Wikipedia

Talk:Naomi Osaka/Archive 2

< Talk:Naomi Osaka
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Swarm in topic RFC about nationality / ethnicity in the lead
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Correction

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

@Dlohcierekim: Please, fix caption of image: Osaka at the 2018 French Open, correctly: Osaka at the 2018 Nottingham Open. Cheers --Kacir 18:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC) / --Kacir 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kacir: was that not one of the dispted matters? why would one select his image?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
This image is already in the article, but the caption is wrong and needs fixing. Iffy★Chat -- 18:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. Well let's get a consensus that that would be the correct caption and take it from there.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There is need to get a consensus to remove obvious mistake? It seems to me misleading information will be next week in the article. --Kacir 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Per the source, that photo was taken at the "2018 Nottingham Open qualifiers." That change should be made since it is an obvious error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Check my work. Ping me if broke it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, just only note: Osaka as 3rd seeded didn't play qualifying. The photo was taken the day before starting singles draw during practice (she had vest).--Kacir 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going by what the original photographer had on flickr. He had it in the category of qualifying. He was probably watching qualifying and taking shots and also took photos of some players practicing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC about nationality / ethnicity in the lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago145 comments31 people in discussion
There's a clear and strong consensus for the nuanced wording proposed in option #6.  Swarm  talk  01:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Should the lead describe her as an American and/or a Haitian tennis player, or only as a Japanese tennis player? Iffy★Chat -- 17:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Options to choose from (full wording details can be discussed separately):

  1. Japanese only
  2. Japanese and American
  3. Japanese and Haitian
  4. Japanese, American and Haitian
  5. American only
  6. Not describe her as "x" or "x and y" or "x, y and z", but have a short sentence stating her place of birth, her parentage and her residence – see here, where the wording is: "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player who represents Japan in competition. Born in Osaka to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, she has lived in the United States from an early age." (added by Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC))

