Talk:Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Americans

Given that Americans is just the plural for American the discussion should go to the latest.Godot 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - 81.178.233.111 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The claim of a copyright infringement of [1] is highly questionable since the statement made on that site looks as though it was copied and pasted from the culture section of the United States article. M5891 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The intent of this article

This article is intended to describe the people of the United States as a whole, as opposed to other articles such as Demographics of the United States which focus more on dissecting by race, ancestry, ethnicity, etc.

Compare this article to that of Brazilian people. M5891 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But "American people of the US" implies a contrast with "non-American people" of the US: eg. European people of the US. That isn't what this article is about. Isn't it about just "People of the US"? kwami (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who identifies with the United States is an American, be they native-born, naturalized, or resident or nonresident alien. 75.222.113.71 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:ElvisPresley-OneNight.jpg

The image File:ElvisPresley-OneNight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of low numbers of Americans overseas

Except for affluent or budget-seeking retirees and members or personnel of the US Armed forces in overseas bases, are there more historical collection of American emigrants in other nations in hope and in search of opportunity they failed to find in their home country? The greatgrandfather of Mexican president Vicente Fox Quesada is an example. What about vietnam-war era draft dodgers whom fled to Canada? You can bring up the case of former U.S. president Bill Clinton when he was a young man in the 1960's had a college student deferment in Oxford university in Great Britain. And the descendants of African-Americans in Sierra Leone and Liberia, to return to a land where their ancestors came from long ago, can be worth mentioning. The number of American expats are 4 to 5 million (correct), over a third of them are in Latin America, a quarter are in Asia, one-fifth in Europe and something like one-eighth in the Middle East, while the remainder are in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), the vast number of American expats went to these countries in disdain on George W. Bush's war on terror and economic policies, including a few "Kerryites" or liberal-minded Democratic voters whom publicly said if Bush was re-elected (and that he was) they will emigrate out of the U.S. The American people aren't really known for a massive exodus out of their homeland in their previous history, but there's a pioneering spirit our ancestors had in the last five centuries when they venture outward in the frontiers often into new lands far away.+ 71.102.2.206 (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

1 Billion?

There is a sentence under the article that says "there are over 1 billion people" or something like... I will remove it... I think its unsourced and it appears to not be relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.86.48 (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I just want to say "good job" to whomever constructed the photo montage in the infobox. Never have I seen the good, bad, and ugly faces of America summed up so succinctly. (I leave it to you which is which). Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee?

Why is he notable enough to be included in the list of examples of Americans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tancrisism (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I was just wondering why his picture was included in there as well.--Henry talk 03:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note, why Michael Steele as an example? Why not someone of more historical clout? (Martin Luther King, Andrew Jackson...even the Marx Brothers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.87.80 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We should take off Madonna and replace it with Mark Twain

She is not a very notable person world wide and Micheal Jackson sold more then half of her all time record sales with one record. We also need more writers and already have elvis and jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.80.194 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Madonna should be removed and i would also argue that Michael Jordan should be replaced, Elvis and Jackson are enough as far as entertainers go. People they can possibly be replaced with, Mark Twain, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Franklin D. Roosevelt. --Nirvana77 (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Madonna is very notable in most of the world. Jordan is not, because in many countries there is very little interest in basketball. Jim Michael (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Madonna is the most famous woman in the world and in the latest issue of Billboard's Hot 100, Madonna is ranked as the most successful solo artist of all time, (second over-all, behind The Beatles)and really bettter than Michael Jackson. I think it would be very good for the U.S. to honor its most famous citizen in the world. Ref: [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielMendes (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

lol

Ummm Madonna did NOT sell more records than Elvis or Michael Jackson so IDK where you coming from with she's the best selling solo artist of all time she might be the best selling female solo artist. Here's an example: Michael Jackson's Thriller sold over 100 million albums worldwide and his total album sales are said to be around 750 million - 1 billion. Elvis is said to have sold over 1 billion albums in total. Madonna sold around 190 million - 200 million in total of all her albums. We should also know by now that the Billboard magazines are not always to be trusted not long ago Lady GaGa was on the top 10 with her short career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADKIc3mAnX (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In any case, if Madonna is replaced, it needs to be with the image of a female. Notice how that works? Carptrash (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost all men?

The United States is split about 50-50 men/women, but all but one of the pics are of American men. 67.121.155.62 (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Give us some suggestions then. Rosa Parks comes to mind, so does Amelia Earhart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.23.191 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the messy spread of various image files with a single-image collage as can be found on the Brazilian people and Spanish American articles. In my collage are, Rosa Parks, Oprah Winfrey, Amelia Earhart, and Ellen DeGeneres. If/when someone wants me to change the collage to include more people/different people, I can be contacted on my talk page. On the other hand, if someone wants to put work in themselves, the Russians article has a nicer setup, with multiple images cropped to dimensions that resize well together, which I believe is a better model than the "single image collage" one I have used. Of course, if someone wants to edit the collage themselves, they can, given they update the article and the Commons description. --▲ MANATH The Mage Singer (talk) ▲ 04:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, how about Marylin Monroe and Edna St. Vincent Millay? I can immagine Oprah, sure, but Elan DeGeneres? We might as well put a picture of Drew Carey up there, if B-list daytime television hosts count as important/famous Americans. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was a pretty [really really] poor choice. I'd support adding Edna St. Vincent Millay. However I was trying to keep the number of presidents low when I originally put it together, and so I'm thinking that Ronald Reagan should be removed in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was originally in the collage. Considering that Michael Steele is sort of obscure, Millay can be put in his spot. Spinoff 12:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I know that you're trying to be politically correct, but from a foreigner's point of view, it seems as if you're forcing this political correctness thing a bit. Almost noone outside of US will know who Rosa Parks is, but almost everyone will know who Bill Gates is, and I think he deserves to be in that picture more than all women who are in there together(well, maybe except Oprah or Madonna), not only because he is more famous, but because right now there is not a single representative of IT industry on the collage, even though US has been and still is at the world's top in that industry. Edna St. Vincent Millay seems to be put there as a random insert. I think sometimes you should just chose the path of the least resistance.TheDeltaPi (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Derived from the traditions of Western European migrants, beginning with the early English and Dutch (ethnic SUPER AWSOME MEGA LOLZ" ...really? 91.33.182.140 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Apparently so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoff (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Citizens" or "Denizens"?

The article asserts in the lede sentence, that the people of the US must be citizens.

The people of the United States, U.S. Americans, or simply Americans or American people, are citizens of the United States.

Is that really so? Who says? Or by what authority would we say that? Since Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view I would think that would be true for an article entitled "Citizens of the United States" but not for one entitled "People of the United States". Would not the people of the United States include all who live here? For example, say my friend is a Visiting Scholar from South Korea, who lives with his family in the US for two years. They rent lodgings, they buy and cook food, and participate in civic events and much of ordinary live in the US. Are not those folks a part of the "people of the United States", at least for the two years they were here, 2007 through 2009? Does anyone else have a problem with this definitional confusion, or if intentional, a point-of-view sleight of hand? N2e (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I realize of course that "Americans", or "U.S. Americans" might be an entirely different discussion, and could imply national citizenship in a way that "people" does not. I'd like to restrict the discussion just to whether the article title is consistent with a definitional narrowing to "citizens" only. N2e (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just go with denizens. The original author probably didn't think of illegal immigrants and such. Although, "citizens" in modern usage does not necessarily mean "one whom has been granted the right to dwell in a land or participate in political events". It has come into use in place of "civilian". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to the page, per above. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Illegal aliens are not Americans anymore than they would be Brazilians or Canadians if they migrated there. Citizens are those who are legally permitted to live within a country, be they native-born, naturalized, or resident or nonresident alien. 75.222.113.71 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User 75.222.113.71 changed the word in the lede from denizens to citizens three weeks ago, on 2010-10-17T00:02:32. I have reverted that change, since it was not in accord with the Talk page consensus to that point. It should not be changed back without some sort of attempt to reach consensus here on the Talk page.

