Talk:White Americans/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Untitled

Persian language: it has several subgroup suck as Tajiki and hazaragi but they are subbranch of this language and not a separate entities. If you want to include them then you need to include all subbranches of other languages. Persian language and Pashtu ara two different language just like German and English they are from the same family but totally different in understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.238.232 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture too big, kind of ugly

Can we lower the amount of pictures in the photo to make it smaller while maintaining a visible quality? Also, can we get rid off those black borders and the seemingly random inclusions (Kim Kardashian? Eddie Vedder?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.55.145 (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lady Churchill

Hey I changed the lady churchill entry becasue if you look at the accompanying links her Iroquois indian heritage is questionable at best. Iroquois didn't even live in the area where her alleged indian ancestor lived (Nova Scotia). Only Mikmaq people lived in the area at the time who are more closely related to the Algonquins. It is more likely she is not of any amerindian heritage and its just a myth. Someone much more senior to me on wikipedia changed it back to include lady churchill as a prominant example of mixed indian and white heritage. I am not going to change it back I am not trying to delete things, but I just think a better example should be included instead of her. 50.80.146.188 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I just removed all this from the article, from the mixed race section.

Jennie Jerome, mother of Sir Winston Churchill was rumoured to have had an Iroquois Indian great-grandfather.

"British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's mother (Jennie Jerome) "

Even the wikipedia article on her states, regarding her native heritage, "there is no research or evidence to corroborate this.[6]" You will have to go to the Jennie Jerome article to find out where the footnote goes. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I question the whole necessity and purpose of the "Admixture" section. Much of it seems like advocacy for the "Wannabe" Tribe. Unless there is solid documentation for it, and unless there is an important reason for including this information, I say specific references to "so-and-so is part Indian" is irrelevant. Statistical information on racial admixture is something entirely different, though, and seems to have a place. Eastcote (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

After discovering that I was not alone, I cut this section out of the Admixture section.

this admixture is claimed by white celebrities such as Cameron Diaz, Chuck Norris, Cher, Megan Fox, Johnny Depp and Jessica Biel. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's mother (Jennie Jerome) and singer Elvis Presley had partial Native American ancestry. There are also some white people who are or were descendants of Pocahontas, including First Ladies Edith Wilson and Nancy Reagan, astronomer Percival Lowell, as well as the Duchess of Windsor, wife of the former King Edward VIII.

For the record. around here the Wannabe tribe is sometimes referred to as the Banana Clan, and it is rarely, if ever considered to be encyclopedic. Carptrash (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Source about Whiteness studies in colleges

• Kellogg, Alex P. "Has 'whiteness studies' run its course at colleges?." CNN. January 30, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph of Culture section fails to meet Wikipedia standards on many levels.

"White American culture derived its earliest influences from English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Irish settlers and is quantitatively the largest proportion of American culture."

a) the notion that there is a universal "white American culture" is here made without foundation, at best. If someone, preferably the author, can define what that is, it would go a long way to establishing that a quantifiable and separate white American culture even exists. b) There is no "quantitative" evidence cited to support the above statement. c) The section focuses exclusively on the national origins of early-mid immigration from Anglo sources but ignores the massive contributions and influences (to whatever "white" American culture is) from Italy (religious iconography, literature, the Catholic religion), Germanic countries (food, Christmas traditions, music), Hispanic (food, music, literature and dance) and Africa/ African-Americans. by example, if asked "what is American music?", I would bet that at least 90% of white Americans would cite at least two of the following: - rock n roll - jazz - rap / hip hop - country / bluegrass

All of these musical genres have deep roots in and or were heavily influenced by African-American heritage. I would also argue the same in clothing, language, television and dance: African Americans have had a far greater impact in the last 100 years than the Anglo roots cited at the beginning of the section and are in far greater demand and exposure than those from the 18-19th Cebturies

Given that it makes the unfounded proposal, with no citations, that a universal and separate "white American culture" even exists; and that it ignores all other influences on American culture (white or otherwise)? I call upon the author to a) attempt to define and quantify what they mean by "white American culture" and, b) if one can define such, then expand the influences to include the easily quantifiable contributions to it by African- Americans and other peoples beyond the shores of the British Isles/Ireland (e.g. Puerto Ricans and Salsa music, Mexicans and food). BeBopnJazz (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If that can not be done the section should be deleted.

Regarding Middle easterners vs. Hispanics

There is a huge differences between genetic histories of Hispanics and middle easterners. Population geneticists and almost all anthropologists have long classified Middle Easterners as "Caucasians". In fact, some ME groups, are primary Caucasians, such as Turks and the majority of Iranians. Much of the Hispanic population, on the other hand, have little to no historical basis for claiming to be Caucasoid. Cavalli-Sforza's study of world populations, revealed that most Hispanics are genetically in-between Asians and Caucasoids. This doesn't exclude all Hispanics, however. For example many Brazilians, Peurto Rican, and other Hispanics are descendants of very recent immigrants of Europe. Considering the little to no intermixing that may have occured, it would be accurate to consider such latinos as 'white'. But current estimates suggest 52% of hispanics mark 'white', as there race, and there is simply no historical basis for most of these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Social definition

I am reverting a change made on the first line of the first paragraph to "anyone of Jewish descent", because the link provided pertains to Jewish Americans alone, and not European Americans. Further, I am including ethnic Jews in this line "Likewise, while Arabs and other people of Middle Eastern and North African descent are included in the white category in the census, they may not consider themselves white and may not be considered white, as well" because they are also of Middle Eastern descent and sometimes identify, or are identified, as non-white. 69.248.98.23 (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This response may seem contradictory as to the need for a reliable source, but bear with me. (A) To exclude people of "European" descent from the definition of "White" just because they're not mentioned in the given reference doesn't fly. The notion that Europeans are White is, I would think, so blindingly obvious that it needs no source. If the given source only discusses Jews, then it should be moved to indicate it applies only to Jews. (B) However, the source given for the sentence about Arabs and Jews pertains to adolescent Arab-Americans, not to Jews, so it isn't a reliable source that Jews do not consider themselves White. Jews are commonly held to be White, so something that diverges from that commonly held view would have to be sourced. You might think something is true, but to edit the article according to what you personally believe is true makes it either your personal point of view, or your personal original research. Both are prohibited in Wikipedia articles. I have edited the article accordingly. Eastcote (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the way the article looks right now. I simply thought it was obvious enough that Europeans were white that it should go without saying, and the article was about Jews so I didn't see a reason to include Europeans in that sentence. Nevertheless, it appears that issue has been cleared up by adding the annotation after the word "Jewish" and not the end of the sentence. I will continue to monitor the article to make sure it stays as is and no unnecessary changes are made without being discussed on here beforehand.69.248.98.23 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As serfs from Europe and the potato famine migration.

