| Revision as of 06:39, 22 September 2006 editÉponyme (talk | contribs)294 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:47, 5 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Delete'''. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{ns:0|S}} | |||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|Category}} | |||
| This article contains only a small bit of information already covered in the article, ]. It only states that 7.2% of Americans chose to self-identified themselves as being ethnic Americans on the Census. Not only are these responses to the 2000 Census already covered in Demographics article but it is also impossible to further expand this stub. All that is known about these 7.2% of respondents is that they marked "American" as their ethnicity when presented with the Census form in April of 2000. Any further stipluation would be of speculatory nature unfit for WP. <b>< |
This article contains only a small bit of information already covered in the article, ]. It only states that 7.2% of Americans chose to self-identified themselves as being ethnic Americans on the Census. Not only are these responses to the 2000 Census already covered in Demographics article but it is also impossible to further expand this stub. All that is known about these 7.2% of respondents is that they marked "American" as their ethnicity when presented with the Census form in April of 2000. Any further stipluation would be of speculatory nature unfit for WP. <b>]]</b> 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' as ]. I would emphasize that this article is '''not''' about "Americans" generally, but rather only about a group of people who self-identified as being of "American" ancestry in the 2000 census. The information in this article is already mentioned, approrpriately, in ], ], and ]. · < |
*'''Delete''' as ]. I would emphasize that this article is '''not''' about "Americans" generally, but rather only about a group of people who self-identified as being of "American" ancestry in the 2000 census. The information in this article is already mentioned, approrpriately, in ], ], and ]. · ]'' ]'' · 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Right, it is very important to ''"emphasize that this article is '''not''' about 'Americans' generally."'' <b>< |
::Right, it is very important to ''"emphasize that this article is '''not''' about 'Americans' generally."'' <b>]]</b> 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. |
*'''Delete'''. We don't even know that 7.2% identify themselves as "ethnic Americans", all we know is that 7.2% choose "American" as their ''"ancestry or ethnic origin"''. Not much to go on at all, and certainly doesn't justify an article. Also conflicts with the ethnic group of Americans (regardless of ancestry or origin) that might or might not be worth writing a ''different'' article about in the future. ] 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Perhaps a scholar will someday study these responders and other like-minded individuals (and maybe one already has), but this wouldn't be the appropriate article title. -] 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Perhaps a scholar will someday study these responders and other like-minded individuals (and maybe one already has), but this wouldn't be the appropriate article title. -] 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' At a guess this refers to those Americans like myself who are of mixed Eurpoean blood so don't identify with any particular ancestry, but that's just a guess. Beyond that, the rest is OR and speculation. ] 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' At a guess this refers to those Americans like myself who are of mixed Eurpoean blood so don't identify with any particular ancestry, but that's just a guess. Beyond that, the rest is OR and speculation. ] 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. The creator and principal defender of this article has been blocked for some pretty vitrolic personal attacks, so I will summarise his arguments: (1) Some people choose to write 'American' as ethnic group in the United States Census (2) there are articles on WP about hyphenated Americans (3) The people who write American are clearly descendants of the original colonists, and deserve their own article (4) Those who disagree fall into three mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories a.Liberals with White Guilt b.Hyphenated Americans who dont understand what it is to be American and c.Communist Europeans. (This is not an exaggeration.) The article as its stands is therefore pretty OR and quite unbelievable (the districts with majority "American" respondents are mainly in the rural South, and there are no citations explaining why this is so, for example, and how it squares with the assertion that ethnic Americans came over before 1776). Its unsalvageable, and should go. ] 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. The creator and principal defender of this article has been blocked for some pretty vitrolic personal attacks, so I will summarise his arguments: (1) Some people choose to write 'American' as ethnic group in the United States Census (2) there are articles on WP about hyphenated Americans (3) The people who write American are clearly descendants of the original colonists, and deserve their own article (4) Those who disagree fall into three mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories a.Liberals with White Guilt b.Hyphenated Americans who dont understand what it is to be American and c.Communist Europeans. (This is not an exaggeration.) The article as its stands is therefore pretty OR and quite unbelievable (the districts with majority "American" respondents are mainly in the rural South, and there are no citations explaining why this is so, for example, and how it squares with the assertion that ethnic Americans came over before 1776). Its unsalvageable, and should go. ] 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::One should also note that many of the 7.2% who marked "American" as their ethnicity on the Census are also "hyphenated Americans" as many are likely to be European-Americans (the descendants of European settlers) as well. Fact is we don't know who these 7.2% are; thus we can't say anything about them. You're right the arguments supporting this article are OR and nullify each other. <b>< |
