Talk:White Americans/Archive 2

moving this section from White people to this article =

Untitled

Can someone please find an appropriate place to add this content to this article? I am moving it from the [[[White people]] article because it is more related to this article.

Relations with black people

The one drop rule — that a person with any trace of non-white ancestry (however small or invisible) cannot be considered white — is unique to the United States. The one drop rule created a bifurcated system of either black or white regardless of a person's physical appearance. This contrasts with the more flexible social structures present in Latin America, where there are no clear-cut divisions between various ethnicities.

As a result of centuries of having children with white people, the majority of African Americans have white admixture, and many White people also have African ancestry. Some have suggested that the majority of the descendants of African slaves are white. According to recent studies, white Americans rank non-Americans as socially closer to them than fellow Americans who are black. Writer and editor Debra Dickerson questions the legitimacy of the one drop rule, stating that "easily one-third of blacks have white DNA". She argues that in ignoring their white ancestry, African Americans are denying their fully articulated multi-racial identities. The peculiarity of the one drop rule may be illustrated by the case of singer Mariah Carey, who was publicly called "another white girl trying to sing black", but in an interview with Larry King, responded that—despite her physical appearance and the fact that she was raised primarily by her white mother—due to the one drop rule she did not "feel white."

There is strong evidence that suggests that African Americans are considered Anglo-Saxons. The evidence bears upon statistical DNA samples from African Americans that demonstrates the hereditary connection of between 26% - 40% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average. Therefore, racially speaking, African Americans are and should be categorized as Anglo-Saxon mix. Historically, 400 years of racial mixture - particulary in the southern US - qualifies them for this racial classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.40.200 (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The images are a mess. They're nearly all of politicians and entertainers, and the image alignment is quite bad. I'd like to diversify it, removing most of these people in the process. But as I'm not a regular here, I request comments from anyone who objects to my plan. SamEV (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes i agree to much spirit of 76 and dead presidents ,i had added dina powell (1) because there was a lack of women (2) everybody was all european or mainly european descent and she is of North African descent Coptic Egyptian to be exact (3) i dont think she is a politcian and i also agree with the image alignment.--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Gender; that's another factor where it's unbalanced.

Powell works for a corporation now, but before that she worked for government figures and govt departments. Still, she does bring geographic diversity, so she'd be one of maybe two or three politicians I would keep. SamEV (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic diversity is also lacking. Just about all of those pictured have English surnames. Fishal (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are Pacheco, Reagan, Kennedy, Armstrong, Midler English surnames? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Armstrong, yes. Kennedy and Reagan are Irish, so that's something. Midler, German (I think); Pacheco, Spanish. That's why I didn't say all. But the pictures still do not at all reflect the range of ethnicities encompassed within White - no Jews, no Italians, no Slavs of any kind, no Greeks, no Scandinavians. I'm not saying all groups should be up there. But something to show the range within the group. Fishal (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Armstrong is a Scottish surname; Bette Midler is Jewish; Marilyn Monroe likely had a Norwegian father; however there should be, as you say, more ethnic diversity shown, along with more images of women!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How about adding Maria Callas, Elizabeth Kortright Monroe Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, Madonna, and Charles Lindbergh to the box? That gives us Greek, Dutch, French, Italian and German ethnicities.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I replaced Jefferson with a First Lady; I think too many Presidents are represented. I'd say replace Roosevelt with Callas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, I just edited the infobox. I removed most of the politicos and singers, actors, etc (really, one of each should be enough) in order to make room for other people. Would you please take it from there?

If you want, have a look at Category:European Americans and Category:Middle Eastern Americans for help finding more ethnicities and names. And see if you can improve the image alignment more. Please and thank you. SamEV (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I added more images (sports figure-Italian, model-Scots-Irish, state governor-French), but cannot space the names properly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I switched Montana to Ralph Nader, seeing as the latter is Lebanese; Europe is already well-represented.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is looking much better now(not all men and presidents and european descent from the british isles),i had tried to diversify it a while back i had added north african Dina Powell but of course somebody had mysteriously removed her.--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I went to all the trouble of diversifying it; now it looks the way it did before, if not worse! It had been discussed here before.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the last undiscussed edits. Please discuss here before changing images. The one of Nader needs to stay. We don't need four presidents!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spacing.

And please (3x): more occupational diversity. SamEV (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The photos should not be all old men and younger women. Those claiming they diversified it, only showed their bias - neither should they be a collection of left wing activists. This topic seems to have degenerated into some undercurrent of hate for white males. Yes21 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are calling me, Jeanne Boleyn, a self-identified monarchist, a "left-wing activist"?! Besides, are you implying that Franklin, Pacheco, Nader, Armstrong aren't white males?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I added a writer: (Poe who was English-American), a general (German-American), Uma Thurman (Swedish-American), Namath a sports figure (Hungarian American), Kerrigan (Irish-American). I think we have more diversity now as well as an equal sex balance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better, Jeanne. And it has a good range of ages, too. But are you sure you want to keep that many images?

Also, I think that six rows is at least one too many. Wouldn't you prefer to remove two pictures and have a 4 row x 4 column layout, or, by adding 2 more pictures, a 4 x 5 layout? It's up to you; I'm not very sure about it either way.

Whether you add or replace people, here are some other professions I hope you consider: another scientist (Franklin was one; but sort of part-time, is it fair to say?), or a scholar, doctor, or philosopher. I think you should include at least one businessman. Preferably a dead one. I mean, most of the images are of living people, and we should be balanced. (Sorry if that reads like a joke. I don't mean it that way.)

I'll wait until you're done before resizing and aligning them again – but if you or anyone else wants to beat me to it, go ahead.

