This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Let's be honest: Alberto Gonzales should not be in the "top 9" Americans. There could be numerous others, like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey or Michael Phelps that would be much more deserving. The only reason he is there is because he is Mexican/Hispanic American. These racial divisions are fundamentally arbitrary; if you want the 9 Americans to represent "diversity", why not other forms of "diversity" too? Why not display LGBT Americans? Or Americans with red hair? This article is showcasing a crude, primitive human tendency to divide human beings up into various subcategories without any legitimate reason. It is against what America stands for. It should solely be based on influence, success and accomplishment, preferably from numerous fields to highlight Americans' leadership in various different areas. JDiala ( talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
While i understand that the term "American" is used loosely, when it has to do with important issues, political correctness is essential. Wikipedia says an "American" is a citizen of the U.S. This is inaccurate. U.S citizens live in the U.S., "Americans" are citizens of every single country on North, South and Central America. In casual talk, this is acceptable, but when using numbers and percentages, it is not. Example: Dr Martin of Canada claims that over 45,000 Americans have died because they didn't have health care. Well,if she's talking about America, that is over 1 billion people. If, as we know, she is actually talking about one country on the North American Continant, the United States, it is 45,000 out of approx 317 million. The numbers are very inaccurate...the number of deaths in Mexico, central and South America are lots higher than ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notasims ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Umm...No. For native English-speakers, "American" always refers to citizens of the United States of America. Don't use some unsourced statement from a fellow Canadian to justify your incorrectness. The only people having issues here are Spanish-speakers trying to dictate their second-hand English onto us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.124.211 ( talk) 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
What about adding someone who is not an immigrant? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The American English sets of dialects of the English language does not seem to be noted. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure that Einstein can be classified as an american? I mean, even thought he lived and worked in the US since 1933, it's quite obvious that he was a german-born jew. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.179.0 ( talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This is absolutely hilarious, Einstein was NOT american, he had about 5 or 6 different citizenships depending on where he was working. No credited person considers Einstein to be American. He was German. Furthermore there is not a single mention of him being German on the internet. There is no reference to him being called American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.167.153 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 May 2014
They dont got no women over in murrica? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
While not having collage may be good idea, its generally simply not stable solution as those collages tend to reappear because "everyone has them" :) I would suggest limit its size to something like 9-12 though. Jews is relatively well handled example to look at. Also about female Americans, Katharine Hepburn and Madonna come in mind.-- Staberinde ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"Americn" about 10x hits in WP articles GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amerian" about 30 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amercan" about 230 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"ameican" about 55 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amrican" about 25 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amreican" about 25 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"americna" about 80 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no German representative in the infobox? When was this removed? Why? The Dutch are represented twice.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this page about the various images in the gallery at the top of the page, and it might reasonably extend to the images in the various regional galleries lower in the article. Obviously, I think we would probably do well with as many relevant images as possible, possibly/probably including images of as broad a group of "Americans" as possible. Deciding who to include in both the regional image groupings lower in the page and the primary gallery at the top of the page might be best resolved by some systematic discussion of them. Personally, I'd like to have the images represent, between them, as many different groupings as possible, with, if possible, some sort of at least attempt to get some sort of proportional representation of the various groupings of Americans as possible. So, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr. could be used as one of the representatives of the groupings of Christians, religious people/ministers, African-Americans, Southerners, and peace activists. To my eyes, there does seem to be a significant maybe underrepresentation of what might be called academic scholarly people. So, for instance, reviewing the various Nobel Prize winners who might qualify might be one step in the right direction. Also, I suppose, we could look at the Dictionary of American Biography and what groupings are most significant in their index, and try to get representatives of as many of the bigger groupings in that sort as possible included.
