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

There is currently strong disagreement amongst contributors to these lists and others over how Wikipedia policies and guidelines affect how the people in them should be sourced. Many believe that an element of common sense should be used in judging whether a person is appropriate to be included, if it is clear that X culture had an influence on a person.

The following numbered examples are presented here for consideration as to whether they would be sufficient sources to put a person in a list of Greek-Americans (they could equally apply to any other ethnic or national origin):

1. an American is said to have been born to Greek parents who were both born in Greece.

2. an American has made a statement "both of my parents are Greek",

3. an American has made a statement "I am proud of my Greek heritage",

4. an American has made a statement "My blood is Greek blood"

5. an American has made a statement "My family is Greek"

Please sign your name below, along with the numbers of which sources you think would be sufficient to put a person on a list of Greek-Americans (or state none if you think that only sources that explicitly say a person is an "Greek-American must be allowed)


 * I vote that all five, (1,2,3,4,5) examples should be considered as X-American --Mallaccaos, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote that all five be considered for classification as an x-American. --Michael 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote that all five examples are sufficient grounds to include an individual in the "List of X-Americans" articles and categories. ExRat 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for all five --Brownlee 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for all five as well --Hectorian 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alll five. Plus a Sixth: An American states that some of his ancestors were of X,Y,Z origin, then this American is considered all "X-American", "Y-American" and "Z-American". Rationale and comment below. :N i k o S il v e r:  21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. All six, with reservations considering no.3 (if like, for example, he's proud of other heritage as well (for example Polish or something). --FlavrSavr 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote 1 and 2 only. I am strongly of Irish and German descent (late 1800s/early1900s), but I don't consider myself "Irish-German-American"...just American.  Personally, I'm most proud of where I was born and now live, not a place I've never even visited.  Basically, if you or an immediate relative are from abroad, you can consider yourself an X-ian.    ··· Q   Huntster  (T) • @ • (C)  22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The best would obviously be "has been described by a reliable source as x-American". This includes a statement from him, his parents, his family, news sources, reputable lists kept of Greek-Americans, unreputable lists can be done with "described as Greek-American". I note however that statement 3 is at odds with the behaviour of many Greeks with respect to Macedonian (You know those other guys) articles where it is insisted that a statement saying "I am a Bulgarian" is more important than actions, words and deeds even if the word has been reported to have shifted usage. Following this principle we should only label them Greek-American if they actually say they are Greek-American. Of course I'm not a WP:DICK and I believe in commonsense, so 1-5 per Malakos (sorry, couldn't resist and spare me the linguistics, simple things for simple minds) and 6 per Niko. :) - FrancisTyers · 23:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, thanks. This isn't about the Greeks or any Macedonians. It's about all and about categories. The difference in what you said Fran, is that (a) you can't be something that didn't officially exist when you claimed it (through your actions) and (b) all the guys you mention, indeed are in Category:Macedonian revolutionaries (as well as in Category:Bulgarian revolutionaries). So no double standards here... :N i k o S il v e r:  23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote fof all six; after all, we're not making lists of "nationalists" but simply of people of at least partial x descent. Obviously, there must be, as Fran said, RS calling Mr. x of at least partial x nation descent. Also, I feel that awnser 3 can't stand on its own; after all, even if I say "I'm proud to be Chinese", that doesn't make me Chinese. --Aldux 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, now, is there any recent event that has made some of us a little more proud of not being Chinese, Al? :N i k o S il v e r:  12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For all five. Isnt it obvious?   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All five (ofcourse, everything has it's specifics). Bomac 10:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All five. But consider this. Jenifer Aniston's father was Greek. She never made much of it publically, until recently when she declared how proud she was of her Greek ancestry. How does that affect the description of a person; presumably the biography would have to be updated (ti leei o Vengos?). But ultimately, they are American - irrespective of heritage. Politis 13:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jennifer Aniston has been referred to as "Greek" in a reliable source, so we can call her Greek (and we do on the Greek-American page). It's that simple. Doesn't matter who in her family was Greek, all we need is a source that says Aniston herself is Greek. Mad Jack 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All five look acceptable, of course noting that 'heritage' in 3 refers to 'ancestral heritage'. Todor→Bozhinov 13:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for all five. Especially for number 3 and 4 I vote under the condition that the 'heritage' and the 'blood' criteria are based on verifiable data and are referring to the ancestral past of the X-an. --Yannismarou 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * support all five and also if the said person has one or more Greek grandparents like Tia Bella for example. They do not have to even say they proud to be of Greek decent in my view, just have the blood lines. For example, FYROMians are proud to be connected with Alexander the Great, but simply are not.  Therefore saying it is not enough. Blood is thicker than water and a slv accent thicker than a Greek one so to speak.  #  R e a p e r 7