::One should also note that many of the 7.2% who marked "American" as their ethnicity on the Census are also "hyphenated Americans" as many are likely to be European-Americans (the descendants of European settlers) as well. Fact is we don't know who these 7.2% are; thus we can't say anything about them. You're right the arguments supporting this article are OR and nullify each other. <b>]]</b> 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' ] 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' ] 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I guess that there are no ethnic groups and no races, because we all came from somewhere else and intermixed with others. This becomes moot, even though there are articles for other ethnic groups and hyphenated (immigrant) Americans. How you fail to see the difference between original people and subsequent additives, is beyond me. The barbarians who came to Rome may have assimilated to Roman culture and took Roman wives, but were not the Roman people themselves who founded Rome. Do you not understand such a comparison? The mere fact that the Trojans (or Greeks) were originally squatters on Etruscan (ooh, Indians--anybody?) land does not nullify the concept of a Roman people, as they were established in existence. There is no regard for traditional thinking in Misplaced Pages--you lot are actively hostile to the recognition of the New World's version of the Roman experience with all the parallels before you and admitted in common discourse. I guess I may have to phone up my Appalachian-based American grandma of mostly Virginia descent to inform her that she doesn't exist. ''Our'' ideals are "gone with the wind", which you are apparently blowing to knock our house down. It is you who have no perspective on the American experience. My coworkers agree with my every argument and supplement with their own personal experiences of abuse at ignorant godchilds like yourselves. Their heritage likewise dates to the colonists who fought in the Revolution to define their future and give you the place to bash them for it, as you are doing now by dismissing their existence. Know then, what stereotypical portrayals of Americans come from and why. George Bush's cowboy image is only one of the original American getups that we have--another is the planter and another is the mountain-man. I and all patriotic Americans would object to you categorizing George Washington as a British or English American. He was the Father of my country and all the ethnic colonial intermixture is encompassed within the American identity, but the Dutch and Germans strangely have chosen to identify with their previous roots as if Romans thought of themselves not as Romans but still as Trojans (what Trojan Empire?!). Ask any pro-American history buff, or military re-enactors of past wars and any soldier who bears the American flag. Don't tread on me. You are bringing the conflict onto one who never thought it possible that there could be this convergence of ignorance in one place and one time, with regards to American history! There are no smokescreens here but the ones you lot are drafting to eradicate something that exists beyond paper. Get lives, people! ] 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I guess that there are no ethnic groups and no races, because we all came from somewhere else and intermixed with others. This becomes moot, even though there are articles for other ethnic groups and hyphenated (immigrant) Americans. How you fail to see the difference between original people and subsequent additives, is beyond me. The barbarians who came to Rome may have assimilated to Roman culture and took Roman wives, but were not the Roman people themselves who founded Rome. Do you not understand such a comparison? The mere fact that the Trojans (or Greeks) were originally squatters on Etruscan (ooh, Indians--anybody?) land does not nullify the concept of a Roman people, as they were established in existence. There is no regard for traditional thinking in Misplaced Pages--you lot are actively hostile to the recognition of the New World's version of the Roman experience with all the parallels before you and admitted in common discourse. I guess I may have to phone up my Appalachian-based American grandma of mostly Virginia descent to inform her that she doesn't exist. ''Our'' ideals are "gone with the wind", which you are apparently blowing to knock our house down. It is you who have no perspective on the American experience. My coworkers agree with my every argument and supplement with their own personal experiences of abuse at ignorant godchilds like yourselves. Their heritage likewise dates to the colonists who fought in the Revolution to define their future and give you the place to bash them for it, as you are doing now by dismissing their existence. Know then, what stereotypical portrayals of Americans come from and why. George Bush's cowboy image is only one of the original American getups that we have--another is the planter and another is the mountain-man. I and all patriotic Americans would object to you categorizing George Washington as a British or English American. He was the Father of my country and all the ethnic colonial intermixture is encompassed within the American identity, but the Dutch and Germans strangely have chosen to identify with their previous roots as if Romans thought of themselves not as Romans but still as Trojans (what Trojan Empire?!). Ask any pro-American history buff, or military re-enactors of past wars and any soldier who bears the American flag. Don't tread on me. You are bringing the conflict onto one who never thought it possible that there could be this convergence of ignorance in one place and one time, with regards to American history! There are no smokescreens here but the ones you lot are drafting to eradicate something that exists beyond paper. Get lives, people! ] 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' as ]. I would be happy to restore the article if reliable outside sources could be found; however, until then, I have to vote for deletion, as it appears to be original research. During the RfC, several editors including myself asked for sources to be cited with no results. The primary author might consider posting this information on a personal website, but it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. --] <sup>] · |
