Talk:American (word)/Archive 1

message: I am a citizen of a country called "the United States of America" which just so happens to be the same as the name of the continent. The political adjectives "United States" and "Republic", "Federal" and "Democratic" are adjectives found in practically every country in the world from Sudan to China to Mexico. These ever present adjectives describe the strictly political, not regional/ethnic identity. Why should the name (the noun for which the people in the U.S.A. are named) be changed to something else just to suit some misdirected anger towards American imperialism? After all you can't really be satisfied to identify us as the adjective "U.S.". Because we aren't the only U.S. people either and we would be "hijacking" the U.S. nomenclature from other U.S. citizens. We take away the respect of a Mexican who is also a "U.S. citizen" of Mexico. Ah... but the great continents beckon. 
For Spanish/English speakers, it's even more confusing as we are known as "E.U" which is confounding with "Unidad de Europa" (U.E.) which is in English "E.U."
While I agree that U.S. is filled with an arrogant, self-centered 21st century social atmosphere, we should be allowed to retain the name of our country, with the noun "American" without any hinderance. 
Another strong reason is that throughout the history of the Western Hemisphere, none of the post-colonial societies referred to themselves as Americans EXCEPT those inhabiting the United States of America. That includes, intellectuals, politicians, ruling classes, independance movement leaders, public figures, etc. I cannot find a single Mexican, Brazilian, or Columbian reference where someone, oh lets say like Zapata, united the people culturally or politically with the word "American". Never found a "We are Americans" as a description in any historical context outside the U.S.A. 
Why then should you want it so badly now? --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, there have been several people like Bolivar who have created important movements around the term "Americano" meaning someone from the continent/s, actually in this case it excluded USA and Canada. Gnarus 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I am so tired of this.  Here's the deal: to most people living in the Americas, they are Americans.  To most of the English-speaking world, Americans are the white people living in the US.  As for the rest of the planet, if the names are anything like those in Germanic/Romance languages, they probably don't care.
Now, you can go to Latin America, home to most people in the Americas, and point out how American you are, and they aren't. If that makes you feel patriotic or something, great, but it's not how you make friends.  You see, it all depends on how you grow up.  What doesn't?  --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)
:I suppose it is good for the millions of people in the Americas that you know who they are.  But just in case it isn't, be careful before you "kidnap" other people and stick them with a label of your own choosing.  Oh and in my America, all immigrants to and citizens of the United States are Americans -Acjelen 8 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
::I dont know what the world cares about this, but i know that ALL people in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil call themselve Americans because there is a continent called Amreica after Americo Vespucci, the first to think that the new lands were not India.
Most of them think that the people of USA are the most egocentric and the second most imperialistic (after UK). -- 201.252.49.90 8 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
:::So what? This is the English Wikipedia, and there are no schools in English countries that represent a single continent as being called "America". Uris 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I most strongly resent the comment of this unidentified IP address before Uris' comment. It is quite clearly breaching the NPOV policies of Wikipedia that are supposed to pervade even on the discussion pages. It is blatantly nationalist against the USA and the UK. --Lord Akria 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am unfamiliar with this "White territory".  Happily I was born in a country where citizenship is granted by birth within its borders and does not depend on nationality, ethnicity, bloodline, stock, or other such notions.  Indeed, in my country one becomes an American upon immigration (and is thus a first-generation American). -Acjelen 9 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
Well, take a look at the demographics of the US and youll be familiarized with it.
Oh, and which country is that that you were born? For I now none such. Perhaps in some remote Pacific Island?200.244.240.42 18:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: All this talk about "white country" is incredibly stupid not to mention incorrect.  Black, Latino, and Asian people who are citizens of the United States are equally considered "Americans" to anyone I have ever met in my lifetime.  I assert that very, very few Americans in the modern age would claim that Americans are "white people" only. Those that do exist would probably not be the ones likely to make their way to Wikipedia in this lifetime.  Uris 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh 

