Talk:American (word)/Archive 3

Imperialism ??
Some writers here want to claim some kind of "Imperialism" of the United States of America in the Western Hemisphere, the Americas, based on its name and the use of the adjective "American" to describe its people. I want to point out the existence of and the true meaning of the Monroe Doctrine as put forward by the fifth President of the United States in the 1820s. The Monroe Doctrine declared that the time for European colonization and colonialism (two different things) in the Western Hemisphere was over with. It declared that no more of this would be tolerated by the United States, and that the United States would use its power to uphold the independence of all countries in this hemisphere that wanted it, and that it would block any new colonies in the Americas. With the help of the Unted States (diplomatically and otherwise), no new overseas colonies have been established here. For example, there have been no new colonies established in the Americas by Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, the U.K., the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and so forth. All of the former Spanish, Portuguese (Brazil), British (Canada, the Bahamas, etc.), and French (Haiti) colonies have achieved their independence, if they wanted it with the possibility of some very small exceptions. The U.S. admittedly little to do with the independence of Canada, except perhaps with diplomacy. Credit the Canadians themselves in "150 years worth of angry letters" leading to the British North America Act of 1867, and Canadian independence.

The United States has also eliminated overseas colonialism itself by purchasing Alaska from Russia, the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark. The United States fought a war with Spain to bring about the independence of Cuba, and to eliminate the Spanish from Puerto Rico, and incidentally, from the Philippines and {Guam]], though those are not in this hemisphere.

The Philippines were peacefully granted their independence in 1946. Puerto Rico retains a "Commonweath" status with the U.S. by free elections by its people where the choices were Commonwealth, independence, and statehood. Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands retain free association with the U.S.

The United States and Canada maintain the longest unfortified border in the world. A treaty between the two drastically limits the number and the armaments of naval ships on the Great Lakes along their border. Coast Guard vessels are maintained there on the basis of mutual consent, and their primary duty is in lifesaving and enforcement of customs laws. Numerous border vaguaries between the U.S. and Canada have been settled peacefully, either through mutual agreement, or through arbitration. (See references to the 49th parallel of latitude border agreements.) In one case involving islands in the Puget Sound, the interesting arbitrator who was selected (and whose decision was accepted permanently) was Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Questions about the boundaries of Maine and Alaska have been settled peacefully between the two. As a matter of fact, armed conflict between the United States and Canada is unthinkable on both sides. Both are members of close alliances, including NATO and the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD). (There's that word "American" again, and we all understand what it means. It is a bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada.)

If all of this sounds like "Imperialism" by the United States - or by Canada, either - I don't see it at all. The United States has also had a peaceful border with Mexico since 1848, and the rather small Gadsden Purchase of land from Mexico was paid for, fair and square. It was also quite barren land, and the U.S. mostly wanted it for building long railroad lines across, between Texas and California.

Also, since the United States of America was the first independent nation that was established on the continents of the Americas, its citizens had and have first claim on the use of the words "American" and "America" to refer to themselves and their country in all adjectival and noun forms. Everyone can view this as a "copyright" on the names, just like "Canada", "Mexico", "Cuba", and "The Bahamas" are copyrighted names for those countries for all practical purposes. 74.163.40.105 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, 74.163.40.105, but you forgot something really important. There was no continent/supercontinent/hemisphere called "Canada", "Mexico", "Cuba" and "The Bahamas" before these countries´ independence. However, there was already a continent/supercontinent/hemisphere named "AMERICA" before the USA independence. So, how can anyone lay claim on a name that was already given? In any case, the "Copyright" date would be April 25th, 1507(269 years, 2 months and 9 days before your country´s independence). So, since the continent/supercontinent/hemisphere was named FIRST, its inhabitants had a have the right to use the word "America" and "American" for themselves in all adjectival and noun forms.    Bottom line: Until we, latin americans, don´t see a patent from an INTERNATIONAL serious organization like the United Nations, we won´t buy this "historic copyright" thing. Of course, since there are many hispanics and europeans in the UN,who know the original meaning of "America", i really doubt your "copyright" claim flies.Viridianesco (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no comment on the copyright issue, but I have to take issue with the idea that there is a continent called America. Every map I have ever seen has named two: North America and South America.  That's why the agreement between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada is called the North American Free Trade Agreement.  Latin Americans don't call themselves Americans, they call themselves Latin Americans, as you just did.  This is to distinguish between the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries and the United States, which calls itself America.  Last I checked, the Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't protect people in the Falkland Islands, Uruguay, or even Canada.  It is obvious that most countries have a word like American to refer to US citizens, even if they have another politically correct word to use when hypersensitive (anti-American?) people show up.


 * The first commentator does have a point when he said Americans were the first ones to use American and America to refer to themselves and their country. George Washington himself called himself and his compatriots Americans.  When were the first arguments and complaints over this appellation?  Much, much later.  Even De Tocqueville called his book Democracy in America.  He was referring to the USA as America.


 * If you are looking for UN references to the US and US citizens as America and Americans, there are plenty:
 * Poverty in America-refers to USABan Ki Moon names American to post-means from the USAAmerican financial markets refers to USAUNHCR meets with Americans in Iraq--refers to USA


 * Even the Secretary General of the UN calls Americans Americans. The terms Latin American, Central American, and South American are plastered all over the UN website for those countries south of the USA.  They are never referred to as simply "Americans."  It is a manufactured argument to say that people from the United States cannot be called Americans.  It is also absurd to say that Americans should use U.S. as and adjective for themselves.  Nobody says "I am a U.S."  Just doesn't happen.  We should not have to adopt a foreign word to refer to ourselves.  We are not United Statesians.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is, the words "America" and "American" have two senses in the English language, one which refers to the United States and one which refers to the Americas. The pan-American sense is less common in modern English, but is still present, for example in the English name for the Organization of American States and the common statement that "Columbus discovered America", which has been uttered by many a schoolchild who is perfectly aware that Columbus never landed in the continental United States (though he did visit Puerto Rico). This linguistic ambiguity is present in other languages, particularly Spanish, which tends to use the cognate americano in the pan-American sense. It is this ambiguity which causes confusion and ill-feelings. This makes partisans on either side uncomfortable, but it's the way things are. Wikipedia's job is just to describe that ambiguity, not prescribe how any word should be used. We have another separate article detailing what US-Americans, currently titled Names for U.S. citizens.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Puerto Rico is part of the USA since 1898, and the phrase "COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA" is way much older. However, to avoid any ambiguity I prefer "COLUMBUS DISCOVER AMERICA ON OCTOBER 12, 1492".Although, I have heard some of your fellow citizens claiming that Columbus actually discovered your country on that date...MMM. I wouldn´t be surprise if MoebiusFlip believes that! What kind of history classes do you receive? I mean, I am from a "third world" country and i was taught everything about Columbus and Vespucci in fifth gradeViridianesco (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cuchuillain, you already make my point: whether we like it or not, both usages exist. My problem with people like 74.163.40.105 claiming "copyright" is that they try to invalidate one usage(the continental usage) and to legitimize only the other (the national usage)Viridianesco (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * MoebiusFlip, whether America is a continent or not is a different issue. The original name of what is usually called "The Americas" in English was: America. And that is still its official, historical, and proper name. That is what Colombus discovered. In fact, the name America was given to the "new world" in the West which, at the time, referred mainly to the central and southern part of it. And Latin Americans do call ourselves Americans when appropriate (probably like you call yourself North American, or a German call himself European). The main soccer competition in Latin America is called "Copa America", for example. And nobody is saying that US citizens are not Americans, what we are saying is that all people from America (the whole landmass in the Western Hemisphere) are Americans. To be more specific, some Americans are Mexicans, Canadians, Brazilians, and "USians ?". That is the problem: there is no conventional word in English to diferentiate between Americans from the US from Americans from other parts of America. Calin99 (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

American
I know "American" for everything from the USA is quite common in the USA. But for all others, American refers to somebody or something originating from a continent, not one country of this continent, even not the most populous one.

See also the passage under Demonym, "Cultural Problems": Quote - The demonym for citizens of the United States of America suffers a similar problem, because "American" may ambiguously refer to both the USA and North and South America. United Statian is awkward in English, but it exists in Spanish (estadounidense), French (étatsunien(ne)), Portuguese (estado-unidense or estadunidense), Italian (statunitense), and also in Interlingua (statounitese). US American (for the noun) and US-American (when used as a compound modifier preceding a noun) is another option, and is a common demonym in German (US-Amerikaner), though almost unheard of in English. Latin Americans (who are the most affected by this use of American) also have yanqui (Yankee) and the euphemism norteamericano/norte-americano (North American, which includes the USA, Mexico, Canada, and several other countries). Frank Lloyd Wright proposed Usonian (which was taken over into Esperanto: country Usono, demonym Usonano, adjective usona). In the spirit of Sydneysider, Statesider is also a possibility. See main article: Use of the word American.

The 2007 Miss Teen USA contestant Caitlin Upton, who gained international notoriety for her otherwise nonsensical response to a question posed during the pageant, referred to the people of the United States as "U.S. Americans." - End of Quote

The citizens of the USA are indeed using "American" for things or people coming from the USA and tend to believe that the whole world - except a few nuts - does the same. However, as Demonym correctly states, in many languages other than English reference is made to the USA in some way, and not just to America, which is used for the continent only. This sounds rather like the US-Americans usurping the expression "American" on their behalf and for their convenience and just purporting that everybody else does the same.

The US-Americans are free in how they call themselves at home. An international encyclopedia, however, should not be sloppy in such a matter or follow a national particularity, but try to find an internationally acceptable consensus. And this has certainly to take into consideration that for about 6 Billion people "American" refers to the continent and only 300 Million US-Americans use it exclusively for themselves. Especially all North, Central and South Americans, even if not from the USA, must feel concerned by everything "American". Internationally we should thus remain precise and explicitly specify the origin as being the USA. I am open for any suggestion, but US-Americans looks nice to me.

