Talk:White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bigotry

I consider the term WASP to be derogatory. Also by common usage it is raciest. I have often herd the term used by non English or French European (American citizens) as a raciest term when encountering an unknown English or French person (American citizens). In fact the term has such strong negative cognitions that I have never herd the term used any other way but as an insult. As such people should not be labeled WASPS in this article. The article should only assert the stereotypes associated with said group. As a reference I recommend that any contributor look up the page for any other insulting epitaph and use it as a guide. As to this pages assertion that WASPS are republicans I would note that many people in the liberal establishment are considered sutch. If I knew how I would tag this page as biased.69.213.70.93 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two definitions here. There is the historical one that is still used in some academic context that defines WASP as old money families. Then there is the insult- what you'd hear in a normal conversation. The insult has nothing to do with Anglo Saxons or Protestants. WASP, if used as an insult or slur, is applied to any "preppy" White person, be they Cahtolic or Agnostic or Irish-American. Also, French arn't Anglo-Saxon but that doesn't matter anyways. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W.A.S.P - White Anglo-Saxon Protastants - the criteria for an American President!

Question: what's with the NPOV note on the page? It says to look at the talk page for details, but I only see factual discussion here.

The facutal discussions and disputes below may serve as the basis for the NPOV sign. An NPOV doesn't mean that the editor are going "at each other," it only means that there may be some POV in the article, which may or may not have been discussed here. As for the heading consider that perhaps most US persidents weren't actually WASP- they were White men. Kennedy, Eishenhower, Reagan, Hoover, Roosevelt, for example, weren't WASP. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is established and well cited that WASPS becomes a broader usage for White people who are culturally Anglo-American and Protestant. That is the reason, say, Kennedy's presidency was a milestone in ethnic boundaries falling.

Well, the American mainstram isn't even that Anglo-it contains many traits from Irish and German as well as other continental European and other cultural components. WASP culture may actually be defined as somewhat deviant from the mainstream (Just like elitist and working class culture is deviant from the middle class mainstream). True, today many people just use (or misuse) the term to describe the mainstream; thus, causing a lot of confusion. Signature^brendel 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Station?

What if someone wants to make a page for a radio station with call letters WASP??

Then we would do a disambiguation, so that people could pick which kind of "WASP" they were looking for. jengod 02:16, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

How could "WASP" be construed to be antisemitic? It's clearly about "Anglo-Saxons", that's people of English heritage and has nothing to do with Jews.

the article explains it. Badanedwa 01:28, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think perhaps it should be pointed out in the article that WASP is tautological, since Anglo-Saxons are always "white". Also that the usage of WASP is often erroneous, since it should not, strictly speaking, be applied to people of predominantly Celtic Protestant backgrounds. Grant65 (Talk) 12:41, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

- Couldn't someone be 'Anglo-Saxon' and black if they were of mixed heritage?

- Actually, this isn't a tautology, since "White" and "Anglo-Saxon" are two adjectives of the same noun, not a whole statement. "Redundant" would be more accurate.

"Whiteness" as a symbol, a given fact of social (i.e., visible, public) being, is conceptually distinct from "Anglo-Saxon", which refers to group identity. Analytically, there is no redundancy.

The assumption here is that "Anglo-Saxonness" is default whiteness, not needing to be marked. It's probably true that rarely if ever has anyone met a non-white Anglo-Saxon; and that other "white" group/ethnic categories are not so marked.

I think, though, that the "stubbornness" of the usage is meaningful in itself; "Anglo-Saxonness" 'means' not only "whiteness", but represents the apex of whatever is meant by that category, the measure against which other kinds of whiteness are defined. If this reading speaks to some truth about cultural understandings, then a corollary is that this default "whiteness" also speaks to a perception of default power.

