Jump to content

Talk:Daniela Vega

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Semiprotect Request

[edit]

Some idiot is making a concerted effort to vandalize this page, can we put a lock on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.1.182 (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! I think that simply blocking the user in question will suffice, since it's only one person repeatedly vandalizing this page. If there were multiple editors, though, especially if the editors were hopping on for one edit and then disappearing, protecting the page would definitely be the way to go. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortuantely, hops around.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name

[edit]
I am boldly closing this section as the longer discussion is under "Legal name" and this conversation was originally started by an IP vandalizing the page. No need for this to stay open --(non-admin closure) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The subject's birth name ain't Daniela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.21 (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is a sourced birth name, I think it would be best left as is. Please do not edit war over it. You have already gone past 4 warnings. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vandal the page continuously and expect anything you say holds any weight.TVGarfield (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. The Birth name is not Daniela, but David. Exposing this fact is truly not anything close to vandalism. Moreover, hiding it is hiding one of the most relevant characteristics of this person. At least, at some part of the article, the nature of the transexuality, or as a child history of the person in question must be clarified.Hyprwfrcp (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyprwfrcp: Hello and thank you for your contribution! This would best be mentioned below under the title "Legal Name." Also, if you look at the edit history, you can see this IP was actually vandalizing the page per Wiki's definition (see here for example) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to consider as a formal birth name, though legal name is fine. Though the legal name could change according Chilean laws during the following years. What should not be taken off from the article is her transgender condition. Which is by way evident, in most published articles citing her. Hyprwfrcp (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why myself and a few other editors have increased information about her being transgender on this page. Before there was barley any mention of it. I just want to say I was only suggesting discussing this under "legal name" since it is where the more active part of this conversation is discussed. More editors are discussing her birth name there than under this title. Just to keep all the conversations in one place. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems incomplete

[edit]

Reading the article and I actually have no idea who this person is. Meanwhile a BBC article about her birth certificate not having her real name is giving me significantly more background about Daniela. I know there is a sensitivity about 'transitioning' but eliminating any mention of it as if it were invisible and didn't happen within a person's biography seems to make a mockery of that person's outspoken support for their rights to be recognised. Rather than an article about a significant individual pushing for legal, social, gender and sexual equality we seem to have a generic bio. Koncorde (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde: I completely agree. I am hoping to try and edit this article to be more like Laverne Cox, another transgender actress. At the very least, I think maybe we should change early life to personal life and have a few sentences there about her being transgender. I accidentally stumbled across this page while fighting off a vandal and as I was reading it, I too was shocked by the lack of mention. I believe the only time "transgender" is mentioned is in the last paragraph of her career where it says she was the first transgender person to be a presenter at the Oscars. Unfortunately, I am very unfamiliar with her work and don't feel confident enough to do a complete rewording but I am good at finding sources and doing citations etc if that helps. If you want to take on this task I will help you but I can't do a rewording on my own. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I know very little about Daniela, or Laverne, but i can see immediately the other article is more detailed and thorough. I will take a look at what seem to be glaring omissions first and what sourcing is obviously available. The BBC article should be a good start. [1] Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to see if any editors want to pop in and help work this article. If we're gutting a lot of this article due to COPYVIO it'll take some work and people who watch this page probably have experience editing in this area and are more familiar with Vega's work.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I think most of the content is fine, just plagiarised and better can be done. Unfortunately a little preoccupied to get into a proper rewrite, but I wouldn't hold back rewording any sections to better summarise the articles currently sourced. When I get chance I would like to properly read some of the articles upon her to get a better idea before weighing in (at the moment I am just reading the existing sources and finding issues). Koncorde (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources for inclusion about her successes, activism and personal commentary

[edit]

