Jump to content

Talk:Julian Castro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Accent?

Watching Castro during the convention last night, I noticed an accent on the "a" in his first name. Is that the accurate spelling of his name? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Education History

Julian admits publicly he entered Stanford solely on the basis of a anti-white racially discriminatory and succeeded entering Law School solely as the beneficiary of Affirmative Action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.97.58.178 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources and remain neutral. Terms like "anti-white racially discriminatory" are not going to fly here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Castro himself has confirmed that he benefited from affirmative action, and that is already in the article. Non-neutral adjectives and editorializing are not in the article, and will not be. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

La Raza Unida

La Raza Unida although describing itself as a Civil Rights organization was in fact a publicly identified Mexican irredentist organization, motivated by race, advocating a program of "Mexican reconquest" of the South West, and has been found to be a criminal organization under both state and federal Racketeering laws as well as state sedition and political extremist laws. La Raza Unida gained headlines when it took over a number a Texas border towns and officially seceded from the United States, declared allegiance to Mexico, raised the Mexican flag, and sent credentialed emissaries to the Mexican government. Rosie Castro was one of the leading figures of the movement and has been under Federal investigation and surveillance for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.97.58.178 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if the above is true, none of it is going to be added to the article unless you can provide independent, reliable sources to back it up. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comment board, and everything on it has to be supported by reliable sources. You were correct to put these comments on the talk page, rather than the article itself. You should not add any of this material to the article yourself, since you have put it there twice now. Re-adding it a third time could be considered as edit warring. If you find sources that you consider to be reliable, please provide links here, so that a third party can evaluate the sources and decide whether to add the material to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation guide

The IPA transcription of his name starts with /j/, which in IPA stands for the sound that begins, for example, the English word yes. The link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Spanish shows that you should use /x/ for the sound represented in writing with a j (and sometimes g). Alternative, if he uses an anglicized pronunciation, the proper symbol could be /h/. Anyone who knows IPA and can verify which type of pronunciation he himself normally uses could settle this properly. But surely the IPA should now claim the pronunciation is "yoo-lee-AHN" as it now does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.58.191 (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Long ago I corrected the IPA to [xul'jaŋ], which is the pronunciation given in the Spanish Wikipedia article on the name Julián. Someone seems to have reverted it to what it was before my correction. I changed it to [xul'jaŋ] for the time being, but I second the request for the pronunciation the man himself uses, as long as it's in actual IPA.VonPeterhof (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of possible move