The meanings related to skin colour, "race", ethnic group, culture, and power converge in the idea of the Wasp, which is attested to by the fact that particular ethnic geneologies matter so little in the public mind. The salient points seem to be skin colour and perceived power. [wynn, 21/07/05]

[edit] WASP culture and Southern Baptists

I would suggest that the latter part of the article is correct and that Southern Baptist theology is not "mainline" enough to be WASP. This would seem to mean that the first part of the article needs to be rectified to reflect this. Also, it is erroneous to say that Southern Baptists are a majority or becoming a majority in the South. While they are certainly the largest single denominination in the South, they would better be described as a "plurality" religion as a majority means "50%+" and there would be very few areas where this would be the case, just as I would suggest that outside perhaps one or two counties in Massachusetts that there would be nowhere in New England with a Catholic "majority", although it would cetainly be the largest single denomination in many areas. Also, while Celts are by definition not "Anglo-Saxon", one of the tendencies of acronyms and initialisms is that they often, perhaps usually, drift from their initial meaning over time, and this one is little different.

I changed "Southern Baptist" to "Evangelical," which is more accurate.

[edit] U.S. only?

Is the term common outside the U.S.? I have never heard anyone use it in Canada—which doesn't mean that it's not used, of course—and I imagine the distinction that it makes is irrelevant in most of the UK; what about Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps South Africa? Do similar or equivalent terms exist in other countries and languages? —E. Underwood 06:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

130.179.240.46 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Myrna Adds: The term is used in Canada. Regarding the comment about the inclusion of white being redundant in WASP: I was raised in Canada with a WASP culture by my distaff grandparents who were born in England and Scotland (thus may have Anglo-Saxon ancestors)and were Anglican and Presbyterian. I note the Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture are no less mine because my father was not a WASP (in colour, genes and religion). The term is imprecise at best, but possibly has utiltiy as shorthand for those who wielded power in the early days of colonialism (excluding, of course, the French Catholics, who were also white, but not Anglo-Saxon! ;-).)

Copied from User talk:Grant65
Thanks for your addition on use outside the U.S. I have a question that you might know the answer to: In Australia, is the meaning more similar to the historic or the current meaning of "WASP"? That is, does it indicate a certain upper class descended from early settlers? (Since Australia is entirely peopled with criminals :), I imagine that it does not, but I may be wrong.) Or does it indicate any Protestant of European descent, or perhaps any Protestant whose ancestors came from the British Isles? Respond on Talk:WASP, if you would. Thanks. —E. Underwood 16:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*LOL* @ Princess Bride reference. To take that as my starting point, the convict element (including one of my gt-gt-gt-grandfathers) was well and truly swamped by the ~2% of the total population of Britain and Ireland which emigrated during the 1850s, as a consequence of depression in Europe and the Australian goldrushes. This wave of settlers included people of all classes, including some "second sons of the aristocracy" (etc.), who would previously have seen the country as a penal colony and/or vast sheep range. The protestant-catholic divide was significant and lasted until the 1960s at least -- e.g. my father can remember as a child "attending" catholic weddings by standing outside the church! But here's the twist: the religious divide has now faded to the point of insignificance and my feeling is the term WASP is used here in a ethnic/racial sense, almost synonymous with the Anglo-Celtic Australian ethnic category, i.e. regardless of religion, although I haven't verified this through any kind of (informal) survey and I could well be wrong.Grant65 (Talk) 05:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

The term has been commonly used in Canada, so the article should not be USA-centric. Spylab 13:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon fundamentalists

~~Removed the following:~~

The usage of the term is remniscient of Thomas Hardy and Norman Yoke. It has given some identity to Anglo-Saxon fundamentalists, who view Danish and Norman cultural contributions in England with a certain disdain to this very day and seek to keep history written in their prerogative. This had really taken flight during times of Anglo-American nationalism, so much so that only Southern English stereotypes were recognised by the odd foreign person as "English". To this moment right now, there are still noted spotlights on Anglo-Saxon opinionated histories of England and America that do little to comfort the vast amount of other people living there. As other human races and social minorities recieve compensation benefits for their percieved lack of equal status amongst the rest, Danish and Norman people in the modern era have gotten none of this because of ancient prejudices. They are still considered "barbarian oppressors" in the vein of Pan Celtic hatred for the Anglo-Saxons themselves.

because the relevance and factuality of this perceived cultural conflict between Anglo-Saxons and other Norsemen are not at all apparent. The term was originally used for a specific social group within the United States, to distinguish that group from other Europeans of different national and religious backgrounds. The history of medieval England did not intrude. If the grievances of Danes and Normans against the Anglo-Saxon fundamentalists have any currency or relevance whatsoever, they should be discussed in the article on the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps in the section on modern use of the name. They do not belong in the introduction to this article. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought it looked familiar. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 07:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Party?

