Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States/Archive 2

Contribution to Middle Easterners and North Africans.
I have added a couple paragraphs to this section to make it more consistent with some of the information on other groups, especially Asian Americans. BradleyZopf (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)BradleyZopf

Comments invited on related topic
Comments are welcome at Racial views of Donald Trump talk page section here: A certain quote has been selected from the Pres. Trump's inauguration address and there is disagreement as to whether it should be included in the article.  SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Social Definitions of Race
"but no scientific ones?" - Your bias is showing again. You even have a category "Genetic Admixtures" .. OF WHAT?

FROM WIKIPEDIA'S ENTRY

Race (human classification) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Morphologically_differentiated_populations Morphologically differentiated populations -

""Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies. -

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule. -


 * In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. ***-

Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other. -


 * However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones.*** .... - - - -  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4300:1F60:E543:B97E:8575:A7F (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Countries of origin for Arab Americans
The list from Arab American Institute is literally just the 22 member countries of the Arab League. I'm not sure how meaningful it is for this article; more useful might be the top 5 or so countries that Arab Americans have roots in.--Pharos (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statistics isn't a crime, it becomes when racial data are collected officially and in universities, not from private "statistical institutions"
If you create a formal racial society, then, many laypeople will become racists, and that isn't some theory, because we can compare country policies and racism among many countries.

The main article doesn't mention all racial problems of the federal US policy.


 * Many (not all) US blacks accept the white supremacy one blood policy.

Many Americans are racial.

Being racial means to support your race, sounds good but we are Americans. Skin has some culture, but we should reshape our culture as philosophically aracials.

I don't claim mine is the only opinion, but there are many simpletons like me. In Wikipedia we are supposed to reveal the social criticism.

My opinion is that coloration is antiquated and outdated. The U.S has not grown beyond illiteracy by using Black and White categories, both are Social Conventions that were created to divide people. However there's no Red or Yellow categories due they know this was specifically drawn to push African Descendants of slaves into the background. People come from all over Europe and have actual ancestry that are non SOCIAL CONVENTIONS.

Apologies for the caps

I think this time is coming to an end because its purpose cannot survive the changing demographics of America. I agree that Europeans must be broken down by their ancestry as when Wikipedia breaks down each group of enigrated American's. African Americans are conglomerated as a group as a result of European Slavery destroyed their true identities. All other's know their identities and can trace tbeir lineage back to some country in Europe. Linda Keita (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Map Legend
Many of the census maps don't have legends. This can be incredibly misleading and should be fixed. I'll do it myself if I get a chance, but that may take a while. If someone has these maps and could just upload a legend, that would be great.

If a map shades a lot of counties darkly, it might look like there are tons of people of that ancestry, but without a leged there is no way to tell--"darkly" might mean 1% or 90%. That's why legends exist. You can see that by comparing the Scottish map with the Asian one. (Also, as noted above, comparing a continent vs. a country is not cool and also really misleading.) The Scottish map is really red, with a lot of counties shaded darkly, but the legend shows that those counties have a few percent of people of Scottish ancestry. In the Asian map, some of the light purple counties are upwards of 80% Asian. So the Asian map makes it look like there are no people of Asian descent, but in fact they have really high numbers in some counties. The overall effect is that Asians are almost erased, and Scots are over-represented, when the two (very different) maps are compared. (Also, this issue is separate from the under-reporting of people of Scottish ancestry, since the map issue is about representing the existing data as accurately as possible. It's a second, and also important, issue to discuss the quality of the census data.)


 * I concur. If Wikipedia wants to consider itself to be an encyclopedia, it must hold itself to high standards across multiple fronts, including accuracy and completeness of information.  Maps without legends are greatly diminished in their usefulness, and what's worse, they can be seriously misleading.  Attend to those legends, please!  Thanks.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

scottish and scotch-irish problem
As I understand it the actual numbers of Americans descendants from Scottish and Scotch-Irish immigrants to the US is always under-represented in the census because these groups have tended to assimilate to such an extent that they have lost affiliation with, or even knowledge of, their ancestral country of origin. Areas of formidable Scottish and Scotch-Irish settlement are also areas where many claim only to be simply 'Americans.' Scholars give the reason that, owing to their Protestantism, they were more easily able to blend into mainstream Anglo-American culture than, say, Irish Catholics, Italians, etc.

