This is an archive of past discussions about Americans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Let's be honest: Alberto Gonzales should not be in the "top 9" Americans. There could be numerous others, like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey or Michael Phelps that would be much more deserving. The only reason he is there is because he is Mexican/Hispanic American. These racial divisions are fundamentally arbitrary; if you want the 9 Americans to represent "diversity", why not other forms of "diversity" too? Why not display LGBT Americans? Or Americans with red hair? This article is showcasing a crude, primitive human tendency to divide human beings up into various subcategories without any legitimate reason. It is against what America stands for. It should solely be based on influence, success and accomplishment, preferably from numerous fields to highlight Americans' leadership in various different areas. JDiala (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Soon after some women appears in the pictures, someone comes along and deletes them with some statement or other that the 'images have to be cleaned up' It seems cleaned up always means dismissing the women. Hmains (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
While i understand that the term "American" is used loosely, when it has to do with important issues, political correctness is essential. Wikipedia says an "American" is a citizen of the U.S. This is inaccurate. U.S citizens live in the U.S., "Americans" are citizens of every single country on North, South and Central America. In casual talk, this is acceptable, but when using numbers and percentages, it is not.
Example: Dr Martin of Canada claims that over 45,000 Americans have died because they didn't have health care. Well,if she's talking about America, that is over 1 billion people. If, as we know, she is actually talking about one country on the North American Continant, the United States, it is 45,000 out of approx 317 million. The numbers are very inaccurate...the number of deaths in Mexico, central and South America are lots higher than ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notasims (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Umm...No. For native English-speakers, "American" always refers to citizens of the United States of America. Don't use some unsourced statement from a fellow Canadian to justify your incorrectness. The only people having issues here are Spanish-speakers trying to dictate their second-hand English onto us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.124.211 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That isn't true at all, anyone from either of the Americas is technically an American. The fact that American is most often used for the United States doesn't make it the only use. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I added Cesar Chavez and Phyllis Wheatley into the "top nine," to increase representativeness among the pictures. I'm not sure how this is done, but the pictures ought to be rotated every now and then. -Theodore(talk) (my postings are currently as an IP, sorry for any confusion)
Then their parents or grandparents were. There is not a single member of an ethnic group whose ancestors have inhabited American territory for more than 500 years.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·16:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure that Einstein can be classified as an american? I mean, even thought he lived and worked in the US since 1933, it's quite obvious that he was a german-born jew. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.179.0 (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This is absolutely hilarious, Einstein was NOT american, he had about 5 or 6 different citizenships depending on where he was working. No credited person considers Einstein to be American. He was German. Furthermore there is not a single mention of him being German on the internet. There is no reference to him being called American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.167.153 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 May 2014
Utter nonsense. From the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Einstein was granted permanent residency in the United States in 1935 and became an American citizen in 1940, although he chose to retain his Swiss citizenship." [1] Or if you prefer, see the official website of the Nobel Foundation. [2]AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because he has an American citizenship does not qualify him as an American over a german or even swiss. He IS considered a German physicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.167.153 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. He was a great person, but being an American citizen for a short period of his life doesn't mean he should be here. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Einstein doesn't really belong. Having his photo in the infobox, and in the first row front and center, looks like saying We really don't have many great Americans so we're going to add an inadvertent immigrant who is the greatest genius of all time and hope nobody will notice he wasn't American. He was in the U.S. only by accident, and did not go back to Germany/Europe because of the Holocaust. This would be like putting Chopin in the French people infobox. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
What? There's one in the White and European Americans section. There are two in Hispanic and Latino Americans. There's one in Black and African Americans and one in American Indians and Alaska Natives and one in Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders. And there's three in Asian Americans; seems like half of them are women. NebY (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, we could swap Marilyn Monroe with Frank Sinatra (who remembers him these days?) but then there wouldn't be any women in the White and European Americans section. NebY (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What will? Americans are to be represented by one living male and 17 dead ones of which one must be Albert Einstein. It's consensual. NebY (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well as you seem to imply one way would be to remove Einstein (who with three different passports isnt a great example of an American) and add a woman. Then afterwards you could remove Sinatra and add a native person. Then you would have at least symbolically implied that America is not just a country of dead white men (and two black ones).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit of a complicated program, though the significance of swapping Monroe for Einstein is tempting. I've swapped Monroe for Sinatra instead - both entertainers, careers peaked mid-twentieth century, fame comparable. That leaves replacing Einstein open - which needn't be on a like-for-like basis, of course, that just seemed simpler this once. NebY (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree should have more women, and Marilyn Monroe seems to stick out as a gratuitous sex symbol among the intellectuals and changemakers. So many people across the world are mourning Maya Angelou today, perhaps she might be a good choice. Others? Oprah, Alice Walker, Gloria Steinem, Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, Georgia O'Keefe, Sylvia Plath .... Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
More suggestions: Jane Addams, Sacagawea, Billie Holiday, Margaret Fuller, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emily Dickinson, Mary Cassatt, and Louisa May Alcott. Many of the current choices seem arbitrary or worse; why Cobain and not George Gershwin or Scott Joplin? Why Spielberg and not Groucho Marx or Charlie Chaplin? Why Henry Ford and not Booker T.Washington, Henry Ozawa Tanner, Louis Brandeis, or Thurgood Marshall? Why Ronald Reagan and not Teddy Roosevelt? (And in Native American highlights, how do we miss Tecumseh?) This seems to be a vexed territory; I'd support removing all these arbitrary image collections. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree both that more women is a requirement, and that Monroe is not the most obvious inclusion. I also agree that removing the cavalcade would be the best and most durable choice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That might prevent endless debate. While these sorts of images in infoboxes of people of other nations might work (especially smaller nations who need more exposure as to people of note that hail from there), perhaps the U.S. is too large, and has been to influential on the world stage, and is too diverse, for editors to easily agree who should and should not go in the infobox. Softlavender (talk)
