Talk:White Anglo-Saxon Protestants/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Anglo-Saxon

Use of the term "Anglo-Saxon" begins with Walter Scott, as an adjective meant to differentiate the common people of England from the haughty and oppressive Norman-French aristocracy (the so-called Norman yoke). In Scott's telling, the Anglo-Saxons had a common democratic heritage that preceded the Normans, and it was this, he held, that the Magna Carta revived, even though it was in actuality written by Normans and mixed-Norman-Anglo-Saxons. But Scott, the great mediator, presents the the Normans as having been in England long enough to have intermarried and absorbed at least some supposedly Anglo-Saxon ideas of liberty, toleration, and human rights. Scott was a thoroughgoing man of the 18th C. Enlightenment. (Scott and Burke's idea of liberty being pre-Norman may or may not be purely imaginary).

In the 19th century, Anglo-Saxon and Old English language and literature courses (Beowulf, Chaucer) began to be offered in colleges and workman's institutes as as a supplement (or even alternative) to supposedly "elitist" Classical Curriculum. So to a lesser extent were the Celtic languages (associated with France, as well as with Ireland and Scotland).

It was during the period around World War I, that the adjective "Anglo-Saxon", as applied to English-speaking countries, began being used to designate the historic kinship between Britain and America (Ireland not yet independent). And it retains this usage in international political discourse to this day. In this ideology, Anglo-Saxon = "free", and liberal, and German, Austria, and Turkey = monarchical and absolutist. This was the era in which scientific racism and imperialism were in their heyday; and we get notions of supposed Anglo-Saxon racial (as well as cultural, technical, and intellectual) superiority to the rest of the world ("the white man's burden). The "Anglo-Saxons" in this narrative, were born to rule, but were obliged to so in a just and enlightened manner. This was the "civilizing mission", or "white man's burden." John Addington Symonds even maintained that the "torch" of liberty and Progress (gradual, of course) had allegedly been passed from Greece, to Rome, to Florence, to the British Empire and its daughter republic, the USA. But post-World War I you have isolationism and exclusion. Racism and xenophobia adhere more and more to the term, which has also been adopted by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups to differentiate themselves from African-Americans, Jews, Irish, Mediterranean, Asians, and other immigrants, old and new. Of course, some of the old elite really were bigots. But others had been liberals and even radicals.

I don't have time to back up everything with references, but am pretty sure it is solid and I hope someone will do this. 173.77.77.2 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Anon makes some interesting points (based on original research?) Scott actually knew very little about the period (see Ball, Margaret (1907). Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature. pp. 42–.) Scott learned it all from English historian Sharon Turner c 1799 who was the biggest promoter. At the same time, Thomas Jefferson was promoting Anglo-Saxon language studies. The term is in heavy use by 1900 in French and irish sources. Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley (Irish) characterized Teddy Roosevelt's election in 1904 as an "Anglo-Saxon triumph," Roosevelt told Dunne he was Dutch, not Anglo-Saxon. For detailed history see these cites in Gossett's book on race. The idea became important among scholars about 1870. Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research? Well, yes, if you consider miscellaneous reading to be original research. Scott was a popularizer, but he was a man of incredibly wide (if sometimes shallow) reading. I just (two years ago, actually) finished reading a biography of him by John Sutherland. I don't think there was any doubt that Scott's portrayal, however faulty, of the Anglo-Saxons in Ivanhoe popularized the concept. You can google "The Norman Yoke" by the way. Scott read Chaucer (phrases out of Chaucer pop up in his novels) and was one of the significant influences in adding Chaucer to the curriculum. (See Michael Alexander, Medievalism: The Middle Ages in Modern England [Yale University Press, 2007], a wonderful book, by the way.) Other books that touch on this are Gerald Graff's history of English studies (don't remember the title). Of course Scott was preceded by the 18th c. (and earlier) antiquarian movement -- Scott himself took pride in being a most enthusiastic antiquarian and there was a vibrant antiquarian society in Edinburgh. I am not surprised that as a learned man, and a liberal, Thomas Jefferson, Scott's contemporary, and like him a lawyer, was interested in Anglo-Saxon. The antiquarians, of course, were very interested in Norse and Anglo-Saxon, but such interests were quite specialized , and not part of a widespread popular movement, the way it later became. The antiquarian movement morphed into folklore studies, and also manuscript studies. This is how Francis James Child, the Boston-born ballad scholar got his start.

The popular vogue for the Anglo-Saxons was mentioned in the book Caught in the Web of Words: James Murray and the Oxford English Dictionary, about the beginning of the Oxford English Dictionary or perhaps it was Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman, about the same topic. It was at that time that babies began being named Ethel, Egbert, Harold, and such. If I recall correctly. (Scott's lower-class Anglo-Saxon was called 'Wamba, son of Witless", his upper class one, Rowena). The OED was compiled using volunteers and amateurs, because the linguistics it covered was not a part of the academic curriculum at the time. (I need to read these books again, actually) Child also used volunteers. Child would be (c. 1878) the first person to be named professor of English at Harvard. It was due to his influence and that of his pupil, G. L. Kittredge, that Anglo-Saxon and Old English language and literature studies became mandatory for English majors and grad students at Harvard until about 1940, if I am not mistaken, Sutherland writes that 50 percent of the ballads in Child's collection are identical to those assembled in Scott's 1802 Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, the book that catapulted Scott to fame. Scott did not really compile this all by himself, by the way, he relied on many others to help him. But he had the last editorial word, one supposes.173.77.77.2 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 173.77.75.221 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to stress that when people like Jefferson or the antiquarians stressed the need to study Anglo-Saxon it was not for reasons of national identity (so far as I know), but rather in a spirit of antiquarian learning. The English gentry considered themselves Norman (i.e.) French and that included Virginia plantation owners like Jefferson. It was later that Anglo-Saxon became associated with national identity and then it was at first a political and linguistic identity.