Also, many who today claim Irish ancestry are in fact descendant from Scotch-Irish, or Anglo-Irish (i.e. protestant) immigrants.


 * There is no evidence that 'many' who claim Irish ancestry are 'really' Scotch-Irish. The maps which show the regions in which a primary Irish ancestry is reported show that Irish ancestry is mostly claimed in the Northeast, which is consistent with what we know about US immigration history. Irish immigration (from Southern Ireland) started significantly during the Famine and didn't really wane until the 1920s. Most of these immigrants settled in Northeastern cities, which now constitute the largest population centers in the country. Scotch-Irish ancestry claims, on the other hand, are concentrated mostly in sparsely populated rural regions, which is also consistent with immigration history. There might be 'some' claiming Irish ancestry who are really Scotch-Irish, but there is almost no chance that 'many' or 'most' are doing it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Another conundrum involves the multi-racial genealogy of most Americans. There's the race to which a person identifies and the race(s) from which they are comprised.  Table 1, for example, lists 6 races and a 7th category for "other," but it contains no information on the percentages of actual genealogical composition.  This would require a 7x7 matrix, for a total of 49 entries, with Self-Identified Race along the left column, and Genetic Component along the top row, both with the same 7 categories.  The results would be percentage components from each major genealogical race, for each self-identified race.  I think most people would be interested in knowing the component breakdown, and it might go a long way towards healing race relations to learn how white most blacks really are, and how not-so-white many whites really are.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Distinguishing between race and ethnicity
If the article title is to stand as it is, I feel as if definitions of race and ethnicity (and their differences) should be introduced before one goes on to talk about how African Americans are the largest racial minority and Latinos are the largest ethnic minority in America. To put "please don't fix this" isn't enough, the definitions of the terms and there differences should be explained and cited before one can discuss "race and ethnicity in America effectively ? Gi4444 (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Biologically, "race" is based on inheritable (genetic) physical differences within a species or sub-species. Meanwhile, "An ethnic group, a people group, a people, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as common language, history, society, culture or nation."  Thus, one can be Caucasian but of the Latino ethnicity.  As Wikipedia states, "Neither "Hispanic" nor "Latino" refers to a race, as a person of Latino/Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race."  The female lead in Dances with Wolves, for example, was of the Caucasian race but of Native American ethnicity having been raised with an Indian tribe since she was a little girl.Clepsydrae (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

African Americans are not an Ethic minority when the ethnic identification are broken down by group. According to Wikipedia45,789,188[1] 14.1% of the total U.S. population (2017)
There are weak and strong social constructs.[3] Weak social constructs rely on brute facts (which are fundamental facts that are difficult to explain or understand, such as quarks) or institutional facts (which are formed from social conventions).[2][3] Strong social constructs rely on the human perspective and knowledge that does not just exist, but is rather constructed by society.[2 Linda Keita (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A true representation of the demographics demonstrated by ethnic diversity amongst the European German Americans RANK 2 in the United States population. 43,100,000[1] 13.26% of the U.S. population (2017) Regions with significant populations.

This is lower than the African American category noted at 14.1% Linda Keita (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Lastly the 3rd largest population by ethnicity are Mexican Americans.

36,668,018 11.2% of total U.S. population, 2017[1]. Mexico Rank 3 in the largest ethnic groups when broken down by true ethnicity. The usage of Black and White were formed from "SOCIAL CONVENTION" and are not mathematically correct in refernce to the diversity of ethnicities repesented in the United States. I will continue by posting more examples of the Ethnic identities, that supracede racial categorization BLACK and WHITE that a social constructs. Linda Keita (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Swedish Americans Total population 4,347,703 1.4% of the US population (2009)[1] This was the most recent article listed on Wikipedia dated 2009. Linda Keita (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

