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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Some North Asians (e.g. some Russians) may fit well under the "White and European Americans" heading, but Central Asians (Kazakhstanis, Uzbekistanis, etc.) as well as Southwest Asians (Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious groups like Jews, Druze, Kurds, Arabs, etc.) neither historically nor fully represent the terms "White" or "European." Relatively recent (within the past 100 years) horrific events affecting both public opinion and legislation in Europe and the United States such as the Holocaust or anti-Syrian/Muslim protests seem to prove that those of Middle Eastern descent are neither "white" nor "European." In many cases, even if these Middle Eastern populations "believe" they are "European" or "white," they continue to face persecution for their "non-whiteness."
Also, no Middle-Eastern American groups are included in the "White and European" ethnic ancestry chart—should Middle-Eastern American groups have their own section in general? This page does not have to directly reflect the census—it can reflect the various ethnic groups of the Americas in a more accurate, but still simple and clear, way.
What do you think? I suggest at the very least changing the heading to "White, European, and Middle Eastern Americans." Thank you. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Jeffgr9, Yiddish is not a creole of Hebrew, it is a version of German with Hebrew terms retained for religious topics and its dialects added terms from local languages, such as Polish words for Polish Yiddish speakers. Few if any European Jews spoke Hebrew when they arrived, they spoke Aramaic or Greek. And genetics are irrelevant. Certainly there are Americans who did not consider them white, and they thought the same about Eastern and Southern Europeans. Italians for example were called "guineas." TFD ( talk) 06:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Jeffgr9, I understand but the passage is synthesis, citekill and redundant:
Please note that the spray-painting of the Jewish synagogue in 1987 had nothing to do with the census bureau's ethnic classification, nor does the 144 census brief claim it did. As pointed out, what actually prompted the bureau to establish the new MENA entry was a petition by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee addressed to the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency; it sought to designate the MENA populations as a minority/disadvantaged community [3]. The assertion that Jewish, North African and Arab Americans do not consider themselves "white" is also already implied by the phrase that "the expert groups, including some Jewish organizations, felt that the earlier "white" designation no longer accurately represents MENA identity, so they successfully lobbied for a distinct categorization." Lastly, I get what you mean about ethnoreligious groups, but please stop singling out Jewish and Sikh adherents. The census bureau explains that it doesn't tabulate any faiths as ethnic groups but instead as religions, including Muslim and Christian denominations ("the Census Bureau does not currently tabulate on religious responses to the race or ethnic questions (e.g., Sikh, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Lutheran, etc." [4]). That Jews are an ethnoreligious group is also already indicated further down ("Jews are an ethnoreligious group with culture and ethnicity intertwined"). Soupforone ( talk) 03:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
TFD ( talk), and yes, Yiddish is by definition a creole. Jews who spoke/wrote in Hebrew or Hebrew dialects Aramaic migrated/were brought as slaves to Eastern Europe/Russia, where they creolized their native language to adapt to the dominant languages.
From the Yiddish Institute of Jewish Research, here are quotes describing co-parenting of Afro-Asiatic, Semitic languages Hebrew and Aramaic to Yiddish:
Yiddish, like other creoles, features code-switching, for which Jews could understand similar Hebrew-derived words that non-Jews in Eastern-Europe could not understand—this idea is noted in Joseph Dorman's 2011 documentary, "Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness." Some people may debate this idea, but there is no definitive refutation of Yiddish and Ladino as Creole/pidgin languages, because ultimately, Yiddish shares two co-parents: Indo-Aryan—as much of the grammar and word structure—and Afroasiatic the Hebrew—in which it was originally written and from which many words were adapted—by Jews who arrived in Germany, Russia, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe.
