Talk:Americans

Total count of people is wrong
It says 331.4 million but the census contains non citizens as per US law the census has to contain all non citizens so it should be changed to 320.5 million

Second sentence in the lead
The second sentence in the lead currently reads "Although direct citizens and nationals make up the majority of Americans, many dual citizens, expatriates, and permanent residents could also legally claim American nationality." The source cited for that sentence doesn't seem to support it and actually has more to do with the third sentence about American nationality being composed of people from all over the world. Here are some issues: -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Direct citizens and nationals": One is a citizen or national or is not; there's no direct vs. indirect.
 * "Dual citizens": A dual citizen with U.S. citizenship is a citizen. There's no difference between a dual citizen and a citizen.
 * "Expatriates": Is this referring to (1) U.S. citizens residing outside the U.S. or (2) citizens of other countries without U.S. citizenship residing in the U.S.? If it's (1) then, again, there's no difference between an expatriate citizen and a citizen. If it's (2) then no, an expatriate from another nation residing in the U.S. without U.S. citizenship does not legally have U.S. nationality.
 * "Permanent residents": Permanent residents without U.S. citizenship do not legally have U.S. nationality.
 * The only people who legally have U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship are people born in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not U.S. citizens (because of a choice by the government of American Samoa).


 * Section 308 of the INA confers U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship, on persons born in "an outlying possession of the United States"  or  born of a parent or parents who are non-citizen nationals who meet certain physical presence or residence requirements. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, there it says, "the term 'outlying possessions of the United States' means American Samoa and Swains Island" and lays out the conditions for non-citizen nationality for parents and children from there. The government of American Samoa laid out their case for this practice again in 2022 before the Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1394/236566/20220829125923506_2022-08-29%209am%20FINAL%20Fitisemanu%20BIO.pdf -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your misunderstanding the OR part Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 11:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a bit strange to define American as a citizen of the USA
Normally the name of the people of a continent are called by the name of the continent. Asia, Asians Africa, Africans Europe, Europeans and so on.

So I would say Americans are the population of the American continents.

To claim the name of American for a single country on the American continents, is a bit strange. Where is this defined as the official usage and definition? I do not see any reference. As the Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, is this used that way in all English speaking countries? I would look at this as an USA slang, rather than an official designation as here is implied. Jochum (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it's not just slang. It's used that way in all English-speaking countries, and many non-English speaking countries too. See American (word) for a detailed treatment of the word, including many sources. BilCat (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the official definition denoting an American as only meaning a citizen of the USA? That is what Wikipedia should be about. An official definition, not the notion of some, in this case perhaps many posters.
 * The definition of Americans as a Citizen of the USA only, goes against the usage in regards to any other continent.
 * Asia Asians
 * Africa Africans
 * Europe Europeans
 * and so on Jochum (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In English, America is not a continent. North America and South America are considered separate continents. So when most native English Speakers say "American" without any other qualifications, they generally mean people from the USA, and it's usually understood they don't mean people from the Americas. BilCat (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty lame excuse, apart from perhaps you should say, that in the USA, America is not regarded as one continent. It is trying that USA citizen often confuse American English with English and USA definitions as international definitions. The point is that the Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an US American one.Jochum (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * English-language usage of "America" to mean "the United States" is not unique to the United States. You are correct that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and this usage reflects international usage. The word America is routinely used to refer to the United States by non-American sources such as BBC, Indian Express, Le Monde, and the citizens of the United States are American. Spanish and some other languages do use America to refer to the entire landmass, so it is correct to say that in Spanish the word America does not refer to the United States. However, this is the English Wikipedia and it is English-language sources and usage that guides the content. - Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't know what sort of English-language publications and sites the OP reads, but some people from countries, including the UK, Canada, and.especially Australia, are even more prone to use "America" to mean "the United States" than people from the US. Here's a very recent example from Australian media, which uses "America" to refer to the country in at least six places in one story. BilCat (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Such examples do not really matter. Read the definition of American in for example Merriam Webster or Collins dictionary. That I think is a more important reference. Claiming that the only meaning of American or Americans is being a citizen of the USA, is simply wrong. It is plain arrogance to see this promoted in the Wikipedia. I assume with a lot of help of USA posters. I also do not see any serious reference to the interpretation, that Americans or American refers solely to a citizen of the USA. I assume as this is the Wikipedia somebody that want to keep this interpretation should provide a serious reference, like for example the official usage of the government of the USA when referring to it's citizen. Jochum (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read WP:COMMONNAME. We are not claiming that American only refers to US citizens, but simply reflecting the common usage of the word in English. That's why we have this header at the very top of the article: Further griping is really pointless and it is beyond arrogant to continue pushing ones own POV in contradiction to Wiki policy, and really, the majority of English speakers worldwide. Not that it really matters, but have you read Collins dictionary's definition? "1. adjective An American person or thing belongs to or comes from the United States of America." Amusingly, the UK based Collins leads with that definition while the US based Merriam Webster has that at #3 for adjective use and #2 for noun use of American. Cannolis (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur. BilCat (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article strongly implies that Americans refers only to the citizen of the USA. That is definitely wrong. Very simple. I am not griping, but this article starts with a wrong definition of Americans. I understand that the fragile egos of USA citizen can not imagine other people than themself be called Americans, but it is fact the the inhabitants of the Americas are also called Americans. Furthermore the beginning of the article breaks Wikipedia rules, by not stating a serious reference for the claim, that Americans is only used for citizen of the USA. Jochum (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also note that this is not by any means restricted to the way Americans themselves use the term. If you called a Canadian or a Brazilian an "American", they would correct you, not agree with you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Bring an serious reference, for the claim that Americans means only citizen of the USA. As it is, it is a claim originating in the Wikipedia. That is against all Wikipedia rules regarding original content. Perhaps the official usage by the USA government? Jochum (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at American (word) for even a second? That's the place, if any, for this. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is starting to feel very WP:IDHT and certainly borders if not crosses a breach of civility with the repeated attacks on US editors. Recommend closing discussion and not wasting any more time feeding into this. Cannolis (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'd already come to that conclusion myself re: IDHT, and don't intend to respond directly to the OP any further. I won't close it myself as I'm involved here, but I welcome it. Note: I did suggest above that the OP read American (word) and the sources cited there, but all they apparently did was post a similar message on that talk page instead. Their comments since have shown no evidence of the user having consulted those sources at all. BilCat (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit with cross-links
A recent well-intended (pending changes) edit to the section on origins dumped in a mass of cross-links to relevant articles, in a way that just did not work. I removed it, and include it here in case someone wishes to find a way to weave some or all into the article properly.