There is a discussion at Talk:Julián Castro#Requested move which could affect the title of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There's enough of a sense that the diacritic already distinguishes the articles appropriately that there's no consensus to move this article. Cúchullain t/c 19:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Julian Castro → Julián Castro (American politician) – Per apparent consensus at Talk:Julián Castro#Requested move, per usage, and per consistency with identical twin brother Joaquín Castro. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No objection to Julián Castro (mayor), except article says In May 2014 there were reports that he will be nominated as the next Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by President Obama; a White House spokesman and Castro himself both declined to comment.[2]... politicians are mobile, jobs change. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, then I'll support your original wording. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the addition of the accent mark and "(American politician)". Definitely not "mayor," because chances are strong that he will hold other offices in the future. Some change of title is necessary to avoid confusion with former president of Venezuela Julián Castro. Suggest hatnotes for differentiation. --MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a solution in search of a problem. Things are perfectly fine the way they are. There are already hatnotes on both articles. Julian Castro is his name in many sources, such as Reuters, The Washington Post, USA Today, Politico, and the University of Texas at San Antonio Digital Library, to name a few. Over the next few months anyone typing Julian Castro in the search box is going to want this article by a factor of at least a hundred to one, because of the HUD nomination, so this is by far the primary topic compared to a short-term Venezuelan President 150 years ago - no disrespect to him. Why send the vast majority of readers to the article they don't want? Not to mention "politician" can have a subtle negative connotation to some people during his confirmation hearings, as opposed to "statesman" or even "mayor" - this is the worst possible time for this proposal - we should not appear biased right now even unintentionally. 66.217.194.25 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There IS a problem. Consensus of the discussion at Talk: Julián Castro seemed to be that the current situation - where the two articles are differentiated only by the presence or absence of an accent mark, Julian Castro for this article, Julián Castro for the other - is not acceptable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Only 4 or 5 editors participated in that discussion. The far broader consensus reflected at the policy page WP:Article titles is that it is perfectly acceptable as long as hatnotes are present. Furthermore these articles have existed under their current titles since 2005 without any problem noted. 66.217.198.212 (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
As per User:MelanieN verbatim, plus also WP:RECENT. The IP (only post) should realize that adding (American politician) will help readers find what they are looking for an avoid the more long-term notable historical figure. As far as "Julian Castro is his name in many sources [then listing basic ASCII sources]" - we do not give basic ASCII names to people simply because they get mentioned in Basic ASCII sources. The IP would have to show at the very least that New York Times and Economist drop accents deliberately while keeping them for other names, and in any case this aspect is a red herring as with or without a font change the Venezuelan president is still there. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Readers will be looking for this article under "Julian Castro". Most English speakers do not care about the accent and certainly won't type it. Reliable sources use both versions. The sources cited were HTML, not Basic ASCII. But I'm not opposed to an accent. The point is that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so don't make it tougher on the large majority of readers just as this article becomes much more read (thousands of times each day compared to a few dozen for the Venezuelan). If you want to switch this to "Julián Castro" the other should be switched to "Julián Castro (Venezuelan president)", but I don't think it's necessary. 66.217.198.212 (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That was just discussed at the other move request; consensus there was that the president of a country should be the primary subject over a mayor, even though the mayor gets lots more hits. --MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That does not benefit the readers of Wikipedia, in my opinion. In any case, if we leave things as they are, that issue is moot. 66.217.198.212 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That was what I proposed (Julián Castro Contreras), but it did not get consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Because almost no sources use that name. —  AjaxSmack  12:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not convinced that we should allow disambiguation by the diacritic alone, but we do, and so long as we do there's no problem with the current setup. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere - can't find it now - that for Wikipedia purposes, the name with or without the diacritic is considered to be identical. For example, François Mitterrand and Francois Mitterrand are the same name. Beyoncé and Beyonce are the same name. Andre the Giant is not a different person from André the Giant. What we have here is two different articles with the same name (differing only in the diacritic, which both of them actually use anyhow). And that violates Wikipedia policy that article names have to be unique. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You might be thinking of WP:Article titles, which is the relevant policy page. Identical titles are a technical impossibilty. Unlike print, which could have two or more articles titled "John Smith", the software can't handle that. But "John Smith", "John smith", "Johnsmith", "JohnSmith" "John-Smith" and "John Smith!" could all be article titles. The policy is that if we have very similar article titles, like here, there must be hatnotes on each, but I'm not aware of any policy that says they can't exist. 66.217.193.55 (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (provisionally).
Without establishing the primacy of the accented form in English-language sources, I normally still would support such a move; pages generally should not be disambiguated by only an accent mark. However, the nomination does not stipulate where "Julian Castro" would go after the move. If it redirects back to the American politician article, why bother with the move to a longer title? And if not, why create a dab page for only two articles (WP:TWODABS)?
However, if the accent mark is deemed by others (based on secondary sources) to be a critical integral part to the American politician's name (something not demonstrated so far), then I support the move with a redirect of "Julian Castro" to that article. But as it stands, the status quo seems best. —  AjaxSmack  12:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

We almost always title our biographical articles with diacritics if the people they're about use the diacritic in their own English-language life. I'm curious if we could ask the mayor whether or not he minds people dropping the accent, lol. (As closer of the other move, I'm not participating here - fully neutral.) Red Slash 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt if he would "mind", as in, make an issue of it (a typical politician attitude would be - call me anything, just call me). He knows that many newspapers aren't set up to use diacritics. But as for his actual name, he uses the accent on the official mayoral page,[1] his personal webpage, [2] his Facebook page,[3] and his Twitter account.[4] It's pretty clear that he uses it himself consistently. (I presume a main reason he uses it is so that people will call him Hoo-lee-AHN instead of JOO-lee-un.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
But we'd be asking only half the question. The question should be whether he'd rather have us drop the accent or add the word "politician" in bold letters next to his name at the top of the article. Who knows, his answer might be the same, but I bet he'd at least stop to think about it. 66.217.193.55 (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relationship with Fidel Castro

Should we discuss the differences between Fidel Castro and Julian Castro so people don't confuse them? As in a redirect to make it clear that they are not the same near the top of the page 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No. No one is confused. Kuru (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Fidel doesn't own the name Castro; it's a common last name in the U.S. (nearly 100,000 people) and in the world. See Castro (surname). --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

