Wikipedia

Talk:White Americans/Archive 4

< Talk:White Americans
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Erikeltic in topic Admixture
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Why only white gringos?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's supposed to be ALL white americans from tip to tip from Alaska to la Patagonia, and you only put white yanquis, and all the white people that live in Canada and America Latina what? this two are in America so you should correct the term of American. Then I also read that you were basically saying that only anglo ancestry are white, and all the people from Europe are white not only Germanic, that inclues Slavs, and Mediterrenean people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.15.38.43 (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

New image infobox is needed

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before we set a new one up, I think we should discuss each proposed image here to avoid constant changing and griping.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A new infobox image is indeed needed, and please make this one adhere to WP:NOR. Bulldog123 21:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Big Confusion between Race and Ethnicity

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Race is one thing and is pretty much "Color" coded

Ethnicity is a complete different thing with a wide diversity within one race.

For example... Anglo, Saxon, Nordic, Celtic, Germanic, Serbs, Arabians (just to point out Middle Easterners and North Africans, too many to mention), Iberian, Latin, and so on are all White (Caucasian).

The term Latino can be applied to Spanish, Italians and French (or any nation that speaks a Romance Language). Latin language was originated in Rome (Italy) therefore the Italians are more Latino that anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.29.137 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to ban user-created montages from Infoboxes

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups. Bulldog123 09:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

White Americans infobox image

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Where are the refs that say these people are known as "White Americans"? I don't care (per WP:OR and WP:V) whether or not they look white, or would likely be considered white if you asked a random bystander Are they white? Where is this ethnic-group construct of "White American" being applied to them? Bulldog123 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly remove the infobox montage. My main concern is that there is no source indicating that these people are somehow representative of white Americans, and it therefore constitutes original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I was reverted because it apparently went against consensus on another page. I'll leave it for others to contribute to this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Another concern is that the montage is far too big. I have to hit the page down key twice to get to the bottom of the infobox as it stands. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Official use of the term White American

