Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 11 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• 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)

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.