An anonymous user avers that

They were and are still generally cited as being affiliated with the Republican Party (United States)

Perhaps s/he would care to provide a source for that. If the identification is indeed general, that should be a simple matter. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jokes

What does a little WASP girl want to be when she grows up? The very best person I possibly can be.

Unless I'm missing the point here, this is a dig at other racial groups no? If these jokes are meant to illustrate racism within this group, it should say so. (ricjl 14:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC))

I don't think the joke is meant to be a dig at other racial groups. I think it's meant to highlight the stereotype that WASPs are bland. Maybe I'm missing something. --Temtem 21:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely a joke about blandness.

[edit] agnosticism

(most Protestants on the Coasts are now agnostic).

Not saying this necessarily isn't true, but what basis is there for the statement? --Temtem 00:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the line, as no one has been able to provide any support. -- Temtem 00:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

how about this (speaking from experience only): Many Protestants on the Coasts are now agnostic. (leaves it a little more vague, definitely true to my personal experience as a Protestant on the east coast who knows many other Protestants)

What an idiot....most protestants on the coasts are now agnostic...if you are a protestant that means you are religious...

I don't know that was an idiotic remark by that fellow. WASP as an (imperfect and informal) term implies a culture and lineage which is subject to changes. Traditionally White Protestants are becoming increasingly agnostic from what I've read and witnessed.

A more interesting take might be "Black Anglo Saxon Protestant" coined by radical Civil Rights leaders to refer to Black conservatives. It regained currency recently as blacks on the left described black conservative Christian leaders, (anti-immigration "new Nativists", supporters official English, pro-gun, pro death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, etc.) I thought it was interesting b/c 94 % of Blacks are Protestant, they've been here building the country since pre-colonial times, they tend towards social conservatism, and this is the ironic part- I read that the average black person is a third white, descending from rapes or relations with whites in the South since colonial times. You could probably double the size of the DAR and SAR! What would Strom Thurmond do? LOL

[edit] WASP ascendancy

There should be a discussion about the decline of the WASP ascendancy during the middle part of the 20th century. The elite universities, such as Harvard Princeton etc., made a concerted effort to shift the admissions criteria from privilege/legacy to merit based. Authors such as David Brooks (in Bobos in Paradise) and Joseph Epstein (in Snobbery) have written about how this opened the doors to the previously elite professions. By the 60's and 70's, the young generation of WASPs on the whole were not interested in carrying on the traditions (the good and the bad) of the WASP culture. Really the "WASP Ascendancy" does not really exist anymore outside of small pockets.

look at every president we've ever had, continuing till this day....WASP... WASPs are who built this country and made it great, when we "do not exist anymore" the country is going to fall apart

Actually a lot of Presidents were not WASP (as is the vast majority of the population); Hoover, FDR, Eisdenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah FDR- Delano Roosevelt, WASP, was called such by critics like Al Smith, father's name may have been "Dutch", but as this article states this does not preclude WASP label, George Walker Bush? New England Establishment, related to Boston Brahmin Walker family, married into the Ellis clan, father and son went to Yale...can agree Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton non-WASP though...

[edit] Removal Recommendation

This article largely hinges on stereotypes. If you want to create an article about the history of a perceived American ethnic group, then at least call it "Anglo-Americans." (and within that discuss the term "WASP")

_____________

I will not discuss all changes before making them. That defeats the purpose of having an open-source encyclopedia. Changes will be discussed if and when they are relevant. Be thankful that I am polite, and any edits I make have a factual basis.

[edit] wasp

wasp

[edit] The British Empire: Undead?

As long as the WASPS hold their tight grip on American politics and the economy, the sun will never set on the British Empire, oh no my friend, the British never died with Asian and African independence, ironic as it is, the descendants of their first rebels in the North American colonies will continue to nurture the spirit of Pax Britannia infinitum.

What are you, in the Black Panthers?

   black panthers? i guess this would make this dude public enemy number one, eh?

