TomCat4680 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 20 thread(s) (older than 28d) to Talk:White American/Archive 4, Talk:White American/Archive 1, Talk:White American/Archive 3, Talk:White American/Archive 2. |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|archiveheader = {{atnhead|noredlinks=y}} |
|archiveheader = {{atnhead|noredlinks=y}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 40K |
|maxarchivesize = 40K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 4 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 0 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 0 |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=28 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=28 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
||
== White Americans infobox image == |
|||
==Why so short?== |
|||
The white American article is probably 5 times shorter than the African American article yet White Americans make up a vast majority of the US population and likewise its history. What gives? A little reverse racism perhaps? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.192.108.42|68.192.108.42]] ([[User talk:68.192.108.42|talk]]) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
===Suburban Culture comment=== |
|||
I disagree with the "suburban culture"=="white neighborhoods" comments. I would like to remind everyone that it's hard for us younger people to keep up with all these old loaded, code words. Why, I had no idea growing up that only European-descended people are allowed in suburbs; those Hawaiins and Latinos and Asians and half-this and two-thirds-that were breaking the law! To think that I happily played at the local park as a child, unaware of this rampant criminal conduct around me. |
|||
Obviously I'm not serious. But I grew up in California, in a fairly diverse middle-class area, and I dislike this assumption that all of us everywhere in the country has to be aware of these outdated racial structures (my view is give help to all disadvantaged people I meet, treat everyone equal, respect all cultures, bring people together, *and never assume my own understanding and theories of society are at all correct*. I have extremely painful, personal experience of how discrimination (not racial I admit) can be entirely inside your head). |
|||
So you can see why I disagree with things like "oh, it always means white neighborhoods"; there's plenty of things *I* used to believe that were like that, and turned out to be completely false (and some that were not, lest you think I'm slighting people here). |
|||
[[User:Joeedh|Joeedh]] ([[User talk:Joeedh|talk]]) 04:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Too many images== |
|||
Ok, so since the problem seemed to be "removal of content" without prior discussion, then let's discuss it. |
|||
First, though, I really need to point out that the "This article looks like an image gallery" template has been there for a while, and you (as well as anyone) certainly had a chance to act or comment on it ''before'' and ''instead'' of reverting others' edits that tried to heed the template. |
|||
That said, I don't care about who is "represented", really, but I just know that this article is ''far'' from comforming to [[WP:Images]], [[WP:NOTMIRROR]] and other guidelines. We ''really'' don't need to have dozens of images in the middle of the text, just for the sake of having "white Americans" depicted. That is not what the purpose of images on Wikipedia is. Again, I don't care about which images are in the top-right template; however, I ''will'' remove the in-article images that were removed by 161.38.221.233 again, as I found that a very wise choice -- keeping only the images (graphs, old prints) that actually "said" something rather than a number of random faces. |
|||
I will do this in a day or so, feel free to comment in the meanwhile. |
|||
--[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes i agree there are to many images in this article,some of the images through out the article are contextualized and have a purpose ,though yes i feel it should be trimmed as well and the gallery should prob go as well,but the infobox should be more diverse,i.e a few more white ethnic groups other than just people with roots from the british isles which the ip basicaly added all people from this background only,i.e that just makes sense, i know we can't represent every white ethnic group in the images ,but in any event can we get a few for editors thoughts like jeanne who edits here fequently and added alot of the content--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am the editor respnsible for the addition of most of the images. White Americans represent many diverse ethnic groups from three different continents and I feel it's imperative that we depict as many diverse people as possible. We had a consensus here a while back and we had agreed to show ethnic, age, sex, and occupational diversity. I also felt an image gallery helped. We couldn't include all groups but I did put images of Turks, Arabs, Armenians, as well as Spanish, German, Irish, French, Polish, Hungarian, Italian and English.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's good to know there was some encyclopedic reasoning behind the images choice. However, the article now contains 49 images, and I believe that is just too much. I know for a fact that it breaks rendering on my browser. Also, there was an encyclopedic agenda behind putting so many images, and that's fine; but ''where'' to put them? In the leading infobox, scattered inside the article, in an image gallery...? Currently, ''all three'' methods are used. But [[Image_use_policy#Image_galleries|the preferred method for that is an image gallery]]. Images inside the article should only be used when they're relevant to the topic of a particular section. As to the infobox, well, normally the infobox would contain ''one'' image; I understand how that might not be feasible with this article, but it's not acceptable to have a very large number of images in it, either. Also, be wary of falling victim to [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization|overcategorization]]: you can't really have images depicting each of the ethnicities ''each'' in a different age, ''each'' being in a different occupation - that grows exponentially. |
|||
::::I intend, unless you want to do it yourself better, to move images of specific people from inside the article into the image gallery (basically leaving only the images 161.38.221.233 inside the article itself), then to trim the image gallery by removing duplicate ethnicities, and then we need to somehow trim the infobox. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 19:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The number of pics in the info box is sufficent its not over done (see [[Spanish People]]) the box is actually formatted very poorly ,i believe the problem is more the image gallery as opposed to the pics scattered through out the article because some of them have more of a purpose,also wikipedia discourages the use of [[wikipedia:galleries|galleries]] per [[WP:not]] but the issue here is more of the number of pics of the entire article and the usefulness of those pictures--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:The [[Spanish People]] infobox has ''one'' picture, which happens to be a mosaic. It's the same thing in practice, but there are some non-negligible technical differences about it. Anyway, Wikipedia does ''not'' discourage image galleries (or it wouldn't have them as a feature to begin with!). It discourages galleries ''that are merely intended as redundant illustrations of the subjects'', as opposed to ones which ''add encyclopedic value'', i.e. couldn't be simply described in word with the same effect (I'll link to the relevant guideline when I find it). You just claimed that the current gallery has encyclopedic by saying that you wanted to represent different ethnic groups and such, basically saying: "here's the different ways white Americans can look like". We could debate on whether that's a good use for an image gallery, but you made a relatively convincing argument on that. On the other hand, I assure you that the amount of ''in-article images'' is absolutely disrupting unless perhaps you're using a pretty high-resolution screen. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I said i wanted more than one ethnic group in the "infobox", please LJ don't make this so much about me i did not bring up the issue you did i just reverted unilatteral changes by an anoymous user(which removed a ton of content), but on the other hand i did say we are trying to show as many people from as many different white ethnic groups as possible but of course it's impossible to show all because of the diversirty of regions and countries white americans come from etc etc etc, i basically said the same thing jeanne just said, "that we were trying to show a strong diversity in the article" and you agreed with her and said "well at least there is an encyclopedia reason for all the pics" but you seem to want to jump down my throat and claw it out even though i agreed with your basic mindset that the pics might be a little over done and said the same thing as jeanne...one more thing i really don't care if the pics stay as is to be honest--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh, actually I just assumed you ''were'' Jeanne replying to me. I didn't look at the name. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
i fixed the info box formating a bit,also LJ if you read that tag you put on the article it says exactly what i said earlier galleries being discouraged--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:That is just a short tag intended to briefly convey the idea that there are too many images on the page. You linked, yourself, to [[Wikipedia:Galleries]]: read what it says. It talks about articles made up ''entirely'' of images - not of short, to-the-point images galleries at the end of articles (though I'm not saying this one is, just that perhaps it can be). I'll ask again: why does a "gallery" tag exist at all, if galleries simply aren't wanted? The answer is that [[WP:IG|image galleries are fine when used appropriately]] - here's your guideline. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
It seems we are both right to a certain extent LJ,i.e the use of galleries is discouraged but can be used in appropriate situations--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, everything is discouraged when used inappropriately or overused. Galleries do happen to be something that used to be routinely abused and overused, and perhaps sometimes still is. That's why we should be very careful with articles like this one. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