Please add more

Subject matter questions

[edit]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I am running into an issue with the agreed age that she began transition, sources list between 15 and 17. It is likely not critical to be so accurate but it calls into question reliability of the sourcing in question (or whether she has given different ages in the past herself). Koncorde (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde: Ah, I see what you mean. We have a few options; Maybe we should just say she transitioned as a teenager? Or we can pick the most consistent age and use that. However, to avoid possible edit wars 'teenager' seems like the best option. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the inconsistency is odd, however, I guess maybe it depends on what the journalist considers the starts of her transitioning. If she says she began to wear more feminine clothing at 14 some journalists might take that as the beginning (the personal interview in the Guardian says mid-teens which is exactly that, 15-17). But you're right, this is an odd inconsistency.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think teenager (or "mid-teens") is fine, it was just for any additional clarity. On a wider topic note having read some of the sources, I think the clear reference to supportive parents is required, in contrast to the criticism of the conservative society / country, however not sure how that gels with her current level of acceptance. Is that a new thing, or is it an ongoing challenge in Chile? Unfortunately may need to find a native speaker for that level of sourcing; unless you are one. Koncorde (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just saw the two new sources you added. They may answer my question! Koncorde (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only speak English unfortunately but I use Google Chrome which does a decent job translating articles in my experience. This source [2] (linked above) specifically says "It has also made visible the harsh reality of the local transgender community and the fight for its rights in a very conservative society." HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, she says in this interview [3]: "I feel that I’m really an actress. I don’t feel like I’m a symbol of anything — I’m not an activist." So the section about her speaking about the Chile gender laws maybe should be titled "impact" instead of activism. Unless you consider them synonymous then maybe we can just squeeze it into the career section or personal life?. I also want to add I realize you are from England and I am in Canada so I might not be able to reply for 7-ish hours due to the time difference. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really gel well with her BBC reporting a news conference after meeting Chile's President Michelle Bachelet Vega said that, in Chile, "I have a name on my identity card that is not my name, In the country where I was born I do not have the possibility of having my own name on my official documents," the A Fantastic Woman star said. "The clock is running, time is passing, people are awaiting this change." so while she may not well consider herself an activist or symbol, she is still an agent for change. In either case this sort of content needs to be included.

Lead

[edit]

I believe the lead needs to be updated to at least mention she is part of the LGBTQA+ community. How does this sound? "Vega received critical acclaim for her acting debut in Sebastián Lelio's Oscar-winning film A Fantastic Woman. In 2018, Vega made LGBT history when she became the first openly transgender person in history to be a presenter at the 90th Academy Awards (sources)." HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest something along the same lines. The "lyrical" bit of "lyrical singer" needs culling also. Koncorde (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By culling you mean maybe it should be removed? I understand she can sing, and apparently could from a young age, but I don't see anything about musicals or record labels on her bio. One of the sources already on her bio (#6) [4] says "that Marina is an aspiring opera singer owes much to the fact that Vega has been singing since the age of eight." I don't know if aspiring is enough to be in the lede.... HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's either a singer of a particular range, or an opera singer, or she isn't a singer at all but perhaps can sing (as can a lot of trained actors and actresses). At the moment there's no indication of where "lyrical" came from aside from the CopyVio of "IMDB" per belows comments. If it turns out there is no source for "singer" at all then it should also be removed from the lede. Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to remove singer from lede but add she is trained in Opera in the personal life section as I can find a lot of sources that specifically say Opera. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal for lede: Daniela Vega Hernández (born June 3, 1989), known as Daniela Vega (Spanish pronunciation: [daˈnjela ˈβeɣa]), is a Chilean actress and transgender activist best known for her critically acclaimed work in A Fantastic Woman. In 2018, Vega made LGBT history when she became the first openly transgender person in history to be a presenter at the 90th Academy Awards (sources). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this lede is appropriate? Can I insert it into the article? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to wait on me for approval Hickory, per WP:BOLD make your changes and then if there is something specific that comes up in discussion or response we can bring it up. At the moment just assume there is consensus the article is poor so any changes are likely to be an improvement.
Is "transgender activist" correct however? I am not sure her comments are only about Trans issues, but I could be wrong. At the least I would rephrase as "and an activist for the advancement of recognising LGBTQ rights" or similar. Koncorde (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, I'll tweak it. And I know there's BOLD but since this is a discretionary sanctions topic I just felt it was better to check than be bold. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly. It is possible that one day Daniela Vega will become an activist for LGBTQ rights. For now, to be an activist, she should have at least attended a meeting, or rally, or convention, or protest, or something that is related to this activity or with that topic. The fact of expressing your thoughts briefly about it in interviews of many topics, or during events of cinematographic nature or during formal invitations to recognize your success as an actress does not make you an activist of any kind. Likewise, if she had spoken of some deep political convictions, that does not make her a politician, maybe an intellectual with firm ideas or a thinking person. --Lunaliu (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so what would you suggest that section of the lede be changed to? She is an actress and singer? I just felt it was necessary to call her an activist since she has had meetings with the PM about the gender laws in Chile, but that can be added later in the article. I agree though that even though she has done such things, she wouldn't qualify to be in the "activist" Wiki category. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunaliu: Don't mind the change, just wondering what the difference is between lyircal singer and singer? Should we change it to Opera since that is what she is really trained on (there's sources supporting it). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(to your first add)- Is there an urgent need to change something just to change it ?, or is there some people who want to leave traces without any foundation ?. I'm not talking about you, but I think that there are users who, under the pretext of wanting to "improve" the article, what they do is reduce it and lower it. I do not trust them. I'm sorry and I think it's a must to clarify it.