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination), the article suggests that the term "White American" is an official classification in US government documents. As far as I can tell, it isn't. The census uses the term "White". Plenty of other sources, such as scholarly articles, use the term "White American", but I don't think that we can necessarily draw equivalence between "White" in the census and "White Americans" discussed in the academic literature. For a start, not everyone classified as white in the census is American. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, scholarly works using such term are in the tens of thousands. They include works such as "Career Development Attributes and Occupational Values of Asian American and White American College Students", "Mexican American and white American school dropouts' drug use, health status, and involvement in violence", "Eating Disorders of White American, Racial and Ethnic Minority American, and International Women", "Pattern of breast cancer among white-American, African-American, and nonimmigrant west-African women", "Comparison of attitudes and behaviors related to nutrition, body size, dieting, and hunger in Russian, black-American, and white-American adolescents".
If an editor has RS support for the notion that the use of the term "White American" in the above .gov urls that reflect usage of the term by the government differs from the use of the term "White Americans" in the academic literature, that would be a helpful add to the article. But we need appropriate RS support for that notion to avoid OR and SYNTH concerns. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Since we don't disagree on the use of the term by scholars, let's concentrate on official usage. Now, my feeling is in that many of the instances cropping up in the search you link to, "white" is being used as an adjective followed by "American", rather than "White American" being used as a noun. Similarly, I'm sure we could also find lots of mentions of "gay Americans" or "male Americans" or "young Americans" on government websites, but that doesn't make those terms official classifications. The census classification is "White", not "White American" - something that the article rather apologetically admits in a footnote: "The United States Census Bureau, for example, uses "white" rather than "White American", but this is true of most races: "American Indian" and "African American" are the exceptions". Cordless Larry (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
What non-OR/SYNTH RS support do you have for your feeling? As to the Census, as reflected in the above, I think it is clear that it is understood is that the class is White American -- just look at the government mention quoted at the end of the last para above -- "The Census Bureau projects that by the year 2060, white Americans will comprise less than 50 percent of the total U.S. population".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the "white" isn't capitalised is quite a big hint. But in any case, the official classification is "White", not "White American". Just because the occasional report uses the latter doesn't make that the official term. If I may make a suggestion, one way around this would be to move the article to White Americans and then rewrite the introduction so that it's clear that the article is about white people in America, whether that be people classified as white in the census or those described as "White American" in scholarly literature, rather than an official US government term. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, if I may say so, I think you're engaging in original research with the examples you give above. What you would need to find is a source that states that "White American" is an official term, not a string of examples of its use. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we need something better than a "big hint" to avoid the OR and Synth issues. And I have a different view as to what OR is -- I think the thousands of uses of the term "White American" is not OR in the least. I'm focusing on RS sourcing, not on feelings and hints.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not relying on feelings and hints. I'm relying on this, which states that the official term is "White". You need to establish that "White American" is an official classification, as opposed to a term that happens to be used now and then in government documents. Where is your source stating that it is an official classification? Cordless Larry (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I was mistaken, then, because I thought I culled those phrases from your above comments. The census is a sentence census of Americans. That is the parent cat. It has sub-categories. They are reflected in the above diff. The White sub-category is a sub-category of White Americans. That is bolstered by the above government diff, which says it is the case. As well as by RS reporting of what the original census docs say.[1][2][3] More such diffs can be found among the 193,000 linked to above. (see., eg, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] --Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) [N.B. -- ec -- filled out prior comment]--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comments. What does "The census is a sentence of Americans" mean? Cordless Larry (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As for "The White sub-category is clearly a sub-category of Whites/Americans", take a look at this census brief. "White" does not appear under the heading of "American" at any point. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You've expanded you comment to include lots of links to sources that use the term "white American". Again, none of these state that it is an official US government classification. May I remind you that the problem sentence is "White American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American" and, within the United States, simply "white") is an umbrella term officially employed by some U.S. government agencies, per standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget, for the classification of United States citizens or resident aliens "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa"". Cordless Larry (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It means that I hit save before carefully reviewing my typing. Sorry. As to the above -- The New York Times and others reflect what I thought was obvious. The census is a census of Americans. If it were a census of Martians, the subcat "Whites" would be "White Martians". In any event, as the RSs say thats what it means, thats sufficient. I guess that is why we have a rule to protect editors from misinterpreting primary source docs, by relying on RS descriptions of what the source docs are saying.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"The census is a census of Americans", or is it? The census includes everyone dwelling in the US, regardless of whether they are Americans (it even includes visitors). I am not American. If I was in the US on census day, I would classify myself as "White". I am not a "White American". Cordless Larry (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You challenged the notion that "White American" is an official classification in US government documents. I provided you diffs to US government docs where that was the case. I also provided you diffs to RSs that discuss US government docs as saying the same thing. My effort has been to address the issue you posed at the outset of this string. I think that there is ample evidence of US government usage of the phrase, and that its usage of the phrase "White" in a census of Americans means, as logic might have suggested -- that the US government is referring to "White Americans" there. As to your last point, it just circles back to the RS coverage -- the NYT and other RSs say that what the census is reporting on is White Americans, and we bow to the RSs here. That's helpful, as it affords us the ability to sidestep possible misinterpretations and OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
None of the RS coverage in third sources states that it's an official classification. It could simply reflect those sources' paraphrasing - we just don't know. Anyway, since you're unable to provide a source that establishes that this is an official term, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I will leave it to others to contribute. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The New York Times article is all about the official US government census. It starts off with "The proportion of white Americans living in poverty declined significantly last year while the proportion of black and Hispanic poor people increased, the Census Bureau reported today." The article continues apace with similar statements. It seems quite clear to me. The "it could reflect the RS's paraphrasing" notion is unsupported. And at odd with the notion inherent in the R of the "RS" phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It's no more unsupported than the view that the NYT's wording reflects official government terminology. Is "Hispanic poor people" an official government term too? Cordless Larry (talk)
I have to weigh in here, as I work for the US government in the EEO field. The terms "White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and similar terms, are officially used by the US government as race/national origin classifications. "White American", "Black American", etc., are NOT official terms. Note that in the census, employment records, etc., the US government is not just counting US citizens (i.e. "Americans"), but also those of foreign citizenship living in America or employed by the US government. "White American" is simply a generic term, and not official. Eastcote (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and this is reflected in reliable sources that use the term "white people". See, for instance, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
And other sources, such as this, simply report the category as it appears in the census, as "white". Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that "White American" isn't a valid term to describe people who tick the "White" box in the census - it clearly is per the good reliable sources that Epeefleche has provided. My argument is that it's inaccurate to describe it as official government terminology. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should we describe "White American" as an official US government term