message: I moved the vast majority of the material and the discussion page from American to here as the article was indeed about the use of the word.  American is used so variously, it really required a disambiguation page on Wikipedia.  Generally, the adjective forms of country names link to the country name itself (for example: France).  American is a special and contested case which required added information. -Acjelen 02:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The following was added to the article, it is reposted here on the talk page (move made by Acjelen 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the above user is correct in his comment, but he forgot to mention that the use of the word "american" (meaning US citzen) by French, German and Greek are a product of the use of the word which such meaning by the US citizens themselves, which is the misuse in the first place.LtDoc 20:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments removed from article area 

message: The place where a nation sits, ought to be strictly demarked in cartography, is the space on the earth where a culture is common to a group of Homo sapiens, groups that fight between. 
So are we still prompt to name a sub continent with the same name of the whole one?, it seems crazy under our natural behavior but eventually it happened. 
But today This continent is demographically a majority Spanish talking. Secondly is English, Third place goes for Portuguese, Fourth goes to French, and the fifth I don't know, but we have to mention the creolle, the guarani and the quechua. So when we talk about USA's land it can't be isolated from this relation, Spanish in that country is the second language, by far. And grows.
But, in USA how much of the people is trully "white(germanic-European)"? So what means to be citizen of the USA, be the classic chesse burger, coke, cowboy, star spangled banner, eagled, belled, may flowered,etc.? 
Is it possible that this brothers beneath our self sky assume that USA is actually the mix of all the cultures, and primarly the sons of what they call the Latino America nations and the caribbean, also china, Japan and India countries. The yankees are a minority, Texas is Mexico, California is Asia and Mexico, Florida is Cuba-Puerto Rico and other antilles. And the asians are all over the states So where do the American citizens regard their nation place, in the cold New England? 
AZTLAN is a hard name to pronounce, for a Yankee.
And Europe is placed in Europe, America is placed in America, to which place are you going to go? Because here we are americans.
Tugritch 14:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "América para los Americanos"

message: I'd call for VfD, except all it would do would bring more attention to this manufactured controversy.  When using English, the citizens of the United States of America are called "Americans."  The corresponding adjective is "American."  This "controversy" is simply a platform to slur a specifc people.  The slur attempts to invalidate the self-identity of a people.  The use of words such as "USian" in an English context says the people of the United States are too stupid to know what they really are.  It says the people of the United States are arrogart and need a comeuppance.
If this was about any other country, then wouldn't be any controversy, in fact those calling to force a name upon the targeted group would be rightfully condemned.    
There was no controversy, since meaning from context is clear, and the prefered term is dictated by the language being used, until roughly 2000.  Antiamericanism has in recent years been on the rise in Europe and the rest of the world.  This resentment has grown since the invasion of Iraq.  Those that use such terms as "USian" typically aren't trying to avoid confusion, but rather making a political statement.  That agenda can be seen clearly on this very page.  For examples, see the original article included at the top of this page, the use of such terms as "the children of Bush", and the comments made by User:LtDoc (specifically his characterization that self-identity can ever be mistaken, and his comments about the people of the United States of America being some how more misinformed than the people of the rest of the world) and 201.252.49.90.  70.106.208.134 08:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes me wonder...the Organization of American States is just an American  business? Ejrrjs | What? 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Actually, the Controversy you think started around 2000 has been actually around since the 19th century, ever since the infamous Monroe Doctrine was expressed in 1823. The Doctrine was condensed into a single phrase: "America for the Americans". While the actual meaning for this phrase is understood as it was intended (All matters concerning the American continent are to be solved exclusively by the American continent sovereign countries), some critics claim that the actual meaning was "America for the US-Americans". Please note that this condensed phrase refers to the American continent as a whole, not as North/South America. 10:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page Is Nothing But Flamebait 

message: :*Actually, the Controversy you think started around 2000 has been actually around since the 19th century, ever since the infamous Monroe Doctrine was expressed in 1823. The Doctrine was condensed into a single phrase: "America for the Americans". While the actual meaning for this phrase is understood as it was intended (All matters concerning the American continent are to be solved exclusively by the American continent sovereign countries), some critics claim that the actual meaning was "America for the US-Americans". Please note that this condensed phrase refers to the American continent as a whole, not as North/South America. 10:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monroe Doctrine and the use of America and American