* '''Delete''' as ]. I would be happy to restore the article if reliable outside sources could be found; however, until then, I have to vote for deletion, as it appears to be original research. During the RfC, several editors including myself asked for sources to be cited with no results. The primary author might consider posting this information on a personal website, but it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. --] <sup>] · ]</sup> 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Neutral''' (closing admin, please do not count this vote) The comparison to Rome has some validity. The United States census bureau does list this as an ethnic identity, although it provides no definition for what it would mean and its staticstic represents self-selection. I suspect this deletion nomination has a good deal to do with one disruptive editor's attempt to own the article and conduct original research. As a stub it would remain verifiable through census data and expand as more censuses occur. ''']''' 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Semi-related discussion=== | |||
| **Your historical revisionism will not change how Americans view themselves for any better. Brendel confessed in a recent edit of his that "pluralism" is the solution and I take that to mean he is philosophically opposed to the facts. I have enough of German revisionism and denial. His attempts to relativistically apply such treatment to the actuality and not mere concept of an ethnic American people, are futile save here. Franks founded France and Americans founded America. Franks were previously known as Sicambri; before that even as Cimmerians. They undoubtedly did blend with immigrants to their tribalistic society and polities, but that does not cancel out their own singularistic existence. That does not disqualify their Frankish legacy to France. You cannot silence the truth by shooting Misplaced Pages in the foot. '''E pluribus unum''' is what defined the Americans in their nascent stage, not what defined them through subsequent immigration and continuing to the present. Your defials of traditional history are Original Research and unverified by all but the most "up to date" social scientific twists and reinterpretations of what it means to be any type of people. You would deserve no respect for the lack of it you give, save for the fact that Jesus taught me the amendment to "An eye for an eye" as being do unto others as you would have them do unto you and turn the other cheek. Give me a scholastic genocide and maybe I might turn the other cheek, or maybe not. ] 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::E pluribus unum is exactely why your point is mute. As for these 7.2%, we don't know who they actually are. All we know is they state "American" as their ethnic group. But to take an educated guess they are what you call "immigrants themselves" as most of them are not Native Americans and most-likely (guessing from their national distribution) thereby European-Americans. George Washington was an Englishman, so were all the other forefathers, the USA was founded by Europeans-who then became European-Americans (Of course they were Americans, after 1777, but obviously they were European-Americans-they weren't Navajo or Cherokee now were they.). That's pretty much common knowledge these days, may I suggest reading a newly published American History textbook. Ana Quindlen once states in Newsweek: "All of us are immigrants, some of us just got here sooner."-there is no exception unless you're a Native American, or as you insisted on calling them: "Indians." The US is a country of immigrants, every child knows that, from sea to shiny sea. Besdies according to the article you originally wrote, people like: President Eisenhower, Kennedy, Hoover, FDR, Regan, Carter would not have been Americans-of course according to you 92.8% of Americans arn't part of the "American people." Besdies, the article is totally OR. See the arguments made by Hornplease above on why this article needs to go. ...and please do not use WP as your blog. Wait, why I am talking to you? Regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 05:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Give me a break with the ] (]) and ] (the other side of ]) nonsense of revisionist pipedreams. The British colonies were a melting pot, but the American states are multiculturalism. The former provided the ethnogenesis and the latter provided the atmosphere in which you are a German American immigrant as opposed to the few German colonists who perhaps identitified with the rest of the former colonial subjects and also declared themselves American. (The Census Bureau map is very revealing.) You will NOT redefine America and Americans with an outsider, Hippie perspective of what American means. Washington and his co-conspirators explicitly condemned being referred to as English/British and which is why this country was founded. Hippies who say they are atheist also think they know more than Christians do about Christ and say what Christ would do. Your position is relativistic lunacy and we Americans are not the European Union--do not treat us this way as you are attempting to do. You also sicken me with such disrespect for my nation and my family, my ancestors and what they fought or died for. Incidentally, I did not say who could become American. The closest comparison is Irish (our White House is based on an Irish state building in Dublin and Maryland was affiliated with an Irish lord of English origins), whereas we have had four Presidents of Irish immigrant roots (Arthur, Wilson, Kennedy and Reagan) and no other immigrant background. As a side note, my English contacts inform me that Americans remind them of the Irish in speech and mannerisms (most indentured servants in the colonies were evicted from Ireland--the story of country and western music culture's beginnings--I did say cowboy culture was truly American as this was where Jackson/Polk/Johnson/Buchanan/etc's families were from before settling the Carolinas and frontier, before the indenture system was replaced by Black slaves). For whatever reason the Dutch and German colonists in America apparently did not assume the new identity is beyond me, apart from cultural (Continental) differences--but I concede that they were/are technically American and only plausibly not, by the standards explained before. I'm not trying to exclude them--they did so themselves, like the Amish. Furthermore, you are going to have to convince us all that the Sephardic Jews in Rhode Island, New York and South Carolina called themselves American or assimilated at all. ] 08:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Americans: | |||
