Talk:Americans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

nationality and ethnicity?

There seems to be a contradiction in the article - in that the lead says = " As a result, Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship.(unreferenced) " However according to this article and the United States Census Bureau American ethnicity is a valid response. Perhaps the Canadians article could be an example. Moxy (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

References have been added to support the statement, although there appears, as one reference states, a growing field of study of how American nationality has evolved, and is evolving. How it is use to be exclusionary, and how it is inclusionary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry took so long to reply - Not sure those old refs help - The fact that American ethnicity has 7.2 percent of the total population would indicate that the lead is simply wrong. Its clear that many many do see American as an ethnicity as dose the United States Census. We should explain this.Moxy (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not doubting that there is an American Ethnicity with a signfiicant self-identificating population, however it should not out weight the verified definition of American and thus alter the scope of the article. It should be mentioned, I do not doubt that, it should have some content in this article, but to what extent? I don't think it should entirely replace the existing content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, in the Race and ethnicity in the United States article the American ethnicity is metioned within the White Americans section, and is also mentioned in the Demography section in the White Americans article. Therefore, it is mentioned in the White and European Americans section in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We had this problem at the GA review of Canadians a few years ago - the solution was not to change the scope of the article but to add a note by the term "Canadian" when its mentioned in ethnic identification terms (see Canadians#cite_note-Canadian-51). Do we have any refs that evaluate the term American as an ethnic response as with the Canadian article?Moxy (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A note could be added, sure, but perhaps that is best done at the main article regarding Race and ethnicity in the United States. Moreover, there has been a lot of move requests (all voted down) to move the article because American is also the term used by some outside of the United States for all people from the Americas. However, WP:COMMONNAME applies, therefore the scope of this article as it now stands, about Americans of all races and ethnicities, that is those within the United States, (specifically as defined by the reliable sources) who are citizens.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The article should be (and it is just the lead has a problem) broad in its scope, encompass all demographics of its citizens. Be they diaspora (historical or cultural) - be they self identified (ethnic) - be they immigrant by naturalization or adoption (residential, legal). A good lead would be - "Americans are the people who are identified with the country of the United States. This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential". - This is all covred in the article and covered under the countries nationality laws and by its own census data. American is the 4th most reported ethnic background - it just cant be ignored in the lead. The lead and the data provide in the article dont match up (there contradictory). The lead says not an ethnic term - yet the data in the article clearly says otherwise linking to its own article. Will read up on the whys and whos and get back here in a few weeks.Moxy (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is broad in content, but well defined by reliable sources thus defining a specific scope. There are articles already about immigration to the United States, about how race and ethnicity is defined in the United States and so on and so forth. There is also content regarding the American dispora. If Moxy wishes to be bold and add content to the body of the article, which leaves a main template and summary of American history (including immigration to the United States), the American diaspora, and other such content, that would be something that I would not oppose (please remember WP:VER & WP:RS when doing so). However, I would oppose the altering of the well referenced and defined scope of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am getting concerned that the situation is not being understood. Noting really needs to be added (its all mentioned in the article already)- just need to fix the lead to match the article that is referenced. We cant mentioned one train of thought in the lead when its directly refuted with refs in the body of the article. As for reliable sources can you show me (quote) were the current refs say or imply "Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity"? - Think after more reading will be bold and fix the ethnicity problem - as per the books i am reading and as per the 20,875,080 people mentioned in the article. Moxy (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an American ethnicity, but that does not mean that this article is about that ethnicity. That is a different subject. This article is about Americans, not the American ethnicity. Within the Race and ethnicity in the United States there is the American ethnicity, but that doesn't make up ALL Americans. Just because the lead in the Canadians article is different that doesn't mean that the lead in this article needs to be identical but replacing Americans where the other article has Canadians. Additionally, please look at the references that define the scope in the lead if you want to look at the reliable sources; I do not need to show what is already there.

That being said I can see the need to add a summary of the American diaspora article with the appropriate section hatnote.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear you believe the WP:SYNTHESIS of refs added together conclude that no Americans believe that "American" is an ethnicity is that correct? From what I am reading (including your refs and the article in its current state) - I dont see the same conclusion. - thus I have asked for some more input here - looking for outsiders educated in this topic. Dont understand why you wont recognizes the fact before you - that some do see American as an ethnicity thus why we have an article called American ethnicity Moxy (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The American ethnicity are those who self identify as being ethnically American. However, that does not mean that all Americans are ethnically American. Again, there is an article whose subject is about the American ethnicity. However, that does not change the scope of the article defined in the first sentence, which references the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary. Americans, which is the subject of the article, does not exclusively mean only those who self-identify with the American ethnicity, but includes all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity.

This is why there is an article about the American ethnicity, a separate article, and an article about Americans. If Moxy wishes there to be a hatnote, that directs people to the American ethnicity article, I would not be oppose to that as a compromise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont see that as a compromise the article lead is still wrong and misleading our readers. We simply have a different interpretation of what the article is saying is the only thing I can guess. I believe the lead should be broad in its term covering all aspects the article covers - don't have to mentioned ethnicity at all sometimes in leads. I believe the article lead should be progressive and not go out if its way to contradict the articles content, data and subsequently linked articles. The style of leads below are the way to go in my opinion - they dont contradict the articles information.Moxy (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

) The French (French: Français) are a nation that share a common French culture and speak the French language as a mother tongue. Historically, the French population are descended from peoples of Celtic, Latin and Germanic origin, and are today a mixture of several ethnic groups. Lebanese people (Arabic: الشعب اللبناني‎ / ALA-LC: al-sha‘ab al-lubnānī, Lebanese Arabic pronunciation: [eʃˈʃaʕb ellɪbˈneːne]) are the inhabitants of the country of Lebanon and their ancestors. The term may also include those who had inhabited Mount Lebanon prior to the creation of the modern Lebanese state. Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with the modern country of Germany and historically Germanic Central Europe. This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential. The Sardinian people or Sardinians are the people from or with origins in Sardinia, a western Mediterranean island and autonomous region of Italy. Mexican people (Spanish: Pueblo mexicano (collective), Mexicanos (individuals)) refers to all persons from Mexico, a multiethnic country in North America, and/or who identify with the Mexican cultural and/or national identity. British people (also referred to as Britons, informally as Brits, or archically as Britishers) are citizens or natives of the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies, British Overseas Territories, and their descendants. Canadians (singular Canadian; French: Canadiens) are the people who are identified with the country of Canada. This connection may be residential, legal, historical or cultural.

The scope of the article is defined by the reliable sources of what the definition of what American is. As American is based on one who is a native of, or is a citizen of, the United States it is not limited to a specific race or ethnicity. Perhaps the lead section can be rewritten better to summarize the article (per WP:LEAD), but that doesn't mean that it should change the scope of what the article is about. If anything the scope is very close to that of the British people article that Moxy listed. Therefore, I do not see a need to change it (the scope).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Come to think about it, I think there is something else to be added. Per the references, externally, the United States (since the end of the Civil Rights movement)likes to project an image of one population that is colorblind, and if not colorblind is multiethnic and multiracial and united. Yet internally, as shown by the self-used definitions of the population and the government, the population (at least demographically) divides itself based on race, ethnic, religious, and sometimes sexual preference lines. While it is true that anyone can become an American, whether it by a former Somali refugee, or a Scottish Comedian, or a former member of the Chinese Communist Party, how Americans sees itself internally (Salad bowl (cultural idea) or Melting pot) maybe very different from how it projects its external image.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

All gibberish - Still not one source that implies "Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity" - How could the statement be right when we have an article called American ethnicity - pls explain this disconnect and how you see this as logical.Moxy (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, don't go I didn't hear that. Just because a segment of the population self-identify with the American ethnicity, does not mean all Americans are ethnically American. It's like some Americans are Californian, however that does not equal that all Americans are Californian.