My point is that its not a correct assessment to use White as a categorization of true ancestry. All of the categories are seen here on Wikipedia for everyone whose American. This is indicative of discriminatory cheating by using false percentage of people represented in the Census. America should be ashamed that it uses such an antiquated description in the 21zt century. We must navigate on intelligence based on we're living in the information age. Linda Keita (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Italian Americans

Italy United States Total population 17,222,412 (2013) (5.4% of the U.S. population)[1] 15,723,555 (2000)[2] 14,664,550 (1990)[3] 12,183,692 (1980)[4]

Italians are only 5.4% of the U.S population. This is direct evidence that White is a SOCIAL CONVENTION and is really a characteristic of illiterate terminology being used to discriminate against all other ethnicities who are NON EUROPEAN not non white. We're all non White and non Black in true genetics, and ancestry Linda Keita (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

French Americans

Total population 10,329,465[1] ~3% of the U.S. population (2013) 8,228,623 (only French) 2,100,842 (French Canadian)

Only represents 3% of the total U.S population. What does this say in real mathematics and equations? It says White is not an Ethnicity and race is not an ancestry its a description or adjective to describe not define people. Its also antiquated and low IQ to push it on a supposedly intelligence country like America. Linda Keita (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dutch Americans

Total population 4,533,617[1] 1.43% of the U.S. population (2013) certainly aren't a majority percentage here at 1.43% of the U.S population. Linda Keita (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Americans Total population Self-identified as "Spaniard" Increase 14,987,420 (2017)[1] Increase 13.335,253 (2010)[2]

No percentage noted. Linda Keita (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Polish Americans 9,500,000 U.S. Estimate, 2013, self-reported[1] Around 3% of U.S. population

ONLY 3% of the total U.S population is not a majority position. This has been a problem because it disenfranchised African Americans who are clearly a larger group at 14.1% of the total U.S population. It shameful in fact and is evidence of discriminatory patterns in the Census count that produces the population percentage numbers.

Linda Keita (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Swiss Americans

Total population c. 0.9 million (2013)[1]0.3% of the U.S. population

ONLY 0.3% of the total population. Linda Keita (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Icelandic Americans Total population 42,716[1] 0 % rate but they're counted as part of a majority even though they're all from Iceland. Linda Keita (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia must correct this information due it doesn't reflect these percentage rates under the title African Americans demographically in the U.S.

"There were 37,144,530 non-Hispanic blacks, which comprised 12.1% of the population.

This number increased to 42 million according to the 2010 United States Census, when including Multiracial African Americans, making up 14% of the total U.S. population."

2017 45,789,188 14.1% This information is from 2010. We are an intelligent country and Wikipedia must post correct information that is not misleading and falsely stated to benefit Europeans via social conventions Linda Keita (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

My next comment proves that immigrants who receive their citizenship from Nigeria are referenced as Nigerian American. Proving again that WHITE is used as a "social convention".

Nigerian Americans Total population 380,785 total, 2016 277,027 Nigerian-born, 2012-2016

Zero percentage noted Linda Keita (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What changes are you proposing? I just see a lot of copy-paste. It looks like you want to claim African Americans are the largest ethnic group?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The copy and paste was done to show that the claim I am making is evidenced by facts and not just my owm opinion.


 * The change that needs to occur is that people who migrate from Europe be represented by their said country in order to represent the true Diversity of the Multiplicity of all culture's in the United States instead of false European ideologies formed through social conventions, and political arena. This will allow more fairness and it allows all Americans to be proud of their ethnicities represented in the population we live, what I want to see occur is that Americans not be represented by coloration, but by their said ancestry. Linda Keita (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * African American are the majority in percentage rates.


 * African Americans are 14.1% and is the majority. The largest group of Europeans are German Americans at 13.26%. The next largest population are Mexican Americans at 11.2% all other ethnicities have a lower total percentage in the United State. I am not claiming African Americans are the majority the statistics says they're the largest group by ethnic representation in America.


 * If you can debunk discredible the information do so. The information noted in reference to my assertions are compiled on the Wikipedia site as credible sources. I have given you my assimilation and implementaion on how I discerned the information on Wikepedia as noted.