As to User 75.222.113.71's assertion that "Citizens are those who are legally permitted to live within a country, be they native-born, naturalized, or resident or nonresident alien.", that is incorrect. While native-born and naturalized folks may be citizens, resident aliens and non-resident aliens are explicitly NOT citizens. Resident aliens are, in fact, one very good example of legal residents of the US, who are certainly a part of the "people of the United States", yet are not citizens. N2e (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Added Image Gallery

I made an image gallery, but I'm not very good with wikicode, so now the page could use some cleanup. Also, I'd like some better pictures of Edna St Vincent Millay, Sidney Poitier, Michael Jackson, and Allen Ginsberg, but I don't have the time to dig out some copy-write free pictures of them. Ginsberg looks alright, but I'd like something that show's Millay's face. I also wanted to include Bob Hope and Oprah Winfrey, but there were no decent shots of them. I think the current lineup is good, and any more people will just make the page look a mess.

The purpose of this image gallery is to give a more indepth look at specific Americans. All of them are famous, yet some obscure to many people. Hopefully this will cause people to look them up and learn about them. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice idea but we can't use stuff like this. --John (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like what? I'm providing references. If there is a specific section of NOR to which you refer, please link to it. You did not make mention of any of the points I made on your talk page. Do you have a problem with one or more of the people in the gallery? The gallery picture at the top of the page is unsourced, so your problem should not be due to lack of sourcing, unless you want to get rid of that too. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to include a picture of all 300 million US people? Clearly not, so this will be a sample. Is it a representative sample? If it is, who says it is? You? That's where original research comes in. I don't like the picture at the top of the page either for similar reasons but could let it slide. The gallery is too much. Please remove it so I don't have to. --John (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:IG doesn't seem so ridged as to make it impossible to include a gallery here. How about discussing the issue?

For example, your point about sampling is moot. It is still a sample. Just as a gallery of humming birds need not include every genus of humming birds known to man, this gallery need not include every notable American; who is to say the gallery of humming birds is acceptable under NOR standards? Really, with your logic, Wikipedia could include no galleries unless there were sources directly stating what people, creatures, or things were acceptable samplings for a gallery. This would make galleries non-existent, making the WP:IG you quoted unnecessary; so that obviously isn't the intention of that WP standard. If you think there should be a WP:NOR about galleries, I suggest you make such a rule before enforcing it. Besides, the images were already in Commons and were not added for the purpose of being in a gallery, so no skin off anyone's back.

The exception of notable Americans can be rationalized in that the gallery is only a sampling. The sampling is not my personal "ideal" picture of an American, if I had one. I didn't even know Edna Millay was American, or Allen Ginsburg. I couldn't care less about Justin Timberlake. I don't know very much at all about Natale Wood or Paul Berg. I think the picture of Michael Jackson looks stupid.

I think the gallery looks good, I think it makes the article look less like a stub, and people might actually learn something about the people featured therein if they venture to click the links. It would look good on a print-up if the page were arranged a little better. I see this as a matter of personal taste. Many articles have galleries of famous people from ethnic or national or regional groups. Why not this little stub, too? And the gallery has an actual purpose, because the concept of the article is rather ambiguous and its exact meaning can be confused; it displays some examples of famous people born in the United States. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This kind of list tends to attract unnecessary contention unless objective inclusion criteria can be established. Pulling Americans from popular lists such as The Greatest American, [3], Time 100/Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century could help. There's already a small gallery at the top of the page, and you see how that changed just within the past month: previous, current. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A comment made by John made me think that either gallery should have a famous Native American, like Geronimo or Crazy Horse. However, such lists of "greatest Americans" usually exclude those who are no longer extremely popular, but who shaped American history in some way. For that reason, I suggest we use the top gallery for very famous Americans like Abraham Lincoln, Michael Jackson, Martin Luther King, Benjamin Franklin, etc. And save that bottom Gallery for people like Allen Ginsberg, Frank Lloyd Wright, George Rogers Clark; very notable, famous Americans, who are 'obscure' enough to some people that their individual articles would be nice links for additional reading. I would further suggest that we compile who should go on either list, making it permanent, and that their change be suggested by talk page. Because the top picture gallery is changed far too frequently. Note the changes to Wikipedia Articles simply for difference in stylistic change is discouraged, and that their changes might be arbitrary. If the top bar only including only the most famous Americans, there would be no room for argument, really. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Or just not have one. As a serious encyclopedia we deal in information, not random picture galleries. --John (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain your opinions? Why do you think a 'serious encyclopedia' should not have galleries like this? If you don't really have an opinion, and would rather just go with current Wikipedia standards, then say that, please. The question is, does this gallery really defy the current policy? Are the featured pictures really random pictures of the subject? For example, the model gallery of 18th century fashion: There were other examples that could have been used in that gallery, does the "random" selection of sample material make that gallery defy Wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronMaidenRocks (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can exlain my opinions. I already explained why we shouldn't have galleries like this. Yes, I think it is against policy. I don't know which other article you think also breaks policy, but that shouldn't be an argument for unhelpful content on this one. --John (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An example of a page that uses a gallery of "random photos" is [[4]]. If you this is irreconcilable to wikipedia standards, then remove it. If you think it can be reconciled, let it be improved. But don't just remove it because "why let it be reconciled?" --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I may well do. But it doesn't have any bearing on this article. --John (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Top Gallery

I removed the top gallery, because the current one had pictures of people who were not even American citizens. If you want a top gallery, think about your choices. Also, the picture itself is in terms of what People Magazine believes are notable Americans. I think Benjamin Franklin is a bit more notable than Serena Williams. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I really think Benjamin Franklin needs to be added; being one of the most notable Americans. Having both Franklin and Elenore Roosevelt seems redundant. Also, one of the World War II generals like Paton would seem more fitting than Eisenhower. There are already enough presidents in the gallery. --24.14.134.193 (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Asian Americans

As being over 5% of the population why are there no Asian Americans in the image gallery? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Article name/title

Shouldnt this article be called Americans or American people??....this is not just the most common term used to describe citizens of the United States but it is the only term used in the english language...as this is the english language wikipedia then this would not have any confusion as soe other lagnuages do refer to Americans as being from the whole American continant, but this isnbt the case as we dont call Brazilian people, Argentine people or Colombian people Americans. Even the article uses the term all the time as Americans....not to mention American culture, American cinema or American Idol are just examples as to how Americans themselves are called. I really think this should be changed to get the article looking as good as some of the other people artilces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armenia81 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. The name was done apparently to be politically correct, but Wikipedia has standards against using PC language. The article name implies that Mexican non-citizen immigrants (especially illegal ones) are Americans, without specifically stating it. I agree that they are Americans, but its not a good idea to bypass that arguement by using a PC name. --24.14.134.193 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd support as well, generally because of WP:COMMONNAME. There was a previous, albeit failed proposal on renaming some time ago. Elvis is not a "man of the United States" or something like that, as the current title implies, but an American. Twilightchill t 14:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support it. Specifically a form such as American people (U.S.). (BTW, it used to be titled "American people of the United States".) SamEV (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the basic concerns here is difficulty in using a singular name other than American. WP:COMMON says that "the term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources uses American(s) rather than other forms (cf. Americans vs. people of the United States in US Census data for example). The official documents also appear to use "Americans": Healthy Americans Act, Older Americans Act. There are also Hall of Fame for Great Americans, Great Americans series, New Americans Museum and lots of "Americans for". Twilightchill t 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Americans" refers to People of the United States

I redirected this to People of the United States as that is the term most commonly applied to them, but am I going to get flak from South Americans? or Central Americans? Is it arrogant to associate "American" with strictly People of the United States? (I'm Canadian btw) -- œ^™ 21:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this makes the most sense. People who type in "Americans" are probably looking for an article on US citizens (as I just did). There is definitely a distinction between a search for "American" and one for "Americans". DMac (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But if I said "I am American", what would you understand? If I were from Mexico, what should I say?