There is an American ethnicity, but not all Americans self-identify as being a member of the American ethnicity. Please see the hatnote at the American ethnicity article. The American population is more than ONLY those who self-identify with the American ethnicity. According to the 2009-2011 ACS, only 20,875,080 of the 309,231,244 Americans self identify as being of the American ethnicity; therefore most Americans do not. They see themselves as being an American, but not being part of the American ethnicity.

Therefore, this is why the scope of this article differs from the scope of the article about the American ethnicity.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good good - your starting to understand the points raised - lets keep moving forward and fix the odd POV in the lead - I agree 100 percent that not all self-identify with the American ethnicity - but some do - yet the lead says others wise? (you agree on this point correct?) Again I will say - no need to change the scope of the article - just write a lead that is not contradictory to the articles content. Why do you what to excluded American ethnicity in the lead when the article is about Americans of all types.Moxy (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But no ethnicity is specifically mentioned in the lead paragraph, except for the exception of Native Americans, which is clearly supported in the reliable sources that define who Americans are. The races and ethnicities that make up the people known as Americans are diverse and varied, however one need not be a member of X race or Y ethnicity to be an American. The reason for why the Racial and ethnic groups section is structured the way it is, is because that is the way that United States Census Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget categorize the population demographically. So one can be an American regadless of race, ethnicity, language, or religion ... but one is categorized by those characteristics demographically. I do not see this as being a contradiction.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So basically, how one self-identifies racially and ethnically has nothing to do with whether one is an American or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this video originally posted on the United States Embassy, Belgrade may help. All these people are American, even thought they are all different races and ethnicities.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok this is really odd - your not understanding what I am saying in the lest bit - never had such a hard time conveying a problem. I am saying (again) we DO NOT NEED to mention ethnicity in the lead at all. Your the one that is insisting a statement about ethnicity should be there - with refs that are disputed (by me) and that contradict the articles content. Lets go over what I have suggested thus far.

• First I suggested a note were we could explaining the odd concept of American ethnicity so It can be removed from the lead
• Then I suggested the following text that does mention ethnicity - as I was thinking you have a thing for race and ethnicity "This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential"
• Then I suggested we don't need to mention ethnicity at all sometimes with 5 examples with only one that mentions ethnicity.

The replies to all theses are rants about Civil Rights movement, melting pot, racial and ethnic groups etc... We are not on the same page at all - really need outsiders here.Moxy (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If Moxy is trying to be uncivil at least, or condescending at worse, Moxy has succeeded. Moxy has succeeded in repeating what he/she has written in a more summarized manor, which will help this conversation, however, being uncivil is not.

Regarding the American ethnicity; again, that is a different subject, with a different article. It falls within the scope of this article, but so does the many other ethnicities and ethnic groups that fall within the scope of this article as well (whether they be say the newer Bhutanese American with all of 19K plus people, to the Spanish Americans who've been in what is now the United States before any other European American, to any of the multiple tribes of Native Americans. Therefore, to give it mention in the lead specifically would give it undue weight. "Odd" is an opinion statement. Sorry, this is a no go.

The second, regarding addition of text, doesn't match the definition that defines the scope of the article. Please look at the references; the subject of the this article is not the adjective American, but the noun American. This is clear. To add the text, does not support the verified scope. Sorry, this to is a no go.

On the third point. The sentence which Moxy is challenging, is in regards to whom can become a citizen, and thus who can be an American. I can see it being moved into lower within the lead, as a compromise, but I would oppose to its deletion from the article.

Now I have given multiple different compromise, as has Moxy. And I hope that I did not come off as uncivil, which Moxy did to me in the most recent reply. Regardless, I hope that we can continue with a civil conversation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Never encounter this before in my 7 years here - I have added Template:Dubious to the statement. As I am sill puzzled why you are going out of your way denouncing a portion of the population with fake refs. Will let others take a look - as i am concern with the competency at this point of both of us to solve this.Moxy (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fake references? These are reliable sources, they provide verification. How can they be fake if they are reliable sources. Please explain how references published by the Harvard University Press, and by the Oxford University Press are fake? If Moxy interprets the text differently, please be plain and clear in how Moxy interprets the text.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not one of the refs (from great sources) implies Americans do see ethnicity as a determining factor in there identity. This is not the Citizenship in the United States article. This is an article on the term Americans - all of them. Perhaps some reading on what is (ethnic nationality) nationality and ethnicity may help. Garrick Bailey; James Peoples (12 February 2010). Essentials of Cultural Anthropology. Cengage Learning. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-8400-3275-1.Moxy (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me. You're right! None of the references

implies American do see ethnicity as a determining factor in their identity

(emphesis mine).

Now please Moxy, stop being condescending and please be civil. This article is about Americans, the American people. The lead is suppose to summarize the article, and thus provide the basic answer of who are the American people. The lead paragraph answers this by saying that the American people are natives, and citizens, of the United States. That who can be American is not defined by ones ethnicity, but by their nationality; and that other than the Native Americans, are made up of descendents of (or actual) immigrants.

As I stated, I offered a compromise of moving the sentence which Moxy does not appear to favor, to lower in the lead section, and not in the lead paragraph. However, when I have offered the compromise, my compromise was rejected. If Moxy wishes to introduce content, which it appears he/she is prepared to verify with a, which states that being American is not tied to a specific ethnicity, that is not something I would oppose.

As the references show, Americans come from a wide variety of peoples, with different races, ethnicities, languages, and religions; but none of those four define one as American.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

I think the cause of this dispute is almost entirely which language you are speaking. If you are speaking American English, then "nationality = citizenship", with perhaps a small exception for people who were born in the US and have given up their citizenship for another country's citizenship. Perhaps in British English (and I know in translation in other European languages) "nationality = ethic identity". That's fine for those languages, but it just doesn't apply in American English.

Look under "German" in the Oxford English Dictionary:

"1a native or inhabitant of Germany.

• a person of German descent:"

Clearly "German" is (in part) an ethnic identity

But for "American"

"1a native or citizen of the United States."

without the ethnic component. The definition of "American" is not related to ethnicity.

Similarly, in Europe "nationality" is almost identical in meaning to "ethnicity." Not so in America, in fact Americans usually can't believe that anybody could define "nationality" as anything other than "citizenship."

So what's this thing about "American ethnicity"? For the most part, I think it's an artifact of the Census, when they first started asking people about their ethnicity (prob. 1970 or 1980). A lot of people would want to respond "I don't have an ethnic identity, I'm just an American." So "ethic American" grew out of the box that you could check on the census question "Ethnicity: American". Other people would just see this as a convenience answer. Rather than answer "I'm 1/32 Spanish, 1/16 Cherokee, 1/4 German, and the rest a mixture of English, Scots, and Irish with some French," they could just answer "Ethnicity: American".