 * Thank you for your feedback
 * Linda Keita (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fijian Americans
 * Total population
 * 24,629 alone,
 * 32,304 including partial ancestry, 0.01%
 * (2010 Census: ancestry or ethnic origin)
 * 39,235 (Fijian-born, 2013)


 * The information I am posting are from Wikepedia who has broken down each ethnic group by their true identities. Therefore the information is already set in type sets, and is more creditable than using WHITE or BLACK social conventions Black and White, as ethnic identifications. Another example of this is other ethnicities other than Europeans who are categorized as WHITES in the current census counts.

The representation of WHITE and BLACK are both social constructs that were used in a time when American governments governed by race and discrimination. We are no longer living in that age in time,if we are to call ourselves intelligent today then we must represent that in our daily lives. We must educate ourselves and our children that Black and White racial categories are not the true representation of people in the United States. This must be demonstrated by changing the ethnic groups from Black or White to European, African ect ect ect. Linda Keita (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my typo's. That was supposed to say European and African. Update made correction to above typo 2/26/2019  Linda Keita (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a problem when you group Europeans as WHITE because it allows for dishonest reporting in the Census and population count.


 * Finnish Americans


 * Total population
 * 695,296 (2009 US Census)[1][2] 0.23% of the US population


 * For example according to Wikipedia Fins are only 0.23% of the population but are still represented as a majority group in the United States based on a social convention it postioned as category White and not as Finland Americans. This equates into not reporting the population in its true representation and true diversity. It allows illiteracy and ignorance to manifest itself via racial differences that are false moreover our true ethnicity. What I want is that all Americans be represented by thier said ancestry as they're listed here in plain site here on Wikipedia. If African Americans are the majority or any other group is a majority. It should not reflect that WHITE PEOPLE are a majority when in actuality they are several groups of minorities as stated in the actual population.


 * Finnish Americans


 * Total population
 * 695,296 (2009 US Census)[1][2]0.23% of the US population Linda Keita (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @Evergreenfirs Linda Keita (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Copy and pasted from another topic on TALK above.


 * The definition of Race and ethnicity


 * Morphologically differentiated populations
 * Population geneticists have debated whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. To do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. Although the concept of population is central to ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation biology, most definitions of population rely on qualitative descriptions such as "a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time".[77] Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of definitions for populations; those that fall into an ecological paradigm, and those that fall into an evolutionary paradigm. Examples of such definitions are:


 * Ecological paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species that co-occur in space and time and have an opportunity to interact with each other.
 * Evolutionary paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species living in close-enough proximity that any member of the group can potentially mate with any other member.[77]
 * Sesardic argues that when several traits are analyzed at the same time, forensic anthropologists can classify a person's race with an accuracy of close to 100% based on only skeletal remains.[78] Sesardic's claim has been disputed by Massimo Pigliucci, who accused Sesardic of "cherry pick[ing] the scientific evidence and reach[ing] conclusions that are contradicted by it." Specifically, Pigliucci argues that Sesardic misrepresented a paper by Ousley et al. (2009), and neglected to mention that they identified differentiation not just between individuals from different races, but also between individuals from different tribes, local environments, and time periods.[79] This is discussed in a later section.


 * Clines
 * One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was the anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, slow migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines.[80] For example, with respect to skin color in Europe and Africa, Brace writes:


 * To this day, skin color grades by imperceptible means from Europe southward around the eastern end of the Mediterranean and up the Nile into Africa. From one end of this range to the other, there is no hint of a skin color boundary, and yet the spectrum runs from the lightest in the world at the northern edge to as dark as it is possible for humans to be at the equator.[81] Linda Keita (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies regarding my ladt post, that Article reads THE SOCIAL DEFINITION OF RACE it is the first topic on the thread. Linda Keita (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @EvergreenFir
 * I noted some of your topics on TALK reveal you voted for Trump. With that said what do you feel about using colorations as a Racial categories vs using ones true ancestry and ethnicity? My opinion is that you are just as much non White as I am non White. You are just as non Black as I am non Black. So where do you sit therein this topic seeing you have made several TALK POST. What do you expect from these TALK topics here on Wikipedia? I would like to build a more intelligent America regarding all people should be counted fairly, neither are we a political party and neither should that divide us as Americans. I don't agree with the Trump wall based on the wall is being sought on raical basis regarding the declining European population in the United States. It appears that Republicans think that we are not aware of the demographic change occurring in the United States regarding fertility birthrates declining amongst European Americans. Due to the outcry for a wall it is obvious its not as much about Mexican illegals as much as it is about the chamge in demographics. What is your opinion on this? Linda Keita (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are raising a number of issues (I think), so I am going to use an ordered list to reply:
 * African American and the 12.3% figure, as used in this article, is referring to the racial category, not the an ethnic one. Moreover, though, when you are referring to percentages of White and Black/African American, those are racial categories and White is by far the predominant group.
 * I think many of your points are addressed already in the Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States section of the article. It is there that ethnic groups are broken down and percents are given. But, according to those data presented, German is the plurality ethnicity, not Black/African American.
 * Your comment at 01:39 (UTC) 26 February 2019 suggests you feel we should not be using racial categories at all. Regardless of how we personally feel about these categories, they are used by the Census and are widely used categories by the public. Wikipedia is not a place to right things we thing are wrong on a personal level.
 * We cannot rely solely on ethnicity for understanding racial and ethnic differences. Race, an ascribed status, is about how others see (and subsequently treat) us. We cannot "see" ethnicity the same way and that ascription is far more nuanced. If we are interested in discrimination, it makes more sense to focus on race and colorism than granulated ethnic categories.
 * You stated that I believe I "voted for Trump". I have no idea why you think that, but you are severely mistaken. But this is not a forum to debate politics, immigration, or anything.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting the refactoring of comments... .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@ EvergeenFir: I appreciate your reference Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
 * This is what i found listed regarding racial categories.


 * The reference of social Conventions regarding Black and White are irrelevant to (RACE) based on social consturcts ::: change, although they may be your popular belief that America has a predominant group, today that predominant ::: group are Americans. there is no debating that we are American's the reference to Black/White are irrelevant
 * today in a changing demography. Speciafically you asked me what I was looking to change. Our Country has changed
 * that is my point in topic.


 * African Americans
 * Total population
 * 45,789,188[1]
 * 14.1% of the total U.S. population (2017)


 * German Americans and German Canadians, % of population by state or province
 * Total population
 * 43,100,000[1]
 * 13.26% of the U.S. population (2017)


 * Mexican Americans
 * Mexicano-americanos
 * Total population
 * 36,668,018
 * 11.3% of total U.S. population, 2017[1]

I used the above references in my assimilation that African Americans is the largest popultion regarding (2017) I noted that 2015 Ranks German Americans [Rank 1] (2015) however the demographics were differnt in (2015). I created a talk to discuss the issue as noted in my above (TALK) African Americans are not an Ethic minority when the ethnic identification are broken down by group. According to Wikipedia45,789,188[1] 14.1% of the total U.S. population (2017), I did not create a topic to debate, and as noted it is not a debate, moreover just a topic of discussion.


 * 2015 American Community Survey
 * According to the 2010–2015 American Community Survey, the twenty largest ancestry groups in the United States :::: were (see above for the OMB self-designation options):[91][92]


 * Rank	Ancestry or race	Population	Percent of total population
 * 1	German	46,403,053	14.7%
 * 2	Black or African American (non-Hispanic)	38,785,726	12.3%
 * 3	Mexican (of any race)	34,640,287	10.9%
 * 4	Irish	33,526,444	10.6%
 * 5	English	24,787,018	7.8%
 * 6	American	22,746,991	7.2%
 * 7	Italian	17,285,619	5.5%
 * 8	Polish	9,385,766	3.0%
 * 9	French	8,272,538	2.6%
 * 10	Scottish	5,409,343	1.7%
 * 11	Puerto Rican (of any race)	5,174,554	1.6%
 * 12	Norwegian	4,445,030	1.4%
 * 13	Dutch	4,289,116	1.4%
 * 14	Swedish	3,933,024	1.2%
 * 15	Chinese	3,852,099	1.2%
 * 16	Asian Indian	3,303,512	1.0%
 * 17	Scotch-Irish	3,046,005	1.0%
 * 18	Russian	2,843,400	0.9%
 * 19	West Indian (non-Hispanic)	2,824,722	0.9%
 * 20	Filipino	2,717,844	0.9% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Keita (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You say race is irrelevant, but sources treat it as relevant. We cannot change how Wikipedia addresses and uses those sources based on our personal opinions about the topic.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * These are mostly countries of origin, and largely ethnicities, not race. But race is mixed in, so it's comparing apples and oranges.Clepsydrae (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Add also

