Talk:List of Finnish Americans

message: Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for current discussion of a potential policy to apply to all ethnicity lists on Wikipedia, including this one. JackO'Lantern 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity lists discussion

message: I have sourced the list in accordance with Wikipedia's Original Research and Verifiability policies. Basically, anyone described by a reliable source as "Finnish" or "Finnish-American" (i.e. as opposed to "of Finnish descent", "Finnish mother", etc.) is on the list. Here are the few people I couldn't find anything for. If you have a reliable source that fits that please restore the names:
*C. Elmer Anderson
*Pamela Anderson - Finnish grandfather
*George H. W. Bush - probably not
*George W. Bush - ditto
*Gregory Nevala Calvert
*William Cody - had no Finish ancestry
*Jori Chisholm - unclear
*David Chokachi-His name is Arabic, must have an Arab Father
*Matt Damon (great-grandmother was Finnish )
*Adolf Etolin - was he American?
*Robert A. Heinlein
*Waino Edward Hendrickson
*Jaakko Hintikka - is he American?
*Arvid Jacobson
*David Lynch
*Lisa Niemi
*William A. Niskanen
*Jaco Pastorius
*Emil Petaja
*Ville Ritola - was he an American citizen?
*Esa-Pekka Salonen - is he American?
*Kevin Tapani
*Tom of Finland  (1920–1991) gay fetish artist
*Linus Torvalds - is he American?
*Carl A. Wirtanen
*Aileen Wuornos
Mad Jack 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stroke through confirmed cases and italicized those who clearly are Americans and have a Finnish surname. David Lynch said in an interview that his grandfather was Finnish. Calvert's (sourced) article mentions his Finnish grandparents and that his first language was Finnish, so I think that it doesn't need further proof. Niemi's parents have Finnish surnames, but since the article has no sources, better not to include it yet.--JyriL talk 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Where is the "original research"? A source says Matt Damon, for instance, is of Finnish ancestry. An American of Finnish ancestry is a Finnish American by definition. How much original research is involved? Independent genealogical research would be a different matter. On the other hand, there is a policy against removing content, which is done here on a regular basis.
:Wikipedia is not run under the one drop rule, thankfully. A drop of X blood does not an X-American make. Quite correctly you said that an "X-American" is an "American of X descent". Not "an American of X, Y, Z, D descent". That seems to be a definition exclusively used by Wikipedia editors who want to add as many names as possible to the lists. Anyway, this is the gist of it. If Wikipedia is to call a person an "X" by including them in the "X" category or list, we must have a reputable source that called that person that exact "X" first. Not anything that in any editor's opinion makes that person an X, including the ever-popular "X ancestry", "X grandmother", "likes X food", "is half D, Z, X, Y, M and also W", "once dated an X", etc. "X". This goes for any term and label that is used on Wikipedia, from "atheist" to "transexxual", to "Danish-American" to "Mormon". If we are to use that term on a person, a reputable source must have used that term on the person first. And that's the source you need to find if you want to include the name. So, if you want to say that Matt Damon is a Finnish-American, find a source that says so! Not his great-grandmother or his grandfather, but Damon. Mad Jack 03:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Exclusively used by wikipedia editors" refers to the very obvious fact that terms like "German-American", for example, have almost never been historically used on people who were not either German immigrants to the US, children of immigrants, or more or less were of full German ancestry and culture. Rarely, but, admittedly, sometimes, "X-American" has been used on people who are "half X", especially when they identify with the culture. On Wikipedia however, editors seem to think that if a person has a drop of X blood, they are immediately X-American. So are their kids, their grandkids, and all descendants from then on. This.... interesting... but incredibly flawed and factually inaccurate technique of course has no relation to the actual use of the term "X-American" and who it is used on. That's the original research part, taking the little bit of ancestry and making the person "X-American", when no reliable source has done so on that person, ever. Anyway, what it comes down to - I express no opinion on whether or not (in this case) Matt Damon is a Finnish-American. It's all about sources (reliable ones). Until you find a reliable source that actually says that Damon is a Finnish-American (and there may well be one out there, I have no idea) the only one making that claim is you, and Wikipedia users are not reliable sources. Mad Jack 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Americans of X ancestry" is not particularly encyclopdic though. What kind of an encyclopedia makes lists of people because those people had a single immigrant ancestor from that group, say, 300 years ago? It would violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which having lists of people who are connected because they are 