Survey

  • Support 1 as this is how the vast majority of RS describe her, and it's the only country she's represented as a tennis player. Iffy★Chat -- 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    To add to my opening comment, I oppose all the other options per WP:ETHNICITY. I weak oppose 2, 3 and 4 as they clutter the lead with too much information that isn't directly relevant to her notability. I strong oppose 5 and 6 as they're the literally supporting the opposite of why I support option 1. The RS primarily describe her as Japanese, only adding other countries when it's relevant to the article, so adding them to the lead is WP:UNDUE. Has anyone come up with a reason not to describe her as Japanese? Iffy★Chat -- 08:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    Because Japanese on its own doesn't describe her? Because she has a Haitian father and US citizenship? And what is this "majority of RS"? There are highly reliable sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe. Guardian and at least six others, as well as two interviews and a tweet from Osaka herself) that describe her as other than just "Japanese". Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    I don't object to a 1+6 option if the lead is expanded, but 6 on its own completely ignores that her claim to notability has been as a Japanese tennis player, which should be in the lead. Iffy★Chat -- 16:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Her claim to notability has been as a tennis player representing Japan. Option 6 would state that in the first sentence – see here. --Scolaire (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Her notability is as a Japanese tennis player'. It would make sense to put it in the first sentence, but actually #6 says nothing about what exact sentence or the exact wording. You give an example but it is not the only way #6 could be written. Haitian father could certainly be written as Haitian born father (since he is Haitian-American) and Japanese born mother. The details would have to be worked out later if it got adopted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Option 6 had a link to this version, but nobody seems to have read it, so I have now stated the exact wording. Not sure how you've established that her notability is as a Japanese player rather than Haitian-Japanese or any of the other permutations, or why we're having an RfC if that is already established. She's notable for her tennis, and she represents Japan; that much can be unambiguously stated. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: Since you replied without answering my question, let me repeat it: Please point me to the relevant policy or guideline upon which you base your assertion. KalHolmann (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Basic encyclopedia editing. It's not encyclopedic to not include that she isn't also American alongside being Japanese. We aren't beholden to follow the definitions of tennis agencies when we have our own way of editing encyclopedically. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: "Basic encyclopedia editing" is an evasion. I asked for a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Evidently you cannot (or perhaps will not) provide one. KalHolmann (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no evasion. It is a grave mistake to merely include that she is just Japanese. Factually, this is simply false. She was raised and lives in America with American citizenship, and, for what it's worth, doesn't speak Japanese fluently. If I was Ugandan and I registered with the Korean tennis association but wasn't raised there or lived there, and didn't even speak the language fully, it would be misleading to say in a lede that I was merely Korean - R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: Why do I get the feeling that you're making up these editing rules as you go along? KalHolmann (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly because you can't comprehend what I have been saying... I don't know. Maybe I haven't been clear. I've stated that same reasoning a few times now, I'm not sure you've been paying attention... Also, I have been editing here for almost 13 years and It seems you've only been here for about a year. I've been here long enough to know that omitting information is just a mistake and invites trouble for years to come from persons with motives while editing, which is common. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2, she has dual citizenship (Japanese and American). She was born in Japan but has lived in US since she was 3.[1],[2] Haitian is obviously significant as well but it doesn't appear she's lived there and she apparently does not have Haitian citizenship, so I think Haitian makes more sense in the early life section explaining her father is from Haiti, while Japanese and American makes sense in the lead.DynaGirl (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2. The lead should mention her dual citizenship, and that as a professional tennis player, she most frequently (only?) represents Japan in these competitions. Take the case that once she retires, she will still be an American-Japanese dual citizen, but she will no longer be a Japanese tennis player. --Masem (t) 20:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    "Only". When she retires she would probably be like other players... is a retired Japanese professional tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    In nearly all standard readings, the phrase "Japanese professional tennis player" means "a profession tennis player with Japanese nationality" which is not true. She has American and Japanese nationality. That's why saying she represents Japan but has American-Japanese nationality needs to be clearly defined in the lede. --Masem (t) 23:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2. The lede summarises the article and as she has dual citizenship having been born in America it is relevant to be there. Saying 'Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is an American born, Japanese professional tennis player' would be appropriate.Blethering Scot 21:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Scot, while I agree 2 seems to make the most sense, I think you'd need a different way to phrase this because she was apparently born in Japan. She has US citizenship and has lived in US since age 3. Maybe something like. "...is a Japanese and American tennis player who plays professionally for Japan." DynaGirl (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the governing bodies of tennis, she is not an American tennis player. She is a Japanese tennis player. She was born in Japan and plays tennis for Japan and also has citizenship in the USA. It can certainly be worded differently to get around that and add American or United States in the lead somewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 She was born in Japan and raised in the U.S. holding dual citizenship and she currently lives in Florida while representing Japan.Mcelite (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2: "Japanese-American" reflects best who she is, a dual citizen of Japan and the US who has lived in the US most of her life while representing her native country internationally in a sport. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Compromise approach, roughly equivalent to Option 6 (added): Open the 1st para as currently in the article: "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese professional tennis player. She first came to prominence ..." etc. Then add this sentence to the lead, perhaps at the end:
"Osaka has lived in the United States since age three; she is of Japanese-Haitian descent and is a dual US-Japanese citizen."
There's a section dedicated to Osaka's personal background, so it's appropriate to include a sentence to this effect in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
No that's not entirely correct. She's not merely of Japanese descent. She is directly Japanese. She was born there to a Japanese mother and still holds that country's nationality and is a citizen of it. Descent is only correct for her Haitianness.Tvx1 13:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Added option 6. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Added #5 - American only. In the lead being asked about, should follow MOS:OPENPARABIO and give nationality. Race and finer details belong in the body. And from what I see, her primary nationality is that of the United States. I see she has dual citizenship, but the one she is using seems the U.S. one. Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: thanks for pointing to MOS:OPENPARABIO, which advises: "The opening paragraph should usually state…Context (location or nationality)." Please note that our Infobox links to Naomi Osaka's official website, where her profile lists "Nationality – Japanese" and describes her as "the first Japanese woman to win the Indian Wells Masters in California (USA)." Does not Naomi Osaka's official website qualify as the definitive source in this matter? KalHolmann (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:KalHolmann - I am looking at more detailed secondary RS sources, where she appears to be an American based in Florida who is playing tennis for Japan. Nationality says for dual nationality, States may determine the most effective nationality. There is no official case, but it appears by residence and language that she has put the United States as the effective nationality. Of course, she may change or repudiate her United States nationality, but at the moment she seems raised and located in the U.S. and that seems the nationality she is using. Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: So when she tells the world via her official website, "My nationality is Japanese," you say in effect, "No, dear, you are wrong. You're not Japanese. Let me mansplain this to you." Right. KalHolmann (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: so when she tells the world via Twitter, "I never know what to do when someone asks me where I’m from, I just say FL, because saying Japan starts an unnecessary conversation" ("Japanese, Haitian, and now a Grand Slam winner", Washington Post, 10 September 2018), what would you say to her then? Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:KalHolmann - Japanese is the nation she plays for, signed up by her father since it would open up more opportunities. It isn’t her personal life. She tells interviewers she is from FL, and has lived in the United States since age 3, and is not able to speak Japanese. Nationality is a choice, but actions speak louder than one casual word. For WP we are looking for Nationality, and RS are portraying her heritage or nation of play as well as her citizenship... The RFC is trying to sort it out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, speaking of actions, she proudly played for Japan's Fed Cup team. That's clear expression of her nationality through action.Tvx1 16:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No shit! A player who's registered with the Japanese federation played for the Japanese team? ZOMG. She couldn't possibly have a Haitian father, then, or care about the US at all. Scolaire (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx1 - her official Nationality ... is not going to be determined by what group she plays for. The legal standing has not been put to an official statement, but is obviously the United States. Just saying, the legalities are what they are. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
As demonstrated very clearly in the article, she has two official nationalities. She's legally both Japanese and American and has been since birth. After all while her father was born in Haiti, he had already become an American citizen when Naomi came about. In fact, he already was when met Naomi's mother. An official nationality is not simply determined by where one lives.Tvx1 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx1 She has however only one effective and active Nationality, that of the United States. While one may have Citizenship in multiple places, by birth or Naturalization or purchase, her Multiple citizenship is in this case pretty simple from the facts to be: An American who plays tennis for Japan. (Should she marry some nice Japanese fellow and move there, or marry a nice Israeli, convert and move there, etcetera.... that could change things. But right now, she is simply American.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No she has not. She has two effective and active nationalities. Japanese and American. And the activeness of her former has been used to register her with the Japanese Tennis Association. Her active Japanese nationality is the one she competes under in tennis and the one whose national teams she plays for. The place where she lives is in the only determinate factor. We all know one cannot live in two separate places simultaneously. In fact she barely mentions here American nationality in interviews. It seems you have little understanding of how nationality works.Tvx1 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx1 Read Nationality on thru - it is legally determined by the nation she is participating in, living, paying taxes, speaks the language, and that is the United States. Nationality says nothing about being determined by one plays a sport, though one usually does tend to play where one lives. People here have mentioned individuals who play outside their nationality, Wiki even has lists such as List of foreign-born players in Spanish men's national basketball team, List of foreign Premier League players, Foreign players in the National Football League, etcetera. If you don't like the logic, fine -- but simply accept my input was the WP guidance calls for nationality, and that legally her effective Nationality is solely the United States. If you do not understand my input, feel free to ask. If you do not agree to it, feel free to make your own input or to try and convince me with WP Policy and facts other than where she plays. (As I started knowing that and have already old you it does not matter to Nationality.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I have done so multiple times and it contains nothing that support your claims. Nationality, which is simply an article not a guideline or policy, does not mention taxes or residence at all and only mentions language with regards to ethnicity. The basic stipulation of this article is that nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a sovereign state. Well, Osaka has had this legal relationship with two sovereign states since birth: US and Japan. Both states have the right to grant rights and impose restrictions on her. She has the right of return in both states. She received a passport from both, she is a full legal national AND citizen of both, and so on. There is also something called dual nationality. I don't understand why you are refusing to entertain that concept. Whether or not someone is a legal national of a sovereign state is determined by the state in question and not by Wikipedia or their users. We merely report what the reliable sources state. In this case we have reliable sources stating that two states have independently determined that miss Osaka is a legal national of theirs and both have even granted here full citizenship. Contrary to what you believe, it's perfectly possible for one to have multiple active legal nationalities. And this is an example of such a case.Tvx1 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