Personally, I would like to see, maybe, somewhere down the road, an RfC or two regarding specific proposed inclusions in the various image galleries as possible, but getting together lists of possible candidates might be a good idea first. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 19:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The addition of Lovecraft means that we have two portraits of notorious anti-Semites here. Lovecraft seems off; why Lovecraft and not Louisa May Alcott or Harriet Beecher Stowe or Maya Angelou? We have a second woman, but Meryl Streep is also an actress. MarkBernstein ( talk) 11:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Consuelo de Saint Exupéry, subject who was re-added, is not an American, as defined in this article; therefore the subject falls outside of the article's scope. Subject lived in America but was never a U.S. Citizen. I am revert this, and if there is an objection, let us discuss why.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
When will it be time that WP accept what may be inevitable that native americans greeted all the others that got to the Americas but even they are in all likelihood as increased archeological study develops just as transplanted? 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 06:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone give me a good reason why half of the photos in the info box are not women? Gandydancer ( talk) 12:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
One argument about photos is that they should be distributed purely on notability. For instance if 80% of the most notable people were women then 80% of the photos should be women and vice versa. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That isn't what I said. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Genuine contenders include: Oprah Winfrey, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rosa Parks, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Meryl Streep.
Dump Taylor Swift who has done nothing new that hasn't previously been done or with more notable success. Options may include: Madonna, Barbera Streisand, Billie Holiday, Dolly Parton, Tina Turner, Lady Gaga and even Nicki Minaj.
Dump Venus Williams. She may be a good game player but Billie Jean King was a game changer. Martina Navratilova had greater success.
Dump Lindsey Vonn. You have Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Babe Didrikson Zaharias.
If you do chose based on a “pretty face” then why not consider, Raquel Welch, Jane Russell, Jane Fonda, Angelina Jolie or Halle Berry all of whom are iconic/successful in film. Sigourney Weaver was ground breaking as the first actress to succeed in action roles.
Why the hell is Ronald Reagan listed before John F. Kennedy? There is nothing intrinsically special in becoming US president, Secretary of State or Senator. They are all jobs that someone has to do even by misplaced actors.
Dump: Ronald Reagan and perhaps other of the presidents and consider losing, Condoleezza Rice, Daniel Inouye and/or Cesar Chavez.
Barrak Obama is the first Black U.S. President, Harvard graduate, civil rights attorney and reportedly faithful family man who hasn't launched any arguably unnecessary/unproductive wars. If you are going to consider promotion of minority groups and women then also consider Nancy Pelosi, Janet Yellen.
The first line begins with republicans: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Consider losing: Thomas Jefferson for Teddy Roosevelt.
A cook/chef like Julia Child may be a contender but I am not familiar.
Missing men: Jesse Owens is more significant than Carl Lewis.
Howard Hughes, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie
Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, Charles Goodyear, Cyrus McCormick, Samuel F.B. Morse and the Wright brothers
Please go by notability or the likes of Condoleezza Rice will seem out of place. I don't think that it helps to patronise as is the case with inclusion, at this point in time, of the likes of Taylor Swift. As far as singers go you've had the likes of Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra and Jimi Hendrix. People can be regarded as significant/notable if they have broken new ground or because they are the best at what they do.
@ MarkBernstein: looks to have made great suggestions. (I had forgotten about Margaret Sanger).
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There have been alot of complaints above regarding the choice of images, and there has been no response from the drive-by user who added the mosaic. Given that there was absolutely no discussion about replacing the individual images in the infobox with a mosaic in the first place, I am restoring the previous format. Please do not readd mosaic without getting a consensus first. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 17:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would think that Michael Jackson or Ella Fitzgerald would be better candidates that Beyonce whose musical success doesn't have the historical impact of the other two. Same goes with Taylor Swift, for country music, there are definitely more historically significant individuals.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a fundamental principle in all collages
At some points in the article I got the impression that the words America and American were repeated as if to push the use of this identity.
From an outside perspective I like to question whether this approach may be counter-productive and whether WP:SOAPBOX may apply:
Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You show that the total population of Americans is 308,745,538 in the Infobox. I understand that you are measuring using the Census, but then you state that the US has 318,201,000 Americans. Obviously, those numbers are off by 10 million. To make matters worse, your initial estimate does not include the number of Americans living abroad.
If you include the number living abroad, the correct number of Americans would be 321,264,045 - 322,305,738, assuming my math is right. Can you at least please explain the reasoning behind using the Census for 2010 when that only measures reporting American residents in the US, and not true "Americans" necessarily - illegal immigrants who do not self-identify as Americans, nor hold American citizenship.