I am Austrian for the records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.70.209 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is quite evident around the world that Americans do NOT use the word exclusively for themselves, either now or in the past. Your comment is also blatantly disrespectful of people's nationality and culture by placing "internationally acceptable consensus" above more important local matters. How many people have been deprived of their identity and culture by empires using clever phrases like "international consensus?" So back up your claims that only 300 million Americans use the word for themselves. Jcchat66 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the English-speaking world, "American" usually refers specifically to the United States. This is true not only among people from the US, but from other native English speakers around the globe. Canadians live in North America, but you'll be hard pressed to find an Anglo-Canadian who calls himself "American." If someone from the US were to travel to the UK, for example, and say "I'm an American," the Britons wouldn't ask him "are you from Peru?" So, whatever "looks nice to" you in your German Wikipedia is fine with me, but in the English LANGUAGE Wikipedia, I think we should stick with the common ENGLISH LANGUAGE definition. Again, it's not only "US-Americans" who use the term American in this fashion, but native English speakers from around the globe. It is erroneous of you to limit this terminology only to "US-Americans" as "American" has the same connotation throughout the English-speaking world. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the United States of America was the first independent nation that was established on the continents of the Americas, its citizens had and have first claim on the use of the words "American" and "America" to refer to themselves and their country in all adjectival and noun forms.74.163.40.105 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise, there are people who first called themselvese the equivalent of "Nipponese", and they have every right to that name because they used it first, and thus thy have the first claim to it.74.163.40.105 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and it should be added that, in China at least, American refers to the United States, NOT Latin America. So that's another 1.3 billion for the US argument. 59.38.32.5 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In Brazil you will NEVER hear the word "estadunidense". The text says that only in the last 15 years, people from major cities affected by US consumerism started associating "americano" with US citizen, that's a blatant lie. I'm 30 years old, I've lived all around the country, and I have always seen "americano" when used alone to mean American (US citizen). Estadunidense only appears in text, always with the intent to make a point rather then trying to just communicate the idea of a US citizen. You do see a lot of "norte-americano" (North American) in the press though, which sounds ill conceived to me, but at least it *is* used to refer to Americans in regular (written) speech.
 * It looks like you are too young to have actually been outside (and aware) of the blatant selling out that Brazilian culture today is to American culture. I am 44, and saw a clear change in expression from the mid eighties in the usage of "norte-americano" versus "americano" do denote someone from the US. As for "estadounidense", I have only seen it in written documents. I grew up in an environment that was proud to be different from the US (I am proud to have never learned any rock song from any American band - only from UK ones). As for you, you grew up ingesting cultural junk distilled as the latest fashion, and this notion of "americano" as a US citizen is just another proof that your generation is even more lost than mine.75.63.2.18 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's completely untrue that the term "americano" is ambiguous in Brazilian Portuguese. When "americano" refers to the continents it always comes followed by another word: "latino americano" (Latin American) "sul americano" (South American). The word "América" is *not* used in regular Portuguese to refer to the continents, the plural form "américas" is used instead; again, "América" meaning the continents will only appear when Brazilians are contending the use of "americano" to describe Americans.
 * Geez, there is a word for this you are referring to: is called "anglicismo". It looks like you grew up in an American bubble within Brazil. **NO** Brazilian living in Brazil that I know of uses the word "América" as you have described, only Brazilians living in the US. I have to say though that my relationships all tend to have a higher degree such as a University title, a Master's degree or a PhD. I would not be able to tell what small-minded people watching "telenovelas" are saying these days. It is possible that you have all been brainwashed into **imagining** that we from "América" will ever accept in being confused with "Americas". 75.63.2.18 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't even try to edit the article lest it starts an edit war with Brazilian leftists and their admin allies. This is incredible annoying though. The Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral. The name of the friggin country is United States of America. Mexico's name is United States of Mexico. Brazil was United States of Brazil until recently. So yes, the country takes the name from the continent, like cities such as Mexico, New York and São Paulo share their names with the States they belong to. It's not like people are not used to that kind of ambiguity. --Eikinkloster (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And BTW, I am not a leftist, just an annoying culturally independent citizen, not a cultural sell out. Learn French or some other language to enhance your world view. And learn about ambiguities: "you will NEVER hear" and "it's completely untrue" just show that you are still in your first steps in learning to live in a bigger, ambiguous and democratic world. 75.63.2.18 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the attempt to undermine Americans' use of their own name for themselves is recent and due to anti-American sentiment amongst some quarters. George Washington used American and America.  So did the prominent French author De Tocqueville.  And SO MANY others over 200 years.  It is unacceptable that a bunch of political zealots and malcontents get to change how another country calls itself.  American presidents, left and right, have called themselves Americans.  Heck, even the Green Party and Communist Party do!  I do agree with one commenter above that the problem is partly in academic circles.  I had one Australian academic try to *school* me in how we should be called North Americans.  Fine.  As soon as Aussies Kiwis start calling themselves Oceanians, then there will be an argument to be had.  Until then, it just looks like sour grapes.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Contentious line
Yesterday Deepstrategem removed the line: "Of the 35 sovereign countries in North and South America, only the United States of America contains the word America within its long-form name." I reverted him, because the line seemed uncontroversial(also reverted some of his subsequent disruption). Deep, why do you think the line should be removed? --Cúchullain t/ c 22:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because this line is irrelevant and implicitly pushes a POV. It invites everyone to insert their own POV and pass it off as encyclopedic. Furthermore, it doesn't fit in that particular section. In a subsection perhaps. Otherwise, we end up with a schizophrenic sounding article like this:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_the_word_American&oldid=33370784


 * Which was dealt with more than one year ago. Deepstratagem 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it pushes a POV. It's a statement of fact, and it goes towards WHY Americans are called Americans.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what is the problem with stating that America is the only continent with the word America as it's short and long name? For the last 500 years? Deepstratagem 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Come off it. You don't need to be told about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, you should probably avoid a collaborative effort like this.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't let your anger consume you. POINT is about disagreement with policies, not article edits. Furthermore, if it was, POINT includes the Ignore all rules clause which calls for an exception. And I *will not* "come off it". Deepstratagem 09:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you won't stop adding things that violate WP:POINT, at least stop adding additions that violate WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and the like. You know perfectly well at least two continents have America in their names - North America and South America. WilyD 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you didn't read the line you just removed. The edit says that the continent of America is the only continent with America as its long- and short-form name, which is accurate by definition. Deepstratagem 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are causing disruption in order to prove a point. You know good and well a line like you inserted has no place in an encyclopedia article; you inserted it to make a point about another line you didn't agree with. That is not appropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate to comment on my intentions unless you can read my mind. Deepstratagem 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, here is a reference that shows that your assertion is wrong, and that your edit does not conform to WP:V or WP:RS. WilyD 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link, but I'd rather reference a dictionary. Referencing a dictionary is not OR. Deepstratagem 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also have a dictionary that lists North America and South America as continents, but it's at home and I'm at work. I'll try to give you the reference tommorow. WilyD 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look up America. Deepstratagem 23:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have an entry, but this year's Canadian Oxford lists both From the United States and From the Americas under American and notes the second usage is basically Latin American - but I'm not sure that helps. The problem still remains that America is not a continent even by the dictionary definition, even if it's both a country and a supercontinent. WilyD 09:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus of usage is the SOLE mechanism for validating ENGLISH usage. No other way exists. WilyD 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.40.105 (talk)

The True Arguments
1. The use of America to describe a unified "dual continent" consisting of both North and South (and for pity's sake Central) America.

That is one point.

2. The use of America to describe and label the country of, someone from, the ideaology of, et al "The United States of America".

That is the second point.

3. The fact that language is nowhere near concrete, and calling this "this" or that "that" is purely conjecture and there is no way around it.

That is the third point.

And that is all there is to discuss.

1. If you want to be considered "American" if you live in either of the two continents - fantastic. You can. However, the majority of the world's population will assume you are from the States. Which leads me to

2. It has become  correct to assume the word "America" or the term "American" to be directly related to the States. As WilyD has stated several times, whether it should or should not be this way is irrelavent (to put my own spin on it). Language, and the words they are comprised of, is (as stated previously) purely conjecture - it is all relative to the individual. Which leads me to

3. The argument speaks for itself. You can say that so-and-so is linguistically correct, but to the next person so-with-so is linguistically correct under the same guise. There are guidelines and invisible fences, but no concrete barriers. Especially when it comes to English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.231.39.116 (talk • contribs).


 * For the record, 66.231.39.116, I mostly agree with you on all 3 points. However, on (1) "the majority of the world's population will assume you are from the States." - the majority of the world's population would be wrong by definition and precedent. Deepstratagem 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * English is not prescriptive. I know this can be a tough concept for non-Anglophones, but the majority of English speakers cannot be wrong about a single issue - what is right is defined by majority usage. WilyD 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case "ain't" is correct grammar and so is "towards". In fact, none of these words exist. Deepstratagem 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blatently false statements do not advance your position. Ain't appears in Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage for instance, and (randomly) here's a writer's guide with towards.  Not every dictionary is up to date, or complete.  A language that's got over half a million words sometimes has incomplete dictionaries. WilyD 17:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess what, America and American are also in the dictionary. Deepstratagem 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which dictionary? Unlike French (say), English does not have a definitive dictionary.  American is in this year's Oxford Canadian English Dictionary, America is not.  But I'm completely confused as to what your point is.  American 's primary usage is Of or relating to the United States and it also notes a secondary usage which is primarily Latin American, of of or relating to the Americas. WilyD 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which proves that English speaking Canada has become a cultural satellite of the US. No wonder French Canadians want to secede. It would be interesting to know what a French Canadian dictionary says.
 * Because I didn't specify a dictionary, it is obvious that just about any standard English dictionary will suffice. BTW, I also don't know where you are going with this. Let's recap:


 * 1) I tell 66.231.39.116 that a majority of the world's population would be incorrect in assuming that Latin Americans (or any other Americans) are from the United States.
 * 2) You say language is defined by majority usage.
 * 3) I give well-known examples of non-words or incorrectly spelled words that are used my a majority of people. Thus showing language is not just defined by majority usage.
 * 4) You claim my false statements do not advance my position(?) because dictionaries are not complete.
 * 5) I cleverly note that America and American are nearly always in standard non-specific dictionaries, unlike the words you claim "are words" (the ones that are not in standard dictionaries and are widely acknowledged to be incorrect despite popularity).
 * 6) You try to divert attention from the argument by making my point for me (? thanks).
 * Ain't is a word, towards is correctly spelt. Neither of those points are true, so they hurt your argument.  They're used by the majority (possibley) and are correct - this is uncontraversial.  Ain't ain't a formal word, but it's real word in the english language.  If you're trying to claim that my position is that America and American ain't words, you'll find that hard to do.  I openly acknowledge that America is a country between Canada and Mexico, and that the word has several other far less prominent usages.  American means of or relating to America and has a few other archaic or rare usages.  What's your point? WilyD 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you claimed that any standard or usual dictionary will have both these words - so I grabbed a standard dictionary and lo and behold - one wasn't there. WilyD 18:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you check for the misspelled words? Did you realize my comment was ironic? Do your homework and come back later. Deepstratagem 23:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any misspelt words, nor will I assume you're acting in bad faith. I take all your comments at face value, and won't stop. WilyD 00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is true, then you'll take at face value the fact that the other comment was ironic and therefore you should acknowledge that it was; otherwise you are contradicting yourself, and I can't take anything you say at face value, which just undermines your credibility. Deepstratagem 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything I say is exactly what I mean. How I'm supposed to tell which comment is untrue when you're making claims you don't mean isn't clear to me. WilyD 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, because I just told you which comment was ironic/untrue. Deepstratagem 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How do I differentiate that from the other statement. How do I know I lied is not the lie - either way, I have to conclude you were dishonest once - I see no reason to prefer one or the other. WilyD 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't know which is the lie unless I tell you, because you "take everything at face value". I already told you which is, therefore you know. Deepstratagem
 * This little chat with you is going nowhere. The whole point, syntax and metaphors aside, is that language is not just defined by majority usage; as evidenced by our discussion directly above. Deepstratagem 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deep, that simply isn't true. Our discussion up there showed that English is defined by common usage.  French, for instance, is not - it is defined by the Academy.  Generically, languages can be defined in multiple ways.  There is no authority of English that decides proper usage, despite your (disproved) assertions otherwise. WilyD 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you review the discussion you'll note that misspelled words are incorrect despite common usage. QED. Deepstratagem 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll review the discussion you'll find that this is only your assertion, and that it's directly contradicted by all available material on the subject, as well as a basic understanding of english. WilyD 20:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can point us to some of that available material. Deepstratagem 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I already have in this section, I'm not sure what you're looking for. WilyD 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no clue what material you speak of. Deepstratagem 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is ironic too? WilyD 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Deepstratagem 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see ... or is that also ironic? WilyD 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this is what is referred to as Wikiality. Deepstratagem 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What an interesting debate we have here. I see Deep still has an ax to grind, and is determined to use whatever resources in his intellectual arsenal to prove that the use of the word American is US-centric. But, according to Deep, I guess I just ramble. Because, of course, anyone that disagrees with Deep is only rambling. Jcchat66 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Because, of course, anyone that disagrees with Deep is only rambling." Your words, not mine. That makes you a rambler. Deepstratagem 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No Deep, they are your words exactly, on your own personal page. And I quote: "...tied up with arguments about the law from a certain pompous young attorney, and trying to address the ramblings of Jcchat." Jcchat66 01:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you know I'm not the only person with edit privileges on my page? Would you please find the exact edit history and link to it? You are quoting someone else... Deepstratagem 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe so, and I apologize then. I assumed you stated that, just as you assume Americans are being US-centric for calling themselves American. Jcchat66 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. But no, I didn't assume US Americans are being US-centric. I was paraphrasing (over 6 months ago) an academic article that is linked to somewhere on this talk page. Deepstratagem 07:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read a good portion of this discussion thus far before creating this final topic, and I have to say that the same issues have been hit on time and time again and nothing is being resolved. Deep - Shoulds aside, this is what is happening.  There is no way to change that or prove that it is wrong or right - it is happening.  People say "America" and assume the United States.  Period.  There is no real discussion beyond that.  Language is versatile, so it will be just that.  You can say "I am a tree" and that's wonderful as long as you believe that you are what you define as the word "tree" then you are in all actuality a "tree".  As is the same with the term "American".  You can not put restrictions on language, sorry.  There's no way to do it and it's literally impossible.  That's the way it is, whether it should be or not.  Deal with it.  -- Daramane 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (66.231.39.116)
 * "There is no way to change that or prove that it is wrong or right - it is happening". Then why have an encyclopedia if everything is dichotomously right and wrong?" Deepstratagem 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because encyclopedias aren't ever updated. They are set in stone in the first edition and that is law.  Wikipedia, being what it is, can be constantly updated and changed.  Which is why it is a much more "precise" encyclopedia than printed versions.  You can look at perhaps one of the first editions of any encyclopedia, look at the definitions of words such as "gay" and see that it says something along the lines of "Happy."  Period.  Right?  And now you can see "Happy" next to something along the lines of "a derogatory term for homosexuals".  Because definitions for specific words/terms/phrases never change.  Ever. Daramane 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask about the difference between "Encyclopedias" and Wikipedia. I asked why have an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is an instance of,) if everything is dichotomously right or wrong? Deepstratagem 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read what I said again carefully... There is no way to prove whether something is right or wrong.  Hence no reason to try to give anything the label of right or wrong.  Since nothing can be defined as dichotomously right or wrong, why try to argue the point that there is no reason to have encyclopedias if there is a chance that everything could be defined as right or wrong?  You're stumbling over arguments, reading things wrong, and still fighting for an unintelligable cause.  Why persist?  Daramane 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your spelling is unintelligible, but that aside, language isn't only defined by what is happening. It is also based on what happened. That's why we study Latin and Greek, and why 99% of legal and medical terminology is based on those languages. That's how we determine what pediatrician means, or should mean. That's how we determine what senate means, meant, or should mean. That's how we determine what America means, meant, or should mean. And that's what encyclopedia articles are for. Deepstratagem 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * God forbid I misspell one word before I'm crucified for it. Who said that language was solely defined by what is happening?  It's common knowledge that we study Latin and Greek for the meanings of our words, and that the majority of our words have Latin and Greek bases and that we infer our knowledge of the uses of those words from those bases.  However, once again, not a single person ever said that language was based only on what is happening.  What is happening does play a role, though, and should be taken into account.  If we studied the history of the world for all of facets of life then we would totally abolish innovation and new invention over a long enough period of time (and before you attempt to take the Asian culture into consideration, they have had and still have many ties with other cultures and are do not focus 100% of their efforts on their history).  Again, you are misreading the arguments and constantly digging yourself a hole while trying to argue points yourself that not only hold no water, but have absolutely no ties to the discussion at hand.  The only reason why our (meaning myself and the others that constantly hound your "discussions") arguments continue is because some of us are attempting to curb the heat of the discussion and  the rest of us are attempting to bring some order to your streak of soapboxing.  Daramane 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think providing 80%+ of the primary sources exhibited on the discussion page and at least 55% of the sourced material that survived the actual article after it was corrupted by your buddies doesn't count as soapboxing. Deepstratagem 21:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Corruption, as is with a good portion of the language, is relative. However, as far as I can tell anymore you are just soapboxing on this discussion page.  In fact, the only reason why I originally created this headline (and my own actual account, for that matter) was to try and bring some sort of sense to this discussion page.  Which, has obviously not taken place due to your obvious lack of ability to not soapbox and not trod upon every opinion not in accordance with your own.  Daramane 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with countering opinions with evidence. You should try it sometime. Deepstratagem 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well stated. My sentiments exactly.  After monitoring this talk page for months, I have this sinking feeling that Deepstrategem is abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox in favor of a minority view of the meaning of the term "American," in violation of What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are going to accuse me based on a feeling? Deepstratagem 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deep, it's hard to defend you after you spent the past several days here edit warring, compromising the article with POINT-driven nonsense, and responding vindictively on this discussion page. Whatever good points you have, it's hard to look past your recent actions. I think everyone should take a break, desist from editing the article or talk page for the next couple of days, and come back later if there's really anything to discuss. And by "discuss", I mean in terms of improving the article, not just arguing about what "American" means to us.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to defend me. What do you need to defend me for? Deepstratagem 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant for anyone to defend your positions on this topic after you've been acting as you have. Your recent tactics undermine the valitidy of what you have to say. I meant what I said about stepping off a bit; I'm taking a break until the discussion cools off and returns to the article.--Cúchullain t/ c 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Defending my positions and balancing the article? Why would my "tactics" undermine the "valitidy" of what I have to say... shouldn't that be determined by the veracity of what I have to say? Deepstratagem 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree. Short of the fact that there is no true discussion left to be had.  Just pursuing specific points to further one's own personal idea of what the term should mean.  That is not discussion.  Thus, there truly is nothing left to be said.  Unless over X amount of time the word "American" does change in meaning.Daramane 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone challenges my comments, reasoning and evidence, I feel entitled to respond; especially when others like Jcchat and Coolcaesar are making false (misinformed) and emotionally-driven accusations, respectively. If you don't want discuss anything on this page you are free to stop anytime. Deepstratagem 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what, might I ask, are you doing? That is assuming you know that you said that Jcchat and Coolcaesar are making misinformed and more importantly emotionally driven accusations.  Daramane 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I said Jcchat was making uninformed accusations. I said Coolcaesar was making emotionally-driven accusations. So I responded. Deepstratagem 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As is the case several times before, you neglected to answer my question. Daramane 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then be more specific. And for the sake of Wikipedia, take it to your own talk page. Deepstratagem 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For a lawyer you sure don't pay attention to any detail whatsoever. And for the sake of Wikipedia, cite information and keep your own personal feelings on the inside.  Daramane 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take your personal attack as a compliment, since I'm not a lawyer. Like I mentioned before, the majority of sourced material on both the article and discussion pages was added by me. Deepstratagem 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that these words that the "majority" misspell are actually spelt correctly by the majority of those who use them, despite a large subset that spells them incorrectly. The word "American," on the other hand, is used by the majority to mean "of or relating to the United States."  Furthermore, all of these words are listed as "nonstandard" by the dictionary because the majority do not use them.  Both definitions of "American" are listed as standard, and an attempt to use the word to mean DeepStrategem's definition will illustrate that the majority uses it to mean the Untied States.  Twin Bird 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely true. The point is, neither consensus of meaning; nor usage frequency, equal veracity. Deepstratagem 12:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's flat out wrong. Consensus of usage is the SOLE mechanism for validating ENGLISH usage.  No other way exists. WilyD 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. You didn't read. I didn't say English usage. I said veracity. Deepstratagem 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Veracity is not the issue here. If that's what you're pushing, in the sense of you're pushing what your idea of veracity or truth is, then you're pushing original research in violation of WP:NOR (since integrated into Attribution).  The issue is how the term is actually used (after all, the article is titled "Use of the word American"), not how it should be used.  Wikipedia is descriptive (meaning it merely echoes and summarizes the status quo), not prescriptive.  If you want to argue the encyclopedia should be prescriptive, you can go raise the point with Jimmy Wales, the Wikimedia Board, or ArbCom and join the hundreds of editors who have been banned for trying to challenge that core tenet of Wikipedia (it's also a core tenet of encyclopedias in general). --Coolcaesar 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you'd like to argue with the countless references on this page, too. Deepstratagem 05:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Countless is probably a good adjective here, since (most) editors can count to zero. WilyD 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely would like to argue with the "countless refrences." These can be separated into four categories: the first is those to reputable publications, saying that Deepstrategem's definition is acceptable, and every one of these also says that the usual definition is acceptable.  The second is scholarly articles saying that the common usage is incorrect (although they never deny that it is the common usage).  These do not, however, represent an intellectual consensus, nor are any of them in a position to dictate proper usage, as the OED or Miriam-Webster might be.  The third category is official documents using the word in such a way, and it's not hard at all to find official documents using the word in the common way, including two of his own references, the NAFTA treaty and the CIA world factbook.  The fourth category is references that are old enough to be ignored outright.  I would also be interested in what, exactly, Deepstrategem defines as "correct" or "veracious" usage if not that agreed upon by consensus.  Twin Bird 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, the correct definition is acceptable, and correct, but you won't accept it? You forgot to mention the articles that say that American refers to the entire Americas, technically, and that the alternative is a neologism. You also don't mention why some of the articles are not in a position to dictate proper usage... I could be mistaken, too, but NAFTA predominantly uses U.S. as the primary adjective for United States things (if not only). And references that are old enough to be ignored outright? on what grounds? Deepstratagem 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * American = from America is certainly not a neologism by the English definition of the word. No articles are in a position to dictate proper usage - this article should report proper usage, which is Primary from America, rarely and archaicly from the Americas - this is easy enough to verify. U.S. is used an adjective sometimes, especially when refering to the Government of the United States - American is an adjective that refers more to the people or culture of the United States.  It's a subtle distinction.  WilyD 19:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Deepstrategem. I do accept your definition as correct, but with the caveat that there's such a good chance of being misunderstood that it's best to avoid the word in most contexts. Since you seem to use the word in that way, and claim in your profile to speak English, I'm sure you've found out that if there's any ambiguity, people will assume the demonym.  I did not "forget to mention" the papers saying that the word's use as a demonym is incorrect; that's the second category.  The question of why they aren't in a position to dictate proper usage seems, to me, absurd; the question is why they should be.  Not just anyone can decide what's right and what's wrong - it's either by authority (e.g. Oxford, the Spanish Royal Academy) or by consensus, and you have established neither.  "Not exclusively" is the key to the NAFTA treaty - insofar as they use the word, except in the compound "North American," they use it as a demonym.  As for references old enough to be ignored, language changes.  The first fireside chat  uses not only an archaic definition of "intend" but, in the contemporary transcript, an archaic spelling.  "Liberal" is used in a way that, while acceptable today, would not be used due to concerns of the implication of ideology.  The word "shall" is used for the simple future, rather than the optitive.  This was 1933; some of your documents are much older.  Twin Bird 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your reservations, but there is no shortage of references to support the New World (America) definition and to call the alternate usage "inaccurate and arrogant":
 * We of the United States of America, citizens of only one of many nations in the Americas, North, Central, and South, have preempted the informal name of our country, America, and our title, Americans. It may be arrogant and inaccurate that we do so [...]


