Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The overall consensus is for Keep, and in addition there is a large amount of secondary source scholarly material in reliable sources pondering and analyzing this subject matter, from multiple varied viewpoints, such that a full encyclopedic and someday perhaps WP:FA article can continue to be developed and fleshed out over time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White American

edit
AfDs for this article:
White American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, so strangely enough this article was already deleted/merged in 2005 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White American. I'm not sure why it was allowed to be recreated. Nonetheless, this is one giant, crufty, WP:SYNTH-laden WP:OR disaster. All of its salvageable content comes from blurbs copied straight out of better written main articles (such as Definitions of whiteness in the United States or Critical Race Theory). The only remaining content is a thoroughly synthesized "culture" section which actually says nothing about "White American culture" because there is no such thing. Today, the only subject anyone ever talks about regarding this article is who should be selected as a representative of White people for the userbox montage. There's nothing encyclopedic here. Please note that we already have an article for Non-Hispanic Whites. Bulldog123 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning in those two documents is applicable here. If an intersection wouldn't survive as a category or a list, we won't save it by couching it as an article. In other words, if "List of White Americans" is not notable, neither is "White Americans" the article. The intersection is the same. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first book talks about living in a multiracial society... it's not an exploration of the culture of the ethnic group "White American." Your second book doesn't seem relevant at all. Bulldog123 02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapter 6 of the first source is explicitly Looking at White American Culture. Chapter 3 of the second source is Situated Meanings of "White" as a Cultural identity. Both sources are therefore very relevant to the topic. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that these separate "mentions" of it qualify the subject as anything more than FRINGE-ish. If "White American" was an well-established ethnicity and "White American culture" actually existed... why is there almost nothing written on it? Why do we have to dig deep inside off-topic books to find even a brief scan of it? More importantly, is there even any content in those chapters that could really fill up an article? Bulldog123 09:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead of the article does not use the phrase "ethnic group" and so you seem to be attacking a straw man. The topic is defined as a "racial category" or "classification". What this means in terms of shared culture is certainly discussed in that source which has section headings such as "White American culture", "The birth of the white American character" and "Characteristics of contemporary white American culture". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is in the template for American ethnic groups and in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. It uses the infobox standard for ethnic groups. It also has montage images which are exclusively used in ethnic group articles. The culture section treats it like an ethnic group. Must I go on? How is this a straw man argument? Regarding the book, I haven't read it and neither have you. We can't know for sure exactly what it talks about, we can only speculate. But even if it did talk about a uniform "white American culture." How would using this singular, seemingly unknown source not be a case undue weight? Bulldog123 11:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first book mentioned by Colonel Warden uses White American Culture as a synonym for European American, and doesn't apply here (hell, the organization that the author runs seems to also have a location at http://euroamerican.org/ [1]. The second book, from what I've read in its intro, says that it's about European Americans. I'd advise anyone trying to use a book as proof of anything to actually read through the book before trying to use its name or the name of its chapter to try to prove something. --Yaksar (let's chat) 22:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you serious? European American is absolutely not a euphemism, it is a phrase used to refer to European Americans. White American is not a more common name; referring to European Americans as the same as white Americans is downright offensive and excludes a vast amount of people who are technically "white" but not of European descent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Bull -- I have the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions on my watchlist. Many of your efforts to delete material from the Project, for some reason, appear on that list (as well as other lists I have, such as the one that alerts us to efforts by you to delete Jewish cats, lists, articles, etc.). Your statement is, quite, frankly -- untrue. As well as being a personal attack. Please retract your mis-statement as to what I do. This is not the first time you have stated an untruth in making a personal attack. Please don't just redact it -- stop this uncivil misbehavior completely, both with me and with others at the Project. Kindly take this as a final warning. (I might point out that your false accusation is especially absurd coming from you, given that of late you have appeared at dozens of articles I have edited -- where you had never, ever edited before, and reverted my edits). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other note to Bull. If a prior editor has said something as well as I could, there is no need for me to recast the same statement in different words. It strikes me as suggestive of bad faith that you had not a word to say about the !vote immediately above mine by our SPA IP friend, which was even terser than mine. Instead, you were quite comfortable not commenting on the terseness of that entry (could it be because you liked the direction it went?), and attacked the terseness of mine. Your behavior is not only astoundingly transparent, it is not appropriate. At the project, people can have differences of view, and present them, but this "gaming" is certainly not appropriate. Kindly desist.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor above you is an anonymous SPA and will be dismissed as such. However, you are a long-standing editor who always puts per [enter opposing user opinion here]s in nearly every AfD/CfD you join, even when those "pers" make no sense whatsoever. It's unclear to me (or any other editor) if you actually bother to read what these XfDs are about. Also, the latest categories you've hounded me on are not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Ethnic_groups, so although that's a good excuse to explain your wikistalking, it's not the whole truth. Bulldog123 11:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop with the evasions. 1) Admit you were wrong. 2) Redact it. 3) Agree to stop it. 4) You raised my comment here -- not elsewhere; stop changing the subject ... that's evasive. 5) At another recent deletion discussion you saw fit to discuss an IP -- you didn't take the tack of "oh, it's just an IP -- no need to discuss it." Why? Well, common sense does make me reflect on the fact that that IP had a view contrary to yours. 6) If my comments "make no sense whatsover", then there is no need for you to state untruths and make personal attacks to address them.