| <img src="http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates/statemap?visited=ALARCOFLGAIDILINKSKYLAMSMONMNCOHOKORSCTNTXVAWV"><br/> | |||
| <a href="http://www.world66.com/myworld66">create your own personalized map of the USA</a> | |||
| or check out our<a href="http://www.world66.com/northamerica/unitedstates/california">California travel guide</a> | |||
| See here: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/culture/ancestry.gif | |||
| Baptists: | |||
| <img src="http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates/statemap?visited=ALAKARCOFLGAILINKSKYLAMSMONENVNMNCOHOKORSCTNTXVAWV"><br/> | |||
| <a href="http://www.world66.com/myworld66">create your own personalized map of the USA</a> | |||
| or check out our<a href="http://www.world66.com/northamerica/unitedstates/california">California travel guide</a> | |||
| See here: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif | |||
| Check those two out, based on what states are Americans and Baptists found a majority on county-wide levels in almost totally, completely, identical states. It is not original research to note something that most Americans and hyphenated Americans already know, especially if it helps bring about cultural awareness and tolerance--not that American Baptists need that sort of thing, you know? They're just a bunch of Neo-Con Fundies who make American look bad for everybody else? ] 08:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It is also not Original Research to say it how it is, to recognize the forest for the trees. The states which have American a majority in one county or more are ominously in regions which recieved much less immigration. Now, look at it the other way. The other, unshaded states in regions shown on the MyWorld66 maps are areas which experienced heavy immigrations. These immigrations were themselves EUROPEAN. So, it goes to show you that your argument is invalid. Europeans live in ethnic islands throughout America and refuse to assimilate. On contrast, the states responding with American majorities in one county or more also have many African American responses accompanying them. This means that these are the original Americans, White and Black: | |||
| <img src="http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates/statemap?visited=ALARCADCDEFLGAILINKSKYLAMDMIMSMONCOHOKSCTNTXVA"><br/> | |||
| <a href="http://www.world66.com/myworld66">create your own personalized map of the USA</a> | |||
| or check out our<a href="http://www.world66.com/northamerica/unitedstates/california">California travel guide</a> | |||
| That is the African American, one county or more with majority...Notice the similarity? So then, where is there discrepancy in putting two and two together about the master and slave, the Confederate roots of these labels? ] 09:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Even further, these maps coincide with ] (see ]) for both Black and White Americans of Baptist religion, while the unshaded portions of MyWorld66 correspond with the Gore/Kerry votes and the Union. I am merely corroborating things already accepted at the Misplaced Pages with more evidence to support those assertions. Ethnic Americans and African Americans (White and Black) voted for Bush both times and their religious proclivities are under siege by pluralist Kerry lovers like Brendel who want to deconstruct ethnicity and heritage to make it relativistically encompassing everybody--one surefire way to help build a one world government under the United Nations. I would like to say that again, your POV is interefering with your hold on reality. Your agenda is to "abolish" the old, isolationist and "backwards" America to open it up for your kind of people. Therefore, you oppose my defense of something that can still be defended and has not been lost just yet. But go ahead and try. ] 09:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The main fact is that despite the ignorance of a few antisocial wallflowers making judgements here about stuff they don't know, there are a few thousand times more people at least who know where I am coming from--your little "poll" notwithstanding. Perhaps they see Misplaced Pages's stodgy feigners like you lot are not worth their time--they are right. I have been warned time and time again to quit worrying what jokes like you on a joke website like this should say and have a say on in transmitting preferred spins through the infowars. You tell me to not use the Wiki as a blog, but look at you Brendel with your agenda to get the word out about the things you are interested in. Hypocrisy is boundless with you. I will leave you to your blog where you think you've won the real battle, fighting over internet territory like junkyard dogs. http://members.dodo.net.au/~grindercom/argument.jpg ] 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You are using the rules to support your politics, by inferring something about the data that simply is false. You are leveling untrue accusations to smear the whole American demographic. Whereas only a minority of Americans report that they are singularly descended from American colonists (the Upper South and minority in Pacific Northwest), the rest would indicate a varying degree of relatedness between the colonists and immigrants--per the identity of a hyphenated American. ] 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :American People is a term applied to nationals of the US. The ] are no more American than ] ] or ] ] ]. Besdies, we donnot know that these 7.2% of Americans are descendants of the early colonial settlers. The Census is based on self-identification. '''All we know is that 7.2% of US Census respondents stated "American" as their ethnicity. Why they did so, we don't know. All we can say is that they stated "American" as their ethnic group. (Perhaps they jut don't know there roots) Stating that these 7.2% are exclusively constituted by the ] is completely speculatory OR. None of your "sources" talks about these 7.2% being exclusively the descendants of the first European settlers to this continent.''' Regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have held double standards for America vis a vis other countries in terms of nationality. ] was not more Roman than ], the same thing with ] or ]! You make false assertations and have never apologized for belittling my