In addition, there is a double standard in describing someone as an activist without having sufficient merits, and at the same time, depriving him of his status as a singer, even though he has given sufficient evidence in this regard. Not having formal singing studies, or not having released an album, does not disqualify her, finally she does not have any acting studies either, and she is an actress. Would then have to subtract that condition? It is insane--Lunaliu (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right and after some research, I found she actually has done some singing. I don't know why it isn't mentioned in the article but Vega sang Ombra mai fu in A Fantastic Women. So that needs to be added. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The studies or the preparation of a voice of lyric type are not reduced to the world of the Opera, you can perfectly have a studied voice and singing techniques and devote yourself to sing spirituals or songs of popular music. The Opera is just a part of classical music, you can sing lieds, Christmas carols or any other musical field. The tessitura of the voice in Daniela Vega has not yet been qualified, she is supposed to be a mezzo soprano, but if she has the sufficient technique to sing Handel in a single shot live and unedited, then clearly it is much more than a "singer" type Britney Spears. Give me a break!!--Lunaliu (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think we mostly wanted to change that part in the lede because it was from IMDB and we felt her LGBT activism was more upfront and visible. I wasn't comparing her to Britney Spears but Spears is more known for her singing while Vega is more known for her acting and for her being Transgender. But having singer in the lede is okay.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I regret if I sometimes express myself in a "politically incorrect" manner, but my interest in this case is not due to the transgender issue or LGBTQ rights, which I firmly support, just as I feel a deep rejection of all kinds of phobias . I am born in Chile and have lived too long abroad, my interest is culture in general, especially if it comes from my country and my countrymen. Greetings and cookies for you.--Lunaliu (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing why "lyrical" adds anything. Comparing her to Britney Spears is redundant. The absence of a source for "lyrical" is at the root of its removal. The lack of a definition of the word is also problematic. It appears to have little to no meaning in English other than the ability to express feeling to words... Which isn't much of a definition. Koncorde (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't mean to beat a dead horse since I did say singer was okay in the lede but the lyrical part (as mentioned above) threw me off. I looked on google and when I typed lyrical singer, Lyric soprano came up. Is this what you meant Lunaliu?HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is the intended meaning, we need reliable sourcing, not an IMDB mistranslation. I am sure there is something, and if Lunaliu is from Chile then they can probably source to a Spanish language resource. Koncorde (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lunaliu seems to have provided the source that IMDB has mistranslated as a source which states "Daniela Vega, actriz y cantante lírica" which is painfully translated as "Daniela Vega, actress and lyric singer". A quick translation of "cantante lirica" comes up with "opera singer" from the meaning of lirico as "Opera". Happy for the attribution to be changed to Opera (because lyrical makes no sense at all), however... is she an Opera singer? Has she ever sang in an actual opera? What qualifies someone as an 'opera' singer? Is a single sentence in a roughly translated Spanish language source enough? It may be clear she has training, and has sang operatic songs, but wary of attributing something without better sourcing. Koncorde (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She sang Ombra mai fu in A Fantastic Women [5] if that counts. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi friends, we should all try not to persevere too much on issues that are not transcendent or do not gravitate on the intrinsic content of the article. Sometimes we cannot see the forest for the trees. Let's focus a little more on content than form or details.
I must clarify that we are not here in a specialized page about music, which may require more accuracy in the correct use of the terminology inherent to that topic. It is only an article about a woman who can act in an impeccable way and sing with the right vocal technique even for the opera, and furthermore she has previous an long experiences in musical theater, which should turn her automatically into an actress and a lyrical singer, despite not having formal studies.
But in any case the concerns must be answered in an appropriate way to Koncorde's doubts:
A requirement was made to clarify her status as lyrical singer, I cited as a reference a secondary source that already contains this fact in its very title (in Spanish), and she was qualified as "actress and lyrical singer" . As apparently it was not enough for some users (which could be discussed), I am enclosing another secondary source, among hundreds of them, qualifying the fact that she is a Lyrical singer. I'm talking about an article in The New York Times that quotes: "The debut performance made Ms. Vega, who is also a lyrical singer, an overnight celebrity at home, and a star to watch in Hollywood". (bolds are mine) NYT
And talking about the "lyrical" subject, there's a review signed by an enraptured Ann Hornaday in The Washington Post that goes even further and says literally: "Best of all is when she sings, her exquisite voice offering to soothing balm of transcendence and lyrical beauty. (Vega trained as an opera singer.)" WAPOSo, as you can read, both use the exact "lyrical" word, related to music or beauty in singing. But regarding that the second one it's a review containing personal opinions,and that the concept "opera singer" fell short to qualify a voice technically ready to face all kinds of music, I'll take the first one, that of the NYT, understanding that the word "lyrical" in English lacks the meaning that it has in other languages, especially with Latin roots, such as French, Italian or Spanish. In English its use has mainly been referred to text in songs and, like in many other topics, something could have been "Lost in Translation". But nowaday ,for purists or fanatics of the technicalities, this reference containing the blessed word should be enough, as it was for the NYT. --Lunaliu (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things that one learns about Wikipedia and its users, is the regulation about how to use it, and according to Koncorde "The secondary source does not need to indicate its own source (the internet is not an exhaustive list of resources) ", so it is unnecessary to ask NYT that sustain with references every detail of what they publish.