In short many, many Americans do not self-identify with an ethnic group, and the answer for them on the census is "Ethnicity: American."

I know many Europeans who just can't grasp this concept. For them it is just defined that Nationality= ethnicity. I was in the reverse position living in Europe for almost a decade, and it took me a long time to understand that there were people who did not define nationality = citizenship. But in America nationality = citizenship.

So "Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship" is absolutely correct. It's part of our language - just look it up in the dictionary.

Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct in that Americans dont see it in the way the rest of the world does - Wondering why (if this is the case) cultural anthropology is so different in the US. I can see why Americans think this way because of long term policies of cultural assimilation. Just would be nice if there was a refs that explained this over the odd refs there now that say nothing of what you just said above and contradict the articles content. So basically your saying those that respond American ethnicity simply dont understand the question its self. Would love to see a book on this so I can teach my students this position. Moxy (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The source that Moxy provided, comes close, but due to an addition of a word, it fails at providing the explination Moxy request.

Thus, American is also a "political" identity

In the United States, there is the nationality element of an individuals identity (I am an American, I am a Mexican, I am a (insert country adjuctive here)), and there is an ethnicity element (I am Irish, I am Canadian, I am Vietnamese, etc.). One need not be one or the other, one can be both. This is why there are those who have issue with "hyphenated Americans".

It is not that Americans are less educated as has been stated in edit summaries...--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I see what your saying- does the USA follow international laws when it comes to self identifying rights? Not talking about nativism but the right to self identify with ethnicity? Meaning is "American ethnicity" recognized as a legal group of people our is self identifying not a political term but just used for stats - like using the term white over European. Moxy (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question about "self-identifying rights"? I'd guess that 99 out of 100 Americans (including myself) have only the foggiest idea of what "self-identifying rights" are - so no - we don't even think about it, so there are likely no laws about it. But "yes" - the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of association, so you can join any group you want (as long as it's not violent), and as many as you want, If 500 of us wanted to become "North Jerseyan" we could form that group, but we wouldn't get any special rights because of it. Probably the closest the US law comes to this type of question comes from small groups of American Indians (and we're usually talking groups of 500-1000). For example in Delaware there is a group of "Black Indians" that have never been able to be officially recognized by the Feds. Some New England tribes have the same problem - they're so small and have been integrated for so long that they have trouble being recognized. And there are special or at least different rights involved here, e.g. taxes and casinos!

While it won't qualify as a reliable source see Yahoo answers! [1] where at least 9 out of 10 agree with me, or [2] where they get more mixed up but more or less agree with me, and I don't think anybody in either group would agree 100% with you.

I messed up the US Census stuff - there are 3 types of questions they ask 1) Hispanic or non-Hispanic (i.e. a very limited ethnicity question) 2) race (about 6 choices) and 3) ancestry (any 1 or 2 choices you want). "American" only comes up in the ancestry question, so technically there's no "ethnically American" info from the Census. In America there's no self-identified "ethnic majority" (Americans of self identified "American ancestry" constitute about 7% of the population, less than those of "German ancestry"). We only talk about "ethnic minorities." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A related subject to this is regarding tribal identification of Native Americans, see Blood quantum laws. However, unless we are talking about improving the article, this is getting into the area of WP:NOTFORUM, and possibly better handled at the help desk?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you pls stop tell editors with more experience what to do - Its getting annoying and make you look very young. Now back to the article - so lets see if we can cover this topic- will write a small paragraph we can add as a note— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Moxy, please see WP:AVOIDYOU

Moxy, I would appreciate it if the note is posted here first, so other active editors can review it prior to it being posted in the articlespace; this way a consensus can be formed to achieve an agreeable wording.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can include a summary from the main article regarding ethnicity and race in the United States. It appears to be well references, and as the Moxy's concern is regarding the differences between ethnicity and nationality in the United States, perhaps it would make a good starting point.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Proliferation of Race Theory in "Americans" article

The purpose of this response is not to offend the authors or make baseless accusations to debase their character. I simply am giving my take on the "Americans" article. I was deeply offended by the article, but I am sure no offense was intended.

The proliferation of race theory on the page describing "Americans" is quite inaccurate and offensive.

Quote: "Americans, or American people, are the citizens of the United States of America. The country is home to people of different national origins. As a result, Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity, but with citizenship." This seems to accurately describe what defines an "American", as someone is considered a citizen of America through birth or through the immigration process. However a description of a citizen and these processes in which someone becomes an American should be included with a citation.

Note "describes" should be grammatically corrected to "describe".

The sections on Race I find quite repulsive, and I am certain I am not the only one. The author/s give a great definition of what an American is, as quoted above. Americans are not defined by ethnicity or national origin. However strangely the article degenerates after this point and wastes no time in classifying American Peoples into so-called "Races". It is neither moral, nor effective, nor informative, nor accurate to classify Americans in this way. If it is moral, effective, informative, and accurate, than the author/s should cite the source/s for the classifications of what defines "White", "Black", etc. There are those of very light complexion that have lived on the continent of Africa, in Jamaica, and in India, for several hundred years, and there are those of very dark complexion that have lived in Europe and North America for several hundred years. It is quite offensive for human beings to be broken up like dogs into "breeds". The authors should be required to cite work in a Biological/Anthropological authority which validates race theory.

There are many who find it repulsive to classify people by skin color. American Dr. Martin Luther King Jr: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Most Americans find segregation repulsive. I find it offensive that information on Hispanic Americans is segregated into one section, and Asian Americans segregated into another "separate but equal" section, so on and so forth. I also find the section on "Two or More Races" offensive, as if these human beings are some sort of unclassifiable newly discovered mixed breed.

As another observant poster commented, the American culture is very homogenous. Those of various skin tones regularly participate in the culture originated by those Americans and others of diverse backgrounds and nations.

Besides being rejected by science, race theory is also rejected by most American belief systems, humanist and religious. For example, Christian and Islamic theology do not classify human beings into races, but rather consider all humanity equal in the eyes of God.

It is highly recommended that you reevaluate this page. It is highly recommended that you do not break up and classify Americans into races and groups and breeds, in segregated sections. America is a Melting Pot, all theories of Race and policies of Segregation should be rejected. I recommend you get much more specific when referencing culture and nationality. General classifications such as "White" and "African" and "Asian" and "European" again are not very effective, accurate, or informative, particularly when you are classifying someone as "European" or "African" or "Asian", NOT based on the continent they were born in or the culture they subscribe to, but trivial characteristics like skin color or eye shape. RealTalk1000 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM & WP:SOAP. Definitions used are that from the United States Census Bureau, who define individuals base on race and ethnicity.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the above Census bureau citation: So why, out of all the data which the US Census Bureau collects, did the author/s decide it was appropriate to divide the American people by race? Why not gender? Why not by State? Why not by annual income?

How about not breaking up Americans into baseless categories at all?

Does the US Census Bureau cite biological or anthropological studies which scientifically define the race classifications? Or maybe they are basing these classifications on quack race theories of the 19th and early 20th century?