I'd be interested in the recount aspect. Thanks. (A random anon who like wikis, but mostly Wikia) 24.165.1.243 ( talk) 03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I am going to add one more comment - your disambiguation line states that this page is about citizens of the United States of America. That furthers my questioning of your use of the Census, and just the whole issue. Also, I have no response so I am hoping commenting again brings some discussion up. (Some anon) 70.176.70.213 ( talk) 03:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the best thing we could do would be to have the 322 million number, then subtract 12 million for illegals to get 310 million. Though we would also probably have to subtract another 10 million for legal immigrants and have only 300 million. We really don't know how many illegals there are exactly because there aren't really any official numbers on it. 96.241.72.141 ( talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is Geronimo on there? I understand that it's PC to add an American Indian, but I'm pretty sure Geronimo spent his time fighting the American army and trying to keep his people from being conquered, so he would most likely take offense to being grouped together with the conquerors of his nation. There should be a different guy on there, an American Indian who also clearly considers themselves an American (that means no Russell Means). 96.241.72.141 ( talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No good can come of this. If we exclude non-citizens, then inclusion of colonial Americans like Franklin and Americans born as slaves, like Frederick Douglass, becomes problematic. I think Geronimo is fine, and I'd be very tempted to add Tecumseh. For a native American in the arts, one might consider Nampeyo. The mosaic is a continual source of mischief, and I continue to believe it would be better omitted entirely. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the Multiracial American portraits should be reviewed, it is politically one sided (a single Democrat politician), and may over represent some sub-groups.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have boldly changed the gallery to a sectional infobox similar to the ones used in other race sections. I have left out representatives for "Some Other Race" combinations due to the ambiguaty of the term, just as how American ethnicity is left out in the White and European Americans section.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I posted a poll about this earlier on the talk page, but nothing became of it. Here I am just going to list the reasons why the infobox mosaic is silly, feel free to add on reasons.
1. It is difficult to capture the diversity of the country in a limited space.
2. The images have caused endless conflict on this page, and it impossible to have "consensus" on the correct images for the page.
3. Images of famous Americans are barely relevant to the topic of American people.
4. Personal biases are inherent in the selection of any group of people to represent "Americans."
5. The mosaic consistently remains incredibly slanted towards a white male perspective. Women have never been equally represented in the images despite the fact that they comprise half the population. (This is seems to be a side-effect of how out-of-touch with reality many editors are. This shouldn't even be a problem.)
6. Other culturally diverse nations do not have infobox mosaics. See British people, for example. Instead of displaying a massive wall of images of all sorts of British people, images are reserved for more specific pages, such as British Asian or Welsh people.
7. The infobox mosaic distracts from the content of the page and provides little additional information to readers of the page. If someone read this page genuinely interested in learning about Americans, these images would be very ineffective in illustrating the topic of the article.
8. The issue of removing the infobox images has been brought up several times, yet there has never been consensus. The discussion has been for the most part ignored by participants in the edit war, and very few attempts to actually refute this change have been made.
Secondplanet ( talk) 04:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I made a proposal somewhere above that the mosaic not attempt to capture the 36 (or whatever) most notable Americnas but rather be an ever changing vignette of the American people. One whole "sheet" of Presidents, another of soldiers, then scientists, musicians, actors, African Americans, Asian Americans, Icelandic Americans, North Dakotins (?) etc. and that they need not all be notables either. However, given that I am not an editor who dabbles in mosaics, once this plan of mine has been jeered off the table, I'll likely support removing it, using the Matt:18 rule, "If your eye offend you, pluck it out, and cast it from you." einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
On another note, I am in full support of an image like this being used instead of a mosaic: " /info/en/?search=File:Festivalcrowd.jpg" (See discussion at the top of this talk page.) Secondplanet ( talk) 04:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, so if the infobox does abandon the mosaic format, then everyone should voice their opinion on what should be in the infobox. In overview, the requirements are:
And the alternatives people have proposed, so far:
What are the pros and cons of these options? Are there better solutions? Secondplanet ( talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Can we replace Sam Houston in the Scottish ancestry section with Ronald Reagan, since Reagan was more recent and readers would know who he was without clicking to view his article. Reagan was scots by his mother side. Just a suggestion and if you don't agree I completely understand :) . -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that the majority of edits have been changing the images in the lead section infobox. Rather than all these constant edits, let us come to a consensus on what should be in that infobox. Back when I use to be a more active editor, it was just the American flag, due to the civil but constant editing that we see today. What are the goals of the Wikipedians in all this editing? This article is not List of Americans, this is about all people of the United States. Rather than multiple single individuals, is it possible to have multiple pictures of group images, perhaps one per century, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st, each being representative of the subject of this article and the History of the United States?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment.