Again, Yiddish (and Ladino for that matter) was originally written in Hebrew, and was specifically created by Jews who adapted to the dominant languages of regions in which they arrived after various Jewish diasporas: [1]
As to your second argument, genetics are absolutely relevant—they tell specific stories for Jews in their diaspora. Jews suffered various Exiles and Occupations from their homeland—from Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, known today as the Jewish diaspora. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
In addition, one of the key differences between Jews, a Middle Eastern (hence, Afro-Asiatic) ethnocultural/ Ethnoreligious group, and any European ethnic groups remains that Jews have never been considered true Europeans. Even those who converted or did not practice Judaism were molested, taxed, killed, or otherwise persecuted/oppressed by the dominant classes of Europe. For example, as Roman Historian, Suetonius, describes, Emperor Domitian's implementation of the Fiscus Judaicus tax:
Even though these Jews did not publicly identify as Jews, they were still persecuted for being Jews. The Romans also forbade Christians to intermarry with Jews, burned down their synagogues, and prevented Jews from civil and occupational services.
Here are more laws that Rome used to separate, isolate, and persecute Jews from the rest of Europe:
More European racial persecutions toward Jews later occurred during the Spanish Inquistion, when even Jews who had converted ( Conversos) to Christianity, were put to death; you may refer to one notable occasion after the murder of Pedro de Arbués (See that page, and the description of it on the Spanish Inquistion page).
Incidences like these prove that no matter what Jews do or how they perceive themselves, no matter what their skin, hair, or eye color, their political or religious beliefs, etc. Europeans have never considered and will consider Jews truly "white" or European, and further confirms the idea—with genetics, literary narratives, interviews and polling, political campaigns, etc.—that Jews are and belong to their own Middle Eastern, Semitic, Ethnocultural group, like the Druze. Thank you for your time. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 02:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Although Dio's figure of 985 as the number of villages destroyed during the war seems hypberbolic, all Judaean villages, without exception, excavated thus far were razed following the Bar Kochba Revolt. This evidence supports the impression of total regional destruction following the war. Historical sources note the vast number of captives sold into slavery in Palestine and shipped abroad." ... "The Judaean Jewish community never recovered from the Bar Kochba war. In its wake, Jews no longer formed the majority in Palestine, and the Jewish center moved to the Galilee. Jews were also subjected to a series of religious edicts promulgated by Hadrian that were designed to uproot the nationalistic elements with the Judaean Jewish community, these proclamations remained in effect until Hadrian's death in 138. An additional, more lasting punitive measure taken by the Romans involved expunging Judaea from the provincial name, changing it from Provincia Judaea to Provincia Syria Palestina. Although such name changes occurred elsewhere, never before or after was a nation's name expunged as the result of rebellion.
The number of Americans living aboard now (as of 2016) grew to 10 million and about 2 million descendants of US citizens worldwide, should be one of the world's largest citizenry diasporas. Although the largest ethnic diasporas are Chinese (54-58 million citizens from China, up to 100 million total ethnic Chinese) and Irish (80 million descendants), the number of American expats is higher than ever. Europe has between 4.5 to 5.5 million American expats, Mexico has 3 to 3.5 million-the highest of any country, Canada has one million with a history of American immigration, Australia 200,000 and Israel 200,000. 67.49.89.214 ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Americans or Usonians http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/usonian?q=Usonian
Any opinions on this recent add that I reverted. I reverted and said, requires a chat on the talkpage so I am requesting other thoughts. I felt the term was not widely used or well known to be in the heading like that? Govindaharihari ( talk) 04:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The articles seems to contradict itself. In the opening paragraph it metions there is no American ethnicity. However the article then goes on to say that the largest group is American with a whole article about it. So did some searching and came to relies the sources here are a patchwork of off quotes. ==09:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:5E3:6CC1:6CCA:4FFF:9CFD:B477 ( talk)
This section needs to be summarized better. It is far longer than other sections about populations of a larger size. I will tag it accordingly.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Crossswords: I have reverted your re-addition per WP:BRD. Moreover, when first added the content which was added failed verification, and I added the American diaspora in Russia population with an accurate figure from a Russian source. Please get consensus before making a reversion of the reversion.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the sentence in question is about groups who "became American." To the best of my knowledge, colonised Filipinos were never granted any sort of legal status as Americans. No rights of citizenship, representation, etc. PaulCHebert ( talk) 23:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. PaulCHebert ( talk) 03:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The issues that I brought up last year, still have not been resolved. The section about those who will be classified as MENA in the 2020 census. I will boldly reduce the content to give it due weight Most of this material should be in an article specific to the MENA classification, not here.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I have made some reduction, however, the section is still several paragraphs longer than all other sub-sections of the "Racial and ethnic groups" section. How can we reduce this further?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