She is primarily notable as tennis player not as a person living in the US. And in her primarily notable activity she uses Japanese as her main nationality. She is registered by her father with the Japanese Tennis Association, she plays under the Japanese flag and she has played for the Japanese Fed Cup team. That's the most important thing here.Tvx1 13:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Mashu Baker (Olympic gold-medal winner in judo), born in Japan, Japanese mother and American father. His lead on Wikipedia:
„Mashu Baker or Matthew Baker (ベイカー 茉秋 Beikā Mashū, born 25 September 1994 in Tokyo), is a male Japanese judoka. His father is an American. His parents divorced when he was little and was raised by his mother. He started judo at the age of 7. His favorite technique is Ouchi Gari. In 2015, he won the bronze medal in the Middleweight (90 kg) division at the 2015 World Judo Championships. He is currently ranked No. 1 in the world (as of 28 November 2016). He won the gold medal in under 90 kg division in 2016 Rio Olympics.”
• Asuka Cambridge (Olympic silver-medal winner in the 4x100 track relay), born in Jamaica, Japanese mother and Jamaican father. His lead on Wikipedia:
„Asuka Antonio "Aska" Cambridge (ケンブリッジ 飛鳥 Kenburijji Asuka, born May 31, 1993) is a Japanese track and field sprinter who competes in the 100 metres and 200 metres. His personal best of 10.08 in the 100m gives him Japan's 9th fastest time. He is a two-time East Asian Games gold medallist and a relay bronze medallist at the World Junior Championships in Athletics. His father is Jamaican and his mother is Japanese. In the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Cambridge was part of the 4 × 100 m relay for Japan, which took the silver medal in the final.”
• Abdul Hakim Sani Brown (track and field sprinter), born in Japan, Japanese mother and Ghanaian father. His lead on Wikipedia (beginning):
„Abdul Hakim Sani Brown (サニブラウン・アブデル・ハキーム Saniburaun Abuderu Hakīmu, March 6, 1999) is a Japanese athlete specialising in sprinting events. Sani Brown has a Ghanaian father and a Japanese mother. Sani Brown won the 100 metres at the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics setting a championship record of 10.28 (−0.4) in the final.” Zor77 20:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Bernard Ackah - "Bernard Ackah (born April 9, 1972) is a German-born, Japanese-based Ivorian taekwondo practitioner, kickboxer, mixed martial artist and comedian."
• Issey Maholo - "Issey Jose Maholo (マホロ一生 Maholo Issey, born 24 March 1985 in Tokyo) is a Japanese-born, Japanese-Congolese soccer player with American citizenship who plays as a goalkeeper for Hong Kong First Division League side Hong Kong FC."
• Ado Onaiwu - "Ado Onaiwu (オナイウ 阿道, born 8 November 1995) is a Japanese footballer who plays as a forward for Renofa Yamaguchi in J2 League. He is the son of a Nigerian father and a Japanese mother."
[3] - Recent The Brown Daily Herald article. Zor77 14:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Easily the best way to deal with these disputes. AIRcorn (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 addresses the issue without sacrificing clarity and accuracy in the process. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 Was born in Japan, is a professional player that represents Japan, and has dual citizenship in the States. Mcelite (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2 with 6 as an acceptable back-up. The way it is written now (option 1) is at best, misleading and, at worst, false.LedRush (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1 primarly and Support 2 as well. The lead should mention the most important facts represented in the article. Regarding her nationalities, her Japaneseness is the most important one. That's the one of her two nationalities she actively represent in her sole notable professional activity: playing tennis. Her Americanness is a maybe with regards to ranking with the most important facts. But since we have cases of other sportspeople holding multiple legal nationalities being introduced with them it would only be fair to do so here as well. She does not hold Haitian nationality however but is merely of its descent. Therefore detailing this in the personal life/background section gives that its due weight. It's the exact reason why we have these sections in the first place.Tvx1 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Normally, I feel the lead belongs in the open sentence. However, it is just too complicated for her to accurately describe it in one sentence. JDDJS (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't it state at least that she's Japanese-American due to her dual citizenship as WP has done for Stana Katic by stating that's she Canadian-American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowrose713 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Yellowrose713: Um.... the whole RfC above is about the lead so I'm moving this to the discussion section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 Clear and comprehensive. Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6. What someone above said about boxes. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 I feel that the issue with the current language (more or less #1) is the ambiguous implication that she is exclusively Japanese in nationality and ethnicity. Unlike the average Asian American athlete whose lead might read "Michelle Kwan (insert Chinese-language equivalent of her name here) is an American figure skater", a quick glance at Naomi Osaka's article does not leave similar contraindications that hint at her complex background. I feel that option 4 goes against precedent in a number of ways and remains ambiguous; I prefer 6 because it sidesteps the question of what she should be labeled as in strict -an and -ese terms, and just lays out exactly how each identity relates to her. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 This is a complicated issue and any adult here already knows this. We should endeavor to convey the granular truth regarding her ethnicity, nationality, and familial background, to the extent that it's relevant. Naomi's intro should be similar to that of other athletes with multifaceted backgrounds. shiznaw (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment on validity of RFC