 * Passing (racial identity) percentage
 * philosophically aracial (people who don't believe in race; or if they believe like France, they don't confuse it with culture or politics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.194.216 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Percentage error in Table 1
The bottom row, of the first table, "Total includes Hispanic/Latino (ethnicity)," is listed as 116.3%. I'm guessing this error is related to Hispanic/Latino being a separate question than "self-identified race," but I'm not sure quite how this calculation went wrong and got above 100%, or what it's actually supposed to say. If anyone can figure out how to fix it, that sounds like something someone should do as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.69.222 (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather than totaling to 116.3%, we do need some way to flag that the percentage identified as Hispanic/Latino are also in another bar. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

British American under-count
I don't think editors should be making claims such as this:

"However, English Americans and British Americans are still considered the largest ethnic group due to a serious under count following the 2000 census whereby many English and British Americans self-identified under the new category entry 'American' considering themselves 'indigenous' because their families had resided in the US for so long[34][35][36][37] or, if of mixed European ancestry, identified with a more recent and differentiated ethnic group.[38]"

I've seen this statement appear in at least a half dozen articles on here, and while it very well may be true (and it wouldn't surprise me if it is), it is referenced to pure speculation, and some of it wild at that. Dominic Pulera, as one example, does indeed assume that the "English" or "British" Americans are under-represented in recent censuses, but he also speculates that Irish, German, and other white Americans are choosing to self-identify with an "American" label, partly due to generational distance between them and their earliest immigrant ancestors, and partly the result of the generations of inter-ethnic marriage which have produced complex genealogies.

And in any event, ethnicity often has more to do with identity and less to do with ancestral origins; and I would even go so far and say that a primordialist interpretation of ethnicity (one which views it as a consequence of birth) is archaic at this point. Unlike origins, which are absolute and permanent, ethnic identity is subject to the whims of culture and politics, and could change within a single lifetime, never mind across generations. We do not, for instance, count African Americans among "English" and "Irish" Americans, even though we know a substantial number of them have English, Irish, or English and Irish ancestry (Mohammed Ali, MLK Jr. and Barack Obama all had/have both English and Irish ancestry, but only Barack Obama identifies as such, after spending the better part of his adult life completely unaware of his Irish ancestor).

In addition, based on the percentages this article gives, even if we were to make the assumption that everyone who identifies as "American" on the census is primarily English in ancestry (a dubious claim; maybe most are, but certainly not all), combining this category with English doesn't produce a plurality; those self-identifying as "German" in ancestry would still have a slight edge.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"British Americans are Still Considered the Largest Ethnic Group"
(Procedural note: the below is in reply to a comment that was subsequently deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC))

British American's only make up 0.6% of the total U.S population as noted by Wikipedia

British Americans

Total population Self-identified as British 1,891,234Increase (2017)[1] 0.6% of the total U.S. population Linda Keita (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So 0.6% of the population coupled with the roughly 5% or so of the population who report "English" as their primary ancestry does not come close to the 10% of Americans who report Irish ancestry or the 15% of Americans who report German ancestry. The problem is, the editor(s) of this section (who I suspect is the same editor(s) of the "British American" page, the "English American" page, and the "American" ethnicity page, based on the fact that this same claim appears on all of those pages and is backed by the same sources), is trying to lump in the 'American' category with British and English ancestry and then claim that this is the largest single ethnic group. But the sources used to support this section offer no evidence and contain statements that are highly speculative at best, such as Dominic Pulera's gut feeling that British Americans are identifying more and more as simply 'American'." Pulera tells us of another one of his suspicions, not much later, that both Irish Americans and German Americans -- not just British Americans -- are also checking 'American' on the census. So which is it?


