This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American ancestry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
version prior to this talk - -- Moxy ( talk) 08:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article asserts that "Americans are a North American ethnic group." That assertion is not sufficiently supported by the citations provided. The citation for Albion's Seed, for example, points to the entire the book when it should point to specific page numbers or at least specific chapters or even a specific, quoted passage. Albion's Seed never uses the term "American ethnicity" or argues for that concept within its covers. Instead, Albion's Seed uses terms such as "cultural heritage" (p. 133). Albion's Seed uses "American" in a way that contradicts this article's claim that the word "American" functions today as reference to a specific ethnicity: "Today less than 20 percent of the American population have any British ancestry at all. But in a cultural sense, most Americans are Albion's Seed, no matter who their own forebears may have been" (p. 6; Albion is the first recorded name for the isle of Britain). This article focuses heavily on ancestry, but Albion's Seed presents "American" as wholly divorced from "ancestry": "most Americans," no matter their ancestry, are considered culturally connected to Britain. In its current form, this article does not follow Wikipedia policies for controversial articles and neutral point of view. This article needs to be thoroughly revised or deleted. As it stands, it's not suitable for wikipedia. Jk180 ( talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 23:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
American ethnicity →
American ancestry – After seeing the current and now archived talks I decided to clean up this article with sourced content ect... After do so I think the article would best represent the content, scoop and it's sources if this was moved back to
American ancestry where it was at one time. Finding an ideal title for this symbolic or self-proclaimed group is difficult but I think American ancestry is best.....as "Ancestry" is a specific US Census question in 2000.
Moxy (
talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.
Yashovardhan (
talk)
11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Support This article is talking about ancestry, or at least people's perception or concept of it. Of course there is a distinct American culture and identity which, BTW, is shared by Americans of all races and backgrounds. But an article on that would have a different focus than this one which seems to be focused on white people only. BigJim707 ( talk) 16:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Support The article name should be changed from American Ethnicity to American Ancestry. The article should be based on data, including analysis by experts, and that data points to an emerging sense of "American" as an ancestry that is freed from conventional explanations of ancestry. (The data certainly does not point to an uncontested white American ethnicity that is truly grounded in western white Anglo-European ancestry, as was claimed in earlier versions of this article.) The article should be expanded to explore usage of "American" as a term (sometimes contested) of ancestry by different groups and different ethnicities. For example, the reference to "Native American" should be restored, I believe. Jk180 ( talk) 18:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The top section includes the sentence
What the heck is "multitude" supposed to mean here? The word means "a large number (of ...)", or "the people, the masses". Here, it is opaque. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu ( talk) 04:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I must admit I'm slightly confused by this article. Is this article about responses by White Americans (who in reality are of European ancestry) who identify as American or all American people irrespective or race or ethnicity who identify as American? If this is only about White Americans, then perhaps the article should made this clear in the lead so not to confuse the reader, and perhaps a renaming is in order so that we all know what this article is about. If on the other hand it is about all Americans irrespective of race/ethnicity who identify as just American, then it begs the question why aren't those ethnic groups represented in this article and why do we only see white/Europeans in the related section of the infobox? Tamsier ( talk) 16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Heres a link to the US Census FAQs about the "ancestry question"
"We code up to two ancestries per person. If a person reports more than two ancestries, we generally take the first two. For example, if a person reports German, Italian, and Scottish, we would code German and Italian." So if you're one-fourth German, one-fourth Italian, one-fourth Scottish and one-fourth French, then you might just say you're "American" rather than arbitrarily pick two of the four. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow the rationale for inclusion in this section of the infobox. It all seems rather arbitrary. Should probably just remove that part of the infobox. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. We can't cover them all in the infobox. So I replaced that mixed bag of random links with a single link to American ancestries, which just happens to basically say what I said above off the top of my head (before reading that section on Wikipedia). – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
And not all of the articles that should be in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States are! wbm1058 ( talk) 16:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "a prominent [[Natural history|naturalist]]," as it means nothing in this context. I searched the "Natural history" article, and the disambiguation page and could find nothing that gave a usage for the word "naturalist" that makes sense in the context of the sentence in this article. If you know of a meaning that does make sense, then replace the phrase with one that uses that definition, or links directly to that definition. Thank, Nick Beeson ( talk) 14:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Think best bring up proposed changes here first. Not sure why this choice is a political statement was removed. Also wondering why what most belive the term means was removed. Why was the academic analysis section blanked...... not sure how anyone can say an Oxford University Professor would be a bad source. Do some not have access to sources? Not seeing how removing racial views of the earliest 20th century is helpful either. Moxy- 23:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
"Why was the academic analysis section blanked...... not sure how anyone can say an Oxford University Professor would be a bad source. Do some not have access to sources?"