Naomi Osaka has dual American and Japanese citizenship. For the record, Naomi has no Haitian citizenship, which immediately disqualifies option 3 and 4. Also, for what it's worth, while she was born in Japan, she was raised in America and does not speak fluent Japanese, and she currently lives in America. This RFC goes against the common method of dealing with dual American citizenship on Wikipedia. Normally if someone has dual citizenship in one country and the US, that is mentioned straightaway in the lede. Omitting her American citizenship from the lede is tantamount to censorship.

For more examples of how dual citizenship is treated on Wikipedia see:


In sporting world articles, one can represent another country without having that citizenship as well, or something similar to Osaka. This is a common example, for instance, in FIFA. Examples:

  • Roman Neustädter, Russian , but played for Germany multiple times, but never was considered German, as he had no German citizenship.
  • Mário Fernandes, "Brazillian-Russian", born in Brazil, now represents Russia, has dual citizenship but does not speak Russian.


- R9tgokunks ⭕ 18:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Footballers are less associated with their national team than in tennis. (e.g. Football is not a sport where "national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport.") Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this particular case is a little more complicated. You do have a point since when actress Emily Blunt gained USA citizenship her lead was changed to British-American actress. However in tennis she is registered as Japanese and you can only represent one country in any international event. She may be a Japanese-American individual walking down the street, but she is a professional Japanese tennis player. Milos Raonic was born somewhere else but is a Canadian tennis player. If you would also like somewhere in the lead paragraph for it to state she has United States and Japanese citizenship, that's reasonable though it's already in the section below. What seems strange would be Haitian-Japanese (although it's easily sourced). That would be like wikipedia saying Serena Williams is an African-American tennis player. That would sound weird... she is an American tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I submit that editors who misspell the word validity as "validitiy" [sic] in a subsection heading ought to be open to correction from another editor trying to be helpful, rather than reverting it and threatening to take it to ANI. KalHolmann (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • @Fyunck(click): - yeah, but we aren't beholden to the definitions of the sporting world. We operate encyclopedically, including all information. For instance, If I was Ugandan and I registered with the Korean tennis association but wasn't raised there or lived there, and didn't even speak the language fully, it would be misleading to say in a lede that I was merely Korean. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It might be misleading to say you are Korean but if you had never played tennis in Uganda, and the ITF allowed you to play for Korea, you would be a Korean professional tennis player. You would also have Ugandan citizenship, but you would be a Korean tennis player. You could always word it as a professional tennis player representing Korea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
That would still omit the Ugandan citizenship from the lede. it's just not factually sound. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It is factually sound if it is somewhere else in the article. Some people might have 3 or 4 citizenships. We aren't required to list them all in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click):...Not sure what you're talking about? She only has 2 instances of citizenship... not "3 or 4". It's a simple fix as shown on other articles that I presented. And she only has dual citizenship. It would only be a problem if she had more than 2. Saying Japanese and American covers it. It's not that messy or complicated. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
How would you word it? She is a Japanese tennis player with United States and Japanese citizenship? We don't do that with everyone, such as Angelina Jolie. We don't list her as a Cambodian actress just because she has two citizenships. Nor do we do the same with Kirsten Dunst who has German citizenship. We take it case by case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Saying Japanese and American covers it."

.
"Japanese and American."
- R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not even close to covering it. No context at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The lede isn't for context. It summarises the article. see WP:LEDE. As you know many other articles on living persons use the same format I just used. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
And many don't. I simply asked how you would word it and what you gave was useless. "Japanese and American"... that's the entire lead.... nothing else? How do you work that in the sentence to be factual? She is not an American professional tennis player. She is a Japanese professional tennis player with United States and Japanese citizenship. How would you word it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe that mentioned both her U.S. and Japanese citizen is the correct way of going through this.Mcelite (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman:, she has dual citizenship, which should be mentioned per MOS:OPENPARABIO. Also, she currently lives in the U.S.A., as she was raised there. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Mention the dual citizenship elsewhere in the article - not in the lede. Funny how people only care about her being American when she wins... GiantSnowman 07:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Um. That's not a very erudite answer. So I'm not sure how long you've been editing here, but usually dual citizenship is mentioned in the lede when it's particularily notable. And people didn't really know about her until she won. See the graph at the top of this very page. That's a very ignorant statement for you to make. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 08:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
        • She's been notable enough to have a Wikipedia article since 2014, and was one of the 32 best players in the world before the tournament; it's not like she came out of nowhere to win a Grand Slam. Sure, she's more popular now, but it's not like the facts surrounding this RFC changed in that time. Iffy★Chat -- 08:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Re: "Funny how people only care about her being American when she wins," I didn't even know she existed until she won in a controversial game. I'm guessing many other editors are here from a similar angle: People who hadn't heard about her before because they aren't into tennis, but care about one of the many social issues surrounding race that the tagline "first Japanese winner of the US Open" agitates. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternate solution

Comment: I don't think the issue is with the first sentence. The issue is with the lead as a whole.

The first sentence should say "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is a Japanese professional tennis player." That paragraph should also mention she her career-high ranking and that she won the US Open.

Then, there should be a second paragraph that goes into her background, along the lines of "Born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, Osaka moved to the United States when she was three years old. She has dual Japanese and American citizenship. Osaka began playing tennis in the United States at the age of ??. She began playing on the ITF Women's Circuit at the age of 16."