Maybe the mighty Aryan Race has its origins in the ruins of South America, as the Nazi archeologists proclaimed in the 1930's? In that regard, we should most definitely amend any articles pertaining to the origins of the South American or German peoples to reflect this government-sanctioned fact. (sarcasm)

If race shall be defined by government decree and not by some sort of consensus in the scientific community or academia... and if this herein shall be acceptable standards for publishing articles on wikipedia... than I challenge writers here on wikipedia to participate. We should base our articles on all types of government-sanctioned quackery and junk science, whether it has its stamp of approval from the U.S. Census Bureau or some 1930's German archeological program in South America. If the almighty State proclaims it true, than who are we to question it?

RealTalk1000 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As was suggested above please see WP:NOT#FORUM . If you want to propose a change, there are proper ways to do it.... using sarcasm (as you described it) or proposing ludicrous ideas ("We should base our articles on all types of government-sanctioned quackery and junk science...") is NOT how change is done here. Marteau (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

RealTalk1000 makes some good, valid points, however, if you have a problem with the article, you should go ahead and change it. Like Wikipedia says, be bold! As for the U.S. Census Bureau's classification method, they state that they do it by sociology. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Country names in infobox

I will be reverting a good faith edit done here, which had the edit summary:

MOS:commonname

The reason for the reversion is there is no such thing as MOS:COMMONNAME. There is a WP:COMMONNAME, however that applies to article titles and not article content. Additionally, the content changed does not fall under MOS:LIFE, where there is a "MOS:COMMONNAME", which is a red link. The closest MOS that would apply is MOS:PN; however, it does not require that the most common name for a country be used. It does mention not using historical names where there is a modern name available for the subject, but as the country names that were previously used are also those countries (Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China, and Republic of China) modern names either name can be used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have again reverted another set of good faith edits here, which had no edit summaries, per WP:BRD. Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I will notify the appropriate WikiProjects of this discussion and the editor who has made the edits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

May I ask the editor, what was the reasoning behind these series of edits? I did not understand the reasoning behind the edits using the edit summaries used.

I am assuming good faith, that this is not meant to be disruptive or to be make a point regarding past reversion of edits done by this editor, and that there is a reason why some listed countries have their official name used, and others do not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and salutations, ladies and gentlemen! The reason I made the changes was to have uniformity across the board. Wouldn't make too much sense to have some countries use the full official name and others not, now would it? As for why some don't have the official name used, well, I am a human being, after all, and took a brief wikibreak to recollect my bearings. Simply put, "I just didn't get around to it, yet." As some of you may know, editing Wikipedia for a while can get a bit tiring, if you know what I mean. In any case, I am back now, and if you would like me to do so, continue on the path of my previous edits and complete the work that I started. Being succinct and brief, the reason why only some countries have the official name used and others don't is because I didn't get around to it, that's all. As for being disruptive, I am insulted that one would even insinuate that about my character, as that is certainly not the case here, as I would presume would be able to be inferred from my edits, which I believe, bear no disruptiveness whatsoever. It is my contention that one may have no worries about using assuming good faith here. Anyway, take care, and cheers! Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on why we should be using any official names in a space-limited place such as an infobox, execpt perhaps for clarity's sake where necessary. I recommend we go back to the common names, as is the norm on WP for most mentions of country names. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The flag icons should also be removed per Wikipedia:INFOBOXFLAG: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." -BilCat (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, BilCat. I did suggest using common names in the past, for clarity and succinctness, however, my edits to that effect were reverted and replaced with a full official name. Due to that, I have added more official names, to maintain uniformity, as it would be awkward to arbitrarily have official names somewhere and not elsewhere. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I see you have went ahead and finished what I started, adding the official names for me. Thank you, BilCat! You saved me a lot of time and effort; we need more people like you on Wikipedia! Cheers, best regards! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It was pretty easy using Pop-ups, and copying from the pop-up. I still would rather see us use common names here, but I'm not beyond helping out, as I was removing the flags anyway, and it was easy to finish the work in one edit session. I'm sorry I missed the previous discussions in January, or I would have spoken up then. - BilCat (talk)

That's okay, BilCat. It's all good; thanks again! I too would like to see common names used, seems much easier and to the point, but that's the way it is. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Going to all official names, is perfectly fine with me.

As for the January edit which was reverted per WP:BRD, it was that using China for one and Taiwan for the other country name is to advance a POV that favor's one nation's political position over another nation's. Using the official name for both China's does not favor either nation's political POV, and is thus keeping with WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. "Taiwan" is the official article title of the "Republic of China" article on Wikipedia, and "China" is the title of the "People's Republic of China" article on Wikipedia. When I made my edits, I was simply going by what the Wikipedia article titles stated, there was no politics whatsoever. I figured that if those names were in direct conflict with NPOV, they wouldn't be the title of the articles themselves. Politics aside, is it what most people refer to both countries as, hence, why they are the names of the articles in question, as Wikipedia assigns article titles by common name. Most people refer to the ROC as Taiwan, in shorthand, and most people refer to the PRC as China, in the same way that people refer to the "UK" as the "United Kingdom", rather than the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or "Hong Kong", vs. the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". Thus, I changed the names to help orient the reader better, as there are many people don't know the difference between the "ROC" and "PRC", but do in fact know the difference between "Taiwan" and "China". Again, there was no intent behind my edits to further a political goal, whatsoever. ¡Hasta luego!, and cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't think there was, but WP:COMMONNAME only applies to the article title and not later mentions of the subject. There has been a long history of the contention regarding what the name of the countries should be on Wikipedia. Some say Republic of China should be Republic of Taiwan, some say it should only be Taiwan, some say that it should be China, others say it should be Republic of China. Due to the diversity of editors, there will be a diversity of opinions on what the common name is. Furthermore, due to the diplomatic/economic/political strength of PRC, and both nation's adhering to the One China Policy (both claiming to be the legitamite China), the PRC has been able to persuad most countries to use China in only referencing itself and Taiwan to refer to ROC. But this discussion can go on forever, and has very little impact in this article.

As I said, using the formal names of all the countries (and special administrative regions) listed, is perfectly fine with me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well then, carry on. :-) Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Culture

The culture section of this article needs more citations per verification, or it needs to be a summary of the main article Culture of the United States, which itself needs more work.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We are All Americans

Americans are anyone from North , South, And Central. This article is insulting to the Americans in Central and South America. You have millions of people in Central and South American that can confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMenoRPS (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see archives for a topic that's been discussed before starting a new section. See: Talk:Americans/Archive_1#Americans_2. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

DrMeno's remarks are the real insult. He and people like him want to stamp out the use of the word "American" completely. The people of Central and South America have never intended and WILL NEVER call themselves or each other American. They will continue to be Mexican, Honduran, Brazilian, etc,etc. They have chosen "GRINGO" for citizens of the U.S.A. How can they demand that people of another country must change their nationality while they don't have to do anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.53.133 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Einstein was a Jew "Religiously".

There is no evidence backing up that Einstein was ethnically Jewish, but religiously. He was a German. (N0n3up (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

I've moved image to the Lead infobox. As long as we don't add ethicities to that infobox, which I rather not see listed there, then the issue should be settled. - BilCat (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently someone thinks US citizenship doesn't make one an American, and removed it from the infobox. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why there is no picture of Americans?

