Talk:White Southerners

Article title

This article started out at Southerners (Ethnic Group) and was subsequently moved to White Southerners. It's also been completely rewritten based on a new set of sources. It would be good to get people's views on whether the article title is appropriate. I wonder if it could be renamed so as to better reflect the fact that it's not widely accepted that White Southerners constitute an ethnic group, and that this debate is part of the subject of the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WilyD, Jim in Georgia, Chillum, Cunard, SmokeyJoe, TParis, DESiegel, as you took part in the deletion review, do any of you have a view on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what title would do that. Theory of White Southerners perhaps? DES ^(talk) 12:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point, and I'm not sure myself. Trying to think of something that meets WP:NDESC, perhaps White Southerners as an ethnic group or White Southern ethnicity (or White Southern ethnicity (theory))? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This thing is still a solution looking for a problem.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

By "thing", do you mean my concern about the article title? If so, should I take your comment as meaning that you think the current title is best kept? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ending it with "Theory" is the most sensible. I would hate to think that the title implied it was a real ethnicity. Chillum 13:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What would define a "real ethnicity", though? All ethnic groups are subjective social constructs, after all. Some are more obviously recognised than others, but I'm not sure that a real/artificial distinction is helpful, though I agree that this one is controversial, hence my query about changing the title. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I mean that I'm looking forward to your article on white northerners and white westerners. This article is a solution looking for as problem.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, those groups haven't been described as ethnic groups in the academic literature, so I don't see any basis for creating them (not that I created this one - I just recognised that the topic appeared to meet the notability guidelines when I saw that the article was up for deletion). If you disagree, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion and make the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I made the case that Black Southerners is also an identity and worthy of an article as well. The current article title should be left alone per naming criteria for which all five points of that part of policy seem to ring true. Unless there is ambiguity with another group elsewhere in the world, the title seems correct. Identity and ethnicity are fine points to be argued within the article. Perception and semantics will lend confusion to the matter...when a white southerner is asked about their ethnicity, it will be assumed that someone is inquiring about their ethnic origins of ancestry and not that they are being queried about current identity with an ethnic group as status quo.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Culture

This article seems to ignore the cultural identity of Southerners which are currently covered in Culture of the Southern United States. Should this be addressed by summarizing some content from there? Dimadick (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

When rewriting the article, I was careful to stick to sources that clearly defined Southerners as an ethnic group, hence the rather narrow focus of the resulting article. My concern with incorporating material on Southern culture more broadly is that it might start to verge on original research and synthesis. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Essay

The article has a tag on it stating that it is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. I think that the article quite clearly attributes opinions to sources/authors. Are there any particular aspects of the article that are problematic? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, well there's been no response here, so I'm removing the template. It can always be replaced if someone explains why it was there. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

MelungeonEire

I'd like some additional feedback on the edits of MelungeonEire since I've had to revert them several times. Their editing first came to my attention when they added "white southerner" to the Elvis Presley article without a source. I've handled them as an admin up until now including issuing a block for repeated addition of unsourced content. However, I'm recusing as an admin at this point because I feel I'm starting to get swept into a content dispute.

They are repeatedly introducing material sourced to blogs and other sources of questionable academic value and neutrality. I'm also concerned there is a behavioral issue here where the edits strike me as being agenda-driven. Introducing phrases like "old stock whites" along with poorly sourced text about how various ethnicities did or didn't "assimilate" into white culture seems off to me. Looking for a sanity check or other comments. Pinging Doug Weller, Hmains, Cordless Larry, and XXzoonamiXX as recent editors of this page. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Laser_brain. I've been watching edits to this article with some concern, as many appear to have involved original research, but I've not spent the time to fully investigate the sources that are being cited. I am almost tempted to suggest that we revert back to this version, which was written largely by me, based on reliable sources, after I had brought the article back from the dead. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain and Cordless Larry: I've also been watching but haven't had the time stop and actually examine their edits. My bad and it's embarrassing as looking at their talk page I can see that I warned them about OR in an article they created that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Weaver (American Revolutionary) (as was their version of this one, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Southerners. I also warned them about an edit to Michael Hill (activist) although I'm not sure if it was for [1] or [2]. They also seem to have a thing about labeling people white, see his talk page for another example. Ah, Laser brain, you are well aware of this. So by all means we should go back to Cordless Larry's version. Oh, and if any of this ends up at a drama board, please ping me. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have boldly reverted the article back to the version I linked to above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Celtic hypothesis

This has too much emphasis and no criticism. The main proponents seem to be Forrest McDonald (am I imagining this or does his article read more like a hagiography?) and Grady McWhiney. McWhiney's article actually deals with the issue in a more NPOV way and I suggest we use some of it. I now have 3 of the sources used that I downloaded from JSTOR if anyone is interested: the commentary from other historians on ""The South from Self-sufficiency to Peonage: an Interpretation." and two articles by Rowland Berthoff, "Celtic Mist over the South" and his rejoinder to comments on it. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of Creolisation in intro