I think that the different meanings (a person from America - a person from U.S.A.) should not be differenciated only through a singular vs. plural because then we could still have language problems. I think U.S. citizens should find another word tho call themselves, because Argentina is in America and Canada and Mexico are in North America. I think that definitely America is not U.S.A. and therefore neither American nor North American should mean "U.S. citizen".

I don't know if I express myself correctly, because I'm spanish and don't dominate this language. Please tell me if what I write is not understandable.

Tacirupeca jarro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

The United States of America is also in North America, therefor they are Americans by your own definition. Why don't you Spanish find another word to call yourselves? You wish to ban the word American for everybody. You will still be Spanish, the Mexicans Mexican, etc.etc. Why should just one country be forced to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.23.54 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (first non-archived request on page)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

People of the United States → Americans — Per Talk:People of the United States#Article name.2Ftitle.--Twilightchill t 13:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Americans should redirect to American as a {{R from plural}}. 184.144.170.159 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment the 2008 move request is at Talk:People of the United States of America. Seems like there's been a very confused contribution history here... 184.144.170.159 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: How's that for confusing? Agree with the IP, that Americans should redirect to the singular American disambiguation page, and in fact did do until a couple of months ago. Nightw 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that other uses should be in Americans (disambiguation). Twilightchill t 15:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I prefer the original title. especially since American could technically refer to North, South or Central America's (or all three) people. --Kumioko (talk)
• Support as primary meaning in English. We are not here to reform the language, but to communicate in it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and reliable lexicons will show that useage is divided. Not to mention that there would be a NPOV issue. Nightw 07:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable observation of the real world will show that while usage is divided, it is divided in a way that leans very strongly to one side. In this situation, Wikipedia acknowledges the primary topic. There is no NPOV issue - we're not saying it's good or bad to be an American.--Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose To those of us in Europe, Canadians, Panamanians, Brazilians, Chileans etc are all Americans too. In other words, anyone from America, which does not equate to the United States. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In the parts of Europe I've frequented, we virtually never call someone an American unless we have the USA in mind. This is more a technically possible usage than one that actually occurs. --Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, like Poles, Germans etc. Even if "Americans" could technically have other meanings, this is surely the primary one. (originally written in the section above on 21 January)--Kotniski (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- WP uses "United States" for categories concerning USA and its people. "Americans" refers to all the people of north and south America. This is longstanding convention and should not be changed on a whim. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not: Irish Americans, German Americans, Japanese Americans etc. Even if there are some conventions, WP shouldn't seclude itself from reality: is there a reference to a single US person which is more common than American (or at least as common as American)? Twilightchill t 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Im the person who suggested the name change. Ok, To those in Europe??. we dont call people from the USA Americans?..so you call them the loooong form do you?. like this title....what the hell do you call them then and im from England too..funny how 2 of the people agaisnt the name change are from England...the most PC place on the planet...funny how you never came up with an alternative answer?...infact on the main United states article, what does the Demonym say???...thats right "American". Ive never called a Brazilian or a Canadian (shall we change these articles names too?, no) an American in my life. Ohh and to the other person who didnt support it...its funny how you have a banner about the American civil war on your page..(was that the whole of the Americas?) do we really need more examples of how the US is called 99% of the time. Last but not least - What is the American dream to you??...Armenia81 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current name has the virtue of being clear and unambiguous. Proposed name does not. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Exactly what Orlady said. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Race and Ethnicity Section

Presently there are only two major groups included in the article as of this posting; however, other significant groups are presently missing, including (but not limited to) Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. Is there a good reason for this? If there is not, should subsections be created for these groups (and possibly others), and if so what threshold should be required for the size of population for a ethnic group be included in this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no reason for this, and quite frankly, offensive to Americans of non-European/African ancestry. Someone needs to expand this. JamesJiansen (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Now there are three major groups, however, the largest minority group is missing. Made me wonder if there was some jerk just erasing any mention of Hispanics at all in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.156.105 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Beginning of August, and still no sign of Hispanics anywhere within the United States or the American diaspora. It's like they've vanished from the face of the Earth...at least, that is, if Wikipedia is your only exposure to the outside world. Ho-hum. --SchutteGod (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens when the "largest minority" is a collection of races, religions and ethnicities bound together by the shaky bond of "we lived in a Spanish speaking country once". Also 1/4 Hispanics are illegal, so stop whining.76.78.246.49 (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is sort of a compbination of topics covers above

but I would like to propose, in the gallery, replacing Michael Jackson with Lefty Gomez. There are 4 blacks in the gallery, to represent 12% of the population. There is only one Hispanic person, while that group is 16% of America's . . . I mean the United States' population. Plus there are many entertainers in the gallery and no sports figures. Gomez in a baseball Hall of Famer as well as being Hispanic. Not well known? well most Americans are not well known, I see that as no problem. However being new to this article I am reluctant to make changes without mentioning them here first. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more Hispanic and/or sporting Americans, but as far as i can see there is only one picture of Lefty Gomez on Wikimedia which is a baseball card, which I think isn't ideal. So just put some ideas out therefore for discussion:
1. Replace Madonna with Hispanic singer like Jennifer Lopez.
2. Revert to a previous picture of Serena Williams instead of Edna St. Vincent Millay or Georgia O'Keeffe since the arts are already very well represented.
3. Replace Jackson or Edgar Allen Poe with Roberto Clemente or Oscar de la Hoya for same reason as above. (07hheath (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Removed edit (please include Michael Jackson, his photo and mention of the Jacksons, being American and African-Americans, as it is relevant.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Jackson_1984.jpg Pop music legend Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five made up of his brothers, and his sister Janet Jackson are African-Americans widely known in the world. 71.102.1.101 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in People of the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of People of the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "b02001":

• From Race and ethnicity in the United States: "B02001. RACE - Universe: TOTAL POPULATION". 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2010-02-28.
• From White American: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Retrieved 2009-11-07
• From Multiracial: "B02001. RACE – Universe: TOTAL POPULATION". 2006 American Community Survey. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-01-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (second non-archived request on page)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move page to Americans. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