I find the writing of this article to be sub-standard, scatter-shot, disorganized, and the tone, not encyclopedic and at times objectionable. Instead of Arsenic and Old Lace I would rather read more about the work of E. Digby Baltzell. He wrote several books about the elite business class of Philadelpha, and it would be interesting to know what he had to say about them. Also, I think the article should mention his nephew Whit Stillman's hilarious movie, Metropolitan, about the decline of the old families and their code, their boarding schools, their balls, and debutantes. One of Stillman's characters playfully coins the term: Urban haute bourgeoisie, or UHB (pronounced uhb). According to the NY Times obit:

Dr. Baltzell, who was an Episcopalian and a Democrat, won high praise for his 1979 book Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia: Two Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Class Authority and Leadership (Free Press).

Andrew Hacker, professor of political science at Queens College, wrote in a review, '"It is a vast and stunning volume, displaying sociology at its best."

That book was about class, especially the upper social strata of Boston and Philadelphia. In its pages, Dr. Baltzell pondered the question of why upper crust Bostonians massively enriched their city's public life and life of the mind, but top-drawer Philadelphians contributed much less to theirs. And he suggested that the disparity reflected differences between Puritanism and Puritans, on the one hand, and Quakerism and Quakers on the other.

In an interview in 1981, Dr. Baltzell said that "American Protestantism in general" showed a relative lack of involvement in producing art or pursuing purely intellectual matters. He added that the greatest contributions in intellectual and artistic endeavors in America in recent years had been made by Jews. "People talk about what Episcopalians have accomplished and their power," he went on, "but what Jews have done in the United States since World War II is now the great untold story."

Mrs. Baltzell said that her husband, in his last months, had begun research on what was to be a book recording what he called the end of the Protestant establishment. She said he had come to feel that the Protestant establishment's power had substantially decreased in recent decades, and that its place had been taken by a meritocracy based on professional performance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.75.221 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A few more thoughts. It is my impression, though I don't have citations to support it right now, that lately some Jewish conservatives have been decrying the passing of the old Protestant elite and its values (though hopefully not its bigotry), an ironic development. I also agree with the article's mention of the significance of Eleanor Roosevelt's resignation from the DAR, after its refusal to let Marion Anderson sing at Constitution Hall. This marks a pivotal shift in national consciousness, such as described by Jonathan Deming in his book about the "laboring" of American culture (as he characterized the broadening of what it meant to be an American). Also, the rise of James Conant's SAT, which purported to find those with "aptitude" (conceived in an essentialist, Calvinist manner), regardless of prep-school background or the lack of it, was another nail in the coffin of WASP hegemony. Another factor, too, was the rise of Richard Nixon, an outsider, who seethed with a life-long resentment against what he considered the "Eastern Establishment". Finally, David Hackett Fisher's Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America could be recommended as a useful corrective to reductive stereotypes about WASP culture. And Gentleman's Agreement could counterbalance Arsenic and Old Lace. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Gentlemen's Agreement is a great film but it does not single out WASPS.... just about everyone seems to have a degree of antisemitism. The closest you get to WASP is several scenes in Darien, Connecticut, but no WASP connection is actually mentioned as I recall. By contrast the WASP theme is very strong in every most scenes in "Arsenic" (compare the ugly image of all the Italian characters (except Marty himself) in "Marty" (1955), with a nearly-all Italian case) Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was a great film, but I can't say I remember it very distinctly. I never saw "Marty". In any case, Arsenic and Old Lace, however, dates from 1944, well before the term "WASP" became current. It satirized not the wealthy, prep-school-educated bankers, diplomats, and corporation heads of the WASP establishment, but rather the obscure, and genteelly poor little old ladies (such as, arguably those who made up the membership of the DAR when in 1939 they snubbed Marion Anderson), who clung to an absurd pride in their genealogy. The Cary Grant character may have been glad to find out he was not a crazy Brewster, but there was no hint he and his girlfriend were of different religions or ethnicities than the Brewsters. Maybe that is why I find the stress on the film jarring. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Well, he discovers his mother was the Brewsters' cook, but does that signal she was, say, Irish Catholic, Scots Presbyterian, German Lutheran, from Appalachia, or just poor, working class? 173.77.75.221 (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Arsenic" is about the WASP ethnic group (before the term was coined in the 1950s) and their pretensions to gentility and leadership (the brother behaves like Teddy Roosevelt and the aunts really think they are philanthropists). They were not so poor--they had servants. (servants in Brooklyn in 1900 were overwhelmingly Irish Catholics). Frank Capra (the director) was born in Sicily and the opening scenes of the film show what "true" multi-ethnic Americans are like (they are raucous at a baseball game) -- totally opposite of the highfalutin Brewsters. The movie is all about the Brewsters with a heavy mention of religion and the Mayflower and the group's habit of doing very nasty deeds (murders) while the police (shown as Irish in the film, as indeed they were) think they are so good and pure. One of Capra first major films "The Younger Generation" (1929) was a rags-to-riches romantic comedy about a Jewish family's upward mobility in New York with their son trying to deny his Jewish roots in order to keep his rich gentile girlfriend. Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. And it was based on a play that opened in 1939, so it was written close to the Marion Anderson affair. I don't know the background of the playwright. Everyone had servants in those days. It was the depression. My grandmother, a public school teacher had a live-in maid (so my mother told me) and my grandparents were really really struggling (and not WASPS, but second generation immigrants). Even into the fifties, you could see on TV the middle class (not wealthy) families.people would all be depicted as having a maid/and or/ cook. Up until the 1960s I knew plenty of people who were not rich and not WASPS who had a maid come every day, even if she didn't live in, especially when the wife worked outside the home. And most middle-class NY apartments came with maid's rooms. Labor was cheap, that's how it was. Anyway, it was not specified that the cook was Irish. Yes, a lot of non-Anglo's (let us call them that) assumed that the Anglo-Americans, rich or poor were repressed and conformist, and they rightly resented being excluded by restrictive covenants and other forms of discrimination. But I honestly think don't think the film was about that -- would have to see it again, though. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Race suicide is another interesting theme in the movie, and in the history of the WASPS. In the early 20th century there was concern that the upper-class college women were not getting married, or if they did they had too few children. Teddy Roosevelt made a great deal of this theme about 1910. It appears as well in the Arsenic movie: Mortimer, the hero, is nationally famous for his opposition to marriage. He has to go incognito to the marriage bureau to get a license because he has decided to get married. The 2 aunts never married, nor apparently did their brother. That is the old stock upper-class is dying out. At the end of the film Mortimer discovers he is not really a Brewster, and is therefore not cursed with insanity, murderous intent, or infertility-- so he takes his bride off to the honeymoon with glee.Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My recollection is that Teddy Roosevelt famously called birth control "race suicide" and that Alice and Franklin Roosevelt then proclaimed themselves members of the "race suicide" club, meaning that they endorsed birth control (then very controversial). I don't think birth control is a theme of the movie, but I'll have to look again. You may also remember that at that time also there was the story of the Jukes and the Kalliacks, a supposedly degenerate hillbilly family (ironically white, anglo-saxon, and protestant), that was said to have produced generations of criminals, and who were widely used (in text books and elsewhere) as a justification for the practice of eugenics. Arsenic and Old Lace could as easily have been referring to that. I think I may have even encountered the Jukes and the Kallikacks in high school biology. I know my mother used to talk about them. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting link: Thomas G. Dyer, Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race 173.77.75.221 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In "Arsenic" it's a damn good thing the WASPS are dying out--they are evil incarnate. Nazis in disguise. Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Evil Nazis in disguise? That sounds rather essentialist.