heritage, but repeatedly put "no attacks" warnings on my talk page and had me blocked for standing up for my heritage which you bash and cheapen constantly. You are an ignorant hypocrite who refuses to aknowledge the traditions and customs of my people as they have been! You let the media's fluff version of relativistic Americana determine your views. Call this comments on you, rather than content, but the issue is that I have supplied numerous presentations of why I am right and you have only bashed my heritage as some cheap interchangeable thing, comparing essentially my country to a whorehouse. You are a foreigner dictating my customs to me! If you don't like the Bush administration doing that in Iraq or whatever, back off with regards to me and my habitation. You hold no "regards" to anybody except yourself and your positions! ] 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nobody's attacking your heritage; though you have been attacking the heritage or "hyphenated American" such as Presiden Eisenhower, Al Gonzales, and 93% of Americans quite a bit. Your article is being deleting in accordence to WP policies. We have explained them to you over and over again. <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]</sup></font></b> 04:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes you are, so very naively...And I have tried time and time again, to explain to you people that Italian-American ] is not American like ] and ]. Pizza was imported with immigrants from Italy; cornbread and fried chicken was a staple diet of colonists who created this country. Corn bread and fried chicken was already here, looong before pizza was heard of on this side of the Atlantic: | |||
| http://www.twin-music.com/lyrics_file/alanjackson/when/where.html | |||
| Alan Jackson | |||
| Where I Come From | |||
| Written by - Alan Jackson | |||
| From - When Somebody Loves You | |||
| Well I was rollin' wheels and shiftin' gears | |||
| 'Round that Jersey turnpike | |||
| When Barney stopped me with his gun | |||
| Ten minutes after midnight | |||
| Said sir you broke the limit in this rusty ol' truck | |||
| I don't know about that accent son | |||
| Just where did you come from | |||
| I said where I come from | |||
| It's cornbread and chicken | |||
| Where I come from a lotta front porch sittin' | |||
| Where I come from tryin' to make a livin' | |||
| And workin' hard to get to heaven | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| Well I was south of Detroit City | |||
| Pulled in this country kitchen | |||
| To try their brand of barbecue | |||
| The sign said finger-lickin' | |||
| Well I paid the tab and the lady asked me | |||
| How'd I like my biscuit | |||
| I'll be honest with you ma'am | |||
| It ain't like mama fixed it | |||
| 'Cause where I come from | |||
| It's cornbread and chicken | |||
| Where I come from a lotta front porch pickin' | |||
| Where I come from tryin' to make a livin' | |||
| And workin' hard to get to heaven | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| I was chasin' sun on 101 | |||
| Somewhere around Ventura | |||
| I lost a universal joint and I had to use my finger | |||
| This tall lady stopped and asked | |||
| If I had plans for dinner | |||
| Said no thanks ma'am, back home | |||
| We like the girls to sing soprano | |||
| 'Cause where I come from | |||
| It's cornbread and chicken | |||
| Where I come from a lotta front porch sittin' | |||
| Where I come from tryin' to make a livin' | |||
| And workin' hard to get to heaven | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| :All we can mention in this stub is that 7.2% of 2000 US Census Respondents stated American as their ethnicity. As anybody could have done so, inferring that these 7.2% are the ] is speculatory OR. This stub could never be expanded beyond the length of one-sentence. And even this one sentence's content is already mentioned in other articles pertaining to the demographic make-up of the US. Best Regards, <b>]]</b> 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well I was headed home on 65 | |||
| Somewhere around Kentucky | |||
| The CB rang for a bobtail rig | |||
| That's rollin' on like thunder | |||
| Well I answered him and he asked me | |||
| Aren't you from out in Tulsa | |||
| No, but you might have seen me there | |||
| I just dropped a load of salsa | |||
| ::Actually editors could expand it to state that this is a self-identified group and a newly created census category. Interested editors might seek news reports about the new category. The stub could also expand to discuss why the category has been created. The next census will take place in four years, at which time this stub would add the new information. I agree that the previous work on the article was atrocious OR, but it doesn't follow that no productive expansion could ever occur. ''']''' 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Where I come from it's cornbread and chicken | |||
| Where I come from a lotta front porch pickin' | |||
| Where I come from tryin' to make a livin' | |||
| And workin' hard to get to heaven | |||
| Where I come | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| Yeah, cornbread and chicken | |||
| Where I come from a lotta back porch pickin' | |||
| Where I come from tryin' to make a livin' | |||
| And workin' hard to get to heaven | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| :::Well but at this point the info we have in regards to this group is already mentioned in other articles. In case another editor ever hits the "Motherload" of info on this group, if there even is such a thing, then he or she could request another article. Also consider what this article should be called, to this day the only really appropriate title would be, "]." Anyways, if you want to stay netural I do understand your point. Its just that this article is OR, and if that's removed it will merely be redundand sentece. Best Regards, <b>]]</b> 03:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| Yeah, where I come from | |||
| A lotta front porch sitting | |||
| Starin' up at heaven | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| Where I come from | |||
| Tryin' to make a livin' | |||
| *'''Note''': A "Semi-Related discussion" has been moved to this AfD's talk page. --] - '']'' - ] 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, where I come from | |||