People of the United States → Americans — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC) This is the English-language Wikipedia, so we should be following English conventions. In English, the term "Americans" does not refer to denizens of South America, Central America, or the rest of North America. The term "Americans" refers to denizens of the United States. We need to be consistent. The article for Irish Americans, for example, isn't called "People of the United States of Irish descent." It's called "Irish Americans." "Americans" is also the most common term for the subject of this article. The term "Americans" is not ambiguous in the English language. Macarion (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Like it or not (and it's clear some people don't), "Americans" when used in English (and this is English Wikipedia) almost exclusively refers to people from the United States, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely correct, but when we can avoid ambiguity, however slight, shouldn't we try? Powers ^T 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There is something as simple overkill. Flamarande (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which negates disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The country is called the the United States of America and nearly everybody uses the name 'Americans' for its inhabitants. The Presidents of the USA often start their speeches with: "My fellow Americans...". Flamarande (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Americans is the plural form of American, and article titles are supposed to be singular. American is a disambiguation page, and so should be. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • How would you feel about changing it to "American people"? Macarion (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:SINGULAR does not apply to peoples. Cf. Mongols, Russians, Germans, or any other peoples, e.g. Azerbaijani people, not Azerbaijani person. —  AjaxSmack  18:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
      • So... you'd be in favor of it? Macarion (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
        • No, I just thought 65.93.12.101's argument was lame. The current title is already a plural. —  AjaxSmack  05:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh, ok. Thanks. Macarion (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Seeing as this article is referring to the "People of the United States" and that people from the US are indeed called Americans (not United Stateans lol), then "Americans" would be correct. There is already articles for Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders so "Americans" should join in. However, British and Irish have "people" added to there titles but I guess thats cause a singular person from either country (British or Irish) is the same as being plural. AnimatedZebra (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Years ago a team of Canadian journalists travelled across Canada to determine what Canadians in different areas had in common. When it was over it turned out that there was only one thing all Canadians could agree on. "We are not Americans." Carptrash (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current name has the virtue of being clear and unambiguous. Proposed name does not. (I seem to have said this same thing just 3 months ago.) --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • First of all, there are loads of articles on Wikipedia with ambiguous names, hence the "not to be confused with..." things at the top of many pages, but we keep those names because they're the correct ones. Secondly, the term "Americans" is not ambiguous in English. Period. Macarion (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Support - This to me in the English language isnt ambiguous at all. To the "Americans" here, eeer sorry (People of the United States i meant to say) that are opposed to this change, what do you call youself?. If i were writing a book about the population of the United States, id title it Americans or American people, like many books have been..Just do a search in google books or somewhee else to find out.

In "every" single article here on wiki, they are described as - examples from their articles:Barack Hussein Obama II. He is the first "African American" to hold the office. Michael Joseph Jackson was an "American" recording artist. Marilyn Monroe born Norma Jeane Mortenson, was an "American" actress. James Byron Dean was an "American" film actor. Benjamin Franklin earned the title of "the first American". If the term or title is so ambiguous, then we need to change alot of articles in wikipedia .Better get going then. The Demonym uses this term in the United States main article, no other. American Airlines isnt Ambiguous either.Lampoonsvacation (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. Even in this article, the subject is referred to with the word "Americans," and the meaning is completely clear. Macarion (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support: In Spanish, "Americanos" refers to people of the two continents. This isn't Spanish Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME Ng.j (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are several reasons I oppose this rename and I will try and add them if Wikipedia will quite crashing for more than a couple minutes. --Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. I think we need to have a standard naming for these Citizen articles and most already fall under the Heading of People of XXX.
    2. It makes it easier to find if we have People of Article for a given country if they are so named. We can use the Special page/prefix to determine what People of articles we have and if we rename them to be country specific (American, Canadian, etc) then we lose that.
    3. There are several subgroups/civilizations of Native Americans within the borders of the United States that have rights as "Nations" and some do not consider themselves "Americans".
    4. There are millions of Illigal immigrants who are not truly "Americans" but would fit into the more generic term of People of the United States. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • 1. Most already all under the heading of "people of ____"? Sorry, but I can't find any like that, except this article. Also, how would you feel about changing the title to "American people"?
      2. Again, please show me these articles you're referring to.
      3. So?
      4. There are illegal immigrants in nearly every country, probably. I don't see your point. Macarion (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• So, it's been 7 days, and I think consensus has been reached. Can someone close the discussion so the article can be moved? Macarion (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Kumioko Chaosdruid (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. Should also redirect the singular form so that everytime we wikilink "an American [insert occupation here]", it will redirect to this page. If there's any confusion/problem, mention that in the lead of the article, that it's the most commonly used term. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - it's common, it's unambiguous (except to those who are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative), and it's customary. Overdue, too. Quigley (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, Rai•me 03:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - see America's demonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.100.189 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, and now look at America's demonym. Macarion (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • 1. The country is called the United States, not America, there's no country in the world officially called "America".
      2. As you can see... the word "American" is ambiguous in English, it can mean someone or something from America, or someone or something from the United States. But the last meaning isn't reflected for example in the United States Passport. In a Canada Passport or Australia Passport... the nationality is: Canadian or Australian, very clear, but in the case of the United States there's no "American" but United States of America or USA. Why?, can you explain me that?.--190.233.34.227 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, very common usage, the only common meaning in English, so primary topic; clear, natural, concise, recognizable... What more could you wish of a title?--Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

American expatriates in Costa Rica

According to official data from the most recent Census (2000), there were 7,927 American immigrants living in the country. The might be some variables, such as Costaricans who are dual citizens which might not be counted as Americans in the census. The next census will take place in mid 2011. There are more American immigrants established in Costa Rica, but it is highly unlikely that the number comes even close 40,000 as stated in the article. Maybe around 10,000 is a much more plausible number. We'll just have to wait until the data from the 2011 census gets published.

The article used as the source for the 40,000 is not by any means an official source, rather a poorly researched travel guide. The article does not state a source for the number either, so it is pretty much made up data.

The references are messy by the way. The link to the source is not beside the data from Costa Rica but beside the data from Japan in the table.

This is the link to INEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos), which is the government institution in charge of the census and other statistical information in Costa Rica:

[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.169.96 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Gloria Estefan

Why is her picture included? She was born in Havana, Cuba. All the others in the picture were born in the United States. If she "counts" as American because she is Cuban-American, than why on the Cuba talk page do they discuss removing Cameron Diaz because she is Cuban-American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudcolors (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

she's included because as a citizen of the united states of america she is an americanLitvin2011 (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be more factual to have people who where born American citizens. Let's not push ethnic favoritism here. A founding father or two, a couple politicians and such. Maybe even a celebrity like Elvis or Michael Jackson. Come on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.244.88 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Since most Americans are descended from immigrants, there's nothing wrong with showing some first generation Americans here. - BilCat (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

All Americans are descended from Immigrants. American born would be the preferred list when showing pictures of Famous Americans. Get it together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.246.143 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

American people

Now that this page has been moved to "Americans," shouldn't American people redirect here rather than go to a dab page? It is confusing to have the two phrases with an identical meaning go to two separate places. If consensus has determined that People of the United States is the primary topic of "Americans," then logically it should also be the primary topic of American people. Cheers, Rai•me 23:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Any article in regards to the United States where the terms "American", "America" and so forth are used becomes a edit war between Latin American leftists and Americans who like to placate the sensibilities of them for the sake of political correctness. America is the USA in English. American is what English speakers use to refer to people from the USA or what we call it "America"....

Now, should we go start this kind of crap on the Spanish Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.247.161 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Henry ford

Was of English descent his father was born in Ireland but their ancestors were from England109.154.3.225 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Americans2-3.PNG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Americans2-3.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 7 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Americans

Why do you call yourself "americans" since America is a whole continent including more countries? That's a bit racist. 201.207.106.214 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

One way or another, what does race have to do with it? Carptrash (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the English colonists who founded this country were horridly unoriginal and could not conjure a more unique styling for their continental possessions than "American colonies"? Because Hamilton had secret designs on overtaking the entire American continent (both north and south) and so convinced the Framers to use the generic name "America" rather than other preferred names such as "Columbia," "Nova Britannia," or "Fuck You George III"? Because of a secret conspiracy (spearheaded by - who else? - the Freemasons) to confound and confuse would-be foreign invaders, who upon hearing the command "Set sail for America!" would not know whether to attack the country, the continent, the asteroid or the actress? ... Actually, do you have any pertinent comments toward the improvement of this article you'd like to make, or was it your desire just to dabble in pointless semantics? --SchutteGod (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the name of the country is the United States of America and USAians, Staters, or Unitedians is unwieldy and stupid. And technically "America" is two continents... if I'm referring generically to inhabitants of North America then using North Americans is never misunderstood, and the same goes for South Americans. And NOBODY outside of the USA has any desire at all to identify as generically American. It would be like identifying yourself as Eurasian. I have to ask why it is, as a relatively new Wikipedia editor, that nearly every article about the USA itself is like a giant magnet for silliness? -- Alyas Grey : talk 20:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Citizens of the US don't merely "call ourselves Americans." It's what the rest of the English speaking world has called us since 1776, when the USA became the first nation in the New World to gain independence from its European overlords. It's not a recent practice as such. Get over it. - BilCat (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What really is an American

I join to the discussion. Indeed, the tittle American to this article has nothing of racist but indeed it is excluding the rest of America. I am agree with your right explanation about the colonization and the title of "America colonies", and also when you argue about the lack of self identification of the first inhabitants or the failing in the proposed names as "Columbia" or others. The adoption of the name of "american" on wikipedia for citizens of United States is not well justified. I think your argument in which you appoint that "Citizens of the US don't merely call themselves Americans, and this is due because the rest of english speaking called you so, is not well justified, as United States citizens has also other "nicknames" that are also nor correct and you have not adopted neither. I think this is not excuse for calling in a mistaken way what is not right, and for stop calling things with names that really means the true.

