Talk:Americans

Definition of "Americans"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why there is no picture of Americans?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Einstein was a Jew "Religiously".

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

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

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

Accurate meaning of Americans

I gave Americans an accurate meaning consistent with the 2 sources below but BilCat reverted my edit. [[1]]

• a person born, raised, or living in the U.S. [2]
• of, relating to, or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants [3]

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

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

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

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

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

Top image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I were picking nine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unexplained reversion

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

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

Top image needs to be changed right now

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