Talk:Americans

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)

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 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

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)

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)

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)