What do you think a German would feel if in the definition of "European" on Wikipedia it states that European are citizens of France? Well the case is the same for citizens of other countries in America.

I think the task of Wikipedia is to give real information and not just a compilation of what of the most people believe.

The content of the article in my opinion is well described when the goal is to give a definition of a U.S. citizen, however, the title needs urgently to be changed to something with a real and true meaning, otherwise, it is misinforming the new generations of US citizens, Americans and the rest of the world.

(DMora (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

This issus has been discussed to death here already, so there is nothing to be gained by regurgitating the same arguments again. If you'd like to propose that the page be moved, you are welcome to do so, though it is not likely to succeed in gaining a consensus here, as shown in the previous move discussions above. As to WP's puprposes, those are well defined, and the threshhold is "verifiablility", not one person's biased definition of "truth". - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

American population in People's Republic of China

I wonder why there is not an infobox entry for People's Republic of China. There is an entry for Hong Kong, however it is a region of People's Republic of China. We should have an entry for People's Republic of China instead of Honk Kong. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Although Hong Kong, was handed over to the PRC in 1997, as a Special Administrative Region, and given its historic separation, it would make sense to keep the entry separate. If there is reliably sourced content out there, be bold and add it. Also add those Americans in the Republic of China and Macao as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pocahontas

Why is Pocahontas included in the infobox as an American citizen? I understand that she is connected with early British colonials in America that this doesn't qualify her as an "Citizen of the USA".--Rafy talk 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"United Statesian"

User:Becarlet, a user with only one other questionable edit, has been adding "United Statesian" to this page. As far as I know, the term is basically a neologism with no common usae in English. Is there a previous consesnus somewhere that this doesn't need to be in the lead title line? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, but if there are reliable sources that support it's mainstream usage any consensus would be trumped by VER & RS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And the Mexican people?

The first words of the article are: "Americans, or American people, are the citizens of the United States." No, no, no! How can it be? US people are using the term American as "US citizen" since years, but their country is not called America. America is a contintent, and it includes so much countries like Mexico, Canada, Argentina... They call this The Americas because of their calling America as the country U.S.A. and American as US citizen... But they shouldn't. A Mexican person, or a Canadian or an Argentinian, etc. is also American.

They should use another demonym, because their country is not America. It's quite imperialist... this land is not only theirs!! For example, in spanish, as U.S.A. is Estados Unidos, the demonym is estadounidense.

A bad consequence of the english use of the term American is that in Spain we say, in the TV and in current life, americano as estadounidense, but a Mexican person is in spanish also American (Because America is only the continent). What a contradiction! Then we can have problems: "-He's American. -From the Midwest? -Midwest? No, he's from Cuba!" (for example)

AMERICA IS NOT U.S.A.!!

--Tacirupeca jarro (talk)

This isn't the Spanish Wikipedia. Common meaning in English is U.S. national/citizen. The English Wikipedia does not follow a Spanish-speaking point-of-view. Now who's being imperialist? What right does a Spaniard have to dictate what someone, somewhere else can call themselves? About the same right as I have to dictate the demonym that you can call yourself.

P.S. it's referred to as the Americas because in the English-speaking world, it is usually divided into two continents, not one.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not seen that I expose how is in spanish showing this as an example. You shouldn't call me imperialist only because you have misunderstood me. It's not my fault if you have not understood my words.

Now, if I am Spanish (or if I were Portuguese or French, etc.) and I say I'm European, what should a Canadian person say? American?? This is confusing. This is what I'm trying to say.

And, I repeate, America is not USA.

Tacirupeca jarro (talk)

Edit-PS: Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_%28word%29#Other_languages. Oh, it's English Wikipedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacirupeca jarro (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish, WP:COMMONNAME applies here. I called you imperialist because you're Spanish - not Mexican, Not Colombian, Not Argentine, not from the region in question, yet you are dictating what people here call themselves (it would be like me dictating demonyms on the Greek or Macedonia Wikipedia about the Macedonia name dispute - I have no real connection to the region, nor any authority to speak of, so it would make no sense). I would at least understand why you would be posting this in the first place if you were actually from Latin America (read: Spanish & Portugese-speaking countries in North and South America).

Going by continents, a Canadian would be a North American, as would be American/US citizen, a Mexican, etc. Likewise, a Colombian, Ecuadorian, Chilean, Argentine, etc would be a South American.

What's your point? It also says that "American" or cognates are used in several other languages to refer to People of the US generally (German, French, Italian). Like the mention of French, German and Italian standards, Spanish is only included for a frame of reference. I fail to see how that dictates that all English speakers conform to the views of you and of the Spanish-speakers. Call us what you want in Spanish (Estatounidese or whatever I guess)and apply "American" to whatever you want in Spanish, but in English, "American" generally means U.S. citizen/national. Accept it and move on. Ever hear of "live and let live"? (I'm sure there's some Spanish equivalent as well, but I don't know Spanish-langauge sayings, and my Spanish is terrible/non-existant anyway).--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're right saying I'm imperialist. Not for what you say.

1. I'M NOT DICTATING ANYTHING. Maybe you should read with a bit better intention, or with another point of view.

2. Can't I express my opinion or my doubts when they are about lands where I do not live unless I am an imperialist person? Absurd! You have no reason, since I have to use the therm American, and I hear it, and I wanna find the correct one that brings no confusion to me or other people. Need I to live in America (what you call Americas) to talk about it? Here in Spain we talk about USA, Mexico, Canada, North America, America, and more other countries. I thought we could... but now I understand that we are imperialist. It's difficult -I would say impossible- to understand your point of view. And see that I'm not talking only about Latin America. I talk also about Canada.

3. There isn't a unique model of continents. You can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number_of_continents or, maybe with the help of a translator like Google Translate, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continente#Modelos_continentales (Wikipedia in Spanish, this article is more complete and can give you more useful information about all this). Probably you will say me that Spanish Wikipedia is not valid in this discussion and blah blah blah, but before that I say to you that knowledge have no language.

These articles say that there are several models of the continent division of Earth. Mine (six continents - The Americas are combined in America) is the traditional one and is taught in Latin America, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and maybe more countries of Europe.

4. I know in English the term American is used to design an US citizen. And maybe it has extended to other languages like French or German and that's why they use it likewise (or maybe not). But that's what's happening in Spain and I find here a problem, in Spanish language. But we don't need to talk about it here, because, as you say, this is about the English language, not Spanish.

5. My point is that I find a bit contradictory the simultaneous use, in English, of North America, South America and American. If you say I'm American one should understand, in most of times, that he/she is from USA. But when you say I'm North American the same person would understand that the speaker can be from USA, Canada, Mexico or Costa Rica or...