Bull, you can make your points without these uncivil, evasive, and untruthful tactics. You are violating core wiki principles here, and the community has brought it to your attention in the recent past. I'm reiterating -- please limit your discussion to civil, truthful statements, devoid of personal attacks. And stop hounding me to dozens of articles that you've never edited before, to revert me time and again. I'm asking you civilly but directly, as you seem to have ignored all comments to this effect from me and others, as reflected in your above untrue posting and personal attack.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow you around and revert your edits on topics I don't edit. I only reverted your inappropriate spamming of "See Also" links and your questionable sourcing on List of Jews in sports. That's it. Furthermore, you seem to comment on me at every XfD we cross paths, but the second I point out your obvious stalking, you blow up with indignation and deliver "final warnings." No, I'm not redacting it because from my perspective, this is obvious wikihounding. Bulldog123 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bull -- stop with the bull. Stop following me around. Stop calling proper edits "spam", and think that by your Bull characterization you are doing the Project a favor. Stop following other editors around. Note the warning you just received for incivility. Note the number of editors that have said they can no longer afford you the presumption of good faith because of your continued editing and comments that reflect that you are not entitled to the presumption, having rebutted it. Stop at showing up at articles that you have never edited before, just to revert me. Your refusal is noted. Let me say it as clearly as I can -- you personal accusation of what I am doing is an out-and-out lie, and given your history it is astoundingly bad faith on your part. Lies are not acceptable here, and bad faith is not acceptable. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, I'm sure I'll be attacked for this, but I collapsed your conversation above. The two of you are more than welcome to have this argument, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being debated, and does nothing but distract from the actual substantial arguments. Both of you should know better.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a totally a more related note though, I hope that before considering basing a decision of the book sources mentioned above everyone will look at the small investigation I put into them and will more importantly try to do their own research.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Robofish. Redirect to Definitions of whiteness in the US and European American. This is not an encyclopedic topic, since it cannot be given a definition other than as part of the general concept of Race in the US. "White American" is a category in that system, it is by no means a separate ethnic group. There is no "White american ethnic group" that has any kind of cohesion that is different from the general group of "Americans". Such an article attracts OR and SYNTH issues like a magnet.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should be careful here, because the theme of this article is politically relevant, so most comments (from either side) are likely to be biased in one way or another. In articles like this, I believe we should rely strictly on the rules, which is why I agree with nom that this article shows a number of issues in WP:OR and with Jonathan's comment about WP:OVERCAT. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

edit
  • Keep. When users AndyTheGrump, GiovBag, and other accomplices succeded in the deletion of the White Argentine article, they argued that "White Argentines" did not exist as a legally recognized category -I can assure they exist, even their existance is denied by the aforementioned intelectualoids- because Argentina's Census Bureau did not conduct racial/ethnic censuses. BUT NOW, ARE THEY GOING TO DENY THE EXISTANCE OF WHITE AMERICANS TOO, WHEN IT IS A SO LONG ESTABLISHED CATEGORY IN US CENSUSES? This is outrageous.--Pablozeta (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a compelling reason to delete here. The nominator called it "one giant, crufty, WP:SYNTH-laden WP:OR disaster." Perhaps the article was in a completely different state at the time the nomination was made, because I don't see any of that at all; I see good sources from the US census and sociologists. I do see a couple of statements with the dreaded "citation needed" tag, but that in itself is not a general reflection of the state of the article. I would think that, by now, the nominator would know that "it's cruft" is one of the arguments that we are explicitly to avoid in deletion nominations. That's simply a pejorative term that means "of little general interest", but I hardly find that relevant here, as ethnicity is certainly of general interest. Kansan (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked above but didn't get an answer about the official use of the term "White American". From what I can tell, the census uses the term "White", not "White American". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still leaning toward "keep", as the citation given to back up the "or simply white" claim for the census, [2], does not explicitly use the term "White American", that is true. In my opinion, calling an interpolation between that and "White American", a term whose existence is well documented elsewhere, SYNTH seems to be a bit of a stretch given that the purpose of a census is to classify Americans. I certainly remain open minded here and will continue to follow this debate. Kansan (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think it's a marginal case. I do worry that the article tries to imply from a census category the existence of a self-identifying ethnic group though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally, I don't believe it's a marginal case at all. Whether or not "White American" is used in the census really doesn't matter as we already have Non-Hispanic whites and that seems to cover any meaningful information regarding the census's use of the term "White." As Kansan writes above - "ethnicity is certainly of general interest" - and he's right. However "White American" is not an ethnic group in the United States, and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to prove this otherwise. Bulldog123 02:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kansan. The article appears well sourced and NPOV about a concept that most certainly exists and is notable. The nom's agenda-driven deletion rationale lacks any substance beyond WP:VAGUEWAVES, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain at all why you think that? The nominator has (a bit too enthusiastically in my opinion) tried to address every single argument brought up in this discussion, and there's certainly been no implication of "I don't like this so it should go."