But despite all the above, if there is a consensus among users who, against all written references,consider that the lyrical word in English makes them some unwanted noise due to possible implications with other fields, and believe that this matter is sufficiently important, they then can consider the replacement through a consensus.. Meanwhile I tend to think that it would be best to maintain "lyrical", based on what I have already explained with much more detail than it should have been, you should excuse the length of my text, I clarify that, obviously, I am not an expert on Wikipedia, I would still have too much to learn, although I do not think it interests me so much, but when it comes to topics about which I have something to say, like cinema, music, or general culture, I usually do it. Especially because I do not think this is the last time these problems arise, with you or through others different users. Greetings.--Lunaliu (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Koncorde, You are wrong to think that I have committed the simplicity of including a concept copied from any page without first assessing whether its content is appropriate or not. (speaking of the word "lyric") And, in any case. IMDB would not be the most appropriate source, nor is Wikipedia, The only time I think I translated something with confidence was when I created the article "Daniela Vega" in French Wikipedia, and for that I relied mainly on the Spanish version, which unfortunately it contained data from IMDB (so I now understand well.) Personal biography, in any case, for me is much less important than the career of an artist, and possibly I may have committed some carelessness with that, (I mean the French) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunaliu (talk • contribs) 07:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lunalia, could do with fewer words and more conciseness. Your first assertion that we should not worry about a small thing is the wrong attitude. Something that is wrong almost immediately in an article, however small, calls into question the rest of the article (it is pretty much the reason why I started questioning the rest of the content and why it is so poorly written).
The question at hand is: does the words "lyrical" make sense. Would the average reader understand its meaning. Two native English speakers are not convinced. If it's something we can clarify using wikipedia links, or by changing the wording to enhance the description then that is the question. Merely removing the clarification tag because you have written 5 paragraphs isn't the same thing.
What none of the sources have indicated is what "lyrical singer" actually means. I can find passing reference to a "lyric soprano" being one of a particular timbre and quality (versus a "dramatic" soprano). However the sources do not qualify Daniela's voice as being of a particular range. The Washington Post refers to her voice "having a lyrical beauty" which is great for describing it having a quality, and could be used to expand the career section (I would suggest using that quotation in some fashion within the "Early roles and breakthrough" section).
Now, despite what you have said regarding hundreds, the sources for what a "lyrical singer" actually is doesn't appear to exist in English. Instead I get a lot of sources that are not native speaking, or translated. This is leading me to believe that there is a simple error being made here. I would suggest that the lead is changed to "is a Chilean actress and operatic singer". I would prefer instead to say "operatic soprano" or similar if there is a source for the actual vocal, with a view to reflecting the long established structure of Dame Kiri Te Kanawa's article which says:
"Dame Kiri Janette Te Kanawa ONZ DBE AC (pronounced /ˌkɪri tɪ ˈkɑːnəwə/; born Claire Mary Teresa Rawstron, 6 March 1944) is a New Zealand soprano. She has a full lyric soprano voice, which has been described as "mellow yet vibrant, warm, ample and unforced"
This would make sense to an English speaker / reader, and provide context and further qualifying details. Koncorde (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Koncorde, nothing should be unalterable and may be subject to change, but these should always be under the premise that they really contribute to improve the article. If you delete something that is now so perfectly referenced, like the "lyrical singer" issue, you can not hide it as if it did not exist. You must replace it with another concept that highlights this quality, even if it is in another section, it can even be expanded with more details, it should not be hidden. In the same way if you attach another activity, it must be perfectly supported. to avoid that any user also wants to change it. If it is mentioned as an Opera singer, there will always be someone who doubts that condition and asks in which operas she was. If she is mentioned as an LBGQR activist without really being one, you are unfairly placing her as a target in a field of fire. If you write that her grandmother prepared her for the Opera, someone will ask to know if the beloved grannie was qualified for that, etc. You must, as in chess, anticipate the movement of the opponent and protect the written content. A reliable article must always have in mind the real person on whom it was inspired. They can not be just letters and numbers. If you read what has been written about Miss Vega, if you analyze meticulously what she declares in the interviews that appeared in the different media, then you will be able to turn everything you have assimilated about her into an article that stands out for its rigor and for breadth of content. You will not drown or others will drown you in details that you can not handle. I leave the article in your hands, under the condition that it will be really improved, since I can see that in all about Wikipedia, you are much more qualified than me. I hope to see, finally, a better and more complete article than we have now. And if I think something is not right, I will let you know through this talk page, without reversing, to avoid the excess of garbage accumulated in the history of the article itself. Greetings.--Lunaliu (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Koncorde, "Mezzo-soprano" was a very wise choice. And it has a double advantage over "lyrical singer" (with all its uncertain etymological implications in English), and even over "singer" alone. First, it is sufficiently certified by a reliable source, and second, it prevents anyone from requiring recordings or public appearances in Operas, because it is only referring to the voice, to her real tessitura. Good for that!--Lunaliu (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life

