Talk:John James Audubon/Archives/2016

Biography problem?

It says in the introduction that he is French American but later mentions that he relinquished French citizenship to become American?

If so, it should say American.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyjack23 (talk • contribs) 2:54, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

The first two reliable sources checked (Oxford Art Online & Union List of Artist Names) say American, which seems right; the work that made his reputation was done after he became American. If he were known primarily for work done before taking American citizenship, the somewhat vague guideline at WP:OPENPARA suggests that he might be called French, or French and American. Ewulp (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I also think that natural son is a very benign way of saying he was born illegitimate, or born out of wedlock. I think this a bit misleading. Also, here's the problem with calling him French. In the John James Audubon: The Making of an American by Richard Rhodes, Jean Rabin, his illegitimate name before being taken in by his father and new lover/wife and changing his name to Jean-Jacques (John James) and falsifying a French passport so he can come to the United States, Audubon described himself as Creole from Saint-Domingue. (Rhodes, 131)[1] Now, Creole (or French Creole) meant French born abroad, the term used in Saint-Domingue at the time. (French Creoles, Creoles (usually meant mixed), Slaves).[2] Why is all this significant? Upon losing his French citizenship, he is now a. A person of Saint-Domingue, b. American of Haitian descent (Jus soli) c. American of French descent (Jus sanguinis).

Here is an example of my point that I am making. Toussaint Louverture was an educated and a savvy leader that became the first French General, of African descent, born from a slave woman from Benin despite these facts. Again, a "French" General. (A free black would be considered as such, a free people of color, the same). Now, Louverture died before the independence of Saint-Domingue; is anyone denying that he is Haitian or of Haitian descent. -No. So although, the category for Audubon mentions Haitian people, it is no longer accurate because he died as a United States citizen.

Upon reading WP:OPENPARA, it reads:

"In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. I do not believe this is vague at all. He isn't notable as a French citizen.Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already agreed that we should call him American. Our mandate is to follow reliable sources, and they seem to favor calling him American, as does the Wikipedia MOS. The part of WP:OPENPARA I described (in an aside) as "vague" is the part you didn't bold: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." This is poorly written: a person's notability is always for past events; you don't become notable until after you do something that attracts notice. And see the discussion at Talk:Alfred_Hitchcock#British-American for an example of the vagueness of mainly.

Here's what I said in the previous post. These are the exact same words, but with the three ideas presented in a different order, and one "however" interjected for clarity: "If he were known primarily for work done before taking American citizenship, the somewhat vague guideline at WP:OPENPARA suggests that he might be called French, or French and American. [However], the work that made his reputation was done after he became American. The first two reliable sources checked (Oxford Art Online & Union List of Artist Names) say American, which seems right."

I don't think it's misleading to call him a natural son, as the term is well understood. It does not sound to me like a WP:EUPHEMISM. "Illegitimate" sounds pejorative; "out of wedlock" or "natural" are probably better. We don't need to explain that "natural" means "Illegitimate"; it patronizes the reader. Ewulp (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that; well said. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So are we changing it to American? Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Ewulp (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Savvyjack23 (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ewulp: sorry, I was looking at the 2007 discussion, not noticing this one. I don't think "French-American" is wrong, but 'American' is still correct but just leaving out additional information. That reliable sources predominantly call him just 'American' is one thing, but if other reliable sources show he was a French citizen for a long time before becoming American, that works the same. As editors, we take information and rationally parse it to form articles. We are not required to only seek verbatim descriptions to go with. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, to comment on the edit summary, to declare an agreement between two editors "unanimous" is unusual. I'm now here, so it's no longer unanimous. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dofhd:, I'm inviting you into this discussion, as you are the one who changed the lead to say "French-American". That would seem to make it two editors currently in disagreement with the above decision to just say 'American'. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about counting votes, it's about following sources and following WP:MOS. I've already named two authoritative sources that define Audubon's nationality as American. Encyclopedia Britannica is another (seen here). Any standard textbook on the history of American art includes Audubon as an important figure; histories of French art normally don't mention him. An example that can be viewed online is A History of French Art, 1100-1899. Museums keep Audubon's work in their American collections; here's a link to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. To define him in Wikipedia as American conforms to the standard practice of reliable sources; why should we do otherwise?

Wikipedia's MOS would seem to forbid defining him as French-American. Here is the language from MOS:BLPLEAD: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." If Audubon had died before 1812—the year he became a US citizen—he would not be in Wikipedia at all because the work that made him notable was done after that date. And it would be difficult to argue that his French birth is relevant to his notability. He was a naturalist and artist noted for his work on birds of North America; if he had been born in Virginia he could have pursued the same career and achieved identical results. Ewulp (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)