Keep up the good work! SamEV (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

'll remove Namath and replace him with a dead industrialist. OK? I'll look for an Eastern or central European background. We need to keep Hilton and Van Halen as they are part of the younger generation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't locate any deceased industrialist who is of the right ethnic background. Let's leave it as it is for now until someone comes up with another central European.I hate to remove Joe Namath as he's a notable Hungaran-American. Oh, how about outlaws or notorious people?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Outlaws and notorious (in a bad way, I take it you mean)? Doesn't Evelyn Nesbit fill that role already? SamEV (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Anyway, I put a good guy there-Wyatt Earp! I took out Namath- Nancy Kerrigan is a sports figure. How is it now?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. You're almost there. SamEV (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I've added enough. We've an even mix of the sexes and different ethnicities are represented; we've both dead and living people; young, middle-aged and old; I've included a mixture of occupations as well as people who were representative of various periods of American history: Cotton Mather (Salem Witch Trials), Daniel Boone (Frontier hero), Evelyn Nesbit (Turn of the Century chorus girl), Micaela de Pontalba (Antebellum south, a businesswoman, half Spanish), Wyatt Earp (Wild West hero), Margaret Kemble Gage (Revolutionary War heroine), etc. I chose Jodi Lyn O'Keefe for her interesting ethnic mix (Czech, Polish, Austrian, Swedish and Irish]] You can go ahead and align them now, Sam, if you want to.Thanks--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent.

If you don't mind playing around with the alignment, be my guest. The holy grail is for all the rows to be even with each other. That won't be easy. Some of the pictures that are too wide should best be replaced. Just a suggestion.

And btw, what do you mean 'point taken'? It was a real question! :) SamEV (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Evelyn Nesbit fills the role of notorious. She was quite scandalous in her day. I'm afraid, I don't know how to align the images; believe me I 've tried but to no avail. I'm glad you like the montage. It wasn't easy finding the right images without ethnic/occupation/sex bias. Thanks for your help and advice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep working on it, tomorrow probably. SamEV (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for your help. I enjoy adding images, it's aligning them that's the hard part. Anyway, we've a good ethnic mix. I added Lincoln's photo to the article, otherwise, people will complain about the lack of Presidents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess, hehe.

However, could you replace Nancy Kerrigan's and Van Halen's pictures? It's impossible to get all the rows to be about the same width and height with them in the mix. If there aren't other images of them, you could of course try replacing them with other people, or remove them and another person, leaving 7 even rows.

Enjoy the weekend, Jeanne. SamEV (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, an IP has come along and deleted, sans consensus, more than a week of my hard work. Should I put them back?Yeah, I think I will put some of them back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP is an unregistered newcomer. I shall revert his changes. Later, I'll see what I can do about Kerrigan and Van Halen. I am going out now so don't have the time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing about the IP.

And I'm sorry, but I forgot to mention Uma Thurman's picture, too! SamEV (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, Uma's image, while good was too wide. I have replaced her with Jennie Garth. The montage still needs more alignment, but the Garth image is narrower.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I resized some for now and will resume it when I have more time in the next few days. SamEV (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Well I had an issue with the "Income and educational attainment" section. Here is a quote...

"Some argue that because white Americans have faced the least discrimination of any racial or ethnic group, they have had time to build up wealth, and that this is a major contributor to economic inequities among races today."

"Some argue" are weasel words, and should be avoided. And how have white Americans be faced with the least discrimination of any racial or ethnic group? Shouldn't that be Indian (from India)? America has Affirmative Action, which does discriminate against whites. This should be taken out for NPOV reasons. Ryan1159 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

An absurd argument, which doesn't explain why Asian Americans are, as a group, more economically "successful" than whites. And don't forget Jews.--74.193.164.94 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the weasel words, but I don't understand the rest of what you wrote. Can you name a group that has faced less discrimination in the United States than white people? You don't think Indians have faced ethnic discrimination? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I can. Indians, for one. Sure, they have faced discrimination, but every race has in the past. Native Hawaiians also don't face discrimination. But the only ethnic group in America that is facing discrimination right now IS white people with Affirmative Action! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan1159 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merged with "European-American"

This article should be retitled to "European American" because the "black American". "Black American" got merged with "African American" so the same should be done to "White American". Ryan1159 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the first sentence, "White American ... is an umbrella term officially employed ... for the classification of American citizens or resident aliens 'having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa'." Since the Middle East and North Africa aren't part of Europe, it would be a mistake to merge this article with European American. European Americans are white Americans, but not all white Americans are European Americans. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but not all blacks are African. There are Jamaicans, etc. And they included that in the African-American article, read it. So I still think it needs to be merged.

Ryan1159 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No merge. Ryan, you should consider the possibility that merging "Black American" and "African American" was wrong to begin with, not something to emulate here. SamEV (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I agree. I should post something in the African-American discussion about that.

Ryan1159 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No it should not, because while white americans are european for the most part, not all are..but all black americans are in one way or another, originally africanHattar393 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Ralph Nader, Dina Powell, John Sununu are all white Americans yet have their origins outside of Europe, hence their photos in the montage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Are white Americans really a majority?

I know that according to statistics they are, but I have crossed the country from East to West by car and one of my greatest surprises was that most people that I saw did not look white at all. I have been quite surprised since then, because I also thought that whites were much more numerous. Otto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.238 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The cities certainly are mostly non-white; highways probably took you through them. Most Whites live in the suburbs. But then again, your idea of who 'looks' white would probably figure into it, as well. For instance, half of Hispanics/Latinos are white (by the same self-designation criterion as non-Hispanic Whites, and everyone else). So unless you counted half of those you met, and knew to be H/L, as White... See? And, of course, it also depends on which regions of the country you traversed. The southern half of the U.S. is the least White: the eastern half of it being heavily African American, and the western being heavily Hispanic or Latino (half of them non-White, again). SamEV (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By white I mean that, people from Europe, even many people from the Middle East and North Africa look white to me, but not most people I came across in the US. Anyway it was my personal experience. Otto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.238 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had fun. SamEV (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are official census figures for this, some people travel by air and stay at home, so you may not see them, get real.Heardlarge2 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First White American first?

Should there be a list similar to first afircan american first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElChino855 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Few women represented

As usual, there are very few women represented in the intro box. Surely, more females can be added to give an even balance of the sexes?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not add these entertainers (Evelyn Nesbit, Madonna, Lucille Ball, Bette Davis); a politician (Hillary Clinton) or one of the First Ladies (Elizabeth Kortright Monroe) to the list.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps having a woman like Paris Hilton is not the best course of action Jeanne. I'm the one thats been trying to get her off this page but you put her back in. I would rather have a respectable woman on this page, like Sandra Day O'Connor, Janet Reno, etc. I leave it up to you to decide, since I'm a dude. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.30.125 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not intersted in respectability(?) but diversity. Paris Hilton is a wealthy heiress, so she is different from a politician, which we have in abundance, same for entertainers, sports figures, etc. I don't wish to be hostile, but if you've got a problem with a certain celebrity, it does not interest me as we are interested here in presenting a diverse group of men and women, living and dead, of different ethnicities and occupations. It took us a lot of time locating the free images, and aligning them. It's about a mix of people who are white Americans, a group that Paris Hilton belongs to, whether you approve of her inclusion or not. This isn't a popularity or respectability contest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I simply want to put someone in that has actually accomplished something. If you think Paris Hilton has accomplished anything, please let me know. -Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.30.125 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Sandra Day O'Connor is now the second female politician on there. I'd say its a pretty diverse group now. There are already a few female celebrities on there.