message: I don't know if such information exists from a source that will not cause more disagreement, but when I was reading this and associated articles the first and most presistent question that entered my mind was this:
:When did American come to predominatly refer to the United States or its people?
Was this a term that was offically adopted by the government of the United States and popularized?  Did it stem from European bias in colonizing North America and seeing it as having primary importance?  Did it start outside of North America all together and only gain usage in the United States after it was established in Europe and other places?  Do we even know?  I think this information is a significant hole in the article. Dalf | Talk 18:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that it was first used in the 1700s or so for British people to discuss the British subjects living in North America relative to the British subjects living someplace else. And then I'm sure it likely was used much more often once the Revolutionary War was underfoot.  Just an uninformed but reasonable guess. Uris 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the word's usage 

message: I have kept largely silent on this subject for the last 3 years, but I feel now may be a good time to weigh in on the issue. I have helped settle a number of Wikipedia:naming disputes for European and Asian countries. Now I shall turn my attention to an issue closer to home.
First of all, I find it unfortunate that no one has mentioned the Spanish word norteamericano -- sorry, I don't know where the accent(s) go. I have started studying Spanish, and the first lesson in Pimsleur's Spanish explains that Latin Americans when speaking Spanish generally refer to people from the United States as norteamericano (literally, North American). 
Note that the English term North America has two distinct meanings:
#geographically, it refers to Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and all the countries of Central America. In this context, it is used in contrast to South America, which begins with Columbia and continues all the way down to the southern tip.
#socially, culturally, or politically, it can have other meanings than the purely geographical one. 
Seen as two continents, therefore, "America" consists of the North American continent and the South American continent. in a geographical context in English there is no ambiguity here.
With me so far?
In contexts other than the purely geographical one of referring to continents, the meaning of the English words America and America are harder to pin down. I think it depends on context.
In a political context, in an English news story in the London Times or on the BBC (TV, radio or web site), American almost always refers to the United States. But maybe some people chafe at this usage, and maybe some activists want to change this usage. 
In a linguistic or cultural context, the Spanish term norteamericano clearly 'is never intended to include Mexico or any other part of Latin America north of the equator. The Americas are divided lingusitically (and probably also culturally) into:
#North America: Canada and the US
#Latin America: Mexico, Central America, & South America
Is all of this correct? Uncle Ed 20:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocacy and neutrality

message: This article repeats itself at least three times, and I only got about half-way through it. However, I frankly don't care enough about the topic to sort everything out. I would suggest, though, that someone with loads of extra time on their hands do something about it. Canaen 06:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the exact same thing; several phrases are repeated almost exactly and several sections are redundant. 131.238.103.211 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this article here from American, which then became a disambiguation page, because Wikipedia needed a place for information on the debate over the use of the words "America" and "American".  Before that, the article tried to describe a great number of contradictory things from a range of perspectives as what American was.  It seemed to me that the American space could serve both an informative and a directive purpose as a tight disambiguation page.  People want to contribute to the debate about who can claim American and to discuss that debate.  If the time has come for a re-write of this page, one should remember that Wikipedia users will continue to make their own contributions subsequently. -Acjelen 22:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotany 

message: This article refers to the founders of the United States as "rebels."  This violates the Neutral Point of View policy, and generally common sense.  Why refer to the founders of a continuously existing government that has since been recognized by, to the best of my knowledge, every sovereign nation and diplomatic authority, as rebels?DougOfDoom 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to open a can of worms here, but well, they WERE rebels to the English Crown :P, it's just that history is written by winners so they are seen as heroes (Not that I'm saying they shouldn't be)DamianFinol 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed the wording to what seems NPOV to me, but didn't remove the notice to give others a chance to see if my change seems NPOV to them. John FitzGerald 14:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically Provocative Language 