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

PFJ Member: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, peace? SHUT UP! 173.77.75.221 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazis in disguise? yes all the real Brewsters are mass murderers. The respectable aunts see themselves as philanthropists in old lace---they lace their wine with arsenic for lonely old men. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the edits by Rjensen, I don't think Matthew Gunter goes quite as far as Rjensen does in his interpretation of the film, but I see what he is getting at. The film was directed by Capra and adapted by Julius and Philip Epstein who also adapted the screenplay for Casablanca. Gunter says that the adaptation was made in 1941 (though not released until 1944) and, like Casablanca, can be seen as preparing America for war. He says that the Brewster family (which also includes another brother who is a psychotic murderer), and whose house is said to be (not a mansion but) the "nicest in Brooklyn" represents a metaphor for America's violent past. Gunter says that for Capra, America's freedom, while full of promise, could lead to awful things and Americans have to accept this. (Gunter doesn't mention a word about "philanthropy".) I think, myself, the spinster aunts represent sexual repression leading to sterility and death. Whereas Capra added contrasting scenes of fecundity such as Brewster's wedding, (immigrant?), children playing, and the fiancée/bride Elaine, who represents a chance at life and sexuality for Mortimer. But Mortimer, who had written books inveighing against marriage, must also prepare to accept societies' restrictions (according to Gunter) and reject the insanity inherent in the crazy path of his (adoptive) family, as symbolized by his own previous principled bachelorhood and rejection of marriage. But the fact that Elaine is also a WASP suggests that what Capra thought America needed was not so much for the WASPs to become extinct, as for them to be rejuvenated by infusions of the vibrant (supposedly) wholesome and more manly new blood provided by multi-cultural immigrants, who are purportedly unburdened (so it was thought in the 1940s and 50s) by a sexually repressive Protestant (i.e., Puritan) heritage . But Gunter doesn't really say this. In any case, I still think having such a lengthy exegesis of Arsenic and Old Lace it in an article about WASPs is a stretch for various reasons. Still, the article has more serious problems than that. Nevertheless, I don't really feel like tackling them at this point. Maybe at some future time, or somebody else would.173.77.75.221 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC) afterthought 173.77.75.221 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree with 173 re his most recent post on sexuality. (The pro/anti marriage theme is quite strong). One great feature about Wiki-- unlike assigned readings no readers gets tested on it and if readers are bored with a topic they can jump to something else in a tenth of a second. The 1944 release date: to purchase the rights the producer had to agree not to release the film while the play was still on Broadway--it ran for 1300+ performances over 5 years! Rjensen (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You could say that the film adaptation was criticizing "aristocratic" eccentricity/non-conformity as degenerate and leading to sterility and death (a veiled anti-gay message?) and that to be wholesome and "fecund" one had to strictly conform to the ideal of heterosexual marriage, or try to. Second-generation ethnics were terribly concerned about "fitting in". Another film about WASPs that immediately sprang to my mind from this era was The Philadelphia Story, which was an even more overt protest against (alleged) female WASP sexual repression (of men) and also divorce. (The arrogant Tracy Lord and her mother receive a comeuppance for their "puritanical" WASP disapproval of their husbands' extra-marital lapses and alcohol drinking, and in the end a humbled Tracy re-unites with her ex-husband.) But that is going far afield. More germane, I think, is RJensen's pointing out Jefferson's enthusiasm for the Anglo-Saxons, as (in his mind), a Whig symbol for liberty (as opposed to the "Tory" Monarchists). He got this from Blackstone, the great 18th c. authority on law, which is where Sir Walter Scott would have also gotten it, probably (also Edmund Burke, who fetishized the Magna Carta over the Puritan Revolution, uncomfortably similar in his mind to the regicidal French Revolution) The morphing of "Anglo-Saxon" from a political term denoting freedom to a racial and ethnic one is quite interesting. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 173.77.75.221 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed

A citation is needed with regards to Goldwater and his relationship with the Jewish community. See section "Related Political Culture" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.247.116 (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns with Tone and citations

Having stumbled upon this page, I was quite concerned with the general tone of the article as it pertains to a quasi-ethnic group. I understand that the majority of sources used for the article are sociologists rather than historians, but that is not a relevant excuse for presenting conjecture in the form of encyclopedic facts. A few examples of my objection taken from the Culture section:

• The WASP elite dominated much of politics and the economy, as well as the high culture, well into the 20th century.

Here we have a clear situation where we are presenting the interpretation of one (or many) sociologist as historic record. While it is possible that this is indeed true, we have already defined the term as sociological in its origins, and it is misleading to allow Anthony Smith or anyone else to transpose his theory into a history. The proper wording for these statements would be along the lines of In defining the role of the WASPS throughout the 20th Century, Athony Smith argues that they were a dominant force throughout the period..