I think that, linguistically, North America means northern America, that is, the part of a land called America which is in the north, and respectively of South America. But then you go to the meaning of America and you find that, in common English use, it means USA, a country in North America, then a region in America. That's the contradiction I find.

And I said that this seemed to me a bit imperialist because it looks like the people of a part of a land are calling the whole territory as their country. I find that it's not fair to the other citizens in America or The Americas, as you say: not only Latin America, also Canada. Because FOR EXAMPLE -and I don't see imperialism here- the Latin Americans call themselves American and in USA -in English use in general- the therm is only for they. Besides the fairness of this use, I find mainly the linguistic problem, as I have said before.

6. And yes, indeed, there is a spanish version of live and let live: Vive y deja vivir. (Or Hakuna Matata as some animals say...)

Tacirupeca jarro (talk)

Yes, it does appear contradictory that "America" (USA) is part of "North America", not the other way around. But then, English has many contradictory terms: A "fat chance" and a "thin chance" are basically the same thing, but a "fat man" and a "thin man" are not. A "wise man" and a "smart man" are similar, but not a "wise guy" and a "smart guy". One drives on a parkway and parks on a driveway. I could go on and on and on and on and.... To be really picky, a "Northern American" and a "North American" are basically the same thing, but a "Southern American" (from the southern/southeast USA) and a "South American" (from South America) are not! - BilCat (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Chinese people call Americans "Meiguo-ren" which means "people of the beautiful country" which is obviously sucking up, but it is also because to them A-MEI-rican and Mei, which means beautiful in Chinese, sound similar enough to make sense to them. So 1.4 billion Chinese call us the Chinese language equivalent of "American". They do not call Mexico "Meiguo", or "Meiguoren". Further, India probably uses British standards of teaching so India would see the Americas as two continents. So that's another 1.3 billion. You say "latin america and a few little european countries" well I say most of Asia recognizes our point of view, and Asia dwarfs Belgium, Spain, Greece and Latin America in terms of population. Also North America and South America are on different continental plates, and are connected by the little isthumus of Panama. Your six continent model makes no sense, because a giant chunk of Russia connects Europe to Asia- shouldn't you be not a continent, but Northwest Asia then? I'm going to call Europe "northwest Asia" until all Europeans recognize the foolishness of calling two landmasses connected by a region smaller than the sinai peninsula a single continent.

Also this is the English wikipedia, no one cares about your ugly language's stupid ideas of geography. P.S. Catalan is far superior and far more beautiful than Spanish and I support independence for Catalonia. Down with the Castillian imperialists and their ugly language. 71.241.250.239 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll only answer to your questions about the models of continents. I won't talk about your foolish comments. You must know that I have not invented this division. Also, I must remark that the division criterion of that 6-continent model is not geographic (this fact is obvious, but I'll have to explain).

If you want a division by tectonic plates, Earth would be parted in 15 different regions, and America/the Americas would have 3 different continents since there are 3 tectonic plates, not 2. If you want to considerate only the big plates, then you have the geological 6-continents model.

If you prefer to considerate that an isthmus does not divide two continents, then you would have the 4-continent model: America, Antarctica, Afro-Eurasia and Australia (unlike your Eurasia, it would be Afro-Eurasia).

In the third place, the model I have explained is the traditional 6-continent one, and this has no geological criterion. The criterion is historical. There are many criterions and thus many models of the continent division of Earth. So, finally, what really has no sense is that you have told me that my model has no sense.

Tacirupeca jarro (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "America" has several meanings, one of which refers to a country, the United States of America. In English, that is the primary usage of the term. The fact that the word has other meanings and connotations doesn't make the common usage any less common, nor does it make it incorrect or unfair to use it to refer to the country instead of one of its other meanings. It does make it confusing at times, but that's just the way it is. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is why there is a disambiguate page for American. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note on Hat note

To the IP user(s) who keeps removing the "(disambiguation)" from the hatnote, per WP:How to link to a disambiguation page:

"To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". ...This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. ...There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader." (Emphasis mine.) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Table is Eurocentric

The European ancestries table is by nature biased as Europeans are not the only immigrants to the USA. It includes Swiss for example (under a million). The whole thing is not relevant if you do not show a comprehensive table. As an example the article Cuban American shows 1,785,547. Not to mention way more Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans (mentioned in a separate table), etc. Lest we forget there are also way more Native Americans. We should have a comprehensive table or none at all. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that the European ancestries table is in the "White and European Americans" section, and that there are tables in the "Black and African Americans" and the "Asian Americans" sections also, all three tables should remain. If someone wants to work on a more comprehensive table to include all ethnicities found in the the US, I don't see that as a problem. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to create disambiguation of Americans to "U.S. citizens"

The tittle of this article is still in debate as the Americans is just the plural of American, not only referring to United State of America, but other countries in the Americas. The justification that the title "Americans" in English Wikipedia (and this is English Wikipedia, not US. Wikipedia) is meant to refer only to the citizens of United States is not well justified, telling that in English this is the form of meaning the citizens of United States. There are other countries in America which speaks high important percentages of English (as a second language) that are self-identified on being American and makes use in English of that definition. In example, there are cases, in any part of the world, where people is asked in English about being "Americans" and their answer is "Yes, we are from Argentina", which contradicts the meaning proposed with the tittle of this article.

Therefore, I propose to create a disambiguation also for the tittle "Americans". In the same way that it is done to "America", which gives an option to the article "United States of America", the title "Americans" should redirect to an alternative tittle as "US citizens". Therefore, I am opposed to maintain the title of this article as it is right now and I will support to its disambiguation giving the option of "U.S. citizens"

(DMora (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

• Oppose move of page to any other name - The current title follows English WP global guidelines regarding common English usage of names for titles of articles (WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), both in the USA and outside of the USA. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC), BilCat (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - You stated: "The justification that the title "Americans" in English Wikipedia (and this is English Wikipedia, not US. Wikipedia) is meant to refer only to the citizens of United States is not well justified, telling that in English this is the form of meaning the citizens of United States." This is an incorrenct assertion. "American" is most commonly used in English to refer to a citizen of the USA, but it's not the only English language usage, as shown in the article American (word). The reason that this page covers citizens of the USA is becasue that is the most common usage of the term in English, per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose change - standard common usage in English is that Americans are from the United States the term is not used for other countries, you would not in English refer to people from Canada as Americans. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose move, American is the WP:COMMONNAME of those who reside in, and are Citizens of, the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Opposed -- Common usage in English refers to people of the United States, in Commonwealth countries as well as the United States. As this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language conventions apply. Were DMora a native English speaker he might have realized this. --SchutteGod (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is the English Wikipedia, and in English, "Americans" are the people of the United States of America. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. American is the commonly accepted name for a particular group of folks. Ask a Canadian if he or she is an American and see what happens. Also not impressed with the editor making the proposal who seems to have awarded himself (herself?) a barnstar after making two very minor edits. I realize that this is not the issue at stake here, that this proposal gets decided on its own merits. I am just increasingly interested in who the editors are that end up taking a lot of wikienergy with this sort of diversion and that is what I discovered in this case. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I realize that in English Wikipedia the word "Americans" meaning "citizens of United States" might be accepted regarding to the WP:COMMONNAME, specially for English native speakers and in countries in the Commonwealth. This rule might be protecting the use of this word with this meaning, although, universally and by definition is still wrong. English Wikipedia might be use as a tool to give a proper definition or just for repeating what is used by majority, even when it is wrong. However, I close my participation in this debate respecting the opinion of others members and the wise position that the article administrator might take regarding to this definition. DMora (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NON WHITE HISPANICS(SOME OTHER RACE) or HISPANICS SECTION

why is SOME OTHER RACE(non white hispanic)or hispanic section not exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.109.25 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have recently been added under WP:BOLD, although it is verifiable content. That being said, the article only previously had subsections regarding races, and not ethnicities, which Latino/Hispanic Americans are considered. This is why there were also hatnotes referring to White Hispanic and Latino Americans, Black Hispanic and Latino Americans, and Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans. The addition about a multiracial ethnicity in my opinion is not necessary, as it would lead to a breakdown of the previous format.