[edit] Term with an edge? Hardly

Sorry, Rjensen, but if that sentence isn't POV, I don't know what is. The term is perfectly benign. It can be used pejoratively, as the article notes, but does that make it borderline ethnic slur? I think not. Thesaunterer 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Benign: nonsense. try a google search on WASP DEROGATORY. It's not whether you or I consider it derogatory, its what the accepted practice is. Dictionaries tell us that:

Look at New Shorter OED: Wasp /wQsp/ n.2 Chiefly N. Amer. Freq. derog. Encarta Dictionary says: "an offensive term for a Caucasian who has a Protestant Anglo-Saxon background and is viewed as belonging to the dominant and most powerful level of society (informal insult) Merriam Webster: says "sometimes disparaging : an American of Northern European and especially British ancestry and of Protestant background; especially : a member of the dominant and the most privileged class of people in the U.S. - Wasp·dom /-d&m/ noun, sometimes disparaging - Wasp·ish /'wäs-pish, 'wos-/ adjective, sometimes disparaging - Wasp·ish·ness noun, sometimes disparaging - Waspy /-pE/ adjective, sometimes disparaging Rjensen 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

More dictionaries:

Random House Webster's Unabridged WASP (wosp), Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. 1. a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. 2. a member of the privileged, established white upper middle class in the U.S.
THE NEW YORK TIMES MANUAL OF STYLE AND USAGE WASP is usually disparaging, Rjensen 01:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've found dictionary entries that make no reference to the term being used disparagingly. Nevertheless, I don't really see a problem with your current edit. My concern came when the term was evaluated relative to another term, which reeks of value judgment. Thesaunterer 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

good-- I think we're agreed. Rjensen 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

For 'modern use' I took out Jewish Americans and Italian Americans. They aren't referred to as WASPs *unless* someone mistakes them as being of Anglo descent.66.181.234.82 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's saying that those groups are NOT what people mean with the term WASP, as in, they are some of the newer immigrants to North America contrasted against the older ones (WASPs). Also, I moved this comment down to the bottom of the page for readability. --W.marsh 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro error

In the introduction it states that the term WASP is used in "English-speaking countries which were settled, in part, by similar groups [as the US]." This statement is however quite false as the settlement of the US differs greatly from that of other former British colonies. According to immigration statistics dating back to the year 1800, the United States was mostly settled by Germans, Irish and English. While the English also settled Australia, the Germans and Irish did not. The fact that only 12% of immigrants to the US were actually English (compared w/ over half being either Irish or German) one cannot accurately state that the US was settled by the same poeple as other English speaking countries. Also, I am not an expert on the issue of how term WASP is used but whom exactly does it apply to in this day and age? While I do not mean to critize your article, somebody should outline exactly who the term applies to these days, as it is stated that modern usage differs from the term's denotation. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early History

The article makes a point of sugesting that not all WASPs are WASPs because some WASPs are Celtic. Clearly this is confusing etnicity for nationality. Many of the "Celtic" people of the Protestant ascendancy are in fact of Anglo-Saxon desent. Look it up. Most Southerners consider themselves Anglo-Saxon, but in fact their ancestors came by way of Ireland, as either the English nobility/Yeos or the Ulster Scots, so in fact they are right, they're Anglo-Saxon, but their ancestor's "nation" may have been Ireland or England, or both. Lowland Scots can be failry categorized as Anglo-Saxons, and so can many Welshmen. The Scottish Presbyterian was as hated in the eyes of the Irish and other Catholic immigrants in America, as he was to the Highlander in Scotland.

"The Scott was as hated in the eyes..." I am sure you didn't mean that. Scotts have been, for good or bad part of the American elite from the outset of the nation (as have Welsh- including Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln both being children of Welsh immigrants). But I get your point about the "Englishness" that some in the South take for granted without understanding that they often come from people with a complex pattern of immigration (which may cause them to rethink some of their views of others).