| *'''Delete''': NOR, as cited by multiple people. --] 07:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - 20 million people define themselves as "American", this is a notable fact and an ethnic group of 20 million people - even if self defined - is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The original research should be deleted ''within'' the article and is not sufficient for an AfD. ] 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Incorrect. 20 million (or something like that) people specified "American" "ancestry or ethnic origin". That's quite a different kettle of tea from postulating an American ethnic group. The entirety of verifiable content in the article are the two maps and "7.2% of the population self-identified as being of American ancestry or ethnic origin". That's it. No further WP-worthy information about the subject. ] 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed with RandomP. I think this bit of info from the Census bureau is very enlightening. "What does the Census Bureau mean by the term ancestry? Ancestry refers to a person’s ethnic origin or descent, "roots," or heritage, or the place of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors '''before their arrival in the United States'''" (bolding mine). Also, is the actual question from the 2000 census. My point is that it's still OR, no matter how you slice it, to say that there is somehow an American ethnic group based on the census. Even the census' definition of the term precludes the existence of an American ethnic group. This conversation might seem a bit silly a century from now, but for now, it's original research to claim that there is such an ethnic group. · ]'' ]'' · 14:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Besdies often people mark American as their ethnic group becuase they may not know their actual ancestry, becuase it doesn't fit into the box, becuase their of multiple ancestries and they just chose to simplify things by stating American or becuase of any othe reason you can think of. It is quite similar to an "decline to state" or "I don't know answer." Bottom line is that we only have one sentence of info about this people which is too little to justify an article especially as we have an article on demographics in the United States. Regards, <b>]]</b> 16:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' The current version has been stubbed down to the verifiable content - the census results and the map thereof. Based on the history, the article may need policing to ensure rigorous use of reliable sources. But there is a legitimate, sourced phenomenon here. What, if anything, it means would be speculation on my part, as I haven't done any research. (Given my involvement in my family's genealogy, I'm not surprised that a significant fraction are not identifying any particular source of immigration from outside the U.S. - we can't say where my wife's ancestry comes from, and what we know of mine includes most European countries west of Russia that don't border the Med, plus some Native American tribes.) JASpencer didn't make it clear above, but the OR was eliminated within the article even before it was nominated for deletion. I got the opposite impression reading the discussion, which makes me wonder if the discussers were looking at the version nominated for deletion or just remembering the material purged from the article prior to nomination. ] 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no source listed for Americans as an '''ethnic group''', as opposed to a (self-identifying) "ancestry or ethnic origin". There's a significant difference between the two, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there. ] 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactely, we would need to move this stub to "]." Also, the fact that 7.2% of Americans reported "American" as their ancestry is already mention in other demographic articles. Berry is right, many poeple have such complex ancestries that they simply state American, or as RandomP said its an "I don't know" kind-of answer. But the current version will be a redudand permanent sentence, so why keep? <b>]]</b> 05:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 07:47, 5 February 2023
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Woohookitty 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
American (ethnic group)
This article contains only a small bit of information already covered in the article, Demographics of the United States. It only states that 7.2% of Americans chose to self-identified themselves as being ethnic Americans on the Census. Not only are these responses to the 2000 Census already covered in Demographics article but it is also impossible to further expand this stub. All that is known about these 7.2% of respondents is that they marked "American" as their ethnicity when presented with the Census form in April of 2000. Any further stipluation would be of speculatory nature unfit for WP. Signature 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. I would emphasize that this article is not about "Americans" generally, but rather only about a group of people who self-identified as being of "American" ancestry in the 2000 census. The information in this article is already mentioned, approrpriately, in use of the word American, demographics of the United States, and maps of American ancestries. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Right, it is very important to "emphasize that this article is not about 'Americans' generally." Signature 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't even know that 7.2% identify themselves as "ethnic Americans", all we know is that 7.2% choose "American" as their "ancestry or ethnic origin". Not much to go on at all, and certainly doesn't justify an article. Also conflicts with the ethnic group of Americans (regardless of ancestry or origin) that might or might not be worth writing a different article about in the future. RandomP 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps a scholar will someday study these responders and other like-minded individuals (and maybe one already has), but this wouldn't be the appropriate article title. -Acjelen 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete At a guess this refers to those Americans like myself who are of mixed Eurpoean blood so don't identify with any particular ancestry, but that's just a guess. Beyond that, the rest is OR and speculation. Fan-1967 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The creator