Jump to content

Talk:Americans

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

Total count of people is wrong

[edit]

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

[edit]

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).[1][2][3][4]

[5] 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.

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com.ar/books/edition/Pillaging_the_Empire/DjM-CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Martin+Cot%C3%A9+attack+on+cartagena&pg=PT16&printsec=frontcover
  2. ^ https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781315610245-28/city-rio-de-la-hacha-crown-january-8-1568-irene-wright?context=ubx&refId=6525fc02-d5bb-4c32-bfba-be9b32c763b5
  3. ^ https://archive.org/details/trent_0116405270582
  4. ^ https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra/historia-general-y-natural-de-las-indias-islas-y-tierrafirme-del-mar-oceano-primera-parte--0/
  5. ^ https://www.google.com.ar/books/edition/The_Manila_Acapulco_Galleons_the_Treasur/kk_iU0f-iT8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hawkins+attack+on+cartagena&pg=PA43&printsec=frontcover

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

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)[reply]
Links to images on commons are not citations. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The current situation

[edit]

@Moxy just said "Wow.....you need to go to article talk page... don't get blocked before you have a chance to State your case. why are you removing sources". I was removing sources because I was removing a huge chunk of info on the first paragraph, and added the stuff you added, just in the first paragraph. And if I'm removing some information, the sources to that information are then improperly sourced, so I removed the sources as well. What's wrong with removing 3 or 4 sources if my edit makes them improperly sourced? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear your not familiar with some of the basics on this topic or Wikipedia:Purpose. Pls suggest any further changes here before implementing them. Your recent changes to the article have all been a net negative.....or simply incorrect. Moxy🍁 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is my edit incorrect? I wrote down whites, Latino Americans, then blacks as the biggest ethnic groups. I checked the 2020 census and I'm correct. my old edits are wrong of course, where I said "blacks and whites" are the biggest ethnic groups, so my new edit changed that by saying Latino Americans are the second biggest ethnic group. Also you said "the Middle East or North Africa form the largest racial and ethnic group at 57.8% of the United States population." White European Americans form 57.8% of the population not North Africa or the middle east, the fact that you don't want whites, Latinos, or blacks in the first paragraph when those are the 3 biggest ethnic groups in this particular country, and the fact that you're saying Africans and middle East people are 57.8% of the US population instead of whites, it just feels like discrimination. I know you're probably not racist against whites or Latinos, but this page right now feels discrimination. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself....We are here to be factual and lead readers to more info....WP:Purpose..There is a certain level of competence required when writing about academic topics. READ White Americans and the sources.
  • What I wrote with sources

White Americans with ancestry from Europe, the Middle East or North Africa form the largest racial and ethnic group at 57.8% of the United States population.[1][2]

  • Your charges that removed the sources

the biggest being White Americans with ancestry from Europe

Moxy🍁 14:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OHHH!!!! I thought you put "White Americans with ancestry from Europe, and Middle Eastern and South African is 57.8% of the population", I didn't know you were referring to middle Eastern and South African whites. I was tired because I stayed up all night, I wasn't paying attention. Sorry. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea. Since I misread what you were saying, can you self-revert, to where the first paragraph says "White Americans with ancestry from Europe", and now that I understand what you're saying I can add "ancestry from the Middle East or North Africa" as well to that sentence. I'll even put back all the sources I removed. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that ok? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No..... you will have to ask for outside input at this point. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Moxy🍁 18:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I promise if you self-revert I'll get all the sources I removed and add them back. and instead of saying "white Americans with ancestry from Europe" I'll say "White Americans with ancestry from Europe, Middle East, and North Africa." Wasn't that your main issues with my edit? If you don't wanna self-revert and want me to get outside input, can you do it? The thing you just linked, it's confusing how to request outside input so can you do it? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Know what? Can we make the paragraph look like this instead “Americans are the citizens and nationals of the United States. The United States is home to people of many racial and ethnic origins, the most notable are White, Latino, and African Americans; consequently, American law does not equate nationality with race or ethnicity but with citizenship. The majority of Americans or their ancestors immigrated to the United States or are descended from people who were brought as slaves within the past five centuries, with the exception of the Native American population and people from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, who became American through expansion of the country in the 19th century; additionally, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands came under American sovereignty in the 20th century, although American Samoans are only nationals and not citizens of the United States.” HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok I guess you don't care anymore because you're not responding anymore. I'm going to make that edit in 3-4 hours so I don't have 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nevermind this is pointless HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Chance That Two People Chosen at Random Are of Different Race or Ethnicity Groups Has Increased Since 2010".
  2. ^ "Table 52. Population by Selected Ancestry Group and Region: 2009" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 25, 2012. Retrieved February 11, 2017.

I think we should add a picture of some Americans in the info box

[edit]

for example how the page for "human" or any other species, or "woman" or "child" has a picture of what they look like Finnigami (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pls review MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY. Moxy🍁 04:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americans&oldid=1259806116"