Then, there should be a third paragraph that goes into more detail in summarizing the highlights of her professional career as a whole (compared to the first paragraph). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Then why would we even have a personal section if all of it is going to be in the lead? It seems a little trivial to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Sportsfan she appears to be American, not Japanese, in nationality. Where does she live, pay taxes, vote, speak the language... Multi ethnic and multi citizenship is mentionable, but should not distort the bulk of the situation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but you're wrong. She does have a Japanese passport stating Japanese in the nationality field. She is primarily a tennis player and in the active she's primarily notable for, playing tennis, she clearly uses Japanese, a nationality she legally possesses, as her main nationality. She even played for their Fed Cup team.Tvx1 13:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tvx and with dual citizenship, her United States passport would list Nationality United States ... and she could also get a nice passport from Monaco if she invests there. Passport is not a tie to Nationality Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Her nationality is not more important than the country she plays for. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Sportsfan77777 -- MOS:OPENPARABIO says to include her nationality which is United States, though many here want to say dual citizen of United States and Japan. The lead should also mention that she is a tennis player and currently plays for the JTA. The phrase "American tennis player for the Japanese Tennis Association" conveys the nationality and team, the phrase "Japanese tennis player" is misleading. Should also mention her Haitian-Japanese heritage -- in her case these are three different things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
MOS:OPENPARABIO says to include her nationality, but it doesn't say it has to be in the first sentence. The country she represents is more important than her nationality (regardless of whether her nationality is just Japanese, both Japanese and American, or just American), so that's what should go in the first sentence. It can be mentioned that she lives in the United States later on in the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I already wrote a proper, 180-word lead that summarised the entire article. Summarising the article includes summarising the Personal life section. That bit was reverted because of the discussion here. This was before the RfC was opened, by the way. That information ought to go back in the lead, otherwise it is not a proper summary of the article. Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD says: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents They key words here are most important I would contend that her Haitianness and certainly Americanness, which is barely noted in the reliable sources, qualify as some of the most important content of the article. The most important information are her exploits in Tennis. Her being Japanese also meets the treshold since she's always identified with that in the sport and she has played for one of their national tennis team.Tvx1 14:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
What I wrote was a summary of what it says in the Personal life and family section, and her "Haitianness" and "Americanness" are important enough to merit a sizable chunk of that section, indeed of the article. As regards "reliable sources", I'll just paraphrase what I said in the survey above: The "barely noted in the reliable sources" argument is specious. See Washington Post (September 8, 2018): "Osaka, who is of Haitian-Japanese descent and was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Boston Globe (September 09, 2018): "a 20-year-old of Haitian-Japanese ancestry who was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Sky Sports (18/03/18): "The Haitian-Japanese", Tennis World USA (March 10, 2018): "the 20-year-old Haitian/Japanese", Tennis.com (March 08, 2018): "The Haitian-Japanese star", WTA Tennis: "the Haitian-Japanese said", Reuters (January 19, 2017): "the obvious talent Haitian-Japanese Osaka showed on court", The Guardian (9 Sep 2018): "when yet another journalist asked Osaka to explain her Haitian-Japanese heritage", Eurosport (18/03/2018): "The unseeded Haitian-Japanese player". --Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Part of the confusion here is coming from the fact that it is not even clear what this RfC is for. Some people are advocating for what should be in the very first sentence, or the very first two sentences. Others are advocating for what should be in the lead as a whole. So... what is this RfC even for? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the wording, it's for the lead as a whole... i.e. somewhere in the paragraphs in the lead section. Details, such as precise wording and exact location of the lead paragraphs, would be discussed separately. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sportsfan, this RfC should not have been opened when it was opened in the way it was opened. I edited the lead at 09:33 (UTC) on 13 September in a way that avoided saying that she is an x-player or an x-y player or an x-y-z player by saying that she represents Japan, that she was born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, and that she has lived in the US since she was small. That was reverted at 17:07, and Iffy opened the RfC at 17:36 with the wording, "Should the lead describe her as an American and/or a Haitian tennis player, or only as a Japanese tennis player?", which excluded my proposed wording. It was not until 09:28 on 14 September that I was able to add the "shouldn't describe her as an anything player" option, by which time eleven people had already !voted, without being aware that that option existed. Two or three of those have come back since then to either change to that option or add it to their previous choice. The remainder very likely don't know that they !voted in a flawed RfC, and they should be notified, so that they can review their choice if they want. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a lot of people are confused. When I initially voted for option 1, I meant that the first sentence should say that she "is a Japanese tennis player" or that she "represents Japan." I didn't mean to exclude the fact that she lives in the United States or that she has a Haitian background from the rest of the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I left a short, neutral note on the talk pages of the six editors that had !voted/contributed before I added option 6 and hadn't contributed since, to let them know that another option was added. Scolaire (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think the RFC is valuable for collecting a vote in an orderly fashion over an issue that's been circuitously argued for a month. Thanks for opening the RFC. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Elaboration