Yes, but the term WASP is a social construct. Consider the Astor family, which may have some Saxon and Angle heritage but isn't Anglo Saxon even though they may be refered to as such. Signature^brendelNow under review! 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Brendel is correct; many people misuse the term Anglo-Saxon, and not just in the term WASP. (Just as Caucasian [originally someone from the Caucasus] has been so often used incorrectly in place of Caucasoid, that the incorrect usage has become the norm.] The point remains that many people referred to as A-S are not technically A-S, something which is verifiable by reference to family history, even though we can't test for "anglo-saxon genes". The Du Pont family (Huguenot) and Cabot family (Channel Islands) are great examples. Grant65 | Talk 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Usage

The term WASP is commonly used in New York City by Puerto-Ricans, African-Americans, and working class white Catholics to refer to Jewish people. 75.3.11.87 04:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Without a source, such may not be included. Michael 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Its funny how on this forum whenever the question of race, culture, politics and history arise, everyone pussyfoots around the primary definition of the term as it was originally defined or intended. I think the idea of the term is a group of people, socially and biologically identifiable, sharing more or less a common culture, heritage and origin and social status, of Anglo-saxon origin, Prince Harry and Prince William are a good example, as they are the among the typical "preppy white kids from rich families" group. The concept is not too much different than African Americans, except that they fully acknowledge and embrace their race, and recognize that it is inseperably bound to their culture, history and social status among themselves. White people (people of European origin or whatever other politically correct euphemism you want to insert here) more or less deny, reject, denounce and try to forget those concepts, because it would not be "politically correct" or are not within the sanctioned scope of ideas in mainstream thought today. They might also be interpreted as "racist" and are therefore avoided as much as possible. --Nazrac 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Describing William & Harry as WASPS is probably, as you say, an accurate usage of the term in the US. However, it looks very strange from the UK where there is a common perception that the royal family have spent most of the last thousand years trying to avoid mixing their blood with that of the anglo-saxon commoners. Of course, the princes' mother must have introduced some anglo-saxon DNA, as did the Queen Mother. It is certainly misleading to use the term anglo-saxon to describe a particular race. The people from Britain have many origins: Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Viking, Celtic, Hugenot, etc. Bluewave 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxons, Hugenots, and normas are ancient European are peoples who have been mixing for thousands of years. All Europeans share more or less the same "ethnic" ancestry (A Germanic Romantic and often even Slavic mish-mash). No European is 100% Saxon or 100% Norman. It is natural to be interested in one's ancestry but one cannot exactely pin-point the location of one's ancestors in the year 900. Signature^brendel 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

I have removed this line: If the W is taken to indicate White, WASP is redundant, since Anglo-Saxons can only be white. But one could be White and Protestant, without being Anglo-Saxon, e.g. Welsh, Scots, Lebanese.

This supposes English people to be Anglo-Saxons which is anachronistic. It is further confused by suggesting a break between Scot/Welsh and Anglo-Saxon. None of it really makes sense. The use of Anglo-Saxon as an ethnic term seems to be quite popular in the United States yet this should not confuse true definitions. Anglo-Saxons was the collective name given to tribesmen who invaded, settled and spread their culture over much of Britain from the 6th century onwards, and the Anglo-Saxon period ended with the dawn of Norman rule. So as to the line removed, nobody alive today is an 'Anglo-Saxon' unless I presume they are from those regions in Europe of Angeln and Saxony. Enzedbrit 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

True! Furthermore, the regions of Angeln and Saxony are not actually in England but in Germany. Signature^brendelNow under review! 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true. They would be Angles or Saxons, not Anglo-Saxons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.163.133 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be called WASP not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

One of the major themes of the article is that WASP is used loosely in relation to the words "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant." The article really isn't about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (as the article notes). The term WASP is the issue here.

Yes it should, perhaps I'll start a move proposal once I find the time. Signature^brendelNow under review! 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Change the article name to WASP! This article seems to be about an American sociological term, and not about protestants of decidedly Anglo-Saxon/English descent. 70.49.163.133 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article uses the term "Britain" and "England" interchangably. "...who settled in Britain between the 5th century and the Norman Conquest. According to some sources, Anglo-Saxon ancestry is not even dominant in England." Clearly they are not the same thing. 82.26.179.25 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush family?

the article says Bush Family is WASP. But WASP is Anglo-Saxon. Bush family is Scot-Irish descent. so isn't that contradictory?