Latest comment: 13 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

Is it legitimate to say that "White American" is an official term used by the US government? The term used in the census itself, the primary source, is "White". WP:PRIMARY states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source". Some RSs such as The Washington Post report that the census is a survey of Americans, and that it reports inter alia on "the typical White American household", and RSs such as The New York Times report that the census reports, inter alia, on "white Americans", and the St. Petersburg Times reports that the Census Bureau studied "White American households". Other RSs, such as this book on the 2000 Census, employ the same term as the original source and use "White". Others use "white people", such as can be seen here and here. Some editors believe that in context "White" means White American, pointing to the reliable sources that use "white American". Others disagree, pointing to the reliable sources that use "White" or "white people" and arguing that the census includes non-Americans living in the US. See discussion above for more details and arguments on either side Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone care to contribute? Cordless Larry (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • My view is that "White American" is what the census measures. All manner of the highest-quality RSs reflect that. When there is any possibility of ambiguity, the guideline directs us to look to the RSs to understand what the primary source said. The census isn't measuring "white zebras", or "white underwear", or "white toilet paper rolls". The idea that they are just measuring "White" leaves me speechless.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Epeefleche, although I was hoping for input from editors who hadn't previously commented on this issue. Another take on it would be that the census is measuring "white people", which is also confirmed by numerous RSs, but that the official term used is still "White". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Does the census also survey non-Americans living in the USA?--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In that case it can't be considered the census term, because the census is just asking and counting white people in general, not "White Americans".--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The aforementioned top-flight RSs indicate that it measures White Americans. We follow the RSs -- per the guidelines quoted above. Per that guideline, when it comes to an editor interpreting an RS, or the New York Times doing so -- the NY Times rules. And, as mentioned in the above discussion, government sources also say that the census measures White Americans.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • From Cordless Larry's link, which is from the official census .gov site, it seems to take count of white people regardless of whether they are American.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You seem perhaps to be missing the guideline, which is both quoted above and which I refer to above. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer, other than to again point you to the guideline, and again repeat myself. The RSs -- the NYT and the Washington Post -- take precedence.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No, "White American" is not an official term. "White" is an official term. "White, non-Hispanic" is an official term. "White American" is not. There are certainly numerous government documents that use the descriptive phrase "white American", but that doesn't make it an official term. I'm sure you could find government documents that use the phrase "mahogany furniture", but that doesn't make that an official term either. The NYT and Washington Post use the term in the same descriptive sense. Because the NYT and Washington Post use it this way, doesn't make it an official government term. Eastcote (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the official government refs that I indicated refer to "White American". Beyond that, this is semantics. The RSs say the census measures "white Americans". The guidelines says to follow the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly consider the census official site to be the most reliable source. The NYTimes and the Post may analyze this data to determine the number of White Americans as opposed to just White people, but from the census link it seems very clear that more than "White Americans" are being measured, and some common sense must come into play.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand that is your view. But your view is at odds with the guideline. It is to help us in circumstances such as this that the guideline indicates that the "secondary" RS is what we rely on, not conflicting interpretations of the primary source.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's what I can see from the secondary sources and primary sources: the census official measures "white people" in the United States. From this, sources such as the NYTimes can report on conclusions that can be found about "white Americans". That does not, however, change what the census is polling about. On a somewhat related note, is there any sentence or section of this article that as of now is affected by this discussion?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, the very first sentence, which states: "White American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American" and, within the United States, simply "white") is an umbrella term officially employed by some U.S. government agencies, per standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget, for the classification of United States citizens or resident aliens "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa"". Just to stress again, my problem isn't with the use of the term "White American" so much as its description as "officially employed". None of the sources provided, including the NYT one, claim that this is an official term, even if they do use it themselves. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from a 7 Apr 2006 US Council on Civil Rights Briefing Report, “Racial Classification in the 2010 Census”, giving the history of “race classification” in the United States census.

“… from the beginning, the census implicitly recognized three race categories: white, black, and Indian. ... Starting in the late nineteenth century and continuing through the twentieth century, race classification evolved to include Filipinos, Aleuts, and Hawaiians, among other categories. In 1970, a separate question on Hispanic origin was introduced... In 1978, for the first time, [the Office of Management and Budget] provided federal standards for the collection, tabulation, and presentation of race and ethnic data for government programs via Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. At that time, OMB identified four race categories: white; black; American Indian or Alaska Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander, as well as identifying Hispanic as an ethnicity. In 1997, OMB issued substantial revisions to Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, calling for five separate race categories: white; black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. …Hispanic origin remained a separate category from race.”

Note that in the current classifications “African American” and "American Indian" are the only official terms specifying "American". “White American” is not an official term.

The report goes on to note possible future changes, including “…reducing the number of checkboxes for the major race categories; …including a separate tribal enrollment question for American Indians and Alaska Natives; and …including a modified ancestry question that would elicit specific race and Hispanic origin groups as well as other ancestries such as German, French, or Scotch-Irish.”