This is clearly a situation where the usual formulation of the opening sentence ("George is a British comedian") is too simplistic. How about "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese and American professional tennis player who is registered with the Japan Tennis Association"? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Or how about "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player who represents Japan in competition. Born in Osaka to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, she has lived in the United States from an early age." There's no word limit here, and these are all relevant and verifiable facts that are dealt with in greater detail in the article body. Scolaire (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
That seems even better. My point is that Osaka's situation is too complicated to simplify to our usual opening sentence: "X is a Fooian y." — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I also prefer something like this. I suggested something similar above too. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that saying "Osaka is a Japanese and American professional tennis player who represents Japan" is accurate. I just don't like how saying she is a "Japanese player who represents Japan" sounds, even with American in the middle of that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I would disagree with this. She is Japanese, she is American, she is a Japanese professional tennis player, but she is not an American professional tennis player. She has never played for the United States. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree; that's also why I don't like this solution so much. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Another problem is that would this mean we'll have to change articles like Belinda Bencic? Her parents were born in Slovakia. They moved to Switzerland and Belinda was born in Switzerland. Belinda plays for Switzerland but also has citizenship in Slovakia. Are we going to change it to Belinda Bencic is a Slovak-Swiss tennis player and add info about her parents in the lead? Heck she reached world No. 7 (same as Osaka) so she is no slouch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think so --- because she wasn't a long-term resident of Slovakia. Rebeka Masarova on the other hand, might deserve a more complicated explanation in the lead... (as the opposite case: someone who represents a country where they weren't born and have hardly lived in). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Osaka hasn't spent much time in Japan, and none in Haiti, yet those are potential additions to the lead. I'm thinking that whatever way this turns out it could very well open up a can of worms to many other players whose parents are not mentioned in the lead or who have multiple citizenships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Why "a can of worms"? Why should all Wikipedia biography articles not have a properly-written lead that includes salient facts on their lives? Why do all tennis player articles have to have a lead consisting of "Joe Bloggs is an x-ish professional tennis player. He won such-and-such an ATP tournament. On 7 July 2014 he reached a career high of no. 11 in the world rankings"? Why do you think the whole Wikipedia project is threatened when this standard-format lead is changed in one article to refer to something the whole tennis world is talking about? Have you even tried googling "naomi osaka haitian"? If you were to get similar numbers or quality of results for "belinda bencic slovakian" or "rebeka masarova slovakian", then of course the leads of their articles should be edited accordingly. But you don't. Naomi Osaka is a special case – as shown by multiple stories from reliable news media, this talk page, and the famous social media campaign, not to mention the woman herself – and there is no justification for shoe-horning her into the off-the-rack lead that you think all tennis player articles should follow. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It becomes even more confusing when the country of birth ceases to exist. What would we do for instance with Martina Hingis? Should we introduce her as a Czechoslovak-Slovak-Swiss tennis player? Or what about Byron Black. Do we put him as a Rhodesian-Zimbabwan tennis player? I'll reiterate that MOS:LEAD instructs to make it a summary of the most important facts presented in the article. Not everything you can think off. I'll maintain that here Haitianness is not one of the most important facts with regards to her only notable professional activity: playing tennis.Tvx1 16:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
But you're just repeating the same things over and over without even looking at the responses! Her Haitian ethnicity is important. It's important to her and it's important to the media. What we should do with Martina Hingis and Byron Black is write good articles with good leads that say things that are relevant and verifiable, not use them for bizarre OSE purposes. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
We do have to look at people case by case and not every tennis bio looks the same. But people are always pointing at precedent and this will be one of those that a finger aims at. A couple of things here. This is very current news so more has been made of her ethnicity then might be done in say, a year or so. Your interpretation of what's important in a tennis bio is not everyones. Yes we summarize in the lead the most important things about a player. By the way it is nice to see someone using the correct term "lead" at wikipedia. But we don't look at each subsection and take the most important things from each subsection. Otherwise we might have her racket string tension in the lead. 99% of this article is not about her parents heritage, and I'm not sure it's important enough for the lead.
She is notable for tennis, for things shes done on the court, and the focus of the lead should be on that notability. It should summarize her name, the country she represents or lives in, and her biggest accomplishments on the court. Most players don't have all that much as far as family heritage in the bios, but when they do we try and expand the personal section or early life section to accommodate that aspect of their lives. That was done for Naomi Osaka. A passerby might think, well she was born in Japan and plays for Japan, what's the big deal, that's like most players. They don't realize she's lived most of her entire life in the US or is a US citizen, yet still plays for Japan. Because of that her personal section was expanded. It might even warrant mentioning her US citizenship in the lead. That's why we are all here. But talking about her ethnic background and her parentage in the lead seems far and away trivial to me in that section. It is not one of the most important facts represented in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have been trying to point out. It's important enough to mention somewhere in this article, bit it's not one of the most important facts represented in the article.Tvx1 20:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