and principal defender of this article has been blocked for some pretty vitrolic personal attacks, so I will summarise his arguments: (1) Some people choose to write 'American' as ethnic group in the United States Census (2) there are articles on WP about hyphenated Americans (3) The people who write American are clearly descendants of the original colonists, and deserve their own article (4) Those who disagree fall into three mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories a.Liberals with White Guilt b.Hyphenated Americans who dont understand what it is to be American and c.Communist Europeans. (This is not an exaggeration.) The article as its stands is therefore pretty OR and quite unbelievable (the districts with majority "American" respondents are mainly in the rural South, and there are no citations explaining why this is so, for example, and how it squares with the assertion that ethnic Americans came over before 1776). Its unsalvageable, and should go. Hornplease 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- One should also note that many of the 7.2% who marked "American" as their ethnicity on the Census are also "hyphenated Americans" as many are likely to be European-Americans (the descendants of European settlers) as well. Fact is we don't know who these 7.2% are; thus we can't say anything about them. You're right the arguments supporting this article are OR and nullify each other. Signature 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete YechielMan 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I guess that there are no ethnic groups and no races, because we all came from somewhere else and intermixed with others. This becomes moot, even though there are articles for other ethnic groups and hyphenated (immigrant) Americans. How you fail to see the difference between original people and subsequent additives, is beyond me. The barbarians who came to Rome may have assimilated to Roman culture and took Roman wives, but were not the Roman people themselves who founded Rome. Do you not understand such a comparison? The mere fact that the Trojans (or Greeks) were originally squatters on Etruscan (ooh, Indians--anybody?) land does not nullify the concept of a Roman people, as they were established in existence. There is no regard for traditional thinking in Misplaced Pages--you lot are actively hostile to the recognition of the New World's version of the Roman experience with all the parallels before you and admitted in common discourse. I guess I may have to phone up my Appalachian-based American grandma of mostly Virginia descent to inform her that she doesn't exist. Our ideals are "gone with the wind", which you are apparently blowing to knock our house down. It is you who have no perspective on the American experience. My coworkers agree with my every argument and supplement with their own personal experiences of abuse at ignorant godchilds like yourselves. Their heritage likewise dates to the colonists who fought in the Revolution to define their future and give you the place to bash them for it, as you are doing now by dismissing their existence. Know then, what stereotypical portrayals of Americans come from and why. George Bush's cowboy image is only one of the original American getups that we have--another is the planter and another is the mountain-man. I and all patriotic Americans would object to you categorizing George Washington as a British or English American. He was the Father of my country and all the ethnic colonial intermixture is encompassed within the American identity, but the Dutch and Germans strangely have chosen to identify with their previous roots as if Romans thought of themselves not as Romans but still as Trojans (what Trojan Empire?!). Ask any pro-American history buff, or military re-enactors of past wars and any soldier who bears the American flag. Don't tread on me. You are bringing the conflict onto one who never thought it possible that there could be this convergence of ignorance in one place and one time, with regards to American history! There are no smokescreens here but the ones you lot are drafting to eradicate something that exists beyond paper. Get lives, people! Éponyme 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:OR. I would be happy to restore the article if reliable outside sources could be found; however, until then, I have to vote for deletion, as it appears to be original research. During the RfC, several editors including myself asked for sources to be cited with no results. The primary author might consider posting this information on a personal website, but it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. --Ginkgo100 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral (closing admin, please do not count this vote) The comparison to Rome has some validity. The United States census bureau does list this as an ethnic identity, although it provides no definition for what it would mean and its staticstic represents self-selection. I suspect this deletion nomination has a good deal to do with one disruptive editor's attempt to own the article and conduct original research. As a stub it would remain verifiable through census data and expand as more censuses occur. Durova 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- All we can mention in this stub is that 7.2% of 2000 US Census Respondents stated American as their ethnicity. As anybody could have done so, inferring that these 7.2% are the Daughters of the Revolution is speculatory OR. This stub could never be expanded beyond the length of one-sentence. And even this one sentence's content is already mentioned in other articles pertaining to the demographic make-up of the US. Best Regards, Signature 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually editors could expand it to state that this is a self-identified group and a newly created census category. Interested editors might seek news reports about the new category. The stub could also expand to discuss why the category has been created. The next census will take place in four years, at which time this stub would add the new information. I agree that the previous work on the article was atrocious OR, but it doesn't follow that no productive expansion could ever occur. Durova 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well but at this point the info we have in regards to this group is already mentioned in other articles. In case another editor ever