While not having collage may be good idea, its generally simply not stable solution as those collages tend to reappear because "everyone has them" :) I would suggest limit its size to something like 9-12 though. Jews is relatively well handled example to look at. Also about female Americans, Katharine Hepburn and Madonna come in mind.--Staberinde (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this page about the various images in the gallery at the top of the page, and it might reasonably extend to the images in the various regional galleries lower in the article. Obviously, I think we would probably do well with as many relevant images as possible, possibly/probably including images of as broad a group of "Americans" as possible. Deciding who to include in both the regional image groupings lower in the page and the primary gallery at the top of the page might be best resolved by some systematic discussion of them. Personally, I'd like to have the images represent, between them, as many different groupings as possible, with, if possible, some sort of at least attempt to get some sort of proportional representation of the various groupings of Americans as possible. So, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr. could be used as one of the representatives of the groupings of Christians, religious people/ministers, African-Americans, Southerners, and peace activists. To my eyes, there does seem to be a significant maybe underrepresentation of what might be called academic scholarly people. So, for instance, reviewing the various Nobel Prize winners who might qualify might be one step in the right direction. Also, I suppose, we could look at the Dictionary of American Biography and what groupings are most significant in their index, and try to get representatives of as many of the bigger groupings in that sort as possible included.
Personally, I would like to see, maybe, somewhere down the road, an RfC or two regarding specific proposed inclusions in the various image galleries as possible, but getting together lists of possible candidates might be a good idea first. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The lower images were already discussed and decided on. What wasn't is the infobox, so there's been a lot of back and forth. As a compromise an American flag was put there. A crowd image of ordinary American men and women like the one to the right was also suggested, which may perhaps be the best solution. Middayexpress (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Group shots themselves could be, to a degree, problematic, if people want to protest whatever it was the group assembled for as being "American" activity. FWIW, and these are obviously just my personal opinions:
People who have or have had federal holidays named in their honor would probably come first
People who have been potrayed on standard issue US currency, including postage stamps (not counting special commemorative stamps) might come in second
For any groups which do not have individuals included in the above groupings, I went through the 1999 DAB and made the following list: User:John Carter/Americans, indicating which groupings of individuals in at least that edition received at least one whole column, counted by whole columns, although, admittedly, in cases where the group spread on both sides of the same page and the like, I may have made some errors.
Clearly, I acknowledge that choosing the most prominent names first would be kind of top-heavy in favor of politicians of all stripes, and it would be a good idea to specifically ensure that other groupings are included as well. But the preliminary review might serve as at least a beginning, and I think it would be worthwhile to have the images selected based on some sort of comparatively objective criteria. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
As a foreigner chipping in, lose the images, all of them and don't replace them with anything. You will never find an image or collection of images that does the subject justice, so stop trying. Just leave it blank, let the images in the article body do the work. - X201 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The addition of Lovecraft means that we have two portraits of notorious anti-Semites here. Lovecraft seems off; why Lovecraft and not Louisa May Alcott or Harriet Beecher Stowe or Maya Angelou? We have a second woman, but Meryl Streep is also an actress. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
When will it be time that WP accept what may be inevitable that native americans greeted all the others that got to the Americas but even they are in all likelihood as increased archeological study develops just as transplanted?66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't just 'accept' it, but states it as a fact: "Native Americans, whose ancestry is indigenous to the Americas, originally migrated to the two continents between 10,000-45,000 years ago". AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
More suggestions: Jane Addams, Sacagawea, Billie Holiday, Margaret Fuller, Margaret Sanger, Rebecca Lee Crumpler, Emily Dickinson, Mary Cassatt, Julia Child, Maria Goeppert Mayer, MKF Fisher, Dorothy Parker, Grace Hopper, and Louisa May Alcott, . Many of the current choices seem arbitrary or worse, and clearly some are motivated by contemporary right-wing politics. Some other people who are missing: Tecumseh, Scott Joplin, Groucho Marx, Charlie Chaplin, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B.DuBois, Henry Ozawa Tanner, Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall. Why Ronald Reagan and not Teddy Roosevelt? This seems to be a vexed territory; I'd support removing all these arbitrary image collections. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added more women. I know that there are some people missing, but there's not enough room. Chaplin was English not American, check the article. Plus we also need more "recent" Americans (from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s) rather than those who lived 100 years ago (1900s. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
One argument about photos is that they should be distributed purely on notability. For instance if 80% of the most notable people were women then 80% of the photos should be women and vice versa. Gregkaye✍♪19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That could work if there was an objective way to determine who are the most notable people, and to compare notability. But there isn't. Also the argument doesn't fix the problem of under-representing minorities and their achievements and contributions to American society, because "notability" is probably not independent of race and gender and minority status. Being "notable" for much of US history was something that was mainly reserved for upperclass White men. So choosing "notability" (what ever it means) as the sole criterion for inclusion is simply perpetuates a particular political and historical bias, and hence doesnt escape the problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"One argument about photos is that they should be distributed purely on notability". An excellent argument to help perpetuate sexism. I believe that wikipedia can do better than that. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that, if all men and women are created equally they each individual should, to some extent, be considered by that individuals own merit. I believe that one of the few things that Wikipedia advocates is a WP:NPOVGregkaye✍♪20:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahha. Men and women are not created equally and they have never been given equal access to perform those social functions that give access to the social prestige that we sometimes call "notability". That is not for lack of merits, but because Men and Women have traditionally been assigned different spheres in which they can seek merit and only the sphere in which males were given preference has been considered to lead to "notability". Also the NPOV policy has no relevance to how to base editorial decisions about whom to include in a photo cavalcade. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·20:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Then why are you arguing in favor of perpetuating one of its manifestations which holds that only mens achievements are notable enough to be on lists of Notable people?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I am in favor of a rotating cast of characters in the photo montage. I am not that thrilled with the current naming of rows. Let it just be Americans of some note. If George Washington misses a month or two, that's okay. Carptrash (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Why the hell is Ronald Reagan listed before John F. Kennedy? There is nothing intrinsically special in becoming US president, Secretary of State or Senator. They are all jobs that someone has to do even by misplaced actors.