why is there an "image gallery" section and why can't it just be removed instead of being tagged? |
|||
Wikipedia articles usually shouldn't include such galleries. This is what [[Wikimedia commons]] is for. You can take the gallery, move it to [[:commons:White Americans]] and leave a {{tl|commons}} link on this page. Problem solved, no content lost. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, it's [[Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries|perfectly fine for Wikipedia articles to contain such image galleries if they serve an encyclopedic purpose]]. I have some doubts that's the case here; but I doubt it not only for the actual "gallery" at the end of the article, but rather for the images in general. Read the debate above, and you'll find out what I think about it easily. I've put the tag back to the start of the article. --[[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Eddie Van Halen== |
|||
Put that picture of Eddie Van Halen back there it was a good one why did it get taken off? --76.121.169.109 |
|||
::A lot of images were removed from the article. Go ahead and put it back. I agree it was a good image.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=="Among white Americans, Jewish white Americans..."== |
|||
Is there some data to back this assertion? If so, it should compare the income levels of white Americans of every religious affiliation. As it is currently stated it implies that there is an easily distinguishable "Jewish" subset of the white "race" and that there is scientific data to back both this implication and the associated income information. Neither on its own is both necessary and sufficient. |
|||
If this citation is not provided within a week, I am going to log in and either remove that sentence or request moderation on the issue. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.238.154.118|24.238.154.118]] ([[User talk:24.238.154.118|talk]]) 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==The end of White Americans== |
|||
Americans like to say that population in the U.S. is increasing 1% a year while in Europe it is increasing just 0.2%...but the increase of the White American population is just 0.1% a year, much lower than the increase of the white populationin the UK, France or Scandinavia (0.4% a year)--[[Special:Contributions/83.57.50.116|83.57.50.116]] ([[User talk:83.57.50.116|talk]]) 12:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:324,800,000 out of the 439,010,000 Americans in 2050 will be single-race white. At present 246,630,000 of the 310,233,000 population (projected for later this year) is single-race white. Source: United States Bureau of the Census. Link: [http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/files/nation/summary/np2008-t4.xls]. So we're looking at a change from 79.5% today to 74% in 2050. Really, is that so catastrophic? What "end" is it of which you speak, my dear 83.57.50.116? |
|||
:Oh, wait... when you say "White Americans" you mean *white Americans* (nodding approvingly); as in not, you know, (whisper) "Hispanic or Latino"... Gotcha (wink, wink). |
|||
:Well, in that case, you sort of have a point. |
|||
:So what do you propose be done? Should Obama declare: "We need to preserve the United States as a (non-Hispanic) White nation! A (non-Hispanic) White nation! Our immigration policies will from now on be geared towards preserving (non-Hispanic) Whites's majority status! (Non-Hispanic) White pow--"? |
|||
:Oh, wait, wait again... What's going on here... Ah, I know what it is. I had trouble sleeping last night. In fact, um, I don't think I got more than an hour's sleep. Too much sugar before bed must be the reason. Darn. [[User:SamEV|SamEV]] ([[User talk:SamEV|talk]]) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh but the plot thickens: You're a Spaniard ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=next&oldid=317635635])! |
|||
:My my my. I guess your pathology is worse than I estimated. [[User:SamEV|SamEV]] ([[User talk:SamEV|talk]]) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
That doesn't make sense. The white american birthrate is 1.8 or 1.9 children per woman. By comaparison, France's white birthrate is only 1.7 per woman. I'm pretty sure America is beating Europe. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.205.33.223|72.205.33.223]] ([[User talk:72.205.33.223|talk]]) 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
My good sir, you forgot to take into account immigration. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.160.99.253|70.160.99.253]] ([[User talk:70.160.99.253|talk]]) 21:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Merge with [[White American Culture]]== |
|||
The [[White American Culture]] article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. It should be merged into this article as a new section. [[User:Neelix|Neelix]] ([[User talk:Neelix|talk]]) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with you. We don't really need another article when it could be a section in this one. Good suggestion!--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Isn't European American enough?== |
|||
Excuse me if there is something I am missing, but why does this page exist? |
|||
I know "white" can or does denote more people than just European (namely Middle Eastern, etc...), but can't they be covered on their own pages? |
|||
It seems this page is unnecessary; it just comes from a glitch in the semantics of these old loaded words like "white". Terms like European-American and Asian American seem much more fair to everyone... |
|||
[[User:Spettro9|Spettro9]] ([[User talk:Spettro9|talk]]) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:No it's not enough as the legal definition of white in the United States is anyone whose ancestors originated in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, or the Indian subcontinent. Hence Ralph Nader (of Lebanese origin) is as much a white American as is Reese Witherspoon or Cameron Diaz.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 07:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
~~ Ralph Nader isn't white. Obama is 1000x more white than Ralphy. "If it isn't anglo, it isn't white". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.23.230.139|70.23.230.139]] ([[User talk:70.23.230.139|talk]]) 04:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==White equals Anglo now?== |
|||
White does not equal anglo. There are many european nations, I am German and spanish descend! |
|||
Im pretty white! White really means (at least socially) that you can and are willing to assimilate into |
|||
white society. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.2.137.103|75.2.137.103]] ([[User talk:75.2.137.103|talk]]) 06:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==White Americans are less white than they tend to believe.== |
|||
See: |
|||
http://www.google.es/imgres?imgurl=http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/adrienbrody.jpg&imgrefurl=http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/2003_03.html&h=281&w=400&sz=21&tbnid=eC_nN8hMjSbbcM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmediterranean%2Brace&hl=es&usg=__HZk-q5I1Q80j9t9oTJqYk4oqnLI=&ei=cTNbS6anIZGq4Qbtuv2ABQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&ved=0CBYQ9QEwBg |
|||
From there I cut and pasted this: |
|||
I note that less than 70% of European Americans are 90% or more European in ancestry. The remaining 30%+ has significant African and/or Amerindian admixture. Also, about 25-30% of African Americans and less than 45% of African Caribbeans are 90% or more African. The remainder has significan European admixture. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.39.43.48|80.39.43.48]] ([[User talk:80.39.43.48|talk]]) 17:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
In fact the mixed race population is the largest in the US, but comes up as very samll in the census. I t is about time Americans come to terms with reality or they wiil end up as identifying as white being actually more and more mixed. It is sad whem people do not accept what they are in questions of race. In fact I have personally realized that the majority of Americans do not even look white, espeially in cities, so it is quite strange when they try to present themselves as white. This reaches the utmost absurdity when most US Hispanics are counted as whites. In fact 3/4 of US Hispanics are of Mexican-Amerindian-Mestizo descend and many others too or of other ancestries. Real White US Hispanics may be a 5-10 percent, but they are following the same pattern as other groups being presented here as white. I think this is al an effort to try to present the white population in the US as a majority, which is actually not. It is sad for a nation to be mostly mixed and try to ignore it so hard. Koon. |
|||
Koon. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.33.233.203|81.33.233.203]] ([[User talk:81.33.233.203|talk]]) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Or you're just a crazy mofo who ignores the truth around him. Black people should call themselves mulattoes then by your definition. And your so called "Amerindo" whatevers? Mexicans are more than half illegal, so you can't count them. And I know multiple neighbors who are both hispanic and blonde. So there, you crazy mofo. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.205.33.223|72.205.33.223]] ([[User talk:72.205.33.223|talk]]) 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Collage== |
|||
I created this collage for this article i kept in all the ones that are in the box now except for one because it was not available at the commons here are the names of the people in the collage |
|||
[[Jessica Biel]] [[Mary Higgins Clark]] [[Andy Garcia]] [[Robert E. Lee]] [[Greta Garbo]] [[Dan Marino]] [[John Hancock]] [[Danica Patrick]] [[Susan B Anthony]] [[Lucy Ball]] [[Mariska Hargitay]] [[Joe Dimaggio]] [[Ben Franklin]] [[Samuel Adams]] [[Ronald Regan]] [[John F. Kennedy]] [[José Francisco Chaves]] [[Cotton Mather]] [[Evelyn Nesbit]] [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]] [[Reese Witherspoon]] [[Amelia Earhart]] [[Elizabeth Kortright Monroe]] [[Anousheh Ansari]] [[Megan Fox]] |
|||
[[File:WhiteAmericans.jpg]] |
|||
