Talk:List of American actors of Irish descent/Archive 1

I have removed the refs as they make the list absolutely impossible to follow, also I have restored a few names that seemed to have got lost on the way from the main list. Arniep 11:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the name, which I had consensus and no disagreement on moving back. This is the name that will stay until you can get consensus to move it to a new title. As for the refs, this is a list, and the long refs right by the name are the ones who made it impossible to follow. Mad Jack 13:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Having to look at the bottom of the page for a explanation for every single person makes the list useless, it is common practice to have explanations by the name in these sort of lists. Arniep 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? It was common practice because I started doing that. Now I changed all the lists to the bottom thing, so now that's the "common practice"! See how much of a trend-setter I am? Mad Jack 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User Friendly

I think that the list has been improved by the current layout and agree that the references are more appropriate at the bottom in that they vary in size and it simply made what is supposed to be a "list" into an article! However I am not sure I like the groupings by birth year - I find an alphabetical list easier to deal with - because I and I suspect most users usually know who they are looking for but may not know their year of birth - but the listing by birth year is a good way to control the list and keep it orderly - is there anyway that the user could have an option to turn on an Alpha listing? But in any event great work guys and i am delighted the list was not deleted. 86.12.253.32 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like the birth year-orientation of the list. If you do not know when someone is born, then you are required to go through several decades to look for someone. Alphabetization is much easier, as one typically knows how to spell a name he or she may be looking for. There is no way to have both lists, 86.12.253.32-just one. Michael 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion that birth years give it historical context - i.e. you can see the earlier actors were children of immigrants, later ones were more mixed, etc. Presumably someone looking for an actor here would A. know roughly their birth year range or B. if you're looking for someone, wouldn't you just go to their Wiki entry first? But this isn't policy so I don't know how to proceed. However, the Italian and Jewish American actor lists are bigger than this one and those should definitely be done by decade. Mad Jack 23:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the reader isn't looking for historical context, then it can certainly be a burden. Michael 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what are they looking for? Mad Jack 04:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Many are just interested in seeing a list of the people. The time of birth is often hard for people who may no longer been living, and it may find things difficult to find. These lists are not said to give a sense of historical, chronological perspective, but rather a list of Irish-American actors. Michael 04:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you are seeing a list of people. The thing is, presumably, if you know about a certain actor and want to know if he is Irish-American or not, you would go to their entry or even if you looked for him here you would roughly know the birth date. What does "The time of birth is often hard for people who may no longer been living" mean? We know the date of birth of every actor listed, and in fact the chronological system helps separate the "current" group of actors - who maybe people are more interested in - from the older, "deader" crop who are listed at the bottom. Why not give a sense of historical and chronolgical perspective? It keeps this list from being a random collection of information that has nothing to do with each other. In fact, listing X-Americans by decade is actually a good thing for all lists, because it ties it in with the info described on that X-American page and the development of that particular X-American group. Mad Jack 04:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's presume that I want to look up a person who I saw in an old movie. I don't know when the movie was from or when the person was born. I then need to look through numerous lists. Perhaps I could only recall the name upon recollection, yet I know the letter it begins with. I need to look through many lists. Under the present system, finding specific people is not as easy if you do not know when the person was born. Michael 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty silly. You saw someone in an old movie and you only know the letter his name begins with, so your first destination is the Irish-American actors page? C'mon! You'd go to that movie's page or something and try to find the name. You wouldn't just say, "oh, this person must be Irish-American and surely is listed as that so this is going to be my first destination!" The fact is if you are looking for someone specifically you would have most likely gone elsewhere first or if not you would almost surely know at least roughly the decade they were born. Most people coming to these X-American lists just are looking for people who are X-American, not someone they vaguely remember in particular. Mad Jack 05:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you did not understand the scenario. Someone watches a movie (year of origin unknown-may not even have an article, for that matter), and you note an actor/actress in the movie with an Irish name. Shortly thereafter, you forget the name, but come on here, knowing that you'll recognize the name when you see it. Then again, they might not know if someone is an Irish-American, such as in this case, in which they may want to check. Having to go through several decades may be very cumbersome. Other times, a person looking through the lists may want one single list to go down to check on different people, as opposed to needing to look up each in the decade in which he or she was born (a fact which is often obscure). Michael 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What does "want one single list to go down to check on different people" mean? You can go down and check on different people as is. :) Mad Jack 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I may be looking at the list, and I wonder, "Oh, I wonder if (insert name) is on here...Let me look. Oh, where on earth would she be? Hmmm...Either 1960s, 70s, or early 80s..." Two minutes later, "Oh, there she is. I wonder if (insert other name) is on here. Now when was he born?"...It could become very difficult to find people if one is doing some casual searching. Michael 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering there are something like 15 names in the 1970s and even less in the 1980s, this isn't all that difficult. Again, I am not that sure on this list, however, the Jewish and Italian ones should definitely, definitely be organized by chronology. They are way too big and it makes zero sense to have a Yiddish theatre actress who died 100 years ago listed alongside a teen queen like Amanda Bynes or Sara Paxton. Mad Jack 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess now that I have read the various opinions I do agree that the list is just that a list - so although I prefer Alpha because in the past to do my work I would reference the list looking for an unusual entry and them from that starting indentifying point do my research - now I will have to change the way in which I begin by having an individal in mind in the first instance and will go to the article first (assuming wiki has one) which will reduce my use of the list but as Jack says normally I have an idea of the person therefore going to the decade is not a terrible inconveniance, but once you go to the article or create an article the use of the list is not an issue except to include the person on it I think that this method would also reduce the silly enrites and vandalism as it takes a bit more effort to enter using decades e.g. the editor has to have an idea where to put the person they want included and those that are not really interested wouldn't make the effort to do so.86.12.253.32 06:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