I think it is encyclopedic to mention that many of the White Americans migrated to the Americas during the potato famine days. Also, they were serfs of the European aristocracy especially in the United Kingdom. I think a section addressing this would be most helpful.86.1.102.119 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

White Americans are already a minority in therms of newborns.

White Americans are already a minority in therms of newborns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

comment

(Personal attack removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.174.154 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I find this article quite offensive and clearly crafted to conform to the so-called "progressive" objective of redefining "white" and "caucasian" to apply to the smallest possible segment of the American population.

There are also some statements which can be easily disproven, especially those which declare that Mexicans, Italians, Spaniards, etc.. have historically been considered "non-white". Just because these groups have been discriminated against as ethnicities doesn't mean that they are or were considered "non-white". The only objective test of this alleged history would be the miscegenation laws. We know that Mexican-Americans were legally white because we have court cases in California where Mexican-Americans were prosecuted for marrying or fornication with Blacks. There are no cases of a WASP being prosecuted for marrying an Italian, indeed Italians are found amongst and intermarried with the oldest families in Virginia. The same is true of the Irish. While perhaps socially disfavored in some places, you will find Irish colonials and immigrants intermarried with America's oldest colonial families. - David Hearne , genealogist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.161.100 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Add your comments to the bottom of the talk page and sign your posts with four tildes from now on, and forever. Got it? Good. 24.144.14.84 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

How are the pictures in the infobox chosen? It seems like there should be more Hispanics and Arabs to show that they are considered White Americans.108.211.37.125 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Greta Garbo was Swedish and wasn't even naturalized till she was like 1940. 75.64.105.140 (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues

Some comments on this article:

• It's interesting that there's not a strict parallel between "White American", which is treated by Wikipedia as distinct from "European American", and "Black American", which redirects to African American. Presumably the reason for this is a recently more expansive interpretation of "White", which includes Arab Americans and others whose ancestors might originate from beyond Western Europe. If this is the reason for distinguishing "White" from "European" Americans, the above commenter seems well justified in asking where are the pictures of Arab Americans.
• The page on African Americans contains a good deal of historical information about that group, even though they have not always been generally referred to as "African Americans". This article contains no information at all about "White Americans", as though they had descended on Turtle Islands from Europe via Outer Space in the year 2000—just in time for the census. Although there are plausible justification for treating the history of "European Americans" in a separate article, this article should contain historical information about, at minimum, the legal status assigned to "White people" in various places and times within the United States. Perhaps (not sure) the most conspicuous example of an official "White" legal status would be during the Jim Crow era in the American South.
• The "Income and educational attainment" section is quite problematic. An obvious problem is that the text offers (seemingly unsourced) single causalities for sweeping demographic features. Consider the following statements:

• "The median income per household member was also the highest, since White Americans had the smallest households of any racial demographic in the nation."
• "However, due to Whites' majority status, 48% of Americans living in poverty are white."

• Another problem with the "Income" section is the lack of historical context for white affluence in the U.S.
• White supremacy is not linked anywhere on the page. This is an egregious omission, since "white supremacy" describes the social structure of the U.S. from at minimum 1776–1968, and maybe after depending on who you ask. Almost everybody agrees that "white supremacy" is a belief system actively held by some White Americans. White privilege should also be linked.
• Too much of the article is spent re-hashing "definitions of whiteness", given that a main article for this topic already exists and readers can be directed there.
• There's hardly any information at all here about White American Culture. In fact White American Culture simply redirects to the Culture section of this article. "European American culture" goes nowhere. This is insanely lopsided, given the huge article on African-American culture and similar articles on other racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. 'There is no single White culture' is a ridiculous cop-out when similar generalizations have been made about the extremely diverse cultures of other groups. The current four-paragraph exegesis of a single book is completely inadequate.

OK, that's it for now. What do other folks think? This page clearly needs an overhaul. peace, * groupuscule (talk) * 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC) *

I agree. Some sections look as if they were written in PC language with just the fingertips on the keyboard lest somebody be offended if he or she had gone into any detail about the massive input white people had in forming and shaping American culture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements

As whites, especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or WASPs, are the dominant racial and cultural group, according to sociologist Steven Seidman, writing from a critical theory perspective

The article appears to support Seidman's opinion, which is not accurate. If you compare the representation in powerful places by WASPs vs Germans, Irish, Catholics, Italians, there is no difference. The one White subgroup that is greatly over represented is Jewish Americans. This is bias.Winston S Smith (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Are white americans really white?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/15/usa.genetics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ1I0XKNf4M

OK

No they are just wearing Casper the Friendly Ghost Halloween costumes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Now I obviously have proves to claim my sayings."Winston S Smith (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits

My multitude of recent edits to this page is fixing grammatical errors, citations, and a few other mishaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cau7ion (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Are Hispanics "White"

The majority of Hispanics identify as White and the census allows Hispanics to identify as such, those that identify as White should be included in the total count. We have pages for Non-Hispanic Whites and White Hispanic and Latino Americans which break out the separate populations. This page is an aggregation of the two populations. Perhaps you should first propose that White Hispanic and Latino Americans be deleted. Patapsco913 (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think if you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cau7ion you'll find they've got a bit of an axe to grind about race, generally marking controversial edits as "minor". Pinkbeast (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, while about 50% of Hispanics in America identified as white -- 50% of Hispanics in America are not white.

50% of Latinos in Latin America are not even white, certainly 50% of them in America are not white.

I can link to you to sources for the average genotype for certain Latino ethnicties.

I honestly don't even see why a White Hispanic needs to be on the page, besides a reference under related ethnic groups or in one reference in the original paragraph, you might as well put a White Arabs one too cause of identification.

Black Americans do not have a Hispanic one under their total population numbers, Asian Americans, etc, and it seems redundant to have it on the page.

Latinos aren't accepted as white in America generally and you know this -- there is a reason for that too.

I recently edited the White Hispanic component out of the total population number cause it might cause confusion, but left the references in other parts.

In my other edits it was fixing grammar, citations, and a few other mishaps, that's all.

@Pinkbeast correcting things about racial classifications and history doesn't mean I have an axe to grind breh.

- Cau7ion (talk)

Well in response.

