Talk:Americans

English, British, Scottish, Welsh....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

We are All Americans

Americans are anyone from North , South, And Central. This article is insulting to the Americans in Central and South America. You have millions of people in Central and South American that can confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMenoRPS (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see archives for a topic that's been discussed before starting a new section. See: Talk:Americans/Archive_1#Americans_2. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

DrMeno's remarks are the real insult. He and people like him want to stamp out the use of the word "American" completely. The people of Central and South America have never intended and WILL NEVER call themselves or each other American. They will continue to be Mexican, Honduran, Brazilian, etc,etc. They have chosen "GRINGO" for citizens of the U.S.A. How can they demand that people of another country must change their nationality while they don't have to do anything?