At this time I am not going to remove it as it is verifiable content, but I will seek the opinion of other editors regarding the change via WP:CANVASS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Black and African Americans

A good faith series of edits, was reverted per WP:BRD; yet, it was re-done, and thus could be seen as becoming very close to violating WP:3RR. Rather than continuing an edit war, I am beginning this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than continuing this discussion on my talk page, in response to a message left for me, I believe it is best to centralize it here. As with that post, the reason for the reversion of the reversion was due to claims by another editor that since certain groups do not self-identify as being African American, that other populations should be represented. The editor who reverted the reversion chose Ghanaian Americans (94,405) and Kenyan Americans (49,157). However, if we look at the source data we can see that if Ethiopians and Somalis are not chosen, then Trinidadian and Tobagonian should be listed as 4th (with 193,233), Cape Verdeans should be listed as 5th (with 95,751), and Ghanaians should be listed as 6th (with 94,405). Moreover the two (1, 2) references provided by the other editor, are not reliable source, as they are self published sources, so to remove Ethiopians, and Somalis, both considered by the United States Census Bureau, to be Black and/or African American, based on two non-reliable sources, would be factually wrong.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In accordance to WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I will notify relevant WikiProjects of this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't really a case of 'factually wrong' - the USCB may have an opinion on the matter, but they don't hold the only one. 'African American' has never been a well-defined social construct (which is what it is) and it certainly isn't Wikipedia's job to decide whether Ethiopian-Americans or Somali-Americans are 'African American'. One common definition of 'African American' requires (some) sub-Saharan-African descent, which rules out Ethiopia and Somalia. If sources differ on this (and I'm sure they do, given the vagueness over what 'African American' really means), we should say so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There's the term "African African American" also used to collectively group all peoples not North African (ie. Arab/Berber) ... -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That term is a WP:NEOLOGISM. The article on it is also earmarked for people with both African and African American parents. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN used it to describe Black African immigrants from Africa in their "Black in America" series, as did people interviewed in the show. -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That usage is a neologism. It almost always refers to African and African American inter-relationships [6]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can we agree that the definition as created by the Office of Management and Budget, and used by the United States Census Bureau, is the one that we can all agree to using for the section we are discussing?

According to OMB, “Black or African American” refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican.*
*Sub-Saharan African entries are classified as Black or African American with the exception of Sudanese and Cape Verdean because of their complex, historical heritage. North African entries are classified as White, as OMB defines White as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I ask this, because the multiple opinions of what the definition of African American are pretty well covered in the terminology section, of the main article about the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with AndyTheGrump. The USCB's opinion is just one view of many. At any rate, as explained here, reasons for the replacement of Ethiopians and Somalis with Kenyans and Ghanaians in the "Black and African Americans" section include a combination of discordant self-identification and ancestry, as well as other competing classifications. The section states that "according to the Office of Management and Budget, the racial category include those who self-identify as African American, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Afro-Caribbeans." However, Ethiopians and Somalis generally do not self-identify racially as such (c.f. [7]). This in turn is due to the distinct genetic history of the Afro-Asiatic communities in the Horn region (e.g. [8], [9]), as well as their differing traditions of descent (c.f. 1, 2). Even fewer regard themselves as African American. The latter population is instead considered a separate community of West African origin, with a very different history, culture, set of experiences and ancestral background. Additionally, Somalis and Djiboutians are part of the Arab World and are classified as Arab Americans by the Arab American Institute (c.f. [10]). This is an altogether separate classificatory designation. Similarly, "“African-ness” is itself contested[...] racial distinctions in Africa are not always so clear-cut[...] MBE programs have struggled, for example, to decide whether Sudanese and Ethiopians qualify as “Black”" (c.f. [11]). I think, therefore, it's best to either replace the Afro-Asiatic Horn populations in this particular section table with unambiguous groups, or to create a new table for Arab Americans that would accommodate most of them and the Sudanese as well. Middayexpress (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In the genre of "ancestry" the Jamaican American and Haitian American communities do believe themselves as being separate from African Americans, however, they do trace their heritage to Africa through an emigration of slavery. It is difficult as this topic is rather sensitive, but I did want to point out that other Americans could potentially ask the same question in time. Also, there are specific "west indies" sections of some census' but not others, is that correct? I'd also like to note that citizenship may play a role in this discussion and should be considered. In which case, the question may revert to "Africans in America with citizenship" are recognized differently when compared to "Africans in America with temporary citizenship or a visa."

Twillisjr (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to consider the situation in the UK. There, some WP:FRINGE edits try to push the WP:OR viewpoint that British Somalis are not black people at all. And yet, in the report about conditions for young Somalis in Britain, the authors described British Somali young people as ‘black and muslim’. And, according to the acclaimed British Somali writer, Nadifa Mohamed, many young Somalis in Britain identify with 'a wider black culture'. And, when interviewed by 'The Ledge.com', Mohamed reiterated the point, declaring herself to be 'a black person'. . Meanwhile, Fryer, P (1984) notes that early 20th-century Somali residents did self-identify as black. Fryer quotes extensively from the 1928 autobiography of Ibrahim Ismaa'il, a Somali seaman and poet, who notes that 'Shortly after our arrival, the black people in Cardiff were attacked by crowds of white people… So we went to the Somali boarding house of Haadzi 'Aali and there we waited, ready for an attack, as we expected that a crowd of white people might break in at any moment'. Commenting on resistance to 'colonialism and racism' in the UK, Adi, H claims that the 'first black member' of the Communist Party of Great Britain was the leader of Cardiff's Somali Youth League "Mohamed Tuallah Mohamed'. However, Sabra Mohammed, speaking to the Guardian in 2012, reported that Somalis were 'attacked', for being black. Aspinall and Mitton identify Somali people in the UK as 'Black African' - firstly, by including them in their study of 'Black African' people in the UK, and secondly by using phrases such as "Somalis Tend to live in household with OTHER Black Africans."[[12] (my emphasis). In the 'moving here' glossary,[13] which, the WP:FRINGE edit erroneously cites, the definition of 'black' is listed thus: "Black British refers broadly to all people of African or Caribbean descent living in Britain." Thus, the general consensus in the UK is that Somalis are black people, from Africa – albeit with a different heritage to West Africans or people from the Caribbean. Hope this helps clarifies some African American page edits.Ackees (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic (and inaccurate in any case [14]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the discussion as off topic at all. It appears that there are differing views within the Ethiopian and Somali populations as to whether they are Arab (which the Census Bureau group with White Americans), or whether they are African. Therefore, the topic of what the diaspora of Somalis in Britain is relevant. and therefore not off topic as other editors would imply.

That being said, the OMB and USCB does define Ethiopian and Somalis as being of African ancestry, and not of Arab ancestry, as per the references used for the article and the data. Although I do not agree with MDE's assertions, I am willing to seek compromise, rather than the Edit War that could have been started by the re-reversion that was not keeping with WP:BRD.

Thus, given the definitions used by the OMB & USCB, can we agree that the six populations that should be included are (based on population):

• Jamaican (986,897)
• Haitian (873,003)
• Nigerian (259,934)

Ethiopian (193,702)

• Trinidadian and Tobagonian (193,233)

Somalian (118,241)

• Cape Verdean (95,751)
• Ghanaian (94,405)

If as a compromise we are striking Ethiopians and Somalis, it would leave Jamaicans, Haitians, Nigerians, Trinidadian and Tobagonians, Cape Verdeans, and Ghanaians, as the six largest African American ancestry ethnicities. Although I understand that the majority of Cape Verdeans are multiracial (black and Portuguese (see 1, 2, 3)) they are still African.