:I don't understand why Greta Garbo is here as she was not born in America.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 07:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Lots of Americans were not born in the United States and Garbo did end up an American citizen, so I guess that was enough for whomever put this together. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[Anousheh Ansari]], [[José Francisco Chaves]], are others not born in America, while several other were born before there was a United States. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 16:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
To be a American you need not be born here there are other avenues to be an American citizen without "being born" in the USA , Anousheh Ansari states she is an American citizen right here [[http://www.anoushehansari.com/faqs/]] and as for Jose Chaves ,he was put into the box a long time ago by somebody ,but i did look into to it and it does state in a government website that he is an Hispanic "American" |
|||
in Congress [[http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/congress/chaves.html]] and with Greta Garbo she became a U.S citizen in 1951 as stated here |
|||
[[http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0918.html]]also though i do want to point out it does say citizen or legal aliens in the lead paragraph--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 21:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I see no reason to change anything. Jose Chaves was (as I recall) born in Spanish New Mexico, which then became Mexico, which then, after 1847 (?) because the United States. Making him an American. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I am not here to argue over if he was an American or not especially those were different times, Jose probably did not know what a Hispanic was even ,but in any event,there is a reliable sources that refers to him as an American, Also with respects to Cotton Mather ,another one who was already in the info box for a million years and nobody said anything until the time was taken to make a collage,which of course i included him because he was already there :) here is a source for him being an "American" [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369261/Cotton-Mather], i think their is the official USA American citizen who is going to check out alright with [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]], but there is also White American in an historical sense which is also what this article seems to be about.--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Well Chaves was a [[Republican Party|Republican]], so you know he was American. And Mather was born in the New World, so he's cool. Sort of. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 22:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::If Swedish-born Garbo was an American then Mather, who was '''born''' in the American colonies, certainly qualifies!--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 15:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Agreed. They all seem to qualify. A job well done. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 15:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Are you kidding?== |
|||
"1st row: Megan Fox · Ronald Regan · Mariska Hargitay · Samuel Adams · Reese Witherspoon |
|||
2nd row: Ben Franklin · Amelia Earhart · John F. Kennedy · Elizabeth Kortright Monroe · Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. |
|||
3rd row: Evelyn Nesbit · John Hancock · Lucy Ball · Cotton Mather · Danica Patrick |
|||
4th row: Robert E. Lee · Greta Garbo · Joe Dimaggio · Anousheh Ansari · Andy Garcia |
|||
5th row: Jessica Biel · José Francisco Chaves · Mary Higgins Clark · Dan Marino · Susan B Anthony" |
|||
Because Danica Patrick and Megan Fox are as notable as Franklin and Robert E. Lee, and clearly more notable than the likes of Eisenhower or Lawrence G. Roberts. Give me a break. [[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]]) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:What exactly is your point here, [[User:JohnnyFiveHole|Johnny]]? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 23:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Scroll up, clearly I just implied that they aren't as notable as either of the four people I mentioned. Want to tell me exactly what they've accomplished to deserve to be mentioned in the same chart as Franklin above the likes of the people I suggested? The same goes for the likes of Withserspoon. [[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]]) 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
This is not about who is most famous or who is more notable or more important or more educated it is just showing white americans who are notable i.e they have articles here on wikipedia,we are not recruiting for the Marines here--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
i would suggest not to reply to the Troll any further,lets not feed the Trolls because it is clear he is more interested |
|||
Also not to mention that is your own POV to suggest Eisenhower (for example) is more notable than Megan Fox, but in any event it does make sense to include modern day pop cultures stars as well, and it does not suggest anybody is more notable than anybody else.--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: "Clearly" (a word you've used twice) is, in my [[opinion]], just another word for "in my opinion." But that aside, this collage is not the [[Hall of Fame]] for white Americans, and I'm not sure that the word "notable" was used until you introduced it. If you feel strongly about this, the wikipedia way is that you produce your own montage, post it here and anyone who cares to do so comes and votes for their preference. Have at it. Start from scratch. I'm rather interested to learn what 25 white Americans you come up with. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 00:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
It should be noted that wikipedia is not [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]] we are not voting on anything on wikipedia ,i have not seen one legit gripe which is a wikipedia policy to really make a flap about the pictures except for the gripe of whether or not a couple people could be considered American or not ,in which i did demo they could via sources,now this seems to be just a POV issue i.e i want this person in the collage because "I" think they are more notable,please i do not own this article and wikipedia does encourage [[WP:BEBOLD]] but when somebody takes the time to make these things i.e picking peoples(though as i said earlier many of these people were here already for some time) making the collage on their personal program doing all the derivative work at the commons, lets all agree on a consensus lead solid reason for making changes other than i want this person in or i think this person is more important or a better person, lets not encourage endless debate--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 01:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Well I am happy voting, I mean arguing for consensus, to leave it just as it is. I am just sort of curious as to whom Johnny wants in the box. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Jonny is going to want who he wants in the box than a week later Jane will come along and say i want these people in the box, than after that Harry will come and say no i want these people we will be voting on a weekly basis on who will be in the info box (WP NotADEMOCRACY) ,as i said all they need be is notable which all are,The idea is to encourage consensus to find an encyclopedic reason for changes like for example you and user Jeanne boleyn brought up a sound reason for maybe making changes i.e are two of the people in the box even American that was legit but complaining that because for example Megan Fox is in the box with the likes of Robert E lee is suggesting they are of equal importance,is nothing but POV and clearly no one is suggesting that anyway ,again they only need be notable not be on the same level in somebody owns personal opinion--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 02:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree; all it takes is for the people in the images to be notable. They don't have to be famous at all! [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability doesn't mean fame]]. Good luck. [[User:SamEV|SamEV]] ([[User talk:SamEV|talk]]) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I can't understand these comments due to your need to invent your own mechanics and conventions of the English language. [[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]]) 03:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:That is fine if your reading skills are not up to par to get the gist of things being typed, but long story short, everything you just ranted about earlier in reference to the info box is your POV or in case you don't know what that means,point of view--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I just want to comment to the ranting made by Johnny in regards to the choice of images for the infobox. Calm down and read why many of the images were placed here. Another editor (SamEV) and myself spent a great deal of time picking and choosing the images of notable people which reflected the diversity of white Americans, being careful to achieve a balance between the sexes, ages, ethnic origins, time periods, and occupations; this way we don't end up with a collage consisting of nothing but former US presidents! I chose Megan Fox because she is, like many white Americans, of partial Native American ancestry, and I felt that this fact should be demonstrated by her image in the infobox. This isn't about fame or achievement, just a sampling of a variety of notable white Americans.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 08:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::You're defeating the purpose of equality if you are including token, non-notable "celebrities" in your list. By the way, it's hilarious how you called the ones you chose "notable" in your comment further down. What a fool. --[[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]]) 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with Jeanne ,i remember even further back when the whole info box was people from the American revolution.I would have no problem changing the Collage for encyclopedic reasons for myself or at others urging but not because some one wants Eisenhower over Fox(for example) because he or she deems Eisenhower to be more important, this is just sample it is not going to catch everybody of every ethnic background or every profession, collages are at many articles of this type because the idea behind them is it keeps picture stability ,it makes the article look better because of the precise formatting,also you keep pictures of people even if they get deleted off the commons which does happen often,remember this is mainly a Demographic article Lucy Ball is just as much as a white American as Robert E Lee--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