I am moving some references to the talk page because they failed verification:
Also, the book appears to have been written for a middle school or high school audience because the language is simple and the pages are laid out like a brochure with cartoonish-like graphics and fonts in various sizes and colors. It is defininately not an academic treatment of the topic.
Whichever editor added that Halle reference to the article, carefully edited the citation so that it omitted that fact that the statement was talking about the perceptions blue-collar workers and presented it as if it were a definitive statement. As such, the cite does not support the claim, however, the reference could be used to support a statement about the perceptions of blue-collar workers. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 16:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This The motto "E pluribus unum" implies that being an American is something more than just a legal status
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) source #9 I have provided. I Will have the Rfc done by tommrow...see if we can get this uneducated rightwing POV fixed. --
Moxy (
talk)
19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Who Is An American? Native-born and naturalized citizens
The first, and central, way involves the view that Americans are all those persons born within the boundries of the United States or admitted to citizenship by the government.
Hi, I tried changing the infobox and tried to make it neater in style and layout than what it currently is. I feel the images at the moment are not neat at all and jumbled up which makes it hard to make it neat using its current layout. I proposed this layout but it was reverted as there was no consensus before hand. Just give your views please and even your own examples of what you think looks better.
Population by ancestry group [1] [2] | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rank | Ancestry group | Percentage of total est. population |
Pop. estimates |
| ||||||||||||
1 | German | 16.50% | 47,911,129 | |||||||||||||
2 | Irish | 11.50% | 35,186,074 | |||||||||||||
3 | English | 9.00% | 26,349,212 | |||||||||||||
4 | American | 6.75% | 20,875,080 | |||||||||||||
5 | Italian | 5.65% | 17,488,984 | |||||||||||||
6 | Polish | 3.12% | 9,660,864 | |||||||||||||
7 | French (except Basque) | 2.87% | 8,891,224 | |||||||||||||
8 | Scottish | 1.79% | 5,562,022 | |||||||||||||
9 | Dutch | 1.51% | 4,687,636 | |||||||||||||
10 | Norwegian | 1.45% | 4,491,712 | |||||||||||||
White and European American (total) | 231,040,398 2010 United States Census [3] | |||||||||||||||
2009–2011 American Community Survey |
|
Puertorico1 ( talk)
Hi, I didnt make myself clear enough on why I propose this style change only ... I wasn't proposing that you use every person used in the gallery infact they are going to be changed most likely anyway ... I was only talking about the info box style compared to what it is like at the moment a bit of a mess in the article. I wasn't proposing using these people or ethnicities. Puertorico1 ( talk)
Hi, Perhaps like this but I don't know how to make the gallery float in the center unless its filled with just 5 more people but maybe that's not necessary. Puertorico1 ( talk)
References
TWP2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WP:RGW |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Even though most people will know what the article is talking about - why spread this ambiguity? Even the passport states the nationality (strangely as a noun) as "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [1]. So, why not use the original title or "US-Americans" or something - almost anything is better than "Americans", in this context. Obviously, "Americans, or American people, are citizens of an American country." kamome, 2015-03-03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.27.209.130 ( talk) 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
213.122.99.6 and Puertorico1: I didn't mean to make this revert. Must have accidentally clicked the rollback button or something. Apologies, please carry on.-- Cúchullain t/ c 12:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Let's be honest: Alberto Gonzales should not be in the "top 9" Americans. There could be numerous others, like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey or Michael Phelps that would be much more deserving. The only reason he is there is because he is Mexican/Hispanic American. These racial divisions are fundamentally arbitrary; if you want the 9 Americans to represent "diversity", why not other forms of "diversity" too? Why not display LGBT Americans? Or Americans with red hair? This article is showcasing a crude, primitive human tendency to divide human beings up into various subcategories without any legitimate reason. It is against what America stands for. It should solely be based on influence, success and accomplishment, preferably from numerous fields to highlight Americans' leadership in various different areas. JDiala ( talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
