From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Should the infobox include the most recent estimate, or the last full count of the 2010 Census? I see it was boldly changed by Mr.Bob.298, and was not reverted by BilCat. Some articles include both estimate and last accurate count, others only include one. Furthermore, it is not a total population of Americans, just the population of the United States. Let us get consensus on this matter.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I say if its sourced use both "official numbers" ...there is a guideline about this...its a Canadian guideline ...but I think it can apply here. WP:CANPOP helped the Canadian articles have consistency.... perhaps the same kind of advice can be made here for all American articles. -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Moxy. I have gone ahead and done that here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


I'm switching the shepard picture with a picture showing apple pie and baseball items, which are American cultural icons. These better reflect American culture throughout the United States. A shepherd in the Mid-west is unrelatable to the majority of Americans, and I do not believe this even represents American culture as people think of American culture. Apple pie and baseball are inherently American and exemplify American culture in both the culinary and leisurely sense. JosephSpiral (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Image Caption Question[edit]

Any reason why in the racial and ethnic groups section, Dredd Scott, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr. dont show ancestry group like all the other images? MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's due to a lack of information about their ethnicity. JosephSpiral (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps they should be removed as they dont relate to the section without it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a debate, which can be seen in the archives of Talk:African American, about whether the racial group is limited to only those with slave heritage, or to all individuals including more recent immigrants from Africa and those immigrants from the Caribbean with African heritage. The three individuals mentioned by MilborneOne are a compromise to include the latter while including other individuals who would fall into the former.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
OK it just looks wrong as all the other images/individuals are linked to the tables and it looks like a mistake, cant we just add individuals who relate to the groups in the table ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We could. However, there is not, that I am aware of, of a label that is specific to individuals with slave heritage within the African American community which the Census bureau keeps accurate population data on (separate from all other African Americans). We could attempt to extrapulate by subtracting the other detailed populations with the overall African American population to arrive to that number; however that might be seen as OR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

American as a race[edit]

Actually it's inaccurate to say it's not an ethnicity. Not everyone is an immigrant, the mullato and es:mestizo strains are actually native to the Americas unlike all of the immigrant groups such as the so-called Native Americans who are just people that immigrated long enough ago to have diverged as a distinct group but one continuous with the people in northernmost eurasia.

These individuals have no logical ethnicity to identify with other than the nation state of their birth, unlike the post columbian immigrant groups. The lede therefore currently states a plain counterfactual as a flat fact unless there's an intent to assert it as settler society in which case the presence of the vestigial precolumbian nations/reservations could be mentioned. Lycurgus (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also it's a full and complete contradiction in my counterexample, as neither do I accept any other ethnicity, nor did ever choose allegiance to or identification with the settler state, other than the grade school pledge. The redact from a false universal suffices for this. Intend to add a sentence about how it being (currently) the only country with America in its name is a justification for the use of the term. After that will remove the tag and lex order the §§ Lycurgus (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Native Americans do not identify their ethnicity with the United States. They belonged to distinct tribes and other Indian groups lived in countries other than the U.S. As one can see in the map at Indigenous peoples of the Americas#Pre-Columbian era, pre-Columbian Indians paid no attention to the Canadian and U.S. borders. Even today, Indians born in Canada have a legal right of residence in the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Right, that's what "precolumbian nations/reservations" refers to above. The fact that they are also separate or "First" nations in CA is not at issue here. The nationalities and ethnicities distinctions/differences from the prior/current text are themselves distinct, only the Aboriginal Settlers have separate nation status as enclaves so if this isn't clear it will be made so. Lycurgus (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
How does that contradict the view that American is not an ethnicity? Also, whether or not you accept is irrelevant. Current U.S. law, which is accepted internationally, considers all U.S. Indians to be nationals. TFD (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said, it doesn't. They're distinct issues. Lycurgus (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with TFD on this one. I take it Lycurgus wants to make mullatos in the US a fact-based “ethnicity" and place it in the lead without narrative in the body of the article. But there is no sociological or anthropological evidence that mullatos, octroons, etc. have a self-identification in the United States. Those categories are today the remnants of the artificial constructs of the early 1900s white supremacist eugenics doctrines. The case for the purposes of a sourced encyclopedia for the general reader is as the introduction puts it, "most Americans do not equate their nationality with ethnicity”. The few that do are of the fringe “white Christian nation” variety, I suppose. Unless there is further explanation of the tag, the tag should be removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Unclear what exactly you are saying that I want to do, but the attribution of intent in the second sentence is false. The rest is both confused and other stuff, so not commenting on it further. Lycurgus (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Lycurgus: There was no further explanation here and no consensus for your copy edit to the introduction, only opposition by TFD and myself. The other edits related to Native-Americans seemed satisfactory at first glance, try them again separately. You were bold in copyediting the introduction without discussion here, but it turned out to be a rambling personal essay. I think that it has elements which can appropriately be added as a second paragraph in the introduction, but most of it as written is comprehended by the hat note. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to throw in another voice, I believe that reverting to before Lycurgus began his/her series of edits was a good move. In an article such as this change needs to happen very slowly. Carptrash (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Acknowledged. Lycurgus (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)