 * I simply don't understand why people are voting on this. No, we are not listing anyone with a "Greek" or whatever grandparent on a page of whatever-Americans unless we have a reliable source that says that person is a whatever-American. 10 editors who desperately want to list everyone with a drop of Greek or whatever blood can not override Wikipedia's no original research policy. If you wish to change the policy, you need to go to No original research and make the changes allowing exceptions there. Any of this applied on our X-American pages is original research and will be reverted as such. Mad Jack 01:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry Jack. It's the other way around. It is you that is trying to override WP:NOR by arbitrarily defining that 0.001% X-ness in a Y-ian's blood is not enough to characterise him as X-Yian. Your edits will be treated as such too, so live with it. Oh, and your complaints can be forwarded in WP:NOR talk too... :N i k o S il v e r: 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the policy? We do not mix and match definitions with people who we think match them. The policy example that I have given time and again does not apply exclusively to the term "plagarism". I am willing to revert exactly three times a day on each page, but these lists will be done under Wiki policy and not under the opinions of editors. Mad Jack 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You bet I did. The question is: Did you read the policy? You are in violation of it with your opinion. Also, better read WP:3RR and WP:POINT to see that your threats above could well deserve a block. You can stick to your logic if you wish, but that doesn't mean that 17 of us here will be convinced that water with a drop of salt in it cannot be considered salt-water. :N i k o S il v e r: 09:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support all Six. No comment, just usage of common sence and logic. --HRE 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Just so you all know, if you want/need so desperately to change/tweak Wiki policy, you all need to go to No original research and the talk page and propose this all there - i.e. propose that exceptions be made to Wikipedia's No Original Resarch policy. Otherwise, as someone else has already mentioned, there's no point to any "rules" that go against stated project-wide policy, because they will not have any effect if they are already strictly prohibited. Mad Jack 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to comment and rationale: There is no definition and there can't be any definition as per which amount of blood of X origin one must have in their veins in order to be considered X-American. We are all X-Y-ians or X-Y-Z-W-ians etc and no ethnic group can be considered pure today. Any definition/response to the question "How much X blood must one have in order to be X-Y-ian?" is the product of pure WP:OR and this is the trap that you have dug and fallen yourself in, my dear Jack. This vote is valid, so if you still disagree, I suggest you do not put yourself in the margin by abstaining. Just vote "oppose". :N i k o S il v e r:  21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are 100% right there. There is no definition that we can use - absolutely none. If a person says they are Greek-American, or if a reliable source says that, then they are regardless of how distant their ancestry is. A person saying they are "Greek" is not the same as the person saying "I am half Welsh, a quarter Irish and I have Greek and French ancestry there too". Anyway, I am not voting on this and neither should anyone else. This has absolutely no effect on anything in Wikipedia - it can not go against basic Wikipedia policy, which does not state exceptions. When I revert anyone who refers to this policy as back-up, I have the weight of everyone who came up with the No Original Research policy. If you want to make exceptions to it or change it, you need to go to that page and propose the changes there. Otherwise, nothing can override one of Wiki's most basic policies. Mad Jack 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is your WP:OR definition of not the same. :N i k o S il v e r:  13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not American and I'm not individually concerned, but I think you should be very very carefull on what you are trying to do in this page--Kalogeropoulos 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not feel ready to vote, but I would like to make the following question-comment: Are we categorizing people based on data and/or based on mere statements and declarations? Because, if we want to be accurate, then we should take into consideration only verifiable data, namely 1 and 2 (and maybe 5, which seems the same with 2). If we also care about personal statesments and estimations then all the 5 numbered examples are ok. But are we ok with unverifiable declarations? Hence, I donot think that the best solution is so obvious as some users assert.--Yannismarou 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer: Absolutely not. I am not Chinese if I just say I am. There has to be some reliable source that obviously connects me to Chinese people. The point of this vote is not to upgrade moot sources, but to clear out that however small a connection to any ethnic group a person verifiably is cited to have, they'll be included in the respective category. OK? :N i k o S il v e r:  13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That is certainly an interesting question Yannismarou. The ridiculous situation we have had up to now is some users are actually placing more weight in vague statements such as "I am Irish" which people make on St. Patrick's Day, rather than verifiable evidence that gives names, dates, and places explaining exactly how a person's family originates in Ireland. Arniep 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are definitely not doing #6, NikkoSilver. None of you are going over Wikipedia policy. I will be reverting anyone who does on the lists. If you have a source that says a person is X-American, you may list them as such. If not, no. If you wish to change the policy, go to No original research. You can not make exceptions to it unless the policy states that you may. That's what you need to work on changing. Mad Jack 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we (the other 16 souls here apart from you) are doing it. We, will revert you at sight, and we think that your approach falls well within the limits of WP:Wikilawyering and original research. :N i k o S il v e r:  13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you won't. These pages will be done under Wiki policy, not under people's opinion. 16 people can not go over Wiki's most basic policies. Of course, these 16 people can go to the policy page itself and try to change it there, obviously, but you can not make up "rules" to go against it on the side. Mad Jack 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do too. :-) :N i k o S il v e r:  09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss reasons for supporting or opposing or other comments or suggestions on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups/Rules_for_lists_of_X-Americans. For further evidence of lengthy debates on this issue, see Talk:List of Estonian Americans, Talk:List of Greek-Americans, Talk:List of Polish-Americans, Village_pump_%28policy%29, Village_pump_%28policy%29, Village_pump_%28policy%29. Please also see the continuing discussion at Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans.