Bette Midler

Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.179.67 (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that someone more notable than Bette Midler should be used in the intro box. Sharon Stone, Madonna, Hillary Clinton, Lucille Ball, Bette Davis, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

i could agree with that also--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't we change it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Bette Midler is a well-known actress for people my age (and a very good one, but that's MHO only). What's wrong with her?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with her. I personally like her and find her to be funny. I just feel that for the intro box there should be somebody who has more international recognition such as Madonna or Jacqueline Kennedy. Not many people outside of the USA would instantly recognise Midler, whereas the ones I mentioned are known throughout the world.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Younger white males need to be represted in the photos. Too many old men, young women.Yes21 (talk)

In the current gallery I see maybe two men and two women below age 50 at the time the picture was taken. Not sure where you see that it is "old men, young women".--Ramdrake (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of Americans may be non white indeed.

I agree with the comments a few lines above. In fact if Non Hispanics are taken into account, even according to the census, only 64% of Americans are white. Of course there are Hispanics that are white, but in the US the vast majority are not. In fact 2/3 are Mexican. The Mexicans who emigrate to the US do not belong to the 9/10% white elite of the country, who are all pretty well off if not rich. They are overwhelmingly Amerindian or Mestizo, who are in fact economically and socially oppressed in Mexico by the white minority ruling class. Indeed Amerindians and Mestizos represent about 90% of the Mexican population and probably more than 99% of those who emigrate to the US. The same could be said of other US Hispanics. On the other hand, there is also a percentage of people who identify with one race being actually mixed. For example, genetic studies show that an important percentage of people who identify as white have different degrees of non white ancestry. In conclusion, if we use the definitions of whiteness that have been in use in the US for decades, the present population of the country maybe well non white in the majority, even though the census figures try to make up these numbers a bit, the same as the media and Hollywood. So, I agree with the subjective opinions expressed above because they derive from an objective situation. On the other hand, this is especially true in cities. These facts should be introduced somehow in the article, otherwise it does not look objective. To finish, and as an example of the real worth of all these figures based on self identification, the fact is that most people in the US are actually mixed. Those who identify as black have an average of 20% European ancestry, according to genetic studies, most Hispanics are also mixed, many whites are also mixed. In fact, the mixed category may be actually the largest in the country, but if you have a look at the census figures, the mixed category is actually one of the smallest. Aaron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.202.254 (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You are partly wrong. It is true that the overwhelming majority of Mexicans and Latinamericans are mestizo (white/indian) and mulatto (white/black) including 90% of the Mexican population, but:

a) Immigrants from Cuba, Chile and Argentina preciselly used to belong to the White elite of their nations. The overwhelming majority of Cubans and Chileans in America are white.

b) Also, in New Mexico, California and Texas there is an important percentage of descendants of white Spanish colonists (above all in New Mexico)

c) Even if today, as you say, the overwhelming majority of Mexican and Central American immigrants to the U.S. are mestizo or indian, it was not the same several decades ago as the Northern Mexican states (Sonora, Nuevo Leon, Cohauila...) had an important white minority of over 40% of the population according to the last Mexican Census which asked about Race and was undertaken the year 1921. The reason why these Northern states had that important percentage of White population was logical: the ancient Aztec and Maya Civilisations were placed in the Central and Southern part of Mexico while the Northern part was sparsely populated incorporated to the Spanish Empire during the XVII Century and then populated by immigrants from Spain and the rest of Europe. And during the first decades of the XX Century Mexican immigrants arrived to the U.S. from these Northern states and were about 30% white. They assimilated soon into the Anglo culture, the same as Spaniards and XIX Century Cubans who arrived to Tampa (Florida) and built Ybor City. Today their descendants are just Anglo-Saxon.

So even if not 48% as the Census implies, about 25% of "Hispanics" in America are White by any definition.--81.36.210.192 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Obama is an English American and should be included in the picture montage or are we playing by the 1 drop rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.238.49 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought you were just a troublemaker. But then I realized, or remembered, that this is a serious issue you raise. If someone, namely Tommy Chong, who is half Chinese is inclusible in Category:Chinese Americans, then why not include Obama here?

But I'd say that one of the two main objections is that Obama is not predominantly white but half white. Don't you think it's reasonable for each single-race article to include only those who are predominantly of the respective race?

Yeah, I know: how do you determine "predominace"?

Let me know when you find out the answer, :)

Actually, at White Latin American we took advantage of the precedent in the region which said that 7/8 white was white; and we've remained open to establishing a lower ratio. But each article will be able to draw on different sources for how it establishes predominance, if its editors decide to.

The other objection is less gainsayable. It's simply that Obama has called himself "black" and "African American", but never (AFAIK) "white".

As for the practice – whether in society at large or WP – of categorizing, for example, a half-Asian person as an Asian, rather than as mixed–race, maybe that ought to stop. Similarly with Obama: when will people cease calling him "black" and switch to "multiracial" or such?

I think the only reason he doesn't is because others haven't. A frequent complaint heard from mixed–race people is that they're straitjacketed by hypodescent when it comes to racial self–identification, with some of them saying that the one drop rule is now mostly adhered to by African Americans. As a result, all too often the mixed–race and famous (and the ambitious) just find it easier to 'go with the flow'... SamEV (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC) ff.