• WASP leisure included upscale activities such as foreign travel, equestrianism, and yachting — expensive pursuits that need both leisure time and affluence to pursue, and which sociologists such as Thorstein Veblen (The Theory of the Leisure Class) have pointed to as a marker of social standing.[19][better source needed]

This is a better effort at achieving encyclopedic format, but the same problem remains. The first half of the sentence presents an opinion about a group of people as though it were fact, and the sentence structure then tries to justify it by citing an opinion by Thorstein Veblen, whose works are hardly indicative of a consensus among historians (or even sociologists).

In summary, my concern is that many parts of this article are nothing more than a conglomeration of position papers. It is great to have a myriad of ideas on the subject, but we cannot allow them to take a tone of authority equal to historical records. They are interpretations of history and must be presented as such.Mrathel (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

our job as editors is to report the consensus of scholars, which is that the WASPS were dominant in many areas pre 1945. There are no "opinions" involved here--rather they are scholarly conclusions based on research in the historical records and reported in reliable secondary sources that have been vetted by teams of scholars and professional editors. (Wiki rule is that the secondary sources are what we want to depend on, NOT the primary sources.) Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, you are confusing history and sociology. Even if every sociologist in the world were to agree that WASPS were dominant in an area, the proper statement for the article would be "The consensus among sociologists is that.." because a WASP is not a finite thing. It is a relative term and thus not applicable in historical contexts. You can say that Protestants were prevalent, you can say that white Protestants were prevalent, but when you combine these into WASP, you are crossing the border between history and social studies, and encyclopedic articles do not present a consensus of sociologists as historical fact. I don't disagree with anything in the article, I am just saying it is not presented in the proper manner. Mrathel (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

the Wikipedia rule is that we report what the reliable secondary sources say. In this case they seem to be unanimous that the WASP element (before WW2) had a dominant role in many areas of American life. I suspect Mrathel has some notion that there is a "true" history out there somewhere and sociologists cannot find it. Historians use the term: 1) David Kennedy 2009: "In its period of foreign-policy dominance, the Wasp elite was molded in about a dozen preparatory schools and...."; 2) Steven A. Riess 2014" "social mobility among immigrants and hyphenated Americans excluded from the WASP mainstream."; 3) Kerwin Lee Klein - 2011 - ‎"The transformation of research universities from bastions of WASP culture to places far more diverse"; 4) David Harlan - 2009 "To demand that Americans shuck their cultural heritages and homogenize themselves into a 'universal' WASP culture is to..." etc etc Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, I am trying my best, but it appears that I am not smart enough to explain this to you in a way that you can understand, so I will try again. Please read my words and think about them before responding. In fact, I will use an example because my ability to communicate is not up to par.

• Let us say that this article were about "Wops" instead of WASPS. Now an article on Wops could begin "Wop is a pejorative racial slur used to describe Italians, or people from Italy." Now, I know Wop is more negative than WASP, but humor me. In the body of the cultural section (assuming the Wop article followed the same format) lets just say there were sentences like In the US the term 'Wop' was often used in reference to Italian Americans living in the Little Italy district of New York City, where Italian Americans had established several family owned businesses, from produce markets to restaurants. The rapid encroachment of these Italian-speaking individuals into the Anglo-dominated society caused friction that sociologist Jimmy Johnson credits for the vast use of the term 'Wop' to refer to these individuals. Still following? Because this is how you introduce encyclopedic content on a term that refers to an ethnic group to which no one actually ascribes. The tone must be crafted a way that does not imply that these people actually exist, because they don't. Italians exist, white protestants exist, but neither Wops nor WASPS have a defined group of people who fill in those respective bubbles on the race portion of a job application.
• Now lets see how that sentence would appear if we were to follow the tone of this article on WASPS: Wops lived in several places in the US but were concentrated in the dirtier parts of New York. Wops love their fresh produce and spaghetti, according to Jimmy Johnson, and when they first arrived, Wops huddled together in packs and could not speak English. It would not be until the second or third generation that these Wops would learn to speak English fluently.

Now we can discuss tones and how to improve this article, but please don't repeat the irrelevant line about secondary sources. And do not assume that another editor "has some notion" of what is true. Assume good faith, take step back from the article, and approach it with the intent to improve the content. Just because the term is mostly used by sociologists doesn't mean we can toss it around in a way that would be insensitive if it were replaced by Jews, Muslims, or any other ethnicity. This is an encyclopedia article, not a sociology paper, and different standards apply. Mrathel (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• My personal experience cannot be cited in the article, of course, but I think it's worth noting that I do know multiple people with primarily or entirely WASP ancestry who self-identify as WASPs without believing that they are demeaning themselves. So I expect to see very convincing references for any claim that the term is "mostly used by sociologists" rather than being a common term for an ethnic group there aren't any good alternative terms for. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 11:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that

a photo of the Ukrainian Medical Association Ball is not an appropriate photo for this article and should be removed. Any ball won't do. Or I'll post a picture from something like this:

" These formal cotillion and debutante balls still thrives as a viable outlet for those seeking success to participate in one of the most traditional vestiges of the African American middle-class."
Carptrash (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071030012805/http://www.robertsonvprinceton.org:80/factsheet/background.php to http://www.robertsonvprinceton.org/factsheet/background.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the lawsuit by ONE disgruntled family is especially relevant. The kids wanted the money given to Princeton is all. Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Tone of the article

