Talk:American (word)/Archive 2

message: Am I the only one who thinks the article is too long by half?  We could easily get rid of all the "alternate terms for American" sections.  They are either archaic or idiosyncratic terms that are not in use by practically anyone who speaks English.  They are also mostly unverified. Sumergocognito 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I basically agree with you, given the recent disagreements by some people regarding this entry, and hoping that most of those disagreements have been resolved by the simplification of the intro, I would say that we should not delete sections at this time.   However, there is still quite a bit of repetition, and I think you might be able to get rid of some of that (if you like) without stirring the waters up again.  Other than that, I vote that we let the entry rest for a couple of weeks to see what fresh eyes and voices think.  --Ssilvers 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure about that.  One of the things that bugs me about it is that it presents essentially unused terms side by side with somewhat used terms - "Statesider" is not unknown in general usage, for example.  But I'm not sure that its an undesirable feature - perhaps what it needs is citations of who suggested these terms, for ones that aren't in the vernacular. WilyD 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article is too long. The views sections could be condensed into a less argumentative style of writing. The contexts section appears to be there because someone thought they could persuade the readers with random examples of the usage. The same can be said of the alternative demonyms section, although some demonyms do belong there, as they are actually used or are in principle more accurate. However, as Ssilvers suggested, it might be a good idea to figure out what exactly to remove and justify it. In my opinion, the article should be an extension of the simplified opening paragraphs, and could be very complete, yet simple in nature by condensing and/or cutting out unnecessary arguments. Deepstratagem 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: The article translates Norteamericano as "North American" and states that it problematic in that it includes Mexicans and Canadians in addition to those 300 million people in between. Is this true in idiomatic Spanish (and Portuguese), that it is problematic and includes Mexicans? I ask because, as attested to roughly 300 million times on this talk page, Spanish does not recognize the Western Hemisphere as possessing two distinct continents while English does. As such, it seems like "northern American" is a reasonable translation, i.e. that part of America (~continent) above the Rio Grande. I ask because I have  seen English speakers use norteamericano to indicate the U.S. and Canada, in distinction from Latin America, and because I think it is a really useful word that English provides no counterpart for. (Canadians please don't freak; I know you aren't Americans, but the U.S. and Canada share more commonalities among ourselves than either does with Latin America.) So... would Latin Americans be cool with using norteamericano exclusively for the U.S. and Canada, or would this be yet another thing that would cause annoyance with Yankee ignorance? 171.159.64.10 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norteamericano? 

message: I edited up the "ethnic americans" census part as the "American" ethnic group is generally derived from people who's ancestory is uncertain, and may contain African or Indian descent.  In North America, most of us people who are just vaguely "white" is descent oftain contain Non-European ancestory. WilyD 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic Americans

message: Descriptivists argue that the meanings of words are not under the control of any one person or group, there is no one who can issue edicts that America can only refer to geographical continents rather than a country—nor the opposite, and thus arguments about what words should mean are debates that can never have any practical effect on English usage.
This has been bugging me for a bit, and I think I've figured out why.  It attempts to create a perspective that descriptivists are a group - but I believe that's incorrect.  English is a descriptive language, and (I understand) that's fairly uncontested - no institute claims to be a prescriptive source of correct versus incorrect English.  I plan to reword this substantially if no one objects - because it creates misleading impressions as it is - people who are "Descriptivists" while speaking English are probly "Prescriptivists" while speaking French, parce que English is a descriptive language, and a French is a prescriptive language. WilyD 14:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decriptive