Ridiculus. Non-whites should not be included. Stop the bigotry against whites.Yes21 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So Obama is half white and half black and he can only be included in the african american montage and not the english? Cmon now thats ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.88.129 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no point of having him here. There's many other white presidents whose "whiteness" is less disputed. Plus, Obama has refused his white side. In his book he writes, "I Ceased to adverise my mother's race [white] at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." He also hung out with blacks, married a black woman, had a black pastor, has nominated more blacks than any other president, speaks with a black accents, takes a black haircut, his favorite sport is basketball, etc. To me, he sounds, at least socially, 100% black.--Pgecaj (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

SPEAKS WITH A BLACK ACCENT? TAKES A BLACK HAIRCUT? FAVORITE SPORT IS BASKETBALL. Are we forgetting NPOV. He does not speak Black Vernacular English. Has a haircut fit for the army. Basketball is played by all ethnicities/race/nationalites whatever. Ralph nader is LEBANESE and he qualifies better than THE president of the united states who is english (although hes only half). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.78.72 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese people are white as you would realise had you read the article fully; Obama does not consider himself a white American otherise the article on Obama would not describe him as the first African-American president of the United States. Does this need further amplification or can we please close this subject?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much sociology

This article has too many statistics, irrelevent comments by sociologists on the meaning of the term white, but not enough history of white Americans; beginning with their arrival as immigrants, then as settlers and pioneers on the frontier and in the cities, forming their own communities and neighbourhoods, such as Little Italy, Hamtramck, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Pgecaj (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the personal opinion of a sociologist, which sounded ridiculous.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Polish-Americans?

Why the Polish-Americans are not mentioned, and why Dutch Americans are? There are over 5 million of Dutch Americans and about 10,000,000 of Polish-Americans. Almost 5 million more! Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I replaced Meola with Polish-American Joanna Krupa. Joe Montana is already in the montage, so Italian-Americans are still represented.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe Montana is not italian. He's anglo-saxon american.

White Asian

Not all Whites are European, some are Middle eastern, some whites are hispanic. Some Whites are Asian too. White Chinese can be added to this page Etc, But the Philippine islands is where White people from Asia are most commonly found because It was back then a Spainish colony and later a US colony. In return the it is the most heavily influnced Muilti ethnic south Asian country and composed of many differnet cultures as well. As a matter of Fact some asian people are not pure Asian some Asian people actually are caucaisan people they are both at the same time. So Asians should also be added to White people as well because some Asians are white but commonly The majority of Filipino people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.169.109 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is totally nonsensical. First of all, you need to learn the difference between 'white people' and the racial classification of 'Caucasian'. Second of all, The article mentions white Hispanics. White Hispanics ARE of European descent - hence the fact that they are not referred to as 'Indigenous', 'Indio' or 'Mestizo'. Third of all, white people living in Asia do not count as being racially OR ethnically Asian, if that's what you are implying. Spaniards living in the Philippines are just that: Spaniards living in the Philippines. They are not ethnically Filipino, though they may claim that as their nationality. Indigenous Filipinos and Mestizo Filipinos are not white - therefore, there is no reason why an ethnically Filipino person should be brought up in this section. (Are Dutch people living in Africa--Afrikaaners--black Africans? No.) Also, you claim that the Philippines is in South Asia? Go look it up: it is in South EAST Asia. Fourth of all, the majority of Asian people--and all of East/South East Asian people--are classified as 'Mongoloid', which doesn't make them 'white' or even Caucasian at all.
People really need to know what they are talking about before they post personal opinions and illogical comments in the talk pages (or edit articles, for that matter). This individual is not even bringing anything up that is relevant to the article itself. Not to mention, the numerous spelling mistakes and grammatical errors... --Tweeheart (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To whom are you directing your comments, Tweeheart?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am replying to the commentor above me, sorry. There is no user name to address them by, just an IP address (76.121.169.109). --Tweeheart (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Image gallery added

I have added an image gallery. It can be expanded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ETHNICITY

Anthropologically speaking white americans are a distinct ethnic group themselves. An american cannot be ethnically scottish; ethnicity is determined by community, geography, behavioural traits, physical traits.

You cannot say that an american with for instance german ancestors is ethnically german because they are removed from the german community and they are not culturally german, nor are they lkely to behave like germans nor likely to even speak the language.

White americans are indeed an ethnicity in itself and this should be expressed in the article. 78.150.249.13 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

White "Hispanics"

I dont know why people make it so difficult to classify spanish speaking people into their races, a native spanish speaker can either be black, white or native american, or andything between. The White "minority" in Mexico isnt even a minority, if you travel to mexico, NOT THE BORDER! actually inside of Mexico youll find most people are white, Wikipedia is kinda lying, or who ever post that there is only 15% of pop of Mexico is white, that 15% is only accounted for the full Spaniard Mexican. How about the rest of the Europeans and their descendants, in Mexico you can find English Mexicans who came in the 1800s also German Mexicans, Irish Mexicans, French Mexicans, Portuguese Mexicans, etc...I think people dont realize it should be really around 60% who are white in Mexico. Mexican Americans here who know they dont have white skin wont mark white b/c they are faithful to their native ancestors. I think the chart that shows incomes, showed be removed, you cant ask a Spanish speaking person who is white if they are white or hispanic. Do the research, I had to study this for my thesis, 3 yrs ago, Well anyway the hispanic and latino term will be removed next year, so I guess it will make things easier. A White Mexican and a White English descent in the US (you cant call "White English descent White American because White Mexicans are also White Americans) you cant tell the difference only besides the language, just like in Europe they all have the same DNA, b/c of the Germanic tribes that conquered of Europe, The Goths and Saxons and Celts went to England and Spain and the rest of Europe. 19 states in Mexico have a over 71% white pop. So how can someone say that the Mestizo are larger? The numbers dont add up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.177.144 (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the last Mexican Census dealing with the issue of race, in 1921, about 40% of the population in several Northern Mexican states was White, but in most states the average was about 20%, and after decades of mixture probably now the percentage is around 10% of Mexicans being White while the majority is Mestizo (White-Amerindian) even if probably over 20% in some states of Northern Mexico and in Mexico D.F.--79.154.37.5 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SORRY! My mistake in rv! The Ogre (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SineBot, don't bother in convincing the author of this article of this info. He's ignorant and doesn't know the difference between hispanic and spanish. Unfortunately, he's a typical american who classifies everyone the way he sees fit regardless of the truth. To him, italians, spaniards, greeks, etc. are not white. He beleives anglo-saxons are the only white people in the world. Like I said, typical american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.177 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One, SineBot is (perhaps obviously) a bot, not a human being. Two, please refrein from personally attacking people here. Thank you. --LjL (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin American Admixture and other stuff