I have explicitly not said that this has anything to do with how much "X ancestry" you have. What I am saying is that if you have a List of X, you must have a source that says they are "X". A source that says they are "half X" seems borderline to me and I am not sure about it. It is irrelevant how much "X ancestry" they actually have. What is important is that the source called them X. Will you stop it with these definitions. Why do you think the NOR policy explicitly uses the "plagarism" example? The policy says that, even if the definition of "Plagarism" supports an editor's opinion that someone is not a plagarist, that still can not be on Wikipedia unless a reliable source explicitly said that that someone is not a plagarist. That is exactly what original research forbids. No one has explained to me (and of course, no one ever will) how "Plagarist" and "X-American" are different and what the difference here is. Both are terms with definitions and people who match these definitions. But who does or does not match is not up to us to decide, only up to the source. Mad Jack 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I appreciate that you're trying here, none of these rules are particularly relevant, since they violate Wikipedia's original research policy. WikiProject rules cannot override Wikipedia's fundamental content policies. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. I have serious doubts why the other option is not WP:OR too, if we follow the same reasoning. Therefore, you are kindly requested to vote. :N i k o S il v e r: 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Votes are not relevant. If you can't find an source explicitly stating your claim, then it's original research, which is forbidden. All the votes in the world can't overturn that. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read example above and please respond under which WP:OR definition of minimum composition for "salt-water", a glass of water with a drop of salt in it cannot be considered as such. :N i k o S il v e r: 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have a source that says it is salt water, you can call it salt water. If you have a source that something is X-American, you can add them to the category. If you have a source that someone is a plagarist or is not one, then you can call them that. How much simpler does it get? The NOR policy even gives you a neat example with the plagarism thing, just so there's no confusion. I have no opinion and make no judgment on anyone I have removed or will remove from the X-American pages - on whether they are or are not X-Americans. I do so because if they are listed on Wikipedia's X-American page then Wikipedia is putting forth the fact that that person is X-American, in which case you better have a source that says so on that person. That's really all there is it to it. There is no WP:Point because I am not making a point, I am just protecting the lists on Wikipedia from people who wish to violate policy and try and get as many people labelled X-Americans, even if no sources or much less the people themselves consider themselves so. Mad Jack 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly as Jack says; WP:NOR means we don't come to our own conclusions about these things. Instead, we merely cite what reliable sources have to say on the matter.  If a reliable source says something is "salt-water", then we quote that. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Jack thinks that someone saying "I am Irish" is a reputable source that they are an "Irish-American", or "my family is Irish". None of these statements is exactly equivalent to "I am an X-American" or "this person is an X-American". Arniep 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "My family is X" is iffy. Like I told you before Arniep, I won't personally remove those cited to a source like that, nor will I add them. As for "I am X", I don't see the problem with that. The discussion on the British Jews page certainly seems to indicate that that is OK. Mad Jack 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jack both Jayjg and GraceNote have specifically stated the people must be sourced as X-Americans. The British Jewish list is not a directly comparable case as when people refer to X-Americans they refer to them as exactly that not just Xs. So, both parts of the X-American phrase are vital for its meaning, whereas a person can be labelled a Jew and British and both have clear and separate meanings. I have shown you a quote before that clearly showed that the statement "I am Irish" is not exactly equivalent to "I am an Irish-American". Arniep 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition of "saltwater" is "water with some salt inside". When we have a reliable source that states that my glass of water has a drop (or a ton) of salt in it, then it's not considered WP:OR to write in WP that NikoSilver's glass contains saltwater. There is a distinction between original research and simple 2-year-old logic. Jack is violating the same principles he puts forth, when he says that people described as X or 50%-X (mom or dad) can be included in X-American category, despite the fact that the 50% limit is a WP:OR defined margin for qualification in to the X-American catergory. I say that the limit is 0.000...0001%, others say there is no limit and the person involved has to be explicitly cited as X-American (calling someone X-American even if they are 100%-X and American citizens is implied to be WP:OR). Well sorry. I and 16 others here disagree with this extreme attempt to deprive the smallest degree of intelligence from the editor. If we follow your proposal, then we must even never reword references and copy them as they are, because rewording involves the ability of actually being able to put 2 and 2 together. So we should plagiarize (ha ha - see how relevant that is!) in order not to commit WP:OR... :N i k o S il v e r: 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Arniep, it would be best if you let people (like Jack, Grace Note, and me) speak for themselves, rather than presuming to speak for them, especially when you don't agree with their views, as you run the serious risk of misrepresenting them. I'm not going to speak for Jack or Grace Note either, but I will say that policy is policy, and no amount of voting on Wikiproject pages will overturn WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, although you are not my designated spokesman, in this case you have effectively spoken for me. I fully agree with both of your points. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, I was just repeating what you have stated before. I do agree with you that the original research rule is being broken in formulating these lists which is why I believe they should be deleted. The only way any meaningful lists such as these as can be created is on somewhere where some original research is allowed, perhaps on the genealogy wiki that I have heard mentioned. Arniep 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: A person is described as an offspring of two parents of the X ethnic group. Another source states that the person is Y citizen. Is it safe to say that the person is X-Yian, or is it WP:OR? :N i k o S il v e r: 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if I get it right, Arniep says (right above) it's not ok coz it's WP:OR. Right? Anyone else please? :N i k o S il v e r:  22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Mad Jack is actually the primary adversary to the lists. Arniep is for them under certain conditions which go against Jack's main beliefs. Michael 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you got it wrong, man. Arniep seems to be saying that the lists themselves are unencyclopedic. I myself am mixed on their presence. However, if we do have them they must be done under Wiki policy and nothing else, which is an asbolutely perfect, not to mention necessary, way to do it. Mad Jack 04:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet many do not believe Wiki policy accurately reflects what should be done with these lists. Michael 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be true, but we have to follow it anyway, though we may not like it. For the record, so far, the results look great, i.e. List of French Americans or List of Welsh Americans, which are perfectly fine, sourced, healthy lists that include people who for the most part are of significant Welsh/French ancestry and, more importantly, have been identified as Welsh Americans/French Americans. I'm sure Wiki's policies displease those who have decided that everyone with a reputedly Welsh-American grandparent must absolutely be classified as Welsh-American themsleves on Wikipedia, but that frankly doesn't seem like a huge loss to me. Mad Jack 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I have a straight yes or no answer on my above question? Is it WP:OR to combine the two sources and say the guy is X-Yian? :N i k o S il v e r:  10:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack believes it is, if I understand your question correctly. Michael 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please clarify your question on my ...question. I thought it was clear. :N i k o S il v e r:  22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of us believe that Mad Jack is wrong in his assessment, as you probably know. You wanted to know if you had a source that someone was American, for example, yet another source stated this person was of Italian descent.  Is your question whether or not this would stand under Wikipedia policy? Michael 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My question with the specific example of ethnic groups that you posed, would be if it is WP:OR to state that the guy is an Italian-American, given the following:
 * Both his parents were Italians according to credible source A
 * He has American citizenship and we know that coz he voted for Bush (he keeps a list), but this is a different source B, or a diffeent section in source A
 * Nowhere, repeat, nowhere, else has he been identified as Italian-American,
 * So would he be one, or not? :N i k o S il v e r:  22:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack would say no, since he never stated, "I am Italian" or "I am an Italian-American". I don't agree with Jack's views on this, but that's all he will accept-nothing more. Jack believes this violates WP:NOR. Many of us disagree, though. Michael 22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you said that nowhere else has he been identified as Italian-American, why do you feel the need to identify him as such? Or Wikipedia at large? Absolutely nothing hangs on him being Italian-American, so there is little reason to do so if others before us have not called that person that, except of course the reason that people want to put as many names as possible on the lists, but that isn't a good enough reason. No one has explained to me how the plagarism example is different from X-American, so there is really little to talk about. The NOR policy makes it clear with that example, as several top editors and/or administrators who have worked on that policy, like Jayjg and Donald Albury, have also explained. Mad Jack 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rephrase question: is it WP:OR to state that the guy is an Italian-American, given the following:
 * He self-identifies as Italian (only) according to credible source A
 * He has American citizenship, according to different source B, or a diffeent section in source A