Barrak Obama is the first Black U.S. President, Harvard graduate, civil rights attorney and reportedly faithful family man who hasn't launched any arguably unnecessary/unproductive wars. If you are going to consider promotion of minority groups and women then also consider Nancy Pelosi, Janet Yellen.
Please go by notability or the likes of Condoleezza Rice will seem out of place. I don't think that it helps to patronise as is the case with inclusion, at this point in time, of the likes of Taylor Swift. As far as singers go you've had the likes of Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra and Jimi Hendrix. People can be regarded as significant/notable if they have broken new ground or because they are the best at what they do.
There have been alot of complaints above regarding the choice of images, and there has been no response from the drive-by user who added the mosaic. Given that there was absolutely no discussion about replacing the individual images in the infobox with a mosaic in the first place, I am restoring the previous format. Please do not readd mosaic without getting a consensus first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There was not consensus for it either. Having individuals instead of a single mosaic makes it easier to edit, but leads to a slow moving edit war over whom is selected.
Personally, I say it was better not having any collage or mosaic, and leaving the infobox blank. There are sufficient infoboxes in the different sections below the lead section to more accurately represent the diversity of Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Beyonce
I would think that Michael Jackson or Ella Fitzgerald would be better candidates that Beyonce whose musical success doesn't have the historical impact of the other two. Same goes with Taylor Swift, for country music, there are definitely more historically significant individuals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The idea is to be proposed a people of different age. I was explain this above. It's not a problem to replace Swift or Beyonce, but least one of their places must be covered by person, who was born in last 20 - 30 years. Michael Jackson will be good addition for one of these places, but the other is needed by some young American. Christina Aguilera or Selena Gomez are two well known suggestions for the last place, because we have only one person with Latin American descent in this collage for now.--Stolichanin (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why include someone young? Doesn't that fall under WP:RECENTISM? Unless they have been involved in a world recognized significant first (like what Michael Phelps did (setting a present world record for most gold medals in a single summer olympics)), why include a young individual in the lead infobox at all?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a fundamental principle in all collages (see the articles about other nations, which I gave like examples above). These people are well known today, especially for young readers. Furthermore, it is way to escape from this some sort of ancient Greek "dead nation syndrom", which has great people only in the past. Actually it is not a list of "The Greatest Americans". It's just a mosaic with 30 famous and significant Americans (too many people for infobox collage, especially for nation, which officially exist from only 238 years, but it is interesting exception and the mosaic here is different aranged as well). --Stolichanin (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a fundamental principle in all collages
If it is so fundamental, where is the policy or guideline?
RECENTISM is an essay (granted), and one that has received a lot of support over the years. If anything speaks against including recent, "today", based editing. This is an encyclopedia, not Tiger Beat.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
United States R US or Americans we AM.
At some points in the article I got the impression that the words America and American were repeated as if to push the use of this identity.
From an outside perspective I like to question whether this approach may be counter-productive and whether WP:SOAPBOX may apply:
Enemies of the United States typically refer to the nation as America.
The United States only constitutes one of many countries in the Americas and only about one third of the total population.
Hawaii is arguably better defined as constituting a part of the United States rather than as representing a part of America.
The primary reference to the country and is the United States. This is fairly well represented through many of the categories and articles connected to Category:Government in the United States and I would personally propose that this reference may be beneficially applied in other topics as per support from WP:UCRN.
The term "United States" conveys a message of unity in specific ownership of a single nation while 50 countries across two continents share the roots of "American" terminologies.