The fact that you feel the need to "balance" the collage and make sure the "sexes" are balanced is detrimental to the collage itself. Megan Fox is nowhere near as important to the name of the White American, but if you think she is simply because she is a woman and looks good whilst bent down over the hood of a car, go ahead and keep the collage as shallow as possible. Token minorities defeat the purpose of equality. I hope you keep this in mind, in the future. [[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]]) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:It seems to me that where there is equality there is no need for tokenism, and America has a way to go. Perhaps we could start a [[White, American male]] article and do it right there? Meanwhile I think I'll click on [[Megan Fox|Ms. Fox]] and find out who she is. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Johnny, I hope you've at some point opened a social studies or anthropology book or an encyclopedia and seen pictures of completely unknown representatives of ethnic groups. At WP we go further and actually use notable people. |
|||
:Jeanne, you're very kind. But it was really you who did the work. I provided some ideas, which you kindly accepted. Thank you, and cheers! [[User:SamEV|SamEV]] ([[User talk:SamEV|talk]]) 01:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
ROFL. Honestly, in no way is it my fault if you are unable to speak in English. When I read what was tantamount to "maybe you should learn to try to read incorrect grammar" I spit up the water I was drinking due to laughter. You are clearly attempting to promote ignorance here, but that's beside the point. The fact is you two directly admitted that adding Megan Fox and whatnot to the article was an act of tokenism, yet you claim tokenism equates to equality. This is an incredibly foolish statement. Is a black man a genius if he solves basic math problems? No. Garbage double standards are society's bane. [[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]]) 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Oh! You read that statement just fine, didn't you ??? :) With that said lets not feed the Troll any further,this is becoming more about editors rather than the article |
|||
case closed--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not trolling. You're having a temper tantrum because I am unable to decipher your solecisms. You corroborate this by not responding to the genuine points I made after I explained to you that I was unable to read the majority of your posts because of your Chinese dialect. --[[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]]) 15:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Megan Fox? Really? And why are there no Jewish people represented here? Or modern scientists? How about we add Richard Feynman instead of, say, Megan Fox?? |
|||
--[[User:Jackelmackel|Jackelmackel]] ([[User talk:Jackelmackel|talk]]) 01:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Susanna Hoffs is Jewish. She should, however probably be replaced by Barbra Streisand, who is an obviously more notable American singer. I would support such a move if there's a good image of her available. What's wrong with Megan Fox? I purposely added Fox to obtain a sex balance and also because she is, like many white Americans, of partial American Indian ancestry.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 08:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Barbra Streisand.jpg|thumb|100px|right|This is a good, free image of Streisand, which could replace Susanna Hoffs]] |
|||
No Hoffs is fine she is notable,look further up, that was the part of the reasoning the other editor gave for removing Megan Fox e.g this such and such person is more important/notable than Megan Fox, this is not about who is more notable the box only requires people be notable as to avoid POV of endless argument of who is more important or "more" notable that is all POV, also i would not keep replying to newly created accounts that come here to whine about Megan Fox, in such a short period they are suspect--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 16:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:OK, let's agree to keep the infobox the way it is now. It's obvious we cannot please everybody nor can we keep changing the images to suit each personal preference. Susanna Hoffs stays, and Megan Fox stays.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 16:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
But seriously, why is Megan Fox the first in the picture? Not even a good picture of her. [[User:Halofanatic333|Halofanatic333]] ([[User talk:Halofanatic333|talk]]) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The selection of people for this article's infobox is a great example of ''why'' people mock Wikipedia. [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 03:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Like I said, you have no idea what you're doing if you're adding an actress who has contributed nothing to society for the sole purpose of "hur gender balance." <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JohnnyFiveHole|JohnnyFiveHole]] ([[User talk:JohnnyFiveHole|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyFiveHole|contribs]]) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Notable Causasian Americans?== |
|||
Could we please remove the Hollywood individuals from the collage? How about replace them with folks like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Ford, and Nikola Tesla? At least you will have people famous for actual talent and not people that got famous merely for physical beauty. |
|||
:I think that the point of this collage is to present some of the variety found in white Amreicans. I think that tht person who did the original work put a fair amount of thought into his/her selections and I am inclined to respect those decisions> [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Ms. Anseri; Mr. Garcia== |
|||
Ms. Anseri should be classified as "Middle Eastern" and Mr. Garcia is Hispanic. |
|||
Skin complexion does not always denote whiteness. Traditionally, white people constitute any group which emerged from the aboriginal peoples of "Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa (Berbers)" (and possibly parts of the Middle East, although generally not in a modern context). Individuals belonging to the Jewish ethnos may be classified as white if they are of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, or similar groups which derive from present and historical Jewish communities in Europe (although the Jewish ethnos itself is indigenously Middle Eastern). Roma peoples, in some contexts, may be classified as white as well. |
|||
(Also, where are all the presidents, the founding fathers, etc in that box? Surely there are (and were) white people in America who are more important than Megan Fox for goodness sake. You used to have Lincoln up there. What about Washington?!) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.201.163.5|69.201.163.5]] ([[User talk:69.201.163.5|talk]]) 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The term "Hispanic" is not even a proper English word. Note that corresponding terms like "Anglic, "Francic" don't exist either. That phony term was concocted during the Nixon administration and bought into by the largely Non White US "Hispanic" Intelligentsia. I do not for the life of me understand why Mexicans Americans and Puerto Ricans, most of whom are composed of Native American Indian racial stock, accept this stupid racial classification that denies their true racial and ethnic background. Thus you are wrong because actor Andy Garcia has no resemblance to a Native American. He should be aptly referred to as White. I've noticed that a lot of Cuban Americans appear to be the most Caucasian of all the "Hispanics", after the Argentines. Scipio-62--Scipio-62 00:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Scipio-62|Scipio-62]] ([[User talk:Scipio-62|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Scipio-62|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:The name Hispanic is a political invention; it does not denote race. Middle Eastern is a geographical term, and there is no such race as ''Middle Eastern''. Anseri and Garcia are white Americans. As for the collage not being a collection of male founding fathers and US presidents, we had this discussion here before and there was consensus to show a balanced group of people based on sex, ethnicity, and occupation. Or would you say that the only white people in the USA have been presidents and nothing else?!--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 06:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::By the way, the collage shows Franklin and two US presidents. Abraham Lincoln's image is in the article, which you would surely have seen had you read the article in its entirety.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 06:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Jeanne is correct also this article is the USA governments definition of who is white (not anybody's personal opinions of white) and that being people of North African Middle Eastern and European descendant , i know i have explained this before to you as i suspect you are the same person who has been griping about Megan Fox for a while and you just keep fishing for support from time to time but again Megan Fox is notable that is the criteria not that she has to be the "bestest" super greatest nicest important groovy centered etc etc person in the world though is suspect to some people in the world she may be all those things--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
North africans (mix Berbers or indigenous peoples and Arabs), Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Afghans, don't consider themselves 'white'. Whites are Europeans and their descendants, nothing else. [[utilisateur:88.178.38.7|IP 88]] 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.178.38.7|88.178.38.7]] ([[User talk:88.178.38.7|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==This article is incorrect== |
