Talk:Americans in the United Kingdom

Name change
Like COP663 i'm noit a huge fan of the original name 'American-British' as I've never really seen or heard it used. Not sure that 'American Migration to Britain' covers it either - the article is actually about people with American descent, rather than a population movement per se. How about 'Britons with American Ancestory'. Lets discuss it a little before making a move. Indisciplined (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Britons" are people who are actually British. Is Madonna a "Briton" if she owns a house here? The article says "London is home to many Americans, mostly workers in the City of London. This population is anecdotally thought to be fairly mobile, coming for a few years or just perhaps a few months before departing again." Are such people "Britons with American ancestry?" Of course not. If you want to call this article "Britons with American ancestry" you'll need to delete a lot of unrelated material. The title "American migration to Britain" covers everything this article is about: immigrants, the children of immigrants, migrant workers, and temporary residents. So it depends what you think the article should be about. Cop 663 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. And therein might lay the bigger problem. Lots of these articles were created in a very short space of time without a particularly clear theme. This is one of them. Americans aren't an Ethnic group, like say Greek Britons. Whether there is an 'American community' in Britain is questionable. Not all the people cited are US citizens or US born.  Some people listed were born to British parents who happened to be living in the states at the time. But the article isn't about a 'migration'. What is the article for?  As more and more information has been added, it seems the article's focus has become a lot more blurred. (BTW, doesn't Madonna probably holds UK citizenship by right of her British husband?)Indisciplined (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, quite. If we don't know what the article is for, it makes sense to have a title as broad as possible. There is an "American community" in Britain, but it's mostly students and temporary workers hanging out together, nothing like the long-standing Greek-British community. Using the word 'migration' doesn't mean a migration, it just means the act of migration in general (Madonna has migrated to Britain). But maybe something even broader like "Americans in Britain" would be better. Incidentally, I don't think citizenship is automatically conferred by marriage. Cop 663 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Americans in Britain'. Perfect! (Phew! The Wikipedia concept does work after all). Lets go with that. (And ditto 'Canadians in Britain') Indisciplined (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, if Winston Churchill is going to stay, the title will have to be interpreted loosely as including the 'effect' of Americans in Britain (i.e. the existence of jowly prime ministers of part-American ancestry on our native soil). But I don't suppose that's a big problem. Cop 663 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Erm....what exactly is the point of stating the ethnicity of the notable people. It's crept in somewhere, and I can't see why. Indisciplined (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Even worse..... What is the point of categorizing notable people by ethnicity? And the notable people section mixes people with history about the ethnic group in the UK. It's all very bad, and I would have started cleaning it up, time permitting, but it does not. Rklahn (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to say...
I moved the Union Flag to infront of the USA flag as it should come first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.200.23 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1980S
I am going over the Life in the UK test, and it is saying that one of the largest groups to enter the UK during the 1980s were Americans. Why the 1980s? Did something happen during that time period that I don't know about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.179.78 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sub-groups
Recent edits have added a sub-groups section to the article. This whole section is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, a substantial proportion of the material added is not about Americans in the UK but Americans in general. An example of this is "Native Americans are the oldest ethnic group in the United States and represent roughly 1.4% of the population". What does this have to do with the UK? Secondly, much of the material is unsourced. Furthermore, even where sources are provided, they often don't back up the statements being made. So, for example, we read that "In 2001, 306 people in the UK reported their birthplace as Puerto Rico, and many more British born people had ancestral roots on the island, some Puerto Rican born people with a strong 'American' identity could have alternatively stated their birthplace as the United States". The source provided supports the 306 figure, but nothing about many more people having Puerto Rican ancestry or about people stating their birthplace as the US. I propose that all of the unsourced and/or irrelevant material should be removed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was important to include the subgroups such as Puerto Ricans etc as typically speaking they are part of the USA but have their own culture, laws etc. The census gave data on the people born in the US, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa. this is all sourced, and there are obviously more British born people with ancestry in these islands (or are you saying these people haven't reproduced), feel free to remove the 'many' if that is what you have an issue with. Also for example people from Northern Ireland could identify as British or Irish, whilst people from Puerto Rico could identify as Puerto Rican or American, so it is likely that some people would have stated the US as their place of birth, because as I stated before this is technically still correct. If you believe that the unsourced or irrelevant information should be removed, tell me exactly what you want to remove and do so. Some of the information was added to give a brief background of the ethnic group (i.e. Asian Americans) so that they are not completely ruled out or left un-mentioned. America is a diverse nation and this article should reflect it. Even some unsourced information like the large number of English Americans in the UK due to family etc is obvious and could easily be sourced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that the information is not true and I fully understand the status of Puerto Ricans, but truth is not the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia, verifiability is. I quote:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.


