Talk:Sean Michael (US actor)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Ancestry
Moved from article:
- "Scottish and Canadian.[1]"
Is that a reliable site? The rest of the information on his ancestry comes from his official site, and I can't find any other information regarding that with a search. Additionally, per his statement that that side of his family is "mixed European," it seems on the surface to contradict his being Canadian. -Shannernanner 09:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't notice this before re-adding it, but, "Canadian" is not really an ethnicity. Presumably they meant some of his ancestors most recently came from Canada (and probably somewhere in Europe before that). And Scottish is self-explanatory. I also removed the categories because I could find no source that actually called him a "German-American", etc. (and in my person opinion, it is ridiculous to call someone who isn't even half or 1/4 German that, but never mind) Mad Jack 00:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, as for the source's reliability, it's some kind of Asian-American magazine [2]. I believe magazines would pass WP:RS. Mad Jack 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I realize that sounded a little silly; yes, I realize that Canadian isn't an ethnicity, but that seems further reason not to list it, it's the same as saying someone has "Australian" or "American" ancestry; unless they mean he's Native Canadian. I realize it's a magazine, but the other ethnicities stated were by he himself on his official website, which I think is a much more reliable source. What I meant by my original comment was, if there is no other source on the entire internet which asserts the same thing, and he himself does not state it, is that enough reason to add it to the article? Those categories state they are for people of German or Swiss descent who are American; if you find reason to remove those you should remove "Filipino American" as well. Incidentally, his surname is Swiss-German.[3] -Shannernanner 06:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are you kidding with the categories? We certainly don't use the one drop rule for those, or else we would have twice as many ethnicity categories for poor Wentworth Miller then we have non-ethnicity categories! It is your opinion that Sean Michael's sole Swiss or German great-grandparent (presumably) make him a "Swiss-American". Wikipedia needs a reputable source that actually says that he is a Swiss-American, not that he has a drop of Swiss of blood (quite a difference between having some Swiss ancestry and being a "Swiss-American"; people who are less than half X are almost never referred to as "X-Americans"). Even if we use the "definition", which we can't anyway, it says "A person of Swiss descent", not a person of "Swiss, German, Scottish, Canadian, Filipino descent" - again, two different things. The source I cited above does call him an Asian-American. I thought that was good enough for the Filipino cat. Anyway, I'm removing these ridiculous categories pending a source that says he is that particular X-American (the current source just says he has some X ancestry, not that he is X-American) Mad Jack 06:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "one drop rule" you linked has nothing to do with what I said. It does, however, sound much more like your argument that he should not be called Swiss or German but "is" Filipino. Your assertion that I have not provided a valid source for it is also nil; it is his official site, authored by the actor himself. He is of Swiss and German ancestry, and is an American. If you feel that does not qualify one as Swiss- or German-American, you should nominate the categories for deletion. -Shannernanner 08:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, the one drop rule is a perfect basis for what is sometimes done on Wikipedia - if a person has a single X ancestor - then congratulations! That person, their kids, their grandkids, and all ancestors from that point on are X-American. That's exactly what the one drop rule is - one drop of X and you're certified X-American. The facts are 1. in the real world, the majority of people who are less than "half X" are almost never referred to as X-Americans, either by themselves or by reliable sources and 2. If Wikipedia is to call someone an "X-American", we need a reputable source that calls them that first. Not that they are "of X ancestry", "have X great-grandparnet. "X-American". Otherwise, it is the opinion on whichever editor that adds the category that the person is X-American because of their partial X ancestry, even if no reliable source has said that the person is X-American, and, thus, is original research. The categories "German-Americans" and "Swiss-Americans" are perfectly valid categories, for people who have been identified as "X-Americans" by reliable sources, including themselves, not for everyone who had an X ancestor 100 years ago, which would mean that the entire population of the US is X-American (I bet George W. Bush or Dick Cheney would be very surprised to see themselves referred to as "English Americans"). Anyway, forget my argument as it's irrelevant. Per WP:V and WP:NOR, we need a source that calls Sean Michael Swiss-American or German-American, not anything that in any editor's opinion makes him that. If there are no sources that call him Filipino-American or Filipino (since we know he is American), then that category should be removed too Mad Jack 09:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "one-drop rule" which you linked states it is a "historical colloquial term... that holds that a person with even a tiny portion of non-white ancestry ('one drop of non-white blood') should be classified as 'colored.'" I linked to categories which referenced each of the ancestries which he, personally, said he was; you accepted only his Filipino heritage. That sounds more like the term to me.