hits the "Motherload" of info on this group, if there even is such a thing, then he or she could request another article. Also consider what this article should be called, to this day the only really appropriate title would be, "Persons who reported "American" as (part of) their ethnic hertiage on the 2000 US Census." Anyways, if you want to stay netural I do understand your point. Its just that this article is OR, and if that's removed it will merely be redundand sentece. Best Regards, Signature 03:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note: A "Semi-Related discussion" has been moved to this AfD's talk page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: NOR, as cited by multiple people. --moof 07:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - 20 million people define themselves as "American", this is a notable fact and an ethnic group of 20 million people - even if self defined - is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The original research should be deleted within the article and is not sufficient for an AfD. JASpencer 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Incorrect. 20 million (or something like that) people specified "American" "ancestry or ethnic origin". That's quite a different kettle of tea from postulating an American ethnic group. The entirety of verifiable content in the article are the two maps and "7.2% of the population self-identified as being of American ancestry or ethnic origin". That's it. No further WP-worthy information about the subject. RandomP 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with RandomP. I think this bit of info from the Census bureau is very enlightening. "What does the Census Bureau mean by the term ancestry? Ancestry refers to a person’s ethnic origin or descent, "roots," or heritage, or the place of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States" (bolding mine). Also, here is the actual question from the 2000 census. My point is that it's still OR, no matter how you slice it, to say that there is somehow an American ethnic group based on the census. Even the census' definition of the term precludes the existence of an American ethnic group. This conversation might seem a bit silly a century from now, but for now, it's original research to claim that there is such an ethnic group. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Besdies often people mark American as their ethnic group becuase they may not know their actual ancestry, becuase it doesn't fit into the box, becuase their of multiple ancestries and they just chose to simplify things by stating American or becuase of any othe reason you can think of. It is quite similar to an "decline to state" or "I don't know answer." Bottom line is that we only have one sentence of info about this people which is too little to justify an article especially as we have an article on demographics in the United States. Regards, Signature 16:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with RandomP. I think this bit of info from the Census bureau is very enlightening. "What does the Census Bureau mean by the term ancestry? Ancestry refers to a person’s ethnic origin or descent, "roots," or heritage, or the place of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States" (bolding mine). Also, here is the actual question from the 2000 census. My point is that it's still OR, no matter how you slice it, to say that there is somehow an American ethnic group based on the census. Even the census' definition of the term precludes the existence of an American ethnic group. This conversation might seem a bit silly a century from now, but for now, it's original research to claim that there is such an ethnic group. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Incorrect. 20 million (or something like that) people specified "American" "ancestry or ethnic origin". That's quite a different kettle of tea from postulating an American ethnic group. The entirety of verifiable content in the article are the two maps and "7.2% of the population self-identified as being of American ancestry or ethnic origin". That's it. No further WP-worthy information about the subject. RandomP 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The current version has been stubbed down to the verifiable content - the census results and the map thereof. Based on the history, the article may need policing to ensure rigorous use of reliable sources. But there is a legitimate, sourced phenomenon here. What, if anything, it means would be speculation on my part, as I haven't done any research. (Given my involvement in my family's genealogy, I'm not surprised that a significant fraction are not identifying any particular source of immigration from outside the U.S. - we can't say where my wife's ancestry comes from, and what we know of mine includes most European countries west of Russia that don't border the Med, plus some Native American tribes.) JASpencer didn't make it clear above, but the OR was eliminated within the article even before it was nominated for deletion. I got the opposite impression reading the discussion, which makes me wonder if the discussers were looking at the version nominated for deletion or just remembering the material purged from the article prior to nomination. GRBerry 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is no source listed for Americans as an ethnic group, as opposed to a (self-identifying) "ancestry or ethnic origin". There's a significant difference between the two, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there. RandomP 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Exactely, we would need to move this stub to "2000 US Census Respondents who stated "American" to be part of their ancestry." Also, the fact that 7.2% of Americans reported "American" as their ancestry is already mention in other demographic articles. Berry is right, many poeple have such complex ancestries that they simply state American, or as RandomP said its an "I don't know" kind-of answer. But the current version will be a redudand permanent sentence, so why keep? Signature 05:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is no source listed for Americans as an ethnic group, as opposed to a (self-identifying) "ancestry or ethnic origin". There's a significant difference between the two, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there. RandomP 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.