message: What do North America, South America, Central America and Latin America have in common? Each is a set of two words composed of an adjective and a noun. Which one is the noun? America. Latin in Latin America (even as it is used in English) qualifies the portion of America that is "Latin" or "Latinized", just as North or South America describe the portion of America that is northern or southern - In the English language. When someone says "Latin Americans" they are equivalently describing the Americans by saying they are Latin. Latin Americans are a subset of Americans. Q.E.D. --Deepstratagem 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were correct, the same would apply to North Dakotans and South Dakotans, both subsets of the "Dakotans". You are not correct. Uris 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but it does. Think about it. The argument refers to description not nomenclature. (That's what adjectives do.) --Deepstratagem 22:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, gosh, I guess I just didn't think about it. Nope, still wrong. North Dakotans and South Dakotans are not collectively called Dakotans. Can you provide a source saying otherwise? Uris 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you need me to explain the difference between description and nomenclature? You are not really disagreeing with me. --Deepstratagem 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we're both saying that things relating to anywhere in North or South Dakota are not all called Dakotan and that things relating to anywhere in North or South America are not all called American, then we agree. Cool! Uris 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, your English sucks. Second, read what I write if you want to reply. --Deepstratagem 22:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we both agree that you are wrong, then? Every time you lose out in these discussions, you resort to "oh yeah, well you suck!" How old are you? Uris 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that your replies warrant such condescension. Again, read what I write if you want to reply. --Deepstratagem 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you lose. Dakotan absolutely does not mean anyone living in North or South Dakota. You seem to want to keep talking without saying anything long enough so that people will gloss over the fact that you lost this argument again. Uris 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep missing the point, that's why it's not worth discussing with you. There are plenty of sources that show that Dakotans can be called so - but again that is beside the point. I am not talking about nomenclature I am talking about description. If you don't understand reason, then no source is going to do you any good. --Deepstratagem 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim "plenty of sources" but haven't cited any. I guess you're just holding back. Uris 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even Simpler 

message: The term America and American is just another example of both simplistic approach to reality and linguistic and cultural appropriation that is typical in US culture. They use the term as is they were the only Americans. 
Another example is the term Christian. Some people in the US use it in contrast with the term Catholic. The real terms are Catholic and Protestant. 
Another example is "white": they use the term as if they were the only whites in the American Continent, or as if America was only a white country. People in Europe should watch out for this one: Now some of them are calling themselves European-Americans. I would not be surprised if in the future they would consider tehmselves more European than the Europeans themselves.
It seems that they somehow appropriate and plunder through language the basic terms of Western Civilization. —This unsigned comment was added by 65.10.133.252 (talk • contribs) .
:Thank you, anonymous, for this thoughful and balanced analysis. It is clearly well-researched as evidenced by the copious citations you have provided. You can rest assured that all the relevant and verifiable points you bring up will be included in this article. Nohat 02:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  America and American: US cultural plunder. 

message: There have been many complaints over the readability of the article. While there is much to be done, I've restructured some of the article in the hope that repeated arguments will be easier to spot and may be consolidated into clearer, crisper writing. --Deepstratagem 11:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done for the time being. It still looks a little cluttered (especially the demonym section, which I particularly dislike). Most edits were structural, so if you can't find something please search well before reverting edits. On the other hand, this is Wikipedia, so please restructure further and change section names where you feel necessary. --Deepstratagem 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. The article is much improved now. Nohat 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input in discussion; it was helpful, too. --Deepstratagem 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure 

message: Can someone change that section. It uses the Latin word americanus. Please use that example in the latin wikipedia. not here. Get an example of the english word American in reference to a species that lives somewhere in the America's. I'm sure you'll find one. American bison perhaps? --chad 07:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean. So we are going to exclude American animals as examples because their scientific names are in Latin? Feel free to change the animal or the section, but I don't get it. --Deepstratagem 08:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: After further thought, I see what you mean... You want the English adjective American explicitly laid out instead of described by the species. --Deepstratagem 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is, if the article were "Use of the Latin word americanus" the example would be appropriate. As it is about English usage, the example tells us nothing. That's why American bison is a better example. --chad 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific usage? 