wp:blp

I've made this restore its relevant, well cited, and does not violate anything on wp:blp. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does - it's opinion pieces and cherry picked "criticism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
And even aside from that, the sources are border-line reliable. Not enough for BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you were more specific with your concerns and careful with your edits. A wholesale deletion does not improve the article. What about it exactly do you find "cherry picked"? I have added more sources. Is the NYT not reliable or noteworthy in your view? Bangabandhu (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the NYT is reliable and noteworthy but unfortunately it doesn't support the text you wish to add. The text in question is "Castro was subjected to increased scrutiny over the sale of steeply discounted mortgages and thousands of foreclosed houses to Wall Street firms through HUD's Distressed Assets Stabilization Program ". The NYT article just says "housing advocates have stepped up their calls for reforms in the loan sale program and singled out Julian Castro, the HUD secretary, for what they said was his slow response to heeding the criticism". That's different. So still a no. (And yes, deletions do improve articles, depending on what is being deleted) Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Publicintegrity and buzzfeed still not suitable for BLP. Salon, politico still not suitable for BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You do have some acceptable sources this time. Politico and NYT are OK. They do support some of your material. However, the Salon op-ed is POV and completely unacceptable. The "Value Walk" item actually links to the Salon op-ed and in any case Value Walk is not a neutral or reliable source. The Center for Public Inquiry is not a neutral or reliable source. Buzzfeed is described as a ""social news and entertainment company" which does not sound like a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Get rid of those four, and then see what can still be sourced by the Politico and NYT references. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Castro's ability to speak Spanish