 * Plus, even if we were to lump in the 6% of Americans in the 'American' category with the 5.6% English/British, that brings us to 11.6%, which is still under the 15% German count. (And looking at immigration history, it's not very difficult to see how German-Americans became the largest ethnic group. More immigrants came to America from Germany than from any other country, and from the 1848 revolution until the 1870s, German immigrants doubled the US population.)


 * With this type of approach, anyone can make the same claim about any other ethnic group. It practically eliminates the very real possibility that a group has been surpassed by other ethnicities, since anyone can just say, "Oh, well the rest of them are in the American category." And if that doesn't gain a plurality, then you can say, "Oh, well the rest of them are erroneously identifying as something else." Come on. Get serious.


 * I won't fight this tooth and nail because I have more important things to concern myself with. But I will recommend future editors revise this section to include the census figures without the additional speculation. There is no consensus on this issue -- far from it -- and it's wiser to play it safe.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The current fertility birthrates is 0.1%

Population of Europe (2019 and historical) Year	Population	Yearly % Change	Yearly Change	Migrants (net)	Median Age	Fertility Rate	Density (P/Km²)	Urban Pop %	Urban Population	Europe's Share of World Pop	World Population	Europe Rank 2019	747,182,751	0.10 %	763,311	1,361,011	41.7	1.60	34	74.3 %	554,832,332	9.7 %	7,713,468,100	3 2018	746,419,440	0.13 %	1,004,705	1,361,011	41.7	1.60	34	74.1 %	552,911,225	9.8 %	7,631,091,040	3 2017	745,414,735	0.15 %	1,145,908	1,361,011	41.7	1.60	34	73.9 %	550,959,276	9.9 %	7,547,858,925	3 2016	744,268,827	0.16 %	1,209,792	1,361,011	41.7	1.60	34	73.8 %	549,030,165	10.0 %	7,464,022,049	3 2015	743,059,035	0.18 %	1,329,209	1,378,064	41.4	1.60	34	73.6 %	547,147,213	10.7 %	7,379,797,139	3 2010	736,412,989	0.19 %	1,425,029	1,728,642	40.3	1.56	33	73.0 %	537,672,650	11.3 %	6,956,823,603	3 2005	729,287,846	0.10 %	745,962	1,835,792	39.1	1.43	33	72.0 %	525,432,178	11.9 %	6,541,907,027	3 2000	725,558,036	-0.04 %	-287,286	632,242	37.7	1.43	33	71.2 %	516,725,121	12.6 %	6,143,493,823	3 1995	726,994,464	0.17 %	1,227,203	993,780	36.1	1.57	33	70.6 %	513,345,193	13.6 %	5,744,212,979	2 1990	720,858,450	0.37 %	2,654,837	481,249	34.6	 Linda Keita (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity
This article only discusses "race" (pseudoscientific caste system) in the US, but nothing about ethnic groups in the US. Title and contents do not match. Vyaiskaya (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Table on Ethnicity Disagrees With Its Reference
Clicking on the link to fn. 17 shows the underlying Census Bureau data, which say that 76.3% of the U.S. is "white only". The page says non-Hispanic whites (of which "white only" can only possibly be a subset--martian whites aren't white only but ARE non-hispanic whites, so non-Hispanic whites is automatically greater than or equal to white only) is 60.1%. This is a vast gap. Can anyone explain why we're using 60.1%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bholleman (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference to SCOTUS holding on race in lede
In my view, the following sentence does not belong in the lede: The United States Supreme Court has unanimously held that, for the purpose of federal discrimination law, "race" is not limited to Census designations on the "race question" but extends to all ethnicities, and thus can include Jewish, Arab, Italian, Hungarian, Laotian, Zulu, etc. I clarified it, but it's still poorly sourced (primary) and there is no sourcing to indicate that this sentence is relevant to the article in context. Best, KevinL ( alt of L235 · t · c) 02:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the entire lede could use a rewrite. KevinL ( alt of L235 · t · c) 02:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * see Special:Diff/1011325814 KevinL ( alt of L235 · t · c) 08:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Race, racialism and racism.
Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races. Racialism is not the same as racism. On the other hand, racialism may exist in different degrees. Without any doubts the US is one of the most racialist societies in the world, if not the most major society. Racialim, especilly, the promotion and magnification of racialist conciousness is a cornerstone for racism. All racist societies are strongly racialised. I think this may be a good section for the article.--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.66.135.228 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I DO believe that they are the same, to different degrees Peggy Dale (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Scientific racism: Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, race realism, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research. Feuerswut (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

