Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans

Discussion

Enough already. We have no rules except basic Wikipedia policy. How much more of this is enough for you? Do you want me to copy the whole discussion from the village pump over here? Honestly? Mad Jack 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually we have WP:IGNORE for where users go to the most unreasonable extremes in following policy to the single microdot disregarding common sense. Arniep 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing unreasonable has happened here. If we couldn't list, say, JFK or Rosie O'Donnel ( :) ) it would be unreasonable. A relatively unknown, today, actor from 100 years ago unlisted means nothing. Nothing hangs on us calling anyone an X-American, so there is no reason not to call them that. See List of Welsh Americans, a perfectly fine, sourced under Wiki policy, listing of Welsh Americans with all the biggies and no unreasonable exclusions. Mad Jack 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well looking at many of the discussions elsewhere it would appear that many people do think it's unreasonable. I am not trying to suggest that people of distant Irish ancestry who never once mentioned it should be included, but when you start excluding Americans whose both parents were actually Irish and born in Ireland, that is where common sense flies out of the window. Arniep 17:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If they have not been described as Irish-Americans, maybe there's a good reason. Mad Jack 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most silent films stars are sadly forgotten which is probably why Maurice Costello has never ended up on lists of Irish-Americans, combined with the fact that people mistake Costello for a Spanish name (many Irish Costellos are also under that misimpression, it's actually Norman). It seems silly to disallow one of the most succesful silent film actors whose both parents were born in Ireland from the list of Irish-Americans for what seem to me such pedantic reasons. Arniep 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you understand the difficulty of editing a major encyclopedia. Honestly, I don't know why we need all this hoopala. Check out the Welsh list. It is a perfectly reasonable listing, and most importantly, perfectly sourced. I'm sure that, once I get to the Irish lists, we can work together to make it a great list under Wiki policy. We're both wasting our time with these endless discussions and politics. Mad Jack 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is there are users that don't agree that you are following policy in accepting a statement "I am Irish" as a source to list a person in the Irish-American lists. Many others would think that when an American says "I am Irish" they mean exactly the same as "I have Irish blood", "My family is Irish", but you have decided that the last two statements are not acceptable to include a person in the lists. Arniep 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"I have Irish blood"? That could mean someone's great-great-grandfather was Irish and that's it. How does that statement or this fact in any way make them Irish-American? As for "Family is Irish", I usually accept that, because a person is part of their own "family", as far as I can tell. Mad Jack 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack, you yourself have stated in the past that if someone recognizes their heritage, that is grounds for classification. Furthermore, by not accepting such sources in which someone has stated, "I have Irish blood," or, "My family is Irish," you are dictating and mandating your own opinion as fact. On August 11, 2006, Chris will be making an appearance at a luncheon sponsored by Cashland Financial Services (a cash advance company), who is founded in Dayton, OH. Several lucky winners will be announced to attend this event in Columbus, OH. Hopefully those lucky winners will spawn from Celina, OH. Michael 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When did I say "someone recognized their heritage"? I am dictating Wikipedia policy as fact, which I intend to keep doing, because I have the weight of all decisions that went into the NOR policy behind me, and no little counter-policy can override basic Wikipedia principle. By accepting the sources you said above, "I have Irish blood", you are dictating your opinion as fact that they are Irish-Americans, and turning it to fact by putting them on the article or in the category - which is a big no-no. I myself make no judgment on whether any of the people I remove are X-Americans or not, that's the point - I am not saying they are and I am not saying they are not. I simply move them to discussion so the sources needed that explicitly say they are X-Americans can be given, that's all. Mad Jack 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, in that case, we would need to define what every single word and phrase used on Wikipedia means. Even the most miniscule thing could be subject to scrutiny. My female attorney example is relevant here. What if a source calls her a female attorney as opposed to a woman attorney? They are the same thing. To many of us, being an x-American and being an American of x descent are the same thing, being defined as such. Michael 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Because A. no one in the world would disagree that a woman is a female and B. I'm sure we could find sources that call her a female and sources that call her a woman, if we really needed to. As you've seen here, there is no agreement on what exactly is an X-American. Or, about as much as there is on what plagarism is. And most important, nothing hangs on us calling them X-American - it's blatantly not important - so there is no reason to do so and commit original research if the sources don't say that they are. Mad Jack 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is no agreement, how can you go under the mindset that we can use a source in which someone has said, "I am Irish," while we cannot use, "I am of Irish descent," "I come from an Irish family," or "I have Irish blood."