|||
I must bring this obvious error to someone's attention, but could it be possible the government's deffinition of white is wrong? I mean as a diffinition of white its fine, but as the ethnic group "white americans" this article is just plain wrong. People of hispanic or jewish or middle eastern ancestry are simply not part of the "white american" ethnicity and few white americans actually consider these people part of their ethnic group, just as jewish people or middle eastern people do not consider europeans a part of their ethnic group... it honestly makes no sense from any viewpoint, it is based on semantics and the US government deffiniton, but does not reflect the reality of the white american ethnic group. The article should be changed or the title of the article should be changed, it is full of false information. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.8.168.59|216.8.168.59]] ([[User talk:216.8.168.59|talk]]) 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Have you have any sources to back up your assertions that the US government definition is wrong?--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Is there any evidence that they are right? Just because they are a government dosent mean they are correct, simply go out on the streets and ask whites, middle easterners and hispanics from latin america who is white. The hispanics and middle easterners will not say they are white, and whites will not say those ethnic groups are white either... The fact is the majority opinion on this goes against the US deffinition, as does the historical deffinition, so yes the government is wrong here. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.8.168.63|216.8.168.63]] ([[User talk:216.8.168.63|talk]]) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:You still have failed to provide a source; your own personal opinions do not count as a reliable souce at Wikipedia.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
You are incorrect in that this is my personal opinion, honestly, how is the government's personal opinion on ethnic groups correct when all of those ethnic groups disagree on this deffinition! The burden of proof is on those that believe this deffinition, not me. Please provide a single source saying the government's deffinition is legitimate and that the various ethnic groups involved agree to this consensus. There is no reason to accept government authorities deffinition as factual, when they're standpoint has way less evidence then the common view. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.8.148.24|216.8.148.24]] ([[User talk:216.8.148.24|talk]]) 08:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:The government is reporting the self-identification of the US population. I.e. millions of Hispanics and Middle Easterners and Jews do say they are white. [[User:SamEV|SamEV]] ([[User talk:SamEV|talk]]) 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Too many white people== |
|||
I am white myself. Remember that. Now it is important that white people stop posting here because it's a bit too much. I think we all know what I'm hinting at. White people meticulously altering the "white american" section of a Wikipedia page. |
|||
There is another page that we should be worrying about. That is the Gallagher (comedian) page. There has been a lack of expertise on this section from a technical and cultural POV. But this POV leaks into the content, making editing necessary. But I do not have the technical knowledge required to do it any justice. So I am going around to other boards bringing up this question, hoping other users will listen and go busily to work. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Climenole|Climenole]] ([[User talk:Climenole|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Climenole|contribs]]) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Enlighten me.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 05:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
He's a reverse racist against himself. Sadly many whites in America are afflicted with this disease. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.205.33.223|72.205.33.223]] ([[User talk:72.205.33.223|talk]]) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==LACK of pictures, especially blondes== |
|||
I have NO clue what people are talking about when they say there are "too many pictures" in this article. Besides the infobox, there are TWO! Ive also noticed that there is not one picture of a blonde white American in the article. You'd think someone would include a wide diversity of white American people (yes there IS diversity). Check out [[White Latin Americans]] for a comparison. [[User:Yonskii|Yonskii]] ([[User talk:Yonskii|talk]]) 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Mary Higgins Clark has Blond hair and so does Greta Garbo and they are both in the Box there are a around of 27 pictures in the article that's good it is best not to have random pictures scatter amongst the article that serve no purpose just for the sake of having pictures --[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: I see one, ONE blonde person in the infobox. There is not 27 pictures, there is 4. The infobox picture is 1 file. In articles such as these, which are meant to describe a specific group of people, i believe it is best to show a wide variety of every type of person who would belong to said group. There needs to more than just Abe Lincoln, Gov Pacheco and Jennie Jerome in the article. That is hardly representative of White Americans. There needs to be more modern pictures of more modern peoples.[[User:Yonskii|Yonskii]] ([[User talk:Yonskii|talk]]) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Technically the info box contains about 25 pictures and than there are a few in the article as well also but if you would like to add "a" blond person to the article of your choosing i don't have a problem but make it descriptive so it has a purpose, in the white Latin American article those pictures represent whites from various countries of Latin America this is just one country.Though again a couple do in the infobox already have blond hair Higgins Clark is a Modern person and is very well known Novelist, i believe though natural blond people are a minority of the white population as a whole but than again these days people dye their hair a lot it is hard to tell what is what--[[User:Wikiscribe|Wikiscribe]] ([[User talk:Wikiscribe|talk]]) 03:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I had put in an image of Cameron Diaz, but someone removed it withut consensus. I also had one of Reese Witherspoon as well as Paris Hilton, again these were removed. These females are all blonde. If someone wants to replace them, go ahead.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 09:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Let's say we dump Megan Fox and include Marilyn Monroe? Certainly she qualifies... [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Barack Obama== |
|||
Barack Obama may need to be listed here, and possibly on the picture above the infobox. His mother was white. His picture is on the African American and Multiracial American pages. Therefore, I suggest that his picture be placed here. [[Special:Contributions/68.103.115.55|68.103.115.55]] ([[User talk:68.103.115.55|talk]]) 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:According to American social categorization of race and self-description, Obama is not White. [[User:The Ogre|The Ogre]] ([[User talk:The Ogre|talk]]) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::ditto. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] ([[User talk:Carptrash|talk]]) 15:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Enough said. [[User:Futurebird|futurebird]] ([[User talk:Futurebird|talk]]) 12:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::American social categorization of race? This reads as if some definitive guideline actually exists.--[[User:TriiipleThreat|TriiipleThreat]] ([[User talk:TriiipleThreat|talk]]) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are guidelines. The US Office of Personnel Management defines "White" as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa". But it is left up to the individual to determine which category they belong in. The government doesn't decide for you. If the President wanted to identify as white, he could. It would be up to him. [[User:Eastcote|Eastcote]] ([[User talk:Eastcote|talk]]) 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Why only white gringos?== |
|||
It's supposed to be ALL white americans from tip to tip from Alaska to la Patagonia, and you only put white yanquis, and all the white people that live in Canada and America Latina what? this two are in America so you should correct the term of American. Then I also read that you were basically saying that only anglo ancestry are white, and all the people from Europe are white not only Germanic, that inclues Slavs, and Mediterrenean people. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/186.15.38.43|186.15.38.43]] ([[User talk:186.15.38.43|talk]]) 19:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==New image infobox is needed== |
|||
Before we set a new one up, I think we should discuss each proposed image here to avoid constant changing and griping.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:A new infobox image is indeed needed, and please make this one adhere to [[WP:NOR]]. [[User talk:Bulldog123|<span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span>]] 21:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Big Confusion between Race and Ethnicity == |
|||
Race is one thing and is pretty much "Color" coded |
|||
Ethnicity is a complete different thing with a wide diversity within one race. |
|||
For example... |
|||
Anglo, Saxon, Nordic, Celtic, Germanic, Serbs, Arabians (just to point out Middle Easterners and North Africans, too many to mention), Iberian, Latin, and so on are all White (Caucasian). |
|||
The term Latino can be applied to Spanish, Italians and French (or any nation that speaks a Romance Language). |
|||
Latin language was originated in Rome (Italy) therefore the Italians are more Latino that anybody else. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.210.29.137|66.210.29.137]] ([[User talk:66.210.29.137|talk]]) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Proposal to ban user-created montages from Infoboxes== |
|||