 * As long as we agree on that, I don't think there is any issue. I think a lot of editors got burned early on and have a grudge, but I think the article is shaping up pretty well. My attitude toward the word has also changed since I started editing, so my position on this is not as hard-headed as it may appear from older edits. The definitions are not exclusive and one is used more often than the other. However, the less frequently used meaning has historical and etymological precedence (i.e. one word comes from the other). I'd like to keep on arguing, but I'm not sure what the argument is. Deepstratagem 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree on that. The source you give, perhaps the most authoritative you have given, is from the style guide of a single university in New York, used all but literally nowhere else in the world.  Furthermore, the description as "inaccurate and arrogant" seems almost ironic, with the section concluding with an implicit endorsement of the usage, which is in the bloody title of the book.  ("The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.")  The argument is your assertion that one is more "correct" than the other.  Yes, etymology is on your side, but imagine applying a similar argument to "nice" (cognate with "necio"), "senate" (cognate with "senile"), "glamour" (cognate with "grammar"), "vagina" (lit. "sheath"), "penis" (lit. "tail"), or a huge number of other words.  Twin Bird 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Yes, etymology is on your side, but imagine applying a similar argument to "nice" (cognate with "necio"), "senate" (cognate with "senile"),[...]" Or imagine applying it to America, which contains both definitions in the dictionary; which also has more cultural and geographical relevance; (and makes logical sense) as opposed to trivial euphemistic or dysphemistic beginnings. (And by the way those examples still makes sense in their literal and metaphorical meanings). As for the Columbia Guide to Standard American English, yes, the irony is icing on the cake. It is all the more relevant, because an author who is "American" and who should be against admitting what the word really means, is actually conceding that usage of the word is arrogant and inaccurate; in effect calling his own use arrogant and inaccurate. Thus the argument is that much stronger. Deepstratagem 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the title, American English is English as used in America, to know whether than means the New World, or the U.S., compare to American Spanish, and you get a better context. (Thus, the title is not ironic) Deepstratagem 06:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * That's the wrong comparison. Compare it to Canadian English, Jamaican English, Newfoundland English or Bermudian English to get the correct context. WilyD 13:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We could go back and forth on this, so I'll just accept your concession. Deepstratagem 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some fascinating discussions regarding the use of "American". In my travels, I've found that most English speakers hear the word "American" to refer to citizens of the United States only (or other U.S.-related items, but for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to focus on the citizens). That's generally because there isn't a wide-spread term to refer to U.S. citizens (unfortunately), and since the United States is indeed the only nation in the Americas (the more accepted term for referring to all of the countries of North and South America) to have "America" as part of its long-form name, the United States has, right or wrong, pretty much hijacked that term. Guess it would be a lot simpler if "United States of American" weren't such an unweildy term, unlike the much simpler "South African" when distinguishing the people of that nation from the residents of the greater continent. Personally, I prefer to refer to myself as a "U.S. citizen" as I do have respect for non-U.S. Americans and agree that they should be as much Americans as any Frenchman or German is a European (yes, I realize they *are* Americans, but I'm refering to being universally understood as such). But it doesn't change the fact that to say "America" or "American" without a qualifier of some sort will have the hearer infer that you mean a citizen or resident of the United States. And whether it is literally correct or not doesn't make much difference, as the ultimate point of speaking any language properly is to have the message understood by the hearer, and English speakers hear "American" to mean "U.S. resident". Of course, this really only applies when we're talking about English speakers; there might be widespread terms in other languages, as some have noted here, but do note that languages are never 100 percent parallel, that is, a phrase that means one thing in French can be literally translated to English or Spanish and quite accurately so (again, speaking of a purely literal translation), but it's meaning can still be distorted because of differentations in idiom, etc. Plus the fact that in some cases, there are words that have no literal translation when going from language to language. Thus how a Spanish-speaking person refers to a U.S. resident doesn't have as much bearing on what terminology an English-speaking person should use as one might hope. Nolefan32 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Observations
American
 * adj.
 * relating to or characteristic of the United States. • relating to the continents of America.
 * n.
 * a native or inhabitant of the United States. • a native or inhabitant of any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.
 * How to cite this entry:
 * "American adj." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh edition revised . Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  22 March 2007

American
 * adj.
 * 1. of, relating to, or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants.
 * 2. (usu. in comb.) of or relating to the continents of America (Latin-American).
 * n.
 * 1. a native or citizen of the United States.
 * 2. (usu. in comb.) a native or inhabitant of the continents of America (North Americans).
 * 3. (also American English) the English language as it is used in the United States.
 * How to cite this entry:
 * "American adj. & n." The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  22 March 2007

AMERICAN. An occasional term for English as used in the US, often in contrast with English (sometimes British), and seriously or facetiously implying a distinct language: ‘The American I have heard up to the present, is a tongue as distinct from English as Patagonian’ (Kipling, From Sea to Sea, 1889); ‘Too often are spoken English and spoken American criticized as though it were impossible for them to have any laws of their own’ (Partridge, Usage and Abusage, 1947/57); ‘Brandon has a beaut: the transmission from American to English of cost-effective’ (Safire, New York Times, Oct. 1988).
 * How to cite this entry:
 * "AMERICAN" Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Ed. Tom McArthur. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  22 March 2007

These are some facts as reported by various OUP publications.

In four years of living in Europe, I encountered very many non-native English speakers who used the word "American" to refer to anything in or from the western hemisphere. That's also a fact, or very many - if you count each instance. There have been some statements in preceding posts concerning the majority of English speakers. One might assume that the majority of English speakers use the language similarly to native speakers of the U.K., Canada, and the U.S.; however in the early 1980's (according to the Oxford Companion to the English Language), "the total [number of English speakers worldwide] of circa 700 million was widely accepted", of which c.300m., or less than half, were native speakers. The same article, "ENL, ESL, and EFL territories", went on to say that the figure for the total numer of English speakers might well be doubled (as of 1985), which would further solidify native speakers' minority status. So I'd argue that it's speculative at best to state how the majority of English speakers use the word "American".

If there's a significant debate (outside of Wikipedia) about the use of the word "American" as a political tool to deny the sovereign existence of other states in the Americas, then this too is a fact that can be the subject of an article.

Let's document it all and try to represent it accurately.Robert Turner 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually a very good point. Not all those who use English speak it as their first language, and many of them are bound to use the word "American" differently than those who do. It would be nice to have some reliable sources on this, but I doubt there are many. And unless some are found, we really can't add speculation into the article. Most sources we do have - dictionaries and the like - are geared towards native speakers of English and its prominent dialects (Canadian English, African American Vernacular English, etc.) As to the use of "American" as a political tool to enforce Manifest Destiny and deny the sovereignty of other American states, well, I don't think there is any significant debate on the matter. I've never even heard of such an idea from anyone besides WilyD. But you'll notice that the article does not discuss it; doing so without citing reliable sources would constitute original research on his part, and he's done a commendable job trying to keep this and other articles free of that.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the use of the word American as a political tool, there are least 3 articles + books just on this page that discuss the issue. Deepstratagem 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Deep, and would go as far as saying that the thing that bothers other americans (meaning other people the continent of America, be it North, South or Central) the most is the political facet, along with the cultural imperialism involved.LtDoc 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is kind of a vague and strange comment. Do you care to elaborate?  Usually the people who use American to mean of the Americas rather than the usual Pan-American are people who are very strong supporters of American Imperialism, i.e. the Office of American Imperialism. WilyD 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Who told you that? On the contrary. The people who use American to mean of the Americas are proud of their shared American heritage traced back to the "discovery" of America and of their shared existence in such a beautiful continent. It's got nothing to do with the United States. In fact people hate the segregation that "Americas" implies. Or that referring to the United States as "America" implies. Deepstratagem 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhm, I'm not sure if I have a reliable source for that. It's just straightforward.  Look at who actually  uses American to mean of the Americas.  Those people embrace American cultural (and even economic/political) imperialism.  Look at those people who resist it, and use Pan-American.  Those are the people who resent/avoid American Imperialism.  The OAS is just the most glaringly example I know of, which is why I suggeted it.  Anyone who uses American to mean of the Americas is embracing American cultural imperialism, and affirming they believe the Americans should lead the rest of the Hemisphere, in politics and culture.  This is just basic language usage. WilyD 21:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anyone who uses American to mean of the Americas is embracing American cultural imperialism": This is a preposterous generalization, an affront to logic. This only proves you are trying to push into everyone's throats your own political agenda of anti-US Imperialism. You are confusing your distorted view of the US with a view from educated people who see the possibility of really making a thing such as the OAS work. If the European Union is working, why couldn't the OAS work some day, with the US as one of the countries in it? Is it because you have some implicit bias against the US citizens in that you think they would never accept being equal to someone who is not from the US? Do you seem them as people always bound to the past of Manifest Destiny and Roosevelt's interpretation or Monroe doctrine?
 * Who cares about Manifest Destiny anyway? If it weren't for French Canadians, Canada would already be a de facto US state, because it has already been culturally annexed by the US way of thinking. You are pushing your niche view of the word "American" for the completely wrong reasons, and hiding them under the banner of "consensus". 70.122.45.124 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you are just begging the question. Deepstratagem 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that this is an empirical conclusion, not a rational one. This didn't have to be the case, it's just the way history turned out.  WilyD 02:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Empirical conclusion": In logic theory this is called a fallacy, but in plain terms this is simply gossip, and of the worst quality, usually used by known demagogues in Congress. 70.122.45.124 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you what we mean by it, so it's not the way history turned out. Deepstratagem 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Deep, you're free to have any political alignment you want, but when you use American to mean of the Americas you're endorsing an American political and cultural hegemony over the rest of the hemisphere. You're free to do that, my only concern is that this page (and a few others) are constantly being edited to endorse that POV, which is what I take exception to. WilyD 16:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here he goes again: WilyD defends a highly political anti-US view in a charged unfounded conspiratory statement, and claims that DeepStrategem is the one doing the politicking. What a Sophist! Aaaaaaargh!!! And US citizens in this thread actually side with him and let him get away with this! 70.122.45.124 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with POV. It's a linguistic and cultural phenomenon. Neither I, nor anyone else is endorsing U.S. political or cultural hegemony - just the opposite... You've been told this countless times. Deepstratagem 18:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has been told this countless times. It is clear that he keeps bringing it back because it is part of his political crusade against the "American Imperialism". 70.122.45.124 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, do show me some examples of that. How come people who use American as of the americas support or endorse US-imperialism? Pan-american, as it is used by OAS, is a clumsy try to solve the differences of the word american. LtDoc 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WilyD, I am also Canadian and am in agreement with you in characterizing "American" as primarily meaning "of the United States". But I have no idea what on earth you're talking about in stating that people who use "American" in the more general sense are endorsing American hegemony.
 * As mentioned above, he keeps bringing it back because it is part of his political crusade against the "American Imperialism". What a topic he chose to expose his prejudice against the US. He is trying to give a "precise" meaning to "American" so that it means "from the US" and in this way his precious "Manifest Destiny" is buried and Canada is safe from American invasion. 70.122.45.124 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire point of this usage is to remove nationalistic associations from the word! Now, I don't think that removal is valid in English &mdash; the word "American" is hopelessly contaminated, and I wish this point could be understood &mdash; but someone who uses "American" for "Pan-American" is completely redefining the term. --Saforrest 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that someone who uses American for Pan-American is not redefining the term at all, they're just using an archaic usage for some reason or another.  Other editors seems to disagree with my diagnosis of why someone would be deliberately ambigious when they could be clear and concise, so you'll have to form your own judgement on the issue.  WilyD 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If that usage is so archaic and so alien in the Great White North, why does the American Studies department at Mount Allison University (New Brunswick, Canada) offer the following elective:
 * "Spanish 3011---American Drama---A survey of dramatic works from Latin America, with a focus on theatre, ideology, and society. The texts, in English translation, will be representative of Latin American playwrights as well as latino writers from the United States and Canada. This course is taught in English, and Spanish is not a prerequisite." [emphasis added] http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts-letters/history/american_studies/courses.html


 * Now consider an archaic usage from California. The American River (Rio de los Americanos) was named for whom? Canadian fur trappers. The translation, apparently was from John Sutter, who reported it to Cadwalader Ringgold of the United States Exploring Expedition before the U.S. invasion and subsequent discovery of gold on that very river.


 * The use of "American" to refer strictly or almost strictly to the United States is the archaic use (in the United States, though I have been trying not to be U.S.-centric). That usage is being edited out of everything from Black's Law Dictionary (we already went over this one) to Superman Returns ("Truth, justice, and all of that stuff"). (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002764635). This has become quite a sore point to the sovereignty kooks in the U.S. who feel that "American" is being taken from them.
 * WilyD, here you go again hiding your own political crusade against the "American Imperialism" of "Manifest Destiny".


 * Even American Idol (Canada's #1 television program, er, programme) requires a contestant to be "a legal U.S. citizen or a permanent U.S. resident who is eligible to work full-time in the United States", not an "American" (I won't provide that link, since it nearly crashed my browser and is extremely commercial).


 * There is also the change in U.S. Census ancestry groups from "American" to "United States or American" from the 1990 to the 2000 Census, which is not reflected in the article (yet). Check the 'American Factfinder' at census.gov for further information.


 * Robert Turner, I had been meaning to raise that very issue. Many non-native English speakers working for Asian Indian (home to more English speakers than Canada) call centers, er centres, have been taught that their customers are not "American" so as not to offend Canadians. Generally, though, the BBC usage is influential there and elsewhere in the non-native English-speaking world, and the BBC is mad about the U.S.-exclusive use. As I have also been living outside North America, I was starting to think of "America" and "American" as U.K. usage. (BBC America, the Survey of America in the Economist, &c.)


 * And my favorite, er favourite, facetious use of the "American" language is from Canadian broadcaster Robert MacNeil in his follow up to The Story of English--Do You Speak American? MacNeil has one of the best broadcast voices in the business, despite the funny accent.