 * If material can easily be sourced as you claim, then please provide a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you follow absolutely every move I make on wikipedia, and fair enough but there is considerably worse issues on other articles that exist to this day because no one has bothered to change it. With this article please could you just put citation marks on what you think needs sourcing, and not the obvious things. I don't understand why completely obvious things cannot be left on. VV Brown is a example that Puerto Rican immigrants to the UK have reproduced. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow every move you make. I have all of the migration to the UK-type articles on my watchlist because it's a topic that interests me, and I frequently find you adding unsourced material to them. By the way, please see Other stuff exists regarding your statement that "there is considerably worse issues on other articles that exist to this day because no one has bothered to change it". I will add citation templates as requested, but my complaint wasn't only due to lack of sources and I will also remove material that is not relevant to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article IS NOT about the United States, let's get the absolutely clear. It's about people in the United Kingdom of American origins.  Any details about the status or proportion of any ethnic group in the United States is therefore, completely off-topic. I have removed them, along with the unsupported sweeping statements that have been made in this exceptionally poorly-written section. This is just not up to Wikipedia standards.  My favourite bit was where being born in American Somoa or Guam was taken as being people of Pacific Islander descent.  It, of course, ONLY indicates that they were born in American Somoa or Guam. They could be of any ethnic origin. Frankly I think we can dump this entire section as pointless.  It smacks of an obsession with race irrelevant to the article.  Maybe a couple of sentances on people born in Puerto Rico, American Somoa, Guam etc as they are sepearate legal entities, but let us never make the mistake of assuming that this in any way indicates an ethnic origin.  Indisciplined (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that we merge African Americans in the United Kingdom into this article. Both articles are quite short and the material at African Americans in the United Kingdom could easily be used to bulk up the material under the sub-groups heading here. We'd then have a more complete article rather than two less complete ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable people section
I've removed the notable people section because it was unsourced. If anyone wants to reinstate it, with reliable sources as references, I've pasted it below as it appeared prior to removal. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove Benedict Arnold Image and remove political biases
While my national prejudices may coincide my grievance, they alone don't dictate my reasoning and justification behind this complaint. I shall present Four reasons why Benedict Arnold's picture should be removed from this article's page:

1) Benedict Arnold's notoriety is rooted in American history, not British history. His contributions to Great Britain, along with his effect on British history is miniscule and overshadowed by various other contemporary American loyalists and immigrants.

2) His notoriety is rooted in treasonous actions. To put this man in the same category as the American men and women who worked with Great Britain to mutually strengthen both nations is inappropriate. This figure

3) Considering Benedict Arnold's relatively unimportant role in British affairs, history and culture; this man's presence in the articles Collage is both unnecessary and, to many, intentionally offensive. If his presence on this page were to be eliminated, the national neutrality of this article would be better preserved.

4) It goes without saying that Wikipedia must remain politically and ideologically neutral but the presence, or in other cases absence, of specific important historical figures in nationality image collages suggests naked political bias and soft historical revisionism. The fact that Adolf Hitler is absent from the page on Austrians; Mussolini is ignored on the Italian page; Tsar Nicolas the Second is absent on the the Russian collage while Vladimir Lenin and multiple minor figures are present; and the fact that Joseph Stalin is present on the Georgian page's collage despite his human rights record being worse than all mentioned absent individuals COMBINDED suggests that political and national biases are clearly violating Wikipedia's NPOV. If ethics is used as justification to proscribe powerful individuals from presence in nationality collages, then why are ethically controversial and morally maleficent individuals such as Stalin and Lenin included while equally important leaders are excluded despite having cleaner (albeit still dirty) human rights records and only fundamentally differ in political and ideological ways from those included in national collages?

As a political and ideological centrist, I see this phenomenon of selective exclusion/inclusion is worrying and immature. I rely on this site more than most and my trust has been violated by certain obviously politically motivated content decisions. Benedict Arnold does not deserve to be pictured in this article. When it comes to these national collages, Tsar Nicolas the 2nd belongs on the Russians page; Adolf Hitler belongs on the Austrians page; Benito Mussolini belongs on the Italians page; and Benedict Arnold belongs on no national collages unless they're used as visual aid within pages on traitors.

Fix these biases asap. Senior editors have no logical, religious, or historical excuse not to fix these unnecessary violations of Wikipedia's NPOV; violations which hurt the credibility of this site and raise questions regarding content accuracy.

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.91.98 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Brits of Native American decent
Ironic, isn't it...o_O Ismael Perez (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Is Cultural Appropriation
Tim Dalton is British, born in the UK with an English father and an American mother, having lived in the UK all his life. You could argue that he could be added to the 'British-Americans' article but he is not 'American'. I think we need to remove anyone who was born in the UK, who was on holiday or working in the UK from America temporaririly and move them to the correct article otherwise editors will complain that its nothing more than US-centric identity appropriation, regards. Twobells''t@lk 10:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Edit. I have gone ahead and removed 'born in the UK of American descent' as many listed are British nationals aka 'British-Americans' who may have one parent of American descent, not 'Americans' which implies citizenship, otherwise we'll have to add 60% of the US population to the 'British people' article. Twobells''t@lk 10:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Americans in the United Kingdom. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304095516/http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls to http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/Download/Census%202011_Excel/2011/QS206NI.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024151754/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/blackloyalists/who.htm to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/Blackloyalists/who.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928222057/http://www.blackloyalist.com/canadiandigitalcollection/index.htm to http://www.blackloyalist.com/canadiandigitalcollection/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)