Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral background of presidents of the United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 07:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral background of presidents of the United States[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ancestral background of presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking to AFD since a PROD was contested. To be honest, the only non-trivial detail when assessing ethnic lineages of Presidents as a whole is how Barack Obama so far is the only one to have African ancestry. Nothing about the others' heritage is a defining trait aside from how everyone else purely had European aka Caucasian heritage. How many were of specific European ethnicities like Dutch, English, Irish, or Welsh is superfluous detail. We're better off saving heritage details on each President for their individual articles. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of Presidential trivia unlike, say, a Wikia or other website dedicated to US Presidents. It also isn't something dedicated to people's ancestries. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and improve, and possibly expand. Some years ago, I wrote Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, encompassing numerous points about the much-examined characteristics of those who have been appointed to that body. Although there has been substantially less ethnic or religious diversity among the presidents, there are other points of their backgrounds that reflect demographic variables that have been studied and written about. BD2412 T 22:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm British and so consider it offensive to describe the different nations of the British Isles as trivial. The fact that Donald Trump has Scottish ancestry or that John Kennedy had Irish heritage is not trivial, for example. There are numerous works detailing the ancestry of particular presidents and some general works such as Ancestors of American Presidents; Our Presidents; American Presidential Families; The Irish and the American Presidency; &c. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have misunderstood my point (though I apologize for any offenses and none were intended): I wasn't saying the Isles themselves are trivial, just that specifics on which European nation(s) the fully white Presidents have had ancestors from isn't really a defining trait for them (i.e. not key characteristics about them that stand out), especially compared to their actions in office. Obama is a different case because of his black father and white mother, and he's known for being the first person of African descent to take office, breaking the streak of only white men being elected. That was widely celebrated as a racial milestone. I can't say the same for Trump being ethnically Scottish or how JFK had Irish lineage. It's not like they were the first presidents to have ancestors from those nations. Both are men with purely Caucasian heritage just like the others. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Casucasian" is a false term steeped in racism. What next will people start saying "Elder Gong is the first Mongoloid apostle" or "Barrack Obama was the first Negroid president". Caucasian is part of the flase tri-patite theory of race. Beyond that, Van Buren being Dutch very clearly was seen as a major change from his predecessors having English ancestry. Kennedy being of ture Irish origin, and not English or such was also seen as a major development. I would argue though that the specific ancestry of George W. Bush heads towards the trivial. Different European ancestries matter, and they mattered a whole lot as late as the 1950s. Not everyone of all European ancestry was considered the same. Thus the built in attempts to exclude immigrants not from North-west Europe in the immigration law that existed until 1965. Thus the immigration law that existed at the time that every president was born. The fact we have never elected a president with southern or Eastern European ancetry, none with Slavic, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Arabic or Armenian ancestry is worth noting. On the other hand back in 1928 the US elected a Vice President who was a registered member of a Native American tribe. In the 1990s I went to a high school with many Albanaian, Serbian and Chaldean students who inisted they were not white, and many Italians who were at best ambivalent about weather they were truly white. The Poles accepted their whiteness, but they were pretty much all at least 4th generation Americans, more of our Italians had grandparents who were immigrants, and if the Albanians and Serbians and Macedonians were born in the US their parents were almost all immigrants. In the case of the Chaldeans, they seperated themselves between those who could now speak English and those who still struggled, and in both groups they were mainly Iraq born. Our Lebanese were mainly US born, but still would not embrace the designation of white. Ethnic variation does matter. Even Andrew Jackson with his Ulster Scotts background was a clear ethnic brake from the first 6 presidents who were all of only English ancestry. Eisenhower being of German origin was not that big a thing really, and since Hoover also had such orgin not a big break.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those who do not know, the Elder Gong I refer to is Gerrit W. Gong. Prior to becoming an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he was a foriegn policy analysts and wrote a book on the process by which states received full status in the international community. Some think he over emphasized the acceptance of non-western states. Considering how popular hate plays against Uganda are, this might be a true assessment of a weakness on the part of Professor Gong's writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnpacklambert, Caucasian in the scientific sense is of course nonsense; however, modern usage of the term is not meant to recreate the pseudoscientific grouping, even if originally associated with it. Our article on the subject says "In the United States, the root term Caucasian has also often been used as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry." Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a good article. However I think we should go to actually describing the ancestries. The current set up over emphasizes very small far back ancestry. It also falsely portrays Ulster Scotts ancestry as Irish ancestry which is wrong. It also does not allow us to consider how far back the ancestors immigrated, which is a very important consideration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for my ignorance on the term "Caucasian"; I previously thought it was just a synonym for having ancestors from Europe. Going into specifics, I fail to see how Andrew Jackson not having English ancestry unlike previous Presidents is even half as important for him as things like his military endeavors or being involved with Native American genocide. Similarly, I doubt people know Martin Van Buren for his Dutch lineage nearly as much as they do for how he served as Jackson's VP or even his time as a New York Senator. How exactly is JFK having Irish heritage "a major development"? The Peace Corps, Bay of Pigs invasion, and Cuban Missile Crisis are bigger parts of his reputation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a confusing argument. You seem to be saying that a president's ancestry doesn't matter because it's not what they're most famous for. JFK being Irish-Catholic was, of course, extremely important, but obviously not as notable as the Cuban Missile Crisis or his assassination. pburka (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More specifically, I'm saying that Presidents' actions and even having 100% European heritage in general is much more defining for them than what specific nations their ancestors came from. In other words, the precise countries of their ethnic origins aren't key traits that really stand out for them. As far as I can tell, anybody outside of Wikipedians like us or genealogists who do make notes of certain ancestors tend to just give it a minor mention if anything (unless maybe it's a piece on the men talking about their own families). Obama is an exception because he is the first to be of African descent (half black and half white to be exact) and that was publicly celebrated for breaking the monotony of purely white men getting elected. Did JFK break any streaks of which European territories elected men came from? The answer is no when other men with Irish ancestry had previously been elected. I don't see how having family from that country is a very important for the guy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As JPL pointed out, the other presidents with Irish heritage were all Protestants. JFK was the first Irish-Catholic and the first Catholic president. It really was a big deal. pburka (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religious affiliation is a separate matter from what place(s) one's ancestors came from. JPL's comment actually had nothing to do with being Catholic vs Protestant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read a bit more about Irish history if you think "religious affiliation is a separate matter from what place(s) one's ancestors came from." And if you really think JFK's Irish heritage wasn't important, you could refer to The Irish Brotherhood or The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings. pburka (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point (in case it hadn't already been clear) was that being noted for one's religion isn't the same as being noted for where their ancestors came from. While I'm well aware that many people with Irish heritage are Catholic or Protestant, it's not like they're inherently connected. This means one can have ancestors from there without even being religious and they can practice Catholicism/Protestantism without having any family from Ireland. As for JFK, I doubt his religion or ethnic origins are among the first things that come to people's minds when they think of him, even if there are writings discussing such characteristics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I do. It would be an oversimplification to assume that having a certain ethnicity automatically equates to observing one religion or another. Turning the focus back to this article, though, I still wouldn't call ethnic origins a key trait for JFK or other fully white Presidents the way I would for Obama. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is because you are mired in presentism. Martin van Buren was raised in a community where Dutch was the primary language spoken. There is a whole set of ideas and images associated with Ulster Scotts that associate them with dueling, etc. Many of the ideas later used to marginalize African-Americans were first used to marginalize the true Irish (as opposed to Scotts living in Ulster or English people who had lived for generations in Ireland). In the ethnic splits in Ireland it was not about actually following your religion or attending a Church, these were clearly ethnic breaks. Your arguments come off as racist, and you ignore that Wikipedia does not categorize people by race, only by ethnicity. I would argue that Americans understand ethnic groups we just use inprecise terms. This is why the Albanians, Italians, Greeks, Romanians, Ukrainians and especially Chladeans and Arabs at my school rejected the label of white, well some of the Italians. It is because they were using "white" as a term that should be really rendered as "ethnically (not ancestrally) Anglo American". It does not matter where you ancestors came from, and merely speaking English at home is not enough. It is accepting the social and cultural basicis of American culture. Because of racial rules, no not phenotyypically white American can function as such, however it is an ethnic group, so that my friend who is a not so long ago immigrant from Sweden does not count as such, nor