Jump to content

Talk:Americans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jochum (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 7 May 2023 (→‎It is a bit strange to define American as a citizen of the USA: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Puerto Rico in "Regions with Significant Populations"

Puerto Rico is an American territory and all Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, so it should be removed from the "regions with significant populations."

Nothda (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Garuda28 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the hatnote

CONSENSUS IS TO NOT INCLUDE
I'm WP:BOLDly closing this early because consensus seems clearly against this proposal to include the hatnote, and the OP was blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. Per WP:EVASION, there is no reason to encourage this block-evasion by letting this RfC continue to run. Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the hatnote
For a specific analysis of the population of the United States, see Demographics of the United States.
be placed at the very top of the article? Privybst (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there’s no reason it shouldn’t be linked in the lead. The same applies to British people. — HTGS (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No ...link in lead....and cut back on current scrolling nightmare hatnotes.Moxy- 03:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak No. I wouldn't consider it egregiously wrong but, as noted above, this is more of a closely related topic than one that needs disambiguation. I also note that Demographics of the United States is right at the top of the Overview section after a very brief lead, so I would expect anyone looking for that article to find it pretty readily. (Contra HTGS's suggestion, I think having the link at top of Overview is more elegant and readable/easily found than working an additional text wikilink into the lead would be.) CAVincent (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having a mass amount of text to scroll through before the article even starts is a deterrent for readers..... that's why we have rules for lead spam of this nature.Moxy- 03:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On Argentines, the OP added one of those hatnotes today. Apparently these are the only articles where they're doing this either. BilCat (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Privybst Hi. You've gone around on multiple articles including Finns, Icelanders and Swedes removing hatnotes linking to this discussion. I'm not sure you should take this thread as some sort of consensus to go around and change every single article, but rather treat them on individual basis depending on article content. TylerBurden (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I removed the similar hatnote from Finns article User:TylerBurden reverted with a comment I think it is useful on this article, since it is otherwise not accessible until the bottom in ″see also″. I think that the common policy should apply to all nation's articles. --Privybst (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think 4 editors agreeing with you on this article creates some sort of "common policy" I would have to disagree with that, if you can gain consensus to completely eliminate these hatnotes from all articles then by all means, but I don't think you're there yet. Like I said above, it depends on the article. TylerBurden (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TylerBurden they are not agree with me, as you can see from above section. I added this hatnote to this and many other articles, see my recent contribution. But there should be a common policy. Privybst (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok for not every article to be the same. It could be useful on some, but when there are easily accessible links to the same page early on in the article I don't see a reason for it either. TylerBurden (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that the OP here has just been blocked as a sockpuppet. TylerBurden (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

  • "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).

-- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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- 04:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your misunderstanding the OR part [1] Moxy- 11:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americans&oldid=1153672942"