An IP special purpose account added a paragraph saying that Castro doesn't speak Spanish very well, so that his campaign outreach abilities are limited. The paragraph was sourced to an NBC news item which in turn was sourced to an unnamed "Clinton ally". I considered that sourcing too weak and deleted it. The IP added it again. I don't want to get into an edit war so I left it in place and I am bringing it here for discussion. Should this material be included in the article? --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds too weakly sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should2602:304:B225:4839:5955:D904:DE2D:2BD6 (talk) His potential for outreach was a campaign issue--covered by large media. It was one reason why the State Party wanted him specifically to be nominated. If this was significantly impacted in any way, including by something he did or could not successfully do, it would need to be added into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B225:4839:5955:D904:DE2D:2BD6 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It could be significant, yes, but only if it is verified by strong, credible sources. This item is sourced to an un-named "Clinton ally" - which could, on this week of all weeks, mean someone who is in competition for the Vice Presidential nomination. I regard this kind of anonymous back-biting with strong skepticism. If we can find other people saying it besides an anonymous "Clinton ally" I would be more inclined to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't know what's going on inside the Clinton camp, but her veep should be chosen in a day or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian Castro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julian Castro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close, malformed. The suggested target is occupied by another article. Dekimasuよ! 06:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Julian Castro → Julián Castro – He goes by that name with the pronunciation with an accent. In addition, he personally styles his name like this and said if he ran for President he would use the accent. Furthermore, his brother's article has an accent. So simply it is incorrect to omit the accent. Qballer82 (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move to Julián Castro (American politician)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Clearly no consensus to move to the proposed disambiguated title, but this is messy because of the move of the Venezuelan president during this discussion. There really needs to be a separate multi-move proposal to determine if this American politician is the primary topic of the name with the diacritic, whether his COMMONNAME includes the diacritic, and whether the dab page there now should be moved to make room for this article. I just don't see how to make that determination from this discussion. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Julian Castro → Julián Castro (American politician) – This article is currently titled Julian Castro, while the article about a former president of Venezuela is titled Julián Castro. Per discussion at Talk:Julián Castro, nobody likes having them disambiguated only by a diacritic, particularly since the American who is the subject of this article also uses a diacritic. There is developing consensus at that article to move it to Julián Castro (Venezuelan president); I suggest a corresponding DABbed title here as Julián Castro (American politician). The current title Julian Castro should be retained as a redirect to Julián Castro (American politician), since coverage of this person sometimes omits the diacritic, whereas it is always used for the Venezualan. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. With respect to the Venezuelan president's significance, his article is rarely viewed more than 20 times a day. When 99.31% of people searching Julian Castro want the US politician, disambiguating does little more than create a thorn in reader's sides. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Move the Venezuelan guy but not this one. This one is the primary topic, so hat note it. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of usage, by far, and unknown (but likely) in terms of long-term significance. This Venezuelan president served for a year and half 160 years ago. Not that many people are reading his bio on enwiki.- MrX 🖋 22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This Julián Castro is clearly the primary topic and the only proper move would be one that adds the diacritic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm perfectly fine with a diacritic being the sole difference in the article name. I'm sure it's the case with other articles, though I can't think of one. It's a similar situation to Jacoby Jones and JaCoby Jones. Per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page isn't necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) Comment We could keep this one where it is, without the diacritic, but that's not really the name he goes by. As for whether this is the Primary Topic, IMO that's recentism and America-centrism. It's true that this article gets more page views, but this is about a person who has been a mayor and a cabinet secretary, while the other is about someone who was the president of his country. If we retain Julian Castro as a redirect pointing to the DAB-named article, there will be no inconvenience to readers. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure it is recentism but also lots of people are searching for info in English about the American while few people care about the long dead guy and those that do likely speak spanish. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, I do not think recentism really applies since this person has been highly notable for at least ten years. As for "America-centrism", perhaps that phrase should be changed to "U.S.-centrism" since Venezuela is located on one of the two American continents. If the readership was 70-30 or even 80-20, perhaps these points would be valid. But since 99+% of our readers are looking for this biography, not for the one about the briefly serving Venezuelan president, it seems clear to me that this is the primary topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
If anything both the accented and unaccented names without the DAB should be the title and a redirect to this US politician and the long dead President moved to (Venezuelan politician). A lot of the traffic to the Venezuelan guy is people looking for the US Presidential candidate. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I proposed that some years ago, but it turned out that he almost never used that formulation of his name, and he is not referred to that way in sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you actually just write "a random mayor of a city known only by Americans", Deansfa? Really? Are you aware that San Antonio was the largest Spanish settlement in what is now Texas going back over 300 years, that it is important in the history of Mexico and the Republic of Texas and the Confederate States of America, and that it it now the 7th largest city in a country with a population of 325 million people? Hey, I am 66 years old, have only visited Texas three times (other than changing planes) and have never once visited San Antonio. But I am smart enough to know that San Antonio is a major world city. Get a clue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The real shame is an emotional, fact-free attempt to correct perceived biases. The Venezuelan president was the president for a year and five months of a country with a population of about 1 million. In contrast, the subject of this article was the mayor of a city of 1.5 million for five years and the HUD secretary of a country of 325 million people for two and a half years. The Venezuelan president's article is read by 13 people per day. The U.S. presidential candidate's article is read by 1318 people each day, a hundred fold difference. If nothing else, the sudden spike in page views from disappointed readers who are looking for the presidential candidate but landing on the obscure, treasonous Venezuelan president's article, should seal the deal. - MrX 🖋 20:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Solid point MrX. The Venezuelan president can very well be argued to be a rather obscure figure from deep in the annals of history. Whereas the other is a highly relevant contemporary figure to which most readers searching their name would be likely navigating towards. It is important to make Wikipedia a usable and navigable source. If anything, the Venezuelan president would immensely more frequently be serving as a hindrance/annoyance to readers seeking the American politician than it would serve as an intended destination. SecretName101 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    So you're just confirming what I was saying by qualifying the American mayor as a "highly relevant contemporary figure" and the Venezuelan president as an obscure figure from deep in the annals of history. Thanks for the support. --Deansfa (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Bizzare you are referring to him merely as a mayor. The man was also a cabinet member. Do you really believe that at any point in the coming decades more English Wikipedia readers would be looking for the Venezuelian president than would be looking for the American politician (a cabinet member, presidential candidate, mayor of a major city, keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention, and a top contender in the 2016 Democratix VP sweepstakes)? SecretName101 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia and the American politician clearly takes precedence in this case, as most English readers will be looking for this article. There is no reason to introduce a parenthetical disambiguation when one isn't needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I certainly do not agree with the jingoistic comment immediately above, the hatnote at the top of both articles should get readers to the desired article and parenthetical disambiguation will not improve that. Jonathunder (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jonathunder: Please be more specific about exactly what it is about my comment that you take issue with. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