Sorry but I read the lead section and I was shocked with the amount of hatred towards the WASPs. Whoever wrote that (an extreme left-winger, possibly) has introduced way too much bias and non-neutral views. Also, some of the references are really unreliable and even shockingly aggressive. Lastly, I decided to add a POV tag, since apparently the tone and neutrality issues have been discussed in the past in this talk page. Cheers Outedexits (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Shocked??? Outedexits is new to Wikipedia and does not understand encyclopedias. His speculation is all false and unsubstantial. The Wiki editors have not demonstrated any "hatred." They do report that the term, as the dictionaries point out, is often derogatory and provide cites to demonstrate this noncontroversial fact. In fact attacks on the rich and powerful are pretty common--I just watched the GOP debate tonite and anti-powerful-people rhetoric was a repeated common theme from the presidential candidates of the conservative party! It is not true that "some of the references are really unreliable"-- he deleted a whole series of standard dictionaries like Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Margery Fee and Janice McAlpine, Guide to Canadian English Usage (2008); Frederick Ludowyk and Bruce Moore, eds, Australian modern Oxford dictionary (2007), etc as well as scholarly studies such as Kaufmann, ed. Rethinking ethnicity: Majority groups and dominant minorities (Routledge, 2004). The POV tag requires evidence and there are not many books or articles celebrating the Wasps in the way Outedexits looks for--he fails to cite a single RS of any sort whatever. Rjensen (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you reverted my changes, go to the talk in White Anglo-Saxon ProtestantOutedexits (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you also reverted content that really should be removed, like a poorly referenced sentence. Also, don't revert the tag. Read it: Please don't remove this until the dispute is solved" or something. Outedexits (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

we can keep the POV tag but you have to provide some evidence beyond a personal POV--what content " really should be removed"?? perhaps the example of a hostile tone shown by an alternative dictionary?? It is used to prove that strong hostility certainly exists. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Tone issues have been reported a significant amount of times in the talk page. This article treats WASPs as if they are demons or something, and that is clear. It clearly says only bad things about them. Leave the tag there, I'm not the first one to start this discussion. Outedexits (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You must understand the POV rules. They require that every significant viewpoint be fully represented. They do NOT require that the article be neutral regarding the topic of the article, which you seem to believe. To demonstrate that POV rules have been violated, you need to find a series of significant reliable sources that have an alternative viewpoint that is not represented in this article. Just what are these significant reliable sources that you are using -- please tell us?? Indeed other inexperienced editors have complained, but they too have failed to provide these alternative reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The maintance tag is supposed to make other editors go fix the article for neutrality. I don't have to be the one who will find the sources. And yes, the tag does require that the article be neutral regarding the topic of the article. Anyway, according to your last edit [1], you do seem to dislike WASPs, which is not a problem, but just relax and don't be obsessed over a simple tag. Wait for other opinions before you make any other decision Outedexits (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is neutral regarding the reliable sources. Whether it is neutral regarding the WASPS is not at issue. Our job as editors is to cover the RS thoroughly, and not overlook any major viewpoint that has RS behind it. As for me personally, I am quite neutral regarding WASPS in my scholarly books and articles. As for the rhetoric of anti-elitism, it's widespread: from last night's GOP debate (wherfe the term WASP was not used): 1) FIORINA: "75 percent of the American people think the federal government is corrupt. I agree with them. And this big powerful, corrupt bureaucracy works now only for the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected." 2) CRUZ: "The the truth of the matter is, big government benefits the wealthy, it benefits the lobbyists, it benefits the giant corporations." 3) KASICH: "when we talk about the Import Export Bank, it’s time to clean up corporate welfare. If we’re gonna reform welfare for poor people, we ought to reform it for rich people, as well." Rjensen (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Outedexits: Can you develop that further? In what sense do you feel WP:NPOV is being violated? While you don't necessarily need to quote sources, you are required to outline in what manner you feel policy has been violated. As the {POV} template says: "drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole article is mostly SYN stringing together any reference to "protestant" as a reason to drag material into the article. There are many issues throughout the whole article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't find any "synthesis" -- every point is fully sourced in the RS. Do you have some examples? Rjensen (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

For one, there is no indication that the Usem book discusses WASP or "white anglo-saxon protestants" at all. [2] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And the use of this [3] article which only talks about WASPs in relation to being on the Social Register to support some sort of vague claim about elite WASP neighborhoods. Those are just the first two random sources I clicked in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Useem uses the WASP "upper class" model of The Protestant Establishment. Aristocracy and Caste in America by E. Digby Baltzell on pp 11-13 and 220. He defines it as "a social network of established wealthy families, sharing A distinct culture, occupying a common social status, and Unified through marriage and common experience in exclusive settings" [ p 13]. He says this model works poorly in the US today. Rjensen (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

the Social Register footnote was misplaced at #48 instead of where it belonged at #46 so I moved it. Thanks for catching this. Rjensen (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

claiming that an author REALLY meant WASP when he specifically used different terms and never used WASP phraseology in an entire book length piece is precisely the type of inappropriate WP:OR that is going on throughout the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no such claim made. The Useem book deals with exactly the same topics in slightly different language so it's of value as "further reading" for users. Rjensen (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of works directly about WASPs. Why would we suggest a particular "further reading" about something that is only generally related? and that is still WP:OR to include it to back claims made in a Wikipedia article about WASP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Useem takes his definition directly from Baltzell's def of WASP--he is closely on topic, without using a derogatory term. I note that TheRedPenOfDoom claims to know a lot of WASP books but has never mentioned any. He can be of help by adding some of the items he knows about. Rjensen (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no obligation to fix your mistakes or find sources for you. (But if there are not other sources that actually discuss this subject in depth, then this whole article is in trouble.)

You need to make the case that a specific book which does not mention the subject of this article should be listed as suggested reading. I, for one don't buy "Somebody else used a similar definition". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

that's not a Wiki rule. the book covers important material discussed in the article so it's useful. I think your failure to refer to any RS indicates you are simply unfamiliar with the RS. Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD is correct. Please don't argue so much. All of his changes are perfectly fine, in my opinion. My honest thank you, TRPoD. Outedexits (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire article should be removed and best left for the trash site.. "Urban Dictionary" to explain WASP. It is very clear that this article was written by a leftist, as filled with class warfare terminology as it is. It's also clear that certain people refusing to allow the changes to fix the article's bias are the very ones responsible for the bias. Leave your trucking politics to the demonstrations and keep them out of Wikipedia.Cg23sailor (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cg23sailor seems tol think anti-rich talk comes from the "leftist." Oh no--it is even more visible from the conservativer perspective--here are 3 quotes from the 2015 GOP presidential debate at the Reagan museum by very well known conservatives: 1) Carly FIORINA: "75 percent of the American people think the federal government is corrupt. I agree with them. And this big powerful, corrupt bureaucracy works now only for the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected." 2) Senator CRUZ: "The the truth of the matter is, big government benefits the wealthy, it benefits the lobbyists, it benefits the giant corporations." 3) Gov KASICH: "when we talk about the Import Export Bank, it’s time to clean up corporate welfare. If we’re gonna reform welfare for poor people, we ought to reform it for rich people, as well." Rjensen (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

(Messages by user Elinruby)

this needs help

immediate concerns:

• it is possible to be white and protestant without being "high-status" so this requires explanation. There is a truth there that is not spelled out correctly. Class is being missed.