 * And, Wily, the best way not to be ambiguous is to avoid the word altogether. Editors accustomed to the Associated Press Style Guide are capable of re-wording sentences (any sentence) so that the word need not be used. That is more difficult in speech (and an abomination when used in the possessive--United States's rather than America's), but eliminates the ambiguity in all cases. Being concise is overrated when you risk coming across as culturally biased in a global written forum. Unless you can think of a counter-example.
 * .s
 * X ile 05:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about recent coinages there is the word the Americas, which defines the two continents, and leaves the word America to describe the United States. AFAIK, this word was created to avoid the ambuguity of America in its minor sense (anyone of the continents) and leave the word open to its primary usage, those from the country. caz | speak 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but this is exactly the thing that bothers people not born in the USA; that the word America is used to indicate the country, and that there is a "minor" (see the how biased the term is?) sense which means the rest of the continent.LtDoc (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because it's the minor definition in English, does not mean it is minor in Spanish. The meaning can be different in each language, and no one should be offended by that. But to tell Americans they should not call themselves Americans would be offensive, or telling Latins they are not Latin. Or trying to claim that Americans call themselves Americans because if some imperialistic agenda, or that Americans are intentially offending Latins by usurping the word ... now that is just nonsense. That is the problem with those whole article, because of some perceived offense. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree completely - and furthermore, just because something is implied in Spanish, Portuguese, or French has no relevance towards its meaning and implications in the English language. This is an English-language Wikipedia, and in it English is supreme above all other languages. Also, as a Wikpedia established and maintained on Internet servers in the United States of America, and governed by the tax laws of the Untied States of America, "American" English takes precidence above all other forms, such as British English and Australian English. Have a nice day.74.163.40.105 (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Editwar by WillyD

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_the_word_American&diff=124363104&oldid=124361559
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_the_word_American&diff=124365417&oldid=124364332

First of all the original claim (that French, German and Italian use the term "American" to mean USAan only) is unsourced, so why let it stand?

Second, sources in these languages that use "Amerika/Amérique/Americhe" for the combined landmass of North/South/Central America/Carribean etc are numerous, I can cite printed encyclopedias for example.

Third, unclear? What precisely is unclear? I'm willing to clarify if it was pointed out.

Fourth, I get the impression that the original claim (that "American" refers to the USA in most languages) is heavily culturally biased.

Anorak2 14:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) In French, German, Italian, and other languages cognates of the word "American" can refer either specifically to United States citizens, as in English, or to the entire landmass of North and South America which is usually thought of as one continent; so the word is ambiguous in these languages, the intended meaning has to be deduced from context. Likewhise in Spanish americano often refers to the entire New World; the adjective and noun describing the United States is estadounidense, deriving from Estados Unidos de América, the United States of America. Also, the terms estadounidense, norteamericano and gringo are popularly used in some Central American and South American countries to describe the people of the United States. The differences in usage of the cognates cause some cultural friction between U.S. nationals and Latin Americans; Latin Americans, in particular, may object to the primary English usage of American, feeling it unfairly appropriates the term.


 * 1) French, German, Italian, and other languages use cognates of the word "American" primarily to refer specifically to United States citizens, as in English . In Spanish, however, americano often refers to the entire New World; the adjective and noun describing the United States is estadounidense, deriving from Estados Unidos de América, the United States of America. Also, the terms estadounidense, norteamericano and gringo are popularly used in some Central American and South American countries to describe the people of the United States. The differences in usage of the cognates cause some cultural friction between U.S. nationals and Latin Americans; Latin Americans, in particular, may object to the primary English usage of American, feeling it unfairly appropriates the term.


 * Okay, some problems - it's not clear what this: to the entire landmass of North and South America which is usually thought of as one continent means. Do languages think of things as continents?  Isn't this inappropriate anthropomorphising?  Despite your sourcing, the German Wikipedia is vague about the number of continents, and Wikis aren't reliable sources anyhow.  Further, there's an issue I bring up a fair bit that's hard to deal with - English defines continents to include seven, such that I can cite at least one dictionary to include that the word continent requires there to be seven.
 * Also, Je parle un petit peu de Francais, et je sais quand on dit Amerique en francais pour Amerique du Nord et Amerique du Sud, c'est similare d'Anglais. You're being daft when you do it in French, just as in English.  Je m'excuse, mais je ne sais pas le mot pour daft en Francais.
 * Hey, checking, the French Wikipedia also says the seven continent model is usually used in Western Europe (which includes France) so again, this is unclear.
 * Uh, there may be some problems with emphasis and undue weight. But I'll leave those aside for now. WilyD 15:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Italian Wikipedia also appears to refer to the Americas as a supercontinent (cavaet: I don't speak Italian). WilyD 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The concept of continents, their names, their precise boundaries and divisions is not a universal given, but cultural. For example some cultures regard Europe and Asia as one continent Eurasia, others view them as separate. But even among those who agree they're two continents, there are different interpretations on where the "border" between the two is supposed to be. Likewhise the perception of North and South America is cultural. Some cultures view them as separate continents (for example the USA, to the best of my knowledge also the UK). Some other cultures view the whole of the "New Wold" including North, Central and South America and a couple of archipelagos in their vicinity, as one large continent they call "America". All of this is discussed extensively in Transcontinental country.


 * Pretending that there's only one true definition of the continents is ignoring these facts and misses the point.


 * Bearing this in mind, in the languages of those cultures who view "America" as one continent (sometimes super- or double continent if you will, but this is irrelevant for our debate), the adjective of things or people originating from this continent naturally is (their cognate of) "American".


 * On the other hand, "American" is also in many languages the adjective for things or people originating in the USA (as opposed to Spanish who coined a separate word for this).


 * There happen to be a number of languages/cultures where both are true: They think of "America" as one continent and use the adjective "American" for it, at the same time they use the adjective "American" for things originating in the USA. So on those languages, the adjective "American" has two distinct meanings, and the reader/listener has to deduce from context which one to apply. This is true for French and German amongst others.


 * Hope this makes sense. Anorak2 19:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While it makes sense, some of it simply isn't true. It ignores or glosses over the subtleties of translation from language to language that are important to what you're saying.  The part of what you're trying to say that says In many languages, American or some similar word is ambigious, and might refer either to the Americas, or to America is already there.  We discuss how this is the case in English and then note how these other languages are comparable to English, in that the usual meaning of American is relating to America, not the Americas.  This is the case in English, as with French.  Other languages I don't speak, so I don't know offhand.  First hand reports conflict.
 * Acknowledging that the English word continent is not identical to the Spanish word continente or the German word Kontinent is important to what's going on here. And it can be shown through reliable sources.  It's easy to overlook.
 * Furthermore, you try to slip in the idea that the Americas are a single continent, and cite sources which explicitly and implicitly (respectively) disagree with you. Uncited and untrue is a powerful motivation for me to revert.  This is important to our debate because a substantial chunk of your edit was asserting that in French, German and Italian the Americas are a single continent.  Given that it is uncited, whether or not its true is actually a big deal.  Given that it's not, it shouldn't be included.
 * The edit also does away with the tip of the hat acknowledgement that America is the primary, not sole, reference which American may be making (it also refers to the Americas, on occasion) it's also ambigious in English. Given that the case isn't different in French, German or Italian, we shouldn't be distinguishing them this way.  It serves only to confuse the reader.  Hence my characterisation of the new version as unclear - although it's also unclear what regards the Americas as a single continent - the language?  This is problematic anthropomorphisation, and in all three cases untrue.  If it's the culture, there are several cultures that speak French, for instance, although the evidence suggests at least two singificant ones (France, Quebec) also regard the Americas as a pair of continents.  Again, problematic. WilyD 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What you say makes no sense, Willy, and as far as I can tell is heavily culturally biased. You try to sell your yankeefied worldview. I give up, yankeefy as much as you like. Anorak2 21:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an American. It is true that I'm trying to make sure that the article reflects the English language usage of an English language word, rather than masquerade some non-English words as English words and extrapolate the usage in other languages to reflect some other use.  Use of the word Americain, for example, might reasonably say it refers primarily to the Americas. WilyD 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, but Willy, you are an American as far as your interlocutors here are concerned. And may I add, what cheek you have presuming to characterize your own nationality in your native language.  After all, that's what God created Spanish-speakers to do, to tell us Anglophones what our words mean.  What would we do without them? Sumergocognito 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No doubt the fact that they keep calling me an American is what gets my goat. If they were saying that everyone from Mozambique are South Africans, I'd disagree, but I probably wouldn't care quite as much. WilyD 15:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am proud to say that I am a Native American. I might be 1/4 English and 3/4 German but, I'm an American (the real kind) and I was born here and you can't really get more native than that, so voila, I'm a native American.  What's that you say?  "Native American” really means something else regardless of what the individual words mean? But the most antique and abstract senses of a word are by default the correct ones, right? So what does it matter that I would confuse people if I relied on my obscure and idiosyncratic interpretation of these terms? Sumergocognito 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be a native American, but not a Native American - I think we've discussed this issue at Talk:America to some length, or maybe here. Anyways, I'll note that English is a descriptive language, and meaning is not decided by any formal rules, but by usage.  There are patterns but exceptions can always exist.  WilyD 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wily, then pay attention to how Sumergocognito is using it. Deepstratagem 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhm, I can't help but notice that Sumerocognito's characterisation of the word is almost identical to mine, even if his characterisation of correctness of English is unclear or wonky. WilyD 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also not American (in the strict sense, anyway), and for what it's worth, I agree with what I have read in a cursory glance over WilyD's arguments. We cannot assume that "American" = américain = americano = Amerikaner: for considerations on the senses of the word "American" in English, we must restrict ourselves to English alone.


 * Now, when speaking about other languages: I think all these efforts to determine whether certain foreign languages regard the Americas as a continent are somewhat ill-conceived. You will no doubt be able to find native English speakers who regard "the Americas" as a continent, which is plural only in a formal grammatical sense (as the word "scissors" is plural).


 * The real question is: what do the cognates of "America", "American" (noun), and "American" (adj.) mean in Language X?


 * Aside from Spanish and Portuguese, the language I know best that regularly disambiguates its equivalent of "American" is German, where you will regularly see "US-Amerikaner". Nevertheless, "Er ist Amerikaner" would almost always be taken to mean "he is a U.S. citizen."


 * French doesn't bother disambiguating much: "américain" would most of the time be interpreted as "U.S. citizen", and while I have seen "étatsunien" (on the Spanish model) used, it is exceedingly rare. However, "Amérique" somewhat confusingly means the Americas as a whole, not the United States.