So with it not being used by USCB, do we exclude it in the article?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
On another note, would it be appropriate to label those as Americans if they have U.S.nationality, but not U.S. citizenship. I believe they are entitled to live and work in the U.S. but cannot take office or vote. -- Scarslayer01 ( talk) 00:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we please revert this article to my version. [7] It currently begins with "Americans are citizens of the United States of America." This is obviously a dishonest sentence, attempting to cover up a material fact. It is manifestly contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was originally enacted in 1952 by the U.S. Congress. See ("The term ' national of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.") (emphasis added); Jaen v. Sessions, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 17-1512, p.8 ( 2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2018) (case involving a U.S. citizen in removal proceedings); Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1092 ( 9th Cir. 2012) (same); Ricketts v. Attorney General of the United States, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-3182, p.5 note 3 ( 3d Cir. July 30, 2018) (" Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous. While all citizens are nationals, not all nationals are citizens."); Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-06 ( D.C. Cir. 2015) (case involving a non-citizen national of the United States); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("The sole such statutory provision that presently confers United States nationality upon non-citizens is 8 U.S.C. § 1408."); Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 ( BIA 2003); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1501– 1504; 8 U.S.C. § 1436; . "Persons not born in the United States acquire [American citizenship or American nationality] by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423-24 (1998). These cases are directly on point and there are no contentions between the parties. A "national of the United States" (" American national") who resided continuously inside the United States for decades and who cannot be deported under any circumstances, and who the U.S. Attorney General refuses to approve his or her application for naturalization, cannot be an "American"? If such person is not an American then what is he or she? What about an illegal alien, who wants to commit terrorism in the United States, and who obtained by fraud a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. citizenship, U.S. passport, etc. Is such person an American? I cited here the U.S. Congress, who represents all Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. courts of appeals, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and they're all in agreement with my above proposition. This article should rely more on Acts of Congress and U.S. Supreme Court precedents.-- Libracarol ( talk) 03:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
The second sentence of the lead currently reads
Although nationals and citizens make up the majority of Americans, dual citizens, expatriates, and certain permanent residents, may also claim an American identity.
To me, this seems confusing and garbled. It divides Americans and those who may claim American identity into two groups: (1) nationals and citizens and (2) dual citizens, expats, and certain permanent residents. However,
I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Just as Puerto Ricans are counted as immigrants, Americans in Puerto Rico must.
It must be unilateral, if Puerto Ricans in the US they appear as immigrants, the Americans must be in Puerto Rico as such, it is not neutral like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.112.97 ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I am confused on why Puerto Ricans and Americans are different, they are both entitled to U.S. citizenship. Puerto Ricans might be their own ethnic group but in terms of citizenship, they are entitled to U.S. citizenship. Especially those who had their birth take place on the Island of Puerto Rico. -- Scarslayer01 ( talk) 00:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I GAVE THE FOLLOWING SOURCE ON MY EDITION (90K AMERICANS LIVING IN BRAZIL): https://www.uol/noticias/especiais/imigrantes-brasil-venezuelanos-refugiados-media-mundial.htm#imagem-3
Please, take a look on the third picture (from the bottom to the top of the page), where you see the two maps. The first map says "para onde vão os brasileiros" (where do brazilians goes), and the second one says "de onde vêm os estrangeiros" (where do the foreign population come), there you can see that 90K americans were living in Brazil by the 2017. THE SOURCE OF THE MAP IS THE UNITED NATIONS. B777-300ER ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I was redirected to this article from the article on American Samoa which states that "Samoans are American nationals but not American citizens". I couldn't understand, so I came here. This article however does not explain it, nor even touch such an issue what it means to be "an American nationals but not an American citizen", when or how it is possible. It only states that Americans are nationals and citizens of the USA". Shouldn't this be corrected by someone - here or there, or yet elsewhere? noychoH ( talk) 07:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
US Code, §1101 (a) (22) says - The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States - [23]. Accordingly, Permanent residents are nationals of the United States, and hence, they are Americans. 98.148.227.28 ( talk) 04:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@
Intellectualyo:, thanks for the addition of
new information from a reliable source. I am wondering if this is a typo though. According to The New York Times, in 2008 the number of registered Americans in India was about 42k; I have
added that to the article. Also if the number of Americans is in fact 700k, as the