Instead of a picture of Americans, there is the Flag of USA. On the other ethnic group/people pages there are pictures of the people (for example on the British people page, Han Chinese page and Russians page) Shouldn't this page be similar with the others? --Ransewiki (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a good picture on Wikicommons that show a good and accurate cross section of the diversity of Americans?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the image that was previously ther was removed only for technical reasons, such as a copyright problem or such. If it's possible to use multiple images in the infobox, such as is done in the thumbnails in the various ethnic sections, then that would make it easier to add substitutes for images in the future. - BilCat (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added photos to the infobox, and duplicated the first section to show how to do this. I'm fine with these images being replaced by others. - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a list of the people in the previous infobox image: Eleanor Roosevelt, JP Morgan,Georgia O'Keeffe, John F Kennedy, Amelia Earhart, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Edgar Allan Poe, Betsy Ross, Martin Luther King Jr., Oprah Winfrey, Madonna, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Michael Jackson, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Dwight D Eisenhower, Emily Dickinson, Elvis Presley, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Neil Armstrong, Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, and George Washington. - BilCat (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the photos. Adding photos should rely on discussion here rather than just doing something as a "test" or as "examples." We have pages in Wikipedia if you want to test out changes to an article. --schutteGod 76.171.231.104 (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the section. The "example" part referred to how to format the images. If you want to add more images, just do it. If you want to relace the images I've chosen, that's fine w ith me. But removing the whole section isn't productive. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, we found out why we have no images of Americans in the Lead - too much pettiness. I honestly didn't expect this much crap, or a lack of support. As has been pointed out,this is a regular feature of most other nationality/ethnicity articles. Thus I've removed the section as being against consensus. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Accurate meaning of Americans

I gave Americans an accurate meaning consistent with the 2 sources below but BilCat reverted my edit. [[3]]

• a person born, raised, or living in the U.S. [4]
• of, relating to, or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants [5]

Americans do not only include US citizens and its native people but also permanent residents, those who renounced US citizenship, those who live outside the US, and so on. That's what the two sources are explaining and this is common sense.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The point I want to raise here is that the introduction of this article is only giving readers the strict definition of an American but lacks other definitions. For example, an anti-American terrorist becomes a US citizen and then kills Americans vs. a person who grew up in America for many years but moved to another country for job, marriage or other purposes. I think a line should be added in the intro to include certain people who have strong connection to America although they may not be physically living inside the US, and not US citizens or legal permanent residents. See this

As defined by the INA, all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals but only a relatively small number of persons acquire U.S. nationality without becoming U.S. citizens. Section 101(a)(21) of the INA defines the term “national” as “a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.” Section 101(a)(22) of the INA provides that the term “national of the United States” includes all U.S. citizens as well as persons who, though not citizens of the United States, owe permanent allegiance to the United States (non-citizen nationals).

--Fareed30 (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Fareed30 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Lagoo sab. Banned users are not allowed to participate in WP, and their contributions can be removed on sight. Does anyone else support the changes he's made to the Lead? If not, I'm going to revert his changes in a few days. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Recently, I have returned to editing wikipedia an an other editor reverted my recent efforts to improve the article. In reverting my edit the editor removed the German, Irish, and English individuals in the table for White Americans, as well as recreated the table inconstancy for Asian Americans. As I am not going to get into an edit war following a return from a multimonth wiki break that early, I would like the editor to explain why recreating problems is a net positive to this article.
When this article received less attention, I updated the demographics and added tables to each section. The reason why there wasn't a collage at the top of the article in the infobox as the consensus at the time was there wasn't an image which properly showed the diversity of the nation, that any of the active editors could provide at that time. In the tables in each section, which is categorized by race as is done by the U.S. Census, there was a representative individuals for each of the ethnicities/ancestries listed in the infobox.
By removing Einstein, Kennedy, and Washington the editor removed the German, Irish, and English representatives from that table, and by removing Chawla the editor removed the Indian representative from that table. I will wait 24 hours for a response. Otherwise, I will return the images in the infobox. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Disregard, I see the editor reverted themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Top image

The top image selects nine particular Americans from all the rest (giving them undue weight), and I think we can easily do better. The infobox details the distribution of Americans in other countries but not within the US. So, I suggest the following image and caption, which seems rather unobjectionable.

Most of the American people are located in the contiguous United States, distributed as seen from space at night

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The image doesn't illustrate American people. It doesn't illustrate the distribution of American people. It illustrates night-time light sources on a portion of the North American continent - including parts of Canada and Mexico, as well as the contiguous United States. Given that it is normal to illustrate infoboxes with the subject of the relevant article, rather than with anything else, I think we'd need a better rationale than 'undue weight' for ignoring Wikipedia conventions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's plain common sense that there aren't a whole lot of people in the dark areas, unless there's a huge group of Luddites hiding somewhere in Wyoming. Seriously, is it "convention" to illustrate the people of a country by cherry-picking nine of its most unusual citizens? I would prefer no image at all. Incidentally, many "maps of the United States" include incidental slivers of Canada and Mexico.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it 'conventional'? See French people, Bolivian people, Japanese people, Canadians, Libyan people etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most Americans don't glow in the dark. I'm not sure what the real issue you have is, as most other articles on citizens of countries or ethnicities have photos of notable people in the Lead. And adding a photo of lights to the article is very WP:POINTy. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The only people in this montage who most people would recognize are the first five people, i.e. the ones who get top billing. None are Republicans, whereas the top three are all Democratic icons (JFK, Eleanor Roosevelt, and King who said he always voted Democratic). Moreover, none of these images show anyone remotely typical of the American people. In contrast, for example, see Japanese people which shows typical Samurai and also a typical contemporary family. Anyway, per WP:Other stuff exists, we ought not to obsess about what other articles do. I have no clue what "point" you think I'm trying to make; please clarify. The proposed top image very obviously shows roughly where the American people are located, just as the existing long list in the infobox does, and I'm not going to debate the obvious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue what point you're trying to make, just that you're being disruptive to do it, which is the point of WP:POINT. If you feel the montage needs a better cross-section of people, them add some more. The montage in Canadians would probably be a good example to follow better example than Japanese people to follow, though I don't know if party affiliation is balanced there or not. - BilCat (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave, which is my custom when facing silly accusations. I've stated my objections, and if you see any validity in them then you can implement them, or you can leave the article in its present deficient condition and attribute my objections to whatever insidious attitude you would like. It's totally up to you. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So you didn't really leave after all, but came back almost 2 hours later and inserted the comments to make it look like you didn't leave? Sneaky! My opinion that replacing photos of people with an orbiltal shot of lights is disruptive still stands. The original single-file photo montage that was deleted had about 20 images in it. I selected a few that I thought were especially notable, then added some images from the other sections to add some that weren't in the original montage to reflect later additions to the article. I didn't add the rest becasue I wanted to encourage others to select their own images. I certainly didn't expect someone to delete it in favor of adding a photo of light sources! Sheesh! - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this was the original edit summary: "Being famous is atypical of the American people, so inserting a group photo instead." That certainly makes addition of the "group photo" appear disruptive, intended or not. - BilCat (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Still being sneaky. And still here. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You can expect me to stay here as long as you insist on continuing your personal attacks. Also please note:"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.". Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

At least that wasn't sneaky. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• If you want a picture of "Americans", just find a Norman Rockwell painting of a bunch of different (and unnamed) people and use that. Otherwise, go with the lights pic. Washington (English) and maybe JFK (Irish) make sense, but I don't understand why we need pictures of people in the manner we do, at least not the first nine pbp 19:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?

