Talk:Salman Rushdie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC on nationality in the lead

I oppose the use of "Indian-born" (which violates MOS:ETHNICITY) but some editors consider it necessary. What should the lead sentence say? Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• MOS:ETHNICITY does not state that any mention of ethnicity/nationalities or previously held citizenships has to be absolutely removed everywhere, it offers a more nuanced take where if mostly irrelevant or not of significance these should be removed. Here we are talking about a previously held citizenship (and nationality/birth-place) which is also central not only to the author's work, but also to their identity and the writing of a diaspora. That he is of Indian-origin is mentioned in virtually all encyclopedic sources as his main descriptive, and the same is the case with general reference dictionaries ([5], [6], [7]). Nabokov and other writers carry similar attributes. Rushdie's origin has been mentioned in the lead since this article was first created and has stood ever since, keeping in with the sources. This RfC would appear unnecessary to anyone even barely familiar with his work. Gotitbro (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sent here by Yapperbot. I think it makes sense to keep "Indian-born" here--> later in the first sentence it mentions that his work takes place in the Indian subcontinent so I think that he's from there is important context. If there is a more appropriate wording, that could be a topic of discussion, but I think his birthplace should be there in some way. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close as malformed RfC (first sentence is not neutral) and for failing to engage in discussion to achieve consensus in the thread above per WP:RFCBEFORE. sent here by the robot overlords voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, I don't think that's the solution here. I agree that this was a somewhat frivolous use of RfC, insofar as I think OP's perspective has little chance of success, considering policy and sourcing, but by the same token, I'm not sure what would have been gained by making the OP argue for a few days with the local consensus before proceeding with requesting outside perspective, which they are ultimately entitled to do in a case like this. In any event, the notices are out, and some of us are here already: let's just return a consensus that will hopefully bring stability to this issue. This is a BLP for a lightning rod subject, and the question of nationality in the lead sentence of BLPs is a perennial source of editorial disputes: it's hardly as if there was no chance this dispute would ever come up, but for the OP. Establishing a consensus now that it has arisen, rather than kicking the can down the road, is to benefit of the article. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Include. (Summoned by bot) I'm convinced that the self-evident existing consensus that this is WP:DUE information for the lead is accurate, looking at the sourcing and considering the context of the subject's work. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude national identifiers in the lede sentence. Explain later on - Firstly, agree with User:voorts that this RfC was not neutrally stated. Would suggest the nom revise the RfC to ask the "right" question, which I think is "How should Rushdie's nationality be described in the lead sentence?". Secondly, Rushdie's nationality is really interesting b/c it's so complex. Born in British India, raised in the UK and naturalized American, I think could fairly be called a tri-national (i.e. Indian, British and American). Usually when nationality is ambiguous, I like to defer to the subjects themselves (i.e. ask what Rushdie calls himself), but I can't find any interviews where he's self-identified with any nationality. I agree with nom that "Indian-born" in the lede sentence feels clunky, unusual, and may violate MOS:ETHNICITY. I'm surprised they use that language on Britannica. In conclusion; calling Rushdie "Indian-British-American" in the lead sentence would be awkward. Calling him just "British-American" doesn't seem entirely fair. If there's no easy and fair way to describe his nationality/ethnicity in the lead sentence, I'd argue that we shouldn't describe his nationality/ethnicity in the lead sentence. Instead, later on in the lede we should just have a sentence that reads something like "Rushdie was born in British India, emigrated to the UK when he was X years old and became a naturalized US citizen in yyyy." NickCT (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude - from the first sentence. The first sentence should tell the reader what or who the subject is. I would expect to find basic biographical info like this in the Biography section. Indian born is not the first thought that comes to mind when I think of Rushdie. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Include in the lede sentence per MOS:ETHNICITY ("...provide context for the activities that made the person notable" and "Ethnicity... should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" (emphasis added))

As I indicated above, "Indian emigrant to UK (and later US)" is a crucial part of Rushdie's identity and writing, and hence notability; the UK/American citizenship, on the other hand, is a trivial biographical fact (compare with, for example, Anne Frank or Milan Kundera, for whom the Jewish and Czech background, respectively, is central to their notability rather than what passports they held/hold). This of course can be supported by reference to:

• Rushdie's own writings as a whole, or individual pieces, such as Imaginary homelands, or the collection Home;
• Secondary sources, eg, Jeni Ramone's chapter on Salman Rushdie and Diasporic Identities, which discusses Rushdie’s work in the context of processes of migration, the crossing of borders, and the question of identity formation. These themes are central to Rushdie’s work, which reflects his own journeys. Or read the Salman Rushdie in context as a whole to get a small sampling of the academic sub-field of emigrant/diasporic/postcolonial literature that Rushdie has spawned.
• Tertiary sources, that Gotitbro has already listed.