White are NOT 61% of the us population
They're 71% of the population by including white latino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:7C90:E810:FDB3:89E2 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Maps
What is the difference between "frequency", "density", and "percent" in meaning in the map labels? The only "percent" has a patently obvious meaning.

Are these maps from the Census Bureau?

All the really identify is the least populated counties in the United States. E.g. California has 50% more Danes than Utah, and no California county is more than light yellow, while in Utah 6 counties are the darkest red, and 16 counties red. That is because the total population Utah is 7% that of California. I believe that these maps are useless. What is needed are maps that show the actual head count, by county, of each ethnicity. Even that would be fraught because San Bernardino County has a larger land area than the combined area of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, yet 90 of the people in that county live on 15% of its land. Nick Beeson (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Population pyramid by race (?)
I'm a bit confused by the y-axis on the graph called "Population pyramid by race". I was guessing it is a percentage since its 0-100, but that doesn't seem to make much sense visually, so I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly.

Edit: I added the image below for reference Pythagimedes (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, the lack of unit on the y axis is pretty confusing. I assume it means age, since there are more older women at the tail ends, which is in line with reality. 184.152.61.115 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing references
Much of the text in §Social definitions of race is cited using parenthetical references, now a deprecated style. I'd like to turn them into -tagged citations, but it's not clear what sources are being referenced. Here's a list, in case anyone can help identify what articles or books are meant to be cited: Even once these citations are cleared up, there's still a large amount of unsourced material, including analysis content that should really have an inline citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Firefangledfeathers, since I love doing research, I had some fun with finding these references. So, here we go!
 * For "Sider 1996", it is tough! Gerald Sider, according to here and here, published three articles in 1996, one of which ("Anthropology and History: Opening points for a new synthesis") is here (behind a paywall), another entitled "The Making of Peculiar Local Cultures: Producing and surviving history in peasant and tribal society" within a book entitled Was Bleibt von Marxistischen Perspectiven in der Geschichtsforschung? (seems relatively inaccessible) and a final one entitled "Cleansing History: Lawrence, Massachusetts, the strike for four loaves of bread and no roses, and the anthropology of working class consciousness," in Radical History Review which is available here (behind a paywall). Unfortunately, all three are either behind a paywall or hard to access, so I don't know which Sider 1996 is being cited here.
 * "Fields 1990" appears to be Barbara J. Fields, and there happens to be an article she wrote in 1990, "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" in New Left Review. Unfortunately, it is also mostly behind a paywall.
 * "Gossett 1997" appears to be Thomas F. Gossett, with a new edition of Race: The History of an Idea in America (originally published in 1963) published in 1997 by Oxford University Press.
 * "Nobles 2000" appears to be Melissa Nobles who published a book in 2000 entitled Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern Politics.
 * "Davis 2001" appears to be James F. Davis (who is cited on the One-drop rule page) who wrote a book in 2001 entitled Who Is Black?: One Nation's Definition. There was also a PBS show about it too, apparently. The only version I can find, either on Google Books or Internet Archive is the 1991 or 2010 editions, but I'd guess it has the same information as the 2001 version.
 * "Mörner 1967" appears to be Magnus Mörner (also see here) who wrote a book in 1967 entitled Race Mixture in the History of Latin America, and reviewed here.
 * But, yeah, you are right that even if these citations are cleaned up, there's a lot of unsourced material, sadly. Historyday01 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)