Not all white Hispanics mixed, actually it was seen as vulgar to mix but ocassionally there was. The ones who did, recieved ethnic cleansing, theyd keep marrying white in order to "cleasne themselves" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.177.144 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance on Spanish Speaking People

You can tell I dont use the Hispanic or Latino Label, they dont exist anymore, the Latinos died with the fall of the Romans and Hispanics died out when The Goths fell in the 800s. Well I guess, people dont know Mexicans can be white, not all of them obviously. Take this into consideration people, I am Mexican and when people look at me they think my name would be like Tyler or Conrad, etc actually its Carlos, some people think natural blondes cant be Mexican, well I am. Which offends me, it shows how much Americans are ignorant, in Europe if you ask anyone take English people, how would you classify a Mexican, theyll respond, "depends, if they come from Spaniards, white if Ameridians, then Asian etc...Europeans are more intelligent then Americans, I think America should stop trying to figure or crossing out people from the White label, Europe created it so leave it alone! Mexico's real demographics should be something like this, according to my thesis I wrote, 57% white , 30% Mestizo or Mixed, 5% black and 7% native american 1% asian. I was ignorant myself on my travel to Aguascalientes and Guanjuato I came up to Whites only to find out they didnt speak English, shows Spanish peaking people also to be ignorant. The stereotype of spanish speaking people not being white is absurd we come from all sorts of Europeans, Spain is in Europe 2 countries south of England! We are all white, stop trying to dissprove you cant, DNA proves all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.177.144 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are images of two white Mexicans in the article (José Francisco Chaves and Romualdo Pacheco). I had a friend in high school who was a white Mexican. In point of fact, she was born in Los Angeles, but her parents were both Mexican.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

White percentage

What is the actual percentage of White Americans? There are multiple articles claiming that it's 74 percent, while others say it's 80 percent. Since the US Census will be removing "Some other race" next year, does that mean the percentage will rise? Agtax 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A cliche grouping of European bloodlines

Today, 62 per cent of white Americans are of British Isles descent (i.e. English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish). Fifteen per cent of whites are of entirely German ancestry, although 30 per cent are entirely or partly of German origin. Eighty-six per cent of white Americans today are of Northwestern European ancestry, and 14 per cent are of Southern or Eastern European descent.

This is entirely Protestant perspective of how to group people and much of it based in the annals of Whig history. It is entirely against the spirit of ethnography outlined by Tacitus in the Agricola (book). By simple reasoning of geopolitics and the consistency of perpetuating relations down through the centuries, there is no reason to not group the British Isles, in an unbiased manner, with their immediate continental relatives, being the French, Spanish and German.

Most of the racialism expounded upon in this discussion page and in these articles, follows the Puritannical line of thinking, which is extremely activist in its affection for the Teutonic propaganda, for the Protestant brotherhood of Calvinism and Lutheranism. It is also mistakenly viewed that this is an English issue, but it is indeed, a happenstance of the Stuart-Hanover relationship (with origins in Scotland) and nothing to do with the traditional, Mediterranean-focused background of the English and Welsh, as expressed through the Plantagenet and Tudor dynasties, rulers ethnically representative of their people.

I bet nobody here has read Polydore Vergil. This Italian wrote that the English themselves were like unto his own people, dressing like the French and having all such manner of ties to traditional Europe. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank YOU!

Finally, someone who has a sense of knowledge, you hear the Rest of America! Sopt hating (as they say) on Spanish speaking people, we as European descendants are all white so deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.177.144 (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What is true, however, is that the US is in fact, a British Isles nation. Through its English roots, it has ties to the French of Canada and through its Welch, the Spaniards of Mexico. I am NOT promoting NAFTA by this, only noting the ethnological connections, which the Scotch and "Dutch" do not obviously have an inclination to appreciate, being only concerned for themselves. If they do not fit neatly within the colonial experience, it is because they came on the heels of others and surreptitiously assumed other peoples' glories. These outsiders had not yet been graced by Classical civilization, for all the others mentioned, based their claims upon Italian navigators, whether Columbus and Vespucci for Spain and Portugal, or Cabot and Verrazzano for England and France. The Habsburg dynasty from Austria, took over Spain, much as the Stuarts of Scotland took over England. One can see the repercussions of Scoto-Teutonism in the New World, as it had for Roman Britain, under siege by Picts and Saxons (King Arthur's enemies). What many wish to sweep under the carpet, is the fact that "England" as the name of a nation-state, was concurrent to the Pope, St. Gregory the Great, having deemed us "Angels", which we took to heart, as being faithful to Rome's Augustinian mission at Canterbury, rather than the Welsh insult of "Saxons", which implied we were foreign mercenaries and had no proper place among others in the island. It may be true that we have continental links, but they are with Gaul or France chiefly, depending on which time period, by which extension, this applies: Welch with Spaniards, Scotch with Germans. If only the egos of Angles/Britons and Franks/Gauls could recognize that they are too alike to get along, nothing more or less, sharing common Christianity, like Anglicanism and Gallicanism/Avignonism as well as a joint Channel culture not only before, during and after Rome, but also onwards to the Viking invasions which further enmeshed and intertwined these two countries for the following violent centuries. The only anomaly here, is the Irish question of ethnic origins, although they may be taken to have a common ancestor as the Welch. The whole reason the English call their homeland "Wales" aka foreign, is because the Irish had invaded the land and pretty much been the reason for St. Patrick in Ireland. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Americans

What are Spanish Americans doing there with the percentage of 8.2%? And the article linked also includes Hispanic Americans. Somebody is confusing Spaniards with White Hispanics, who may be of non-Spanish descent. Opinoso (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Hispanics are 15% of the American population but almost half of them (8% of the American population) self-identify as whites, and it is true and evident that several millions of Hispanics in the U.S. are white.--83.35.181.1 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