Patriotism can be positively expressed through either terminology
America and American are legitimate and common terms in all varieties of English to use for the USA and its citizens, and are commonly-recognizable names to most of the rest of the world outside Latin America. Even the Latin Americans "recognize" the usage just fine, opposed to it that some of them are. From the US-American viewpoint, it is just as much, if not more, SOAPBOX to try to repress its usage, and certainly offensive to most of us Americans. It certainly violates WP:ENGVAR to try to suppress its usage on US-related articles. You might have a point on overusage in articles such as Americas, but not here. Anyway, this is an old argument, and it isn't likely to go away any sooner than the Falklands/Malvinas, Macedonia/FYROM, or the British Isles/Britain and Ireland naming disputes, etc. etc. And by the way, Ireland is a major English-speaking country, thanks to the British themselves, so the Irish do have somewhat of an argument ENGVAR-wise! - BilCat (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with BilCat here, there have been numerous discussions about this, and consensus has not changed. Also WP:COMMONNAME applies to this article, and the common name for citizens of the United States is "American", plural being Americans. Therefore, I say WP:DEADHORSE, and we move on.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with RightCowLeftCoast. Folks south of the border very rarely refer to themselves as "Americans" so the chance of misunderstanding is minimal. Both US and American are short for the "United States of America" and have been in common use worldwide since 1776. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Total Population of Americans
You show that the total population of Americans is 308,745,538 in the Infobox. I understand that you are measuring using the Census, but then you state that the US has 318,201,000 Americans. Obviously, those numbers are off by 10 million. To make matters worse, your initial estimate does not include the number of Americans living abroad.
If you include the number living abroad, the correct number of Americans would be 321,264,045 - 322,305,738, assuming my math is right. Can you at least please explain the reasoning behind using the Census for 2010 when that only measures reporting American residents in the US, and not true "Americans" necessarily - illegal immigrants who do not self-identify as Americans, nor hold American citizenship.
I am going to add one more comment - your disambiguation line states that this page is about citizens of the United States of America. That furthers my questioning of your use of the Census, and just the whole issue. Also, I have no response so I am hoping commenting again brings some discussion up. (Some anon) 70.176.70.213 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the best thing we could do would be to have the 322 million number, then subtract 12 million for illegals to get 310 million. Though we would also probably have to subtract another 10 million for legal immigrants and have only 300 million. We really don't know how many illegals there are exactly because there aren't really any official numbers on it.96.241.72.141 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
In the name of reason I smite your silly PC nonsense
Why is Geronimo on there? I understand that it's PC to add an American Indian, but I'm pretty sure Geronimo spent his time fighting the American army and trying to keep his people from being conquered, so he would most likely take offense to being grouped together with the conquerors of his nation. There should be a different guy on there, an American Indian who also clearly considers themselves an American (that means no Russell Means).96.241.72.141 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think either are fine, but I think the question is is there a consensus that Native Americans are not Americans? If it is a a question of citizenship, then pre-1924 Native Americans might be excluded, as the Indian Citizenship Act didn't extend U.S. citizenship to those with tribal citizenship until then; and possibly not until 1940 when Jus soli came into effect with the Nationality Act of 1940. Of course individual Native Americans were citizens prior to 1924, however that is whether one requires citizenship to be considered American, and whether U.S. Nationals are Americans (which IMHO they are).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No good can come of this. If we exclude non-citizens, then inclusion of colonial Americans like Franklin and Americans born as slaves, like Frederick Douglass, becomes problematic. I think Geronimo is fine, and I'd be very tempted to add Tecumseh. For a native American in the arts, one might consider Nampeyo. The mosaic is a continual source of mischief, and I continue to believe it would be better omitted entirely.MarkBernstein (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear to me whether including early Indians or excluding them is the current PC choice, but I favor keeping them. I also feel that the mosaic should be a constantly rotating event, one month politicians, another all artists, musicians, black history month, immigrants, women, athletes, serial killers, etc. Not sure if this would make the current squabbling better or worse but at least it would be different. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with MarkBernstein, the infobox editing has become a slow moving edit conflict that may never be stable. I think the infoboxes for the different races and ethnicities adequately provides for representatives of those individual subjects for this article, therefore making the portraits in the infobox unnecessary IMHO.
That being said, Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers would be included as the Constitution extended them citizenship upon ratification explicitly. Same can be said about the Fourteenth Amendment for African American former slaves. As for Native Americans, I don't see why citizenship need be required for inclusion in this article, but was making my statements based on one potential position, not that I agreed with it; if anything they are the first Americans, IMHO--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
On the infobox photos edit war, as the one who restored the photo section a number of months back, I'm sorry.that is has never been stable, and I now agree that it probably never will be. But if we do remove it I'm afraid that at this point the edit warriors will just move on to the race sections, as they're used to adding faves and removing hates. But I'm willing to give it a try. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In a large part, I added the infoboxes portraits to the race sections, doing so based on the different ethnicity and ancestry population sizes within each subject. They have remained relatively stable due to this. The largest change has been to the White/European/Caucasian section, which IMHO should changed back to by order of population, but that's a different discussion for a different time.
If the portraits in the primary infobox is kept, a strong consensus of whom should be there, and why should be formed, and once consensus for whom should be in the infobox has been established, it should be defended vigorously, with the onus on the attempting editor to show that consensus has changed drastically.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
If there is consensus not to have any portraits in the primary infobox in the lead section it is a moot point.