• I question the thing about it being applied to all Europeans as this would make French Canadians and Irish WASPs, and *so* not as the term is used. I see the references but they are not easily verified. I realize that they do not HAVE to be easily verified but that seems dissonant enough that I may actually try.Elinruby (talk)

Find the reliable sources that discuss the topic in an overview manner and then model the page content after them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I needed stuff to do lol. I may. Or I may get stuck in some other tarpit, Which is why I am leaving a note. If anyone else comes by, yes, the page needs some help.Elinruby (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

removed vague and possibly offensive text

"As members of the cultural elite, many fashion trends have emerged from WASP society throughout history."

must be what they call the white man's burden. I mean seriously, throughout history, really? There are no redeeming facts in this sentence either. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Fine. Just keep editing the article. Outedexits (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Chabal reference

He is discussing its use *in French*. In England it means something quite different often. The Saxon were a distinct ethnic group conquered in 1066 if I remember my history and thereafter the elite was the Norman aristocracy. To the extent that anyone would say anything of the kind later on they would probably have been defining the out-group as the Irish though, no? In any event I do not believe he is talking about WASPs as manifested in the US. Elinruby (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, the nature of immigration to the US changed at about this time and I think this is what the original editor may have been talking about. But uh not in reference cited so solly Elinruby (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

dubious and pov templates.

OK look, in no particular order:

• You talk about this is an important WASP church but you don't explain why the President has anything to do with it, Yes I know I read the rest of the article. But people are going to start reading here in the caption and not know what you are talking about.

• Yeah yeah Josiah strong but you don't get there for a couple of sentences and your reader is sitting there thinking damn I am pretty sure the Jesuits would not have done anything of the kind oh THAT kind of missionary. Preeedtty sure the Jesuits though they were saving the world too. I clicked his link and apparently he founded some specific movement; I think you need to specify the specific religious group and *then* you might be close to having a statement that will stand up maybe. That one definitely doesn't.

• Also, somewhere in the article there is a claim that the term is used in Canada --- I dunno. At our house we said English and French and seriously, being told that anyone thinks I am Anglo-Saxon is a bit insulting and should not be in Wikipedia's voice. I think I saw while clicking around that this may have happened in the 1900s. If this is the case then article should say specify.

In the last paragraph I suggest that Anglo-Saxon refers to categories of British dialect/ethnicity. It's the only thing I can think of because I as a fluent french speaker who understands several dialects have never heard that usage. But if it's some sort of cultural anthropolgy term in french circles I suppose I could be wrong. But at a minimum it does require attribution because I do find it very surprising Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, man. I'm tired. Stop posting so many messages and edit the article, or don't, if you don't know what to change. I have way worse problems to deal with in the article right now. Outedexits (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have *BEEN* editing the article; check the history. And if you are saying I should be bold then explain why you reverted that last change. Putting a when tag on it is being nice. If you don't want questions then the statement should just be deleted.

That's the thing about aking for editors; you asked for input, you should at least listen to it it whether you wP:LIKE it or not Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Elinruby: All I'm saying is that you should edit as you see fit and that you don't need to post so many messages here. And no, the When tag was innapropriate. So was the POV tag in a section. So were a few of the many dubious tags you added. Outedexits (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased the religious connections--of course the article is about WASP PROTESTANTS. As for Canada, WASP usage is cited to Margery Fee and Janice McAlpine, Guide to Canadian English Usage (2008) pp. 517-8. For more details see C.P. Champion (2010). The Strange Demise of British Canada: The Liberals and Canadian Nationalism, 1964-68. MQUP. pp. 48–49.. On the French I agree and deleted the unsourced text, DeGaulle however used "anglo Saxon" very often & prominently. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Outedexits: really now? That statement is globally true across all demographic groups and periods of history? Do you have a reference for that then? At your convenience. I am about to wander off for now. I did see that you changed "missionary" to "American Protestant missionary" which works for the concern about the Jesuits, thank you. As for POV section coulda sworn that's where the documentation says to put it but live and learn Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Degaulle yeah probably would. This is why I am asking for context. But I think I agree that's globally true. the dictionary -- can't berify this second from where I am signed in, It may also be correct historically not current usage and that's why I don't know it. Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about ethnic slurs template

I have started a discussion about the inclusion of this page on the ethnic slurs template which can be found at Template talk:Ethnic slurs#White slurs.3F TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WASP is a slur based on ethnicity (anglo-saxon) & religion (Protestant) 1) see title Unkind words: ethnic labeling from Redskin to WASP by Irving L. Allen - 1990 2) "the one indispensable ethnic slur: WASP" [Ricks T.S. Eliot and Prejudice (1988) - Page 57]; 3) "stereotype one can freely use as a slur is WASP" [The Evangelical Tradition in America Leonard I. Sweet - 1997 p 304]. 4) "Yankee magazine complained that the term WASP cut just as harmfully as other ethnic epithets" [Rebellious Laughter: People's Humor in American Culture Joseph Boskin - 1997 - Page 149] etc. Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