While i understand that the term "American" is used loosely, when it has to do with important issues, political correctness is essential. Wikipedia says an "American" is a citizen of the U.S. This is inaccurate. U.S citizens live in the U.S., "Americans" are citizens of every single country on North, South and Central America. In casual talk, this is acceptable, but when using numbers and percentages, it is not. Example: Dr Martin of Canada claims that over 45,000 Americans have died because they didn't have health care. Well,if she's talking about America, that is over 1 billion people. If, as we know, she is actually talking about one country on the North American Continant, the United States, it is 45,000 out of approx 317 million. The numbers are very inaccurate...the number of deaths in Mexico, central and South America are lots higher than ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notasims ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Umm...No. For native English-speakers, "American" always refers to citizens of the United States of America. Don't use some unsourced statement from a fellow Canadian to justify your incorrectness. The only people having issues here are Spanish-speakers trying to dictate their second-hand English onto us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.124.211 ( talk) 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
What about adding someone who is not an immigrant? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The American English sets of dialects of the English language does not seem to be noted. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure that Einstein can be classified as an american? I mean, even thought he lived and worked in the US since 1933, it's quite obvious that he was a german-born jew. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.179.0 ( talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This is absolutely hilarious, Einstein was NOT american, he had about 5 or 6 different citizenships depending on where he was working. No credited person considers Einstein to be American. He was German. Furthermore there is not a single mention of him being German on the internet. There is no reference to him being called American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.167.153 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 May 2014
They dont got no women over in murrica? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
While not having collage may be good idea, its generally simply not stable solution as those collages tend to reappear because "everyone has them" :) I would suggest limit its size to something like 9-12 though. Jews is relatively well handled example to look at. Also about female Americans, Katharine Hepburn and Madonna come in mind.-- Staberinde ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"Americn" about 10x hits in WP articles GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amerian" about 30 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amercan" about 230 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"ameican" about 55 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amrican" about 25 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"amreican" about 25 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"americna" about 80 hits in WP GinAndChronically ( talk) 10:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no German representative in the infobox? When was this removed? Why? The Dutch are represented twice.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this page about the various images in the gallery at the top of the page, and it might reasonably extend to the images in the various regional galleries lower in the article. Obviously, I think we would probably do well with as many relevant images as possible, possibly/probably including images of as broad a group of "Americans" as possible. Deciding who to include in both the regional image groupings lower in the page and the primary gallery at the top of the page might be best resolved by some systematic discussion of them. Personally, I'd like to have the images represent, between them, as many different groupings as possible, with, if possible, some sort of at least attempt to get some sort of proportional representation of the various groupings of Americans as possible. So, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr. could be used as one of the representatives of the groupings of Christians, religious people/ministers, African-Americans, Southerners, and peace activists. To my eyes, there does seem to be a significant maybe underrepresentation of what might be called academic scholarly people. So, for instance, reviewing the various Nobel Prize winners who might qualify might be one step in the right direction. Also, I suppose, we could look at the Dictionary of American Biography and what groupings are most significant in their index, and try to get representatives of as many of the bigger groupings in that sort as possible included.