White House published, it would be the third largest foreign born population in India, after Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin, per
this information from the United Nations. Moreover,
Pew Research has a 2017 estimate of migrants in India, from the United States, at
under 10k; this is also reflected in their
2017 fact tank article, which does not include the United States as one of India's top immigrant sources.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 07:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is also an article about this subject, albeit a stub or start class article,
Americans in India.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 01:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this is due to
former H-4 visa
Indian Americans returning to India, or retiring naturalized Indian Americans returning to India upon retirement? I am not sure, but it could explain the jump from 42k in 2008 (or is it
60k in 2002) to 700k; but that is speculation on my part and doesn't belong in the article space.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 01:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
How can there be 700k Americans living in India, when not 12 years ago there were only
352k registered foreigners living in India? That would mean that the legal immigrant population in India in less than two decades would have had to more than double in size. Granted that is a small fraction of the total population of India, but it would be noticeable and something easy to document, no?--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 02:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Kalzombieplays: please stop removing verified content from the infobox. Continued removal of verified content, without consensus, can be considered disruptive editing or vandalism.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 01:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is Mormonism not in the Infobox? ( The Sr Guy ( talk) 20:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC))
South Americans are not Americans? Other North Americans are not Americans? Who wrote this? What do you refer to by "South America"? Texas and Florida? Americo Vespucio (Amerigo Verpucci), the man after whom the continent was named, never explored North America. If he were alive, he wouldn't care less about the United States of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.221 ( talk)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Some North Asians (e.g. some Russians) may fit well under the "White and European Americans" heading, but Central Asians (Kazakhstanis, Uzbekistanis, etc.) as well as Southwest Asians (Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious groups like Jews, Druze, Kurds, Arabs, etc.) neither historically nor fully represent the terms "White" or "European." Relatively recent (within the past 100 years) horrific events affecting both public opinion and legislation in Europe and the United States such as the Holocaust or anti-Syrian/Muslim protests seem to prove that those of Middle Eastern descent are neither "white" nor "European." In many cases, even if these Middle Eastern populations "believe" they are "European" or "white," they continue to face persecution for their "non-whiteness."
Also, no Middle-Eastern American groups are included in the "White and European" ethnic ancestry chart—should Middle-Eastern American groups have their own section in general? This page does not have to directly reflect the census—it can reflect the various ethnic groups of the Americas in a more accurate, but still simple and clear, way.
What do you think? I suggest at the very least changing the heading to "White, European, and Middle Eastern Americans." Thank you. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Jeffgr9, Yiddish is not a creole of Hebrew, it is a version of German with Hebrew terms retained for religious topics and its dialects added terms from local languages, such as Polish words for Polish Yiddish speakers. Few if any European Jews spoke Hebrew when they arrived, they spoke Aramaic or Greek. And genetics are irrelevant. Certainly there are Americans who did not consider them white, and they thought the same about Eastern and Southern Europeans. Italians for example were called "guineas." TFD ( talk) 06:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Jeffgr9, I understand but the passage is synthesis, citekill and redundant:
Please note that the spray-painting of the Jewish synagogue in 1987 had nothing to do with the census bureau's ethnic classification, nor does the 144 census brief claim it did. As pointed out, what actually prompted the bureau to establish the new MENA entry was a petition by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee addressed to the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency; it sought to designate the MENA populations as a minority/disadvantaged community [3]. The assertion that Jewish, North African and Arab Americans do not consider themselves "white" is also already implied by the phrase that "the expert groups, including some Jewish organizations, felt that the earlier "white" designation no longer accurately represents MENA identity, so they successfully lobbied for a distinct categorization." Lastly, I get what you mean about ethnoreligious groups, but please stop singling out Jewish and Sikh adherents. The census bureau explains that it doesn't tabulate any faiths as ethnic groups but instead as religions, including Muslim and Christian denominations ("the Census Bureau does not currently tabulate on religious responses to the race or ethnic questions (e.g., Sikh, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Lutheran, etc." [4]). That Jews are an ethnoreligious group is also already indicated further down ("Jews are an ethnoreligious group with culture and ethnicity intertwined"). Soupforone ( talk) 03:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
TFD ( talk), and yes, Yiddish is by definition a creole. Jews who spoke/wrote in Hebrew or Hebrew dialects Aramaic migrated/were brought as slaves to Eastern Europe/Russia, where they creolized their native language to adapt to the dominant languages.