message: SINCE most of the confusion and/or disputes of what "American" or "America" does mean or should mean have to do with the varying points of view of the people using these words ...
THEN it may be useful to lay out in a table the various usages and who uses them.
We have two sorts of contributors editing and discussing the article:
*those who advocate correct usage, from their various points of view; and,
*those who seek only (or mainly) to describe the various usages.
I'm more interested in continuing this discussion with the describers than with the advocates. 
Usage of "American":
Part of speech	Used by this group	Means this to them
Adjective     	Geographers       	Pertaining to the any place in North America or South America, including the Caribbean
Adjective     	Latin Americans   	Pertaining to America (continent)
Noun          	Latin Americans   	Resident (or person born in) America (continent)
We can add to this, and when it's fairly complete even place it in the article somewhere. --Uncle Ed 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your [refined] table might work well in the contexts section, and might reduce the need to have such wordy viewpoints in the controversy section (especially the politico-cultural section). --Deepstratagem 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a table

message: Anybody care to archive the old sections of this page and condense them into a summary? --Deepstratagem 02:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive and Summarize 

message: I've been following the conversation on this talk page, but I hadn't taken a look at the article itself for awhile. When I did, I found that the early parts had been englommed with a lot of problematic stuff: some pretty blatantly POV wording that takes one side in the dispute, and some really oddly worded sentences. So, I made some revisions. Because I didn't have enough room in the edit summary to explain what I was doing, here are some notes:
*I think it's fairly clear at this point that "American" is used to mean "United States-ian" in English-speaking countries in general. I could be wrong, but I suspect this is also true in many or most other languages that have a cognate for "American"; the exceptions that I'm aware of are Latin American Spanish and possibly Russian. In any event, it has certainly not been established that this is usage is limited to the U.S., so we shouldn't state or imply that in the article.
*We should eventually think of a better way to do the intro than defining "American" as an adjective. It's also a noun, and we are discussing both senses in this article.
*We haven't documented who exactly objects to the use of "American" to mean U.S.-ian. I'm not aware of any significant number of people doing so outside of Latin America, so I'm mentioning that in the article.
*"Some people in the USA have gone so far as to imagine that 'American' is a false friend of the Spanish word americano -- in fact, according to most dictionaries, they are the same word in both languages". "gone so far as to imagine" is blatant counter-NPOV wording. Plus, it's not clear what "most dictionaries" refers to here—most dictionaries certainly don't have both English and Spanish in them, so one would not expect them to comment on whether or not these words are the same.
*The statement that it's hard to tease an adjective out of "United States of America" requires a qualification. This is true only one rules out "American".
*"In the USA, primarily, for some time it has been usually considered locally as two 'continents': North America and South America, which are actually believed to be sub continents in much of the rest of the world, and relatively recently referred to collectively as 'the Americas', or much less frequently (in the USA) 'the American continent', instead of simply (and in keeping with historical accuracy) 'America'." This was an abomination of a sentence (requiring more work than just what I did to it), the meaning of which is unclear in places, but it seems to be pushing the POV that Latin America-style geography is normal and U.S.-style geography is an aberration. I would argue that "continent" is somewhat subjective, but "landmass" is quite objective, and there are two major landmasses in América.
*"In Spanish, América typically translates to America (continent); in English, this is now revised to become 'the Americas', which many geographers see as an atrocity." Ridiculously counter-NPOV wording.
*The expression "the Americas" is very well-accepted and standard in English. It does not require a "so-called" behind it.
*That the word "American" was first used to describe British colonists in 1765, and that it then became widespread by 1774 is an interesting and fairly plausible fact. I tagged it for citation, though, because that is a quite short time for a word to become widespread. There are probably similar cases in the rest of the text that need citations, but I didn't review the whole thing. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only were the edits by User:Ila Falfo flagrantly POV, but they were overly verbose and poorly written. I have attempted to work out some of that too. Thanks for your help. Nohat 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision notes