British Imperialism & Anglo-Saxon Connotations

I've seen within this talk page that there has been some doubt as to whether the concept of WASP is just a sort of far-out speculation on the part of mere sociologists, with no real basis within the History sphere of things. My perspective is quite different! The consensus among scholars of the British Empire today gives serious credence to WASP, although it doesn't really discuss the matter in those terms. I'd specifically like to draw all contributors attention to the landmark book within the aforementioned field, "British Imperialism: 1688-2000" by Cain & Hopkins, which this article is crying out for references to. There, the work discusses its sociology in terms of the transformation of Gentry, or Gentlemanly, culture through the new industrial, mainly 1800s period. However it doesn't take much imagination to link the British concept of Gentry (which is itself a very unique, informal, concept of aristocracy or ruling class that you won't find elsewhere​ in Europe) with that of WASP, Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

I want to argue, quite fervently, here, how so very skillful the term "Anglo-Saxon" is in subtly pinning down just exactly which subculture it is that's running the show within the sphere of British Imperialism. However, to fully understand it, you must get deep inside the mindset of a Victorian Gentleman and his outlook on topics such as race, national identity, religion and a good occupation. Britain has a very complicated mixture of roots that define its history, language and culture, and by emphasising one of those roots over another to a Gentleman of, say, 1800, here, Anglo-Saxon over Norman, Britonic and Celtic influences, you are subtly influencing his politics by changing the narrative he has of the world, its history and thereby its driving forces, for lack of a better term. And that's certainly what went on in the Victorian period, if not earlier, amongst the anglo-sphere, where by that time the empire had very much gone to people's heads, so to speak. By emphasising that England, and in particular southeast London-centered England was fundamentally first and foremost "Anglo-Saxon" in pedigree, it suspiciously coincides quite beautifully with the politics of London City officials throughout that whole extended period of time. And as we now know, it was the new form of wealth in the Commons of the City that held the real keys to power and influence throughout the British Empire, that is: financial services! Financial services, are indeed the Ultimate First Cause in history in my opinion. The ethos of the City was protestant, they were against what they perceived as the irrationality and decadence of Catholicism, and their ties in business to the Germanic cities where much stronger because of finance, many Protestant cities of Europe like Zurich, Amsterdam and London where much further ahead in terms of financial innovation than what you might call "Catholic cities" such as Dublin and Paris, a fact that amusingly holds even today. Here imperial historian Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" would make good further reading, and I think some of Weber's writings would be really on point here in driving this home about the cultural link between Protestantism and their industrial, indeed capitalist ethos.

Take, therefore, the perspective of a wealthy Gentleman, self-identified as Anglo-Saxon, living in 1850s New York, occupied in a high position within its thriving financial sector. Is he more likely to end up marrying his daughter to a Schmidt or a McGowan? Although superficially you might consider McGowan because Ireland is still part of Great Britain and the Irish speak English, we know of course that doesn't hold up because of the more fundamental differences in race, religion and typical occupation amongst those Wealthy. There are even very popular outlook's around that time on royal high-born bloodlines and new theories of evolution that play into this racism dynamic. I am told that much of Charles Darwin's writing contains anti-irish racial defamation that served to help popularise the theory of Evolution, but I don't know much about the matter myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayner-hills (talk • contribs) 12:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tone of the Article

I have adjusted the tone of the article though it still needs quite a bit of work. Whomever made this seems to have written it from a highly biased standpoint, as the wording is skewed in critique and the sources are very limited. Please discuss these changes and suggest any others here, as I believe it's been too long that this article's gone with its issues of neutrality. GorthaurTheCruel3019 (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"neutrality" in Wiki rules means neutrality regarding different Reliable Sources. It does not mean neutrality about historical events. The RS are agreed that WASPS once were a dominant group and no longer are--no debate there. Rjensen (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

WASPy names

To editors Jonah161 and Danteday: Shame on both of you. Dr. Jensen wanted no part of your squabble and now you two are running with this? You're not allowed to perform original research and that's what you've done. The Social Register is just an index of names that showed up in the society pages (presumably) of newspapers of two dozen cities in November of 1916. You cannot then tell Wikipedia readers that those names are WASP names. That's horribly irresponsible. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No shame--they are following the rules which clearly allow primary sources: WP:PRIMARY says A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot...." any educated person can easily verify the statement that the specified names are in the Social Register. Chris seems not to understand the central role of the Social Register as the standard non-controversial index of upper class society. "the acronym WASP ...is exemplified by the Social Register, a list of prominent upper-class families first compiled in 1887. ... There is great continuity across generations among the names included in these volumes." Stephen J. McNamee; Robert K. Miller (2004). The Meritocracy Myth. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 63. Rjensen (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I made my reply here. If the primary source doesn't make judgments about the names listed, then Wikipedia should not either. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Founding Fathers elite?: "The majority ...were from moderately well-to-do or average income ...The Signers were elected not for wealth or rank"

were the Founding Fathers part of a closed social upper class? Some were, but most of that class were Loyalists in 1776 and supported the King. Historian Caroline Robbins in 1977 examined the issue of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence and concluded: " There were indeed disparities of wealth, earned or inherited: some Signers were rich, others had about enough to enable them to attend Congress....The majority of revolutionaries were from moderately well-to-do or average income brackets. Twice as many Loyalists belonged to the wealthiest echelon. But some Signers were rich; few, indigent.... The Signers were elected not for wealth or rank so much as because of the evidence they had already evinced of willingness for public service." [Caroline Robbins, "Decision in '76: Reflections on the 56 Signers" Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society Vol. 89 (1977), pp. 72-87 online quoting page 83. Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If you revert me, you better have a damn good reason.

To editor Rjensen: You know better. Per WP:BRD, please discuss your exception to WP:V. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

in dealing with fiction, the novel, film, tv show etc is a primary source. the key rule is at WP:PRIMARY = A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

for example see Cultural depictions of Theodore Roosevelt Rjensen (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen: By your own logic, what you've done is impermissible. First, in discussing Desperate Housewives and Sex and the City, no citation (like an episode number) is given. Second, the material goes beyond what the primary work probably says: "Bree is very much written as an exaggerated version of the characteristics often attributed to WASPs." and "Charlotte York... demonstrates the stereotypical characteristics of one, being rich, well-dressed, and very concerned with social status." That reads like analysis. WP:PRIMARY says "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself...". And then, of course, don't point to other articles to excuse bad behavior here. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

To state that a fictional character appears as "rich, well-dressed, and very concerned with social status" is a factual statement, which Wiki rule defines (above) as "can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Rjensen (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations missing

Citations are needed for the two instances of the claim that the "w" initially stood for "wealthy."