Hey,

So we're all aware the use of this term is inherently misleading, given that none of the sources for it use it in the literal sense of the term, and are referring to cultural creolization? There's literally not a single source in the article that refers to white southerners as a "creole" ethnic group. I'm going to change/delete these categorizations after a short time to hear out arguments. The misleading use of the term (especially when combined with admixture) seems intentional to me, given the politically charged nature of the topic, and therefore not in keeping with Good Faith article policy. BROBAFETT (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The article had so many OR problems that I've reverted it back to a much earlier version (see above). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I can stomach this. There was a good deal of stuff in it that seemed, from my personal education on the topic, valid, but was also rapidly turning into a politicized dumpster fire of agenda laden posturing. Is there any way to ensure it stays this way?BROBAFETT (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason to protect the article from editing, but we should play closer attention to material that is added this time around. If there's good material that was removed with my revert, then it can always be re-added. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention because the original objection I raised had politicized/activist connotations, but, of course, without any sourcing. Seemed to smack of bad actors.BROBAFETT (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Jim in Georgia, Chillum, Cunard, SmokeyJoe, TParis, DESiegel, User:Berean Hunter, User:Laser_brain, User:Cordless Larry and User:BROBAFETT, you've all been involved in this article and are still active, so I'm hoping you'll comment on the edits that I and Cordless Larry have reverted and that User:MagnoliaMenace will come here to discuss also - I've asked them to on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree the last version of this article perhaps could be perceived as political. But there was still a good amount of academic content provided, mostly the origins section. Perhaps leading the article with something describing the population would be a good change as well. Other than that, I didnt realize this at first, but a name change would allow for more development on this page. White Southerners tends to equate every Southerner with the predominant Anglo culture. So perhaps instead of White Southerners, this article could be on the Anglo population in the Southern United States, instead of grouping every European Southerner into one mass grouping. Just an idea. (MagnoliaMenace (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC))

It seems to me that part of the problem is that the term "White Southerners" doesn't have widespread use/acceptance, which is why the articles leads with discussion of use of the term by some scholars, rather than describing a population. It would be easier to do the latter if the term was a more widely used one to describe a population. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion MagnoliaMenace should not be editing in this topic area. Their edits use a few reliable sources to support certain phrases, but add in unreliable sources and completely unsourced WP:OR to create a narrative that's not supported in mainstream literature. Their edits strike me as agenda-driven and Wikipedia is not the platform to express such a narrative. --Laser brain (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I have concerns that MelungeonEire is the same user, based on editing style and content. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Won't be long now. I can't deal with it because I'm too involved. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have, a bit belatedly, looked over the edits described above, based on my pong at the top of this section. For a bit that was something of a slow edit war going on. This seems to have stopped, and the present version seems to be supported by good sources. I urge anyone wanting to make changes to be sure that they nare adherign to NPOPV, and getting good source support for any significnat content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

C3st1aVie was another sock

confirmed to MagnoliaMenace and behaviorally same as PennsilfaanischTatar by Berean Hunter. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Southerners are mostly celtic, aren't they?

Are southerners mostly celtic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.178.4 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Most Southerns are North American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.218.228.140 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

African Ancestory

This is becoming an edit war.

Could we reword it so we keep the article? While Washington post is reliable, Scientific America is more so, and states that 23andme is very "blanket" and not near as accurate as everyone assumes. 47.218.228.140 (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to make a suggestion or to reword it yourself. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if we take the Washington Post source at face value, it states "Southern whites are considerably more likely to have African ancestry than whites from other regions: 'European Americans with African ancestry comprise as much as 12% of European Americans from Louisiana and South Carolina and about 1 in 10 individuals in other parts of the South,' the authors found". How did we get from that to "Most White Southerners have African ancestry"? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry, I just checked the Washington Post and corrected the article accordingly. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the recent table added

I have reverted the recently added table because it's based solely off of the white population of each state, which does not 100% comprise "white southerners". A white southerner is not simply someone who is white and lives in a southern state; someone who moved from Michigan to Atlanta, for example, probably would not consider themselves a white southerner, but is being inadvertently included in this state's number based solely on census data. It is for this reason I have reverted the inclusion of the table, as simply being white in a certain state does not make you a "white southerner". - Aoidh (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Understood, I understand what you are saying. How do you feel about keeping the other added sections, while keeping the pop. data deleted? Tpwissaa (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry I thought the only thing you added was the population data, I have no issue at all with the other content and would not have simply reverted it all if I had known that there was more to it than the populations. I believe that I have restored what you're referring to, but please feel free to make any corrections. - Aoidh (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all. I just made a little addition so that it will have the original info as well. Thanks Tpwissaa (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The Spanish were the first Europeans to land in the Southern United States.

The Spanish were the first Europeans to land in the Southern United States and to discover the region. Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León landed in Florida in 1513. In Florida, there is about 10,000 descendants of the Minorcans from one of the Baleric Islands, a Spanish ethnic group in St. Augustine, Florida. There is also many Spanish descendants in Louisiana such as the Andalusians, Basques, Catalans, Galicians, and Canary Islanders. British sailors had discovered Texas in 1567 after being defeated by the Spanish. The first English colony in the Southern United States was established in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. The English were one of the three main colonizing powers in the Southern United States along with the Spanish and the French. In the 1990 census, the Southern United States had the highest percentage of any region of people claiming English ancestry.

Source: [3]

A user keeps removing this important information. 151.115.39.55 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep removing this information, because I don't see the relevance for an article about a putative ethnic group that is surely not descended from Ponce de León. Not every detail belongs to every article, even if it is sourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)