If you didn't mean Americans take precedence over Venezuelans because this is an English language project, then I misread your comment and will apologize. Jonathunder (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No, what I meant was that the readers of the English Wikipedia take precedent, and as there are far more English speakers in America than Venezuela, there are likely to be many times more readers of the English Wikipedia in America than in Venezuela. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not assuming good faith. Jonathunder (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
We can easily see the American is already the primary topic before he becomes a Presidential nominee - and he is already running. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (American politician) per AjaxSmack. Classic WP:NOPRIMARY case, we can always re-evaluate if the American politician wins the primary. Iffy★Chat -- 12:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support; it's less USA-centric and more accurate at the same time. Win-win BenLeggiero (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The US politician is primary with respect to usage, so this article should stay at the version of the name that people will normally navigate to. Recentism is bad when it gives the reader a distorted view of a topic, not when it merely saves a large majority of readers a click in getting to the article they're looking for. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. He's using the diacritic prominently in his campaign materials, so the current title is just incorrect. The discussion about possibly retitling the other Castro page can take place later, depending on how well this Castro's presidential race goes. It's going to be a long couple of years so there's no rush. For now, we should use his name as he spells it. Designate (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I was mistaken. Julián Castro is not a redirect, it is a DAB page listing both people of that name. It would need a whole new discussion to determine whether this American politician is the primary topic and should be the target of a redirect. IMO that discussion should wait until this one is closed. In the meantime I favor leaving it at its current title, and not adding (American politician). To be clear, my position at this RM discussion is now oppose (yes, even though I started it). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion has been open for 12 days and the consensus is quite clear. I can't imagine that anyone would seriously object to completing the move per WP:IAR.- MrX 🖋 17:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "completing the move". This discussion was about moving to (American politician); there is a pretty clear consensus against that, and this could probably be closed right now as "no move", although someone uninvolved should do that. If by "completing the move" you mean "moving this article to Julián Castro and eliminating the DAB page", we can't just do that. As per the procedural close above, you can't just decide move to a page that has content on it and eliminate that content. It would require a new discussion - one that would involve the participants at both pages. It may be obvious to you, and to other discussants here, that the American is the primary topic, but there were a number of people in the discussion at Talk:Julián Castro, and some at this discussion, who objected to that notion, so that needs to be worked out. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Julián Castro was moved to another title thus freeing up Julián Castro. I am not aware of any consensus for turning it into a DAB page, and a pretty solid case has been made for moving Julian Castro to Julián Castro, consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In other words, the DAB page was bold (and somewhat opportunistic) creation. A better solution is to use a DAB hatnote on this article, after it is renamed Julián Castro.- MrX 🖋 18:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I agree with User:eduardog3000 that we should use the diacritic on his name in the text of this article, and will add it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. In addition, no consensus to move Julian Castro to Julián Castro (American politician) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am listing this as a move proposal, but the real question to be decided here is: is this American politician the primary topic for the article title Julián Castro? If he is, we should 1) move this article Julian Castro (without the diacritic) to Julián Castro, leaving a redirect, and 2) either eliminate the DAB page which is currently at Julián Castro (regarding it as unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER), or else move it to Julián Castro (disambiguation). If it is decided that the American politician is NOT the primary topic, then we should have a later discussion about how to title it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Comment: Moving Julian Castro 2020 presidential campaign to Julián Castro 2020 presidential campaign (already a redirect) should be considered as well. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously primary topic, the question is whether we go with Julian Castro or Julián Castro. Whoever wants to change this to Julián Castro would have to show that is how his name is spelled in most English language sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we need a discussion as to whether the contents of pages should be "Julián Castro" regardless of title? User:MelanieN agreed above that contents should match his actual name, and updated the article accordingly. This should be consistent on other pages such as 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Julian Castro 2020 presidential campaign, no? --eduardog3000 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No such discussion is required. Boldly making the content change is fine. Only if someone objects and reverts is discussion required. --В²C ☎ 22:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I've already reverted that and I'll revert those changes on other articles, pending this discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
What was the reason for your revert, Onetwothreeip? You should not revert unless you have reason to believe there is conflict with policy or conventions, in which case that reason should be stated in the edit summary or on the talk page. --В²C ☎ 22:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
COMMONNAME pertains to titles, not to article content. I would like to see you revert your revert unless you can cite a policy/guideline/convention objection to using diacritics for references to this person in that article content. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 22:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously we're going to be consistent and refer to him the same way as titles do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
If this proposal succeeds, any corresponding moves of the related subarticles like Julian Castro 2020 presidential campaign → Julián Castro 2020 presidential campaign can be reasonably assumed to be uncontroversial and done unilaterally - no discussion required (unless someone objects and reverts). But wait and see how this discussion goes, please. --В²C ☎ 22:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree, I was just making sure it isn't forgotten when a decision is made. --eduardog3000 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Support: I suggest the more pertinent question is which is the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. I'm generally against use of diacritics in titles unless they are used more commonly than not in English Reliable Sources, which appears to be the case here. When I google "Julian Castro" I find both many news services as well as his official website all use the diacritic. And hits for this topic dominate, so I think there is no question about primary topic here. --В²C ☎ 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Most current English-language sources do use the diacritic. We follow sources. — JFG talk 12:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Odd how "recentism" is invoked in regards to the diacritic but not with regards to primary topic status, which literally flipped "overnight" when he announced his presidential run. We did need to transition through a disambiguation phase, so that the Venezuelan could be removed from PT first! wbm1058 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • My argument of WP:RECENTISM refers to primary topic status, not to the diacritic. —  AjaxSmack  18:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