1. This article is about the greater category "White" which includes both Hispanics and Non-Hispanics (like Pope Benedict who is of Italian ethnicity). It does not include Hispanics who do not identify as White. We already have a page referencing what you seem to want. If you are opposed to the concept of White Hispanics (since you say that they do not exist despite more than 50% of Hispanics in the US saying that they do), why don't you fight the first battle and propose that that article be deleted.

2. It is irrelevant what percentage of Hispanics outside the US are White since the article is about the US.

3. The average genotype of Hispanics is irrelevant since we are discussing about the sum of individuals.

4. White Hispanics are on the page since they are a large portion of the White population.

5. The term White non-Hispanic is used to measure the non-White population in the US (and generally the only category used by the news media) where if you are any part non-White (Black, Asian, Native American..etc) or Hispanic, you are considered non-White. So if we added Black Hispanic and Latino Americans and Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans to their respective pages everything would be ok? That could be easily rectified.

6. You seem to be the only one confused about what a White Hispanics is. Patapsco913 (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

1.No, I know that a White Hispanic does exist in reality -- I just believe that 50% of Hispanics in America are not white (they aren't and you know the average Hispanic is of mixed ancestry in America) hence the reason I began talking about genotypes.

2. Pope Benedict lives in Argentina, not America. Exactly, so his ethnicity means nothing.

He's an Argentine, not an American.

3. Nope, it's quite apparent that even the census has some connotations about their legitimate whiteness, even more so than Arabs, cause of their separate classification.

4. Yes, but nobody believes that 50% of Latinos in America are white (they aren't socially accepted as white) just look at my above post, basically just covered this.

PS: never met a Latino in real life who considers themselves white.

I lived in Southern California for a good portion of my life.

5. If you want to a add an Asian-Hispanic/Latino American and black one, go ahead.

Just keep them out of their total population numbers in the original article, it might cause confusion.

6. Nope, perfectly fine, just 50% of Hispanics in America are not white.

People from Uruguay are mostly white (actually white) not some mestizo identifying as white in America, that happens seemingly on the census, but I have never seen it in real life.

I don't want White Hispanics in the total population number in the article cause it might cause confusion about the true white population in America.

They aren't seen as white generally, or socially accepted as white, and aren't genetically European (like I mentioned) you might as well make a White Arab one for the Arab-Americans who identified as white. If you did that though, it would just be seen as stupidity by most -- just like the sham White Hispanic population in America.

tl;dr -- just keep the White Hispanic out of the total population number as it's not used by most sources as legit (like you mentioned) and will just cause confusion, but keep the reference to these so called 50% of White Hispanics just in case.

Thanks.

- Cau7ion (talk)

• The above only proves that you are editing based on your personal opinion and not cited references and not consensus--which you clearly do not have. It also shows that your statements that the edits are minor cleanup are false. Hmains (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I already stated that I could provide to you evidence of these peoples genetic composition on average.

He even admitted in his own post that the non-white Hispanic is used by my most sources -- not one that includes a White Hispanic aka a mestizo who identified as white and creating false numbers for the true white population.

The fact that Arabs and Jews (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, etc,) even get classified as white is honestly hilarity at its finest.

Even the whitest Jew ethnic group (Ashkenazi) are Middle Eastern/European hybrids.

There is no black Hispanic Americans or Asian Hispanic Americans or White Arabs references but apparently there needs to be a White Hispanic one under the total population part of the article?

Why?

Socially you know they aren't accepted as white, genetically 50% of are not of European descent, and it is just gonna cause confusion and isn't used by most sources.

My other edits were just fixing grammar and a few other mishaps.

- Cau7ion (talk)

• You seem to know nothing about WP and its editing requirements. Your personal opinions are of no consequence and you do not prove anything to me or another other editor. What you must do as an editor is to only include material in articles that is taken from reliable cited sources. You need to read, understand and follow the following: WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCE, WP:CON. Hmains (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Smh you must be an illiterate fool son, I just stated that I could provide sources for the average genome of various Hispanic ethnicties in America and prove to you that 50% of them are not white and are of mixed ancestry for a very high percentage of Hispanics.

Hispanics get a separate category in the census for white population and aren't put into the total volume because even the government has a questioning connotation about their legitimate whiteness.

I didn't remove Arabs and Jews from the white population (because they actually get put into the official number) despite the fact that I don't consider them to be white.

So no, it wasn't a personal opinion, but using the number that's used by my most sources.

I didn't remove the White Hispanic/Latino reference out from the article, just from the official number under total population cause it might cause confusion.

My other editing was just grammatical fixes and other basic things like I stated previously.

- Cau7ion (talk)

There is no genetic definition of "White American". It's not science and never was. If somebody self-identifies as white then they are white. There is no test. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, your perception on who is white may differ from mine, but like I stated earlier under the total population I was using the non-Hispanic white percentage and number (the number and percentage that is used by most pretty much all sources) even the other dude I was arguing with conceded on that.

I am not using a personal opinion here for my discern on who is white and who isn't, but using the number that is used by the census (non-Hispanic 63.7%) and used by pretty much all sources too when referring to the white population.

63.7% is an official number by a government census.

I did not delete the White Hispanic reference to show how many Hispanics identified as white, just did not use the 72% number under the total population.

- Cau7ion (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The assertion whether US Hispanics are white or not is so simplistic! It is exactly the same as to discuss whether Americans are white or not. Americans come in all shades and races, exactly the same as "Hispanics". People really cannot grasp such a simple thing? Wow, the education system is really a mess!. I agree that the majority of Hispanics in the US, who are mostly of Mexican descend, tend to be Mestizo, many also pure Amerindians, others Black or Asian or any mixture thereof, and others white. More or less like it is happening with the rest of the US population, especially children: See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In short, most Hispanics are not white but many are. According to the reasoning above, those who are White in American should not be considered white at all when the majority of the population is not, which is already happening. Therefore, the article should be deleted, right?. Sorry, but some people's critical thinking skills are very weak.

As to the genetic thing, even the blondest of Europeans in Europe have lots of non-white genes.See:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090806150027AAeL41i http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/hints-of-eastcentral-asian-admixture-in.html

Now again, "whites" will not even exist now? Those types of positions are, as said, extreme, simplistic and ignorant, sorry. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand all about non-European admixture in the Euros whether if be the Finns with Asian or Spaniards with Arabic -- the thing is it the average Hispanic in America is not white and 50% of them are not (you just admitted that) 63.7% number used for the total population is an official number from the government census regarding a white population in America -- Hispanics get there own category for their white population.

should not be considered white at all

No, while white children are a minority in America there are still a decent amount of American whites.