[edit]

Per discussion below, it seems quite obvious the sourcing for this entire section is flawed by being based on IMDB to exclusion, and a significant amount of COPYVIO and plagiarism. This needs entirely ripping out and re-sourcing. Koncorde (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Koncorde: Agree. Some notes: I cannot find ref about parents names, exact birthday (although every source says 28) and the move to Ñuñoa except for IMDB so I just removed them. I don't believe moving to Ñuñoa is that controversial so that can probably be put back but I think leaving the parents names out is fine.
How about this: Born on June 3, 1989 in San Miguel, Santiago, to a middle-class family, Daniela began studying Opera with her grandmother at the age of eight.[6],[1] Growing up, she attended an all boys school where she was bullied.[7],[8] It was while she was attending the all-boys school school in her late teens that she realized she was transgender and began to transition.(list all the sources you listed above). Her parents and younger brother Nicholas were supportive of her, despite the conservative nature of Chile during 1973 to 1990.[9],[10]. After she transitioned she suffered from depression due to the lack of opportunities for her as a trans women,[11],[12], [13] but her parents were supportive and her father encouraged her to go to beauty school, and later theater school.[14] HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good start. Koncorde (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a better segue between studying Opera with her grandmother and her being bullied. I think the depression is important to mention, especially because I can find a lot of sources saying this, her parents were supporting which seems to be against the norm for the time, and she is openly talking about it. I am surprised it was omitted originally. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know you said it was a start but it was driving me nuts that the early life section was copied from IMDB so I was Bold and updated it.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Career

[edit]

Reading this section, it appears it is a massive COPYVIO throughout.

Current Section:

Eventually, Vega met a writer and director who suggested that they collaborate on a stage piece about her experience of transitioning.[5] This resulted in her career debut in 2011 in the play "La mujer Mariposa (The Butterfly Woman)", a biodrama of transfiguration by director Martin de la Parra. This piece, where she also had the opportunity to sing, ran for eight years in Santiago. During this time, she participated in more pieces, most notably in Migrante (Migrant), a piece about migration.[6][7] Vega gained notoriety when she appeared in the video clip of the famous song "Maria" by Manuel García in 2014. She made her screen debut in 2015 in a drama called La visita (The Guest), playing a trans woman at her father’s wake.[8][5]

Guardian Source:

Eventually, Vega met a writer and director who suggested that they collaborate on a stage piece about her experience of transitioning. The resulting solo show, La Mujer Mariposa, (The Butterfly Woman), ran for eight years in Santiago. She made her screen debut in 2015 in a drama called La Visita (The Visit), playing a trans woman at her father’s wake.

