Template:Did you know nominations/Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States[edit]

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self nominated at 07:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC).

I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination--Template:Did you know nominations/Shelby Corcoran. Futurist110 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg Too short — just 1,361 characters of prose. Please expand it a little more, and when you've done that, please leave a note at my talk page so I'll remember to come back. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded it by now, so it should now be long enough for DYK? status. Futurist110 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Symbol question.svg 2015 characters now; definitely long enough. New enough, hook is in article, and no better source exists than the US Census Bureau for American demographic data. However, the citation style is virtually impossible to follow; putting more than one citation after a statement makes it look like original research (e.g. "source #1 says this, and source #2 says that, so we're coming up with our own synthesis"), and also it simply makes it substantially harder to find what comes from where — true when you have two citations, but much more when you have five. Could you reduce the citation complexity please, preferably by putting each citation after the piece of text that is derived from it? Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I have now fixed the source citation complexity to the best of my ability. In regards to original research, all of my data came from the U.S. Census Bureau. Also, a little off-topic, but what do you think about the topic of this article? Futurist110 (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Last question first — our articles tend to be really specialised, and general articles like this are surprisingly few. This is a great article topic that should have been covered long ago; thank you for noticing its absence! Re WP:OR, I was referring to WP:SYNTH, which discusses putting together properly sourced data in an original fashion; it's harder to detect and easier to fall into when multiple sources are cited together, and as far as I can tell, it's completely absent now. I wasn't saying that you were doing it earlier, but that it was extremely hard to tell if you were or not. I'm concerned about two things, but all of them are rather minor and should easily be fixable by someone familiar with the sources. (1) I've looked over citation #7 several times, but I've never found anything on that page discussing the rising population of blacks in cities outside the old Confederacy. Did you link the wrong page, or am I overlooking something? It would be a lot easier if the source had page numbers or other divisions, but that's their fault; you've done the best possible. (2) About.com and the History Channel really aren't good sources; could you find replacements? I'll not hold it up on #2 grounds, but we ought to fix something with #1 (either the article or my understanding thereof) before this goes to the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Can I please get several additional days to respond to you and to fix whatever problems are still present? I am sort of busier right now (I need to finish up some assignments for my classes), so yeah. Futurist110 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We give several days to people who show no signs of caring. Someone who's obviously working to resolve issues will get more time even without requesting it, so I can't imagine someone saying no to your request. Just ask that you let me know when you reply here, either with a talk page message or by linking my username, so the Notifications thing is triggered. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I have now fixed what you told me to fix in this article. I have also found and added historical statistics for the 1610-1780 time period. It is truly amazing that the U.S. Census Bureau was able to compile racial statistics for the U.S. over the last 400 years. Futurist110 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Partial review here:
  • Upon a little bit of further review, I am finding it difficult to credit some of the newest information. The cited source does not support the article's statement that "many future U.S. states (during this time they were British colonies) conducted censuses of their own where they enumerated their populations by race." Rather, it appears to me that some British colonial officials carried out censuses and that some colonial populations have been estimated from militia lists and tax lists. Moreover, it's pretty obvious that the U.S. population in the colonial period would have included a large number of Native Americans, but none are identified in the tables. (Indeed, the source lists 2 "Indians" in Virginia in the 1620s and it gives data on "Indian" populations from 18th-century censuses in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.) The enumerations provided in the tables for that period should be described as the colonial populations of the British colonies, not the populations of the United States. Additionally, I'm bothered by the use of 2010 census classifications of race and ethnicity for the entire period 1610 to 2010; the article should reflect the different terminology and definitions used in earlier times. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Please give me several days and I'll address all of your concerns. Futurist110 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Glad to see the changes you made subsequent to the various edits I did today. You pointed out on my talk page that the terminology like "Black" does appear on U.S. Census compilations of long-ago data (thanks for pointing that out!), but I still have concerns about not "playing fast and loose" with old information (putting a modern filter on historical information that may have had a different meaning). I'm glad that the Colonial table has been trimmed of extraneous rows, but I still find it rather bizarre to see tables that suggest (for example) that there were no Native Americans in the U.S. until 1860. The Census Bureau's tables don't leave these items blank; they have entries that identify some items as "Not available" and others as "Not applicable". IMO, the Wikipedia article should have article text (not just footnotes) to indicate when the enumeration of various groups began, and the tables should have entries that clearly indicate why certain data are missing.
Please try to choose wording appropriate for an encyclopedia. Avoid self-referential comments like "The racial population estimates ... listed in this article". Avoid informal conversational language like "come up with" and "back then". --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have made some more changes to this article by now. Futurist110 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This is going to be my last comment here -- someone else will need to pick up the review from here on in. I've devoted far more HOURS to this review than I ever intended, and I've made a number of edits to the article, so I'm no longer eligible to approve a DYK.
This is an important -- and difficult -- topic to document. You've found and compiled some good information here. As I noted earlier, the article is long enough for DYK. The prose content is still rather slim in comparison with the magnitude and complexity of the topic, but I'll let someone else judge whether the article is sufficiently complete for DYK. You've added details for the bare-URL references (and I've added more information about the sources), so that's no longer a problem. I have had a general concern about the extent to which the article relies on primary sources (namely Census Bureau data tables). The basis for the hook fact is a primary source, but no original research is needed to interpret the source. To the extent that I could, I've tried to replace primary-source reference citations with citations that point to secondary-source statements (specifically, Census Bureau reports and press releases) that explain the data. One lingering concern I have is with the use of context-free data tables to support statements about the regional presence of specific groups in the south and west. I'm not quibbling with the truth of the statements you made, but rather with the sourcing. Unless you can cite reliable sources in which these generalizations are made in the form of standard sentences, I don't think those statements belong in the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I added additional sources which talk about how most Asian Americans and most African Americans historically lived in the western and southern United States, respectively. I hope that this article is good enough for a DYK? nomination right now. If you're unable to approve this DYK? nomination, do you know someone who is able to approve this DYK? nomination? I don't know too many people on Wikipedia, so this is why I'm asking you about this. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks for addressing those two citation concerns. As for review of this nom, you don't need a personal relationship with another user in order to get them to review a DYK nom. All noms are on T:TDYK where they are visible to all prospective reviewers. I've added the icon marking this one as ready for re-review. --Orlady (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all of your help with this. Also, do you have any suggestions on which hook for this article would be the best (do you know of a hook better than the current one)? Futurist110 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Length, date, and hook all ok, but there is no link to WP:QPQ provided. Proposer has sufficient DYK credits to need to do this. SpinningSpark 18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I stated near the top of this DYK? review page that I already reviewed this DYK? nomination -- Template:Did you know nominations/Shelby Corcoran. This DYK? nomination is meant to be my Quid Pro Quo for getting my own DYK? nomination here (this one) reviewed by someone else. Futurist110 (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be on the safe side, I also reviewed this DYK? nomination -- Template:Did you know nominations/Authoring Instructional Materials -- right now. Futurist110 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Uh sorry, don't know how I missed that. Good to go. SpinningSpark 04:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)