From the Yiddish Institute of Jewish Research, here are quotes describing co-parenting of Afro-Asiatic, Semitic languages Hebrew and Aramaic to Yiddish:
Yiddish, like other creoles, features code-switching, for which Jews could understand similar Hebrew-derived words that non-Jews in Eastern-Europe could not understand—this idea is noted in Joseph Dorman's 2011 documentary, "Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness." Some people may debate this idea, but there is no definitive refutation of Yiddish and Ladino as Creole/pidgin languages, because ultimately, Yiddish shares two co-parents: Indo-Aryan—as much of the grammar and word structure—and Afroasiatic the Hebrew—in which it was originally written and from which many words were adapted—by Jews who arrived in Germany, Russia, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe.
Again, Yiddish (and Ladino for that matter) was originally written in Hebrew, and was specifically created by Jews who adapted to the dominant languages of regions in which they arrived after various Jewish diasporas: [1]
As to your second argument, genetics are absolutely relevant—they tell specific stories for Jews in their diaspora. Jews suffered various Exiles and Occupations from their homeland—from Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, known today as the Jewish diaspora. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
In addition, one of the key differences between Jews, a Middle Eastern (hence, Afro-Asiatic) ethnocultural/ Ethnoreligious group, and any European ethnic groups remains that Jews have never been considered true Europeans. Even those who converted or did not practice Judaism were molested, taxed, killed, or otherwise persecuted/oppressed by the dominant classes of Europe. For example, as Roman Historian, Suetonius, describes, Emperor Domitian's implementation of the Fiscus Judaicus tax:
Even though these Jews did not publicly identify as Jews, they were still persecuted for being Jews. The Romans also forbade Christians to intermarry with Jews, burned down their synagogues, and prevented Jews from civil and occupational services.
Here are more laws that Rome used to separate, isolate, and persecute Jews from the rest of Europe:
More European racial persecutions toward Jews later occurred during the Spanish Inquistion, when even Jews who had converted ( Conversos) to Christianity, were put to death; you may refer to one notable occasion after the murder of Pedro de Arbués (See that page, and the description of it on the Spanish Inquistion page).
Incidences like these prove that no matter what Jews do or how they perceive themselves, no matter what their skin, hair, or eye color, their political or religious beliefs, etc. Europeans have never considered and will consider Jews truly "white" or European, and further confirms the idea—with genetics, literary narratives, interviews and polling, political campaigns, etc.—that Jews are and belong to their own Middle Eastern, Semitic, Ethnocultural group, like the Druze. Thank you for your time. Jeffgr9 ( talk) 02:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Although Dio's figure of 985 as the number of villages destroyed during the war seems hypberbolic, all Judaean villages, without exception, excavated thus far were razed following the Bar Kochba Revolt. This evidence supports the impression of total regional destruction following the war. Historical sources note the vast number of captives sold into slavery in Palestine and shipped abroad." ... "The Judaean Jewish community never recovered from the Bar Kochba war. In its wake, Jews no longer formed the majority in Palestine, and the Jewish center moved to the Galilee. Jews were also subjected to a series of religious edicts promulgated by Hadrian that were designed to uproot the nationalistic elements with the Judaean Jewish community, these proclamations remained in effect until Hadrian's death in 138. An additional, more lasting punitive measure taken by the Romans involved expunging Judaea from the provincial name, changing it from Provincia Judaea to Provincia Syria Palestina. Although such name changes occurred elsewhere, never before or after was a nation's name expunged as the result of rebellion.