Seriously - an article about American people should have as its first image a collage of American people. I think that's about all I have to say on the matter. Red Slash 00:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Why should 9 specific Americans be chosen as representatives? Why those 9? I realize that several other ethnicity articles have this, but that doesn't make it right. SnowFire (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make it wrong either. There's no guideline against it to my knowledge, nor any reason there should be. Make some suggestions of who you'd like to see, or better, go find some images on Commons and add a few more. I could have have added the 25 exact images that were there before, but I didn't want to be the only one involved in choosing images. So I chose e from the list, and 3 that were already in the article. So far, only one other user has bothered to add more images, and you like his choices even less than mine. And all you can say is WP:IDONTLIKETHEM? But if you're one of those who'd prefer the lights too, then go for it! But I doubt any of the editors of those other articles will be quick to follow suit. To laugh at us, yes. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

An article about a topic should start with an illustration of the topic, and the article is about people, not outdoor lighting (and definitely not a flag). If you don't like the specific makeup of the collage, FIND BETTER PEOPLE. (Or more representative ones, at least.) Seriously. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that you can edit! Go for it! We support you! Red Slash 02:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The flag was there for some time, maybe 2 years or more. I guess it's preferable to squabbling, and it does represent America quite well. - BilCat (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

On a personal level, I resent that--I'm not a flag, I'm a real person and while a flag may explain me, it doesn't depict me. Look at low-quality city articles like Paris, Missouri - compare them to better-quality articles like Paris, Texas, or, like, Paris. It's no surprise that the better articles include as their very first picture a picture or collage of the city, which illustrates them far better than just a map (which they still, of course, include).

I know you yourself are not, of course, actually proposing that the flag replace the collage, which indeed was the way it used to be. I know you agree with me! But I do want to say, yes, it would not be appropriate to not have a picture of Americans at the top. Red Slash 02:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd rather have a collage of notable people, or I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of learning how to add them here. But I got tired of fighting the battle on my own, and realized the consensus was against me. Thanks for the help. Perhaps we should post a note at the U S project for further input, and for help assembling a colage of notable peole that can gain a consensus, even if it's not unanimous. - BilCat (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's my suggestion about the Rockwell people above, and here's a suggestion for nine below pbp 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If I were picking nine

• George Washington (English)
• Abraham Lincoln (Scottish)
• John F. Kennedy (Irish)
• Eleanor Roosevelt (Dutch)
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (German)
• Martin Luther King, Jr. (Black)
• Cesar Chavez (Mexican/Latino)
• Daniel Inouye (Japanese/Asian)
• Sitting Bull (Native American)

That's my list. Hate on it if you want pbp 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and add those, but I don't see the need to delete the other images at this time. We can have more than 9 images, and should. - BilCat (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Like RightCowWestCoast (below), I think one or more pictures of groups of ordinary Americans would be best at the top. Here are some images.

18.51.3.209 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Rather than an image of individuals at the top, perhaps we can find an image of a group that has a diverse representation of the multiple races and ethnicities that make up the American people. For instance there are these:

It need not be any of these, but a group of diverse people.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

IP Editor, I think the problem with those images are that they aren't racially diverse enough. Perhaps newer crowd images might be more representative?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, I don't think it need be limited to nine (just since the title of this subsection has "nine" in it; thought I should comment). Secondly, agree with RightCowLeftCoast, should be both racially and ethnically diverse, just like the country of the US. Thirdly, to avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:POV, we should drastically decrease the number of politicians and increase the number of other notable people from the arts, sciences, business, etc.: maybe one politician in nine, or two if the collage is as large as twenty. That's my three cents. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Top image needs to be changed right now

There are a total of 3 people on that image who would be considered Asian-American. THREE, despite Asian-Americans making up 5% of the population. If you were attempting to be diverse or reflective of the American population then there should be at least 6 whites, a black, a brown Hispanic and then a minority of your choosing. If you wanted significant figures then there are also better ways of distributing the image slots. As it stands I can only guess this image was made by a skinny white liberal hopelessly trying to be politically correct while making even more of a mess of the image. Changing it is the only option, it is not representative of the American people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.66.95 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Read: WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:DICK. I think it's disgusting how you label people so, btw. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

failed verification

The article states "Americans, or American people, are citizens, permanent lawful residents.." Neither source supports the lawful part. They refer to inhabitants and citizens. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "Americans"

The article begins with: "Americans, or American people, are citizens, or natives, of the United States of America." Even though the disambiguation refers to other uses in the first line, this definition is only based on wide-spread use of the word "Americans". But semantically it is not correct.

I'd like to suggest: "Americans, or American people, are citizens, or natives, of a country in America, even though in daily speech it is often only meant to refer to citizens of the United States".

McPoel (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That would greatly change the scope of this article, which I would oppose, although Americans could be anyone from the Americas, the definition as verified, and the common name of people of the United States, is American. The plural of American is Americans. Since this article is about the people of the United States, this is the reason for the lead sentence. The lead sentence defines the scope of the article, and it is fine as is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both points of view, but then I would suggest to change the title of the article to "Americans_(United_States)" to avoid the ambiguity that has been pointed out, and leave the page for "Americans" to redirect to the disambiguation of "American". Both definitions are well sustained and it seems to me both have a right to have their own article in Wikipedia, so someone could create the article "Americans_(Americas)" for this broader meaning which encompasses people from all the continent(s). I will leave over a week for discussion until I make this change if not contested.--Fermín F.M. 17:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferminmx (talk • contribs)

Have you looked through the archives? The current title was arrived at after some discussion: see Talk:Americans/Archive 1#Requested move (second non-archived request on page). I would suggest that moving the article without further discussion would therefore be inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your reply, I have looked at those archives and I understand that it is a sensitive and polemic topic. U.S. Americans have the historical, cultural, linguistic and every right to be called "American" but so does everyone else in the Americas, and there are many, many sources including dictionaries and many other materials that back this up, I think this is very clear; that is why my proposal is NEW, to keep the title of "Americans" just add "(United States)" to read "Americans_(United_States)". That way it is clear people from the U.S. are commonly called "Americans", but we take the ambiguity away from the title, and let us create (if there isn't already one) a page for "Americans_(Americas)", which would encompass people from the Americas including the U.S. This is my proposal, please discuss and if needed we might make some voting as it has been done before, since I think this proposal might better please all English language speakers, not only from the U.S. of course. I will await for any other comments before making any such change as proposed.--Fermín F.M. 18:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferminmx (talk • contribs)

