Talk:White Americans

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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middle-class area, and I dislike this assumption that all of us everywhere in the country has to be aware of these outdated racial structures (my view is give help to all disadvantaged people I meet, treat everyone equal, respect all cultures, bring people together, *and never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).

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. --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--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.--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 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 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. --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 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--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. --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--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. --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--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 image galleries are fine when used appropriately - here's your guideline. --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--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. --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 {{commons}} link on this page. Problem solved, no content lost. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's 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. --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.--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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.154.118 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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)--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: [1]. 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. SamEV (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh but the plot thickens: You're a Spaniard ([2])!

My my my. I guess your pathology is worse than I estimated. SamEV (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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. 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!--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... 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.--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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.230.139 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.137.103 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.43.48 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.233.203 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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.--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. 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. 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 [[3]] 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 [[4]] and with Greta Garbo she became a U.S citizen in 1951 as stated here [[5]]also though i do want to point out it does say citizen or legal aliens in the lead paragraph--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. 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" [6], 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.--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Chaves was a Republican, so you know he was American. And Mather was born in the New World, so he's cool. Sort of. 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!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They all seem to qualify. A job well done. 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. JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your point here, Johnny? 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. 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--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.--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. 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--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. 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--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! notability doesn't mean fame. Good luck. 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. 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--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.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 11 March 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--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. 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 Ms. Fox and find out who she is. 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! 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. 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--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. --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?? --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.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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--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.--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. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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> 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?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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?!--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.--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--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.168.59 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you have any sources to back up your assertions that the US government definition is wrong?--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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.168.63 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You still have failed to provide a source; your own personal opinions do not count as a reliable souce at Wikipedia.--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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.148.24 (talk) 08:27, 5 June 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Enlighten me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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. 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 --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.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--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.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)