The report is here: [13]. Eastcote (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OMB's Directive Number 15 states: "This Directive provides standard classifications for recordkeeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities. ... The basic racial and ethnic categories for Federal statistics and program administrative reporting are defined as follows: a. American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition. b. Asian or Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa. c. Black. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. d. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. e. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East." Eastcote (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so the majority view seems to be that this isn't an official term. I guess the next issue is how to reword that first sentence to reflect this. Do anyone have any suggestions on what to replace it with? Cordless Larry (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout this: "White American (often used interchangeably with "Caucasian American") is an umbrella term for United States citizens with ancestral origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." The "official" term is discussed a couple of paras down, along with the "Hispanic/non-Hispanic" subcategories. I left out "resident aliens", because they are not technically "Americans" until naturalized. Eastcote (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, although the statistics in the infobox include non-citizens as far as I can tell, so there could be scope for confusion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at rewording it. Please feel free to improve on my effort. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


White American → White Americans — The current title of this article, White American, suggests that this is some kind of official term used in the census, when it is not. The article is about white people in the United States and covers people classified as white by the census as well as some cultural aspects of this population. A move to White Americans would avoid suggesting that the article is about an officially defined group and reflect the contents of the article better. An alternative would be White people in the United States. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose I changed my opinion to opposition of the name change in lieu of the article was a Keep and comments made by the Admin who ruled it a keep and no merger ,this article is on it's way to possible Feature Article status, so the current title is fine.--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't really see why a decision not to delete the article means that it shouldn't be renamed. Whether the article should exist and what it should be called are different issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How exactly does the use of the singular suggest that this is an official term? I don't see why this article shouldn't be named in the same way as African American, European American, Asian American, etcetera. Ucucha 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Because the plural makes it clear that the article is about a group rather than a term. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Ucucha. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose the plural is for WP categories which include multiple articles of people who meet the inclusion criteria. It is not used for WP articles about groups of people Hmains (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • See also here, which states: "Since an ethnic group is group of people, a designation in the plural is probably the least ambiguous article title". Cordless Larry (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is not to imply that white Americans constitute an ethnic group, but the implication of the above quote seems to be that groups of people should be in the plural. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Support per WP:Plural. More appropriate if the meaning is simply people who are both white and American. Kauffner (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Question - How would that just not be a fork of White people#United States? What information is so valuable in this article that can't be covered in that section? It seems like a bunch of recaps of bigger articles and a completely WP:SYNTH-laden culture section. Bulldog123 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:PLURAL; the term is certainly not "always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)". –CWenger (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but groups of people are listed as an exception to the rule. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Admixture