The number of Americans living aboard now (as of 2016) grew to 10 million and about 2 million descendants of US citizens worldwide, should be one of the world's largest citizenry diasporas. Although the largest ethnic diasporas are Chinese (54-58 million citizens from China, up to 100 million total ethnic Chinese) and Irish (80 million descendants), the number of American expats is higher than ever. Europe has between 4.5 to 5.5 million American expats, Mexico has 3 to 3.5 million-the highest of any country, Canada has one million with a history of American immigration, Australia 200,000 and Israel 200,000. 67.49.89.214 ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Americans or Usonians http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/usonian?q=Usonian
Any opinions on this recent add that I reverted. I reverted and said, requires a chat on the talkpage so I am requesting other thoughts. I felt the term was not widely used or well known to be in the heading like that? Govindaharihari ( talk) 04:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The articles seems to contradict itself. In the opening paragraph it metions there is no American ethnicity. However the article then goes on to say that the largest group is American with a whole article about it. So did some searching and came to relies the sources here are a patchwork of off quotes. ==09:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:5E3:6CC1:6CCA:4FFF:9CFD:B477 ( talk)
This section needs to be summarized better. It is far longer than other sections about populations of a larger size. I will tag it accordingly.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth put'r there 15:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Crossswords: I have reverted your re-addition per WP:BRD. Moreover, when first added the content which was added failed verification, and I added the American diaspora in Russia population with an accurate figure from a Russian source. Please get consensus before making a reversion of the reversion.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the sentence in question is about groups who "became American." To the best of my knowledge, colonised Filipinos were never granted any sort of legal status as Americans. No rights of citizenship, representation, etc. PaulCHebert ( talk) 23:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. PaulCHebert ( talk) 03:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The issues that I brought up last year, still have not been resolved. The section about those who will be classified as MENA in the 2020 census. I will boldly reduce the content to give it due weight Most of this material should be in an article specific to the MENA classification, not here.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I have made some reduction, however, the section is still several paragraphs longer than all other sub-sections of the "Racial and ethnic groups" section. How can we reduce this further?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
So with it not being used by USCB, do we exclude it in the article?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
On another note, would it be appropriate to label those as Americans if they have U.S.nationality, but not U.S. citizenship. I believe they are entitled to live and work in the U.S. but cannot take office or vote. -- Scarslayer01 ( talk) 00:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we please revert this article to my version. [7] It currently begins with "Americans are citizens of the United States of America." This is obviously a dishonest sentence, attempting to cover up a material fact. It is manifestly contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was originally enacted in 1952 by the U.S. Congress. See ("The term ' national of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.") (emphasis added); Jaen v. Sessions, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 17-1512, p.8 ( 2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2018) (case involving a U.S. citizen in removal proceedings); Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1092 ( 9th Cir. 2012) (same); Ricketts v. Attorney General of the United States, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-3182, p.5 note 3 ( 3d Cir. July 30, 2018) (" Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous. While all citizens are nationals, not all nationals are citizens."); Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-06 ( D.C. Cir. 2015) (case involving a non-citizen national of the United States); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("The sole such statutory provision that presently confers United States nationality upon non-citizens is 8 U.S.C. § 1408."); Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 ( BIA 2003); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1501– 1504; 8 U.S.C. § 1436; . "Persons not born in the United States acquire [American citizenship or American nationality] by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423-24 (1998). These cases are directly on point and there are no contentions between the parties. A "national of the United States" (" American national") who resided continuously inside the United States for decades and who cannot be deported under any circumstances, and who the U.S. Attorney General refuses to approve his or her application for naturalization, cannot be an "American"? If such person is not an American then what is he or she? What about an illegal alien, who wants to commit terrorism in the United States, and who obtained by fraud a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. citizenship, U.S. passport, etc. Is such person an American? I cited here the U.S. Congress, who represents all Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. courts of appeals, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and they're all in agreement with my above proposition. This article should rely more on Acts of Congress and U.S. Supreme Court precedents.-- Libracarol ( talk) 03:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
The second sentence of the lead currently reads
Although nationals and citizens make up the majority of Americans, dual citizens, expatriates, and certain permanent residents, may also claim an American identity.