message: Ok the major thing that seems to be ignored and forgotten in this debate is that the issue isn't if American can be used as an identifier for people from the United States of America. The issue that should be raised is whether the breadth of the title is covered within the article. 
Although it does cover the ideals from the point of view of mostly English Speaking society, normally in the sense that United Statsian doesn't exactly sound too good, and that in normal usage of a full name it is the only country with America in its name (although many countries originally did have America as part of their full name). These people have a tendancy to at least admit that members of other countries in the American continents are part of the Americas, they deem it necessary to maintain American for people from the United States and refer to members of the Americas from other countries as either North Americans or South Americans respectively. This I believe is completely appropriate in terms of common vernacular.
::Now as the title is worded it specifies that it is the word American which in terms of a completely world view and would need a lot more attention to detail and points of view to cover the breadth of the title. It would be interesting to have any of the "American for all people of the Americas" people to attempt to collaborate with the original author of the article in an attempt to, not contradict the views of most of the English speaking world for political/social agendas, but in an attempt to broaden peoples knowledge of the different uses of the word. It will be important to take into consideration especially since a lot of the arguements mentioned here are going to need to be resolved with respect to the influx of Latin Americans who are now speaking English and have a new vernacular English which is completley legitimate with their own experiences. This article will need to be edited soon either way to cut down on peoples personal opinions (including this one) and to focus more on all real uses of the word American regardless of the political/social arguements. All of the stated arguements could be made much more eloquently and succintly and still express everyones point of view respectively. Much care will need to be placed on the exact way that the points of views are presented and I personally believe they should be expressed in terms of their many different proponents from different backrounds in order to give it the air of legitimacy that the proponents see. As for my personal final conclusion that I really would hope would continue to be a prevalent theme in this article is that most English speaking people and to some extent most of the world recognize the term American as a term for people from the United States, whether they believe it to be socially fair or not, and on that basis cannot be disqualified as a legitimate use of the word. Also for terms of practicality and pronunciation I would hope that USian (which could become like US Navy, which in the form of the fluid word Usnavy, has become a name in some Latin Countries)and United Statsian as well as the others I've heard mentioned before, will not become the more prevalent nomenclature for people from the United States. User:Ycoco 21:41, 06 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breadth of the title covered or not?

message: Just as a clarification, both the Japanese language and the Chinese language call the United States of America simply "America" or a reasonable semblance of that word.
In Japanese, the country is called "ah-meh-ree-kah." (I would use katakana symbols, but I believe most computers would only read questions marks). Americans, or people from the United States, are called "ah-meh-ree-kah-jin" with the word jin meaning person.
In addition, I noticed that a writer above commented that the Chinese called America the "beautiful country." This is correct, because the Chinese call America "Mei Guo," with Mei meaning beautiful and Guo meaning country. However, the Chinese name is an abbreviated from the full Chinese name, or at least the original Chinese name, which is/was "Ah-Mei-Lei-Kah Guo" which is their rough transiteration of "America Country." It is a coincidence that the "Mei" that is used in the transiteration also means pretty. The Chinese language has abbreviated the names of many nations, including England, France, and Germany, using only one syllable of the full name and then the word "Guo".
:To be fair, though, the Chinese word for an American continent is Meizhou (美洲), which means "America continent". So, they have employed the tendency of their language to include suffixes to avoid confusion over the two senses of "America". That brings up another relevant bit of trivia, which is that I unaware of Chinese ever referring to "Meizhou" by itself, but always to "Bei Meizhou" (north America continent), "Nan Meizhou" (south America continent), or "Zhong Meizhou" (central America continent). That is, they agree with Americans that "America" is not a single continent. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's enlightening. I'd be curious to know, though - might Nan be part of the (proper) name of the continent or just an adjective? Deepstratagem 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly could be either (by the same token, I don't think that "Zhong Meizhou" is intended to refer to Central America as a separate continent). It's just that I've never heard anyone refer to Meizhou alone (granted, I am not the world's most proficient understander of Chinese). It's interesting to note that the Chinese Wikipedia does have a short article on "Meizhou" (linked to from Americas), which begins by saying "Yameilijia Zhou [note that Chinese speakers think "l" sounds like "r" and "j" sounds like "k"] (America), for convenience called Meizhou, located in the Western Hemisphere, is divided by natural geography into North America and South America, and divided by cultural geography into Latin America and Anglo-America." However, the Chinese article on "continent" lists Bei Meizhou and Nan Meizhou, but not Meizhou. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't speak chinese, but when I was in China, I was told that "mei guo" was used as the name for the US, because it sounds like America, and because America sounds almost like "beautiful country"/mei guo in chinese. (china by the way, is chung guo which means "central country") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.123.123 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asians call the country "America" 