Personally, I would like to see, maybe, somewhere down the road, an RfC or two regarding specific proposed inclusions in the various image galleries as possible, but getting together lists of possible candidates might be a good idea first. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 19:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The addition of Lovecraft means that we have two portraits of notorious anti-Semites here. Lovecraft seems off; why Lovecraft and not Louisa May Alcott or Harriet Beecher Stowe or Maya Angelou? We have a second woman, but Meryl Streep is also an actress. MarkBernstein ( talk) 11:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Consuelo de Saint Exupéry, subject who was re-added, is not an American, as defined in this article; therefore the subject falls outside of the article's scope. Subject lived in America but was never a U.S. Citizen. I am revert this, and if there is an objection, let us discuss why.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
When will it be time that WP accept what may be inevitable that native americans greeted all the others that got to the Americas but even they are in all likelihood as increased archeological study develops just as transplanted? 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 06:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone give me a good reason why half of the photos in the info box are not women? Gandydancer ( talk) 12:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
One argument about photos is that they should be distributed purely on notability. For instance if 80% of the most notable people were women then 80% of the photos should be women and vice versa. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That isn't what I said. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Genuine contenders include: Oprah Winfrey, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rosa Parks, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Meryl Streep.
Dump Taylor Swift who has done nothing new that hasn't previously been done or with more notable success. Options may include: Madonna, Barbera Streisand, Billie Holiday, Dolly Parton, Tina Turner, Lady Gaga and even Nicki Minaj.
Dump Venus Williams. She may be a good game player but Billie Jean King was a game changer. Martina Navratilova had greater success.
Dump Lindsey Vonn. You have Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Babe Didrikson Zaharias.
If you do chose based on a “pretty face” then why not consider, Raquel Welch, Jane Russell, Jane Fonda, Angelina Jolie or Halle Berry all of whom are iconic/successful in film. Sigourney Weaver was ground breaking as the first actress to succeed in action roles.
Why the hell is Ronald Reagan listed before John F. Kennedy? There is nothing intrinsically special in becoming US president, Secretary of State or Senator. They are all jobs that someone has to do even by misplaced actors.
Dump: Ronald Reagan and perhaps other of the presidents and consider losing, Condoleezza Rice, Daniel Inouye and/or Cesar Chavez.
Barrak Obama is the first Black U.S. President, Harvard graduate, civil rights attorney and reportedly faithful family man who hasn't launched any arguably unnecessary/unproductive wars. If you are going to consider promotion of minority groups and women then also consider Nancy Pelosi, Janet Yellen.
The first line begins with republicans: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Consider losing: Thomas Jefferson for Teddy Roosevelt.
A cook/chef like Julia Child may be a contender but I am not familiar.
Missing men: Jesse Owens is more significant than Carl Lewis.
Howard Hughes, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie
Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, Charles Goodyear, Cyrus McCormick, Samuel F.B. Morse and the Wright brothers
Please go by notability or the likes of Condoleezza Rice will seem out of place. I don't think that it helps to patronise as is the case with inclusion, at this point in time, of the likes of Taylor Swift. As far as singers go you've had the likes of Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra and Jimi Hendrix. People can be regarded as significant/notable if they have broken new ground or because they are the best at what they do.
@ MarkBernstein: looks to have made great suggestions. (I had forgotten about Margaret Sanger).
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There have been alot of complaints above regarding the choice of images, and there has been no response from the drive-by user who added the mosaic. Given that there was absolutely no discussion about replacing the individual images in the infobox with a mosaic in the first place, I am restoring the previous format. Please do not readd mosaic without getting a consensus first. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 17:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would think that Michael Jackson or Ella Fitzgerald would be better candidates that Beyonce whose musical success doesn't have the historical impact of the other two. Same goes with Taylor Swift, for country music, there are definitely more historically significant individuals.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a fundamental principle in all collages
At some points in the article I got the impression that the words America and American were repeated as if to push the use of this identity.
From an outside perspective I like to question whether this approach may be counter-productive and whether WP:SOAPBOX may apply:
Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You show that the total population of Americans is 308,745,538 in the Infobox. I understand that you are measuring using the Census, but then you state that the US has 318,201,000 Americans. Obviously, those numbers are off by 10 million. To make matters worse, your initial estimate does not include the number of Americans living abroad.
If you include the number living abroad, the correct number of Americans would be 321,264,045 - 322,305,738, assuming my math is right. Can you at least please explain the reasoning behind using the Census for 2010 when that only measures reporting American residents in the US, and not true "Americans" necessarily - illegal immigrants who do not self-identify as Americans, nor hold American citizenship.