To me, this seems confusing and garbled. It divides Americans and those who may claim American identity into two groups: (1) nationals and citizens and (2) dual citizens, expats, and certain permanent residents. However,
I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Just as Puerto Ricans are counted as immigrants, Americans in Puerto Rico must.
It must be unilateral, if Puerto Ricans in the US they appear as immigrants, the Americans must be in Puerto Rico as such, it is not neutral like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.112.97 ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I am confused on why Puerto Ricans and Americans are different, they are both entitled to U.S. citizenship. Puerto Ricans might be their own ethnic group but in terms of citizenship, they are entitled to U.S. citizenship. Especially those who had their birth take place on the Island of Puerto Rico. -- Scarslayer01 ( talk) 00:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I GAVE THE FOLLOWING SOURCE ON MY EDITION (90K AMERICANS LIVING IN BRAZIL): https://www.uol/noticias/especiais/imigrantes-brasil-venezuelanos-refugiados-media-mundial.htm#imagem-3
Please, take a look on the third picture (from the bottom to the top of the page), where you see the two maps. The first map says "para onde vão os brasileiros" (where do brazilians goes), and the second one says "de onde vêm os estrangeiros" (where do the foreign population come), there you can see that 90K americans were living in Brazil by the 2017. THE SOURCE OF THE MAP IS THE UNITED NATIONS. B777-300ER ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I was redirected to this article from the article on American Samoa which states that "Samoans are American nationals but not American citizens". I couldn't understand, so I came here. This article however does not explain it, nor even touch such an issue what it means to be "an American nationals but not an American citizen", when or how it is possible. It only states that Americans are nationals and citizens of the USA". Shouldn't this be corrected by someone - here or there, or yet elsewhere? noychoH ( talk) 07:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
US Code, §1101 (a) (22) says - The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States - [23]. Accordingly, Permanent residents are nationals of the United States, and hence, they are Americans. 98.148.227.28 ( talk) 04:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@
Intellectualyo:, thanks for the addition of
new information from a reliable source. I am wondering if this is a typo though. According to The New York Times, in 2008 the number of registered Americans in India was about 42k; I have
added that to the article. Also if the number of Americans is in fact 700k, as the
White House published, it would be the third largest foreign born population in India, after Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin, per
this information from the United Nations. Moreover,
Pew Research has a 2017 estimate of migrants in India, from the United States, at
under 10k; this is also reflected in their
2017 fact tank article, which does not include the United States as one of India's top immigrant sources.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 07:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is also an article about this subject, albeit a stub or start class article,
Americans in India.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 01:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this is due to
former H-4 visa
Indian Americans returning to India, or retiring naturalized Indian Americans returning to India upon retirement? I am not sure, but it could explain the jump from 42k in 2008 (or is it
60k in 2002) to 700k; but that is speculation on my part and doesn't belong in the article space.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 01:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
How can there be 700k Americans living in India, when not 12 years ago there were only
352k registered foreigners living in India? That would mean that the legal immigrant population in India in less than two decades would have had to more than double in size. Granted that is a small fraction of the total population of India, but it would be noticeable and something easy to document, no?--
RightCowLeftCoast (
Moo) 02:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Kalzombieplays: please stop removing verified content from the infobox. Continued removal of verified content, without consensus, can be considered disruptive editing or vandalism.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 01:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is Mormonism not in the Infobox? ( The Sr Guy ( talk) 20:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC))
South Americans are not Americans? Other North Americans are not Americans? Who wrote this? What do you refer to by "South America"? Texas and Florida? Americo Vespucio (Amerigo Verpucci), the man after whom the continent was named, never explored North America. If he were alive, he wouldn't care less about the United States of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.221 ( talk)