message: New to the controversy, but I'd like to point out that:
1) What I have read on the talk page makes me think that some of you need to read this article:Wikipedia:No_original_research
2) It's ok for words to have more than one meaning
3) If the controversy itself merits an encyclopaedic entry, all that's required is a description of the controversy, not a demonstration of the controversy.
Dave 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's something you feel is original research, please feel free to slap it with a citation needed tag, that's good wikipediaing WilyD 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I placed the "This section may contain original research or unverified claims" tag under the entire disagreement/controversy section based on your advice. Some arguments are intelligent and probably valid, but most are the result of a live "demonstration of the controversy". As a result of the recently deleted sections by Uris, and added citations, I think the article is improved. Deepstratagem 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion

message: It seems like the demonyms section takes away from from the article by suggesting change. If it should be there at all, there is no need for deep explanations of each term, and should probably be moved to a subsection on criticism of U.S. usage, as it is not that important of a section. Deepstratagem 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Demonyms Section

message: OK, Uris, I agree with your deletion of the U.S. American usage in certain blogs. Blogs are not usually verifiable.
However, Why did you delete the section
 ==American in the Americas==  	 
 		 
 	Mexico is in North America and residents of Mexico, Central America and South America all live in the 'Americas,' and are therefore Americans, .
As a publication by a university (University of Texas) it is not only verifiable but authoritative. The author has a Master's degree in Communications and traveled extensively. Finally, unlike the rest of the sourceless paragraphs which you left standing, this statement was backed up by a citation. Deepstratagem 16:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A publication by a university is not authorative; there's a lot of crap and debatable information that has been printed by university presses. Just because one person thinks that all members of both North and South America are Americans, doesn't make it a fact; words are defined by usage by speakers, not by fiat from above.--Prosfilaes 02:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, look at the credentials, the logic behind it and wikipedia policy. The other evidence in the article supports the statement. Deepstratagem 03:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, one would look at a dictionary for authoritative information (nevertheless, descriptive, rather than prescriptive, information) about what words mean. In any event, if we have established as a fact that Mexicans, etc. are Americans, then there is apparently no real controversy on the matter. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My difficulty with the citation is that the author makes such a bald claim in passing despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. To me, it almost seems like she is so out-to-lunch that she can't be taken seriously. Sumergocognito 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Edits 

message: I've moved most of the older conversations (from about a month ago and before) to the archive.  I hope that's okay with everyone. Sumergocognito 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Deepstratagem 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: National Geographic
In this lesson, students will review basic facts about two ancient American civilizations: the Inca and the Maya.
National Geographic would know.
Here is more: 
<B>National Geographic Resources on Ancient American Civilizations:</B>
<B>News Stories:</B>
Thousands of Inca Mummies Raised From Their Graves
Machu Picchu Under Pressure From Tourism
Machu Picchu Re-Created on Geographic Map
City Occupied by Inca Discovered on Andean Peak in Peru
Fall of Ancient Peruvian Societies Linked With El Niño
Pilgrimage Route Uncovered at South America's Lake Titicaca
Excavations Challenge Views of Maya Development in Yucatán
Ancient Peruvian Metropolis Predates Other Known Cities
Oldest Intact Maya Mural Found in Guatemala
Tomb of "Giants" Unearthed in Peru
<B>Related National Geographic Web sites:</B>
National Geographic Inca Homepage (interactive feature, photo galleries, and more): Inca Mummies: Secrets of a Lost World
National Geographic Magazine: Moche Burials Uncovered
All of these American civilizations are part of what is now Peru, Mexico and Guatemala. Deepstratagem 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient American civilizations / National Geographic 