White Hispanics

Essentially White Hispanics are Spaniards just in Latin America, when you see a white hispanic most likely they are a descendant of colonial immigrants who arrived in Latin America. Where else is the white skin come from? Not from Native Americans. This is not always the case, White Hispanics are a mixture of different Europeans, in Latin America, there was heavy European immigration especially in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, for instance in Mexico you can find German Mexicans, ovbiously Spanish Mexicans, French Mexicans English Mexicans etc...they are all Mexican and also are white as any other European. People always confuse Mexico with being mostly natives, not true, white is the majority in Mexico. Any country in the Americas are just like the US, you can find whites, blacks, asians all sorts of people, Mexicans have their own ethnecties too, I am a white Spanish Mexican and my ancestry is exclusivly european. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caminosoto (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Caminosoto, you don't know what you're talking about. Spaniards ARE NOT hispanic. The label Hispanic, although it originated in Spain, is used to classify the peoples of Latin America, NOT Spain. And another correction to your error is that there is no such thing as a white hispanic. A Spaniard is white, not a white hispanic. Hispanic does not include racial categories. I get very tired of seeing these mistakes over and over again. It seems that people are easily brain-washed into accepting anything americans classify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.37 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Incredible how much has been the shrinkage of non Hispanic white population

From almost 90% in 1940 and almost 80% in 1980 to just 65% now. That means white population has increased just 0.3% a year during the last decades (compared to almost 1% of the general American population), including immigration. That is similar to the natural increase of the white population in Europe.

What is the cause of the low fertility rate of the American non Hispanic white population?

Only in the state of Utah, the fertility rate is higher for religious reasons.

But if the present trend continues America will not be a Western nation in two or three decades.--83.63.180.125 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but even if you may be right about whites becoming a minority in the US, it will continue to be a Western nationl Do not confuse "race" with culture. The Western world was born in Greece and Rome and spread all over Europe and the US is based on European culture. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.200.222 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For the American Sammuel Huntington, who wrote "The Clash of Civilizations", there is a clear relationship and that is why Spain and Portugal are included in his book as part of the West but not Latinamerica. And the reason why he says Australia could leave to be a Western nation if there is an Asian majority. The same as in the U.S.--88.18.151.12 (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sammuel Huntington is a american racist. Hitler also said many things, who pays attention to him?. Americans should be especially cautious with thier attitude. They are not only the result of a lot of non/European races, but even those who claim pure white or European origins are the result of the miscigenation of the European races. They are all certainly mutts, still Westerners. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.16.224 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Of course the US will remain a Western World. As long as their whites, and White Hispanics. Latin America is also Western thinking, since Portugal and Spain colonized most of it. Actually Canada part of it is also considered Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caminosoto (talk • contribs) 06:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Americans are mongrels, still Westerners

Americans should be especially cautious with their attitude to race. They are not only the result of a lot of non/European races, but even those who claim pure white or European origins are the result of the miscigenation of the European races, I mean what is someone with German, Polish, Greek, etc ancestors?, obviously a mutt. They are all certainly mutts, still Westerners. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.16.224 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How does this comment serve to improve the article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Americans seem to pay a lot of attention to race and to racial purity, especially when referring to white people. for example, they would never consider Obama, although he is half white. You know, the one drop rule and so on. Yet, they seem to ignore that they are themselves the result of the miscigenation of many races. As said, not only may whites have non white ancestors, as it is normal in a multiracial society, but those of only European origins are also mixed, in fact they are the result of the mixinf of English, German, Polish, Russian Albanian, Italian, you name it, people. They are not white people like the people from Europe, who have been English, Estonian or Portuguese for thousands of years and they all have distinct genetic imprints. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.16.224 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nudge, the article already mentions the fact that white Americans often are the product of many diverse European ethnicities, so what is your point?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong because if you knew some History you would know that white Englishmen, for example, are as mixed as white Americans: they are the result of a mixture of Celts, Anglos, Saxons, Jutes (Germanic tribes), Latins (Rome), Normands (a mixture themselves of French and Scandinavians) And certainly there have NOT been Portugueses, Italians, Polish etc for thousands of years. These ethnicities were formed during the last hundreds of years the same way as the (white) American ethnicity. For example, the Dutch or Portuguese ethnic groups just become a different ethnic groups about 600 years ago after independence from the Spanish Kingdom of Leon (the first) and secession from the Holy Roman Germanic Empire the second. Americans are an ethnic group as old as Afrikaners, so about 300 years old as a different ethnic group from the English.--83.63.181.157 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A (white) American is a new ethnicity of the Germanic type, like the Afrikaners of South Africa (themselves also a mixture of Dutch, Germans, French, Potuguese etc). I am from Spain and I think Germanic ethnicities comprise: English, Germans, Dutch, Americans, Afrikaners, Swedish, Norwegian, Dannish and Icelanders. --80.31.73.238 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For Spaniards, Americans (Anglos) look people from the Nordic type, basically a mix of English and Germans, the same as Argentines look people from the Southern European type, basically a mix of Spaniards and Italians (even if the white melting pot in Argentina is as large as in America) --80.31.73.238 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC); even I would say that white Americans look more like the Germans than like the English (on average) while white Australians look more like English.--80.31.73.238 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And don´t forget that in any European country there are also genetic African ancestors who have come for thousands of years, but that doesn´t change the perception of Italians, French, English etc as different ethnic groups. I could add that the Germanic and Celtic contribution to Spaniards is as large as the Iberian-Mediterranean, but that doesn´t change the perception of Spaniards as a (Latin) Southern European group nor it changes the immigration of thousands of Latins and French to England or South Africa the perception of Englishmen and Afrikaners as (Germanic) Northern European groups. And the same goes to America: Italians, Spaniards, Polish...and other Southern and Eastern European ethnic groups are assimilated by the Anglo Germanic majority. Meanwhile, in Argentina the opposite happens and Englishmen, Germans, Russians...and other Northern European ethnic groups are assimilated by the Latin majority. So there is nothing exceptional in America.--83.63.181.157 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How does this history lesson contribute to the improvement of the article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just some background to understand the foundation of the White American ethnicity as different from European nationalities.--83.63.181.157 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, but all of this background and anthropological enlightenment is rendered useless without the provision of valid sources to back up your claims. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well some science. Here is a genetic map of the world based on lineage:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Can you see the Americas, they are represented by the Indian lineages, because trying to represent it as t is now would be a mess due to miscigenation.

Besides, Europeans have been like that basically since Paleolithic and Neolitihc times. Some modern influence have also been present, but genetic anthropology has shown it to be wrong. The basis of the populations is pre historic.