I really like this, and obviously... support this. "American (United States)" and "American (Americas)". This is the best way to avoid ambiguity.--181.64.70.45 (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disasgree, things are fine as it is as has been explained in English Americans or people from the United States, we would not call somebody from say Brazil an American in English, possibly South American but never just American, and certainly never call a Canadian an American, please read the talk page archive. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not about how do you talk, this is about how you should talk. We are all Americans (I'm from Colombia), just not only from the United States of America country. Agujero Negro (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP is not prescriptive, but descriptive. In other words, it is about how we do talk, not how we should talk. WP is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Get over it. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read the talk pages and as I said before, both views about Americans from the US or from all the American Continent(s) are well sustained and backed up by the corresponding literature, viz. at least most recognized English Language dictionaries include both meanings. How do you just know "how we speak"? I think this is the work of experts that make dictionaries: to define the meaning of words based on the most common usages of each as they change over time. Therefore, let us not insert our opinions on how we "think" or "feel" that a certain word is "commonly used", but let us restrict ourselves to the verifiable sources (some were already described in the archived talk pages). This is not about how we "believe" we speak, but about how the proper literature "says" we speak. I feel unnecessary to post here all the dictionary results since by all chance you might do so by yourselves by grabbing the nearest English dictionary you have at hand (or online). I repeat then my proposal to fork this page in two: "Americans_(United_States)" and "Americans_(Americas)", leaving the current version as the former, and creating another page for the latter. I will proceed to doing this soon if there is consensus.--Fermín MX 07:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to support you proposal to this point, nor is there likely to be. WP does not only follow the dictionary definition, but other verifiable relible sources to determine common usage. - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First let me say that I've read all the points made above.

Second, I wish to make it clear I'm (a) a native English-speaker, (b) Canadian by nationality and (c) American by continental identity.

Anyone who claims that there are no English-speakers who user American only as a continental identity is a liar, because I am an English-speaker who uses American in that sense only. I stand with my fellow Americans who live south of the Rio Grande in saying that we are all Americans, just as Germans, Italians and Poles are all Europeans. I find the arrogance of Usonians in claiming that American means them alone truly disgusting. How such people can possibly wonder why the rest of us don't like them is truly mind-boggling!!!!Epikuro57 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I take BilCat's point above (about WP being descriptive, not prescriptive), but the current descriptive line taken in the article excludes the common usage of the many other peoples of the American continents who (1) consider themselves to be American and (2) routinely refer to themselves in this way. In view of this, one could argue that the current restriction of the term Americans to refer solely to citizens of the USA is itself prescriptive and therefore against WP policy. On a personal note, I'm an English-speaking European who often uses the term American to refer to things pertaining to the USA while knowing that this is just a shortcut and that most others understand it as such. --TraceyR (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WP follows common usage in English-language reliable sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. The extemely bigoted rant and personal attacks by the Tuponian notwithstanding, most native English speakers use "American" to refer to a person from the United States. That it can also mean person from the Americas is not in dispute, but it is a less-common, if not rare, usage. So, no, this article's title does not contravene WP policy. - BilCat (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with BilCat on this one, COMMONNAME applies. There is already a hatnote that leads to articles whose basic purpose is to provide other usages of the work Americans, but this article is about the People of the United States, and the most common name for people of the United States, used in the United States is Americans (for the plural).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: what would a geographical Venn diagram for "Americans" look like, since it would have to accommodate North, South and Central Americans? --TraceyR (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Which would mean what to this discussion? - BilCat (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That there is no one right answer to this question. WP:COMMONNAME requires a consensus to be reached where there is disagreement; a glance at the article Americas (and some of the contributions here) show that such disagreement exists. Perhaps the introduction should be expanded to include a statement to this effect. --TraceyR (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what hatnotes are for. The second link points to a whole article, American (word), dedicated to the issue. That's really enough,but you're welcome to propose a sentence if you wish. - BilCat (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity (for those readers who may not want to follow links to clarify what they are reading), the following might be better:

In modern English usage the terms "Americans", or "American people" generally refer to the citizens, permanent lawful residents and natives of the United States. In this sense it also includes certain individuals who are considered as nationals of the United States. This common usage has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it. The United States of America is home to people of different national origins; as a result, the citizens of the United States do not equate their nationality with ethnicity. With the exception of the Native American population (whose ancestors migrated from Asia in pre-historic times), generally all Americans or their ancestors immigrated within the past five centuries

This incorporates a couple of sentences from the American (word) article, which is IMHO more even-handed in its approach.--TraceyR (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No, just no. The lead is suppose to summarize the article. As the subject of this article is the People of the United States, commonly known to themselves and most other people as Americans, then the article is named Americans and the lead should focus on defining who are Americans, and this article. If a reader wants to know of other usages of the word American, there is a hatnote that goes to an article about other usages of the word. If you want to add that above paragraph to that article, I won't object to it. However, please stop lobbying for changing the scope of this article by changing the lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a fresh look, and see if we might get some light rather than heat generated

As someone new and previously uninvolved to this discussion, I really think that the editors who suggested just a slight clarification to the article name back in August had a good and workable idea. This article, with its current scope, is obviously about the use of the term in the US. Therefore, "American (United States)" is appropriate, and "American (Americas)" would be a potential choice for an article name that describes the other but also verifiable and notable common use. It avoids the ambiguity, and avoids any POV problems where the US "Americans" try to "have it their way." Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone outside the U.S. is called or calls themselves Americans. The term American to refer to a place rather than people of course is used. For example, the "Organization of American States." Only when it is qualified do we refer to non-U.S. people as Americans, for example North Americans, Latin Americans. TFD (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I totally assume good faith on your part, and do take at face value that you do not think that anyone outside of the U.S. calls themselves Americans. I suspect that is what many think, perhaps a large majority. However, a couple of people farther up in this thread have said that they live in the Americas, and consider and call themselves Americans. My own experience on a few trips to Central American countries is that there are a good number of such people there, and I've heard the locution personally. English is, as you may know, used somewhat as a lingua franca in many countries, and is widely used for business transactions and trade discussions by the Americans of the Spanish-speaking Central American countries. To them, the term Americans seemed to include a broader set of those from the Americas, while if they sometimes wanted to qualify the term to themselves I might hear it qualified as "central Americans", or if to people of both the U.S. and Canada, they might say "north Americans."