message: No one bothered to raise the economic vested interest issue (the fact that "American" is used in a certain way on certain organizations' letterhead), so I did.  Hope no one minds.  The point is that it would be really hard to change people's minds away from "American" when hundreds of businesses and organizations would have to change their articles of incorporation, trademark registrations, letterhead, advertisements, livery, trade dress, etc.  Too many prominent organizations and businesses are attached to the current usage to ever let go.  --Coolcaesar 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed a bit irrelevant at first, but I see what you mean. It might be interesting to note that a lot of Latin Americans probably think of these companies as "Pan"-American, and not just U.S. American given the wide brand-recognition and operation outside the U.S. Deepstratagem 05:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the "pan-American" perception, you're probably right with regard to the private companies like American Apparel, though regarding People for the American Way as pan-American would be rather funny! --Coolcaesar 00:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I mean private companies, notably, American Express and American Airlines which might be seen as continentally American even if mainly based in the U.S.  Such perception is good for business. Deepstratagem 00:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but it seems unlikely.  Many (though not all) conduct themselves in Canada with parallel organisations called Canadian ____ to American _____ so American Airlines ran Canadian Airlines, the American Automotive Association led to the Canadian Automotive Association.  WilyD 01:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course!  Pan-American - I knew there had to be an adjective that refered to the Americas, but for the life of me I couldn't recall what it was.  WilyD 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic investment 

message: 1. Why does this section contain Spain but not Latin America? The Spanish may disagree with the use of American exclusively for U.S. citizens, but I doubt they care even remotely as much as Latin Americans. 2. Under Canada, I am taking out the line "(s)ome Canadians... have protested..." because the "some" is totally weasel-wordy; some Canadians might disagree with U.S. usage, but I doubt there are many who go so far as to protest. 
And 3. the entire "Justifications..." section really should go. It is obvious original research and besides, no justification is warranted, any more than justifying calling UK residents British. English usage is what it is, that's the only justification that is relevant and the point is already made in the article. I'm not deleting it myself, but vote for its deletion.  171.159.64.10 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it says some because that was precisely the reference we found.  It's on the talk page here, so we can likely reference it up easy enough.  Whilst most Canadians understand American to mean relating to the States, and would whomp you in the side of the head with an axe handle for calling them Americans, apparently some shit disturbers object to not being Americans.  WilyD 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Goddamn it, now I gotta go take a bath, and maybe play a few games of hockey, apologise to everyone I see and then head down to Timmy Ho-Ho's and get a large double-double and a jambuster.  I feel so dirty ... anyways, I restored it, with the reason it was undisputed. WilyD 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disagreement over meaning of American" section 

message: Just skimmed over the last few months of archives.  I feel the need to reiterate what others have already said: in my personal experience of written and oral English, in any context from approximately 1800 onwards when referring to a nation state or person's nationality, the word "American" refers uniquely and solely to the United States of America, never to the Americas as a whole.
One interesting tidbit I have observed, which has probably been commented on somewhere but hasn't been here, concerns Canadian usage.  As mentioned earlier, when used by Canadians, the adjective and proper noun "American" refers uniquely to the U.S.  This is the only adjective referring to the U.S. used in Canadian English, be it casual or formal.
However, we Canadians never (or almost never) use the noun "America" to refer to the United States.  We will say "the United States" or "the States" or "the U.S.", but scrupulously avoid "America".  Perhaps something about the use of "America" as a noun carries with it the whiff of Manifest Destiny and all that.
When one thinks about it, it's an odd and perhaps illogical compromise: we have consigned the term "American" to the U.S., and the unmodified noun "America" to the void, for we use it neither to refer to the U.S. nor the two continents. --Saforrest 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most Americans probably use "The United States/US" when they describe their country.  Personally, I picked up calling The US "America" from a German exchange student. Sumergocognito 08:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's about right - this article is definitely one that values verifiability over factuality.  Canadian typically usage is that Americans come from the States.  But I think it's obvious that in Canadian English America refers exclusively to the States - and that the use of American as the adjective somewhat discredits the idea there's some deep reason for the aversion to America.  It just isn't the most common term.  There is a (rarely used) adjective to relate to the Americas - it's pan-american, but I'm not sure we're pan-americans. WilyD 11:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pan-American is used for organizations and ideals, not people. Pan- implies or emphasizes a certain collectivity, where just American means of America.Deepstratagem 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sure, there's no real used word for Peoples of North America and South America just as there's no real word for Peoples of Africa and Europe.  But Pan-American is used to mean Across the Americas whereas American is not. WilyD 13:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to add my two cents here. In my experience, as a Canadian living in Ottawa, Canadian usage favours "American" for the noun (there are no good alternatives) but is increasingly using "US" (or "U.S.") for the adjective. The adjective seems to be in transitional state -- the usage is neither consistant nor universal, but merely trending towards "US" for reasons of brevity and a desire to reclaim "America" for rest of the continent, I suppose. (A big reason for the rest of N&S America's usage would be rooted in objections to Manifest Destiny & the Monroe Doctrine, whether we remember it or not). 216.58.91.21 03:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American = U.S., and comment on Canadian usage 