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American ancestry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
version prior to this talk - -- Moxy ( talk) 08:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The opening sentence of this article asserts that "Americans are a North American ethnic group." That assertion is not sufficiently supported by the citations provided. The citation for Albion's Seed, for example, points to the entire the book when it should point to specific page numbers or at least specific chapters or even a specific, quoted passage. Albion's Seed never uses the term "American ethnicity" or argues for that concept within its covers. Instead, Albion's Seed uses terms such as "cultural heritage" (p. 133). Albion's Seed uses "American" in a way that contradicts this article's claim that the word "American" functions today as reference to a specific ethnicity: "Today less than 20 percent of the American population have any British ancestry at all. But in a cultural sense, most Americans are Albion's Seed, no matter who their own forebears may have been" (p. 6; Albion is the first recorded name for the isle of Britain). This article focuses heavily on ancestry, but Albion's Seed presents "American" as wholly divorced from "ancestry": "most Americans," no matter their ancestry, are considered culturally connected to Britain. In its current form, this article does not follow Wikipedia policies for controversial articles and neutral point of view. This article needs to be thoroughly revised or deleted. As it stands, it's not suitable for wikipedia. Jk180 ( talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 23:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
American ethnicity →
American ancestry – After seeing the current and now archived talks I decided to clean up this article with sourced content ect... After do so I think the article would best represent the content, scoop and it's sources if this was moved back to
American ancestry where it was at one time. Finding an ideal title for this symbolic or self-proclaimed group is difficult but I think American ancestry is best.....as "Ancestry" is a specific US Census question in 2000.
Moxy (
talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.
Yashovardhan (
talk)
11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Support This article is talking about ancestry, or at least people's perception or concept of it. Of course there is a distinct American culture and identity which, BTW, is shared by Americans of all races and backgrounds. But an article on that would have a different focus than this one which seems to be focused on white people only. BigJim707 ( talk) 16:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Support The article name should be changed from American Ethnicity to American Ancestry. The article should be based on data, including analysis by experts, and that data points to an emerging sense of "American" as an ancestry that is freed from conventional explanations of ancestry. (The data certainly does not point to an uncontested white American ethnicity that is truly grounded in western white Anglo-European ancestry, as was claimed in earlier versions of this article.) The article should be expanded to explore usage of "American" as a term (sometimes contested) of ancestry by different groups and different ethnicities. For example, the reference to "Native American" should be restored, I believe. Jk180 ( talk) 18:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The top section includes the sentence
What the heck is "multitude" supposed to mean here? The word means "a large number (of ...)", or "the people, the masses". Here, it is opaque. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu ( talk) 04:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I must admit I'm slightly confused by this article. Is this article about responses by White Americans (who in reality are of European ancestry) who identify as American or all American people irrespective or race or ethnicity who identify as American? If this is only about White Americans, then perhaps the article should made this clear in the lead so not to confuse the reader, and perhaps a renaming is in order so that we all know what this article is about. If on the other hand it is about all Americans irrespective of race/ethnicity who identify as just American, then it begs the question why aren't those ethnic groups represented in this article and why do we only see white/Europeans in the related section of the infobox? Tamsier ( talk) 16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Heres a link to the US Census FAQs about the "ancestry question"
"We code up to two ancestries per person. If a person reports more than two ancestries, we generally take the first two. For example, if a person reports German, Italian, and Scottish, we would code German and Italian." So if you're one-fourth German, one-fourth Italian, one-fourth Scottish and one-fourth French, then you might just say you're "American" rather than arbitrarily pick two of the four. – wbm1058 ( talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow the rationale for inclusion in this section of the infobox. It all seems rather arbitrary. Should probably just remove that part of the infobox. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. We can't cover them all in the infobox. So I replaced that mixed bag of random links with a single link to American ancestries, which just happens to basically say what I said above off the top of my head (before reading that section on Wikipedia). – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
And not all of the articles that should be in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States are! wbm1058 ( talk) 16:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "a prominent [[Natural history|naturalist]]," as it means nothing in this context. I searched the "Natural history" article, and the disambiguation page and could find nothing that gave a usage for the word "naturalist" that makes sense in the context of the sentence in this article. If you know of a meaning that does make sense, then replace the phrase with one that uses that definition, or links directly to that definition. Thank, Nick Beeson ( talk) 14:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Think best bring up proposed changes here first. Not sure why this choice is a political statement was removed. Also wondering why what most belive the term means was removed. Why was the academic analysis section blanked...... not sure how anyone can say an Oxford University Professor would be a bad source. Do some not have access to sources? Not seeing how removing racial views of the earliest 20th century is helpful either. Moxy- 23:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
"Why was the academic analysis section blanked...... not sure how anyone can say an Oxford University Professor would be a bad source. Do some not have access to sources?"