Talk:List of Estonian Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

[edit] Ethnicity lists discussion

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 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I have sourced the list in accordance with Wikipedia's Original Research and Verifiability policies. Basically, anyone described by a reliable source as "Estonian" or "Estonian-American" (i.e. as opposed to "of Estonian descent", "Estonian 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:

*Paul Kostabi - musician/producer/artist now back in article

Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Your definition, not Original Research or Verifiability policies. I see no discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). All entries listed above are referenced and sourced from verifiable sources. According to Wikipedia's Verifiability guidelines for inclusions to articles:
"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
I am inclined to believe the official websites of said individuals. All references are from reputable sources and I have listed them. I have reverted your edit and restored all remaining names with references and sources. Perhaps if you are going to extend yourself as arbitor of lists of various ethnic groups of Americans, you should familiarize yourself with some of them.
Anyway, your criteria is a pendantic mess. There is little to no difference between an article claiming someone as "Estonian-American" and an American "of Estonian descent", granted one is an emigre and the other is native American born - and even then the descriptive term is tenuous and often used interchangably. Also, by your own "rule", Mena Suvari shouldn't even be on the list as she is merely listed as having an "Estonian father", as opposed to being an "Estonian-American" or merely "Estonian". Obviously, if someone is an American of Estonian descent, they are an "Estonian-American". If someone is an American citizen and has an Estonian mother, they are conversely an "Estonian-American" and thereby "of Estonian descent". ExRat 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a big difference. First, I have no problem with anyone's official website, of course it's accurate. Second, it is not quite the same thing, being "an Estonian American" and "of Estonian descent". The list's title is "Estonian-Americans", therefore it is original research to put anyone on it who has not been described as an "Estonian American" by a reliable source. You put someone on this list because they've been described as "of Estonian descent" because it's your opinion that it makes them an Estonian-American. Great. Well, it's my opinion that it doesn't. And that's precisely why we don't use our own opinions. If a person has been described as an Estonian-American (or as "Estonian", if they are also "American") in a good source, then we may call them that. If they haven't, then we can't. We don't use our own standards on who is what. That's what the original research policy forbids you from making - "new analysis or synthesis of published data". Verifiability/truth means someone may well consider themselves "Estonian-American", but we can't verify that, so even if it's true, it can't go in the article until we do verify it. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the reference for Suvari said she herself is "half Estonian" (I don't care what her father is). And all of this - "if someone is an American of Estonian descent, they are an "Estonian-American". If someone is an American citizen and has an Estonian mother, they are conversely an "Estonian-American" and thereby "of Estonian descent"." - is your opinion/analysis, and we can't base a list on that. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Now you're just speaking in semantic circles. Your argument is absolutely absurd. It is not opinion that an American of a specific ethnic background is therefore a "Blank-American" and all sources and references that you reverted were from reliable sources stating as much. It is not "original research" to come to the rather obvious and clear conclusion that if someone is of Estonian parentage they are an "Estonian-American" - common sense dictates that. I have once again reverted your edit. Don't worry though, I'll not break the the 24 hour 3 revert rule. So, I'll just see you back here tomorrow and we can continue this then . . . and the following day . . . and so on. ExRat 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is original research. We don't use your, mine or anyone else's "common sense" on Wikipedia, or insert our own opinions. We just report what reliable sources have said. If someone was described as an Estonian-American, we can report that. If they haven't, then we can't. Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not "opinion". Are you seriously that thick? If an individual is of a specific ethnic heritage, and reliable sources confirm that they are, then they are, in fact, "Blank-Americans". How you arrive at the conclusion that this is an "opinion" is just baffling. Anway, I'll be back tomorrow to revert you. Later. ExRat 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, everything you've just stated is an opinion. You're saying that if a person is of Estonian ethnicity, they are "automatically" Estonian-American, regardless whether they, or anyone else, considers them to be that. The term "Estonian-American" can refer to an ethnic, cultural, and national identity. If it is applied to a person, Wikipedia can also apply it. But Wikipedia editors can't just decide who is an Estonian-American based on what they think an Estonian-American is. I don't see the point of arguing over this for you, simply because, as you can well see, the large majority of the people on this list have been described as Estonian or Estonian-American (and in Suvari's case, "half Estonian", which is borderline but OK). I don't know why the two people you keep trying to re-add haven't been described as that, but it's not for us to make that call. Mad Jack O'Lantern 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Refer to your own sources for Betty Grable and Mark-Paul Gosselaar at List of Dutch Americans. You can't even follow your own rules. We've been over it before. It isn't opinion. Reverting your edit. ExRat 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to remove anything you feel is not appropriate on the Dutch page. The Gosselaar source said Gosselaar himself was "Dutch-Indonesian", and the Grabe one said she "is Dutch" and something else. I don't care what you think is opinion or not. Please find sources that say exactly what you want to call the people you're adding. They will be removed until you do. Mad Jack 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"I don't care what you think is opinion or not." - I feel the same way. It is your opinion who should and should not be included. "Dutch-Indonesian" does not equal "Dutch-American" by your very own rule (which I choose not to follow, merely because it's a semantic quagmire), and the article on Grable merely calls her "Dutch and ..." NOT Dutch-American. See you tomorrow (or when I have some free time to revert your petulant lunacy). You really shouldn't start dictating rules of articles if you are unable to follow them yourself. Remove away, they'll just be added back :) Cheers! ExRat 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Find you sources for the article? I don't think so. As I have already stated, you are not the arbitor of this list or any other. this is a public forum and I believe your criteria for inclusion to be . . . well, quite frankly, to be asinine, to say the least. My latest entry to the article does not constitute the "three revert rule", by the way - I follow Wikipedia rules, not Jack's rules. Hea õnn. ExRat 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the little foreign-language things are a nice touch, though I'm afraid since neither me or most anyone else reading this page can understand them, they remain your own private joke. The point here is, if you say these are my criteria for inclusion, then I can just as easily say that putting anyone who has the word "Estonian" mentioned in the same sentence as them are "your" criteria. Therefore it is precisely why these lists can only be done following No Original Research and Verifiability. If a good source calls a person "X", then we can call them that. If not, not. Feel free to revert me right now, I am not planning to break 3RR, but know that I will revert again once I am able. Oh, and see discussion on List of Greeks, List of British Jews and List of Catholic American entertainers, where similar dissention from Wikipedia's policies was soundly defeated. Mad Jack 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"Hea õnn" merely means "good luck". Not an insult or "joke". I hardly think that having the word "Estonian" in the same sentence would be a qualifier in my mind for inclusion. That would just be silly. There is, however, something called context - and I am aware that a reliable site that calls someone an American of Estonian descent is merely the same thing as saying someone is indeed an Estonian-American. It is not "opinion" and it certainly not "original research" to sensibly arrive at the conclusion. After all, we wouldn't disqualify someone from a list of "Green-eyed Americans" simply because your "source" described them as having "emerald eyes" or some other florid description of green. Or, maybe you would. But this seems quite indeed nit-picking. ExRat 05:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, man, I'm sure there are sources out there that call these two people Estonian-Americans or Estonian and if you want to include them, why not find those sources? I would love for this revert war to be over and for those two people to be on the list, and properly sourced at that. If these two are Estonian-Americans, then there must be sources out there that say exactly that. We can't possibly be the first ones. Anyway, it has been made clear to me on the Catholic entertainers page and it was made clear to others on the British Jews page that this is the only way to properly follow Wikipedia policy when doing these lists. Although, like you, I disagreed with this first, as time went by I also realized that indeed the only way to decide for sure on how to organize these lists and who to include is to use basic Wikipedia policy. If a reliable source decided that someone is an "X", not "of X origin", then we can report that and put them on a list of "X"'s. Mad Jack 05:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