The notions that you introduce: Germanic, Latin, etc, have little to do with the new discoveries.

For the orirgins of Europeans see also professors Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes.

Americans are very different because half of the population is not of European origins and the rest the result of the Admixture of different European "subraces". So they are much more the resuult of mixing than white Europeans. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.200.165 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. For statistics, the genetic map is based ONLY on indigenous/native individuals, not in those who later colonised the territory. For example, the genetic map of Australia just shows Aboriginals while they are almost extinct now. It is just a genetic study of pre-colonial populations. But things have changed during the last centuries after European Colonisation in The Americas and Australia and natives now only predominate in three nations: Peru, Bolivia and Guatemala. And, if you knew some about European History you would know that the French are a mixture as much as the American. The "French" are a very recent creation. Most of the French are immigrants from the rest of the World who have been assimilated.--88.18.149.172 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your ignorance is too big to continue discussing with you. White Americans are not the same as White Europeans in the same way as Black Americans are not the same as Black Africans. They are much more mixed. But you can continue living in your world of fantasies if you want and ignore genetic Anthropology. White Americans have even been described as "strange" whites, by numerous genetic studies, as a result of their intermixing. Do your own research if you want. I am tired of coming across people who know nothing and act as if they knew something, that is why I get tired over and over again of participating in these pages. Bye and good luck. Nugde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.213.28 (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nudge,I still don't see how any of your rambling comments are aimed at improving the article. It appears as if you are only interested in directing insults at other editors by calling them ignorant, etc. This I would ask you to please refrain from doing, as it is not conducive to maintaining harmony at Wikipedia. Thanks--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

West-Turkestani Americans are not white

Kazakh & Kyrgyz Americans are Mongoloid and not White. --82.134.154.25 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Once again the same type of stupid comments. Some are Mongoloid, some are Europids or whites. It is like stating Americans are not white, showing a picture of their president or of the national basketball team. Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.16.224 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Turkish-Americans are classified as white.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Turkish of the Anatolian Peninsula (Turkey) are white but not Kazahs or Kyrgyz who are mongoloid. The reason is that the tribes that arrived to the Anatolian Peninsula were assimilated by the white majority living there, the same as Spaniards in Peru who are being assimilated by the Native majority even if the Spanish language is the language of 74% of the population.--83.63.181.157 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It still does not invalidate my previous comment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It is different the Kazakh ethnicity, which is Mongoloid, that the Kazakh nationality as in Kazakhstan almost half of the population is white European (most of them ethnic Russians and ethnic Germans) So probably that is what he means. Meanwhile, ethnic Turks from the Anatolian Peninsula are white as the asian minority was assimilated several hundred years ago.--83.35.181.1 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, Turkish people ARE NOT WHITE. Racially, religiously, ethnically, traditionally, and historically, they are not european. Therefore, they are not white. Even their DNA does not classify them as a white people. They are on asia minor, NOT europe. Reading back your posts, you seem to be stubborn in thinking that middle eastern people are white. Why is that? Are you turkish or middle eastern? I really do not understand why you are so persistant in this matter when it is heavily documented that turks are not white. If they were, they wouldn't be muslim, dark-skinned, and they would not have gone to war with white christians for over 1200 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.177 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

admixture

i removed the usless additive statement that the remaining 70% have no detecable admixture when that study does not include native american admixture so i.e it is higly likley that a certain remaining percentage have admixture via native american ancestry all i did was remove that part of the statement i did not remove anything that is sourced i am sure people are intelligent enough to know 100% makes a whole and that the remaing 70% have no detecable african ancestry with out stateing it which by stateing it in that fashion makes it seem that there is no other admixtures in the white population--Looloobird (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I don't know why so many of the colour images have been removed. The infobox needs more images of living people. The Amelia Earhart image is good, but we really don't need so many images of social reformers. The consensus was for occupational and ethnic diversity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Why is Ralph Nader even on the picture list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.192.97.43 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he be? He's a white American.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Ralph Nader, since he's Lebanese, he's NOT white. This should be corrected on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.177 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated Info on Article: Pelosi and Hispania

I made the edit and had to delete info about Pelosi because she's not very white, she's italian, and found her mixed background to be less than satisfactory to the standards of what constitutes a White American. Also, I added great sources for references as indicated in the footnotes of the article. Note also that I had to update the definition of "hispanic" in light of new info. Again, Spaniards DO NOT constitute 'hispania' as revealed by the references I provided. Refer to the sources for more information upon that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.6.163 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how your sources hold up when compared to the several sources in Hispanics in the United States, which seem to claim that "Hispanic and Latino Americans are Americans of origins in Hispanic countries of Latin America or in Spain,[2][3][4][5] except in the state of New York, where only people of Latin American origin are included.[6][7]".

Oh let's see, for starters "indopedia.org" does not qualify as a reliable source, being tertiary... and it even (currently!) says that people from Spain do "qualify". As to your own "standards", well, I'm not sure how those are relevant. LjL (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is directed to IP 69.86.6.163. Before you make sweeping, inaccurate statements about Italians, Spaniards, etc. I would suggest that you carefully peruse the article where you will see that they are classified as white, along with other people descended from Europeans, Middle-Easterners, and North Africans. Italy and Spain happen to be located in Europe which makes Italians and Spaniards clearly white. I live in Sicily, so am not entirely nescient in regards to the Italian people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's directed at 69.86.6.163, as opposed to me, why have you used double rather than single indentation? Have a look at these indentation guidelines as well as these further tips. LjL (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've made well over 25,000 edits at Wipipedia, created over 130 articles, devoted hours of my free time to the project, therefore I really don't appreciate nor will I tolerate being treated like an errant schoolgirl with ink stains on her pinafore. If you want to be play policeman and enforce Wikipedia policy on every street corner, check out the numerous articles which get vandalised on a regular basis, or correct the myriad grammatical errors which abound on countless pages, but do not use that high-handed, officious tone with me. Have I made myself perfectly clear? I'm here to contribute to articles not waste time defending a mistake I made with my indentations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I feel intimidated about you not tolerating my helpful hints and having made yourself perfectly clear? Because I don't really like feeling intimidated, nor do I think it's deserved. Please tone down. LjL (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not trying to intimidate you, LjL. It's not my style to intimidate people, and I am perfectly calm. Let's end this discussion here, as it was obviously a misunderstanding. No hard feelings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am VERY confused now. You accuse me of editing an article entitled, Hispanics in the United States. I never viewed such an article and so you must be highly mistaken. To whom were you specifically complaining? Were you referring to me or to the other user called, Jeanne boleyn about this?