If we are seeking a consensus, I say we do straw poll. Get nominations (say a week or two nominating period), followed by a voting period (say three weeks). Majority support gets placed in infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I also reacted when I saw Geronimo, but I guess one could argue that native american is a kind of american. Personally, I´d like to see Eisenhower and Robert E Lee in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Who would you add or remove, and why? Which groups are "over-represented"? It's easy to make vague criticisms, but specifics would be more helpful. - BilCat (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Look at the article Multiracial American, and it does a decent job of listing the multiple interracial categories that are statistically observed. From a quick look, the images that are on this article do not represent all the categories that are represented on that page, and there is still the political unbalance in that infobox and here (that I had previously mentioned).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question: which groups are overrepresented here, and which political faction? Are you counting only politicians, or reading every bio to see which way a person leans? I'm not reading every bio on each person to determine which races are overrepresented, but I assume you did, so which is it? And have you taken into account which groups tended to mix more than others? - BilCat (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Politicians (of which there is but one Democrat politician)
Just looking at the identities listed in the Multiracial American article, there is a section about Whites, section about Black/African American, section about European & Native American, section about African and Native American, section about Pacific Islander, section of Euroasian, a section of Afro-Asian, and a section of Hispanic and Latino.
Article has Black/White (Politican), White only (Jobs was removed from Multiracial article in October 2014), European & Native American, Hispanic, EuroAsian, Black/White, and White/Black & Native American. I already see missing identities.
If we go base on demographics, even in the race sections above this section in the article space, each group, regardless of population size only receive one representative (if they have suffignificant population within that category).
I have boldly changed the gallery to a sectional infobox similar to the ones used in other race sections. I have left out representatives for "Some Other Race" combinations due to the ambiguaty of the term, just as how American ethnicity is left out in the White and European Americans section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Getting rid of the infobox mosaic for good
I posted a poll about this earlier on the talk page, but nothing became of it. Here I am just going to list the reasons why the infobox mosaic is silly, feel free to add on reasons.
1. It is difficult to capture the diversity of the country in a limited space.
2. The images have caused endless conflict on this page, and it impossible to have "consensus" on the correct images for the page.
3. Images of famous Americans are barely relevant to the topic of American people.
4. Personal biases are inherent in the selection of any group of people to represent "Americans."
5. The mosaic consistently remains incredibly slanted towards a white male perspective. Women have never been equally represented in the images despite the fact that they comprise half the population. (This is seems to be a side-effect of how out-of-touch with reality many editors are. This shouldn't even be a problem.)
6. Other culturally diverse nations do not have infobox mosaics. See British people, for example. Instead of displaying a massive wall of images of all sorts of British people, images are reserved for more specific pages, such as British Asian or Welsh people.
7. The infobox mosaic distracts from the content of the page and provides little additional information to readers of the page. If someone read this page genuinely interested in learning about Americans, these images would be very ineffective in illustrating the topic of the article.
8. The issue of removing the infobox images has been brought up several times, yet there has never been consensus. The discussion has been for the most part ignored by participants in the edit war, and very few attempts to actually refute this change have been made.
As their primary supporter of the mosaic in the main infobox, I am sad to admit that it has proven unworkable, one of the reasons it has failed is this misguided attempt to "reflect diversity"! "Famous people" are famous usually because they were leaders of some sort, especially politically, and historically those have been white males. George Washington was the commanding general of the Revolutionary War, and the first president of the US under the Constitution. We can't change who he was ethnically, or his accomplishments. The first 43 presidents of the US were "white" males, even though their ethnic backgrounds differ considerably, with several being from ethnic groups that were marginalized historically, notably JFK being of Irish descent. The 44th president is still half "white", regardless of how he choses to self-identify. Other famous or infamous leaders and pioneers of industry, art, etc. were also "white" males. Simply looking at a mosaic and saying things like "The mosaic consistently remains incredibly slanted towards a white male perspective" is just plain silly. Have women and minorities played a significant role in US history and culture? Of course they have. But that doesn't change who has been historically significant. Also, looking at people solely though the lens of color and gender minimizes the great accomplishments of people who are derided simply because they are "white males". The US is a nation of immigrants, and many of the historically significant white males had ancestors who came from European countries were they were marginalized because of class and ethnicity, were poor, and without any hope of achieving anything significant in their own countries because of those factors. Many were ethnic minorities, or were oppressed by an ethnic minorty, such as the Irish by the English. The great thing about America has been that it doesn't matter where you are from or what you look like, you can come to the US and have a chance to succeed that you would never have had in your own country, or at least see your children or grandchildren succeed, in whatever their own definition of success is. In the over 200 years of American history, we have seen an expansion of the ethnicities that have become part of the mainstream of America. Some had to fight for it, and many "white males" died to free other who did not look like them in the Civil War and other conflicts. Martin Luther King led a peaceful march on Washington to redeem the promissory note made in the Declaration of Independence, that all "men" are created equal. And we've expanded that to include women. It hasn't been easy, but it had happened, and many of the people who made it happen were white males.