--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll explain. Postdlf "doesn't like my approach" to nominating numerous articles for deletion in such a "trigger happy" way, as he's stated before, so he comments on the editor instead of the content. I think this is one of those occasions where Postdlf just !voted the opposite of what he should have to drive the AfD into "no consensus." Take it as a lesson for me to stop nominating articles so brazenly. Sorry for the over-enthusiasm, but I'll happily point out when users try to "game the system" with inconsequential drive-by !keeps. The article most certainly is not WP:NPOV and being "well sourced" is immaterial to the discussion. And postdlf has made no effort to prove that the concept of a "White American" ethnic group exists other than to say it does. Bulldog123 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !voted keep" because I think this should be kept. At most, I see complaints about possible overlap with other topics which is first and foremost a talk page discussion to resolve, not an AFD one; I'm not at all convinced that European American is a synonym, for example (see, e.g., RAN's comments on this below), and I think many of the criticisms could possibly be mooted by a rename. In any event, I do not see deletion as the best option here, nor AFD the best venue to decide what to do about it. Even if we give the !deletion commenters the benefit of all assumptions, what we would then have is a confusing plurality of articles on the same topic, and AFD is typically a poor venue for sorting such a thing out. Beyond that, I don't have anything else to add to what other !keepers have already said here.

    Given that nominating ethnicity related content for deletion is the bulk of what you do on Wikipedia, and given that I have supported your deletion noms on occasion and commented without !voting in other instances, I'll trust the kids at home to determine if anyone's operating from a bias. If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you that the article's infobox grid is stupid and arbitrary. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • But non-Hispanic Whites actually is the proper census definition and it's not narrower than this article. This article is actually narrower because it doesn't consider Arabs, North Africans, Persians, etc... to be "White people" while non-Hispanic Whites does. The last AfD recognized this as an unnecessary fork and I still don't see what vital information there is in this article that can't be merged into non-Hispanic Whites. More importantly though, if you think this article should be kept then you must admit it's not an ethnic group, so all such mentions and implications need to be removed. (i.e., the categories, the infobox montage, the culture section, etc...) If it is kept, then I expect that some sort of discussion will be opened on the talk page to have that be done. Bulldog123 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too concerned about semantics. I'd say "racial classification"; "ethnic group" sounds wrong, but hey, that's what reliable sources are for. So no opinion right now on what category is appropriate. But believe it or not, I agree with you that the infobox montage should be removed, and the culture section as it stands should also be blanked. I think it's possible to have a "white culture" section, provided the scare quotes are left intact, because over U.S. history there certainly have been perceptions as to what constituted "white culture," and those perceptions should be discussed. But the current section does not do that and is pretty much unsourced and lacking clear relevance. You can quote me on that if you like. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The US during the era of eugenics from 1920 to 1930 had rules for White American that at various times included or excluded Hispanics and distinguished Mexicans of Indian descent and Mexicans of Spanish descent. There were also eugenics rules for what percentage of non-white heritage constituted being white. The US census listed "white" as a term to choose. For instance in Australia Black Australians means two distinct populations, African Australians and Native Australians. In South Africa "Black" means Native Africans and people from India. In the US Black American and African American are rough synonyms but sometimes distinguish people born in Africa from one or the other. European American is regional. Caucasian is another term that is sometimes used as a synonym but again sometimes includes or excludes Hispanics. Complex terms need to be distinguished. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a term used in official US government documents and law, as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources. It's a notable topic which satsfies WP:N. This is a re-hash of two older AFDs and is a waist of everyone's time because no new points are being raised.4meter4 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians make stylistic decisions all the time about what articles will be called. The most edited and most read article for the last month is 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, and I can't see a single reference in the article using this exact term. We don't spend hours debating what is a "protest" and what is a "demonstration" or exclude events because they are only taking place in 2011 or only in 2010. You are just playing a game with semantics when you demand the magic word to appear in the reference. Dictionaries are about words, encyclopedias about broader concepts that include synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between an event (and even more so in the example you mention, an encompassing group of events) which often have ample description but no one name, and a term like this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see so articles that based on verbs can have descriptive titles, but we must not allow descriptive title for articles based on nouns, yes, I understand now. Thank you. Now it is clear ... except maybe you can show me something in the MoS that talks about this, because it seems like you make up the rules as you go along to back up your personal preferences. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that neither this article nor the one you brought up have verbs in their names, I feel comfortable saying that I have no idea what you're talking about.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, scholarly works using such term are in the tens of thousands, and I would have imagined that they would be easily discovered by a simple google search. 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". The notability of the subject of the article appears to me to be beyond cavil.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm not disputing the fact that the term has been used by scholars - my point is that the census category is "White" rather than "White American". My sense is that many of the uses of "white American" are merely describing a population under study rather than seeing them as a group who identify as such. Anyway, I'm not arguing for deletion but rather for the article to be clarified and for people to stop using bad rationales for keeping the article, such as "it is a term used by the government", when it clearly isn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Just because an academic article such as this, which you point to, is catalogued on the US government library website, doesn't mean that it's a government publication. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The census is a census of Americans. "Americans" is the parent cat. Which is broken down by sub-cats of different types of American. This is reflected in the above, including many of the tens of thousands of .gov uses of the precise phrase "White American", discoverable in the above. There are many government publication uses of the term -- if you like, just let me know if you have trouble seeing them, and how many you would like to see, and I will seek to cull that number out for you if it is reasonable. I'm not sure where your sense that the use of the term "white american" by scholars means something other than "white american" stems from. I applaud your not arguing for deletion here (a view I agree with). And I'm not commenting on your suggestions for clean-up, because while there may be validity to them AfD is not the right forum for clean-up; that conversation is best had on the article talk page. But, again to the question as to whether the government uses the term -- it clearly does, as reflected in many of the 190,000 .gov urls above (though many of them are irrelevant, many are indubitably uses by various state and government offices and bureaus of that phrase). In any event, as to the bottom line, this without question IMHO is a subject that meets GNG, per the ample refs above. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the mentions on .gov websites are medical studies that happen to be stored or catalogued on government websites. That doesn't make it an official term. Perhaps I'm not being clear about what I mean by "official". I mean a classification used in surveys such as the census and in statistics based on that data. My problem with the article as it currently stands is that it suggests that this is an official classification, and that there is a direct link between that classification and the use of the term by scholars. Anyway, as you say, the best place for this discussion is on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see here for that discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...are verifiable ethnic groups. White American isn't." That is patently false. White people are a race and white Americans are Americans that are members of that race. It has nothing to do with the color of a person's skin, but if they are a member of that race. President Obama, for example, is as much a white American as he is an African American. The term white is often interchanged with the term Caucasian. The word caucasian was invented in 1795 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and has been used as the blunt instrument of "scientific racism" off and on since then. Unfortunately it has not died out along with the other pseudoscience classificaitons Blumenbach invented. For the record, most if not all EEOC questionnaires and census materials use the term white not caucasian. Erikeltic (Talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Racial group and ethnic group is not the same thing. The problem with "White American" is that it is neither a racial group or an ethnic group but rather a racial subdivision of a ethno-national group. Also your idea about President Obama is not quite correct as in the United States assignation race has traditionally been by the one-drop rule so that Black means anyone who has any African ancestry, although in practice usually it has also been assigned by phenotype - under both criteria President Obama would be black (unless of course he goes to Brazil where he quite likely would be considered white because he has too much money and status to be considered black). But in any case the deletion rationale here is that there is no "white american" ethnic group. There is a racial category of White people that is employed in America - I think that for that reason the best outcome here would be a redirect to Race in America.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone explain for me why this was tagged for rescue? None of the objections in the AfD regard issues of fixing up the actual article (which is well written and everything) but are about the concept of the article itself. I worry that the rescue tag really only serves to bring in keep !votes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that generally the main function of those tags? Maybe deletionists should get a tag-for-annihilation flag to balance the odds.