Please express your sentiments as to whether this statement may be used as a source for citing Fanning as an Irish-American, lending consideration, of course, to WP:NOR.

Dakota Fanning [1] "Q: Is Fanning of English descent? DF: It's Irish. Q: Have you been to Ireland? DF: No. I'm also half German." Michael 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh for the lovva, you know I'm never going to let you list her unless you have a source that says Fanning herself, not her last name, is Irish. Why bother? Mad Jack 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you needn't bother. Since we completely differ in opinion on this matter, let's hear from others who may pass by and see their sentiments on the matter. Michael 05:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter? This isn't based on the opinion of editors, but on the opinions and statements of reliable sources. If you have a source that Fanning is Irish, you should list her as that, if not, not. All you have a source for is that her last name is Irish, which is great for a "List of people with Irish last name" Mad Jack 05:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we disagree as to whether this falls within Wiki policy, I want to hear from others and will not debate you here. Michael 05:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But what's there to debate? The great thing is that almost anything on Wikipedia can be settled without debate. You either have a source that says exactly what you want to say in an article, or you don't! If only life itself was that simple. :) Mad Jack 05:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess if the Q & A was an interview and it was Dakota Fanning answering the questions and she offered the respnse "It's Irish" and "I'm also half German" the assumption HAS to be that she is saying (without saying because of the previous question and answer) "I'M half Irish" thats my interpretation - I say list her based on that. 86.12.253.32 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The crushing and damning word here is "interpretation" Mad Jack 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jacko you're very harsh on these entries - it seems no one gets on the list unless you agree - guess your the expert in Irishness (not meant in a critical way - these lists do need controlled) but all words and sentences require interpretation at some level - I don't see how anyone could read those comments and not conclude that the child is saying "I'm half Irish and Half German" without actually saying that - the interviewer asked is that (Fanning) English? and she said no its Irish and added I am also half German - what other 'interpretation' could there be? I guess we can presume that the other half can be anyhting maybe Chinese? but why would she make a point of saying no its Irish if she wasn't part Irish? It doesn't make sense but i guess its possible - its like Nicole Kidman - eveyone know that she is Irish and Scottish descent yet she is excluded from the list and rightfully so as there hasn't been any sourced evidence provided but Fanning's comment is fairly strong evidence for inclusion - of course she can always be removed if evidence to the contrary is provided. I am not looking for an argument just putting my opinion forward as a list and article user. 86.12.253.32 22:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much as if "I" agree (I wouldn't agree to list Fanning as a German-American or Jackie Bouvier as a French-American, but they have been because the source says they are), but if someone is described as being exactly what the title of the page says, not anything that is close to it or sort of similar or might suggest someone that it means that. I mean, Wikipedia editors have every right to be "harsh" on what comes in. You'll find, in the long run or even the short run, the pages end up looking better. In the case of this one, there are plenty of people not currently listed who have been described as Irish and who should be listed, if we didn't spend our time deciphering quots that sort-of-mean this or that, etc. Mad Jack 03:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Of, and as for "of course she can always be removed if evidence to the contrary is provided", this isn't Irish-American until proven innocent. We either have a source that says exactly what we want to say, or we don't. Nothing in between. It's either 100% or nothing. This is the same for all of Wikipedia, and I don't see why this or any of the other lists should be exceptions. Mad Jack 04:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm not overly concerned whether or not she is included - and I agree that there has to be a consistent "standard" applied to all such lists therefore all entries have to meet it - in my opinion her statement is sufficient but I accept your argument. I am more concerned with as you say "the plenty of people that have been described and sourced as Irish who should be listed" and taking that a step further those that have contributed in some way to either Irish-American culture through their field or work or personality and those that are Irish every-day not just when they are asked. The list as it is has a fair representation of those individuals and a handful do standout (those are the ones that always appear in the St Patrick's Day journalism) but it is always nice to be surprised by a new or unusual entry - perhaps as Dakota's career progresses beyond talented child star (the track record isn't good for child stars being successfull adult stars but she seems to have had a steady pattern and she does have that wee bit extra charisma)she may accomplish somethign great and / or say something more definitive about her Irish roots. 145.229.156.40 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)