message: This is all so silly. In American English, "American" means "of America", i.e., "of the United States", just as "America" means "United States of America"
It's only non-Americans who insist that "American" ought to mean something else, and they delight in forcing Americans to pick some word other than "American" to express themselves in. Reminds me of policital activists who would short-circuit every political discussion in which opponents would use the word "democracy" or "Communist" any way other than that which the activists insisted was the only correct word. They delight in making dominating their conversational partner, by running verbal rings around them and making them tongue-tied.
It's a great way to prevent communication and increase frustration and resentment all around. The result of not letting people talk the way they want, is that they're going to go out of their way to avoid talking to you because you're so obnoxious and annoying. Will you then accuse them of not paying enough attention to you?
There are only 2 reasons to change words like "American" and "America" to phrases like "from the US" or "the United States":
#you are afraid someone will take offense
#it's likely someone will misunderstand
At this encyclopedia, context can take care of problem #2, but problem #1 will never go away as long as there is someone, somewhere eager to turn the common adjective for the world's richest and most powerful country into a taboo. --Uncle Ed 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see it this way.  I'm an "American", that is, I live in Pennsyvlania, but Ive always thought using that term to describe citizens of the United States was problematic.  It is a widespread usage, but one always feels that it is technically false.  You would seem to agree that American can not be used for citizens of South America or Canada or Mexico because America is not the continent in which they reside; indeed, that it is not a continent at all.  I suggest that it is not a continent in English, but that does not mean it is not a region.  America is a body of land consisting of northern and southern parts, which we label as continents.  But whether or not America is a continent is irrelevant.  It is a landmass with perfectly clear delineations.  It doesn't make any sense that the United States is all of America when other countries are part of North or South America, as north and south simply describe halves of America.  Consider North and South Korea.  If there were a hypothetical province, located in South Korea, whose official name was "the united Villages of Korea", it is clear that not only they would be Koreans, but also everyone in either North or South Korea.  The US may be the only country which refers to JUST America, but all American countries lie in a part of America,and all of their citizens are technically Americans.  It is simply a question of forming an adjective from a noun, and nationalistic, imperialistic, and anti-American sentiments play no part in it.  The article should reflect that all citizens of North and South America are Americans, but that American is commonly but not exclusively used to indicate only citizens of the United States.71.224.93.219 11:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anon: incidentally, and just because I'm curious, how do you feel about the use of the word "Colombian" to refer specifically to the Republic of Colombia and its people? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said, 71.224.93.219. --Deepstratagem 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Come off it

message: I just took a quick read of the article and for some reason or other gained almost nothing from it.  Looking at the comments here, it appears that people have been hard at work, however, so I expect it to improve with time.  Still, I think it would be helpful if someone could explain in the body of the article, preferably at the outset of the section captioned "Controversy," just who it is that asserts that the use of the word "American" is "controversial" as opposed to being a word that is sometimes confusing or imprecise.  I don't see any references to organizations or large publishers claiming that the use of "American" to pertain to things or people from the US is "controversial."  Perhaps there are some, particularly non-Anglophone publishers, but they need to be listed and their relative status vis a vis their influence in the publishing or other spheres should be described.  I see a lot of angry words in some of the comments on the talk pages but I think it takes more than that to call an otherwise equivocal word a "controversial" one.  On a personal level, my US public school teachers made a very clear point of making sure every kid in grade school and beyond understood the ambiguities and possibility of perceived bias in the non-careful use of the word "American," and that was at least 35 years ago.  According to my grade school nephews, they have also been made clearly aware of possible problems, so it seems that my experience is not one unique to my generation or school district.   Ande B 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to your question, Ande. It's been asked several times here in one form or another, and never answered. John FitzGerald 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article section that introduces "controversy"