- I'll list the facts in list form, as in paragraph form apparently they are not being communicated effectively:
- Sean Michael, on his official website, himself states: "I am half Filipino, and the other half is German, Swiss, and a jumbled European mix." He also states he was born in Los Angeles County, meaning his nationality is American. This is a reliable reference.
- Category:German-Americans states, "German-Americans are American persons of German birth or ancestry. [emphasis added]"
- Category:Swiss-Americans states, "This category includes articles on Americans, who themselves or their ancestors, immigrated from Switzerland to the U.S. [emphasis added]"
- Category:Filipino Americans states, "This category includes articles on people who emigrated from the Philippines to the United States, or are self-identified as Filipino-Americans. [emphasis added]" The article on Filipino Americans states that they are "Americans who trace their ancestry back to the Philippines... and are now residents or citizens of the United States."
- If you would like to change the format of the categories or articles, that should be taken up on the individual pages. As they stand now, and per his own statements, there is not a reason other than your own opinion that he should not be listed in those categories. -Shannernanner 23:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, the one drop rule is a perfect basis for what is sometimes done on Wikipedia - if a person has a single X ancestor - then congratulations! That person, their kids, their grandkids, and all ancestors from that point on are X-American. That's exactly what the one drop rule is - one drop of X and you're certified X-American. The facts are 1. in the real world, the majority of people who are less than "half X" are almost never referred to as X-Americans, either by themselves or by reliable sources and 2. If Wikipedia is to call someone an "X-American", we need a reputable source that calls them that first. Not that they are "of X ancestry", "have X great-grandparnet. "X-American". Otherwise, it is the opinion on whichever editor that adds the category that the person is X-American because of their partial X ancestry, even if no reliable source has said that the person is X-American, and, thus, is original research. The categories "German-Americans" and "Swiss-Americans" are perfectly valid categories, for people who have been identified as "X-Americans" by reliable sources, including themselves, not for everyone who had an X ancestor 100 years ago, which would mean that the entire population of the US is X-American (I bet George W. Bush or Dick Cheney would be very surprised to see themselves referred to as "English Americans"). Anyway, forget my argument as it's irrelevant. Per WP:V and WP:NOR, we need a source that calls Sean Michael Swiss-American or German-American, not anything that in any editor's opinion makes him that. If there are no sources that call him Filipino-American or Filipino (since we know he is American), then that category should be removed too Mad Jack 09:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "one drop rule" you linked has nothing to do with what I said. It does, however, sound much more like your argument that he should not be called Swiss or German but "is" Filipino. Your assertion that I have not provided a valid source for it is also nil; it is his official site, authored by the actor himself. He is of Swiss and German ancestry, and is an American. If you feel that does not qualify one as Swiss- or German-American, you should nominate the categories for deletion. -Shannernanner 08:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are you kidding with the categories? We certainly don't use the one drop rule for those, or else we would have twice as many ethnicity categories for poor Wentworth Miller then we have non-ethnicity categories! It is your opinion that Sean Michael's sole Swiss or German great-grandparent (presumably) make him a "Swiss-American". Wikipedia needs a reputable source that actually says that he is a Swiss-American, not that he has a drop of Swiss of blood (quite a difference between having some Swiss ancestry and being a "Swiss-American"; people who are less than half X are almost never referred to as "X-Americans"). Even if we use the "definition", which we can't anyway, it says "A person of Swiss descent", not a person of "Swiss, German, Scottish, Canadian, Filipino descent" - again, two different things. The source I cited above does call him an Asian-American. I thought that was good enough for the Filipino cat. Anyway, I'm removing these ridiculous categories pending a source that says he is that particular X-American (the current source just says he has some X ancestry, not