Black Americans do not have a Black Hispanic under their page, Asians do not, etc, using the 63.7% is an official number from the census once again and is used by most sources regarding the white population.

Here's an example:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2012/11/13/finding-diversity-in-america/

I did not delete the White Hispanic reference, but kept it there for people to see how many Hispanics identified as white like I've stated before.

63.7% is not a made up number, but an official one from a census.

- Cau7ion (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The opening to the article pretty much sums things up very clearly: "White Americans are people of the United States who are considered or consider themselves White. The United States Census Bureau defines White people as those "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “White” or reported entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian." Like all official U.S. racial categories, "White" has a "Not Hispanic or Latino" and a "Hispanic or Latino" component, the latter consisting mostly of White Mexican Americans and white Cuban Americans." As such, we need to consider the full amount of white people per the census, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic, each of which has their own webpage. Further discussion about the acceptance of different groups as White or not can be discussed further down in the srticle.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

White Hispanic number and percentage under the total population category and in the paragraph is fine, just keep the non-White Hispanic number and percentage there in both too.

I would also appreciate it if we're gonna put one for whites, then blacks and Asians need one too, only to make it fair.

@Patapsco913 -- do not revert it back to the elder version in its entirety, just do what I said in the above statements if you want to.

I corrected a lot of mistakes on this page and reverting it back fully will also bring back a lot of a lot of errors I rectified.

- Cau7ion (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Admixture section

A week ago ArtifexMayhem removed a section about racial admixture claiming one of the sources was not relevant and the other was unreliable. I take it the latter was referring to the personal opinions of the correspondent, but that is not pertinent given he wrote this as a journalist for UPI at the time and the information being included in this article was about a scientific study someone else did. The other that was claimed to be irrelevant mentions American Caucasians, which I presume is why it was deemed irrelevant, but it seems clear the study is using Caucasian as a general term for white. I think evidence that many or most white Americans have a statistically significant amount of non-white genetic heritage is worthy of note in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but this and other pages are constantly visited by very suspicious people. I guess we cannot help it. Put them back. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The changing face of America.

I wonder if it is not important for such an article to include the fact that according to the US Census, Whites are a minority of new borns in the country, which means Whites are increasingly a minority in the US:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/minorities-in-america-census_n_3432369.html

Pipo

No, it doesn't; it means that the degree to which they are the majority is decreasing. The article suggests they will become a minority in 2043. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Caucasian American used instead of White in a study

The terms “White American” or “European American” were deemed problematic for Latinos who might categorize themselves as White or as having a European heritage. In contrast, people of Latin descent rarely use the term “Caucasian American” to define themselves. In sum, after considering several alternatives and consulting a variety of sources, we reached the conclusion that a contrast between “Latino American” and “Caucasian American” would allow us to capture meaningful distinctions that perceivers may make regarding the relative prototypicality of these groups.

from “Adios” to the American Dream? The Interplay Between Ethnic and National Identity Among Latino and Caucasian Americans Thierry Devos, Kelly Gavin, and Francisco J. Quintana. They decided that Caucasian American was more useful than White or Euro when studying Latinos who are self-identifying and may have minor admixture of European ancestors. Caucasian American was deleted as a separate article and redirected here. Alatari (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"European American"

I've been rv-ing this edit by the IP to put "European American" into the article. I'm not a Yank, but as far as I can make out, that's basically a term nobody uses (European American says about 2% of white Americans so identify). I invite comments from other editors; am I doing the right thing? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are correct in that all that should be present in this other than a See Also and possibly a statement that European Americans are a subset of White Americans; each has its own article. See the coverage criteria in each article for details. European Americans also has its own category: Category:European Americans, which includes people of European country origins--most of whom are also white, for various historical reasons. Hmains (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • 90% of people who identified as white on the 2010 census knew of their European ancestry. The 2010 census application had it listed as White or European American. I reverted because they correctly added some new languages but then corrected the lead which state or European American because white American is obviously a wider category. Alatari (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • Hello, i added also "European American" because white race called "Indo-European peoples" who immigrated from east Europ (today ukraine, georgia and russia) to India, East Middle, North Africa and West Europe, i dind't what you mean of "No-one says "European American", basically." that's untrue, can't mention "White American" without "European American" the same thing with any country --شاول (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.96.60.202 (talk)

Note that شاول, whose signature the IP is using, is a blocked sock of User:محبةالكتب. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ancestries of White Americans?

The current page says "The ten largest ancestries of American Whites are: German Americans (16.5%), Irish Americans (11.9%), English Americans (9.0%), Italian Americans (5.7%), French Americans (4%), Polish Americans (3%), Scottish Americans (1.9%), Dutch Americans (1.6%), Norwegian Americans (1.5%), and Swedish Americans (1.4%).[8]" which could be true, but the source isn't working for me. It goes to one page, then goes to another and not the direct link for the ancestries. Can someone put up a working source or give me a direct link on this page for these ancestries for White Americans? Thanks. Harponax (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mexican American should be included among the largest ancestries of American Whites. In fact, there should be no difference in the main page about "Hipanic" and "Non-Hispanic" Whites. That is ridiculous.--83.63.225.149 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Um what are you trying to say here? Mexicans are largely NOT WHITE so no it should not be included. The Mexicans coming into America are largely mestizos. Amerindian + Spanish combos. They're mixed. If they're white then you'd have include Mulattoes on the page too which would be ridiculous.

The term white in the US is screwed to hell anyway. You have people like the Lebanese who are considered white by the government yet on genetic maps the Lebanese couldn't be anymore distant to the whole of Europe (even the southern Europeans) genetic map below.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img834/7859/c0zu.png

This is why to me White has become a useless term. A pan ethnic term that really has no clear definition. Since it includes people who have nothing genetically to do with each other, other then being human.