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Sir, if you have a problem with the study done by Lao et al.2010 on different ethnic groups from the US then I suggest you write a letter to them and expose your reasons as to why you believe such study is flawed or not, having said that, if you continue to falsely warn me, or deleting that information which is sourced, I'm going to be obligated to contact the Wikipedia administrators about your trolling actions. Posting information from a scientific study, which is sourced any user can go and read up the study is not vandalizing anything, if you can accept the reality then I recommend you learn a little bit about genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.91.216 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you learn a little bit about Wikipedia. Your citation does not support the material you are trying to include, specifically the WP:SYN with your math. In addition, the portions of material about European Americans in the study you are citing for inclusion is admittedly small and does/should not represent all White Americans. Finally the majority of material you are attempting to include here have nothing whatsoever to do with White Americans. If you can build a consensus on the talk page for its inclusion and convince me and other editors why it should be there, then please do so here. In the mean time, the article's status quo should be maintained. Erik the Red (Talk) 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry your personal bias blinds you from accepting the reality, but what I posted is indeed supported in that citation, had you taken the time to read up the study(Lao et al.2010), you would have seen that in page 4, right below figure-1 it says very clear in that paragraph: "Next, we used the Native Americans, East Asians, Eurasians, and Sub-Sahara Africans from HGDP-CEPH as parental groups of the U.S. Americans (the genotype data of the 24 autosomal SNPs can be found in the Supp. Table S5) in a STRUCTURE analysis. Self-declared U.S. Europeans showed on average 93.2% of European ancestry (95% CI from 73.23% to 98.09%), self-declared U.S. Asians carried on average 89.5% of East Asian ancestry (95% CI from 37.43% to 97.46%), and self-declared U.S. Africans revealed on average 86.2 % Sub-Sahara African ancestry (95% CI from 47.82% to 98.5%) (Figure 2)." If you want to go with preconceived notions of genetics with respect to an ethnic group, instead of relying in actual genetics studies, it is up to you, but you have absolutely no right to deprive the general public from accessing that study, which is, in any case very reliable. As for the sample size, well: Guess What? Most genetics studies use relatively small samples size compared to the actual population. Nonetheless the actual amount used in the Lao et al.2010 study was in fact greater than that used by Shriver et al.2003 (245 vs.187) yet the Shriver study is gladly sitting in your admixture section, yet they conclude from a sample of 187 from State College Pennsylvania out of which 1/3 had African admixture, that it was representative enough of the US population. I will post the study again, if you delete it once more, I will report your actions to the administrators of Wikipedia, for someone who claims to be an editor you seem to lack a lot of objectivity that is vital to do such job. So once I again, I will recommend you learn a little bit about Genetics, and for once stop insulting my intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.127.108 (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"I will post the study again, if you delete it once more, I will report your actions to the administrators of Wikipedia" -- you clearly need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, its community, and its policies before editing further. You may want to read WP:AGF. As for the content behind your comments to me (rather than about the material) no where does any of what you've written address White Americans. That is the topic here. Your argument is at best WP:SYN or at worst WP:NOR. The article has been protected; you will not be able to include these disruptive edits. Once again, I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before you edit further. Thanks. Erik the Red (Talk) 04:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Nowhere have I violated any of those rules you keep posting, because as you can see European-American is just another terminology for White American, since last time I checked, European-Americans are White-Americans. My argument is neither WP:SYN norWP:NOR, given that I'm simply contributing to the improvement of the Genetics section, and yes it doesn't take a genius to notice that if the average European admixture for European American is 93.2% per Lao et al.2010, then the average nonEuropean admixture is 6.8%, now simply because they article doesn't go into that obvious conclusion and stops at saying: “93.2% European admixture for European Americans”, doesn't mean I'm making anything up. The fact that you constantly delete that information, and come up with all sorts of dubious excuses to try to prevent me from posting it, (Personal attack removed). So all I have seen here is the unwillingness of an editor to accept a really good contribution to a section, simply because it goes against his preconceived notions in regards to that matter. (Personal attack removed) So for the last time I will ask you politely to allow me to post the study, if you do not comply, I will take the matter to the administrators, given that it is a clear violation of my posting rights, and it is a clear violation of the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.127.108 (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since last time I checked, European-Americans are White-Americans -- this is incorrect and the source of your continued problems here. Many White Americans are not from Europe and your sources do not have any information whatsoever about White Americans. I saw you made these same additions at European American; that is a more appropriate spot for the study you're citing. As your position is unchanged and continually filled will personal attacks, I have reached the point in the conversation where I am done talking to you. If you can include other editors and convince them of your WP:SYN then more power to you. As it stands now, consensus does not support the inclusion of the material you're citing. Erik the Red (Talk) 11:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Many White Americans are not from Europe and your sources do not have any information whatsoever about White Americans.-- Well the vast majority of European Americans are not from Europe either, as they were born in the US, and their family has been in the US for many generations, yet they are considered European-Americans. You are simply playing with words, as you very well know, that European American is another way people refer to the majority of White Americans, because the vast majority of White Americans have European ancestry, unless you think otherwise. Last time I checked White Americans with ancestry from North Africa, the Middle East, or of Jewish extraction were a minority amongst White Americans. I have no intention of making any personal attacks; however, (Personal attack removed) I was vandalizing the article, when in fact I never had such intention. So if consensus does not support the inclusion of the material, perhaps administrators will, given that the material is indeed, in all fairness, accurate and should be included in the admixture section. There aren't that many scientific studies done on White Americans, so by doing what you are doing, (Personal attack removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.127.108 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
So if consensus does not support the inclusion of the material, perhaps administrators will -- That is not how Wikipedia works and you would know that if you familiarized yourself with Wikipedia and its policies before editing further, as I suggested. White Americans covers a range of people from Iran, the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia. White does not equal European. Your citations are about European Americans and other misc groups. Your argument is that because most White Americans are of European origin, then your sources about European Americans should stand as valid for White Americans. That argument is invalid and falls under (as I said before) WP:SYN. Your insistence that it doesn't, along with your continued personal attacks, and assertions that I am robbing the public of vital information suggests that you have not read any of the WP guidelines I've shared with you. You may choose to respond, but until more editors jump in here I'm finished trying to explain these things to you. I'm sorry, but I simply don't have the time to explain the same things to you again and again. Erik the Red (Talk) 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Americans/Archive_4&oldid=1073897378"