message: Is there really a problem with the usage?  There are 2 nations with citizens called Dominicans and another 2 called Congolese.  They do not have a problem with each other.  Both Mainland China and the ROC(Taiwan) are officially called Chinese.  There is growing usage of European to describe the EU exclusive of non-EU members.  Ecuador means the equator but it isnt challenged by any equitorial nation.  The only REAL political dispute is between Macedonia and Greece of the former's name.  Shouldn't people have the right to name themselves as they please?  It is better than to have a name imposed on them like the bushmen of the Kalahari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.100.108 (talk • contribs) 
:This argument address what should be the case, not what is the case.  There's only one country named China, even if Taiwan wants to pretend it's China.  There's also only one country called Congo, even if a second country would like to pretend it's the Congo.  Burma has basically been denied permission to change it's english name to boot.  This kind of list goes on and on.  Whether people should have the right to decide their own name is debateable (and it's be long), buth whether people do have the right to decide their own name is an obvious no. WilyD 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does EU have first claim, if people were called Europeans before the EU was formed? Deepstratagem 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominicans and Congolese analogy

message: Long ago, a quote was requested in order to interpret the sources cited under the Canada section. It has been over a month, and the original editor did not provide such quotations. I don't have all the time in the world, but I read through the texts cited, and could not find any direct or unambiguous indirect support for what is claimed.
I didn't ask for an online source... Wikipedia doesn't require online sources... What is needed is a quotation on this talk page from this large offline text to show that the source actually supports the statements, or, for the citations to be removed (as I did). Deepstratagem 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Canada Section Citations 

message: The sentence in the intro, 'The word American, in English, is generally understood to mean "of or relating to the United States"' is surely inaccurate. Should it not read something like, 'The word American unqualified, in English, is generally understood ...'. The word American in the term "South American" rarely, if ever, relates to the US. Even in the term "North American", it refers as much to Canadians. Nurg 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very insightful. Thank you for pointing this out. Deepstratagem 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'American' qualified and unqualified 

message: Nurg just deleted the list that I have been working on, without bothering to discuss the proposed deletion on the talk page.  The reason the list is necessary is because there are a lot of people outside of the United States who are unfamiliar with the extremely widespread use of American as a trademark in the United States.  The point is that moving away from that use would require massive investments of money by organizations that have already invested huge amounts of money in the existing usage.  I'm thinking of several of Danny DeVito's rather infamous movie lines about the importance of money (you can find them on Google).  --Coolcaesar 18:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary said, "rm list of organizations - the point is made in the prec para; don't need umpteen examples". The preceding para says, "There are hundreds of prominent organizations and corporations that use "American" in their names to indicate that they are located in or serve the United States of America. Since all of them have a vested interest in their trademarks ...". As I said, the point is made - for the benefit of all, including all those outside the US who are unfamiliar with the facts. To then list all those hundreds of organizations (it was up to 58 and counting) is quite unnecessary and (I can say as one of those outside the US) quite tedious for the non-US reader. One or two organizations as examples would be ok. Turning the middle of the encyclopedia article into a directory of certain organizations is not appropriate. I suggest you pick one or two, at the most three, organizations which are particularly prominent and include them as examples in the text of the paragraph. regards Nurg 10:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be nuts or acting in bad faith. First you delete the list that substantiates the assertion and then you add a citation needed tag at this diff!  But anyway, I just found a citation at Google Books. I hope this works for both of us. --Coolcaesar 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange deletion by Nurg 