      @AjaxSmack: Right, I was referring to the comments surrounding yours: until it's shown reliable sources use "Julián Castro" more than "Julian Castro"... we don't use diacritics in American English, and most sources do not either.... Most English sources will not use the diacritic in his name since diacritics are not commonly used in English. These imply a "recentism" argument with regard to the diacritic. My support for moving to PT now is tentative; I actually do not support moving without a clear consensus that there is a primary topic. The default when there is no consensus PT should always be to disambiguate; we shouldn't "grandfather" in a primary topic based on "status quo" arguments. It's unfortunate that the previous RM close did not decide the diacritic issue, and said "Clearly no consensus to move to the proposed disambiguated title". Priority should have been given to settling the diacritic issue; there doesn't need to be as much a hurry to decide primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It certainly appears that Castro prefers the use of the accent. Note how prominently the accent appears in his campaign logo (see https://www.julianforthefuture.com/). On the "About" page of his campaign website, his own name is given as "Julián" whereas his brother's name is given repeatedly as "Joaquin" (instead of the Spanish-orthography "Joaquín"). The applicable Wikipedia naming convention seems to be WP:SPNC, which states: "For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, punctuation and spacing after initials,...): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed ...." Since Castro appears to be consistent in his use of the accent, I think we should use it as well. Furthermore, using the accent helps indicate to readers that his name should be pronounced in the Spanish style (hoo-lee-ON) instead of the English style (JOO-lee-en). Also, I believe that the current-day politician should be considered the primary topic. I don't think the Venezuelan president is going to be referenced much more than he already has been. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it's how HE spells his name. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Seems clear that he consistently uses the diacritic, and so do the majority of the news outlets and other reliable sources. Some more informal sources may drop it, but it's more encyclopedic to use his proper name here. Acerimusdux (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Primary topic I don't care about the accent. Don't know how to type it. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Julián Castro (American politician). I can get on board with the diacritics proposal. It seems clear that sources do favour that form, which is unusual for US topics (see San Jose, California etc.) But by no possible interpretation is this guy primary topic over the Venezuelan president. Yes, he was only in power for a couple of years, but as leader of a sovereign state he clearly has greater longterm significance than someone who isn't even their party's candidate for president yet. So between that and the fact that common usage favours the American, and longterm significance favours the Venezuelan a disambiguation page is correct. If we can't get consensus to move to the parenthetical version then I'd prefer to leave it as is (at least it somewhat satisfies WP:NATURALDIS) so I Oppose the proposed move under any circumstances.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This Julian Castro has 373,000 page views in the last 30 days. I just checked the Venezuelan Julian Castro, and somehow it's zero views. Arguing that the Venezuelan Castro is the primary Julian Castro is absurd. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
No, arguing that someone who isn't even candidate yet is primary over an actual serving president is absurd. We are an encyclopedia not a dictionary of trending terms in 2019. If he becomes the Democratic Nominee or president then I might reconsider but for now this is pure WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
He was a cabinet secretary, city mayor and now presidential candidate in the last ten years. That makes him more notable than somebody who was the president of Venezuela for one year in the 19th century. Not because of any particular criteria that says so, but because the page views for this Julian Castro compared to the other Julian Castro are so overwhelming, it's literally 373,000 views versus somehow zero views. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
(American politician) was soundly rejected in the section above this one. Also arguing NOPRIMARY suggests someone does not understand what a primary topic is. Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Well if "(American politician)" was rejected then we'll just have to stick with using the absence of a diacritic as a NATURALDIS disambiguator from the Venezuelan president. It's not ideal, but the fact remains that there is no primary topic for the Julián Castro title so that is not eligible to have this article moved there.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You are supporting a suggested move that was rejected last week - read the last discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That's because it's the best title for the page. I also participated in that discussion, by the way. Iffy★Chat -- 09:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clear WP:NOPRIMARY. I support the suggestion of moving to Julián Castro (American politician); he seems to use the diacritic and we should go with that. Julián Castro should be a disambiguation page, and Julian Castro should redirect to it. Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Julián Castro (American politician) per Amakuru. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose move to Julián Castro (American politician) The American is the primary subject, quite obviously. He has been a major American politician for over a decade, and is quite clearly who people are looking for when the type in "Julián Castro". I just googled "julian castro" and got 32.6 million results. There was no mention of the Venezuelan politician in the first ten pages (though there was this college soccer player). I googled "Julian Castro Venezuela" and got 8 million results. The first result was his page on Wikipedia. The second was the disambiguation Julián Castro page. The third was the American politician's Wikipedia page. The fourth was a source in Spanish. The fifth was a list of Facebook users named "Julian Castro" around Caracas. The sixth was an article about the American's foreign policy, specifically in regards to the recent unrest in Venezuela. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the Venezuelan Castro is not the primary topic. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
"It is overwhelmingly obvious that the Venezuelan Castro is not the primary topic." Straw man fallacy. No-one is suggesting that he is. Narky Blert (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The current status quo, and the correct arrangement here, is that there is no primary topic. "Vehemently" opposing the addition of a parenthetical disambiguator doesn't change that.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of usage, by far, and unknown (but likely) in terms of long-term significance. 160 years ago, the Venezuelan president was the president for a year and five months of a country with a population of about 1 million. In contrast, the subject of this article was the mayor of a city of 1.5 million for five years and the HUD secretary of a country of 325 million people for two and a half years. The Venezuelan president's article is read by 13 people per day. The U.S. presidential candidate's article is read by 1318 people each day, a hundred fold difference. I strongly oppose a move to Julián Castro (American politician) which is unnecessary disambiguation. This should be obvious from the lack of consensus in the move request (above) from three weeks ago. The analysis below (§ GOOGLETEST results) support using the diacritic per WP:COMMONNAME.- MrX 🖋 01:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it's very hard to make the case that a mayor, minor cabinet member and candidate is primary over an actual head of state, even a fairly obscure one. We should probably rename him to Julián Castro (American politician) though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A U.S. mayor has no precedence over a Venezuelan president: no primary topic on title "Julián Castro". Support move with accent to Julián Castro (American politician), along with a dab page at Julián Castro. — JFG talk 12:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

