Talk:Clefting prevalence in different cultures
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Rename
Consider moving this article to Clefting prevalence in different cultures, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Also I wonder if the name can be shortened somehow, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Perhaps just Clefting prevalence would be enough?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oops I already did without looking at the talk page first. Shouldn't be a problem though. AdamBiswanger1 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
After rereading this article, I thinkt that the best name would be Clefting prevalence in United States, as the article is addressing only the United States. Otherwise it would have to be tagged with {{Globalize/USA}}. Also, this article needs a proper lead. And don't be shy with hyperlinks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Certain quotes
I am moving the removed content here, I think it may be moved into more relevant sections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of the many races seen throughout the U.S., 36,419,434 classified themselves as African American or Black, 35,305,818 were of Hispanic or Latino origin, and 11,898,828 of Asian descent. There is a total U.S. population of 281,421,906 people.
- There is an estimated 45% of the population who are of non-Caucasian descent (U.S. Census, 2000). The U.S. is becoming more of a “melting pot”, as it was once coined (Strauss, 1990). People from vast countries are immigrating and bringing their ancestry with them.
- I'm just not sure how that information is relevant. It is a summary of the U.S. population, when this is an essay on clefting prevalence throughout the world. Perhaps the info can be mentioned, but I don't see any need to go into that much detail. AdamBiswanger1 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point, but let's see what the article's author has to say.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- As the author, I want to keep that information unless it is a grounds for deletion (which I cannot imagine). Let me know. I want the public to know the exact U.S. population, divided by races, in order to see that the U.S. is almost half non-Caucasian. These races have ancestors from different countries, therefore, explaining why prevalence rates are reported in the world. Also, if you read there is a section below about the U.S. (i.e. Hawaii). The general public may not know this information. The residents of the U.S. are now so diverse that we must report statistics on them and their people in the native countries. It is important information that I would like to keep. --Chm33 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- What can solve this problem I feel is a proper lead: we should not assault the leader with statistics from the very first paragraph.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks Piotrus. I will work on this. --Chm33 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- As the author, I want to keep that information unless it is a grounds for deletion (which I cannot imagine). Let me know. I want the public to know the exact U.S. population, divided by races, in order to see that the U.S. is almost half non-Caucasian. These races have ancestors from different countries, therefore, explaining why prevalence rates are reported in the world. Also, if you read there is a section below about the U.S. (i.e. Hawaii). The general public may not know this information. The residents of the U.S. are now so diverse that we must report statistics on them and their people in the native countries. It is important information that I would like to keep. --Chm33 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- 1. European Americans are about 70-75% of the U.S. population.
2. Many Hispanics are also Caucasian, African, Native American, or Asian - therefore that figure is not exclusive of all those other groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.188.172 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Massive cleanup required
I'm not at all convinced that this article should just be dropped. A large point of Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, is to present a clear cohesive view of a topic - not a jumble.
Problems with this article:
- Problematic jumble of race/country/culture - but thats the least of it* No easy verification - all the references are to scientific papers which few have access to
- Mixed measurements: Some per 1,000 births; some per 10,000 births and some given 'around the other way" as 1 per 750. (Just because researchers report using different measures doesn't mean we can't fix that here)
In case anyone thinks this is worth saving, here's a summary of the data from the page in standardised form:
Per 10,000 births worldwide 10-27 Sudan 9 Latino 9 Malawi 7 Native American 4 US Korean 20 US Pakistani 19 Hawian Japanese 16 Jordan 14 Hawian Philipino14 Bolivia 12 Hawian Polynesia11 African-American10 Hawaian European10
Translating "wrong way round" to "per 10,000" 1/500 = 20 1/750 = 13.33 1/1000 = 10 1/10000 = 1 1/2500 = 4
