Talk:Americanism

message: Article seemed to relate "Americanism" as something being adapted to the British language from America.  I think the article needs a more specific definition and explanation.
I expected to find examples of uniquely American terms similar to the entry for Britishisms. Instead there's only one example, and a needlessly inflammatory one at that. Comparing the difference of the term liberal in it's American and British usages would have been useful.
*I think a list without context and explanation is not a proper encyclopedia entry. It is true that more examples could have been included but, again, once one selects a word and demonstrates that it differs in its denotative and/or connotative meaning from, say, that expected in Australia, where does one draw the line? As to the example actually selected, it would be a quite clear breach of NPOV only to compare American and British meanings. The requirement is to give non-specific explanations wherever possible. And,with respect, merely asserting that the entry is "inflammatory" without explaining why it would be considered offensive by the reasonable man is not a constructive criticism. If you convince me, I would be delighted to redraft the element or replace it with an analysis of another "Americanism". --David91 11:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Attention

message: Cantus, wht is that you are doing? Is that klunky change supposed to happen to all disambiguation cases? -SV(talk) 07:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, removed at popular request :-P --Cantus 07:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was nice-looking and all, but seriously, unless you figure out a way to turn every disambig page into something like that, while also removing the markup so it edits normally - then its BTTDB for you, young man. ;) -SV(talk) 07:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: VV - your methods speak volumes, but I ask that you qualitatively substantiate your removal of material. Thanks. -SV(talk) 06:45, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what policy violation you speak of.  I had reverted once, undoing your revert, just like you; but I gave reasons for my changes, and I did not see you explain your revert of them.  I think having Americanism link to the anti-Americanism article is a good idea, but the link means we do not have to repeat that material.  The characterization of Americanism the way you did (as derogatory of other cultures) was rather negative and unnecessarily so; connecting it to the idea of "superiority" mythos can be represented as an idea some espouse, but one should be careful to qualify such statements, as I did.  Also, such speculation and inference does not need to be in the intro paragraph, which serves as a definition. -- VV 07:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The new policy I speak of is a "3 revert rule", a guideline which may soon allow for sanctions for violators (like you and I) via consensus quickpolls.  The idea was catalyzed and germinated by Eloquence, and appears to have support, in the hopes that people will defer to discussion rather than revert/comment. So, your giving 'reasons for reverting' does nothing to show your openness to discussion or consensus, and in light of the proposed new guideline, I took a step back and chose to initiate conversation. As for reducing material to merely links, this has never been a good idea, and its contradicted by a rather large body of (mostly disconnected) policy in favor of inclusion, rather than exclusion.  Providing a link out of context does little to improve the article. Removing context in favor of floating links, can be borderline vandalism, if the person in question refuses to agree to discussion. Finally, your claim basically characterized my edits as espousing a POV, though you do nothing to argue the actual points, nor the actual substance of my edit, which was to reclassify the term as a political one. In anycase, I know youre not entirely without reason or faculties, and I will appreciate any FB you have on the current text, and the possible merger with anti-Americanism. Rsfy,SV(talk) 08:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removal

message: I have completely rewritten this page. It seemed to me that it lacked neutrality, judging propriety by reference to some supposed gold standard in the British version of English whereas that is completely irrelevant to the nature of the topic. This is about linguistics and semiotics and, in my view, the entry should maintain neutrality by approaching the issue conceptually rather than by spraying examples around with no context. Naturally, anyone and everyone is free to disagree for cause. David91 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sincerest apologies 

message: Since two people have complained that my first example was unacceptable (the nuances of local politics are rarely understood by outsiders), I have changed the example to one which I hope will inspire less anger. It is, however, a curious reflection on a culture when it seems resentful of academic commentary. --David91 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That last comment is disingenuous and fallacious. Academic commentary is ubiquitous and unremarkable here; political commentary in the guise of an encyclopedia article is not (in theory) acceptable on Wikipedia, thus the objections. --Kevin Myers 13:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
My comment simply reflects the fact that the reaction to the page which was intended as a contribution under the headings of semiotics and linguistics, was to delete the entire page. If the objection had truly been limited to bias in the example (which I selected simply on the ground that it was of contemporary interest), then you would not have deleted the academic basis for the analysis. But let us not fall out over this. I hope you feel that I have responded contructively. If I have not met your objections, please identify residual issues and I will seek to draft a further compromise version that we can both accept. --David91 16:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a different example 

message: I see no patronising attitude between Semiotics and Linguistics and I recognise work of outstanding quality at a mechanical level which does genuinely enrich understanding. However, I disagree in your conclusion that "if you're analysing the phonology of BEV, it doesn't help at all to know that the people who speak it are predominantly black, socially disadvantaged, or whatever." The whole point of inductive reasoning is the ability to move from the particular to the general. If a phonologist observes common features among geographically dispersed but homogenous language/speech communities of racially and/or social disadvantaged individuals, this might lead to interesting conclusions as to the extent to which similar semiotic niches produce common linguistic speech patterns, and in cultural anthropological terms, we could then consider whether the growth of mass media communication has produced diachronic convergences between those communities and the mainstream of vocal production and patterning. As to behaviour and T-shirts, both are acts of will, i.e. assuming a reasonable degree of voluntariness, they represent the choices we make in the interpersonal relationships we form in and with our environment. There is extensive work on the metamethodologies, the methodologies and the methods relevant to researching the coding systems, both verbal and nonverbal. It varies from the preverbal learning by newly born humans and communication by those suffering from aphasia, to systems for investigating the extent to which cognitive processing is lexically based, to understanding how people distinguish data as salient, etc. It is, as you say, all very difficult. But a semiotician's gotta do what a. . . And as to your suggestion, I am entirely content for you to edit in any changes along the lines you suggest. I think I shall leave all this in your hands from now on. It has been interesting to meet you but I find myself increasingly distracted by the probability of my death next week. And I wish you good luck in your life. May it be long and successful. -David91 19:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Guys, does anyone here realize that there is a segment of the population that considers themselves as an "Americanist"? The issue about the Pope should be removed and the article should go on to define what an Americanist actually is. I would be happy to provide text and citations if someone gives me the "thumbs up" to do so. Jtpaladin 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americanist article needs reality 

message: This is a disambiguation page, but some of the entries don't seem appropriate based on the definition of a disambiguation page. To quote the definition, "disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." In other words, I don't think disambiguation pages cover 1) "not to be confused" with terms, except using the special template for that, or 2) definitions.
Here are entries that don't feel meet the disambiguation page standard:
# Americanization. This is not the same thing as Americanism. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to add a "not to be confused with Americanization" link instead?
# Two entries which are effectively definitions, perhaps more appropriate for Wiktionary, though that's a separate question:
## "An attitude or conviction which gives special importance to the nation, national interest, political system, or culture of the United States."
## "a phrase: anything, such as a custom, particular to or characteristic of the Americas, and especially of the United States."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proxyma (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  several off-topic entries