message: The paragraph with the line "Mexican-American or Canadian-American to refer to people of Mexican or Canadian origin living in the United States" really ought to go, as it is misleading. My francophone ancestors lived in Acadia and Quebec for many years before coming south; that would arguably make me Franco-American, but I doubt I've seen the phrase "Canadian-American" in my life (and I highly doubt any Canadian's living in the US would want to be referred as anything but Canadian). As for Mexican-Americans, sure that phrase gets used, though I'd generally use Chicano, as that is (in my experience) the preferred term by the people to whom the term applies. 
Incidentally, I'm surprised no one here has really discussed the cultural implications of the word American e.g. that America refers not just to a geographic or political entity, but to a cultural one. Some here have suggested that Americans ought to consider themselves Californians or Texans or New Yorkers, etc. based on the state of habitation, in the same way members of the European Union could be Italians or Germans in addition to Europeans. But the comparison is not at all apt; despite our regional differences we very much consider national identity to be far more important than states. And Latin Americans don't share that identity (though as a pro-immigrant, I'm cool with Latinos who want to join us). -Bert 171.159.64.10 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the article suggests that those terms, "Canadian-American" and "Mexican-American," are redundant. I agree that Mexican-American is a terrible term, but Chicano is a politically-loaded term, and a sizable population of Mexicans residing in the U.S. don't identify with "Chicano" either. See Chicano for reference. A more accurate term would be U.S. Americans, Mexicans, or U.S. Americans of Mexican descent, depending on the specific case. --Deepstratagem 04:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misconstrued or misrepresented my point. In the US, a hyphenated American refers exclusively to ethnicity, not to geography. No one would ever call a Canadian living in the US a "Candian-American" because we don't recognize a Canadian ethnicity. Americans recognize Canada as a multi-ethnic nationality, and I assume Canadians do as well. It has absolutely zero to do with issues of redundancy.  I've removed the discussion of "Canadian-Americans", but left Mexico as it illustrates what you see as redundancy (though I disagree).  171.159.64.10 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did misconstrue part of what you said and your point is taken. Deepstratagem 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mexican-American or Canadian-American"?  Nope. 

message: In the list of alternative names and terminology the term U.S American and United States American were listed as a so-called "commonly used alternative" instead of being listed with the foreign (language) alternatives, which is where it belongs since it is mostly a direct translation of a foreign term. I changed this and mentioned U.S American with the German US-Amerikaner entry in the  common foreign alternatives list. US or United States American is simply in no way common terminology in English speaking countries or media. I, as a German speaker, know the word is extremely common in German media but it is virtually non-existent in mainstream English media and common usage. The fact is that there is no common alternative in English at the moment. Please do not revert this edit again.
--Westee 07:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google "U.S. Americans" with the quotation marks. Why would it be listed with the foreign language alternatives if it is used in English? In scholarly papers and political arguments involving other Americans it is often used to be clear and precise. The fact it is not as common as American doesn't mean that as an alternative it is not commonly used. Also, the U.S. media has no reason to use alternatives due to context and familiarity by the primary audience, especially if the issues raised here would incite anger upon inadvertently questioning the identity of its audience (or at least the word it is associated with). The point is, the media (the popular/mass media) is not a very good meter for gauging the use of such an alternative, and neither, for various reasons, is it the final authority on reality. Maybe you mean U.S. American is not as widely used as American... in which case you should reconsider your edit. --Deepstratagem 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt it is mainly a direct translation of the German term as I hear this term all the time by students in English, Culture and International Studies classes and acquaintances attempting to be politically correct. You are correct about the "contact us. Americans" google search interference, but among those results there are several examples, arguably sufficient to make the point (and they were not from German websites). I'm not saying the term is common at all. I'm saying it is a common alternative (at least the most common in the English language) for the demonym "American" in relation to citizens of the U.S.A. I only mentioned the U.S. media, but I made it clear that the mass media (regardless of the country of origin) is not a clear indicator of the usage of the word. Naturally, if in the U.K. "American" is being commonly used, then it is not an alternative... but in circles where an alternative is required (academic and international), this is the alternative of choice. --Deepstratagem 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone can get a false notion of what anything is if they don't speak English. I think "commonly used alternative" is specific and accurate enough, after all, we are not in the Simple English Wikipedia. However, if it is misleading, maybe the subsection can be left removed, and the term can be listed in the alternatives introduction in non-misleading terms as "probably the most precise alternative proposed, although not necessarily widely adopted." I would argue for this instead of the "possible alternatives" subsection because most of the unusual alternatives (atrocities) really are unusual in contrast to U.S. American. --Deepstratagem 03:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US American is not a common alternative in English 