GOOGLETEST results

When I Google for "julian castro -wikipedia -ballotpedia" (without diacritics), here's what I see:

Although it's not quite unanimous, it's quite clear that reliable English language sources are almost universally using the diacritic in this person's name when referring to him. This is about as strong of a COMMONNAME case as we ever see. --В²C ☎ 23:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

These are all recent articles though. We need to be sure it's been this way long term, and not just because his campaign has decided to included it in branding. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m actually surprised to see opposition to adding the diacritic to his name; I think it is clearly his common name. Rather than assuming “most sources won’t use it” or “we don’t do that”, how about we take a look at what sources are actually doing? (I see that B2C beat me to it but his results are similar to mine.)

  • For starters, he himself uses it consistently; see for example his Twitter page and its pictures of his campaign signs.
  • Looking at the latest Google search, with articles about his announcement for president: Every source on the first page of hits uses it: CNN, KXAN, ABC News, NBC News, New York Times, New York Post. The NYT even notes that when he filed the paperwork to run for president, he added the accent to his name by hand.
  • In a similar search at Google News, I find it is used by Politico, The Hill, CNN, NPR, The New YorkTimes, ABC News, and CBS News, but not by Fox News (there’s a surprise) or USA Today.
  • In a slightly different Google search I find it used by the Houston Chronicle, the El Paso Times, Rolling Stone, Vox, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and again CNN and the New York Times, but not the Chicago Tribune (a little out of date since it describes him simply as “San Antonio Mayor”) and again not by USA Today
  • Some sources seem to use it inconsistently, perhaps because of limitations on the typefaces or keyboards available to them: for example this CNN story uses it in the headline and the lead sentence, but not later in the article.

It seems clear that this is his "common name". Not only does he himself always use it, but so do a strong majority of current sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As to whether he "has always used it": Here is how he is listed in the official city archives of San Antonio: note the diacritic. As for whether "we" really "do" that at Wikipedia: Here is his brother's article, complete with diacritic: Joaquín Castro. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
What he uses himself is irrelevant, and we need to make sure this isn't a case of WP:RECENTISM, but reflects how his name has been historically depicted. The same goes for Joaquín, who has probably not been subject to a discussion about this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
That has been the uncontested title of the Joaquín article since it was created in 2006; I don't find any history of moves. As for "historically depicted", that's why I showed the mayoral archives; he was elected mayor there 10 years ago. And I can't believe you claiming that "what he uses himself is irrelevant". Seriously? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably because nobody has ever bothered to care about moving Joaquin. I've just searched his name on Google and I will be moving that article shortly, since the only result that uses a diacritic in his name is Wikipedia. That page move should not be relevant in this discussion though. Yes it absolutely doesn't matter what people call themselves, what matters is what they are known as. I call it the Ivory Coast precedent. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Since nobody has cited it, I'd like to point out WP:DGUIDE, specifically the Persons section which says "Whenever the most common spelling in English-language reliable sources is the person's real name, or the name with the diacritical marks simply omitted, the proper name (with the diacritics) is normally used." as well as "Weight can and should also be given to the preference of the living subject". I think DGUIDE makes a strong case for including the diacritic. This applies to both Julián and Joaquín now that Joaquín has been modified. CC User:Born2cycle and User:Onetwothreeip --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Then we would need evidence that his "proper" name is with a diacritic, which I take to mean his birth name. Unless we're going to see his birth certificate, we would have to take the common name, and I would be inclined to take the common name anyway. There's no indication that Joaquin's name has a diacritic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I think his listing on sanantonio.gov as well as on the archive of Obama's whitehouse.gov is enough evidence that his proper name is with the diacritic. I think it's a bit too much to require a birth certificate for such a thing, as that would make that guideline useless except in rare cases where the subject has provided theirs. Also, again: "Weight can and should also be given to the preference of the living subject". --eduardog3000 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I was going to object to the moving of Joaquín's article to Joaquin, but when I did a little research I think it actually makes sense. He himself does not seem to use it much - see, for example, his own page on the House of Representatives website[5] and his Twitter page [6]. A Google search comes up about half-and-half or less with the diacritic. So I am actually OK with omitting the diacritic in Joaquin's case. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that Joaquín is definitely the proper spelling, but like you said he and house.gov use Joaquin (although I suspect it's not out of preference, but convenience and disregard), so there's a pretty good argument for no diacritic. The same can't be said about Julián as he definitely prefers the diacritic, and both news and government sources use it. --eduardog3000 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Where are you getting this idea from that Joaquin's name should have a diacritic? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Because that is the proper spelling of the name in general. I do agree that the lack of usage by himself or sources means it can be omitted here, so I don't think Joaquin really needs to be discussed further, unless he starts using the diacritic. However Julián definitely seems to be both the proper and preferred spelling of his name. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
About the diacritic for Joaquin: yes, it is considered part of the name, in Spanish. But I took a look at our articles about people named Joaquín [7]. I found that people with that name from Spanish-speaking countries do use the diacritic, but the Americans, Joaquin Miller and Joaquin Phoenix, do not. I suspect (Original Research alert) the reason is that the diacritic is not necessary for Joaquin to pronounced correctly; it’s wha-KEEN with or without the diacritic. Whereas the diacritic changes the pronunciation of Julian drastically, from JOO-lee-un to hoo-lee-AHN. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Note that the same is true - the accent or diacritic gets dropped - for many other names when used by English speakers: Renée becomes Renee, André becomes Andre, etc. In Joaquin's case, he seems to have dropped it. In Julián's case, he insists on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
A scientist friend of mine gave me the perfect solution for these discussions: apply the scientific principle of Conservation of Diacritics. Take the diacritic from Joaquin and move it to Julián. Problem solved! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I support the merger. Neutralitytalk 17:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Change "He speaks Spanish," to "He started learning Spanish in 2016," per interviews Castro gave during the 2016 election cycle. BCU.EDU (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, although per Dallas Morning News, he began learning Spanish in 2010, not 2016. Surachit (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Julian Castro 2020 presidential campaign into Julian Castro)