Raquel Welch

Raquel Welch is definitely not a good example of a White Hispanic. You can obviously see that she has indigenous traits in her factions. I've been looking for a photo of her Bolivian father, but considering how racially mixed most Bolivians are, and how strong the indigenous component is in that country, I highly doubt her father was of pure Spanish descent. I'm from Uruguay, probably the whitest country in Latin America (Argentina used to be quite white too), and nobody here would consider her to be pure white. A good example of a White Hispanic living in the US would be Alexis Bledel, Frankie Muniz, Martin Sheen (real surname Estevez), Guillermo del Toro, Cristina Saralegui or Pitbull. Those people obviously have no indigenous or african ancestry --186.52.54.184 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"obviously". Always a suspect word to me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And looking at people is a terrible way to determine ancestry; one of the hideous ironies of the racist regime in South Africa was the people who looked white but were legally black, or vice versa. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You cannot tell if she has indigenous ancestry by looks. What type of ridiculous claim is that? I can name you many Europeans that people thought were native based on looks but have no native ancestry, such as Grey Owl and Iron Eyes Cody. I can never take somebody's claim, that they can tell a peson's ethncity based on looks, seriously. Saying "how racially mixed most Bolivians are, and how strong the indigenous component is in that country" does not mean her father is indigenous. Being born in a country does not mean you have the same ancestry as the rest of the country. If she did have indigenous ancestry, so what? Many white/European Americans have native and African ancestry, but they are still considered white. Raquel Welch looks more white than Danica Patrick. If you cannot have Raquel Welch here, than you cannot have Danica Patrick. It would make no sense otherwise. Plus, by the names you listed, you seem to only think that blond and blued eyed people are white, yet, many southern europeans are anything but blond and blue eyed. Also, I think this whole page should be deleted and replaced by Americans of European descent.Verifiableman (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You CAN definately look at someone and get a clue of their ancestry. Anthropologist do it all the time. There are phenotypical differences within even European countries. There are phenotypes more common in some nations and uncommon or completely foreign to them as well. There is a typical Anglo look, there is a typical North italian/South Italian look. There is a typical Swedish look etc etc and these people fair or dark usually never look like each other. A fair North Italian will never look like a fair Brit. A dark Italian will never look like a dark Brit. Likewise you can look at the majority of American entertainers and guess they look typical British then look at their ancestries and reveal they're infact majority British ancestries. Someone like Paul Walker or Chris Hemsworth look completely British isles descended. Common fair types of the British isles, fair types in a country like Sweden look quite different than the fair Brits.

However that guy above is wrong with his indigeneous comments. It seems a lot of people make the mistake of guessing someone to have non-white ancestry because they don't fit the stereotypical Anglo Saxon american look. Ever been to Scandinavia? many of them have borealized eyes. Does that make them asians? no. There's an obvious difference between Asian borealized eyes and European. Europeans don't have the fold. Having a wide jaw doesn't make someone Asian either because Cromagnons were all over Europe.

Missing Millions

I have added a paragraph explaining the serious under-count of English-Americans and British-Americans due to the fact 27 million disappeared in the statistics recently along with four cites explaining how nearly 50% of the group has self-reported as 'American' since the introduction of the category in the 2000 census. Twobells (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Population numbers

Are we sure about the 245 million and 197 million figure for whites and non-Hispanic whites, respectively? This would imply that there are now 48 million white Hispanic people, when the 2010 census found there to be 26 million white Hispanics. 108.254.160.23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Any notice

Critical race theory definition Main articles: Critical race theory and Whiteness studies

Are all jew's? 162.210.109.162 (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Get that "critical race" garbage off of a wiki about white people

It's trash and doesn't even belong in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:9080:1C8:4955:6411:D436:6D5 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Would it be too bothersome for you to write a coherent sentence so that we can understand what improvements to the article you are attempting to suggest here?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Its garbage because white people are not "over-represented", we're the majority therefore we're the majority in all institutions.

Pictures

Should there be pictures in the infobox? For all other ethnic groups in the United States, there are. See: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Muslims, Jewish Americans, Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Native Americans in the United States.
-Neddy1234 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A centralised discussion about the appropriateness of such infobox montages is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#The necessity of galleries of personalities in the infoboxes. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And Spain?

On the map that Spain should be green not yellow. Looking Spanish Americans. --Derekitou (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. This has been set up to determine the appropriateness of sections such as the "admixture" section in this article. I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the RfC would have direct implications for this specific article, as it is about a racial rather than ethnic group. The RfC is still relevant though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on White Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304131211/http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html to http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/raceqandas.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026224407/http://www.pbs.org:80/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/201004/20100419_welch.html to http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/201004/20100419_welch.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704223443/http://www.ag.iastate.edu:80/centers/rdev/newsletter/june97/rural-poverty.html to http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/rdev/newsletter/june97/rural-poverty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104105554/http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_000.htm to http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_000.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/SciTech/racial_identity_031228.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate use of Fisher's book Albion's Seed

The summary of Fisher's book inaccurately claims that Fisher argues that British cultural aspects have become "frozen in time" in the United States. Fisher makes no such claim and even rejects the idea of "frozen in time." For example, on the topic of languages in new colonies, he writes: “None of these colonial languages have been static or frozen. All of them diverged from the homeland by complex processes of change in their new environments. But the continuities were also very strong” (57). On the topic of clothing fashions in Massachusetts, Fisher writes: “Fashions of dress were never static in this society” and yet “elements of continuity remained very strong” (145). In other words, there is continuity but there is also always change. Jk180 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Neanderthal and serves of Europe

Perhaps a mention of their Neanderthal gene and the fact that most of them were serves of Europe and descended from the potato farming immigrants would be useful to the general reader.2.27.120.93 (talk)

What are you saying? Neanderthal were potato farmers? --Moxy (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the IP may be trying to tell us that, after first farming potatoes, they began to serve them once (after millennia) they'd learnt that you could actually eat them. Gosh, d'ya think there's some form of confusion over being a 'serf' and serving potatoes? Yes, being WP:POINTy would be extremely edifying for the reader. What a load of soap-suds. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on White Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303204116/http://www.yale.edu/yjhple/issues/vi-spr01/docs/lee.pdf to http://www.yale.edu/yjhple/issues/vi-spr01/docs/lee.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100227020050/http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_h.html to http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_h.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/201004/20100419_welch.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114183703/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf to https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505134324/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-tm_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_M00627&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-_dBy=040 to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-tm_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_M00627&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-_dBy=040
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/rdev/newsletter/june97/rural-poverty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230031612/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38568440/admixture/shriver01.pdf to http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38568440/admixture/shriver01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable White Americans

In my opinion, the subsection is obsolete and should either be deleted or considerably expanded. It is neither aesthetically pleasing to have such a section whose one point is royalty nor is it accurate. White Americans undoubtedly included hundreds of arguably more notable people than Grace Kelly. Julien de VilleRouge (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Delete "Notable People"

This seems like a weird section for an article about a country's majority group, particularly one with around 200,000,000 people. It's especially strange if we're only going to include white Americans with ties to European royalty. I would suggest deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bford23 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Concur. Americans do not have royalty. If this section is to remain, it must focus on only the very most noteworthy individuals from among a history beginning during the European colonial period, such as colonial leaders born in America, heads of state who shaped world history or demonstrate a White American archetype, Nobel Prize winners, et cetera. Some effort to exclude notable persons whose ethnicity is not explicitly "White American" would lend credibility to the list, e.g.: President Barack Obama is the scion of White Americans despite his African heritage but Arnold Schwarzenegger, a 20th-century immigrant fro Europe, is not.Voodooengineer (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox map