You are invited to join the discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups]]. [[User talk:Bulldog123|<span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span>]] 09:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==White Americans infobox image== |
|||
Where are the refs that say these people are known as "White Americans"? I don't care (per [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]]) whether or not they ''look'' white, or would likely be considered white if you asked a random bystander ''Are they white?'' Where is this ethnic-group construct of "White American" being applied to them? [[User talk:Bulldog123|<span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span>]] 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
Where are the refs that say these people are known as "White Americans"? I don't care (per [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]]) whether or not they ''look'' white, or would likely be considered white if you asked a random bystander ''Are they white?'' Where is this ethnic-group construct of "White American" being applied to them? [[User talk:Bulldog123|<span style='color: #900009;'>Bull</span><span style='color: #FFA500;'>dog123</span>]] 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 345: | Line 56: | ||
:::::Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that "White American" isn't a valid term to describe people who tick the "White" box in the census - it clearly is per the good reliable sources that Epeefleche has provided. My argument is that it's inaccurate to describe it as official government terminology. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that "White American" isn't a valid term to describe people who tick the "White" box in the census - it clearly is per the good reliable sources that Epeefleche has provided. My argument is that it's inaccurate to describe it as official government terminology. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
==RfC: Should we describe "White American" as an official US government term== |
== RfC: Should we describe "White American" as an official US government term == |
||
Is it legitimate to say that "White American" is an official term used by the US government? The term [http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html used in the census itself], the primary source, is "White". [[WP:PRIMARY]] states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source". [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22us+census%22+%22white+americans%22&hl=en&biw=1259&bih=623&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=-hVtTfDWMcT48AbLx52QDQ&ved=0CBcQpwUoCg Some RSs] such as ''[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hngkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oNYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5178,4370362&dq=white-american+census&hl=en The Washington Post]'' report that the census is a survey of Americans, and that it reports ''inter alia'' on "the typical White American household", and RSs such as ''[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0715FD3D5B0C728CDDA00894D0484D81 The New York Times]'' report that the census reports, ''inter alia'', on "white Americans", and the ''[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RDMMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bWADAAAAIBAJ&pg=2138,2480469&dq=white-american+census&hl=en St. Petersburg Times]'' reports that the Census Bureau studied "White American households". Other RSs, such as [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bYRTznBZIwgC&lpg=PT377&dq=classification%20of%20race%202000%20us%20census&pg=PT380#v=onepage&q&f=false this book] on the 2000 Census, employ the same term as the original source and use "White". Others use "white people", such as can be seen [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22us+census%22+%22white+people%22&hl=en&biw=1259&bih=623&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=5QRtTcTJJcL88Aabj4mRDQ&ved=0CBcQpwUoCg here] and [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:.gov+%22white+people%22+census&hl=en&biw=1259&bih=623&prmd=ivns&ei=eAVtTb6KG4H78AaGs9mMDQ&start=20&sa=N here]. Some editors believe that in context "White" means White American, pointing to the reliable sources that use "white American". Others disagree, pointing to the reliable sources that use "White" or "white people" and arguing that the census includes non-Americans living in the US. See discussion above for more details and arguments on either side [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
Is it legitimate to say that "White American" is an official term used by the US government? The term [http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html used in the census itself], the primary source, is "White". [[WP:PRIMARY]] states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source". [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22us+census%22+%22white+americans%22&hl=en&biw=1259&bih=623&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=-hVtTfDWMcT48AbLx52QDQ&ved=0CBcQpwUoCg Some RSs] such as ''[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hngkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oNYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5178,4370362&dq=white-american+census&hl=en The Washington Post]'' report that the census is a survey of Americans, and that it reports ''inter alia'' on "the typical White American household", and RSs such as ''[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0715FD3D5B0C728CDDA00894D0484D81 The New York Times]'' report that the census reports, ''inter alia'', on "white Americans", and the ''[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RDMMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bWADAAAAIBAJ&pg=2138,2480469&dq=white-american+census&hl=en St. Petersburg Times]'' reports that the Census Bureau studied "White American households". Other RSs, such as [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bYRTznBZIwgC&lpg=PT377&dq=classification%20of%20race%202000%20us%20census&pg=PT380#v=onepage&q&f=false this book] on the 2000 Census, employ the same term as the original source and use "White". Others use "white people", such as can be seen [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22us+census%22+%22white+people%22&hl=en&biw=1259&bih=623&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=5QRtTcTJJcL88Aabj4mRDQ&ved=0CBcQpwUoCg here] and [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:.gov+%22white+people%22+census&hl=en&biw=1259&bih=623&prmd=ivns&ei=eAVtTb6KG4H78AaGs9mMDQ&start=20&sa=N here]. Some editors believe that in context "White" means White American, pointing to the reliable sources that use "white American". Others disagree, pointing to the reliable sources that use "White" or "white people" and arguing that the census includes non-Americans living in the US. See discussion above for more details and arguments on either side [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Anyone care to contribute? [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 04:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
:Anyone care to contribute? [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 04:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 382: | Line 94: | ||
== Requested move == |
== Requested move == |
||
{{Requested move/dated|White Americans}} |
{{Requested move/dated|White Americans}} |
||
Revision as of 16:50, 13 March 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
White Americans infobox image
Where are the refs that say these people are known as "White Americans"? I don't care (per WP:OR and WP:V) whether or not they look white, or would likely be considered white if you asked a random bystander Are they white? Where is this ethnic-group construct of "White American" being applied to them? Bulldog123 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to boldly remove the infobox montage. My main concern is that there is no source indicating that these people are somehow representative of white Americans, and it therefore constitutes original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I was reverted because it apparently went against consensus on another page. I'll leave it for others to contribute to this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Another concern is that the montage is far too big. I have to hit the page down key twice to get to the bottom of the infobox as it stands. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Official use of the term White American
As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination), the article suggests that the term "White American" is an official classification in US government documents. As far as I can tell, it isn't. The census uses the term "White". Plenty of other sources, such as scholarly articles, use the term "White American", but I don't think that we can necessarily draw equivalence between "White" in the census and "White Americans" discussed in the academic literature. For a start, not everyone classified as white in the census is American. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be a meta issue, not specific to this article. One could say the same as to any ethnic cat, I would think. As to the use of the specific term "White American", it pops up in 193,000 .gov urls at the moment. There is of course a good deal of chaff in those refs. But there is great deal of on-point usage of the term by a bevy of US governmental branches, bureaus, and divisions. Also, the US government in its census work sub-categorizes Americans (where the parent cat is "Americans") into different American subcats, including White. Other urls in that search lead you to, for example, OMHD's statement that "The Census Bureau projects that by the year 2060, white Americans will comprise less than 50 percent of the total U.S. population".
- Similarly, scholarly works using such term are in the tens of thousands. They include works such as "Career Development Attributes and Occupational Values of Asian American and White American College Students", "Mexican American and white American school dropouts' drug use, health status, and involvement in violence", "Eating Disorders of White American, Racial and Ethnic Minority American, and International Women", "Pattern of breast cancer among white-American, African-American, and nonimmigrant west-African women", "Comparison of attitudes and behaviors related to nutrition, body size, dieting, and hunger in Russian, black-American, and white-American adolescents".