? That is clearly establishing your own definition which is a direct contradiction to your statement that we cannot create a definition when you create your own standards. Michael 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, the list is called "List of Irish Americans", not "List of Americans who have Irish blood", "List of Americans of Irish descent", etc. Per NOR, the sources need to match the title of the page, not anything that in our opinion makes the people match the page title. That's the exact point. It's very simple, again. If a source says X, we say X. If a source says XZA, we say XZA. We are like well-trained parrots. Our reliable source say something, and we report that specific thing with no new theses involved, or any of our own decision making. Mad Jack 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack, you said yourself "Irish-American" is a label, a phrase. According to your own reasoning you are connecting A they are an American citizen and B they have said "I'm Irish" to mean they are an Irish-American. When an American says "I'm Irish" it doesn't necessarily have any greater meaning than "I have Irish blood" or "My family are Irish". Wait a minute! You also accepting "My family are Irish"??? Well I'll just put Maurice Costello right back when we have reliable sources that his family are Irish. Sorry, but you do seem to be making this up as you go along. Arniep 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All I'm doing is repeating what the editors at List of British Jews said (the editors who were following policy, that is). Well, a "family" includes the person themselves. "Parents" obviously don't. If you have a source that Costello's "family" is Irish, I won't remove him. But not his parents - family. Mad Jack 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And you have, at times, either accepted or went against the family mindset in several instances. I would also be inclined to wonder how parents are insignificant to this matter. Never have we ever stated that a person must say, "I am Irish," or "My family is Irish," in the past to classify them as an Irish-American. You have misinterpreted policy. Michael 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course. You know, just keep believing that the term "plagarism" is covered under NOR and yet, X-Americans aren't. Of course. Let's put everyone with an X-grandmother (and nanny!) under the X-Americans cat. Real encyclopedic. I have not misintrepreted policy. It is you and Arniep and all the other X-identifiers who have simply chosen to ignore it for a time, which is fair enough, but now it is time to bring this page and others under the same rules all other articles are edited under on Wikipedia. Mad Jack 23:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from using such a tone when regarding others. I do not see how one's grandmother extends to then including nannies...It is irrelevant. Under your theory, though, if they had a strong identity to their nannies ethnicity, they could say, "I'm Dutch, because my nanny is." and that would be perfectly fine. You are the one which is opening it up to such interpretations. Michael 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm using a "tone" (I thought you could only have a tone in voice conversations?) it's because I have to repeat myself, over and over, ad nauseaum, to people who believe, for whatever reason, that the NOR policy, while effecting terms like plagarism and others, does not effect X-Americans. Why do they believe this? Why not? The nanny thing was a spin on the Polish page, where someone seemed to try and make Tea Leoni "more Polish" by saying she had a Polish nanny. We do not list by grandmother, mother, or uncle. You either have a source that someone IS X, or you don't. Oh, and no one will say "I'm Dutch because my nanny is". Let's not be silly. They might say "I'm Dutch because my grandma is", and that is great for inclusion. Mad Jack 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And it is our opinion that someone IS if they are descended from whatever the particular ethnicity in question is. Michael 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack, GraceNote and Jayjg have stated they must be sourced as X-Americans not that they have said "I'm X" or "My family's X". It is your own thesis that the statements "I'm Irish" or "My family's Irish" are exactly equivalent to them saying "I am Irish-American" just as it is my thesis that an American born to and brought up by two Irish people actually born in Ireland is also an Irish-American. According to a strict interpretation of the rules, we are not allowed these theses. That is why I am suggesting common sense should be used. I mean for goodness sake who exactly is going to be harmed by including people who ARE X-Americans according to the dictionary definition, but not according to some other people who don't write reputable reference works? They will all be properly sourced and if people think some of them are less X-American than others that is fine. We should not start removing people because the wording isn't quite right. Arniep 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Arniep. You cannot assign your own definition with its own implications, while attempting to condemn such, Mad Jack. I would also note that Yamla stated to you that she would not erase people listed who are cited as saying such things as, "I am of Italian descent," if I recall correctly from his talk page. Michael 01:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yamla stated that she would not herself erase this, but that she fully agrees with me and that this is the way it should be done. I'm not assigning anything - but, like Yamla, I will not erase anything where it says "X family", where the person is included. I will also not add these, however. In any case, I'm sure you all know the policies, etc. and yes, we all know you agree with Arniep, though the policies don't agree with either of you, which is the crucial part. Mad Jack 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, Michael, you will definitely not be listing any of those people you tried to list under Polish-Americans, just to be perfectly clear, unless you have a source that calls them that. Never mind that they don't fit under the basic Wiki policies, they don't even fit Arnie's "rules". Mad Jack 01:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this. Michael 01:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does! This whole discussion is about the X-American lists. I would actually much rather talk about a specific list or person than I would these generalities. Mad Jack 01:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Jayjg and Grace Note, I gave you the link from the British Jews page where Grace Note says if we have X + nationality then X-nationality is fine. If you wish to put words into their mouths, that is fine, but keep it to yourself. I am not certain about "family", but I will accept whatever they say. Mad Jack 01:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm of Italian descent" could mean anything; it could mean one Italian great-great-great-grandparent. "I'm Italian-American" means something. Policy does not allow us to say that the first statement is the equivalent of the second statement, as that is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Common sense"