I have reverted the readdition of the map to the infobox, because it appears to be the product of original research. Anyone wishing to restore it should discuss the matter here first. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it might not be OR. We don't really know because we don't have a source. I would however be very interested to know how the US Census Bureau determined in 2007 whether immigrants from South Sudan self-identified as white, given that South Sudan didn't become a country until 2011. GMG^talk 13:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"I mean," Is there another discussion about this going on somewhere? cygnis insignis 13:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, just an edit war that stretched back over the past several days. GMG^talk 13:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

More than a few days. I'm comfortable viewing it as satire, but that would require an inordinate amount of citations and context as an appropriate inclusion at wikipedia. cygnis insignis 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: From the colours in the map, it looks like the intended figure is zero (although not explicitly labelled as such). Does that answer the question? Samsara 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, the map appears to imply that the figure is >0 but <1. It doesn't actually say that, but includes a non-labeled white color that presumably indicates zero. But my comment was a bit rhetorical. What I intended to imply is that even without evaluating a source, we can say for certain that the map is wrong in at least one way: that it features a country that didn't exist when the map was created. GMG^talk 14:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Original version - the larger map and lime green for Sudan were introduced by Spesh531 six years later, and after the original author had left. Samsara 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's not totally clear what the percentages even mean. Is that 5% of Americans from this country that self-identify as white, or 5% of Americans who self-identify as white saying they are from this country? GMG^talk 14:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing of the caption in the article suggests the latter. This is supported by the fact that the figures might plausibly add up to 100%, which if you think about it, I'm sure you'll realise they wouldn't if it was the former meaning. You could also ask yourself what proportion of Swiss self-identify as white, and whether there were enough non-whites in Switzerland in relevant historic times to bring the (white) self-identification figure of Swiss immigrants to the US down to less than 1%. HTH, Samsara 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a source for what ethnicities are racially categorized as White for the United States Census:
"American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey: 2017 Subject Definitions" (PDF). Code Lists, Definitions, and Accuracy. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017.
--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Americans

The claim that Jews are an inherently "non-European ethnic group" is a highly controversial claim that echos Nazi ideology. I strongly suggest that that sentence/paragraph be re-worded. Jews of European descent are not inherently "non-European". Non-European Jews are non-European, certainly. But European Jews and Euro-descent Jews are European/Euro-descent.

On a side note, not all Hispanics/Latinos are classified as European. White Euro-descent Hispanics and white Euro-descent Latinos are classified as white. Also, many Hispanics are quite literally European since they are from Spain.Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradict itself

Per US census and Nations definition exclude Sudan and Cape Verde from Sub Sahara. As I understand a reliable sources is more important than a personal or subjective point of view, Therefore for the Sake of Consistency this map [1] shall be modified to reflect the sources which state

*Sub-Saharan African entries are classified as Black or African American with the exception

of Sudanese and Cape Verdean because of their complex, historical heritage. North African entries are classified as White, as OMB defines White as a person having origins

in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

--86.99.184.193 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Sudanese and Nubians are technically white under the census. A Nubian guy who looks and identifies as black was classified as white by the Census Bureau (Mustafa Hefny). GergisBaki (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of North Africans/Middle Easterners

It's news to me as a Middle Eastern American, with dark brown skin and an accent, that I'm white. Seriously, though: We cannot endorse the view of the US Bureau as to who is white uncritically. That view should be presented as one of many sources (which the Census Bureau under Obama disagreed with, incidentally).

In other words: We should present in the lede that the inclusion of non-Europeans as "white" is controversial, not present it as objective fact, based on a single source (the Census Bureau) that is at odds with itself on this matter. GergisBaki (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

We go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. It's one thing to go with the most common definition for the lead sentence. It's another to engage in WP:Editorializing and remove material because you don't like it, which is why Hmains reverted you and I partially reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, again, where do any of the sources for the sentence in question support "In colloquial American English and in the US Census Bureau, the term 'Caucasian' is synonymous with 'white', despite the wider application of 'Caucasoid' in anthropology."? More specifically, I'm asking where do the sources support your additions of "In colloquial American English and in the US Census Bureau" and "'Caucasoid' in anthropology"? We need to stick to the sources and watch out for words such as "despite" per WP:Editorializing. Also, there is no need to state "in the US Census Bureau" when preceding text already states, "The United States Census Bureau defines white people as those 'having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki, continue to engage in WP:Editorializing and "I don't like it" behavior, and I will take you to WP:ANI. I've seen enough of your contributions and warnings on your talk page to know that I am not going to waste time debating you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, like I stated here, I very much doubt that you read any of the sources that are more more difficult to access. You are simply going by your personal opinion. We don't remove things like "non-European" simply because we don't like it. Furthermore, various WP:Reliable sources are clear that the term Caucasian is synonymous with "white." More to be stated about your behavior on your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Critical race theory definition section

