coverage in the article. Luiysia (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need consensus to reinstate disputed edits per
WP:PUBLICFIGURE also requires multiple RS discussing the controversy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There do exist multiple RS discussing the controversy as linked by @
WP:BI. The Rappler article is more rigorous and includes primary sources as well as expert commentary from Jim Knoepp, an SPLC attorney, and Ethel Tungohan, an academic specializing in migration labor. Luiysia (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you see consensus on this talk page? What does the BI article exactly verify beyond
WP:BLPGOSSIP? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree this is too thin to include. Secondary sources have generally not seen fit to cover this as part of a story about this subject, rather her parents. It’s not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to shoehorn it into this BLP. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Hello, I am attempting to update a recent event on this profile page. I noticed that other public figures such as Harvey Weinstein allow for editing that includes details about current events related to his espousing of "rape culture". The individual under consideration in this page recently espoused a world view that espouses or at best minimizes and normalizes legally documented cases of human trafficking that are in the public domain. I attempted to edit earlier and was informed that this attempt to document current events constitutes "defemation". Is there a double standard at wikipedia when it comes to US citizens being raped and non US citizens being trafficked? Can someone help clarify this seeming double standard brought about by what can objectively be called a Streisand effect initiated publicly by the individual that is the subject of this page? I recommend you allow for a democratic engagement of information so as to establish civil dialogue around contemporary and relevent issues concerning our culture. 2605:E000:141D:D757:E898:A961:2507:6895 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text of the request because it violated
reliable sources
like newspapers and magazine with strong journalistic and editorial review standards.
There's a second issue. This article is about Jia Tolentino, not her parents. While it may be appropriate to address her reactions and responses to her parents' actions, we should not give undue weight to the actions of her parents. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reviews of essay collection slanted

The mention of her book Trick Mirror included two favorable quotes from reviewers. For contrast, the review by Laura Oyler for the London Review of Books, Jan. 2020 was scathing. There's no reason for this page to be a fanboy site, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvom01 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I have restored the Bibliography section (originally begun in March 2018):

This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not meant to be a
CV listing her accomplishments. It should instead focus on her works that have received secondary coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jia_Tolentino&oldid=1210735621"