Technically yes. The Bush family is not Anglo-Saxon, yet they are New England blue-blood old money. It is important to rember that the term WASP is usually not applied in coherence with its actual meaning. Rather, it has become a social label applied to Whites from old money families. Other families such as the Astor family may also be refered to as WASP, even though they are not Anglo-Saxon. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bush family are English and were Episcopalian and are distantly related to some of those in the English royal family.

Yes, I think that they are partly descended from Ulster-scots, but directly descended from an immagrant from Sommerset, England; which explains a lot, because all people from that part of the world are thicker than two short planks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdelyelis (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wealth?

Perhaps this is idiosyncratically Australian, but I was under the impression that the W could stand for Wealthy, as in Wealthy Anglo Saxon Protestant — esp. re: the discussion above Leon 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is mentioned in the article. It doesn't seem to be a common interpretation, and may be a backronym. Grant65 | Talk 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here

[edit] Racism?

The statement: "The term has largely negative connotations" was repeatetly removed by another user and put back in by Grant65. Just to be clear that statement comes from a commonly sold college sociology textbook published by Pearson. It's textbook a quote! The term does have largely negative connotations and is often used to refer to the White power elite (C. Wright Mills, The power elite; 1959). Almost no Americans are more than 50% Anglo-so the term isn't taken literal to begin with. This statement is not, under any cisrcumstance, racist pov and I thank Grant65 for putting the statement back in the quote where it belongs. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

I removed the following OR paragraph:

"Despite the assertions of the quote above, WASPs, or White Protestants continue to be the largest single ethnic/religious bloc in the United States, representing almost half of Americans. [1] [2] Of the 77% of Americans who classify themselves as White, 56% are Protestant, 25% Catholic, 14% Non religious, and less than two percent are ethnically or religiously Jewish, with the remaining spread between other faiths. [3] In terms of national origin most Americans trace their heritage (in order) to German, British (not including Irish), Hispanic, African, and Irish forebearers.[4] WASPs then continue to have a great demographic imprint but there is a popular assertion that WASPs have declined rather than grew in their political and cultural influence.[5]"

There is one main problem with this paragraph: OR. Yes it does have source telling us how many Americans are White, how many are Protestant and what the top ancestries are. It does not, however, have a source telling us that WASPs constitute a "large bloc" of the America's population. This paragraph is the result of a Wikipedia user using statistics to back up his/her own idea. In other words, this user made a hypothesis (WASPs are a large demographic) and then used statistics to back up that claim. This may be fit for a research paper, but not Wikipedia. Signature^brendel 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. Not all Prostestant Whites are labeled as WASP, then it would be WP... then again how the label is applied depends on who is using it... that's why we need to stick to our sources.

Well put Brendel. The article is quite clear that not all Protestnat whites are WASPs, in either the technical or normative senses. Grant | Talk 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Not all Prostestant Whites are labeled as WASP..." That doesn't work with the premise of the article. I think the article already went into great pains to establish that WASP was not strictly speaking of English but of white Protestants. It does not require anyone to extrapolate or make some extra step beyond the sources if "white Protestants" are shown to be the largest group. The extra information may not have been necessary but it doesn't say anything new or beyond the sources. If anything, it simply confirms the obvious, that there isn't a Waspistan in Eastern Europe or Italy full of (white) Protestants but, as pointed out in the article, consists of people from Germany, England, Scotland, Wales, Holland and Scandanavia. At the root of this discussion, I believe are other issues so let me just make this clear. If I was just speaking of personal conjecture I would question the accuracy of the Census, and I would point out that being a "majority" population does not justify a whole bunch of societal crimes historically (or inequality currently) caused by some of this group. I think people are confusing indignation with acceptance of the "facts" that we labor under. Questioning some of those "facts" Brendel, might indeed make a good paper (and give us something to cite should they be shown false). Until then, relating facts because they are relevant here is what the article should do, no? -JP

I think it was established that White Protestants is one of the usages in popular context and done so by citation. The comment said a fact and gave a citation. No one went outside of that. This looks like you fellows have an issue with WASP's themselves. You may have some very valid points but that is not what the article is about is it?