3% a certain ethnicity would be. "X-American" is a viable enough term and there are enough people who are actually X-Amerian (or at least have been identified as such by a good source) to deserve a list separate from an American who just happened to have a certain ancestor 250 years ago, and that fact having very very little to no effect on their lives, culture, etc. Mad Jack 04:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, as for removal of content, any editor can remove any piece of content from Wikipedia if there is no reputable source cited to it that makes the exact same claim. So if a claim is made that a person is X-American, but no source is given for that claim, that can (and should) be removed. Mad Jack 04:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Enough is enough is enough. I have had it with editors trying to insert their personal opinions on matters of ethnicity. If you want to categorize a person as a Finnish American, find a source that says they are. Not anything that in anyone's opinion makes them that. You either have a source or you do not. Mad Jack 07:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "I have had it" has nothing to do with whether I think a particular person is X-American or not. The only thing I consider important is whether a source says so or doesn't. I myself make no personal judgment on whether someone is, or is not. So, as I said, if you find a source that makes this claim on Damon, then you have the right to restore him because the source backs you up. I can't much comprehend the opinion, that, if someone had a grandparent of ethnicity X, and then the person says that grandfather had some kind of effect on them, the person immediately becomes an X-American themselves! That's exactly a personal opinion. As for semantics, there is a very, very, very good reason that these discussions always come down to people who are something like 1/4 or 1/8 X, and that reason being is that the people involved can't find sources that describe those people as X-American. Why? Because, as I said above, people who are 1/4 or less X have almost entirely never been described as X-American. It's a Wikipedia invention, as far as I can tell, to describe them as such and one that is grossly misleading and academically dishonest. But, again, that's just my opinion, which counts for absolutely nothing. The only important thing are sources and what they say. Mad Jack 16:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the only "criterion" we can have is if the source says it. "25%" may seem like a reasonable criterion, but it is a criterian decided upon by Wikipedia editors, which is a no-no. What if I want "12%"? What if someone else wants "50%"? All of those would be the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and thus original research, because we can't decide who is or is not X-American. As for self-identification - what a person says about themselves is certainly a reliable source. If a person says "I'm X" that would certainly be a reliable source (and saying "I'm X" is of course not the same as saying "I had great-grandmother X"). Mad Jack 17:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would we intentionally non-POV the page? Again, "25%" may be a good opinion but it remains an opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Not only that, if a source calls a person who is less than 25% X an "X-American" than they would have to be included, yet under our own personal "criteria" they can't be. Anyway, here's a great example - Matt Damon is probably only 12% Finnish (from what I could tell from his family tree, his grandfather's mother was Finnish but father was not), yet I just found a source that places him on a "List of Famous Finns"  ! Mad Jack 17:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a "policy" except basic Wiki policy, which is, that if we are to say something, a source must say that exact thing first. So, since we now have a source says actually says Damon himself is Finnish, I don't see why you can't put him on the list with that source, since it supports that claim. As for consistancy, as far as I can tell it's been implemented pretty consistantly. The other lists (that are actually sourced) have the same "Is X" type sources Mad Jack 17:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Unsourced entries should probably eventually be removed Mad Jack 17:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Bowie said she considers herself Greek or something (and was born there). I dunno about "fun", but the lists have to be properly sourced. They certainly aren't anyone's personal playground Mad Jack 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: See . A vast number of individuals were removed from the article as "unsourced," but most of which had sources, including the Library of Congress. Such a mode of editing amounts fo WP:Vandalism. Please restore the text and use "fact" tags to improve, rather than deplete our articles, which have been laboriously built up over a period of years. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pay attention to the edit summaries, and read the Wikiproject - if you can understand what any of that means, for the fifth time. Bulldog123 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive blanking, September 11, 2008