A passerby might think, well she was born in Japan and plays for Japan, what's the big deal, that's like most players. They don't realize she's lived most of her entire life in the US or is a US citizen, yet still plays for Japan. It's the passerby that the lead is aimed at. WP:LEAD says "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article." Most people will see the image, or will have seen a photo elsewhere, and say, "She's mixed race, how come it just says Japanese?" You're saying to those people, "you'll have to read the article if you want to know that, we're not going to spoon-feed you." That's against WP:LEAD. I really don't understand the determination to keep this short sentence out of the lead. I can't see how it unbalances the lead or harms the article. Bear in mind that before I edited the lead it didn't give an overview of her tennis career, it only said that she had won the 2018 US Open. Considering that, the "her tennis career is the only important thing" argument rings a bit hollow. Scolaire (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Again no, the lead is not for the passerby it's for summarizing the most important aspects of notable tennis player Naomi Osaka. The average passerby may also not realize that player was injured and changed to a special brand of racket to compensate, yet that would not be included in the lead. I'm not saying you don't make good and interesting points, but you are saying them as if they are fact or ironclad, and they are not. They are your opinion just as others are my opinion of what's the most important things to include in the lead. What you added was pretty good, it certainly needed more info. But not every single thing you added was good. I actually kinda like the way it sits right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It would unbalance the lead because it would put undue emphasis on things which are not the most important facts presented in the article. There is no wikipedia policy forcing us to cram every sort of national identity in the lead of articles on people.Tvx1 12:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Again the two of you are telling me what is important and what is not. How about you list the things in the article in order of importance? The section on her ethnicity/nationality has 330 words, the section dealing with her win over Stosur has 76 words, the sentences (not even a full paragraph) about her first WTA final has 77 words, the paragraph about winning the US Open has 72. So the small piece of text that was removed from my edit to the lead summarised article content that was far greater than everything else in the lead put together. Yet Fyunck(click) tells me that adding the last three to the lead was good, but adding the first is not good because it's "not important". This talk page is at 150,000 bytes – up from 640 bytes at the beginning of the year – and virtually all of it concerns her ethnicity/nationality. How can you say that it's not important? Tvx1 says, There is no Wikipedia policy forcing us to cram every sort of national identity in the lead of articles on people. Nobody has said anything about cramming anything into anything. Can you point me to the policy that says that a substantial section of the article should not be properly and succinctly summarised in the lead if two of the article's owners decree that it's "not important"? Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Where did any of us claim it's not important?? I literally wrote that it's important, but not one of the most important facts. Her Japaneseness is one of the most important facts, her Americanness is a maybe, her Haitianness is not. And there are much more that 72 words on her US Open campaign.Tvx1 23:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
There are 72 words on the US Open final. Her wins over Siegemund, Glushko etc. are not in the lead – only the final. Even adding them only gives another 100 words, as against 330 for her ethnicity/nationality. Now, you've just "literally" written that "it's" important, and followed that with "her Haitainness is not." Can I ask you again, what algorithm are you using to calculate the "importantness" of her "Japaneseness", her "Americanness" and her "Haitianness"? And please don't say reliable sources; I've cited plenty of sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe. Guardian and six others, as well as two interviews and a tweet from Osaka herself) that demonstrate the importance of the fact that her father is Haitian and she lives in the US, both to the media and to herself. And what exactly are the most important facts, after her 2014 win over Stosur, her first WTA final, winning Indian Wells, winning the US Open, and her no. 7 ranking? The lead is short enough that more important facts can be added, so what are your sixth, seventh and eighth most important facts? Her racket strings? Simply parrotting "it's not important" (sorry, "it's not the most important") is not a sound, policy-based argument. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you really impeccable of reading, because this getting very tiresome. This is what I wrote. Her Japaneseness is one of the most important facts, her Americanness is a maybe, her Haitianness is not. No where does that state It's important, her Haitianness is not. Please do not accuse me of having written things I have not. I have explained that her Haitianness is not one of the most important facts presented in the article and I stand by it. The most important facts are who she is, what her legal nationalities are, what here notable activity is, what her highest ranking is and what her major achievements were. Her Haitianness belongs in the personal life/background section. In fact that's why we have such a section in the first place. To provide background to her identity. The sentence in the lead on her US Open win is not just a summary of the final, even though it's mentioned, but of her whole US Open campaign. You don't win a tournament by winning the final alone. In this case she won 7 matches to lift the trophy. It demonstrates just how rash the lead is supposed to be. It merely mentions she won the tournament.Tvx1 12:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You're right, this is getting tiresome. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Fyunck(click) "She has never played for the United States" just a side note that's a bit off. Seems obvious she was playing USTA tennis before age 15 joining the JTA. e.g. 2009 USTA 14’s Team Florida Challenge]. I don't think that matters for the lead of what she currently is, though if more exists about this then it might be a good start to her early career. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Interesting photo. She did go to school in the USA so she did play in Naples, Florida. However, to play as a junior or a pro the ITF gets involved and she did not play for the USA as a junior per the ITF. She did not play as a pro for the USA per the ITF. She did not play as a a pro for the USA per the WTA. But it looks like when you play for your high school team in Naples Florida, the USTA will thank you with a Team Florida t-shirt and a photo. I'm not sure it qualifies as more than that though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Osaka/Archive_2&oldid=1227976015"