Note that in 2006, editors of World Literature Today decided to stop dividing their book review section by geography and language, "in part because more and more writers are transnational (e.g., Salman Rushdie) and defy easy classification" and yet here on wikipedia we have editors trying to flatten out the complexities.

I am not particularly wedded to "Indian-born" as the only possible way to describe Rushdie's emigrant identity but am strongly opposed to a paint-by-the-numbers approach to composing the lede sentence and para that only lists his citizenship based on an apparent ignorance of the subject and a misreading of MOS:ETHNICITY. Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: - Agree with the sentiments about Rushdie being "transnational" and him defying easy classification. If that's true, why are we addressing his nationality/ethnicity at all in the lead sentence? The lead sentence shouldn't be used to convey anything that requires nuance. It should be the simplest, least contraversial description of the subject. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@NickCT: Rushdie being an emigrant from India to Britain/US is not the least bit controversial and we should include it in the lede sentence(s), as other tertiary sources do, because it provides a the essential context for Rushdie's identity and the work he is notable for. The nationality/ethnicity/migrant-status is of course not central to the biography of all authors but when it is, as in the case of Rushdie, V. S. Naipaul, Junot Díaz, Kazuo Ishiguro etc, it behooves us to give the information due prominence.

By the way, I do understand the instinct to remove these hyphenated identity markers from the lede of biographies because in most cases these are added by POV-pushers trying to mark "ownership" over a notable person. It's just that, as MOS:ETHNICITY and related guidelines recognize, there are exceptions where a person's ethnic background, gender, sexuality, religion, disability etc does provide important context (as confirmed by sources). In these cases, we shouldn't let our correct a prioi instinct become an unexamined rule that ignores the sources and, through omission or de-emphasis, misinforms the reader. Abecedare (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Nick, you make a cogent and articulate argument above, but without disagreeing with most of it, for me this comes down to two compelling factors: 1) the WP:weight in the sources does seem to support the descriptor as a general matter. And 2) it does seem appropriate to framing Rushdie as a notable subject. And one small aspect of your read that I do disagree with is the position that the lead "should be the simplest, least controversial description of the subject". I don't think that's always feasible, prudent, or particularly urged by policy that I can recall. And that's putting aside that I think there's a big question as to whether we have reason to consider Rushdie's nationality as "controversial". I agree that we should discuss the topic more fully where it can benefit from nuance, but I don't think this is a case where it makes sense to avoid foregrounding the fact in the lead sentence itself. We can unambiguously note Rushdie's origins in the lead sentence and still discuss the specifics in follow up statements. As to any ungainliness in the prose: well, that is obviously suboptimal, but sometimes it's just something you have to live with in order to be informative. Besides, there's gotta be a variation of the wording that most everyone could get behind.

Much as Abecedare described their default outlook here, I'm also often someone who can see the argument for avoiding descriptors of national origins in certain BLPs, but this just seems to me a case where it is too encyclopedically useful to not include just because we've started to develop an expected approach here. Afterall, the relevant policies still invest us with discretion on this call for good reason. Don't get me wrong, it's also not the end of the world either way: neither option will make or break the article, of course. But I do think the contextual factors militate for inclusion in this instance much as Abecedare suggests. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I love when in the middle of a debate someone says "this topic isn't contraversial". If it wasn't controversial, why are folks debating it?

We agree Rushdie is an immigrant from India to Britain/US. You're right that that's not controversial. What's controversial is whether being an emigrant from India to Britain/US makes someone an "an Indian-born British-American". Why not call him "Bristih-Indian-American", or one of many other possible descriptors? Let me ask you this (and to preface I know this is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument), but can you find another biography where we descirbe someone as "Indian-born" or "American-born" or any other "Nationality-Born".