 * As a final comment: for what it's worth, as a Canadian anglophone I find the Spanish term norteamericano used to refer to U.S. citizens exclusively to be more objectionable than using "American" for the same.  It's an odd world for us Canadians: we are americanos but not Americans, and North Americans but not norteamericanos.  (Et bien que nous sommes rarement américains, au Québec ils sont quelquefois et quelquefois pas canadiens!) --Saforrest 06:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is true that I'm trying to make sure that the article reflects the English language usage of an English language word, rather than masquerade some non-English words as English words and extrapolate the usage in other languages to reflect some other use." (WilyD said this above). I agree with this sentiment. Languages are not 100 percent parallel. In Greek, there's several different words that translate to the English word "love", but each has it's own distinct meaning. In Japanese, there's only one word that means both "blue" and "green". French is well known for having phrases that literally translate to English one way but in actual usage infer completely other meanings. In other words, what words and terms may mean in other languages cannot be used as arguments for what they should or should not mean in English. For purposes of parsing, each language really needs to be looked at within a vacuum. I said it above and I'll repeat it here (as it seems to have been lost), it's unfortunate but there isn't a single term that can refer to U.S. residents or as an adjective for items from the States outside of "American". If there was, I'd happily use it, but there's not, and so the English speaking world considers "America" (when no modifier is used) to mean the United States; otherwise, it's "North America," "South America" or "the Americas". This isn't the only time that terms which grammatically mean one thing have come to infer something else in common usage - likewise, "African-Americans" don't have to have dual citizenship to use that term (even though "German-American" still infers an American citizen born in Germany), and caucasians can't use the term "Native American" regardless of where they were born. Personally, I prefer to refer to myself as a "U.S. citizen", as I do have respect for the fact that Canadians, Brazilians, etc., should technically be considered Americans (just as Germans, Italians, Spaniards, etc. are all Europeans); unfortunately, there's still not a word I can use when I want to complain about the build quality of cars designed and built in the United States, i.e., except to call them "American" cars. It might not be politically correct, but that's the way it is, and unfortunately, there isn't any other term that has effectively challenged it.Nolefan32 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that that's not the only way the word is used... nor is it necessarily the most frequent, even in English. Deepstratagem 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Not the most frequent even in English?  Hmmm... from this very article ... "Nevertheless, with the exception of "U.S." or "U.S. citizen", no alternative to "American" has been seriously considered." But since you seem to think there is a more frequently used term in English, perhaps you can tell me how I can refer to Ford, GM and Chrysler except by calling them "American" cars, because I'd love to know. Nolefan32 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, strictly speaking here, Deep is correct. American to mean of or related to the United States is not necessarily the most common usage of American, it's accidentally the most common usage.  It doesn't have to be, it just happens to be. WilyD 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not strictly. I recommend you read Observations as this has already been discussed. Deepstratagem
 * Are you suggesting that American must necessarily have the most common usage mean of or relating to the United States? This seems like a radical change of position for you, but I can't guess what else you might mean by this. WilyD 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I said 'not strictly' as in, I am not correct only strictly speaking. Deepstratagem 23:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you may not be aware of this as a non-Anglophone, but not necessarily can also imply that the quantity is unknown, but merely assumed so. In this case, that's probably the more common meaning of necessarily in that context, so a qualifier like strictly speaking is called for, since the looser or more informal interpretation of the sentence is false, given that America is English almost invariable refers to the United States. WilyD 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you may not be aware of this, but I'm an Anglophone, though it should have been obvious since my spelling is consistently better than yours. As for the rest of your claims, please produce evidence. Deepstratagem 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, sorry if you've misunderstood, but I speak a dialect of English such that Anglophone has a more specific meaning than most dialects - that's all I meant. As for the rest, I haven't any reliable sources at this time, nor am I especially inclined to dig for them.  However, since I'm only making this claim on the talk page, and  most (if not all) the editors already know it to be true anyhow, it's still a useful observation. WilyD 00:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nolefan32, but you are misreading both my comment and the article. The article says that in reference to U.S. Americans there is no serious alternative besides American. It doesn't say that it is the most frequent usage of the word which has more than one meaning. I hope that makes sense to you. Or maybe I can draw a map

Here you have to make a distinction between references to Americans and references to the word.

-U.S. American -American

-American (resident of the continent) -American

-American (indigenous) -Native American -Indigenous American -American

The article says that the word American as defined at the top of the list only has one frequently used mapping. It doesn't deny the other mappings. If instead it was referring to the converse, then you would be correct. But it doesn't. Deepstratagem 23:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WillyD said It is true that I'm trying to make sure that the article reflects the English language usage of an English language word, rather than masquerade some non-English words as English words and extrapolate the usage in other languages to reflect some other use Yes or something like that, but that's obviously nonsense. This page has a chapter on what cognates of "American" mean in other languages. What it means in English is irrelevant for that question.


 * Besides the headline of this page does not fit its content. It says "Use of the word American", but it really is about "What words are used for the USA".


 * I repeat what I said above, there's some heavy cultural bias here, and some people have an axe to grind. It's pointless arguing about that. Anorak2 11:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Census Ancestry Clarified
Your edit was not exactly minor, Wily, nor was it a matter of grammar. Those people are considered "United States or American" by their government. Regardless of what the sample respondents reported, all ancestries coded between 939 and 994 (American, United States, the names of the states (excluding Hawai'i, including the federal district (Georgia included, though not Georgia CIS)), Southerner, and North American) were aggregated as "United States or American" at American Fact Finder. As you can see at the Maps of American ancestries' Talk Page, AFF is the source of the data.

Feel free to confirm my interpretation by clicking on the AFF link above, click on "Fact Sheet - Fact Sheet for a Race, Ethnic, or Ancestry Group", enter "American" in the "Find" field, and click "Find"/"Find Next" until you find your "Americans". Note the "(939-994)". If you click on "Go", you can get more information on this ancestry group. The complete ancestry code list is here:.

If you want to order the raw data CD from the Bureau and run it through a GIS to make a map more to your liking, knock yourself out, hoser.

Just the facts, ma'am.

.s

Ack

X ile 07:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC) - Talk
 * Uh - at first glance, the new revision looks fine at first glance too - if you'll look at the version I modified, you'll find good grammar it had not - and the way I phrased it was true (since the American census is self-reported) - whether it was ideal, I don't know. But changing a non-grammatical sentence to a grammatical sentence is not much in the way of majorness - while it's possible some nuance was lost, I don't see it. WilyD 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that. I logged back on to tell you I probably took the edit the wrong way and make a similar edit to the one you last made. (A U.S. person living abroad is not subject to the U.S. census.) I was modifying what I should have just re-written completely the first time around. There are hundreds of ancestries that may be reported, but they are clustered for public use. Otherwise, hell, I'm trying to do some hardware and software upgrades that are effecting my sleep and mental soundness. Apologies, again. It looks great grammatically and in terms of verifiability and accuracy.


 * X ile 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AMÉRICA
"Yo creí siempre que en la América nuestra no era posible hablar de muchas patrias, sino dé una patria gránde y única; yo creí siempre que si es alta la idea de la patria, expresión de todo lo que hay de más hondo en la sensibilidad del hombre: amor de la tierra, poesía del recuerdo, arrobamientos de gloria, esperanzas de inmortalidad, en América, más que en ninguna otra parte, cabe, sin desnaturalizar esa idea, magnificarla, dilatarla; depurarla de lo que tiene de estrecho y negativo, y sublimarla por la propia virtud de lo que encierra de afirmativo y fecundo: cabe levantar sobre la patria nacional, la Patria americana, y acelerar el día en que los niños de hoy, los hombres del futuro, preguntados cuál es el nombre de su patria, no contesten con el nombre del Brasil, ni con el nombre de Chile, ni con el nombre de Méjico, porque contesten con el nombre de América.

Toda política internacional americana que no se oriente en dirección a ese porvenir y no se ajuste a la preparación de esa armonía, será una política vana y descarriada."

JOSÉ ENRIQUE RODÓ (15 July 1872 – 1 May 1917) (uruguayo)

In "Manual de Español", Idel Becker. Companhia Editora Nacional, São Paulo, 1953.

COWDUNG
"Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant Group" (from C.H. Waddington, Tools for Thought, page 16). I mention this while rereading this soapbox again after a few months, specifically the line "That's flat out wrong. Consensus of usage is the sole mechanism for validating english usage. No other exists." by WilyD, and which has been defended by others here as well.

And no, I am not Deepstrategem, although I sympathize with his patience and the fact that he has been the biggest contributors to this article. But I don't have his patience when dealing with the mediocrity of other so-called contributors, who only want to push their limited understanding based on COWDUNG, like Cúchullain, Coolcaesar and Daramane who chose to crucify Deepstrategem, accusing him (incorrectly) of pushing a minority view, while ignoring that WilyD is pushing a nichy anti-US agenda (full of generalizations bordering prejudice) that claims that the meaning of the word "American" as "being from the Americas" somehow implies that "Manifest Destiny" is still alive and ready to engulf Canada.

Every time I hear someone claiming consensus as reason for anything, I also hear its closely related parasites getting near: demagogy, and with it, ignorance. What a shame for so-called encyclopedists! Diderot and d'Alembert, who worked on bringing the selected minority educated view to the masses, are probably crying in their tombs. 70.122.45.124 07:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Consensus is how Wikipedia, even if not the Enlish language, works. If you do not like this, I suggest you find another way to spend your time. And for the record, WilyD's ideas about Manifest Destiny exasperate me as much as Deepstratagem's attempts to legislate the correct way to use English, but since neither of them tries to push their beliefs into the article itself, it really doesn't matter. There have been a couple of bumps (which were not ultimately about ideology), but discourse on this and related articles has been generally civil and on topic. In order to keep it that way, please don't engage in namecalling and trying to pit us against each other.--Cúchullain t/ c 08:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * -Fair enough. My apologies if this looked like an ad homimem on you and the others, but if you read closely, there was no namecalling at all, but an assessment of current reality.
 * -Here are a few words on Consensus from Wikipedia itself: "Consensus upon a particular formal model of consensus can lead to groupthink, by making it harder for those who reject that formal model (and using informal or different models) to be heard. This recursion suggests the extreme complexity of reasoning about consensus in a political context." This is exactly what seems to be brewing here, COWDUNG.
 * -As for "trying to pit us against each other", I am not doing that: I am criticizing all of you for letting the debate get to this low point, including Deepstrategem for sometimes being too soft when countering some of the sophistical arguments thrown upon his ideas. BE BOLD should apply to discussions as well.
 * -It is clear that all of you are in your own way trying to do the best (even WilyD). But please be aware that the best-so-far can also be improved upon. The way to do this is more facts and hard data, more logic, and less arguing about someone's political intentions ("mind reading"), which has been the rule so far.
 * -"If you do not like this, I suggest you find another way to spend your time." Totally agree. That's why I only come here every six months, to see if the debate has improved in any way. I have made my view on the topic known a long time ago, and now I only monitor this discussion as an anthropological study on Wikipedia itself. 70.122.45.124 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may misunderstand my That's flat out wrong. Consensus of usage is the sole mechanism for validating english usage. No other exists. line - this has nothing to do with our consensus, but is a contrast to say, French, where the Académie française is the machanism for validating French usage (more or less, there are some subtleties). It is about a consensus that has to exist across everyone who speaks English.  While Deep's argument that North America + South America = America is logical, it's false because the language isn't logical - although it is consistant (i.e. Upper Canada + Lower Canada = the Canadas, North Carolina + South Carolina = the Carolinas, North Dakota + South Dakota = the Dakotas and so on...)
 * Yes, the talk page contains a lot of soapboxing. The article is so politically charged and has a constant profusion of problematic edits.  This isn't surprising, even articles I never would have imagined to be contraversial are subject to lots of soapboxing - the nature of Wikipedia.  It sucks, but there's not much to do.
 * For what it's worth, I'm really not pushing any agenda - if you'll look at my edits to the article, they're mostly just removing vandalism and the most egragious instances of soapboxing. Yes, I engage editors here on the talk, on the principle that it's far better to have long arguments on talk pages rather than disruptive edits on articles.  I stand by that principle.
 * Yes, the article gets me riled up, and I know I have to be careful editing it - and yes, I'm looser on the talk page. The article reads like a brochure for American Cultural Imperialism - it should be unsurprising that it gets my Canadians are not Americans part of the national identity all inflammed.
 * There's more, I can go on at length, but I'll digress. For what it's worth, I think I've come to understand the difference between the adjectives American and U.S., but it's all original research so it's not very important. Until then, I'll stand by my conviction that it's better to argue with people on the talk page than have them soapboxing in the article.  WilyD 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

History
"'The most commonly expounded theory is that German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller derived it from the Latinized version of the name of Amerigo Vespucci (Americus Vespucius), an Italian merchant and cartographer whose exploratory journeys in the early 1500s brought him to the eastern coastline of South America and to the Caribbean. None of this work survives, and Vespucci himself does not give his name to the lands he describes.' [emphasis added]"

It is unclear what work does not survive. The publicly-accessible part of the 120 year old article that is supposedly the source says:"Vespucci 'wrote observations on latitude and longitude and accounts of his voyages, and drew or corrected charts. None of these works exist. Some letters of his to two friends are extant, and in these he gives notes of his voyages and of the strange people he had seen. Two of these letters were published during his life . . .' [emphasis added]" Vespucci was a navigator, so it's safe to assume he drew or corrected charts and wrote observations of latitude and longitude and accounts of his voyages. It was his published letters (and the authenticity of some, but by no means, all of the letters is in dispute) that were the basis for the Cosmographiae Introductio and Universalis Cosmographia. These works survive. I have seen them. Follow the external links from those articles and see for yourself.

