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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)