message: There seems to me to be only two problems here: argumentative perfectionists as a generic problem and Deepstratagem as a particular problem.
The reasons behind the first are obvious. However, Deepstratagem as a problem rather than merely a nuisance may be illustrated by the following quote from the first archive of this talk page:
"We are not anti-American; we are pro-American. This is a serious question: Do you believe you are being more objective than the rest of us? If so, how? Surely we all have a POV, but what makes you different? Additionally, we are not all claiming you are stupid. Some of us are trying to be constructive in finding a way to accomodate everyone's views. --Deepstratagem 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV must overcome!

message: Getting back to the article, we need to make the distinction between "U.S. citizen" and "U.S. national". Not everyone from the U.S. is a citizen; for instance if they revoke their citizenship. Someone born in American Samoa and certain other outlying possessions is not a U.S. citizen, but they are a "national" (all citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens). I think we should use "U.S. national" as the substitute for simply "American" instead of "citizen" for this article. Coincidentally, American Samoa is an example of a formal and official use of the word "American" to mean "relating to the United States", which should interest Deep. The distinction between colloquial speech and "formal" speech is not clear cut.--Cúchullain t/c 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, though according to WilyD, American Samoa is one word. Deepstratagem 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. national

message: Though I'm pretty sure there was a shift in meaning, there's no sources for it. The evidence that is out there points at early 1800s since Hamilton was still using the original meaning. U.S. presidents don't seem to start talking about American people in speeches until the mid-1800s with the Monroe Doctrine and all. But at this point it's all original research. Maybe somebody can find some sources. Deepstratagem 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shift in meaning 

message: I do not understand why people on this page are fighting about the truth. Apparently the words are used differently in different countries, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to find out which one is more true, but to constate the differencies. 
Please help to build up this list:
Countries where America (South + North) is considered to be one continent:
* Germany
* Czech republic
* Mexico
* Spain
* Indonesia
* Brazil
* Portugal
* Honduras 
* EL Salavador
* Costa Rica
* Panama
* Nicaragua
* Colombia
* Ecuador
* Peru
* Guatemala
* Bolivia
* Argentina
* Chile
* Paraguay
* Uruguay
* Venezuela
* Cuba
* Dominican Republic
Countries where America (South + North) is considered to be two continents:
* United States of America
Languages (without a country) in which America is considered to be one continent:
*Esperanto
*Latin
*Nahuatl
*French
*Spanish
*German
*Portuguese
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorn (talk • contribs) 
*This issue isn't about geography at all - it's purely about linguistics.  What we're talking about is continents which only occurs in English, and which is tied to the idea of there being seven.  Other languages may have similar words, with similar meanings, but English requires there be seven continents in modern usage.  My dictionary specifically says there are seven continents and lists them under continent.  
*This, incidentally, is why we're fighting about it.  Because of mistranslation. WilyD 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  America - continent 

message: I think, that wikipedia already has a perfect mechanism for dealing with such cases as this word. Let us agree on list of meanings which are distinct enough, and make a separate page for each of them. On some of them, there can only be a brief explanation why and where this word is used in place of XY and then reference to other article. Perfect example of this is 
If you agree with me, help me to make a list of separate pages needed:
*
America and American are currently disambiguation pages already. What do you mean?--Cúchullain t/c 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: let's make it a disambiguation page 