ScrapIronIV, you removed the "Critical race theory definition" section of the article, citing WP:BRD and the need for consensus, but this section has been in the article in some form or other at least as far back as October 2007 (with the section heading existing since October 2010). Surely removing it is therefore the bold edit that requires consensus, not its addition eight years ago? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; I saw its addition this morning, but did not note its removal by the same editor - must have been tired eyes. That sort of thing happens - but I was distracted by its content. One can only imagine how this would be received if its subject were a different culture. I notice there was even a removal of wording of "self identification" a few days ago. While this is clearly a notable sociological theory, its current form certainly lends to undue weight being given within the article. What are the reasons to include such a large section on it? Scr★pIron^IV 18:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "if its subject were a different culture". The whole point of the theory is that white people are the dominant racial and cultural group in the US, so it wouldn't apply to other groups. However, there are plenty of sociologists who argue that blackness is a social construct in the same way that whiteness is described as such here. I agree that it's not good to base a whole section on a single author's work, but there are other sources such as The History of White People that could be used here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that including CRT here is problematic. But perhaps at least identifying it as a Marxist idea designed to demonize a group of people and void of factual information might be sufficient. EyePhoenix (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your POV speaks for itself, but suffice to say that such a claim would require some very strong sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, but the first paragraph about James Baldwin claiming whites invented the white race solely for domination and to commit genocide sounds like a conspiracy theory and it lacks a source, so it needs to be removed. Plus, Irish, Italians, Slavs, and other "whites" were widely considered and classified as non-white in the US at one point or another, contradicting this claim. Different skin coloring, hair texture, facial features, etc. played a part in separating people into "races". People separated dogs, cats, monkeys, fish, etc. into different breeds and sub-species for the same reason--differences. I keep removing that bit about James Baldwin, primarily because it lacks a source and is very speculative, but people keep reverting it without reason. Please use talk, people, that's what it's for.2602:306:32A2:C7A0:CDC8:31DC:2468:CE61 (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please keep the unsourced and conspiratorial James Baldwin paragraph removed? The person keeping it intact seems to be a POV-pusher based on all their edits.2602:306:32A2:C7A0:9C5B:B19A:F952:2A0D (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) It is exteremly troublesome that someone has found it necessary to include Critical Race Theory in this article. There is no basis for its inclusion whatsoever other than PPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.36.18 (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This entire article is problematic and wreaks of agenda driven bias. There is no place for this on Wikipedia, but unfortunately certain individuals have played the folly and understand how to effectively provide non relevant information. Further, individuals are strictly following this page to immediately undue any changes without clarifcation or engaging on the talk page. The fact that people refuse to see this as troublesome, or that individuals background is extremly disturbing. This is a complete abuse of power to push a personal crusade. 173.166.36.18 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Plus, Irish, Italians, Slavs, and other "whites" were widely considered and classified as non-white in the US at one point or another, contradicting this claim."

This is pseudo-historical nonsense and if it's in the article I'm removing it (haven't read the whole thing yet). At no point in US history were any of these groups classified as "not white". All of these groups were granted voting and naturalization rights immediately on arrival, at periods of US history when these rights were really privileges bestowed only to "white" males (men from Europe).Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Minority Religions

Islam should be added under minority religions here for sure. There are a number of White American Muslims (converts, Albanians, Bosnians, Turks, Arabs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitts.nordera (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory

I would like IP 50.212.14.35 to explain why (s)he is persistently removing the section about critical race theory. As it stands, the section is its own summary of a larger article, which is permitted by WP:SS. Articles are summaries of all major areas of their topics. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's just a continuation of the disruptive editing from a few months ago. The page was unprotected 3 days ago and they started up again. I've re-protected the page for 3 months. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There is literally an ENTIRE section on this already. It has absolutely no place in this article and is 100% agenda pushing. The fact that it has been protected by people who also clearly have an agenda is even more problematic. Critical race theory has it's own wiki page, if you would like to link to there, i have no problem. It does not even in the slightest belong here. 50.212.14.35 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Further, people like EvergreenFir should clearly be banned from having any type of control over such pages where their outright bias is so clearly on display. 50.212.14.35 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Article content is determined by consensus, based on what reliable sources say about a topic, not by any one editor. If you want the material to be removed, you need to make the case for that here and gain consensus for the change. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus given ever. It was added, and disputed as you can see above. Yet it has continuously been protected. This is not difficult to see. 50.212.14.35 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators: (EvergreenFir) "They do not act as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved." Go figure. Abuse of powers as always. This is beyond pathetic. This entire site has gone down the drain based on social and political agendas.

Consensus isn't given; it's reached through discussion. If you can set out reasons why the material shouldn't be included, then we can consider them together and come to a decision. At present, there's no case for removal because you haven't explain what's wrong with the material. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL. There are multiple reasons already given but you all refuse to address them. 2601:187:4002:4160:B8D1:8B48:75AF:98CA (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

The so-called "critical theory" definition is heavily contested and politically one-sided. It is misleading and essentially propaganda to put this definition mixed with the legal and common view of the term. Especially without notes of controversy (as critical theory itself has been academically disproved) 73.95.137.41 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory needs to be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:187:4000:C790:6CD2:94B3:81BF:8681 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to update the article to reflect the fact that South Asians were also classified as "White" by the US Census, until 1977, when Indian-Americans petitioned to have this changed to "Asian" in order to receive minority benefits stemming from low-interest SBA Loans.

South Asians were officially classified by the US Census Bureau as "White" people in a 1970 decision, until the Indian-American community in the United States sought to overturn this decision through their own petitioning, in order to avail minority benefits. The Bureau agreed to their demands, and starting in 1977, South Asians started to be classified as "Asian" -- otherwise they would have continued to be considered White. Please update the article to include the fact that South Asians were considered "White" in the introduction, alongside North Africans and Middle Easterners. The Sources and additional information about this fact are provided further below.

We also need to update the other paragraph that talks about court decisions with respect to citizenship/race concerning Arabs and their racial classification. Just like Arabs, South Asians were classified as "White" or "Not White" in different court decisions, and as such, they were in the same position legally/racially. A.K Mozumdar, for instance, was classified as a "White Person" and was granted citizenship after the district judge agreed that he was in fact Caucasian, in 1913:

"In 1913 Mozumdar became a U.S. citizen after having convinced the Spokane district judge that he was in fact Caucasian and thereby met the requirements of naturalization law then restricting citizenship to "free white persons." Source: https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19130524.2.124.46&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1

"In contrast, a Parsi by the name of Rustom Dadabhoy Wadia, was ruled as "colored" and therefore not eligible to receive U.S. citizenship." Source: Postmodernism & a Sociology...(c). University of Arkansas Press. pp. 143–. ISBN 978-1-61075-322-7.

There are many other cases where South Asians were classified as "White" as well. There are also certain cases where they were classified as "Colored". Therefore, we need to add a sentence, in addition to the one that already exists for Arabs, that says something along the lines of "South Asians and Arabs were classified as either "White" or "Non-White" in different decisions."