- If an editor has RS support for the notion that the use of the term "White American" in the above .gov urls that reflect usage of the term by the government differs from the use of the term "White Americans" in the academic literature, that would be a helpful add to the article. But we need appropriate RS support for that notion to avoid OR and SYNTH concerns. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since we don't disagree on the use of the term by scholars, let's concentrate on official usage. Now, my feeling is in that many of the instances cropping up in the search you link to, "white" is being used as an adjective followed by "American", rather than "White American" being used as a noun. Similarly, I'm sure we could also find lots of mentions of "gay Americans" or "male Americans" or "young Americans" on government websites, but that doesn't make those terms official classifications. The census classification is "White", not "White American" - something that the article rather apologetically admits in a footnote: "The United States Census Bureau, for example, uses "white" rather than "White American", but this is true of most races: "American Indian" and "African American" are the exceptions". Cordless Larry (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- What non-OR/SYNTH RS support do you have for your feeling? As to the Census, as reflected in the above, I think it is clear that it is understood is that the class is White American -- just look at the government mention quoted at the end of the last para above -- "The Census Bureau projects that by the year 2060, white Americans will comprise less than 50 percent of the total U.S. population".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that the "white" isn't capitalised is quite a big hint. But in any case, the official classification is "White", not "White American". Just because the occasional report uses the latter doesn't make that the official term. If I may make a suggestion, one way around this would be to move the article to White Americans and then rewrite the introduction so that it's clear that the article is about white people in America, whether that be people classified as white in the census or those described as "White American" in scholarly literature, rather than an official US government term. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, if I may say so, I think you're engaging in original research with the examples you give above. What you would need to find is a source that states that "White American" is an official term, not a string of examples of its use. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need something better than a "big hint" to avoid the OR and Synth issues. And I have a different view as to what OR is -- I think the thousands of uses of the term "White American" is not OR in the least. I'm focusing on RS sourcing, not on feelings and hints.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not relying on feelings and hints. I'm relying on this, which states that the official term is "White". You need to establish that "White American" is an official classification, as opposed to a term that happens to be used now and then in government documents. Where is your source stating that it is an official classification? Cordless Larry (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was mistaken, then, because I thought I culled those phrases from your above comments. The census is a
sentencecensus of Americans. That is the parent cat. It has sub-categories. They are reflected in the above diff. The White sub-category is a sub-category of White Americans. That is bolstered by the above government diff, which says it is the case. As well as by RS reporting of what the original census docs say.[1][2][3] More such diffs can be found among the 193,000 linked to above. (see., eg, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] --Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) [N.B. -- ec -- filled out prior comment]--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)- I'm sorry, I don't understand your comments. What does "The census is a sentence of Americans" mean? Cordless Larry (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- As for "The White sub-category is clearly a sub-category of Whites/Americans", take a look at this census brief. "White" does not appear under the heading of "American" at any point. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- You've expanded you comment to include lots of links to sources that use the term "white American". Again, none of these state that it is an official US government classification. May I remind you that the problem sentence is "White American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American" and, within the United States, simply "white") is an umbrella term officially employed by some U.S. government agencies, per standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget, for the classification of United States citizens or resident aliens "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa"". Cordless Larry (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It means that I hit save before carefully reviewing my typing. Sorry. As to the above -- The New York Times and others reflect what I thought was obvious. The census is a census of Americans. If it were a census of Martians, the subcat "Whites" would be "White Martians". In any event, as the RSs say thats what it means, thats sufficient. I guess that is why we have a rule to protect editors from misinterpreting primary source docs, by relying on RS descriptions of what the source docs are saying.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- "The census is a census of Americans", or is it? The census includes everyone dwelling in the US, regardless of whether they are Americans (it even includes visitors). I am not American. If I was in the US on census day, I would classify myself as "White". I am not a "White American". Cordless Larry (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- You challenged the notion that "White American" is an official classification in US government documents. I provided you diffs to US government docs where that was the case. I also provided you diffs to RSs that discuss US government docs as saying the same thing. My effort has been to address the issue you posed at the outset of this string. I think that there is ample evidence of US government usage of the phrase, and that its usage of the phrase "White" in a census of Americans means, as logic might have suggested -- that the US government is referring to "White Americans" there. As to your last point, it just circles back to the RS coverage -- the NYT and other RSs say that what the census is reporting on is White Americans, and we bow to the RSs here. That's helpful, as it affords us the ability to sidestep possible misinterpretations and OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- None of the RS coverage in third sources states that it's an official classification. It could simply reflect those sources' paraphrasing - we just don't know. Anyway, since you're unable to provide a source that establishes that this is an official term, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I will leave it to others to contribute. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was mistaken, then, because I thought I culled those phrases from your above comments. The census is a
- I'm not relying on feelings and hints. I'm relying on this, which states that the official term is "White". You need to establish that "White American" is an official classification, as opposed to a term that happens to be used now and then in government documents. Where is your source stating that it is an official classification? Cordless Larry (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need something better than a "big hint" to avoid the OR and Synth issues. And I have a different view as to what OR is -- I think the thousands of uses of the term "White American" is not OR in the least. I'm focusing on RS sourcing, not on feelings and hints.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- What non-OR/SYNTH RS support do you have for your feeling? As to the Census, as reflected in the above, I think it is clear that it is understood is that the class is White American -- just look at the government mention quoted at the end of the last para above -- "The Census Bureau projects that by the year 2060, white Americans will comprise less than 50 percent of the total U.S. population".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since we don't disagree on the use of the term by scholars, let's concentrate on official usage. Now, my feeling is in that many of the instances cropping up in the search you link to, "white" is being used as an adjective followed by "American", rather than "White American" being used as a noun. Similarly, I'm sure we could also find lots of mentions of "gay Americans" or "male Americans" or "young Americans" on government websites, but that doesn't make those terms official classifications. The census classification is "White", not "White American" - something that the article rather apologetically admits in a footnote: "The United States Census Bureau, for example, uses "white" rather than "White American", but this is true of most races: "American Indian" and "African American" are the exceptions". Cordless Larry (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- The New York Times article is all about the official US government census. It starts off with "The proportion of white Americans living in poverty declined significantly last year while the proportion of black and Hispanic poor people increased, the Census Bureau reported today." The article continues apace with similar statements. It seems quite clear to me. The "it could reflect the RS's paraphrasing" notion is unsupported. And at odd with the notion inherent in the R of the "RS" phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's no more unsupported than the view that the NYT's wording reflects official government terminology. Is "Hispanic poor people" an official government term too? Cordless Larry (talk)
- I have to weigh in here, as I work for the US government in the EEO field. The terms "White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and similar terms, are officially used by the US government as race/national origin classifications. "White American", "Black American", etc., are NOT official terms. Note that in the census, employment records, etc., the US government is not just counting US citizens (i.e. "Americans"), but also those of foreign citizenship living in America or employed by the US government. "White American" is simply a generic term, and not official. Eastcote (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, and this is reflected in reliable sources that use the term "white people". See, for instance, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- And other sources, such as this, simply report the category as it appears in the census, as "white". Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that "White American" isn't a valid term to describe people who tick the "White" box in the census - it clearly is per the good reliable sources that Epeefleche has provided. My argument is that it's inaccurate to describe it as official government terminology. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have to weigh in here, as I work for the US government in the EEO field. The terms "White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and similar terms, are officially used by the US government as race/national origin classifications. "White American", "Black American", etc., are NOT official terms. Note that in the census, employment records, etc., the US government is not just counting US citizens (i.e. "Americans"), but also those of foreign citizenship living in America or employed by the US government. "White American" is simply a generic term, and not official. Eastcote (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's no more unsupported than the view that the NYT's wording reflects official government terminology. Is "Hispanic poor people" an official government term too? Cordless Larry (talk)
RfC: Should we describe "White American" as an official US government term