do most immigrants from Germany. Children of such immigrants in the current day and age can count as such today probably, but clearly would not have 100 years ago. As I said look at the pre-1965 immigrantion policies. They excluded every immigrants from the "Asia Pacific Triangle" but had no limit what soever to black immigrants from the Caribbean and Latin America. There were no quotas on immigraiton from such places, and this matters. There were ludicrously low limits on immigrants from countries like Italy and Greece. The true Caucasians come from countries like Georgia, Abkhazia, Chchnya and Dagestan. No president of the US has been remotely Caucasian, but I am pretty sure Stalin was. I have heard people speak of who is "white" and exclude Russians from it. This is because they are using white to mean that "ethnically (not ancestrally) Anglo-American". However before the 1950s Catholics were default excluded from the term, and most people would still argue Jews are a distinct ethnic group. Keep in mind religious terms are often used to designate groups by ethnicity not religion. The Jews are a key case of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how my arguments come off as racist (that definitely wasn't what I aimed for), but my most recent comment was simply pointing out that the nation(s) one's ancestors originated from doesn't necessarily indicate whether that individual will observe a certain religion. Not everybody is religious regardless of their heritage. I also was saying that ancestries aren't among the top things that most US Presidents are known for. Regarding categorization, I don't see any benefit of categorizing them by German lineage, Scottish ancestry, Welsh family, French heritage, etc. Such statistics on how many had ancestors from certain places sounds like something better fitted for a genealogy site. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being Irish-Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not JFK was a practicing Catholic: George Lennon was ethnically Irish-Catholic despite practicing Buddhism. The point is that Irish-Catholic is a distinct ethnicity from Anglo-Irish or Ulster Scot, and JFK was the first president of that ethnicity. That JFK was Irish, and specifically Irish-Catholic is very important, as evidenced by significant coverage in many reliable sources. Is it what he's most famous for? No: he's most famous for dying. But it's still important. pburka (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence doesn't make sense when Catholicism is a religion and not an ethnicity. Regardless of what Lennon practiced, I'd call him ethnically Irish. None of the practicing or former Catholics I've ever met would use that characteristic of themselves to describe their heritage, especially when no longer observant of the faith. They instead would go off of where their ancestors came from, regardless of whether that means Ireland or other places. As for JFK, however much discussion his lineage gets, being Catholic doesn't mean his Irish ancestry was separate from other presidents unless one means having full vs partial roots from that nation or perhaps coming from a different geographical location within the territory. In case there was any ambiguity, I'm referring to the Republic of Ireland aka "Southern Ireland" so to speak when I say "Irish" in this case, which is a separate entity from Northern Ireland (which I believe is what "Scotch-Irish" pertains to though could be wrong). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this informative article per above keepers. Regarding the complaint that all presidents but Obama are primarily of European ancestry, so what? Don't judge them by the color of their skin. See them by the different ethnic groups they are... groups that went to war with one another over religion and land, including the present-day United States. Europe had any number of countries at the time of these presidents' births and at the time of their ancestors' immigrations. Regarding "specifics on which European nation(s) the fully white Presidents have had ancestors from isn't really a defining trait for them", I'd very much disagree. JFK being Irish Catholic in a country with millions of such citizens following decades of prejudice against said group(s) AND Van Buren being a president of Dutch descent (English wasn't even his first language!) at a time when there was serious, high-profile upheaval in that community = most relevant to the study of the presidents. This perceived lack of diversity suggests not that but threads of commonality that should be examined. The nominator may have heard the "we're one big melting pot" line one too many times in elementary school. Keep it in the encyclopedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This information is a regular part of every Presidential biography. Its inclusion in these works indicates notability. Also per Wikipedia:Summary style this article could be a good top-level view for/of a series of articles on Presidential ancestry.   // Timothy :: talk  05:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a well developed article but given the number of sources cited which talk about presidential ancestry it does look like an encyclopedic topic. The nominator has mentioned a few times that ancestry isn't a defining characteristic. This is a term used for categories, which are required to be defining characteristics, but there's nothing wrong with having a list that uses a non-defining characteristic. Hut 8.5 06:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is exactly the sort of research project that elementary age students will be asked to do in the next two months. They will be looking for this article. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is certainly a notable topic, and an area of huge interest not just for Americans. --RaviC (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2020 (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/Ancestral_background_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=973621209"