Ditto- JP

Yes, in vernecular usage, the term WASP may be used to describe all Whites who are not seen as belonging to a minority group. Yet, the term does not actually refer to all White protestants- the term is just commmonly misused. A Wikipedia user must not gather statistics on persons he or she personally considers to be WASPs- that is OR. Furthermore the paragraph's authors seemed as though he or she was trying to make some sort of point- something a WP editor is not allowed to do. BTW: We are talking about a vaguely defined social concept here, there are no "facts." That is why it so important to just go with what sources tell us. Signature^brendel 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Persons he or she personally considers to be WASP" Didn't the article do that already in its very outset (by whoever authored that.) "There are no facts" (about social concepts). Mmmm. I'll let that stand on its own. As for making any "point", you are making it very clear that you have an axe to grind on the issue, and an axe it is. I happen to agree with you, including the more "inflamatory" (pointed?) remarks that you made and took down. I just don't see why it would be necessary to skew or hide anything. Just say, "see slavery, Native American genocide, etc., etc. for some of the contributions to culture" in the discussion page and be done with it. You aren't going to write a group out of existence on wikipedia, and I don't think any (historic or current) social problems are addressed by doing so even if it was possible. I am also not willing to diminish a group in anyway because of some of their individual or collective actions. That's how we got the slavery and genocide problem in the first place. That being my final input, I wanted to say that I appreciate your writing. -JP

I do not have personal agenda. Stating all white protestants to be WASP is OR. Traditionally that is not what the term WASP means and unless a citation can be provided to show all protestant Whites to be WASP the paragraph in question had to be deleted. Signature^brendel 07:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The following sentence lists Christopher Dodd as a Republican -

The old style Rockefeller Republicans wing of the party favored by WASPs weakened, as most recent successful Republican politicians in the Northeast have been Catholics, such as George Pataki and Chris Dodd.

I think not. :)

[edit] who makes this shit up?

I'm almost 30 and I've never heard this term ... who makes this shit up?

[edit] Lutherans?

Are Lutherans really WASPS? Aren't Lutherans in North America largely of German or Scandinavian background? I'd have thought WASPS, in the traditional sense, would almost entirely consist of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists, and that Methodists would probably be too lower class, and Lutherans too Germanic, to qualify. john k 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about a social concept whose definition is wholly subjective. The usage of the term WASP is sometimes extended to include persons of German and Scandinavian ancesty and, therefore, also Lutherans. The AS is not neccessarily taken to be literal. In a "traditional sense" your above assumption would be correct but the definition of "WASP" changes depending on context as does the inclusion of certain demographics (see the sociology textbook quote in the intro). Regards, Signature^brendel 06:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it's complicated. But if we're going by baseline religions, it seems to me we should restrict to the three I mention, plus maybe Dutch Reformed. Otherwise it just becomes a list of non-Black protestant denominations in the US, doesn't it? john k 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't restrict the list ourselves, that would be OR. True, not all white protestants are called WASP (though some (mis)use it as a synonym for any mainstream white person w/ higher status), but as of now our sources indicate that some Lutherans and Methodists are commonly labeled as WASP. Again in the traditional sense I would say even Dutch Reformed probably wouldn't be included, but our article does need to reflect the ambigous manner in which this term is used. We could add a statement that traditionally only Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists were labeled as WASP and the term's usage has since become more ambigous and inclusive. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems okay. I wasn't trying to "restrict the list ourselves," but I'm not sure what sources are indicating this. At present, the article appears to say that Baptists are commonly associated with being WASPs, which seems wrong to me - if any major white protestant religious group is not considered to be WASPs, it would have to be Baptists, along with non-denominational Evangelicals, Restorationists, Pentecostals, and the like. Surely one at least has to be a member of a "main-line" protestant church to be a WASP. john k 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage in Israel

The part about the usage of WASP in Israel as in White Ashkenazi Sabra with Protexia had been deleted by someone. I put it back in. I see that it needs citation, but I don't know how to do this. I have a link though http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Aug-15-07.htm Quote "In other words, people of Sderot and similar towns identified Moshe Feiglin as an Israeli WASP - a White Ashkenazi Sabra with Protexia. (In Israeli terminology, one who has "pull" with the establishment is said to have protexia.)" It would be nice if someone put this link in the article. Thanks --84.191.169.90 (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)