message: :In Spanish, estadounidense and in Portuguese estado-unidense or estadunidense are preferred to americano for U.S. nationals; the latter tends to refer to any resident of the Americas and not necessarily from the United States.
This is definitey not true for Portugal. The most common words used for American are norte-americano and americano. Estadunidense/estado-unidense may exist, but you never hear them used around here. I don't know about Brazil and other lusophone countries... FilipeS 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Portuguese

message: Deep, I saw you removed some sourced material. What was wrong with it? Also, I think the new Latin American section should be sourced if we are going to make those claims (ironically, the second paragraph seems to be a reflection of WilyD's point of view. I think this may give it undue weight. Are there any prominent sources arguing that using "American" in the pan-American sense supports manifest destiny or (US) American interests? It seems pretty ideosyncratic to me.)--Cúchullain t/c 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it absolutely agrees with WilyD's point of view. Except while WilyD sees perceived Manifest Destiny as a threat to his individuality, Latin Americans see American exceptionalism as a threat to the cohesiveness and pride that being American represents to them; that is they see it as unfairly exclusionary. There is a source listed somewhere on this talk page. I'll put it up. As for the "sourced" material, it didn't reflect the sources cited. Deepstratagem 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The book is Taking Haiti: Military Occupation and the Culture of U.S. Imperialism 1915-1940 and the relevant quote is listed on this talk page. Deepstratagem 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: USian redirects here.  It doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere in the article (I did a search, if I missed it please excuse).  I think it should be mentioned or explained in the article if there is going to be a redirect. --203.6.205.131 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USian

message: There was an addition by an anonymous user that though slightly presumptive, is probably true, and no more presumptive than the rest of the surrounding paragraph. In other words, perhaps the whole paragraph should go, or this edit by the anonymous user should be kept to be fair. Just a thought, I'm not deeply concerned. Deepstratagem 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edit reasonable? 

message: the intro claimed, in two different places, that "most languages" other than English use "American" to refer to the entire Americas.  this is definitely false; AFAIK, Spanish is the *only* such language.  i corrected the intro but i'm putting this notice here because someone may try to reinsert the false info. Benwing 07:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about most common usage. The info will need to be properly sourced, at any rate. I was under the impression that "Amerikaner" usually refered to "U.S. American" in German, but that it could also mean pan-American as a secondary usage. In the same vein French uses "Américain" primarily for the United States, but it can also be used in the pan-American sense. French also has another form, états-unien, but this is rarer. Both of these are more similar to the English usage than the Spanish one, where the primary meaning of "americano" is pan-American; however, especially in French, there may be national differences, for example in Quebec or Haiti. This should be referenced. On another note, I thought the Portuguese usage was similar to Spanish, meaning it's not only Spanish that uses "americano" in that way.--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "One such language is English, in which 'American' refers to the Americas."  According to the second adjectival definition in most dictionaries, and often nowhere as a noun.  Looking at dictionary.com, not a single dictionary has put a "usage problem" flag on it, let alone marked it as incorrect or colloquial.  According to the DRAE, the fourth definition of "americano" is "estadounidense," and it says nothing even about this being colloquial or incorrect, let alone the English.  When you say "American" (in English), do you honestly mean "of the Americas"?  If so, how often are you misunderstood?  If you read the word "American" in an English-language anything, what do you think?  Admittedly, it's used in a few contexts, but only when it's utterly absurd to think it means anything else.  (For the record, English compounds often contain a space, so "North American," "South American," and "Latin American" are not the same at all.)  Frankly, I imagine even "American Spanish" is on the way out as a neutral, American dialect starts to appear in more parts of the US.  Twin Bird 00:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No clue how new it is, but some form of it appears in both dictionaries I looked at, and at the French Wiktionary. It's apparantly less common, though, and I don't know if there's any regional variation to it.--Cúchullain t/c 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "American" in other languages