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I don't know how well that would go over. But no, the rescue tag is meant to bring editors to a nominated article in order to improve, clean, and source it in order to help prove it should stay. A tag meant to just bring people over who would vote keep would be considered canvassing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first part of this article ('Historical and present definitions') to Definitions of whiteness in the United States, and the rest (Demographic information and Culture) to European American. Having thought this over, I think this is the best solution. Much of this article crosses over with European American, as they cover substantially the same topic: I note, for example, that that article uses the 'White' census numbers as a proxy for the numbers of European Americans. In modern-day common use, it is clear that 'white American' generally refers to European Americans. However, strictly speaking they're not the same thing: as the 'Definitions of whiteness...' article makes clear, at various times, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and African Americans have to some extent been considered 'white'. Hence, I think the best solution is to have one article about the ethnic group European Americans, which is where most of the content in this article belongs; and one article at Definitions of whiteness in the United States on the concept of 'white American', what it meant historically and what it means today. Robofish (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree very much with that rationale.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, the census uses "white", and the article isn't about the demographic segment identified in censuses in any case.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The census measures white Americans. We know this the old-fashioned way -- because the RSs tell us so.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion here. The census records "white" people, which is sometimes reported elsewhere as "white Americans" but which actually includes all people, American or not, who are white. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We rely on RSs. The New York Times is an RS. To prevent us from misinterpreting primary sources, our guidelines instruct us to look to the RSs' interpretation. The New York Times confirms what I thought self-evident--what is being referred to by the census is the category "White American". If we stick to the guidelines (and avoid forays into OR efforts around what the RS tells us), the conclusion is ineluctable.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but plenty of other reliable sources use "white people". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And many articles use both terms, using them interchangeably. Bottom line, as the sources suggest, the phrase "White" in the census is shorthand. And as the RSs suggest, it doesn't appear to be short-hand for "white rabbits" or "white toyotas" or "white things". And as even government sources commenting on the census indicate (which I've reflected on the talk page), what one might have thought was self-evident was the case -- it is White Americans. I don't see anything in the RSs that conflicts with that. And I see much to support it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dodging my question. Yes, there are some who say European American instead of White American, just as some say African American instead of Black American. Now then, why are the other articles I mentioned not "legitimately considered equivalent" in your opinion? Dream Focus 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamfocus - "Black American" redirects to "African American" just like "White American" needs to redirect to "European American". What is politically correct about that? ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the opening of the article, it clearly explains that not all White Americans are European Americans. The two articles are different and clearly notable on their own. Dream Focus 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're intentionally arguing against yourself or what, but at this point I'm just gonna let it be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, "White people" are not an ethnic group. Our White people article doesn't refer to "White" as an ethnicity, but says that "the term white denotes a specific set of ethnic groups and functions as a color metaphor for race". I believe that there is adequate sourcing to justify an article on the topic of Americans who have been denoted in such a way. The current article fails in a lot of ways, but I think that its problems are surmountable, albeit not easily. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, shouldn't you be asking for a merge or at the very least a "Keep with reservations?" This article does it's very best to create a completely synthesized view of "White Americans" - treating them as being exclusively of European descent (while the census does not do that), manufacturing a "White American culture," and acting like they're a uniform ethnic group. Why wouldn't a slightly more fleshed-out version of Non-Hispanic Whites be enough to cover this term? Bulldog123 13:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some sympathy for the that point you're making here. We have White American, White people#United States, European American, Whiteness studies, Definitions of whiteness in the United States, Non-Hispanic Whites, and Cracker. There are some pretty fine distinctions that need to be made to justify 6 articles on such similar topics, and some of them are running together a bit. A merge may not be the worst idea, but I would think another article or two should be merged into White American than the other way around. In case I'm not being clear, I think Postdlf's comments at 18:51 came pretty close to expressing the way I think about this. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article, or just decide it should be deleted based on its name? Dream Focus 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure he decided because White American is a SYNTH term not an ethnic group, and we have articles for all the individual groups who encompass it. That the article makes it seem like White American is exclusively European American is irrelevant. That's not the right use of the word "White" per our census. Bulldog123 11:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. This is just an unacceptable content fork that at best duplicates information at other articles such as European American. Honestly, "White American" might be a better title for the article currently called "European American", but there is no need for two separate articles.