* Kiino Villand, LAist interview, December 19, 2005: [1] "Where are you from?"
"Born in Jersey, family is from Estonia."
* Bill Rebane, The Daily Press: Ronald Reagan had Time for a Young Filmmaker, a commentary by Bill Rebane. June 4, 2004: [2]
"I still spoke with a strong European accent as I had immigrated to the United States only 10 years earlier as an Estonian refugee via Germany and was experiencing, in reality and the real sense of the word, "the American Dream."
With that, I do indeed hope you are quite pleased. I have actually had these two references for some time. However, I am still under the impression that this sort of "criteria" is simply used by the most petty and pedantic to be obstinate, pompous, contrary, nit-picky and used as a pathetic Wikipedia power-play. I would however like to suggest, be extraordinarily careful when using these tactics, as they can be applied to almost anything. It's very difficult to set yourself up as an arbitor and then expect that the same standard will not be applied to you. I can only imagine the irritating possibilies: " "So-and-so can't be listed as having a pet cat because his/her internet source calls it a feline." Seems extraordinarily silly? Well, not really - cat and feline aren't really the same thing, are they? One could apply to any number of cat-like creatures. Thankfully, Wikipedia is a very large place. Hopefully, this will be last time we interact. I have no desire to continue this as I'm sure you feel the same way. Thankfully, Wikipedia is a very large place. ExRat 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
In all my time working on celebrity bios, I've never seen anyone described as having a "feline". It's always cat. Anyway, I added Bill Rebane. The source for the other person doesn't really say he's Estonian, but if you add him I am not going to bother to revert at this point. Mad Jack 15:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't literal, and apparently you didn't grasp the point whatsoever. OK, I've held off on any personal attacks, but now . . . no, you really are best to be completely avoided. ExRat 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I got your point, but maybe you missed mine - if something is true, it will almost certainly be described by a good source in the proper wording. Mad Jack 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to believe both an official website of an individual and an interview with the indivual are in fact "good sources". I am also familiar with context and intent, and don't have to have to be explicitly told something is an elephant if it is thoroughly described as such with the intent of communicating to the reader that it is an elephant(not that Kiino Villand is elephantine):
[3] Where are you from? Villand: "Born in Jersey, family is from Estonia. Few people have even heard of Estonia. It's just south of Finland. The best known Estonians are probably Arvo Part, a highly regarded abstract classical composer, Neeme Jarvi, a conductor, and Carmen Kass, a supermodel. Sorry for the ramble, I just had to shout out on behalf of lil' ol' Estonia. Okay, also of Estonian descent: Tyler Brule, the founder of Wallpaper magazine and Mena Suvari."
[4] (official website): "Today, with Los Angeles as a center of operations, assignments have him travelling to such places as Georgia, Estonia (where his family is from)..."
[5]: "An American of Estonian descent . . . "
Coupled with the fact that his name is "Kiino Villand" (certainly both an Estonian given name and surname), I do not believe this to be "original research". I can fully comprehend context and implication (and, in this case, not so subtle implications - in fact, it's rather well and fully stated by Villand himself what his ethnic and national origin is). He is an American, this is a fact. He is of an Estonian background/origins (as stated by Villand himself (fact): "My family is from Estonia". The only person who seems to disagree with Villand's own assessment of himself is you. Your petty pedantic nit-picking is trivial and (in my opinion) merely an editing battle to prove yourself correct. As I have previously stated, your criteria is not sound and I have no intention of following it, especially when an overabundance of (reliable) sources fully describe someone as an "Estonian-American" but simply don't use the words you prefer to meet your criteria for inclusion, or when you apply rules to merely add to an edit-war and bolster your own opinion of what constitutes "correct language" for inclusion. "Proper wording" is a phrase you chose to implement and you seem to be under the impression that you are the arbitor of what the "proper wording" should state.
"if something is true, it will almost certainly be described by a good source in the proper wording." - I think you need to understand nuance. That's tantamount to saying: "I can not list so-and-so as a blue-eyed American because the only external sources I have states that they have perwinkle, cerulean or navy eyes." That is extraordinarily silly and I see no difference here. Merely semantics for the sake of arguement. ExRat 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Also interesting - I see that you did some work on List of Armenian-Americans and used this quotation as a reference for Adrienne Barbeau: "Almost every family has suffered persecution at some time. My family's Armenian, we were the first genocide of the [last] century -- even before Hitler..." Contradictory much? ExRat 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You know that when I say "good sources" I don't mean reliable (although, of course, they should be), I mean a source that calls the person Estonian-American or Estonian. As for the Armenian page, I haven't gotten to it yet - you can tell because it has the old citation system - not the in-line one, not to mention that it isn't fully cited and doesn't have the invisible notation at the top of the page. I have edited it in the past - I created it - but I've yet to format it similar to the other ethnicity pages. That page, the Norwegian one, and a few others, I still have left to go. You are welcome to help. Mad Jack 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I do not see any "self-assessment" by Villand where he describes himself as "Estonian" or "Estonian-American". As I said, I am tired of this and simply won't revert because of that, but if you add any more names that aren't actually described as Estonian or Estonian-Americans and where I can't find a source that says so, I will revert again. Mad Jack 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Estonian_Americans_8dcd.html"