.s

Ack

X ile 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC) - Talk


 * Perhaps the citation is wrong. Please change if you have a better way of wording this, as I am uncertain as well of what exactly the citation is claiming. Jcchat66 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommend Jonathan Cohen's naming of America: fragments we've shored against ourselves'' for an up-to-date balanced overview of the issue. Otherwise, best just to delete the confusing clause.


 * The conventional story (Amerigo) is pretty well-grounded historically without needing primary documents to the nth degree. That any piece of paper from the 15th-16th century survives is remarkable. Those that made the trans-Atlantic round trip are rare indeed, preserved only because they were initially regarded as "Top Secret".
 * NOTE: edited (three times!) because of problems with the original link
 * X ile 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC) - Talk

I've heard and read people use U.S American to refer to U.S citizens, I hope its fine that I added this. Thanks!


 * The above remark, "The conventional story (Amerigo) is pretty well-grounded historically ..." is exactly why there is so many problems with historical research. The Amerigo theory is just as questionable as any other. Considering what great lengths the Spanish Empire and the Vatican went to in securing their monopoly, it is a wonder the theory has not been completely dismissed as capitalist right-wing corporate propoganda. I guess the claims of fishermen from the North Atlantic for Amerike don't have enough aristocratic zest to it, eh? Political motivation must always be considered in historical research, just as Cleopatra's alleged suicide is now being rightfully questioned as Roman propoganda. Jcchat66 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

United States of Mexico : Mexican :: United States of America : American
and USA should be United Stetas Of Americas

Shouldn't it be included in the article that we apply the same principle in calling people from the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos de Mexico) Mexicans (mexicanos), instead of "estadounidenses mexicanos", just as calling people from the United States of America (Estados Unidos de America) Americans (americanos) instead of "estadounidenses"? I am from Costa Rica, and I do get offended by stupid stuff, just as most Latin Americans do about using "American" as a demonym for the United States. I am not offended by this one, because of the logic I used in the title: Estados Unidos de Mexico : mexicano :: Estados Unidos de America : americano. What I am offended about, though, is seeing that the article says Central America is a part of North America, which to me is just ridiculous, but I'll do some research about it.


 * By the common definition of North America, Central America is part of it. Virtually any source will tell you this. Sometimes, however, "North America" is used to define just Mexico and north, but not in the sense that Central America is a continent. Other definitions exist, particularly concerning the Caribbean, but when you talk about the "seven continents", Central America is never one.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, virtually any source in English. Virtually all sources from Latin-based languages (Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian) will include Central America.


 * Hmm... that's weird. I think Central Americans consider that differently. What's more complicated is I believe we have to Central Americas, America Central and Centroamerica, the difference being which includes Panama and Belize, and which does not. So if we are a part of North America, why are things like "CONCACAF" called Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football. There should be some kind of convention when teaching this. We learn about 5 continents: America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Plus Antarctica. And we divide America in North America, Central America and South America. What really is stupid is when people think that Central America, or even Mexico, are in South America. I heard Robbie Williams say it once in Mexico "It's so nice to be here, in South America" :S


 * Central America is never considered a separate continent; it's considered either part of North America (by the 7 continents definition), or part of America/the Americas (by the 5 continents definition). The confusing part is that North America has various definitions, as I said above. When speaking of it as a continent, it always includes Central America; when speaking of it as a geographical region of the Americas, it sometimes only includes Mexico and north. And yes, Central America has different definitions - in the colonial days Panama would not have been included, as part of the Viceroyalty of New Granada, but most of the Mexican state of Chiapas would have been, as part of the Kingdom of Guatemala. Some of this is discussed at Continent.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put Cuchullain. Again it's interesting to read this conversation of people from different backgrounds: there will never be an agreement. From the background of Latin-based cultures, including French and Italian, there are three Americas from the geopolitical perspective: North (Canada, USA and Mexico), Central and South.


 * A quick glance at Wikipedia articles on the term "America" in other languages reveals that Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian use it as standard for a single continent: "América/América/Amérique/Americhe". Only when referring to continents in physical geography will they subdivide the continental mass in South and North, with Central included in the latter. Notably other non Anglo-Saxon cultures such German, Swedish and Dutch use the same convention as well (for example, see Amerika).


 * The term "Middle America" (which includes Mexico, Central America, and sometimes Colombia and Venezuela) only occurs in Anglo-Saxon culture, and originally had a physical geographical context, but ended up gaining cultural connotations due to the growing Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism (the rest of the world includes Mexico in North America). In Latin based languages, the geopolitical perspective predominates (as their culture tends to value the political aspects more than the geographical ones), whereas the Anglo-Saxon ethnocentric view is less interested in Latin America's own views, having its own - "walk softly but carry a big stick" - existed almost unchanged since the 1900s. The fact that US intelligentsia has long ago evolved beyond such prejudices does not invalidate that this is what is in the English-speaking population imaginaire.


 * This growing Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism has since the 1800s distorted the understanding of the word "America". So the solution to the current article is to briefly acknowledge the reality that other languages see the word "America" as being the same as the ethnocentric Anglo-Saxon expression "Americas", and let the overcoming of this cultural limitation as an Anglo-Saxon educational problem. Avoid cluttering the article with useless debates spawning from such ethnocentric views.


 * If one is wondering what ethnocentrism means, here it goes: "The belief that one's own culture is superior to all others and is the standard by which all other cultures should be measured." From The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.


 * Here are other definitions of ethnocentrism, more representative of the Anglo-Saxon imaginaire: "1- Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group. 2- Overriding concern with race" (from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004). Those two definitions, as anyone who has had direct contact with Anglo-Saxon culture will readily recognize, describe perfectly the current state of affaires in the mind (imaginaire) of the typical English speaker. This also explains why no argument nor explanation will ever alter the view of some in this editing talk/discussion, as they are not part of the intelligentsia I referred to, but rather they represent the general population, and will unconsciously defend the general English speaker ethnocentric views ("prejudices").


 * 70.122.50.106 07:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What an interesting piece of sophistry. Ethnocentric indeed! Seldom do Americans of any class use Anglo-Saxon to describe themselves! It ignores Irish and Scottish cultural constributions, as well as Celtic, Norman, Roman, and Jewish influences, all of which shaped England. But Americans are not English, no more than Mexicans are Spanish. Like Mexicans and Brazilians, Americans are members of a different culture now, no longer European. A prejudice, enthocentric view would be to assume that all Americans consider themselves Anglo-Saxon, or even Anglo at all. We are no more Anglo than our Latin neighbors are Latin. Anglo and Latin cultures have just as much in common as they are different. But to tell Americans that they should not call themselves Americans is simply a prejudice, cultural attack, against many cultures, not just one. We don't go around telling Latin Americans they shouldn't call themselves Latins, do we? That would be just as "ethnocentric." Jcchat66 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I wrote this I was expecting that the subtlety would pass unnoticed by some less prepared intellects, and you just confirmed: I made no assumptions whatsoever on what people consider themselves to be, but just exposed the fact that English speakers share a common set of concepts which I termed "Anglo-Saxon imaginaire". Even if someone's genes come from somewhere else, when raised having English as a first language the mind is inundated by assumptions, prejudices and thoughts alike that make up this "Anglo-Saxon" way of thinking (just translated imaginaire for your benefit), even if the immediate family is from a different culture. It's like a factory imprint that you get when very young. It is part of the fabric of the English speaker's mind, and only through great effort it can be overcome so as to understand other points of view. That's why we have Anglo-Canadians in this discussion arguing for the ethnocentric Anglo-Saxon point of view, and that everywhere that English has a strong presence, "American" will mean only "from the United States", no matter what educated people might argue in this discussion. The cure is to decrease the level of ignorance of the typical speaker of English as a first language, but as this discussion has proved, it is impossible so I vote to leave it at that and move on.72.254.25.231 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So the speakers of one language have an imprinted prejudice, or worldview, even if they belong to a non-English culture? Can you define what this prejudice is, exactly? And if so, in comparison to other prejudices that other languages must also have. Surely French and Russian speakers must have some imprint, da, oui? And what specifically are you defining as Anglo-Saxon? What of their culture has survived all these centuries into modern-day that is evident amongst English speakers?
 * Aside from the fact that "American" has NEVER been defined in any period in history as exclusively the United States, this argument is so absurd, so arrogant, and so egotistical, that I may very well weep. I cannot even call this original research, but rather, your own personal imaginaire. The cure for this is for you to take your arrogant, aristocratic, psychological sophistry elsewhere. You have proved nothing and assumed too much, which is clearly obvious in ANY language spoken. Jcchat66 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like I hit a nerve. Hopefully it will wake you out of your self delusion of erudition which clearly masks underlying prejudices against other cultures. Here are a few comments on your latest regurgitation:
 * >>"So the speakers of one language have an imprinted prejudice, or worldview, even if they belong to a non-English culture?" -- No, pay attention to what I said: first language speakers (usually called native speakers) raised in a culture where that language is the predominant way of communication will have a worldview/prejudices embedded unconsciously in their minds. This is quite obvious, frankly. As for "prejudice" - read this word without the negative connotation, but rather as "pre-judged", that is, the language/culture framework infuses pre-conceived notions.
 * >>"Can you define what this prejudice is, exactly?" -- I have talked about it extensively already, re-read it.
 * >>"And if so, in comparison to other prejudices that other languages must also have." -- Sure, my pleasure. Here is one: the imaginaire of native Spanish speakers includes the imprint that there is one America, comprised of 3 land masses, North, Central and South America. They don't even know about the word "America" as meaning "United States" until they start to learn English - but by then their own imprint clashes with the Anglo-Saxon mind imprint, and it just doesn't sound correct to their ears. This clash of cultures is what this article is all about.
 * Another amusing example by Pierre de Latil in his biography of Enrico Fermi: "'Do you like America?' was the inevitable question often put to the young Italian couple during their stay. It was difficult for them to give a simple answer, yes or no, the Latin mind being more accustomed to finer shades of opinion; and besides, they hardly knew the country." So as de Latil expressed, the Latin imaginaire (or as he puts it, the Latin mind) is more used to finer shades of opinion, whereas he implies that the "Anglo-Saxon mind" usually tends to yes/no, black/white polarizations that don't allow a third option unless the individual has raised his mind beyond the prejudices imprinted by the environment he was raised in.


 * >>"Surely French and Russian speakers must have some imprint, da, oui?" -- Of course every language has it. BTW, as you can see from the quote above, the French see themselves as part of a bigger "Latin mind", along with Italians and others, even though their "ethnicity is similar to the English one" - as you yourself said. So what is the difference? Language and culture, the imaginaire.