I'd be interested in the recount aspect. Thanks. (A random anon who like wikis, but mostly Wikia) 24.165.1.243 ( talk) 03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I am going to add one more comment - your disambiguation line states that this page is about citizens of the United States of America. That furthers my questioning of your use of the Census, and just the whole issue. Also, I have no response so I am hoping commenting again brings some discussion up. (Some anon) 70.176.70.213 ( talk) 03:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the best thing we could do would be to have the 322 million number, then subtract 12 million for illegals to get 310 million. Though we would also probably have to subtract another 10 million for legal immigrants and have only 300 million. We really don't know how many illegals there are exactly because there aren't really any official numbers on it. 96.241.72.141 ( talk) 13:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is Geronimo on there? I understand that it's PC to add an American Indian, but I'm pretty sure Geronimo spent his time fighting the American army and trying to keep his people from being conquered, so he would most likely take offense to being grouped together with the conquerors of his nation. There should be a different guy on there, an American Indian who also clearly considers themselves an American (that means no Russell Means). 96.241.72.141 ( talk) 13:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No good can come of this. If we exclude non-citizens, then inclusion of colonial Americans like Franklin and Americans born as slaves, like Frederick Douglass, becomes problematic. I think Geronimo is fine, and I'd be very tempted to add Tecumseh. For a native American in the arts, one might consider Nampeyo. The mosaic is a continual source of mischief, and I continue to believe it would be better omitted entirely. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the Multiracial American portraits should be reviewed, it is politically one sided (a single Democrat politician), and may over represent some sub-groups.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have boldly changed the gallery to a sectional infobox similar to the ones used in other race sections. I have left out representatives for "Some Other Race" combinations due to the ambiguaty of the term, just as how American ethnicity is left out in the White and European Americans section.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I posted a poll about this earlier on the talk page, but nothing became of it. Here I am just going to list the reasons why the infobox mosaic is silly, feel free to add on reasons.
1. It is difficult to capture the diversity of the country in a limited space.
2. The images have caused endless conflict on this page, and it impossible to have "consensus" on the correct images for the page.
3. Images of famous Americans are barely relevant to the topic of American people.
4. Personal biases are inherent in the selection of any group of people to represent "Americans."
5. The mosaic consistently remains incredibly slanted towards a white male perspective. Women have never been equally represented in the images despite the fact that they comprise half the population. (This is seems to be a side-effect of how out-of-touch with reality many editors are. This shouldn't even be a problem.)
6. Other culturally diverse nations do not have infobox mosaics. See British people, for example. Instead of displaying a massive wall of images of all sorts of British people, images are reserved for more specific pages, such as British Asian or Welsh people.
7. The infobox mosaic distracts from the content of the page and provides little additional information to readers of the page. If someone read this page genuinely interested in learning about Americans, these images would be very ineffective in illustrating the topic of the article.
8. The issue of removing the infobox images has been brought up several times, yet there has never been consensus. The discussion has been for the most part ignored by participants in the edit war, and very few attempts to actually refute this change have been made.
Secondplanet ( talk) 04:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I made a proposal somewhere above that the mosaic not attempt to capture the 36 (or whatever) most notable Americnas but rather be an ever changing vignette of the American people. One whole "sheet" of Presidents, another of soldiers, then scientists, musicians, actors, African Americans, Asian Americans, Icelandic Americans, North Dakotins (?) etc. and that they need not all be notables either. However, given that I am not an editor who dabbles in mosaics, once this plan of mine has been jeered off the table, I'll likely support removing it, using the Matt:18 rule, "If your eye offend you, pluck it out, and cast it from you." einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
On another note, I am in full support of an image like this being used instead of a mosaic: " /info/en/?search=File:Festivalcrowd.jpg" (See discussion at the top of this talk page.) Secondplanet ( talk) 04:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, so if the infobox does abandon the mosaic format, then everyone should voice their opinion on what should be in the infobox. In overview, the requirements are:
And the alternatives people have proposed, so far:
What are the pros and cons of these options? Are there better solutions? Secondplanet ( talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Can we replace Sam Houston in the Scottish ancestry section with Ronald Reagan, since Reagan was more recent and readers would know who he was without clicking to view his article. Reagan was scots by his mother side. Just a suggestion and if you don't agree I completely understand :) . -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 01:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that the majority of edits have been changing the images in the lead section infobox. Rather than all these constant edits, let us come to a consensus on what should be in that infobox. Back when I use to be a more active editor, it was just the American flag, due to the civil but constant editing that we see today. What are the goals of the Wikipedians in all this editing? This article is not List of Americans, this is about all people of the United States. Rather than multiple single individuals, is it possible to have multiple pictures of group images, perhaps one per century, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st, each being representative of the subject of this article and the History of the United States?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment.