It makes me sick to hear Americans, usually white males themselves, judge people solely on their gender and the color of their skin, as if they are so much more enlightened than the rest of us "white males" who genuinely try to judge people "on the content of their character, not the color of their skin." This has always been why I have supported having a mosaic of significant, famous, or even infamous people in the main infobox, rather than having them be segregated by race or color into separate sections throughout the article. So yes, my attempt has been a failure, because now we have users holding up British people as an example of how to segregate their own people in the name of diversity. It's shameful. I had honestly hoped for better for this page. - User:BilCat|BilCat]] (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
On that point, I do agree with you, as much as I would like to keep it in some form. For the record, most ocf the edit warring over the photos has been done by drive-by users who usually don't participate in the discussions at all, many of whom are simply editing to be disruptive. If an alternative single-file mosaic could be made that could be edited by admins, in case the mosaics creator i s not available, I would support that, even a later date. - 09:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Belated signature BilCat (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This was tried; it's still impractical. In many ways, it's worse because it locks arbitrary judgments and places them beyond discussion. There's no likelihood that we can achieve a reasoned consensus on whether, for example, Beyonce is more significant than Robert E. Lee, or which of John Philip Sousa, Scott Joplin, George Gershwin, Grace Hopper, Tecumseh, or Ronald Reagan deserve the 64th slot. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, are you saying that white men just happen to be the most notable figures in history? Because there are plenty of women or minorities that are considered undeniably historically notable and easily included in the mosaic. In fact there are plenty of "leaders" who are not white males. Also, do you really think diversity is a form of segregation, or that it is "shameful"?
I'm glad you at least see this is more trouble than its worth, but you it did not address why the inclusion of "notable" Americans is relevant to an article that is not about notable Americans.
Lastly, if you genuinely believe that people are "derided simply because they are white males," then I refer you again to point 5 on my list) 04:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Secondplanet (talk)
Sorry for the confusion, I (BilCat) must have mistyped my signature. No, I am saying many of the notable leaders in American history were white men, nothing else. I gave you some specific examples of notable men in US history, presidents. Many of these men were significant and major leaders in US history. I love diversity, I just chose not to restrict my definition of it to only gender and color. Lincoln was the son of backwoods settlers in Illinois, who rose to become the President. Only narrowminded people see diversity only through the lens of color and gender. It is your definition of diversity that is shameful, not diversity itself. You look at at the mosiac and see only color and gender; I see people from all walks of life, class, backgrounds, children of immigrants, farmers , singers, trademens, etc, some white, some black, some in between, some male, some female. Most article on WP include people who are notable in such mosaics, even the articles that you hold up as examples to follow. We shoild include unknowns who aren't notable at all?? Nonsense. - BilCat (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize that there were two separate comments there. (Sorry Gråbergs Gråa Sång for addressing you.) I am arguing for removal of the infobox images entirely from this page, but yes featuring "unknowns" would be better than "notable" people. Subjectivity would play less of a role, there would be less arguing about who is most fit to represent Americans, and it would be more relevant to the content of the article.
You are correct in saying that diversity goes far beyond gender and ethnicity - I agree with this. Gender and ethnicity are simply components of diversity. However, the content of Wikipedia has consistently under-represented women and minorities, an issue which can be important both from the perspective of accuracy and of acknowledgement of these groups. This, and many similar articles feature more men than women. In fact, there are very few similar articles that portray more women than men, which leads me to believe that there is a prevalent bias towards male representation. If these images were truly representative of diversity (on multiple levels), I would think that men and women share roughly 50% of representation each. This is rarely the case. The people currently shown are diverse in some aspects, but there is capacity to do a whole lot better. This may seem like a trivial argument, but I think that making these kinds of changes to Wikipedia could at least help dampen toxicity in the site's culture and prevent the discouragement of potential readers and editors. The current edit war on this page is certainly not healthy.
Regarding the example pages I posted: I simply wanted to make the point that the illustration of a group of people makes more sense in the context of a specific, smaller group rather than a massive one like this. The actual content of the infoboxes is still problematic. Secondplanet (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The mixup on the posts was my fault, as my sig originally didn't show. We could go back to just having the large American flag, but somehow I think someone will object to that too as not representing diversity, and that will have to be removed too. - BilCat (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
All I did was increase the size of the flag that was already there, as it was in the years when we didn't have a mosaic. It hepls to fill out the white space better. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The flag is inclusive, the lead section infobox portraits lead to slow moving civil editing disputes, due to differing editors opinions on prominence, balance, etc. To not have that, creates a more stable article. I myself have suggested in the past of using representative group images from each century of the nation's history, but that view has never gained much momentum.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I like the group idea much better than the flag because the flag is not them (Americans) and will probably replace the flag when I find/take the picture I'd like to see there. Won't be notable Americans, be sure of that. Carptrash (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I made a proposal somewhere above that the mosaic not attempt to capture the 36 (or whatever) most notable Americnas but rather be an ever changing vignette of the American people. One whole "sheet" of Presidents, another of soldiers, then scientists, musicians, actors, African Americans, Asian Americans, Icelandic Americans, North Dakotins (?) etc. and that they need not all be notables either. However, given that I am not an editor who dabbles in mosaics, once this plan of mine has been jeered off the table, I'll likely support removing it, using the Matt:18 rule, "If your eye offend you, pluck it out, and cast it from you." einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Why didn't you? Aren't you concerned with over- or under-representing certain groups, or enforcing a white male bias? You counted the people in the mosaic, why not this pic too? - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm also one who doesn't like the flag here. I think it would be better not to have any image. Nothing says that there needs to be an image in the infobox. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Mosaic alternatives
OK, so if the infobox does abandon the mosaic format, then everyone should voice their opinion on what should be in the infobox.
