Talk:White Americans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:White American)
Jump to: navigation, search


Non-Hispanic White school children a minority in USA.[edit]

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/08/21/for-first-time-minority-students-expected-to-be-majority-in-u-s-public-schools-this-fall/

Wikipedia contradict itself[edit]

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)

Critical race theory definition section[edit]

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? ScrpIronIV 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)

Pictures[edit]

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?[edit]

Map of White Americans.png

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Inaccurate use of Fisher's book Albion's Seed[edit]

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)