Talk:Americans/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Template error

A recent edit added Ghana as well in the infobox, however it does not show up by this error:

"Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ethnic group with unknown parameter "ref41" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ethnic group with unknown parameter "pop41" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ethnic group with unknown parameter "region41" (this message is shown only in preview)."

Someone could decipher what's the catch, as it seems the user added content in an appropriate format? Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC))

The catch is that the limit in that infobox is 40 regions. I've reverted the additions, as there is no current discussion on the infobox's talk page to change the limits. BilCat (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Vague statement in introduction

The introduction of this article says this: "As a result, American culture and law does not equate nationality with race or ethnicity, but with bona fide citizenship and an oath of permanent allegiance." What does "citizenship and an oath of permanent allegiance" suppose to mean? Is it trying to say that a 1-year-old natural born US citizen (child) is required to also make "an oath of permanent allegiance" before he/she is accepted as an American? Or is it trying to say that Samoan Americans are not Americans because they are not US citizens?--Libracarol (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it "Americans" or "the American people"?

Oddly, the title of this Wikipedia page is not a term that is used in modern American discourse. I currently live in Canada, and people who live here call citizens of the country "Canadians." However, I follow a lot of U.S. news and media sources, and people who live in the U.S.A. do not appear to call other citizens "Americans," rather, they are always careful to say "the American people." I actually arrived here at Wikipedia when I was trying to understand why everyone always says "the American people" instead of simply "Americans," but there's no reference to it in this article — it would be nice if this could be explained here, I think, because it seems like there must be a significant reason worth understanding. Mecandes (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Americans" is still extremely common in both public and private discourse. (See This Google news search for an example. Politicians and newsfolks speak oddly anyway, but I seriously doubt that "the American people" is anywhere near as common as "Americans". I almost never use the former term myself, and most other Americans I know don't either, but I live in a region of the US well south of Canada. - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I asked a friend living in Boulder, Colorado, about this; she said, "Initially I wanted to dispute this, but then after I started paying attention I realized it's absolutely true." Try listening to prime time news on CNN or Fox News or MSNBC or anywhere, and you'll almost always hear only the phrase "the American people" used, rarely if ever "Americans." It is interesting as it doesn't seem to be some kind of "politically correct" thing either, because both right-leaning (e.g. Fox News) and left-leaning (e.g. MSNBC) media pundits say it this way. A couple of people suggested it may be a way to make a distinction from immigrants to the country, but I assume that's just conjecture, not documented? Still, I feel like there must be some reason, because linguistically the American people have historically tended to simplify and shorten the English language ("color", "ya'll", removing hyphens from hyphenated words, etc.) rather than unnecessarily lengthen it, eh? Mecandes (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am skeptical this is correct. Looking at Google Ngrams, "Americans" always exceeds "American people" by a fair amount. "The American people" sounds a bit grander than just "Americans" and I suspect speechwriters sometimes use it for that reason. HallamBentham (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is most likely the reason Unbeatable101 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

American?

Why is the term american only used for the united states of america? The americas are continents that cover most of the western hemisphere. American should refer to the people of americas. Why limit it just to the US? Canadians, Mexicans, and South americans are all americans. How do we change the term? If wikipedia wants to be an accurate source of information, then the term american should be changed to include all americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apachewarrior2021 (talk • contribs)