I am moving some references to the talk page because they failed verification:
Also, the book appears to have been written for a middle school or high school audience because the language is simple and the pages are laid out like a brochure with cartoonish-like graphics and fonts in various sizes and colors. It is defininately not an academic treatment of the topic.
Whichever editor added that Halle reference to the article, carefully edited the citation so that it omitted that fact that the statement was talking about the perceptions blue-collar workers and presented it as if it were a definitive statement. As such, the cite does not support the claim, however, the reference could be used to support a statement about the perceptions of blue-collar workers. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 16:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This The motto "E pluribus unum" implies that being an American is something more than just a legal status
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) source #9 I have provided. I Will have the Rfc done by tommrow...see if we can get this uneducated rightwing POV fixed. --
Moxy (
talk)
19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Who Is An American? Native-born and naturalized citizens
The first, and central, way involves the view that Americans are all those persons born within the boundries of the United States or admitted to citizenship by the government.
Hi, I tried changing the infobox and tried to make it neater in style and layout than what it currently is. I feel the images at the moment are not neat at all and jumbled up which makes it hard to make it neat using its current layout. I proposed this layout but it was reverted as there was no consensus before hand. Just give your views please and even your own examples of what you think looks better.
Population by ancestry group [1] [2] | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rank | Ancestry group | Percentage of total est. population |
Pop. estimates |
| ||||||||||||
1 | German | 16.50% | 47,911,129 | |||||||||||||
2 | Irish | 11.50% | 35,186,074 | |||||||||||||
3 | English | 9.00% | 26,349,212 | |||||||||||||
4 | American | 6.75% | 20,875,080 | |||||||||||||
5 | Italian | 5.65% | 17,488,984 | |||||||||||||
6 | Polish | 3.12% | 9,660,864 | |||||||||||||
7 | French (except Basque) | 2.87% | 8,891,224 | |||||||||||||
8 | Scottish | 1.79% | 5,562,022 | |||||||||||||
9 | Dutch | 1.51% | 4,687,636 | |||||||||||||
10 | Norwegian | 1.45% | 4,491,712 | |||||||||||||
White and European American (total) | 231,040,398 2010 United States Census [3] | |||||||||||||||
2009–2011 American Community Survey |
|
Puertorico1 ( talk)
Hi, I didnt make myself clear enough on why I propose this style change only ... I wasn't proposing that you use every person used in the gallery infact they are going to be changed most likely anyway ... I was only talking about the info box style compared to what it is like at the moment a bit of a mess in the article. I wasn't proposing using these people or ethnicities. Puertorico1 ( talk)
Hi, Perhaps like this but I don't know how to make the gallery float in the center unless its filled with just 5 more people but maybe that's not necessary. Puertorico1 ( talk)
References
TWP2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WP:RGW |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Even though most people will know what the article is talking about - why spread this ambiguity? Even the passport states the nationality (strangely as a noun) as "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [1]. So, why not use the original title or "US-Americans" or something - almost anything is better than "Americans", in this context. Obviously, "Americans, or American people, are citizens of an American country." kamome, 2015-03-03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.27.209.130 ( talk) 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
213.122.99.6 and Puertorico1: I didn't mean to make this revert. Must have accidentally clicked the rollback button or something. Apologies, please carry on.-- Cúchullain t/ c 12:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)