CLOSED
Agree to merging of article(s) as per CONSENSUS. @Purplebackpack89: should go ahead and perform the merge. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:48, 3 January 2020 (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.

I know he's still in the race, so this may be premature, but there's actually more information about his campaign in his biographical article right now than there is in the campaign article.

The presidential campaign article has only one sentence about the campaign itself, and it's a sentence about how his mother and his brother introduced him at his campaign launch.

His biographical article already covers his political positions in more detail than his presidential campaign article, so there's not very many bytes that would need to be moved.

In short, I think it would be beneficial to the readers if this information was consolidated into his bio page, as his campaign page is so underdeveloped that his bio page already does a better job at covering it. His campaign page can be turned into a redirect without deleting the history and without prejudice against recreation, as I think there's at least enough coverage of it on the web that any interested editor could expand it to beyond the size of a subsection, but right now his campaign article is an empty shell.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. I think that the information about the campaign on his bio should be moved to the campaign, which is an entirely seperate matter to his bio. JamesSmith1988 (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I respect that position, but bear in mind that the information on his bio is still just a couple of paragraphs, which I'd say is the bear minimum that needs to stay on his bio. Otherwise, the section linking to the campaign article would need to be tagged as requiring an expansion.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 15:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support merge: His campaign has never really gained any traction, and the campaign's article is rudimentary. pbp 14:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: No candidate should be counted out until he or she withdraws from the race; it should not depend on Wikipedia editors to determine who is or is not a viable candidate.Michael E Nolan (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    The rationale for merging does not comment on the viability of Castro's campaign. As far as I know, it's not mandatory for active presidential campaigns in the United States to have their own standalone articles up until the moment they drop out. The purpose of this merge would simply be to consolidate the available information about the campaign into one location, as there (unfortunately) isn't enough information on the encyclopedia to warrant much more than an individual subsection. This would, of course, be done with no prejudice towards recreating the article, as any interested editors should still have the option of developing a thorough article about the topic, but the only information about the campaign in the campaign article is just two short sentences about his announcement. In other words, there's quite literally no information about the campaign on his campaign page. It brings me no joy to merge articles (I'm very much an inclusionist), but this seems like an open and shut case for merging.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 03:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, about that... pbp 15:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

End of campalgn

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/julian-castro-dropping-out.html Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

In light of this, I will be completing the merge. The only oppose vote hinged on him being in the race; he has now withdrawn. pbp 15:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I opposed the merge, but at this point it is appropriate.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2020 (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:Julian_Castro/Archive_1&oldid=1136859120"