In overview, the requirements are:
does not provoke edit war
clearly related to the article
And the alternatives people have proposed, so far:
Can we replace Sam Houston in the Scottish ancestry section with Ronald Reagan, since Reagan was more recent and readers would know who he was without clicking to view his article. Reagan was scots by his mother side. Just a suggestion and if you don't agree I completely understand :) . --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that the majority of edits have been changing the images in the lead section infobox. Rather than all these constant edits, let us come to a consensus on what should be in that infobox. Back when I use to be a more active editor, it was just the American flag, due to the civil but constant editing that we see today. What are the goals of the Wikipedians in all this editing? This article is not List of Americans, this is about all people of the United States. Rather than multiple single individuals, is it possible to have multiple pictures of group images, perhaps one per century, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st, each being representative of the subject of this article and the History of the United States?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think deleting it would be ideal. British people does not do this, and pictures are only displayed for smaller groups with in the country (ex. Scottish people, British Asians). Also the fact that not even half of the images are of women is pathetic. The people pictured are notable Americans, but they definitely aren't a representative group of American people. Considering how diverse the country is, the page as it is shouldn't really look like this. Secondplanet (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Eh, it seems impossible to agree upon even 30 people to represent Americans. The picture you made certainly doesn't do a good job, at least in my opinion. Secondplanet (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Poll
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment.
I would also like to point out that this article is about American people. Famous figures are hardly relavent to the article topic, yet some seem to see it as a criteria for image inclusion on this page. There isn't a reason popularity or notability should be considered if images are included. Secondplanet (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Back when I was a more active editor on this article, I believed it sufficient to have images in the infobox of each of the Racial and ethnic group sections of the article. Each section can have an individual of each of the ethnicities within that racial group, as determined by consensus. Although I like the idea of group images for each of the different centuries that the United States has been around (18th, 19th, 20th, & 21st), failing that removing images from the primary infobox might stop these edit wars from re-occurring. However, I would like to remind the poll creator of WP:!VOTE; perhaps a notification to relevant Wikiprojects is in order to show consensus for or against removing the primary infobox individual portraits.
Omit: A perpetual source of dispute and contention. Some of the current choices are indefensible, most notably the inclusion of a contemporary Louisiana politician. Both 20th century scientists are known primarily for textbooks and television. Of the 36 in the current page, three are women. At first glance, none are Jewish, one is Asian-American -- and Inouye is otherwise arguably not among the 25 most significant senators in US history. Conservative politicians are grotesquely over-represented. We have lots of athletes and entertainers, but no winners of the Nobel Prize (besides Hemingway), no great physicians, no great engineers (besides Ford, and his anti-semitism rather taints him as a role model). This will never be settled will always be a source of tension and controversy, and is entirely extraneous to the project goals.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I go both ways to be honest. Although I think we should keep the images, but add a small note saying editors not to the change pictures. Plus if a mosaic is to be used for the future it should have these people in it. Then again most of the edits are on the images. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC) I'd keep the images, but 1 suggestion I have is replacing Robin Williams w/an Asian American. It appears Williams was added after his death. He's notable, but I'm not sure he's notable enough. I don't see any Asian Americans in the infobox images. If there aren't any, 1 should be added. I agree w/adding a small note asking editors not to change the pictures.
The current 36 images are undue weight. Obviously their number must be reduced. I made a few adjustments and used people from the current image, but cut the number to 24, as you can see now. There are several problems with current images:
1. When the images are more than 30 the viewer is lost in the image.
2. We must to add at least one American, who was born after 1974 (under 40 years). One general rule in the images in infobox is to describe people from different generations and historical periods. Many nations have least one person, born after 1974. For example - Italians has Valentino Rossi, Serbs - Novak Djokovic, Bulgarians - Grigor Dimitrov and Nina Dobrev, Brazilians - Neymar and Adriana Lima, Norwegians - Lisa-Mari Moen Jünge, etc. The youngest American in current images is Michael Jordan, who is 51 years old (1963). I added Angelina Jolie, who was born in 1975. Actually, if we compared to the other articles, she is on the border (Grigor Dimitrov and Neymar are born in 1990s). But she is world popular as a whole. Other people who can to replaced or to be added in images - Michael Phelps, Beyonce, somebody who you want.
3. The majority of the faces must be Americans, who are popular outside of United States. For example - Merilyn Monroe and Hemingway are world famous, while Oprah Winfrey and Edgar Allan Poe are almost unknown for non-Americans (which do not minimize their significance). But it's not so important.--Stolichanin (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Stolichanin: I didn't have a problem getting lost in the 36 pictures. I get lost in part of your mosaic due to the entire 2nd row being black & white photos. Quite a few of the people you chose don't seem to follow your 3rd rule. I had to click the George Gershwin link to know who he is. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I like the mosaic and support it being the official Americans image. Perhaps replacing Gershwin, who is a composer, with international known composers such as John Williams or Leonard Bernstein. Keep the other people. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, George Gershwin is very well known outside the US. He is a far more important musician than John Williams and, importantly for this application, he is widely considered a quintessentially American composer. Outside the US, "American music" means, more than anything else, jazz. No one wrote more jazz standards than George Gershwin. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The most important criteria for the list of Americans in the infobox should be diversity & identifiability to Americans. International renown is important, but not as important as those 2 criteria. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We should use infobox images but we need anouther poll to decide the persons. There are lot of people that can be represented in infobox. kazekagetr13:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The previous consensus was that portraits should not be used in the infobox, see the discussion below. Consensus can change, however we would need to open a discussion on that to find out if it has, and presently I don't believe the slow moving edit war helps this article when it comes to lead infobox portrait usage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Failed verification
I am moving some references to the talk page because they failed verification:
This reference[1] does not explicitly contain the the cited phrase. The words cited are actually a heading and subheading within a chapter as follows:
Chapter 2: American Citizens and Political Culture
Level 1 subhead: Who is an American?
