This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 09:41, 1 November 2019 (→Inclusion of North Africans/Middle Easterners: No time for POV-pushers. Nope.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:41, 1 November 2019 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (→Inclusion of North Africans/Middle Easterners: No time for POV-pushers. Nope.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White Americans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 |
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links : |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White Americans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
 | It is requested that a map or maps, showing where the ancestry of White Americans come from, similar to that used for Asian Americans, be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Misplaced Pages contradict itself
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 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)
- Yeah Sudanese and Nubians are technically white under the census. A Nubian guy who looks and identifies as black was classified as white by the Census Bureau (Mustafa Hefny). GergisBaki (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Critical race theory definition section
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? Scr★pIron 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 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)
- 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'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) It is exteremly troublesome that someone has found it necessary to include Critical Race Theory in this article. There is no basis for its inclusion whatsoever other than PPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.36.18 (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This entire article is problematic and wreaks of agenda driven bias. There is no place for this on Misplaced Pages, but unfortunately certain individuals have played the folly and understand how to effectively provide non relevant information. Further, individuals are strictly following this page to immediately undue any changes without clarifcation or engaging on the talk page. The fact that people refuse to see this as troublesome, or that individuals background is extremly disturbing. This is a complete abuse of power to push a personal crusade. 173.166.36.18 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Jewish Americans
The claim that Jews are an inherently "non-European ethnic group" is a highly controversial claim that echos Nazi ideology. I strongly suggest that that sentence/paragraph be re-worded. Jews of European descent are not inherently "non-European". Non-European Jews are non-European, certainly. But European Jews and Euro-descent Jews are European/Euro-descent.
On a side note, not all Hispanics/Latinos are classified as European. White Euro-descent Hispanics and white Euro-descent Latinos are classified as white. Also, many Hispanics are quite literally European since they are from Spain.Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Inclusion of North Africans/Middle Easterners
It's news to me as a Middle Eastern American, with dark brown skin and an accent, that I'm white. Seriously, though: We cannot endorse the view of the US Bureau as to who is white uncritically. That view should be presented as one of many sources (which the Census Bureau under Obama disagreed with, incidentally).
In other words: We should present in the lede that the inclusion of non-Europeans as "white" is controversial, not present it as objective fact, based on a single source (the Census Bureau) that is at odds with itself on this matter. GergisBaki (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- We go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. It's one thing to go with the most common definition for the lead sentence. It's another to engage in WP:Editorializing and remove material because you don't like it, which is why Hmains reverted you and I partially reverted you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding this, again, where do any of the sources for the sentence in question support "In colloquial American English and in the US Census Bureau, the term 'Caucasian' is synonymous with 'white', despite the wider application of 'Caucasoid' in anthropology."? More specifically, I'm asking where do the sources support your additions of "In colloquial American English and in the US Census Bureau" and "'Caucasoid' in anthropology"? We need to stick to the sources and watch out for words such as "despite" per WP:Editorializing. Also, there is no need to state "in the US Census Bureau" when preceding text already states, "The United States Census Bureau defines white people as those 'having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.'" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- GergisBaki, continue to engage in WP:Editorializing and "I don't like it" behavior, and I will take you to WP:ANI. I've seen enough of your contributions and warnings on your talk page to know that I am not going to waste time debating you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding this and this, like I stated here, I very much doubt that you read any of the sources that are more more difficult to access. You are simply going by your personal opinion. We don't remove things like "non-European" simply because we don't like it. Furthermore, various WP:Reliable sources are clear that the term Caucasian is synonymous with "white." More to be stated about your behavior on your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- Mid-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- Misplaced Pages requested maps