 * Nowhere, repeat, nowhere, else has he been identified as Italian-American,
 * So would he be one, or not? :N i k o S il v e r:  23:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How does he self-identify? It depends on a basis of how we know he self-identifies? Is there a quote that you can provide us with? Michael 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I've been let know, if he says "I am Italian" that is perfectly fine, as long as know he is "American". Jayjg and Grace Note were talking about this on List of British Jews, they said as long as the person is "Jewish" and "British" that is fine. Italian + American = Italian American is like A + B = A and B, which is allowed. It's the "Italian mother" + "American" = Italian American that is A + B = C that is not allowed Mad Jack 23:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So your answer is yes. Another question:
 * His mother and father self-identify as Italian (only) according to credible source A
 * He has American citizenship, according to different source B, or a diffeent section in source A
 * Nowhere, repeat, nowhere, else has he been identified as Italian-American,
 * That one? :N i k o S il v e r:  23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Under Jack's views, no...That would not be acceptable. Michael 23:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's really very simple. You need a source that the person themselves is Italian. If the mother and father self-identify as Italian, you can list the mother and father! It's taking ethnic and religious labels that were originally given to the parents and applying them to the children even if these labels haven't been applied on them elsewhere that's not allowed. Mad Jack 23:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jack. I disagree vertically. There is a difference between inability to perform original research and stupidity. I think a person of two X parents that has Y citizenship is definitely an X-Yian without any original research. One simply has to be stupid (not a... researcher) to not characterise the person as such. :N i k o S il v e r: 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is with the "I think" you just said. You need a good source that agrees with you on that person. See, me, I don't think anything and at this point I no longer care if a person is X-American. If a good source says they are, then Wikipedia says so or can say so. If a good source doesn't, then we don't say anything pending a good source. And, considering absolutely zilch hangs on classifying anyone on Wikipedia as an X-American, there is little to no reason for us to do so if no one else has. And so far, List of Welsh Americans and List of French Americans are perfectly healthy and reasonable complete lists of people strictly under Wiki policy. Even the Greek-Amer list has for the most part retained its content, safe for a few stragglers who shouldn't have been on there in the first place. Mad Jack 23:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Niko. It's just like my women lawyers example.  If you have a source that cites someone as a female and a source citing her as a lawyer, under Jack's mindset, that wouldn't qualify her for categorization in the women lawyers category.  I'm sure you will agree that a woman is a female.  Likewise, the definition of an Italian-American is an American of Italian descent-not just someone who states that he or she is Italian. Michael 23:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, no one has yet to explain to me how X-Amerian is different than plagarism. You copied someone else's work. You got caught. You're a plagarist. Shame on you. So I can go list anyone I want as a plagarist, right? Nope! Need a source that says so. Mad Jack 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, explain, please, how one is to actually go about changing policy. You stated we must go to the WP:NOR policy page. Do we petition on the talk page? How do we make the page, if you said it does not allot for exceptions - something I find very unhealthy in a living document? Michael 23:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mad Jack:I think this is quite different and you can clearly see it now (duh? son of plagiarists should be considered plagiarist or not for some reason?) Well no, simply because your position is adapting according to the questions at hand. Need I remind you of our talk over at cat:Greek-Amer. where you specifically stated "I guess it's all-right if the person is 50% (i.e. one parent) Greek"? (need the diff?) Let alone 2 parents. So when you figure out what you're argueing about, then accuse people of WP:OR polls. :N i k o S il v e r:  23:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael Well, I suppose you could indeed go to WP:NOR and ask about exceptions or something like that. I am not sure. More or less this is what Arniep did, except he did it on the Village Pump. I doubt you could get much or any of the policy changed. This whole issue is so minor and unimportant in the grand scheme of Wikipedia. As for Niko, what I said on the Grek page is that if a source calls the person "half-X". It doesn't matter if they are actually half-X, full X, etc., 1/4 X, just that the source called them "half X" in that case. However, I also said that "half X" is iffy and I am not sure about it, though I would not personally remove anything that said a person is "half X" (i.e. as opposed to, of course, a source that said "father is X" or whatever). This isn't about "son of" exclusively. The whole point of the NOR example is that if someone did something that according to a definition is not plagarism, we can not say it is "not plagarism" unless a good source says so about that case. Same thing here. Mad Jack 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)