that he is X-American) Mad Jack 06:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I realize that sounded a little silly; yes, I realize that Canadian isn't an ethnicity, but that seems further reason not to list it, it's the same as saying someone has "Australian" or "American" ancestry; unless they mean he's Native Canadian. I realize it's a magazine, but the other ethnicities stated were by he himself on his official website, which I think is a much more reliable source. What I meant by my original comment was, if there is no other source on the entire internet which asserts the same thing, and he himself does not state it, is that enough reason to add it to the article? Those categories state they are for people of German or Swiss descent who are American; if you find reason to remove those you should remove "Filipino American" as well. Incidentally, his surname is Swiss-German.[3] -Shannernanner 06:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, as for the source's reliability, it's some kind of Asian-American magazine [2]. I believe magazines would pass WP:RS. Mad Jack 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Do see WP:NOR. It states, as an example, that if a person has been accused of plaigarism, but their actions do not match a definition of plaigarism, Wikipedia editors may not make that statement - that the person's action do not match the definition of plaigarism - unless a source has. In this case, what you are doing is matching (and incorrectly so, btw) a definition of, say, Swiss-American to a piece of info about a person and making a conclusion, which you may not per NOR. Even if you were allowed to do so, the definition for X-American, traditionally (and anyone can change the definition, currently unsourced, in the category) is a person of X descent, not a person of X, Y, Z, D, B, and K descent (just like, a homosexual is defined as someone who romances those of the same gender. While a person who romances those of the same gender AND the opposite gender is already no longer a homosexual but something else entirely). There is this disturbing trend across Wikipedia, which is absolutely a one-drop rule, where if a person has even a tiny portion of whichever X ancestry, the editos label them an "X-American". There are people who are just "Americans", you know, without the "X-" thing attached. In any case, you may not make the statement in this article that he is a "Swiss-American" unless you have a source that explicitly says he is a Swiss-American. The sources we currently have say that "the other half is German, Swiss, and a jumbled European mix". If you had a category for people who were "half German, Swiss, and a jumbled European mix" that would be a perfect source for inclusion in that category. Bottom line is - if you want to call him a Swiss-American, find a source that calls him that. Not anything that in your or anyone else's opinion makes him that. Cheers, Mad Jack 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:3O
Let see, the issue here seems to be adding categories to a page. If I have this right, we are not speaking about content. In this case I would advise keeping the relevent categories... unfortunatly I am not qualified to tell you what is "relevent" or not. What I would do is remove the categories for now, and then re-add the major ones. We don't need 10 categories to this page based on X-american. One or two or three will do just fine. I will be watching this page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing "qualified" to say what it is relevant or not are reliable sources. I'm not sure why a third opinion was asked for. What, you think that if we get another person to agree that everyone with a drop of Swiss blood, no matter how distant, is a Swiss American, they suddenly become a "Swiss American"? Wikipedia works on sources, not the opinion of users. That's something a lot of people need to grasp. If a source explicitly says someone has some Swiss ancestry, then they have Swiss ancestry; if a source explicitly says a person is a Swiss American, then they are a Swiss American for Wikipedia purposes, regardless which users do or do not agree with the categorization. It's all about the sources, not Wikipedia users. If the user with whom I had the "argument" above wants to list a person as an "X-American", they'd need a source that actually said "This person is this X American", not "this person is half Y and also parts Z, X, D and some B". Not even the opinion of 1000 Wikipedia administrators is worth a single reliable source. (Oh, and I'm aware that the user replying above isn't endorsing these categories, I'm just explicating a quite basic fact of Wikipedia) Mad Jack 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