There appears to have been a problematic habit of cut and paste. Koncorde (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I guess it's a good thing we're editing this page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The music video part comes from IMDB: "In 2014 she got notoriety when she appeared in the video clip of the songwriter Manuel García's song "Maria"- not as bad copy and paste at least the person tried but it is still similar. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article [15] (while in Spanish) discusses how the music video was in collaboration with a gay suicide prevention organization which might be important to mention (as part of her activism). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah from what I could tell every single sentence was copied from a source somewhere, I just demonstrated the obvious one to emphasise how blatant it has been. Koncorde (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sandberg, Patrick (September 15, 2017). "Meet Daniela Vega, Who Could Be the First Transgender Actress Nominated For an Oscar". W Magazine. Archived from the original on September 15, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
[edit]

There are no reliable references to the fact that this is really her name, except that one on the spanish tabloid "Aldianews", the only one that makes the assumed name in an article without sources of any kind. Even so, according to the policy of Biographies of living persons, since Daniela Vega has not yet spoken publicly of her legal name, that should not be in her biography. For the same reason as above, I proceed to eliminate this poorly referenced information, insistently incorporated by user KoncordeLunaliu (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source doesn't need to indicate its own source (the internet is not an exhaustive list of resources). Nor is there any obvious BLP issue at hand here (anything related to names would typically be regarding not the subject of the article, but relatives or similar individual with a reasonable assumption of privacy), nor does it require Daniela to speak her legal name for it to be mentioned. Meanwhile there is nothing indicating that Al Día News (or the journalist) is an unreliable source.
When a sourced piece of content is added, then removed by an anonymous IP without edit summary it is reasonable practice to challenge the act. Additionally your claims relating to IMDB are false. It is not a reliable source in all situations. It has limited editorial oversight for things like personal information (much of which can be contributed by the subject themselves, or edited freely by the public). It isn't even reliably exhaustive on movies. If IMDB is the principle source for the content in the article then it is massively flawed sourcing. Koncorde (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Koncorde, I have checked the Civil Registry birth record and it proves Al Día right. I can post it somewhere so you can check (can't here because of privacy and stuff; I did so at the Spanish Wikipedia and they even removed my edits!). But anyway, the name should stay. She was born a "he" and saying that does not make it disrespectful; on the contrary, denying it makes it weird. --201.241.87.35 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you check the German Wikipedia, it's been already posted there. [16] 201.241.87.35 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly, for some people it seems to be very important that something as irrelevant as the original name of someone who changed sex is exposed, even against the will of the person concerned. And for such purposes it is possible to dig into the web until finding as reference the only lampoon that has had the indecency to publish it, with no other source than a birth certificate filtered on the web, and obtained illegally by someone who is not its owner. A publication that otherwise those people would never have noticed its existence. Curious that it becomes controversial something superfluous and does not contribute to the construction of a biography of a woman who has stood out for reasons other than that detail, which is perfectly dispensable.--Lunaliu (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC) In the same way it would be your privilege to publish it, if that gives you pleasure, but for that you should expect to obtain something more consistent than what you have now. It is true that the fact that Daniela Vega does not want to publicly provide her name is not a reason not to do so here. Wikipedia is not made to please the wishes of Miss Vega, but I can assure you that it has not been created to please yours either. Neither do I advise you, for hygiene, to publish her personal birth certificate, in Spanish Wikipedia someone tried and it was removed. In German Wikipedia, as another user mentions, it has been allowed, under the complicity of the administrators, in fact I reversed it several times and I also opened the topic in the discussion page to call for sanity, but to discuss with intolerant Germans is not my specialty, so I preferred to give up doing it, and surely I will not continue participating in those pages with fanatics or ignorants.--Lunaliu (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All you have been doing, both here and on the German Wikipedia is to vandalize the article. That her birth name is David Andrés Vega Hernández is a fact and it is verified and as such it will and needs to stay. 201.241.87.35 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying that wikipedia is not a suitable source, neither is an original birth certificate since wikipedia is not a place for original research. Please review WP:NOR. Rab V (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get why the legal and birth name cannot be added. It's not original research, it's out there. 201.241.87.35 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were meant to be linked to this page WP:PATENTS#Are birth certificates, baseball cards, etc. reliable sources? and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the birth certificate should be used as a reference, instead, the news articles . 201.241.87.35 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you stated it earlier so I was unsure which one you were referring to. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That name is superfluous. Just an anecdote. Any user can mention the original male name of Daniela Vega or any other person, only that it must be referenced correctly. If there is an article in a verified source that supports it, then anyone can add it. Otherwise, that is vandalism. This has been repeated many times to the same user, and he insistently does not assimilate it. If this anonymous user finds any accredited publication that contains that name, then he can do it, or otherwise if he asks me, I do it for him, so that he stops accusing vandalism to those who do the right thing, and he can understands once and for all how unimportant can be a forgotten name for those who write about what really matters, such as achievements in her profession and in her brilliant career, although now it's getting too obvious that the latter is what that really bothers him.