Level 2 subhead: Native-born and Naturalized Citizens
Level 2 subhead: American Citizenship
Level 2 subhead: Nonimmigrants
Level 2 subhead: U.S. Immigration Policy
Level 2 subhead: Whom to admit
Also, the book appears to have been written for a middle school or high school audience because the language is simple and the pages are laid out like a brochure with cartoonish-like graphics and fonts in various sizes and colors. It is defininately not an academic treatment of the topic.
This reference[3] refers to what blue-collar workers believe an American is, not what academia says it is. Here is the cited statement in a more complete context:
This chapter, then, considers the meaning these blue-collar workers attach to the concept of an American, the American people, and America.
Concept of an American
The Modern Nation State
Imperium workers use the related concepts of an American, the American people, and Americans in three ways. The first, and central, way involves the view that Americans are all those persons born within the boundries of the United States or admitted to citizenship by the government. Consider these examples...
Whichever editor added that Halle reference to the article, carefully edited the citation so that it omitted that fact that the statement was talking about the perceptions blue-collar workers and presented it as if it were a definitive statement. As such, the cite does not support the claim, however, the reference could be used to support a statement about the perceptions of blue-collar workers. Sparkie82 (t•c)16:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is good work, Sparkie82. However, though not my work, the Congressional Quarterly publication was of some value establishing sourced description of "Americans" as being broader than just U.S. citizens. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
it's good to see others also saw some problems with the references in the article... but this exclusionary tone of the article is a problem. Teaching people that someone like Geronimo wasn't American is simply wrong by all means. will word a nice neutral rfc later this week. --Moxy (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Geronimo was certainly geographically an American in the same way all North and South American residents are. Was he a U.S. national in Arizona? territory, or is that a 20th century classification for Native-American populations? Interesting to explore. We have a political aspect to "Americans" usage, a cultural aspect, and a geographical aspect. Can we fit a discussion along all those perimeters into one RfC? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because the language is not targeted at academics does not make it invalid as a reliable source. As shown by the source the first source to admit, the entire content of the chapter is that citizenship is central to who are Americans. For the second source, please re-read it; it goes into the openness of American citizenship, as compared to ethnic citizenship, underpinning what is stated in Wikipedian voice in the article. For the third removed source, again not only Academia determins who Americans are, it does verify what is stated in Wikipedia voice. Therefore, I am reverting the removal per WP:BRD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully it will overturn the over-"educated" left-wing bias as well, and just be neutral per reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There are different definitions of the word American. This article just happens to use a definition that does not have a "rightwing POV", but one that basis itself on reliable sources, and chooses a limited scope.
Why not create other articles about those other definitions than radically alter the scope of this one?
If this is the case, that the scope is what is wanted to be changed, why not change this article to all people of the Americas, as has been advocated in the past by other editors? Otherwise, it could be argued that the scope is still to limited to only be about the United States, which does not represent a worldwide view of the word.
Also look at the source posted by Moxy above. Citizenship is central to being "full-fledged members of a political community,". It further verifies what is stated in the lead paragraph article, in showing that being American isn't based on "racial, ethnic, gender, or economic groups,". The section which the source provided by Moxy is about citizens being involved in civil affairs, because as the article states "American is something more than just a legal status.". Therefore, if we were to use this single source as the basis of the article's scope than American would mean something similar to Americans are only those who are engaged in civil affairs in the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I tried changing the infobox and tried to make it neater in style and layout than what it currently is. I feel the images at the moment are not neat at all and jumbled up which makes it hard to make it neat using its current layout.
I proposed this layout but it was reverted as there was no consensus before hand. Just give your views please and even your own examples of what you think looks better.
I do not agree, the infoboxes provide one individual per ethnicity or ancestry corresponding for the largest population within that categorization. The White and European infobox proposed above includes individuals whose ancestry are not from the largest populations per the most recent census count, therefore give those groups undue weight. The infobox for Hispanics and Latinos includes more than a single person from a single national origin. While, the infobox does do a good job of making the sizes all uniform, it presents the individuals in a smaller size thus making the details harder to distinguish.
Hi, I didnt make myself clear enough on why I propose this style change only ...
I wasn't proposing that you use every person used in the gallery infact they are going to be changed most likely anyway ... I was only talking about the info box style compared to what it is like at the moment a bit of a mess in the article.
I wasn't proposing using these people or ethnicities.
Puertorico1 (talk)
Hi, Perhaps like this but I don't know how to make the gallery float in the center unless its filled with just 5 more people but maybe that's not necessary. Puertorico1 (talk)
Is there a way to use an image gallery that allows the editor to stack the images in the format which they want to. Different populations have different number of portraits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Even though most people will know what the article is talking about - why spread this ambiguity? Even the passport states the nationality (strangely as a noun) as "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [1]. So, why not use the original title or "US-Americans" or something - almost anything is better than "Americans", in this context. Obviously, "Americans, or American people, are citizens of an American country." kamome, 2015-03-03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.27.209.130 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I used to do the same thing with my rollbacks when editing on a tablet. My rollback rights have since been revoked for unrelated, and unjustified, reasons, so it doesn't happen anymore. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