 * For a series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal, see the following articles, ordered chronologically: New Spain, Cities such as Rio De La Hacha and Cartagena de Indias are Invaded by The French Martin Cote (1533), Jean-François de la Rocque de Roberval (1544), The English John Hawkins, and his nephew, Francis Drake (1568).

Battle of Santo Domingo (1586), Raid on St. Augustine (Florida), Battle of San Juan (1595), French Invasions Of Brazil, British Invasion Of Brazil (1595), Dutch–Portuguese War, Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Voyage of the Glorioso, Spain and the American Revolutionary War, Battle of Cartagena de Indias 1791, Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife (1797), Battle of Trafalgar, British Invasions Of Rio De La Plata, Napoleon's Invasion Of Spain, British Legions, Thomas Alexander Cochrane was a Commander in the wars of Independence in Hispanic America, as well as the Commander of the Brazilian Navy, and British troops, in Brazil's war of independence. First Mexican Empire, Pastry War, Mexican American War, Second French intervention in Mexico, Second Mexican Empire, Spanish–American War.

SeoR (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I was the one who made such edit, as well as the latest one, which you also reverted. I understand your concerns about the edits I summitted, however, I must point out the followings things in response to the rollback of the article. Starting by the edit you undid first, it's heavily important to note that that section is very much important to this article, given the fact that it expands, and directly points out Spanish influence in the United States, in this article, which, is titled "Americans" that bit of the article is heavily important because of specifically that, this article is about Americans, and it's necessary to address what makes Americans, Americans, and the culture they apply, and live in. I will undo the rollback you made to get that bit back, given the mentioned reasons. As for the edit that you posted here, and which was already approved, it's indeed important to the article, and rephrasing it could be an option to avoid mass-linking, however, I took that decision given the fact that if I explain each event, I would be unnecessarily redundant, not only because the name of the chronologically ordered articles explain what they are about, but, mostly because the articles themselves serve the person who would like to expand on each event, that's why they are linked in that part of my edit. I will be undoing the rollback for that part too, however, prior to that I will remake the mass-linking part of the edit for better results, for that, my objective will be to explain as much as necessary so that it's not just a wall of links chronologically ordered one after the other, which I completely understand looks terrible. By the time you read this, it will be already published. Thank you for your time. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Links to images on commons are not citations. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I initially thought on making them available in the article themselves, but found it more effective for it to be quoted as proof of what was being said instead of a bunch of images one after the other in the article. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not proof of anything, see WP:NOR. Your citations have to directly support your additions - no additional inference should be required. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They are proof of the mentioned California architecture. The mass-linking issue does not refer to those, nor was it mentioned in the previous' user message, or in my reply of it. They have now been deleted. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted them. You have to cite proper sources for your additions. Please read over WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is for sourced content, not for original thoughts or material. MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously talking about an edit I'm making, not the deletion you made, as stated, I didn't want to fuel that part of the article with several California style homes, just to give an example of "California's architecture" so I sourced them as you saw. But no, they are not coming back in that way. I hope it's clear now. And of course, clearly they are reliable given the fact that they are ´pictures showcasing what is said as much as a walk trough California would also be reliable to check what is being said, not to mention it has been like that since colonial times, if you are interested in recent changes (modern times changes) that have amplified the same architecture in California even more, see Spanish Colonial Revival Architecture. Have a good one. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted this again, it still was an example of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, sourcing one date and adding a bunch of pictures is not remotely at the required level of sourcing. All information in the edit must be directly sourced. MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's not close to the sources the article has. It was accepted earlier because anyone could figure it out, and I'm pretty sure they read well. If you have any other reason to engage further in this, then specify what doesn't have a source, one by one. And I'll add it. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the pending changes screening, that checks only that your edits are not outright vandalism. That your edit passed that process does not mean that it cannot or should not be reverted for other reasons - such as attempting to use pictures as sources. Nothing in your edit has a source, aside from the date of Ponce de Leon's Discovery of Florida. All of it needs sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)