--Lunaliu (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A birth name is definitely not superfluous. Not mentioning it implies denial. Curiously, that newspaper someone added as a source, Al día, has since removed any reference to Daniela's birth name,David Andrés, from the article. And no, it's not all about her work. It's about the person. I wonder why you appreciate adding her birth name as something negative, when in fact, it would improve the article dramatically. It may seem superfluous, yes, but it's important in fact. 201.241.87.35 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to include her birth name if we know what it is. Right now we don't. The previous source we were using, Al Dia, has removed the "David" name from their article (as you noted). I think that leaves us with no reliable sources stating that was her birth name. The link that someone posted on German Wikipedia to a Blogspot page appearing to contain an image of a birth certificate is clearly not a reliable source. First of all, birth certificates are usually not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and secondly, anonymous blogs certainly aren't. It's possible this image is an authentic reproduction of Vega's birth certificate, but it could just as easily be a forgery concocted by someone with a basic knowledge of Photoshop. After all, it appears on Blogspot--not a Chilean government website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.100 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have myself requested her birth certificate (it is free to do so, having their SSN (RUT), which is public anyway and can easily be found on some websites), and can say the one uploaded on Blogspot is correct. But I think it is okay to wait until some other source is bold enough to publish her birth name. 201.241.87.35 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear birth certificates are not RS, multiple people have explained this to you already. You requesting one is definitely original research, which doesn't belong on here as well, and in my personal opinion just creepy. Rab V (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said I can understand that it is not well-seen to reference such a source here. IMHO it is a reliable source, but I can also understand it is forbidden to do original research. That's why I said we'll have to wait until someone is bold enough to publish her info. Oh, and it can't be creepy requesting birth certificates, remember there is a huge amount of people who do genealogy and that implies, precisely, research civil records 201.241.87.35 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legal name must be there, and also her condition of transexuality. It is a great challenge and should not be hidden as "never happened". Besides the legal name is proven, Must be included in his biography. The reference is properly indicated here: http://www.ray-magazin.at/oscars/2018/bester-fremdsprachiger-film-eine-fantastische-frau. Hyprwfrcp (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the edits you made but I changed this because I felt there was a bit of an overemphasis on "his". I am okay if people want to change "she was the first-born..." to "he" but I felt repeating "his father" and "his mother" was too much. Maybe get rid of gender pronouns and just say "as the first born child..." HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I left the birth certiifcate in place to be further discussed here. Hyprwfrcp has provided a reliable source (even if it is in German, Google Chrome translated it for me and it does indeed say David). In my opinion, no one is trying to hide the fact that Vega is transgender but is trying to carefully follow BLP guidlines on a touchy topic. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further investigation, the birth certificate is not only not really reliable but the website actually says "blogspot" so removing. See WP:PATENTS#Are birth certificates, baseball cards, etc. reliable sources? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General policy with 'famous' people with less famous names is that they are not of note or relevance. I am sure that there are lots of actors with names different to those on their birth certificate. Particular sensitivity is paid to transgender individuals, particularly where their fame has only existed after transition. Koncorde (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I should've reverted and told the editor to wait for consensus on the talk page first. Fortunately another editor has gone by and reverted so it can now be discussed here. I do thank Hyprwfrcp for being BOLD but per WP:BRD it should now be discussed here. In my opinion, I don't think that this article needs to have her birth/legal name to show that she is a transgender women but if reliable sources have a name it is an option to put on this page. I also think the way the article is currently written shows that she is a transgender woman far more than it used to and isn't hidden like it never happened.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who have made a cause with the publication of the original name of Ms. Vega. As I stated previously, the fact that it is published or not is irrelevant, as long as you have a reliable source. The question then is: - Is the German publication "Ray Film Magazine" a reliable source ?. The fact that it is a German publication that has copied or used information from the German wikipedia does not qualify it to be cited. German wikipedia mentions the masculine name using as a reference a blogspot that contains the birth certificate, and still use "AldíaNews", a publication that, as we know, has made an update by removing the name. Taking into account that German wikipedia is so very careless, and admits these irregularities, and that the lack of professionalism of some german journalists makes them go to wikipedia everytime they want to support their articles, I suggest that that all the unimportant German publications will no longer be considered a reliable source in this matter, at least to be used as a reference.--Lunaliu (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lunaliu captures most of my feelings on the matter. I will also add that BLP requires a high level of scrutiny for personal information like this as well. Rab V (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is vandalizing my extensive edits, trying to hiding the real Legal Name of the actress, and her transexual origin. Hear that being transexual is nothing to be ashamed of, and your activities of vandalism will be reported!. Transexual are going here to stay whether if you like it or not. Their real name is a big challenge in order to say the world she passed all the difficulties. Please somebody can lock access on this user.Hyprwfrcp (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be cautious of what you label "vandalism". This isn't vandalism. This is editors trying to gain consensus on a touchy topic. A few editors have requested more reliable sources and the consensus here is that the birth certificate isn't reliable. That isn't vandalism in my opinion, that is just a part of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hear this: Wikipedia is a community and you insist on placing YOUR own opinion. That is vandalism, and this will have consequences if you stick on that continuing attitude.Hyprwfrcp (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read above, about 3 or 4 editors agree that we need more sources. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Why you removed the fact that she is a transgender? Do you have any personal problem with that. I see you are going TOO far with this, and unfortunately, i will have to report you for targetting harassment, and imposing your view on this article. Hyprwfrcp (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove she is transgender. I removed the brith certificate and the use of "he". Another editor removed the rest. Look at the edit history. Please only focus on content not the editor. If you look at this talk page, myself and another editor have greatly improved the mention that she is transgender on this article. It had barley any mention before. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hyprwfrcp It is not a good choice trying to confuse others with arguments that collapse at the first analysis. Your fervent mention of the rights of transgender people has nothing to do with this site, although they were sincere or not.