Now if we strike Cape Verdeans, we would have Jamaicans, Haitians, Nigerians, Trinidadian and Tobagonians, Ghanaians, and Barbadian, as Barbadian Americans have a population count of 59,236; this is greater than South African Americans who have a population count of 55,962, and Belizean Americans who have 51,696.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Classifications of Ethiopians and Somalis do vary, including in the US. It was noted, for example, that Somalis and Djiboutians are classified as Arab Americans by the Arab American Institute (c.f. [15]), like other African immigrants from the Nile Valley or Maghreb. Similarly, in the UK, a new "Arab" ethnicity category was recently created specifically to accommodate these communities and others from the Arab world (c.f. [16], [17]). In New Zealand, 'Ethiopian' is included within 'Other African'. However, specific Afro-Asiatic ethnic groups from Ethiopia, like the Amhara and Oromo, are categorized as 'Other Middle Eastern', as they have closer ethnic ties with the Middle East (c.f. [18]). That said, the bolded list sans Cape Verdeans seems adequate; Barbadians are a better fit here. Middayexpress (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As it has been five days, and there have been no other objections, I will make the change to have the list be: Jamaicans, Haitians, Nigerians, Trinidadian and Tobagonians, Ghanaians, and Barbadian, as it did not meet object thus far. If there is future disagreement it can be reverted per WP:BRD, and we can continue discussion. In doing so I will remove the tags associated with this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is stupid

I don't care what spanish speakers think. It's called the Republic of Mexico, so why are they mexicans instead of republicans? Why people of the United States? Why not American people? This is the english wiki. The English wiki should follow the most common usage of the term in the english language. Those on the spanish wiki can have their "gente de los estados unidos" if that makes them happy, but on this wiki it should be American people. Stop being unfairly biased against Americans. 72.205.33.223 (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)An English speaker

THE U.S. IS MULTIETHNIC BUT NOT MULTICULTURAL I am from Spain and from my point of view (I lived for one year in America), the U.S. is VERY HOMOGENEOUS BY CULTURE, VERY HOMEGENEOUS. Much more than any single European or Asian country. Becoming AMERICAN means becoming ANGLO for the rest of the World. That means learning English and becoming part of the Anglo society. The same way as in Argentina it means becoming SPANISH, learning the Spanish language and becoming part of the Hispanic society. In Argentina, like in the U.S., there are millions of immigrants but the country is very homogeneous compared to any European or Asian country. BECOMING "AMERICAN" MEANS BECOMING PART OF THE "ANGLO TRIBE" WHICH CREATED THE UNITED STATE. The same way as thousands of Anglos were kidnaped by Indian nations (Apache, Cheyenne, Navajo, Cherokee) becoming part of those nations when they learnt their language and culture, becoming "American" means becoming part of the "ANGLO TRIBE", and that took place when hundrds of theousands of Indians adopted the "American way of life", English names, religion and language. They have been, like millions of immigrants from all the World, assimilated by the "ANGLO TRIBE". Remember that those Indians tribes (Apache, Cheyenne, Sioux) fought AGAINST AMERICA, they were never "Americans" (the term "America" was devised by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in honor of the Italian explorer "Americo" Vespuzzi, who worked for the Spanish Crown. So there is NOTHING NATIVE in the term "AMERICA")--83.44.105.139 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, living one year in some town in America isn't going to be a very good representation of the country. The country is VERY multicultural. Try coming back and spending a day each in Laredo, Texas; Seattle, Washington; Boston, Massachusetts; Nashville, Tennessee; Miami, Florida; Honolulu, Hawaii; Anchorage, Alaska; San Francisco, California; Detroit, Michigan; and Laramie, Wyoming and tell me it's not multicultural. Outside of a shared language, each of those groups is just as different as most European countries are from each other. You don't even remotely understand the attitudes of the vast majority of Americans either. Becoming an American is not about some generic White Anglo-Saxon ethnicity... you can be an American and throw a quincienera for your kid, worship at temple, listen to an Imam at the Mosque, participate in an African drum circle, discuss the Bhagavad Gita with a Hindu monk, and relax in a Japanese rock garden... and all of this can be done within 20 miles of my house in the deep south. Only the worst sort of bigots and racists look at American as anything more than a term for a participant in our society. -- Alyas Grey : talk 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

America is indeed multicultural but its a bit of a stretch to say that the cities are populated by people who are as 'different as most European countries are from each other'. I dont think most anthropologists and scholars of language would agree with you there. Language is one of the principal components of culture and all American cities do have English as their primary language. The influence of Spanish is increasing in the South, but the vast majority of Americans communicate only in English. One of the primary sources of American culture, Hollywood makes movies almost exclusively in English. The different religious groups you have mentioned are mostly found in the large cities and sometimes is smaller cities/towns. You mentioned Islam and Hinduism in the US, but they make up only 0.8 % and 0.5 % of the total American population. In fact, all non Christian religions together make up barely 4-5 % of the entire American population. So on two major sources of culture: language and religion, America is indeed diverse but not very diverse. And nowhere near as diverse as Europe (different language in every country, about 10 % non Christian) or India (different language and script in almost every state, about 20 % population non Hindu). Thanks. 66.68.108.213 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You have an odd view of culture if you think Hollywood movies are its primary source. People learn their culture from family and the people around them, not from RomComs and Terminator. Different areas of the US have been influenced by different languages, making English not totally similar the whole country over. Americans from different backgrounds and regions don't have one monolithic belief system. Of course, I was raised in any area with people from all over the country (and all over the world), so I'm more exposed to this. Really though, there is very great variety in American culture. 70.90.87.73 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said Hollywood movies are *the* primary source of American culture, I only said they were one of the primary sources. Linguists recognize a few dialects of American English, but comparing this to European or Indian languages (or even Chinese dialects) is not justified. Of course, America is diverse and people have different belief systems. But this is true of almost every country in the world, and does not justify the statement that American cities are as 'different as most European countries are from each other'. Also see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level#List_based_on_Fearon.27s_analysis Thanks. 108.20.245.25 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The official name of Mexico is not "Republic of Mexico", but rather "United Mexican States". Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

English, British, Scottish, Welsh....

Hi I think it's a bit strange that British is in the list of European Ancestries when at the same time you also include English, Scottish .etc Especially when the combined ancestries of all the countries that make up Britain are way larger than the number who are British ancestry. Surely it should either be just British Ancestry or the break down into all the individual countries of the Union. Mishka Shaw (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see this reliable source. Each are listed as different ancestries. So although they maybe all British, if the term is meant to mean anyone from Great Britain, if the self designated ancestry is Scottish, they are and can be classified as such by the Census Bureau.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah I get you, makes sense Mishka Shaw (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, ancestries are listed by the number of people that choose them. So while British could be redundant, some people identify themselves that way. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone whose ancestors are of celtic/welsh/breton, anglo-saxon, norman, scandinavian, dutch/germanic, gaelic origin and had settled on the island of Britain for at least one millenia would qualify as "British".

Therefore it is perfectly normal for the word "British" to be on the list of European Ancestries. After all, no one today can claim "pure" English or Scottish blood lines.

If they settle in other parts of the world (for less than three centuries) where the population is predominantly English speaking (eg. Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, Falkland islands) then they can still classify themselves as "British".

However if they reside outside of Britain for over three centuries, then they have the option to opt out of the British designation (eg. US, Canada). --BrianJ34 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The ancestry demographics are based on what that individual self-identifies as, so if an individual self-identifies with one or more ancestries the USCB documents that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)