Also, I ask that you refer to the sources which stipulate that Spaniards ARE NOT hispanic. I furnished several sources proving this. Also, common sense dictates that Spaniards are European, NOT hispanic. Would you like me to provide you a source that proves that Spain is in Europe and NOT in South America? Why you fight this definition tells me 2 possible things about your motives: 1) you possess little knowledge about the origins of Spaniards, and 2) you have a hidden motive about certain people. These are my thoughts. However, I ask that we work together in establishing a better informed article. This is what wiki is about - helping each other to create a better informed world. I hope that we work towards that goal.

Tngah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

For the last time: please refrain from re-instating your edit without discussing it here first. You just removed a semi-protection template, and I do not believe that is acceptable.

I already mentioned that the "sources" you provided are not reliable by any extent of imagination. I also never claimed that you edited Hispanics in the United States. I merely said that you should look at the reliable sources that are in there (in the very introductory paragraph), which completely contradict yours.

I have also put a couple of warnings on your talk page; I recommend that you heed them.

LjL (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the last time, my sources ARE RELIABLE. I honestly don't understand why you have a problem with certain Europeans, namely, Spaniards. Everyone know that Spaniards ARE NOT hispanic. Why you continue to categorize this European group under that genre is way beyond logical explanation. Seriously, stop doing this. Spaniards are European, NOT hispanic. You need to take a geography class to learn where Spain is located on the map. The sources are reliable and I have provided many of them. However, I will provide more. When I do, DO NOT delete them. I'm willing to work with you, but for some reason, you're not willing to work with others who try to correct and contribute to the article. This is not in keeping with the spirit of wiki.

68.173.95.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

Stating that your sources "ARE RELIABLE" in caps doesn't magically make them so. I thought it would be obvious to anyone that, for instance, an online encyclopedia comparable to Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source. Please refrain from attempting to push such obviously unacceptable sources. Furthermore, you might like to know that the term "Hispanic" comes from the Latin "Hispania", which reffered to Spain, and evolved into the modern name for Spain ("España") in Spanish.

But this was just an aside, the term as it is used in this article refers, I believe, to the definition put forward in Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Please keep that in mind. LjL (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of intelligence on ethnic and race subjects leaves much to be desired. Your stubborness doesn't make you an expert upon these subjects. Refrain from making blatant false statements about Spain/Spaniards since they're obviously untrue and therefore unacceptable. If you don't want to accept reliable sources, that is your problem, NOT OURS. Also, Hispania DOES COME from Spain.. DUH!!!! However, your use of the term to categorize Spaniards is NOT CORRECT. The term Hispanic covers peoples of Latin America. Most of the world, namley Europeans, DO NOT consider Spaniards to be Hispanic. A Spaniard IS NOT hispanic; a Spaniard is European. Spain is in Europe, NOT latin america. Just because the Hispanic term comes from Spain doesn't mean that it applies to Spain as a latin american racial class. This is like saying that Haitians are Frankish simply because they were colonized by France and speak French. If you don't understand or accept this simple truth, then apparently this tells me that your credibility doesn't hold any weight and corrections must be maintained. I have provided my sources AND will provide more. I abide by Wiki's standards, not yours. Again, when I do, DO NOT DELETE THEM. I will go out of my way to help you find Spain on the map. Go to this link to see where Spain is: http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/political.htm. You can defend your ignorance all you want but that's not going to change the truth.

I know where Spain is. I've been there, and I am an "European" as you say, meaning a person actually living in Europe. However, this is pretty much irrelevant because who I am has no relevance to WP:V; and, regrettably, neither have your rants. Tone them down, they don't do anyone any good. And stop reverting against blatant consensus. --LjL (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I HUGELY doubt that you visited Spain. You're NO European. If you were, you wouldn't be making simple mistakes that everyone avoids. Your identity is VERY relevant since we question your motives about the identity of a group of people you are attempting to re-define and you obviously know nothing about. Sadly, you can get angry all you want but this won't change the truth, let alone our corrections backed by history and reliable footnotes. Relax and calm down - it's not productive. And cease from going against the world and against what everyone knows IS the truth, especially all of us who post the truth on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.145 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

>>> Don't edit my post. You're not allowed to do so according to Wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.177 (talk) 20:03, July 7, 2009

Yes I am, there are guidelines for talk page formatting, especially indentation, and it's perfectly legitimate to fix formatting errors on talk pages. You had neglected to indent your comment properly. --LjL (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if you have the right to edit this page, deleting my statements shows that you're not a strong enough man to face the truth. Something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.177 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not deleted any statements. I have indented it. If you believe otherwise, please post the diff where I have deleted content. Otherwise, do not make such unfounded accusations. --LjL (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Look who's talking about "unfounded accusations". This coming from a guy who tries to re-define a group people he knows nothing about with unfounded info. Wow. You americans amaze me all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.37 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Diaz

What is Cameron Diaz doing there? She's South African, not American... 216.165.132.250 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you may have her mixed up with Scarlett Johansson. -t'shaél^chat 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cameron is American. Her father is Spanish-Cuban. her mother is German-English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The South African is Charlize Theron. Scarlett Johansson was born in New York.--81.32.120.216 (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications

How is ralph nader considered a white american and barrack obama isnt? a lebanese american is considered white as opposed to someone who is half English? The white drop rule still applies in america? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.224.188 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

President Obama identifies as an African-American, not as a white American. Ralph Nader as a Lebanese-American is a white American.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction... President Obama is half white and half black. And, according to the bible, Obama is white. This is because the bible identifies you based on your mother's lineage, not your father's. As for Ralph Nader, since he's Lebanese, he's NOT white. This should be corrected on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.95.177 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese people are white. Read the article. And please leave religion out of the discussion as it has nothing to do with the article--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Eddie Van Halen

Put that picture of Eddie Van Halen back there it was a good one why did it get taken off? --76.121.169.109

A lot of images were removed from the article. Go ahead and put it back. I agree it was a good image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)