We also agree that Rushdie's national/ethnic background(s) are relevant to his writings and hence deserve to be explored. The argument here isn't that we shouldn't mention the national/ethnic stuff, it's just about where we should mention it. NickCT (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

British-Indian-American, in whatever sequence, is not an adequate substitute because the fact that Rushdie emigrated from India is what matters (again refer to Rushdie's own writings and other cited sources). Note that I have been careful in using "emigrant" and not "immigrant" because while for other authors their immigrating to Britain, and the "immigrant experience", may be central to their writing, for Rushdie that is not the case.

As for other examples: see V. S. Naipaul, Kazuo Ishiguro, Milan Kundera... all of whom I have mentioned before. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

He emigrated from Britain. Why not call him an "Indian born, UK-raised American"?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's hard to really clearly and accurately describe national/ethnic background in 4 or 5 words for a "transnational" like Rushdie. If something is hard to do with a short description, it shouldn't be done in the lead sentence. NickCT (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, well I thought it was obvious that I meant "controversial" in the standard idiomatic use of the term (i.e. generally tending to be divisive), and that I thought that was the way you were using it as well, rather than in the strictly technical, but more narrow and atypical sense that we are disputing it as an editorial matter, and therefore it, in some abstracted sense, has been the source of at least one controversy. But let's not get lost in the weeds on those semantics.

Thankfully Abecedare has spared me the trouble of tracking down examples of the '[X]-born' formation, but I will add that as someone who spends a lot of time responding to RfCs, including certainly at least a few hundred pertaining the BLPs over the years, I have seen this structure proposed and adopted a non-trivial number of times. I'm not saying it rolls of the tongue in every instance, but again, you do the best you can with the elegance of the prose while making sure it says what it should say as a matter of WP:WEIGHT and clarity: that's the order of priorities I am inclined to support anyway. But mind you, I don't think that's the only way to frame it: I for one wouldn't mind hearing alternatives.

And again, let me emphasize that I don't think the article's accuracy particularly turns on whether this gets mentioned in the first or second sentence. The stakes here are low as I see it. But I do have to give feedback on what I think is the best match for policy even so, and I find Abecedare's read more compelling. Yours is also a reasonable interpretation. We're all reasonable people here, talking about something upon which reasonable minds can easily vary. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought for we Wikipedians editorial disputes are always divisive and controversial.  ;-)

But seriously, you guys obviously have a number of sources on your side (including Britannica) , so I guess you can't be too wrong.

re "adopted a non-trivial number of times" - Example? As I alluded to above, calling someone "X-born" seems very awkward. I'd be interested to see where else we've done that in a lead sentence. NickCT (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Albert Einstein is one notable example among many others, "-born" is not an uncommon formation when describing expatriates and the like and is commonly seen in third-party sources. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Eistein is a pretty good example. We wouldn't call Einstein a "German-born Swiss-American", which is effectively what we're calling Rushdie. I think the issue is the use of "X-born" in combination with a dual-national identifier. NickCT (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @NickCT - "Indian-born British-American" or "Indian-British-American" doesn't seem adequate to me either, and seems rather clunky. Given the context of his life, wouldn't it make more sense to either omit nationality altogether or just state "Indian-born" with an explanatory note explaining his nationality situation?

His notability and work have been greatly tied to India and his acquisition of American/British citizenship is more of a secondary detail. Albert Einstein seems like a good example of a complex nationality situation. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Clunky is right. I'm for omitting, but I don't think we're going to win the day here. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Include. the self-evident existing consensus that this is WP:DUE information for the lead is accurate, looking at the sourcing and considering the context of the subject's work per Snow Rise. This isn't a reference to his ethnicity anyway, but to the 'cultural reservoir' from which much of his work derives and is almost always referred to by sources. That Rushdie emigrated from India is what matters the fact that we refer to his origins does not mean that we automatically have to refer to all citizenships or residences in the first sentence equally, nor what is written about others whose origins etc may not be especially relevant to their notability. His current residence and citizenship is a detail compared to his origins. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References