Talk:Alabama

English bias in Ancestry section

The Ancestry section is clearly biased towards making Alabama seem more English than it is. This source (American Community Survey):

https://archive.ph/20200211182250/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US01&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR2&-ds_name=&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

Does not give an "English" group of 23.6%, as listed on this Wiki article, but 10.2%. It's obvious that whoever wrote this combined the "American" and "English" group percentages. This unsourced gem of POV/OR appears to be offered as a reasoning for these errors:

"Those citing "American" ancestry in Alabama are generally of English or British ancestry; many Anglo-Americans identify as having American ancestry because their roots have been in North America for so long, in some cases since the 1600s"

Further, the Irish percentage given in the link is not 7.7%, but 10.3%. Someone also forgot to mention the very large 7.9 German percentage in the Wiki.

Cited multiple times is a 1980 census document. Dubious, as are these unverifiable sources: [128][129][130][131][132].

I have elected to relist the largest ancestry components of Alabamans as given by the American Community Survey in their accurate form. Hunan201p (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yo, hey is this @Hunan201p Wise3beast (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Unverifiable information on Scots-Irish Americans in Ancestry section

"Based on historic migration and settlement patterns in the southern colonies and states, demographers estimated there are more people in Alabama of Scots-Irish origins than self-reported.[129] Many people in Alabama claim Irish ancestry because of the term Scots-Irish but, based on historic immigration and settlement, their ancestors were more likely Protestant Scots-Irish coming from the northern province of Ulster, where they had been for a few generations as part of the English colonization.[130]"

Source [129]:

https://archive.today/20200211182250/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US01&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR2&-ds_name=&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

Source [130]:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg

I see no information in source [129] that supports any of this information. It's just statistical info.

Source [130] is a broken link to an image that appears to have been uploaded on wikimedia. No way that was an effective source. Hunan201p (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

English bias in the "Ancestry" section, part 2

The first paragraph of the "Ancestry" section says that self-identified Americans in Alabama are of mostly English ancestry, whether they identify as such, or not.

In line with my previous comments from April 2021, I have doubts about the verifiability of this claim in the cited sources. The citations [128] and [129] don't appear to verify.

Citation 128: Sharing the Dream: White Males in a Multicultural America by Dominic J. Pulera

There is nothing in this book that says English people are the largest ethnic group in Alabama. In fact the word Alabama is contained only once on page 57 of this book, which can be seen at the following link:

https://archive.org/details/sharingdreamwhit00pule/page/56/mode/2up

I saw a young man in Northwestern Alabama who looked just like Britain's Prince Harry

That's a far cry from "most self identified Americans in Alabama are English".

---

Citation [129]: Reynolds Farley, 'The New Census Question about Ancestry: What Did It Tell Us?' , Demography, Vol. 28, No. 3 (August 1991), pp. 414, 421.

No link was provided with the citation to verify with, but that is available here:

https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-pdf/28/3/411/904553/411farley.pdf

Again, there is nothing on pages 414 or 421 that says self-identified Americans in Alabama are of English ancestry.

---

That leaves citations [130] and [131] to check, but I can't get access to them. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, but all this bold formatting and repeated blank lines is generally nonstandard for talk pages and mostly prohibited in the articles themselves (see MOS:BOLD). 9:59, March 17, 2022‎ -Fnlayson (talk)

Why is this page protected?

I was wondering why this page is protected? Thanks. -104.151.242.85 (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The page was semiprotected indefinitely by Materialscientist on March 14, 2022 for persistent vandalism. If you register an account for three days and make ten edits, you'll be able to edit the page. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Account made, thanks! -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Conservative Alabamian, I don't know if you can see this, but there really is a long history of vandalism; the article was protected already in 2009. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thanks! Conservative Alabamian (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)