I realize, of course, that my anecdotal account does not mean much in Wikipedia; for that we need sources. And we will get to that. But I would hope that my personal account, and the accounts of the other editors above, would 1) help broaden the perspective in this discussion, and 2) help folks who share your view slow down just a bit and look at this question with an open mind and in a spirit of open inquiry. It certainly does not seem an open and shut case to me. N2e (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When people in the Middle East march in the streets shouting "Death to America!", do Central Americans think the Middle Easterners are talking about them? I really don't know. - BilCat (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While I've no issue with an article on people from the Americas, this article's title is correct per WP:COMMONNAME. It's not about "the US "Americans" try to "have it their way", but common usage in English. - BilCat (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

BillCat and RCLC, my point is not that it is incorrect to refer to people of the US as Americans, but that it is apparently not the only common usage of the term. I'm certainly not suggesting that the people of the United States do not refer to themselves in this way. I'm only suggesting that I believe an open inquiry into what other people of the Americas refer to themselves is in order. Some folks have weighed in here on it. But if that is insufficient to build consensus on the of whether renaming to "American (United States)" is appropriate, while leaving space for "American (Americas)", I'm fine with that. But I do think the discussion ought to continue while it is determined if those folks can provide sources, etc. (spirit of open inquiry, and all that) N2e (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It obviously isn't the only common usage, but it's a matter of degree. Can a few thousand or even a few million Latin Americans who speak English produce enough reliable sources to ever come close to what 350 million speakers of English in North America, 100+ million In the British and Irish Isles, millions of speakers of English in the the Indian subcontinent, and millions of speakers of Egnlish in the rest of Asia and Africa, can produce? (By produce, I mean the actual writing of the reliable sources.) I really don't think that's possible as yet. So forgive me if I'm not breathlessly waiting for these folks to provide sources that will never come. Most of them instead write stuff like gem of open inquiry! And there's more where that came from. I totally understand that when I'm in Latin America, person from the US is an Estadounidense or a norteamericano, and that we're all .americanos. Is it really too much to ask in return for them to realize that to most of the rest of the English-speaking world, Americans are from the USA, not the continent of America as a whole? - BilCat (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Like User:N2e I'm new to this discussion (first contribution on 17 Nov.). I do take issue with the suggestion that I'm lobbying for change: taking part in a discussion is not lobbying. To make his point about the article's title, RightCowLeftCoast refers to it as People of the United States, which actually makes the point for change: that would be a perfect name for the article as it stands. American (United States) would be just as suitable. --TraceyR (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This article used to be at People of the United States, but was moved here via an RM, as the case was made for WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see that changing now, but it could happen. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, take into account the context of what I wrote, rather than talking my statement out of context. Only if I am taken out of context does it appear that this article should not be at its present title. The common name for the People of the United States is Americans; if it is not please inform us, and provide references. What do most people of the United States call themselves? Last I checked, it's Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to remind everyone that English WP is not solely for the people of the United States, but for readers of English everywhere (ref. List of countries by English-speaking population) So what "most people of the United States call themselves" is important but is not the only factor to consider. Perhaps this misconception is the reason for the heat generated by discussion. But I for one shall not lose any sleep if the article stays as it is, although (IMHO) "People of the United States" or "American (United States)" would be more appropriate. --TraceyR (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's actually totally irrelevant to this issue. WP follows common usage in English-language reliable sources, per WP:COMMONNAME, no matter where the sources are from. No matter which way you slice it, the most common name in English for the people of the US is "Americans", and the most common meaning for "Americans" in English is for the people of the US. - BilCat (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... BilCat notes that we don't have an article on the population of the continent (or supercontinent) in general. By comparison we do have articles on African people and Asian people. Should there be an article on the people of the Americas, or is Indigenous peoples of the Americas sufficient for that purpose? Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As the wikilink shows there is already an article about Indigenous peoples of the Americas, whether they be First Nationers in Canada, Native Amricans in the United States, etc. This article, whose scope has been verified by reliable sources is of the People of the United States, commonly referred to as Americans. Now the article of the People of the Philippines, goes to the Filipino people, but personally I think that article title is rather hamfisted, and perhaps would be better off at Filipinos, as it is their common name.

So what we have here is a disagreement of scope of this article based on differing definitions of the word, and as we can verify from reliable sources that the word is most often associated with the People of the United States. There are other usages of the word, yes, but the most common is the usage of the word as it is used in this article, and that can be shown from sources not only from the United States but elsewhere as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we have no disagreement about the scope of this article. As I've said, and as the editors who first made the suggestion in August said, the scope of this article is just fine. This idea, the one I started this subsection with, has never been about changing the scope of this article. N2e (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried. I acknowledge that it appears no consensus is possible here, even with the suggestion of the other editors who back in August suggested a very neutral but descriptive article name that would allow Wikipedia to work well for both groups.

But I will close with saying that I think this continues to disrespect the non-US folks of the Americas, many of whom do, in fact, refer to themselves by the name American. I realize of course that the particular use of the term "Americans," in this article, is about the US-based flavor of Americans. But the space should be left open for the others as well, and not taken/assumed by any one country or set of folks, whether or not they have the largest population, or whether or not they are the regional hegemon. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The odd thing to me is that you don't seem to give a darn for the continued disrespect shown by "the non-US folks of the Americas" to US-Americans. Your heavy-handed use of "hegemon" and "taken/assumed" is quite telling. Words evolve, meanings change. There is room for a word to mean one thing in one context, and another in a different context, without having some sanctimonious persons show up and ask only one side to be open-minded while the other side makes fun of the "country with no name". We have a name. That it also happens to be the name of a continent in another language and culture is not about one side's supposed hegemony over the other. It just is. Open-mindedness goes both ways, as does respect. I don't go to their countries and tell them what to call themselves and their countries in their own languages. Is it too much to ask for the same respect in return? Or are only small countries worthy of respect? - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this article is at it's current title for the same reason that Royal Navy is about the navy of the United Kingdom (Which isn't the world's only united kingdom either!): Both are the common name of their subjects, and are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title. And while some might feel that for the UK-ish not to call their navy by another name is a sign of arrogance on their part, and it may well be, I have have opposed moving that article to a DABbed title such as Royal Navy (United Kingdom) for the same reason as I oppose moving this article. Even if one does personally believe "the space should be left open for the others as well, and not taken/assumed by any one country or set of folks", whether applied to the US, UK, or some other large nation, WP is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Perhaps the guidelines and policies are wrong to allow such perceived inequities to exist, but until the policies and guidelines are changed, this title is the correct one for this subject. - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Being from outside the US, the common use for the word American to me is only "person from with US citizenship" because I usually only talk about that group of people when talking about Americans -- I acknowledge that the word actually means "anyone from either of the continents" (and I am not from either of those continents). It is my understanding that the only group of people who will identify that American refers only to someone from the US is, herself, from the US. Everybody else only uses the term to mean a US citizen because we have no other, commonly accepted, word to use -- although I have been arguing in favour of a local version of usonian (usianer). In my view, the current article is extremly biased (like a lot of WP) towards favouring the US at the expense of the rest of the world (in particular the other american states) -- diregarding any opinion that anyone might have which is not in favour of the US and exagerating the role that the US plays in the world. I encourage everybody to read the discussion one more time, think about what has been said and then review her comments. "Open mindedness" is not part of the discussion. Bias is the discussion. 80.167.145.44 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

More than just citizenship

The opening sentence of this article indicates that the complete definition of "Americans" is by citizenship. This implies that no one who is not a citizen isn't American. Here's several examples of non-citizens stilling being Americans.

1. Many people consider American as their ethnic origin. If they gave up their citizenship, they would still be ethnic Americans and so will their children.

2. An American who moves to another country and has to give up his/her citizenship. That person stops being an American citizen but still is an American.

3. A child born abroad to an American couple and is able to receive an American citizenship but still does not have it.

4. A non-citizen immigrant growing up in the United States and considers himself/herself just as American as any other born citizens.

I think we should keep citizenship in the lead for the immigrants who become American citizens but still have to assimilate but also include the word people to also include anybody who is not a citizen since being American is also more than just a piece a paper that says you are. I would like it to follow the opening in the Canadians article but with citizenship also included. Thoughts? AbelM7 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)