Because English Wikipedia follows normal English language usage. In English, a person from the United States is called an American. In fact, most English-speaking Canadians would emphatically deny that they are Americans. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an activist website, so it's not going to change this until another term for people from the United States becomes common usage in English, as represented in reliable, published sources. BilCat (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The term is a common slang used by many but not accurate. They are many slang terms in the english language. Popularity does not equal accuracy or fact. An encyclopedia should state fact as accurate as possible and not be determined by popular use. Facts are not slang or rumors or opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apachewarrior2021 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see the article American (word). As that article explains, the term American "generally refers to persons or things related to the United States of America; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification." That article includes numerous sources that support that usage, as does the article Americans your edits of which were reverted. While the term may also be used to describe people indigenous to other countries in the Americas, we follow and promote usages supported by cited sources. General Ization ^Talk 04:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if many people in either North or South America who aren't citizens of the US refer to themselves and their compatriots as Americans - they call themselves Mexicans, Brazilians, etc (in their own language of course). @Apachewarrior2021: what reliable English language sources give you the idea they don't? Doug Weller talk 11:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I am talking accurate use of the term based on race and ethnic guidelines. My references are geography and history. People are labeled by their place of origin. Not by census or how they feel or label themselves. Citing sources that use slang instead of science are inaccurate. Their is no country named America so American cannot refer to citizens of a country that does not exist. If wikipedia wants to be viewed as place for factual information, then it should follow scientific guidelines not mass opinions or common usage. Many words that were common use a hundred years ago are no longer used.Apachewarrior2021 (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apachewarrior2021: sorry, you are wasting your time as you are trying to use your logic rather than reliable sources. See WP:VERIFY - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." It's as simple as that. And titles of articles "are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." See WP:Article titles. Your idea of "scientific guidelines" has nothing to do with the way we work, and it seems pretty subjective in any case as it's based on your concept of science, which seems idiosyncratic. Please understand that this is not a WP:FORUM and it's time to drop this. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I am new to wikipedia and didn't understand the rules for editing articles. So, every edit must have a reliable source. I will add a link to a globe or Earth as well as a map or the Americas as a reliable source. Thank you for your help. I do wonder what that if "a reliable English language source" is not factual, then it is a reliable source? I don't think logic and science is subjective. They are the simple ways of defining the world. They are unbiased truths.Apachewarrior2021 (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not to include the flags of respective countries in the nav box?

I did that twice but was reverted. Hey, Americans are to special cititzens for India. If it so, then why not remove each and every flag from the diaspora or the every citizen article? Utkarsh555 (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

They should be removed per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. BilCat (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"People of the United States"

Why does "People of the United States" redirect here instead of a page for the demographics of the USA? Most "People of Foo" pages redirect to a "Demographics of Foo" page. --62.165.249.184 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Why shouldn't People of the United States redirect here? That's the most logical target to me. Most "People of Foo" pages did redirect to "Fooians" type articles until changed by one user in 2020, apparently without prior discussion. Perhaps those pages should be reverted back instead. BilCat (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Puerto Rico in "Regions with Significant Populations"

Puerto Rico is an American territory and all Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, so it should be removed from the "regions with significant populations."

Nothda (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Garuda28 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the hatnote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the hatnote

For a specific analysis of the population of the United States, see Demographics of the United States.

be placed at the very top of the article? Privybst (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No, but there’s no reason it shouldn’t be linked in the lead. The same applies to British people. — HTGS (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. The use of hatnotes is for disambiguation, such as between the country of Turkey and the bird of the same name. That's not the situation here; related topics should either (ideally) be linked via an appropriate term in the article, or (failing that) placed in a "See also" section. They should not be in a hatnote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No ...link in lead....and cut back on current scrolling nightmare hatnotes.Moxy- 03:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Weak No. I wouldn't consider it egregiously wrong but, as noted above, this is more of a closely related topic than one that needs disambiguation. I also note that Demographics of the United States is right at the top of the Overview section after a very brief lead, so I would expect anyone looking for that article to find it pretty readily. (Contra HTGS's suggestion, I think having the link at top of Overview is more elegant and readable/easily found than working an additional text wikilink into the lead would be.) CAVincent (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Having a mass amount of text to scroll through before the article even starts is a deterrent for readers..... that's why we have rules for lead spam of this nature.Moxy- 03:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

On Argentines, the OP added one of those hatnotes today. Apparently these are the only articles where they're doing this either. BilCat (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Privybst Hi. You've gone around on multiple articles including Finns, Icelanders and Swedes removing hatnotes linking to this discussion. I'm not sure you should take this thread as some sort of consensus to go around and change every single article, but rather treat them on individual basis depending on article content. TylerBurden (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• When I removed the similar hatnote from Finns article User:TylerBurden reverted with a comment I think it is useful on this article, since it is otherwise not accessible until the bottom in ″see also″. I think that the common policy should apply to all nation's articles. --Privybst (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you think 4 editors agreeing with you on this article creates some sort of "common policy" I would have to disagree with that, if you can gain consensus to completely eliminate these hatnotes from all articles then by all means, but I don't think you're there yet. Like I said above, it depends on the article. TylerBurden (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  @TylerBurden they are not agree with me, as you can see from above section. I added this hatnote to this and many other articles, see my recent contribution. But there should be a common policy. Privybst (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's ok for not every article to be the same. It could be useful on some, but when there are easily accessible links to the same page early on in the article I don't see a reason for it either. TylerBurden (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Just noting that the OP here has just been blocked as a sockpuppet. TylerBurden (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.