Is it legitimate to say that "White American" is an official term used by the US government? The term used in the census itself, the primary source, is "White". WP:PRIMARY states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source". Some RSs such as The Washington Post report that the census is a survey of Americans, and that it reports inter alia on "the typical White American household", and RSs such as The New York Times report that the census reports, inter alia, on "white Americans", and the St. Petersburg Times reports that the Census Bureau studied "White American households". Other RSs, such as this book on the 2000 Census, employ the same term as the original source and use "White". Others use "white people", such as can be seen here and here. Some editors believe that in context "White" means White American, pointing to the reliable sources that use "white American". Others disagree, pointing to the reliable sources that use "White" or "white people" and arguing that the census includes non-Americans living in the US. See discussion above for more details and arguments on either side Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone care to contribute? Cordless Larry (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- My view is that "White American" is what the census measures. All manner of the highest-quality RSs reflect that. When there is any possibility of ambiguity, the guideline directs us to look to the RSs to understand what the primary source said. The census isn't measuring "white zebras", or "white underwear", or "white toilet paper rolls". The idea that they are just measuring "White" leaves me speechless.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Epeefleche, although I was hoping for input from editors who hadn't previously commented on this issue. Another take on it would be that the census is measuring "white people", which is also confirmed by numerous RSs, but that the official term used is still "White". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does the census also survey non-Americans living in the USA?--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it does (see here). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- In that case it can't be considered the census term, because the census is just asking and counting white people in general, not "White Americans".--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The aforementioned top-flight RSs indicate that it measures White Americans. We follow the RSs -- per the guidelines quoted above. Per that guideline, when it comes to an editor interpreting an RS, or the New York Times doing so -- the NY Times rules. And, as mentioned in the above discussion, government sources also say that the census measures White Americans.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- From Cordless Larry's link, which is from the official census .gov site, it seems to take count of white people regardless of whether they are American.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- You seem perhaps to be missing the guideline, which is both quoted above and which I refer to above. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer, other than to again point you to the guideline, and again repeat myself. The RSs -- the NYT and the Washington Post -- take precedence.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, "White American" is not an official term. "White" is an official term. "White, non-Hispanic" is an official term. "White American" is not. There are certainly numerous government documents that use the descriptive phrase "white American", but that doesn't make it an official term. I'm sure you could find government documents that use the phrase "mahogany furniture", but that doesn't make that an official term either. The NYT and Washington Post use the term in the same descriptive sense. Because the NYT and Washington Post use it this way, doesn't make it an official government term. Eastcote (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the official government refs that I indicated refer to "White American". Beyond that, this is semantics. The RSs say the census measures "white Americans". The guidelines says to follow the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd certainly consider the census official site to be the most reliable source. The NYTimes and the Post may analyze this data to determine the number of White Americans as opposed to just White people, but from the census link it seems very clear that more than "White Americans" are being measured, and some common sense must come into play.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that is your view. But your view is at odds with the guideline. It is to help us in circumstances such as this that the guideline indicates that the "secondary" RS is what we rely on, not conflicting interpretations of the primary source.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here's what I can see from the secondary sources and primary sources: the census official measures "white people" in the United States. From this, sources such as the NYTimes can report on conclusions that can be found about "white Americans". That does not, however, change what the census is polling about. On a somewhat related note, is there any sentence or section of this article that as of now is affected by this discussion?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the very first sentence, which states: "White American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American" and, within the United States, simply "white") is an umbrella term officially employed by some U.S. government agencies, per standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget, for the classification of United States citizens or resident aliens "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa"". Just to stress again, my problem isn't with the use of the term "White American" so much as its description as "officially employed". None of the sources provided, including the NYT one, claim that this is an official term, even if they do use it themselves. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from a 7 Apr 2006 US Council on Civil Rights Briefing Report, “Racial Classification in the 2010 Census”, giving the history of “race classification” in the United States census.
“… from the beginning, the census implicitly recognized three race categories: white, black, and Indian. ... Starting in the late nineteenth century and continuing through the twentieth century, race classification evolved to include Filipinos, Aleuts, and Hawaiians, among other categories. In 1970, a separate question on Hispanic origin was introduced... In 1978, for the first time, [the Office of Management and Budget] provided federal standards for the collection, tabulation, and presentation of race and ethnic data for government programs via Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. At that time, OMB identified four race categories: white; black; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander, as well as identifying Hispanic as an ethnicity. In 1997, OMB issued substantial revisions to Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, calling for five separate race categories: white; black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. …Hispanic origin remained a separate category from race.”
Note that in the current classifications “African American” and "American Indian" are the only official terms specifying "American". “White American” is not an official term.
The report goes on to note possible future changes, including “…reducing the number of checkboxes for the major race categories; …including a separate tribal enrollment question for American Indians and Alaska Natives; and …including a modified ancestry question that would elicit specific race and Hispanic origin groups as well as other ancestries such as German, French, or Scotch-Irish.”
The report is here: [13]. Eastcote (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- OMB's Directive Number 15 states: "This Directive provides standard classifications for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities. ... The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and program administrative reporting are defined as follows: a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition. b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa. c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. e. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East." Eastcote (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, so the majority view seems to be that this isn't an official term. I guess the next issue is how to reword that first sentence to reflect this. Do anyone have any suggestions on what to replace it with? Cordless Larry (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- How 'bout this: "White American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American") is an umbrella term for United States citizens with ancestral origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." The "official" term is discussed a couple of paras down, along with the "Hispanic/non-Hispanic" subcategories. I left out "resident aliens", because they are not technically "Americans" until naturalized. Eastcote (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable, although the statistics in the infobox include non-citizens as far as I can tell, so there could be scope for confusion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is my first attempt at rewording it. Please feel free to improve on my effort. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable, although the statistics in the infobox include non-citizens as far as I can tell, so there could be scope for confusion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
White American → White Americans — The current title of this article, White American, suggests that this is some kind of official term used in the census, when it is not. The article is about white people in the United States and covers people classified as white by the census as well as some cultural aspects of this population. A move to White Americans would avoid suggesting that the article is about an officially defined group and reflect the contents of the article better. An alternative would be White people in the United States. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I changed my opinion to opposition of the name change in lieu of the article was a Keep and comments made by the Admin who ruled it a keep and no merger ,this article is on it's way to possible Feature Article status, so the current title is fine.--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really see why a decision not to delete the article means that it shouldn't be renamed. Whether the article should exist and what it should be called are different issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. How exactly does the use of the singular suggest that this is an official term? I don't see why this article shouldn't be named in the same way as African American, European American, Asian American, etcetera. Ucucha 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because the plural makes it clear that the article is about a group rather than a term. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- oppose the plural is for WP categories which include multiple articles of people who meet the inclusion criteria. It is not used for WP articles about groups of people Hmains (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't used or shouldn't be used? Please see British Pakistanis, for example. Note that WP:PLURAL states that groups are an exception to the singular title convention. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also here, which states: "Since an ethnic group is group of people, a designation in the plural is probably the least ambiguous article title". Cordless Larry (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which is not to imply that white Americans constitute an ethnic group, but the implication of the above quote seems to be that groups of people should be in the plural. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I an only going by the sister articles found in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. I did not look at WP:PLURAL, which may be violated by most every [and long standing] article in this category. Hmains (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Support per WP:Plural. More appropriate if the meaning is simply people who are both white and American. Kauffner (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support, but prefer the alternative title White people in the United States due to concerns about even "White Americans" seeming more official than it is. --Avenue (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Question - How would that just not be a fork of White people#United States? What information is so valuable in this article that can't be covered in that section? It seems like a bunch of recaps of bigger articles and a completely WP:SYNTH-laden culture section. Bulldog123 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:PLURAL; the term is certainly not "always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)". –CWenger (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but groups of people are listed as an exception to the rule. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)