message: Speakers of American English use "American" to refer to America (USA). Do we all agree with this? --Uncle Ed 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only is that true, but so do speakers of Canadian English, British English, Australian English, Newfoundland English and so forth.  Realistically, you'd be hard pressed to find any anglophone who uses the term American to refer to anything other than Statesiders, or their products (i.e. American Cheese).   Do any of the smaller anglo nations in the Americas ever use "American" to describe themselves?  Jamaicans or Bermudians or anyone?  I would be surprised, but not flabbergasted - after all, I live in the Americas, I'm a North American, even if I am sure as fuck not an American. WilyD 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English speakers and English usage

message: It is quite clearly established that America is the proper and legal name of a nation, apart from the union that governs that nation, and acknowledged by monarchs and founders since its establishment. The following should make this clear:
Declaration of Independence;
“IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” (As you can see, the word “united” was not capitalized yet, because it was not considered a name.)
Articles of Confederation;
Article 8, last paragraph reads as follows: “In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.”
1783 Treaty of Paris;
Article 3, “… of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty …”
Article 6, “… ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at Liberty …”
Article 7, “… property of the American inhabitants …” and “…the American artillery that may be therein …”
Article 9, “… said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed …”
This should be conclusive evidence that America is the name of the nation and its people, and that “United States”, “Union”, “Confederation”, are merely words to describe a nation of states. This holds true for the United Mexican States, Federative Republic of Brazil, the United Kingdom, and other countries that are not nation-states or city-states. Are Mexicans called United Mexicans? Are the British called United Kingdom citizens? Are Brazilians called Federative Republic citizens? Then why should American be called United States citizens?
If in the Latin world America is the name of the continents of North and South America together (the Americas), then the name will have to be shared. This also begs the question of why anyone would use the continental name at all to describe their origins. Egyptians do no call themselves Africans, and nor do Russians or Israelis call themselves Asians. There are no countries named Africa, North America, South America, Asia, or Europe. Australia is the only exception because only one nation has ever occupied it. If India conquers a part of Australia for themselves, then I'm sure they will call their part something else as a nation. Australia would not be bound to change its name if it lost control over the whole continent.
But there is a nation called America, established in the Eighteenth Century, and like then as now, no nation has used the word to name their country. Otherwise we would be the United States of Columbia, or the United States of Philadelphia, or some other name. America would not be used if it had not been intended to be the name of their country.
:Interesting sources. Nice work finding them; it would be cool if you could work a bit of that into the article. However, I should point out that the Treaty of Paris seems to support the idea that "American" (which, strictly speaking, is the subject of this article) means "estadounidense", but that "America" is ambiguous at best, possibly referring to the whole of the New World. The larger context of one of your quotes is, "... the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use ... and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty ...", etc., etc.. That is, "his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America" seems to be referring to Canada. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal and proper use well-defined. 

message: The current claim is that Americans and Canadians use American to refer exclusively to Americans - but that this is less true of other English speakers?  Is there any basis for this claim other than wishful thinking?  Even the unverifiable attestation of someone from Britain, Austrailia, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Ireland, Singapore, Bahamas, Jamaica, South Africa or any other country with anglos?  Anyone?  Would a Jamaican accept being labeled as an American?  Is there any evidence that this occurs whatsoever?  WilyD 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm an Aussie and my unverifiable assertion is that if I were told "He's an American", I'd think "He's from the USA", not "He's from somewhere in North, South or Central America".  It's not that American is never used in the more general sense, but it would require a very particular context.  Generally speaking, to label a Jamaican as "an American" would be considered at the very least grossly misleading, if not a downright lie, in Australia.  If the speaker justified themselves by saying they were technically correct, they would be branded a nitpicking wanker.  JackofOz 08:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the Village Pump be the right place to post a notice about this request?  I think this discussion would benefit from as wide a range of opinions as possible.  Not only Anglophones from around the world but non-natve speakers of English describing what they understand the word "American" to mean in English.  Also non-English non-Spanish speaking inhabitants of the Americas, like Hatians and Québécois, do they consider themselves Américaine? Sumergocognito 23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Anglophones