Unfortunately you are editing in an article about a person who is real, Daniela Vega, the actress, and of whom it seems you do not know much. Her transsexuality has never been a secret to hide. In fact her fame is mostly due to that condition, along with her acclaimed performance of a character partially written for her taking advantage of her own experiences as a transexual person . The original name of her is not an issue .. Miss Vega has not wanted to mention that name (so far), and it's her right not to do so, but if someone wants to put it here, there would be no impediments, but until now there are no reliable sources that have published it, birth certificates that have been stolen or obtained without any ethics by those who are not authorized, are not valid. The German publications that copy their own erratic wikipedia are not either. You should be very careful to edit happily about matters that are not within your domain. In any case you are invited to collaborate in this article with valid data and with all due respect to the person we are referring to (Miss Vega), and to the general rules of this Wikipedia.--Lunaliu (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This talk is no longer objective. Having several editors trying to hide the transgender nature of Miss Vega, and deleting sources by own opinions. Requesting for proofs (the Birth Certificate), then denying those proofs (Saying that is stolen, considering this information is public to request) is inconsequential. Requesting for articles (Al Dia and Ray Film Magazine), then denying those articles (saying they are partial) is inconsequential too. Three people in here are reverting changes persistently. Hence some administration should moderate this talk ASAP for not vandalizing or imposing partial views. Hyprwfrcp (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you are on about. Please cease trying to wiki-lawyer, and just go to the Admin Noticeboard and make your case. If you have any grounds at all I am sure that they will happily banish us to Coventry for daring to silence the world. Anyway, onto your accusations:
1. The word transgender is included within the first paragraph ("Vega became the first transgender person in history to be an Academy Awards presenter"), and it is mentioned within her early life period also. Her birth name is irrelevant, per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME as it was not significant (she was not famous prior to transitioning, therefore what notability does the name carry?). This is the same in almost all transgender articles on wikipedia, apart from (very famously) Caitlyn Jenner who was already distinctly and widely well known by the prior name.
2. Regarding sources, WP:BLPSOURCES is quite clear that the sources must be reliable and ideally secondary sources. There is particular reference to "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Ali Dia may well qualify as that, but they have already redacted their contribution to the matter anyway. Ray Magazine may carry some weight, but its editorial standards are unclear and I can find no clear editorial policy (which a usual qualifier of a reliable source for such a claim)
3. Meanwhile a birth certificate indicates nothing clearly; there is no evidence that the birth certificate is actually that of Daniela's, nor that it is actually even a valid legal document (it is definitely Original Research, likely qualifies as Self Published, and would not pass WP:BLPPRIMARY). We would need a reliable source to actually reference it (and this would then need to meet BLPNAME standards of notability). Koncorde (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Openly"

[edit]

IP has reinserted and I have reverted, from what I can see the use of the phrase "openly" was referred to by CNN, The Independent and NY Daily and a few others. However the results peter out at about 15,000. In contrast there are 260,000+ articles without the use of the word "openly" and 45,000 thereon without reference to being a presenter (including the BBC, The Guardian, Daily Mail, which surprised the hell out of me, El Pais, Vogue, NY Times, Washington Post, Irish Times, Out etc). The qualifier of 'openly' doesn't indicate anything other than to suggest that there has been a 'closeted' host previously, but no sources seem to indicate that is the case. Koncorde (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the use of openly but I also feel it diminishes what she did because, as you say above, it indicates someone already did it but was closeted.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniela_Vega&oldid=1262639024"