User talk:IsisTheQueen

For Heritage Lists
Do you know of anywhere that specifically says whom we can and cannot list under heritage categories? I tried to include some of the people with Polish grandparents, noting them specifically, but they were reverted. To my knowledge, many heritage lists on Wikipedia have listed people, even if they have had only one grandparent (noting this, of course), right? What are your feelings on this matter? Do you know of any rules in regards to this that actually prevent inclusion in these cases? To me, it seems a bit strange that if someone explains their heritage that that does not make them a part of it. Someone may say, "I'm of Polish descent," for example, but that doesn't make them eligible to be a "Polish American" (in the case, of course, that this person is an American, of course). Michael 05:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and, well, they seem to be expanding their target, because recently, I've noticed that the Italian American, French American, German American, and Irish American pages have been the same. There's a tremendous lack of uniformity overall; you are very correct.  It seems that some people are attempting to "preserve the integrity" and whatnot, but that's what seems to be causing the problem.  They allow for loose interpretations of some things, yet at the same time, they only read other things as they are literally stated, allowing for no leverage, even if something is incredibly basic.  Every time I try to add someone, I worry that their deletion is imminent because the source may not pass certain people's tests, they may think it's just a copy of another site, or they may feel that the information provided may say one thing, but nothing can be implied from that in the slightest bit.  Oh, well...It's late.  I should probably be going up to bed. Michael 07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what you mean. It also seems like Wikipedia has become a war-zone in specific articles.  If you can, it would be great if you got the opportunity to inquire.  The story you told in your last post reminded me of my AP Language & Composition class from this past year when we read two selections.  In one, a woman of Chinese descent talked about how the "c" word became a term of empowerment, while in another, an African-American woman told of how the "n" word was a term of empowerment.  In the past, "Polack" was an insult that could offend people.  I'm part Polish, but I'm not really offended if I hear the word, and I have a friend whose father is from Poland, so he says, "I'm a Polack and proud of it".  The case with Novak is just like so many others...Fred Asataire (formerly Austerlitz), Anne Bancrofy (Anna Maria Italiano), etc.  It's interesting to look back on them and see how different today's standards really are. Michael 07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Other lists
In regard to your post on Michael's page, it is absolutely not the case that it's not being done anywhere else. It's being done across the board. Basically every one of the smaller lists has been done (or at least the majority). Some of the larger lists haven't been fully done because... well, they are larger. But I have been either reverting or properly citing new additions. I'm only one guy, though, and I don't exclusively work on ethnicity lists so this isn't my full-time commitment. Yes, there are some very "nationalistic" editors on certain pages. Some have been "defeated" and some will yet be. But the lists have to be brought in accord with the passage from the No original research page that I cited to you on the Polish-Americans page just now. A + B can not equal the "X-American" C. Only C can. However, if you are interested in this, I don't understand why you wouldn't finish properly sourcing the Polish page, which as of yet is not fully sourced (I always go for citing actors first - my area of expertise anyway). Mad Jack 07:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Wikipedia policy is flawed, certainly. I do not fully agree with it, though as of late this has been starting to make more and more sense to me. But the X-American and X pages needed to be united under the same rules, and basic Wikipedia rules are the only ones we can use, so... I am not Polish, Cajun (I wish I was Cajun), Italian, Irish, and several of the other things either, and I have sourced a majority of those pages. However, I certainly can find proper sources for the majority of people on these lists, at least those who have both X parents and most who have one. There is no reason to stray outside the line and add people who are not actually X-Americans (and have not been described as such). Encyclopidiacally speaking - an encyclopedia would have a list of people who are actually X-American. This isn't the Britanica, but these rules, however flawed, are there so we can come close to being along the lines of a Britannica in terms of relevance and accuracy. Mad Jack 07:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Jack O'Lantern
I believe User:Jack O'Lantern has misinterpreted the policy in claiming that to include a person on a a list of xxx Americans, they specifically have to be described as that. Even if they are described as having an xxx parent/grandparent, unless they are described specifically as xxx American by themselves or by somebody else Jack has said he will exclude them from the lists which to me seems ridiculous. I would appreciate your input at Village_pump_%28policy%29. Regards Arniep 17:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The thanks
I thanked him for the Barnstar he gave me - and, on the same occasion, for the back-up as well. But primarily for the Barnstar Mad Jack 05:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy
Hey IsistheQueen, Do you know how to appeal to change Wikipedia policy as it pertains to the heritage lists? Michael 07:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

X-American list proposal
Hi, I am contacting you as you have expressed some interest in the current arguments over lists of X-Americans. I would appreciate if you could have a read of my proposal and state whether you support or oppose it WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Thanks! Arniep 11:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why is it that you seem to spend most of your time on Wikipedia complaining about what other editors do? Why not do something about it yourself? I.e. if a red link was removed, why not write a two sentence article about it so it becomes a blue link and doesn't have to be removed as non-notable! Or, going back to the old discussion, if you want to put someone on a list of X-Americans, find a source that they are! It actually isn't that hard if you look around enough. Remember, whenever you have a group of people whose primary occupation seems to be the criticsm of others - ask them why they're not doing something to fix the problem themselves in a manner that satifies everyone, which, in this case, is incredibly easy. You could have created three entries in the time it took you to write that message to me. Cheers! Mad Jack 04:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, were you serious when you said "fabulous articles"? If so, then thanks! I do appreciate that Mad Jack 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not telling you what to do, but since you seem so intent on criticizing me, I had to ask you why you insist on being exclusively a critic and not a contributor or problem solver. For example, myself, aside from the many, many, many lists I've significantly improved today by cutting down red links which add nothing to the lists except random names that can not be pressed on to provide more information, essentially making them useless, I've added a bunch of information to several articles and made productive cleanup edits to a few dozen other articles. The "criteria", as people may say, for the X-American lists are the same "criteria" for any article! The info must be sourced to exactly what you are saying in the article, and the topics/people discussed must be notable, which is something we can not prove as a community when they are a red link. If you created a two sentence article for whichever D-level model that I removed from the Pol-Americans list and re-added her with that exact source she was listed under that said she was a Polish-American, would I remove her? Of course not. I only remove anything that doesn't fit the standards of the articles we have on Wikipedia. And by now I'm sure you know what those are. Mad Jack 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, btw! (stepping outside of this whole discussion) Mad Jack 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the lists for the most part are (or some of them, were) excessive and disorganized - a kind of free for all. I have long wanted to bring them under some kind of common rule so they would all fit in with each other, but it wasn't until I started doing them strictly under Wiki policy that it all started making sense. No more deciding who does or does not belong based on this or that limit or criteria or comment, but now sheer simplicity - a person has either been referred to as "Is X" or they haven't! That's what I liked the most about doing this under Wiki's NOR policy. No variants or exceptions. A straight line - either a "yes" or a "no" (well, some "maybe"s, but those essentially go under "no", so...). Mad Jack 05:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Community web site indeed! However, the community must follow the very basic rules outlined at the creation of this great site we inhabit. If these rules are a little strict and disliked, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be strictly followed to achieve that greater good. :) Mad Jack 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)