The problem with appealing to 'common sense' is that 'common sense' usually means what I think everyone else should agree with. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. One person's common sense is another person's "?" Mad Jack 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear what I mean by that. Common sense as opposed to following policy to the the most extreme level possible, the examples at the top specifically being examples where one might employ common sense in deciding whether the source is sufficient for the person to be put on an X-American list. Arniep 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really, Arnie? And where does one stop applying this "common sense" of yours? Certain editors may think anyone with X grandfather belongs - that's common sense to them. In my common sense, I think anyone who is listed against the NOR policy is not properly listed, so I will remove them, very much in accord with this "common sense" "policy". Mad Jack 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop talking in that stuck up condescending manner- thanks. Sorry if it wasn't clear to you. The common sense is referring to the specific examples at the top. If there is a consensus that other examples are common sense, that is fine. Arniep 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you said was "such examples as", and I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean - not to mention that that was only in your intro. The voting itself is specifically on "common sense", and that sounds great to me, because my common sense is based directly on following Wikipedia policy, which I plan to do Mad Jack 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will change the wording. Arniep 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If a black man never is quoted as saying he is black, he is still considered black by wikipedia. But for any other group, the rules are different. This is unfair. 75.3.49.50 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't call him "black" unless some reputable source does. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Albury. No point in putting anyone under the African-American category unless they have been called that. Yes, it's obvious, of course, but regardless of that. Mad Jack 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack, your comment was racist. It can be just as obvious for other groups as it can be for blacks. 75.3.49.50 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether obvious or not, Wikipedia isn't here to turn people's idea of what is obvious into fact. Mad Jack 18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: the poll on the project page

The poll really is meaningless. If policy says you can't do something, taking a poll somewhere else won't change the policy. And if what you are voting on is not against policy, then what is the point of the vote? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack thinks it is against policy and won't allow for such inclusions. Michael 02:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

They need to change the policy if they want some sort of change - or relax the policy or something. Because, at the moment, the policy doesn't really allow exceptions, which this would be. Until one of you explains to me how labeling people "X-American" under a certain definition is different then labeling people as having "not committed plagarism" under a certain definition, then none of you really have an argument at all. Mad Jack 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We're actually out to change the policy in regards to this. Michael 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can't do this here. Because, right now, the policy does not mention any excceptions. You need to go to Wikipedia:No original research and go to the talk page and suggest this change there. Mad Jack 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My perspective is that of course nobody should be categorised as say a Greek-American unless there is a source that says he is. However, what amounts to a statement that he is? Whatever people say, that is currently unclear. It is not a change of WP:V or WP:NOR to clarify that issue.--Brownlee 12:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable source stating that someone is "Greek-American" or "African-American" or "Jewish-American", then we simply cannot decide to classify them that way. WP:V and WP:NOR are quite clear on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

heh. Arniep 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)