--Cúchullain t/c 17:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except they are not synonyms. European American is based on geography and "white" is a 1920's to 1930's time frame eugenics concept used by, among others, the US census. It doesn't match up with European American, think of a Venn diagram where circles partly overlap. People from the middle east were "white" but not European American according to the census rules. People from Mexico and South America were not European American and were "white" or non-white depending on arcane rules. Yupik and Inuit and Aleu are not European American. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same group of Wiki-sociologists are also enforcing similar semantic-based narrow-definitions at Norwegian diaspora and Swedish diaspora and have nominated them for deletion. The same arguments are being made that "Norwegian" "diaspora" = neologism just as "White" in the 1920 US census or 1930 US census or in American medical journals is not a synonym for "White American". If anyone has an opinion, the are welcome to join the discussion there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What group might that be? As far as I can see you and I and dreamfocus are the only editors who have voted in both topics. Also your comment about your opponents trying to "enforce" something is offensive, the only thing that is being enforced is policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were these comments intended to respond to mine? I don't know about those other articles, but this one definitely just reduplicates information found elsewhere, and ought to be merged.--Cúchullain t/c 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never really thought about this as a distinct term, but now that I see it, I think this is an encyclopedic topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep dismissing the views of others. This person has explained why they said keep, it a distinct term and clearly an encyclopedic topic. What do you not understand? Dream Focus 10:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Saying Now I see its an encyclopedic topic" is not an argument, yaksar is giving him a chance to explain his reasoning so that his vote may be counted as based on reason and policy instead of just opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an article is on an encyclopedic topic is an argument. Just as saying that one is not is an argument. Personally, they are not my favorite arguments. But I disagree with friend Maunus that it "is not an argument".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who are not familiar with Glenn Beck or American politics: [3] Qrsdogg (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should be careful here, because the theme of this article is politically relevant, so most comments (from either side) are likely to be biased in one way or another. In articles like this, I believe we should rely strictly on the rules, which is why I agree with nom that this article shows a number of issues in WP:OR and with Jonathan's comment about WP:OVERCAT. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hispanic and Latino Americans - Native American – Puerto Rican American - Black American - Asian American – Mexican American, all having articles here on Wikipedia, as shown by the blue links. It should also be noted, that all the articles referenced above borrow heavily and with large sections copied straight out of better written main articles. In that numerous other articles, for similar context, are currently posted here on Wikipedia, the question becomes does the term “White American” generated enough coverage in secondary – verifiable – creditable and independent sources to be considered notable under are current notability guidelines? In my reading the article, which seems to be well referenced and Google searches in Books – Scholar – and News, I believe the term meets our requirements for inclusion. ShoesssS Talk 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, however, that Black American redirects to African-American. We've also got articles on Arab American, Pacific Islander American, and probably oodles more. This article, however, is about a group that is a combination of a bunch of those articles listed above (and many sources about "White Americans" seem to be incorrectly using the term to refer to European Americans).--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – You are absolutely right. However, you should also note that a user has the ability to type in Black American into our search function and is than automatically redirected to African American. Likewise, it is noted at the top of the page that this is a redirect from Black American to African American. Are you a purposing a redirect for White American? That could be a great compromise, but what term would you use? The way I read the articles are they are a generalization of a cultural group, the same way Irish American or German American are generalizations of those particular groups. I read the article as strictly an overview of that particular population and not as specific criteria to be placed on individuals within that population. ShoesssS Talk 21:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely fair points. I'd actually guess that most delete !votes in this conversation would also be in favor of a redirect (yes I know, technically they're two very different things, but very often a redirect vote is often made with the same logic as a delete one). In terms of where it should be redirected to, I'd think that Race and ethnicity in the United States would probably be best, although White people could make sense. A redirect to European American, while very likely logical based on what many people coming to this article are probably searching for, is probably a bit too controversial and potentially offensive. But I'm certainly open to the opinions of others, and depending on how this discussion ends I'll be happy to continue the conversation on the talk page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_American_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1171746202"