129.110.242.24 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion in the Etymology section, which is reliably sourced. See in particular the Hacker quote. Citations are not needed in the lead when it summarizes cited information in the body. General Ization ^Talk 02:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead Wording

I've changed the wording for the introduction back to the original "are an ethnic group known for forming the dominant social class of powerful white Americans of British Protestant ancestry", from "a group known for forming the oppressive social class of powerful white Americans". I believe that the lead here already conveys the message that ought to come across. Alex (Talk) 02:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

An "ethnic group" and of "British Protestant ancestry" are redundant, the two mean the same thing. The statement is also inaccurate. In point of fact, the group included many of French Huguenot, Dutch, and Palatine German descent, so it was yes, predominantly, but it was not entirely, of British Protestant ancestry. For example, Bush, the presidential family, was originally, "Boucher" -- French Huguenot. Roosevelt, Dutch obviously. "Dewitt", "white" changed their name from the French, LeBlanc, when they took refuge in Holland before coming to America. In fact, you could take "ethnic group" out because the ethnic group "i.e., of supposed British ancestry", includes many who were not part of the wealthy elite. It is a complicated topic. Gordon Wood, the historian who writes about Colonial America, notes that the founding fathers were wealthy, yes, but this was only comparative. In comparison to the British aristocracy, they were relatively poor and he gives figures to show this. Mballen (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at several definitions and am not finding that it is an "ethnic group," so I would support taking that out. Not sure what, if anything, to replace it with. Carptrash (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I just tried taking it out. It is more accurately a social group, really. Probably the one C. Wright Mills referred to in his important book The Power Elite, which I read many years ago. If you are going to talk about their "hegemony" -- what should really be mentioned are quotas (academic and immigration) and restrictive covenants. Michael Denning talks about the broadening in the 1930s and early 40s of what it meant to be an American in his book, The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century. The book depicts a struggle between what can only be described as the old-time "bigots", and the various non-elite and non-WASP immigrant groups from the 1930s through WW2. Not all the bigots were wealthy elites, obviously. I don't know how much space that deserves in an article about "WASPS", which is really an almost joking term. It is a serious topic. Mballen (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

ethnicity of distant ancestors is not the issue--it was assimilation into the culture, wealth and power of the WASP elite that mattered. A couple generations at St Paul's and Yale typically sufficed, As for the Bush family--it was well established by 1830s--see Obadiah Bush. Rjensen (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Waspishness

A source is needed for the statement:

The 'W' and 'P' were added in the 1950s to form a humorous epithet with an undertone of 'waspishness' (which means a person who is easily irritated and quick to take offense).

Hacker (1957) does not use Waspishness in this sense, but merely to indicate WASP socio-cultural status; his paper is cited in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2015) as an example of the latter usage. Waspish is used similarly; see The Study of Language (George Yule 2010, p. 60), for instance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Professor Hacker is the source as quoted at footnote 11. He is defining the term WASP in print for the very first time and is highly innovative. He deliberately uses the word "waspishness" [NOT the usual "Waspish" re insect] in listing several connotations of being a human WASP--the The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English proves his use is "unconventional". The dictionaries like OED indicate that "Waspish" is the usual word used for the insect. Hacker does NOT use that term but the rather different one that indicates a negative personality trait. He's playing with words here (that is he is being witty = showing or characterized by quick and inventive verbal humor.). Wikipedia does not disallow editors from using "witty" -- it is standard English & means bering playful with words--as in using a word for a nasty insect to tag and make fun of upper class society people. On a second point: The complaint that "witty" is a subjective interpretation, not WP:IMPARTIAL encyclopedic prose) is nonsense because there is no "partiality" between differing RS involved here. being "subjective" is not true--the article deals with Hacker in a factual fashion. Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, "Professor" Hacker may be using unconventional or innovative English, but that's not the issue here. None of the sources cited make an explicit connection between waspish as a personality trait and the acronym WASP. To assert such a connection would simply be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

For more examples of waspish used as a reference to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants rather than insects, see Time, The Economist, and U.S. News & World Report. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

How about the academics act like Wikipedians if they're editing Wikipedia?

To editor Rjensen: What I expected you to do was to provide sources about WASPs being in political parties, not citations to support how people saw Bush 41 and Bush 43. I'm not going to allow shoddy writing like this. If you want to make stuff up, please publish it in a journal, first. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

you were unable to express your complaint clearly--and in fact still are not. Bush 41 and 43 (and Prescott) Bush are classical WASPs in top GOP roles. Rjensen (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That's your problem, Professor. Assertions like "Bush 41 and 43 (and Prescott) Bush are classical WASPs" require citations when editing Wikipedia. I've challenged your edits and the onus is on you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

it's common knowledge--I assumed that even you knew that fact. But I added some cites to keep happy people ignorant of the Bush family. If you believe a cite is needed for a true statement then the Wiki etiquette is to ask for one, not erase whole paragraphs. The suggested etiquette is: Tag thoughtfully. Avoid "hit-and-run" or pointed tagging. Try to be courteous and consider the hypothetical fellow-editor who will, we hope, notice your tag and try to find the citation you have requested. When adding a tag, ask yourself: Is it clear just what information you want cited? Is the information probably factual? (If it is not, then it needs deletion or correction rather than citation!) Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all? (Some things do not.) (WP:CITENEED) Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

"Its day has passed" in referring to the Social Register is incorrect and should be removed. The SR is still used widely by many members of the WASP/Old Money crowd. 138.28.235.249 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We have a reliable source that says that 20 years ago it was already almost an anachronism. Meters (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems negatively worded, but factual

A number of the sentences seem to be trying to depict in a bad light. However, the information presented in the article is certainly not false. DemonDays64 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)