Furthermore, we need to add additional background information on the Thind Case that has not been previously mentioned in the article: While giving out its initial decision on Thind's citizenship status, the court accepted/conceded that Thind (and Indians) were Caucasians, and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as "White" Americans. The court also accepted that Thind was a high caste Hindu born in the northern Punjab region and classified by scientific authorities as of the Aryan race. Furthermore, Thind was eventually granted American citizenship: In 1935, Thind relied on his status as a veteran of the United States military during World War I to petition for naturalization through the State of New York under the Nye-Lea Act, which made World War I veterans eligible for naturalization regardless of race. Thind was finally granted American citizenship. Source: Coulson, Doug (2015). "British Imperialism, the Indian Independence Movement, and the Racial Eligibility Provisions of the Naturalization Act: United States v. Thind Revisited". Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives (7): 1–42. SSRN 2610266. Second Source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

Finally, we need to add a vital piece of information that caps the immigration/citizenship/race saga with respect to South Asian Americans and their status in American society in that era: In 1946, Congress, beginning to recognize that India would soon be independent, passed a new law that allowed Indians to become citizens, while also establishing an immigration quota. Source: Not All Caucasians Are White: The Supreme Court Rejects Citizenship for Asian Indians". History Matters. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

The aforementioned law passed by Congress, in addition to the immigration quota and citizenship laws that were established, are important segues into the Official classification of Indians as "White" by the U.S Government/Census Bureau, on which more information is provided below. Please add this piece of information regarding the 1946 law/immigration quota/citizenship amendment to the section on South Asians as well. Then add a short blurb on how South Asians were classified as "White" racially until they changed this official classification through their own petitioning to avail minority benefits, including low-interest SBA loans being provided under the Reagan administration Sources: Smelser, N.J, Wilson, W.J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Page 255. https://web.archive.org/web/20190720105922/http://people.umass.edu/cnle/soc361/docs/ab1-8.pdf and Harpalani, Vinay, DesiCrit: Theorizing the Racial Ambiguity of South Asian Americans (August 12, 2013). 69 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 77 (2013); Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper No. 2013-30. pp. 123, 124 & 136. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2308892

Here is some more background information on the 1970 decision to classify South Asians as "White" officially, along with more sources following it:

---

The U.S. Census Bureau has changed over the years its own classification of Indians. In 1975, the Ad Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic Definitions of the Federal Interagency Committee on Education made a report. The report describes how, as it was deliberating on how to classify groups for the 1970 US Census, South Asians presented a problem for the Ad Hoc Committee. The report presented the classification problem as being whether to classify South Asians as White Americans, because they are Caucasians, though sometimes with darker skin than other Caucasians, or to classify South Asians as Asian, a minority category, because they came from Asia, and could be subject to some discrimination in the United States. The report said that the Ad Hoc Committee decided to classify South Asians as White people, and South Asians were classified as White Americans for the 1970 US Census.

Upon learning of the Ad Hoc Committee's decision, the Association of Indians in America (AIA) mobilized. During the 1970s, Indian Americans debated if they should give up trying to be "considered 'Caucasian/White'" to try to "seek or accept minority status". Indian American groups, through their own petitioning, successfully changed their racial classification to Asian in the 1970s to have themselves included in state and federal Asian racial categories to benefit from affirmative action. Specifically, starting in the mid-1970s, the AIA made the argument that since Indian Americans were minorities and thus entitled to the benefits of affirmative action, Indian Americans should have "minority" group status. Without their request to be designated as minorities, Indian Americans would have continued to be designated as White Americans by the U.S government.

In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget accepted the AIA's petition to change the race of Indian Americans from "White/Caucasian" to "Asian Indian." Specifically, Indian Americans had their official race changed to Asian in 1977 "through Statistical Directive 15 of the Office of Management and Budget", causing Indian Americans to be listed as Asian in the 1980 US Census. Due to the efforts of the AIA leaders, a new census category, "Asian Indian," was introduced for the 1980 US Census. In 1977, there were so few Indian Americans that the racial change of Indian Americans from White Americans to Asian American attracted little attention. Without the action of these Indian American groups, the government would have continued to classify Indian Americans as being white. Since 1980, owing to the diverse nature of South Asians, Indians and other South Asians have been classified according to self-reporting, and have the liberty to identify with the racial and ethnic group that they belong to,with an increasing number identifying as "White", driven by increasing immigration from the North-West of the Indian subcontinent.

Sources: Smelser, N.J, Wilson, W.J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Page 255. https://web.archive.org/web/20190720105922/http://people.umass.edu/cnle/soc361/docs/ab1-8.pdf

Harpalani, Vinay, DesiCrit: Theorizing the Racial Ambiguity of South Asian Americans (August 12, 2013). 69 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 77 (2013); Chicago-Kent College of Law Research Paper No. 2013-30. pp. 123, 124 & 136. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2308892

---

Sources: Kurien, P. (2018). Shifting U.S. Racial and Ethnic Identities of Sikh American Activism. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(5). Page 88.

Morning, Ann. "The racial self-identification of South Asians in the United States" (PDF). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (Vol. 27): 1–19. Retrieved 9 January 2019.

Smelser, N.J, Wilson, W.J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Page 255. Wayback Machine link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:101:20C0:2963:EE71:22EC:FE7 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory

Why was Critical race theory tabled and archived when no conclusion to the discussion or consensus was made? MrWendalyeah (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the following lines:

"However, the English and British Americans' demography is considered a serious under-count as the stock tend to self-report and identify as simply "Americans" (7%), due to the length of time they have inhabited the United States, particularly if their family arrived prior to the American Revolution.[14]"

The references used to support this assertion do not explicitly say this. Waters and Lieberson state, "As the distance from the immigrant generation widens for the vast majority of the white population, we expect increasing distortion in the true origins of the population."

Similarly in Pulera's "Sharing the American Dream", the author speculates that increasing numbers of "English, German, and Irish" Americans are losing their 'ethnic' origins and increasingly choosing to identify as "American" with no qualifier.

I mean, to single out "British Americans" in these references is not only cherry-picking the source, but is rather close to original research.

And, with the exception of Pulera (which doesn't support the statement in this article), these references are dated. We've had several censuses and ancestry surveys since the 80s, so what have contemporary demographers said about this ancestry group?Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

WASP

Removed the reference on "WASPs" being a "dominant culture" in the US. Wikipedia has a page on WASPs and the sources agree that this term is an anachronism and has been for several decades. The statement also flies in the face of several decades of research on the assimilation of white Catholics.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Albion's Seed

The section on Albion's Seed should also be removed in its entirety, but I'll wait for other editors before doing so. I should probably take this issue over to reliable sources since this isn't the only page which cites this book.

Albion's Seed is problematic as a source for several reasons:

One, it is a dated source by scholarly standards and receives very little attention in modern scholarship.

Two, it was not well-received by Fischer's contemporaries (true, the book was a pseudo-anthropological bestseller, but academics, unlike the general public, did not review it favorably).

Three, the whole book is reductionist. The belief that cultures are transmitted across continents and then handed down intact for generations or centuries (the "frozen in time" view of cultural inheritance) is not taken seriously by social historians and cultural anthropologists.

So, it is my opinion that this book is "fringe" as defined by Wikipedia, and for several reasons.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 December 2020

change "it's core" to "its core" LilHelpa (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization

I noticed that the word "white" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not capitalized in this article. Is there a reason for this inconsistent usage? Mysteryman blue 07:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)