 * >>"And what specifically are you defining as Anglo-Saxon?" -- "5. a person whose native language is English." from Anglo-Saxon. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved May 02, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anglo-Saxon.
 * >>"What of their culture has survived all these centuries into modern-day that is evident amongst English speakers?" -- What about the core of the English language?
 * >>"Aside from the fact that "American" has NEVER been defined in any period in history as exclusively the United States..." -- This veering off topic shows again that your are annoyed (a real pleasure to know) because if you had read what I wrote above with a cool mind, you would have noticed that I am actually agreeing with the whole aspect of "American" as meaning "from the United States". What threw you off is that I don't agree for the same reasons that YOU do, which proves again that from your ethnocentric perspective that I must submit to YOUR point of view. However, the only thing that will convince me is Logic, and your arguments have so far only been classical fallacies (Are you writing a book on the subject and using this discussion as a testing ground?).
 * >>"so arrogant" -- Yes, that is exactly what I meant it to be.
 * >>"and so egotistical" -- No, I am not interested in myself, but rather in challenging your own absurd, superficial and fallacious remarks about other cultures.
 * >>"that I may very well weep." -- Nothing would give me more pleasure.
 * >>"I cannot even call this original research" -- of course it is not, what I am referring to is actually quite well known. The fact that you manifest not to know about it again reinforces the ethnocentric view that you so vividly portray. Why not expand your mental horizons and read a book such as "Managing Cultural Differences" by Harris & Moran, or "International Management" by Hodgetts and Luthans?
 * >>"but rather, your own personal imaginaire. The cure for this is for you to take your arrogant, aristocratic, psychological sophistry elsewhere." -- He, he, I really got you annoyed. But I agree on "arrogant, aristocratic, psychological" - that is exactly what I meant, but the sophistry card is on you - while all here use Logic, you are the one making sophistic disturbances on this article, clamping it down with fallacious arguments.
 * >>"[...go] elsewhere" -- That's what I like about Wikipedia: it gives me the chance of helping to purge mankind of ignorance, and in this context that means your fallacious arguments. So I am not going anywhere. I will just appear out of the blue every six months or so and see if this discussion has improved. BTW, I see that you are still misspelling a few words ("constributions", "refered", "liquistically"). What about correcting your posts with a spell-checker before posting?
 * >>"You have proved nothing and assumed too much, which is clearly obvious in ANY language spoken." -- He, He, I REALLY got you annoyed. OF COURSE I didn't mean to prove anything. Truth is self-evident for those that have the intellect prepared to see it. But if you on the other hand say that you don't...
 * 70.253.87.242 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Annoyed? No, don't flatter yourself. But before this goes any further, what are you claiming I have said about other cultures? You quoted something I do not recognize as my own, "ethnicity is similar to the English one." I have never stated that, nor believe that in the least. Perhaps you might be you that needs to re-read? And you stated: "No, I am not interested in myself, but rather in challenging your own absurd, superficial and fallacious remarks about other cultures." You'll need to back that up, or perhaps you're getting me confused with someone else? Jcchat66 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * >>"I have never stated that, nor believe that in the least." -- So you are a contradiction in terms. Find out in this discussion your own words: "Besides, the French are the same ethnicity as the English anyway, Romanized Celts who suffered through a series of Germanic invasions." If you can't even remember what you write in this discussion, how can we take you seriously on everything else? BTW, right after the aforementioned quote you made one of your "absurd, superficial and fallacious remarks about other cultures". 70.253.80.111 (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * >>This is you quoting me: "Surely French and Russian speakers must have some imprint, da, oui?" -- Of course every language has it. BTW, as you can see from the quote above, the French see themselves as part of a bigger "Latin mind", along with Italians and others, even though their "ethnicity is similar to the English one" - as you yourself said. So what is the difference? Language and culture, the imaginaire."
 * Since you quoted this completely out of context, you make it sounds like I said something regarding Russians, French, Italians, having ethnicity similiar to the English. Mmmm, you need to clarify your thoughts there to avoid confusion, especially when quoting out of context. For example, use "..." to show that you are quoting something out of context, or more of the sentence, this helps. MOst people have simply written too much to remember their own words taken out of context. As for my arguments being ignorant, you've still failed to show why or how, but only expressed your personal opinion and some sliver of your world view. Making a general historical observation about a culture is not being "absurd, superficial and fallacious." Are the British famous for being prim and proper? Are the Germans known for being hard-working an industrious? Are not the Mongols known for being brave? Every culture is different, and every culture share similar qualities. Even you have made a general observation with your "Bigger, Latin mind" statement. Observations of common cultural aspects are the beginning of research into why and how and if they are true. Surely, the book you mentioned, explained even that basic concept in its study of world cultures.
 * Since you admitted to being arrogant, you've undermined anything you are trying to say anyway. This is, after all, why arrogant people cannot be taken seriously. Arrogance is the mindset of the narrow-minded and fanatical, of the opinionated and dogmatic, of the elitist aristocrat. In your desire of "... helping to purge mankind of ignorance" you've expressed a psychological charateristic of megalomania. How many people have died already in such purges? How much knowledge was lost in Carthage or Tenochtitlan by such purges? I bet you like Neitzche's idea of the Superman, the self-righteous pursuit of allowing a few people to rule all humanity for the "greater good." Simply put, you idea of "ignorance" is not the same as everyone else, and is usually ethnocentric. You don't get to decide who is or is not ignorant, that what I like about Wikipedia, which is an egalitarian, not aristocratic, or intelligentsia, pursuit. If you want that, then become an editor for the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you want to improve humankind, then don't try and purge anything, just expose it for all to see, and then it will usually evaporate on its own if it has no merit. Treat others with respect and set an good example, and accept others might not agree with you no matter how many proofs or facts you demonstrate. I know, it's frustrating, but the alternative is violence and misery in the use of force.
 * The books you mentioned, upon review of those that have read it, appear to be for the benefit of global trade, which of course has a need for understanding all cultures just enough to make money. A marvelous book on political correct tactics for diplomats and corporate executives, whom represent aristocracies of many flavors, not mankind. After all, the purpose of culture is usually to protect people from being taken advantage of (though, like anything else, a double-edged sword.) That's why the Roman Empire had to eliminate all culture and Romanize the known world, to allow its publicani (Latin plural for corporations) to make money in a global economy. If you want a well-researched academic book that dives deep into history and culture, I could recommend far better books. Try Carroll Quigley's Evolution of Civilizations or Tragedy and Hope for starters. Then, perhaps, you might begin to your first journey towards wisdom. Jcchat66 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong
"United States of Mexico : Mexican :: United States of America : American"

WRONG. The official name of Mexico is 'Estados Unidos Mexicanos', which translates into 'United Mexican States'.

The analogy is corrupt, and the conclusion would not support historical fact, regardless.

It would not support the implied redundancy in the name of the United States of America, either; since it was named because of America the landmass and not in spite of it. Deepstratagem (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * United Mexican States is the same as United States of Mexico, just as United American States would means the same as United States of America. It does not change the meaning in the least. Just because in Spanish toilet paper is papel higienico (paper toilet) does not change its meaning in English, toilet paper. Estados Unidos Americanos is also used along with Estados Unidos de América, because both mean the same thing. Neither Latins or Anglos would be confused to which nation and culture being refered to in either case. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that "America" was the name of the continent first, and later for a confederation of states that was NOT America but IN America. This confederation of states became a country and in the process it did not accuire an original name. Mexico IS an original name for a country. So even in the name "United States of America", America refers to the continent, not the country. This could explain why the United States of America is sometimes refered to as simply the United States or U.S. and why, in spanish, it is allways written as EE.UU. (equivalent of U.S.) and never EE.UU.A. (equivalent of U.S.A.). Also, this means that "United States of Mexico" or "United Mexican States" is not equivalent to "United States of America" or "United American States". It also means that to call U.S. citizens "Americans" is linguistcally incorrect. 190.75.42.89 (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The best logical reasoning on this so far (although with a couple of misspelled words). However, it doesn't change the fact that the current meaning was formed as a distortion over time, and there no logical way to fix it.70.253.87.242 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is this IP masked crusader? No, it is not a distortion over time. Read the article for the various reasons why Americans call themselves Americans. Jcchat66 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that the name of a nation and a continent cannot be the same, period. The word has been used by Colonial Americans of British (Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh) descent long before the United States came to exist. It is NOT liquistically incorrect to call a citizen of the United States an American, as dictionaries for well over two-hundred years recognize both meanings. You argue that "United American States" is not the same as "United States of America" but do not back this up. How, exactly, are they not the same? As for Mexico, (originally Mehica, Mejica, or Mexicah) being the original name of that land, that too is not entirely correct. Present day Mexico has far surpassed its Aztec borders, who were in turn invaders themselves that forced and imposed their culture upon their neighbors, and has even less justification to use Mexico than Americans justify using the European continental name of America. Best if everyone just left everyone else alone. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before, you are in need of basic instruction on Logic.70.253.87.242 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Basic instructions on Logic (the art of argumentaion, I assume you wish to discuss?), which means the burden of proof is on the one challenging an accepted premise. (In other words, the burden is on you.) Historical evidence is the premise by which Americans call themselves Americans. You are challenging that premise with new ideas, and therefore must prove they are valid. The article already states the various premises, which one do you wish to challenge? Jcchat66 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for the mysterious word "liquistically" (logically?), I fully agree with Jcchat66 4 paragraphs above: (sic) "It is NOT ... incorrect to call a citizen of the United States an American...". Likewise, it is also NOT incorrect to call a citizen of Colombia, or of Chile, Venezuela, Argentina, Paraguay, Canada, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc., etc., ETC. an American. The reason? Simple enough. All these countries are IN America, and NOT in Asia, Oceania, Africa, Europe, or Antarctica. So, a Mexican is hardly "an African", or "an Asian". A Mexican is an American, period. --AVM (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument seems a little silly. If everyone from both continents of the Americas is an American, then since the U.S. is in North America, then everyone from the U.S. is an American. It is the only demonym for a U.S. citizen and was used for the people in the colonies by the British before the U.S. existed. People from other countries in the Americas will say their country demonym (Columbian, Mexican, Belizean, Brazilean) if someone asks what their nationality is. Reliable sources are used here, and they say American refers to someone of the United States, some as the primary definition, but that it can also refer to someone from the Americas. One definition is used more often, but both are correct. Let's stop with the soap box rants on the talk pages about the Americas, America, or American. Kman543210 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. national in other languages
This section confuses me.

"…to refer to U.S. citizens. These languages generally have other terms for U.S. nationals…"

Is this about other languages having multiple terms for "U.S." and "American" in reference to people, or is this about other languages having different terms for U.S. citizens and U.S. non-citizen nationals? — RVJ 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a case of wanting to vary the word used, complicated by the fact that American is the word under discussion. Generally both a U.S. citizen and a U.S. national would be an American in that word's current use in the United States.  So, words for Americans in other languages would refer to both citizens and nationals.  In fact, I'm not sure what the difference is. -Acjelen 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was beginning to fear the nerdiness of everyday European observers of "Americans". Checking dictionary definitions of "American" leads me to believe that the article might stick with referring to "citizens" (or "natives") of the United States. These definitions don't mention "nationals". U.S. nationals need not ever be "natives" or "citizens" or even "inhabitants" of the United States proper. Currently the non-citizen nationals are persons affiliated with two "outlying possessions" of the federal government. Nationals can get U.S. passports. — RVJ 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone has gone off on an unguided tangent in this discussion. A "U.S. National" has a legal and technical legalese definition: a "U.S. National" is a person who is under the authority of the U.S. Federal government who is not a citizen. Here are some examples: 1). U.S. permanent residents who have declared their intention to become citizens in the due course of the legal process. In other words, immigrants who intend to become citizens. 2). Residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and a few other islands that are governed or possessed by the United States, but are not U.S. citizens. Also, natives of those islands who are living in the U.S. either temporarily or more or less permanently. 3). Those American Indians and others who might have rejected the U.S. citizenship that they were entitled to. 4). I've known these - stateless persons w/o any citizenship who reside in the U.S. with the permission of the Federal Government. For example, I knew people who had left the Soviet Union permanently, and the Soviet government had canceled their Soviet citizenship. They had not lived in the U.S. long enough to become citizens. To do any foreign travel, they did not have any passports. However, as regfugees, the U.S. State Department issued them with documents promising their re-admission to the United States of America. These documents were accepted by almost every country that they might want to travel to - because if they were ever expelled for any reason, they were guaranteed to be re-admitted to the U.S.A.. These people were under the authority of the U.S., but they were stateless persons - so they were U.S, Nationals. Somebody else might used he word "national" or "National" in some other meaning, but this is the legal meaning of it to the Federal Government of the United States. By the way, lest anyone else get confused, the U.S. Constitution is indeed the "Supreme Law of the Land", and it establishes the Federal Government with supremacy over all the State, Commonwealth, and other governments within the U.S. All States, etc., that have ratified this Consitution has accepted this Supremacy of the Federal Government - see the Supremacy Clause. So the United States is no mere confederacy of independant states. The Federal government is far more powerful than that. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that in 1870 that no state may leave the Union except by the consent of all the others, or by a successful rebellion. This ruling by the Court has never been seriously challenged in or overruled by the Supreme Court, or by an Act of Congress, which would have to be an Amendment to the Constitution, which in general is a very difficult thing to do.74.163.40.105 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There should be no confusion in this matter. A nation may exist without a government, and sometimes a government may exist without a nation, such as the UN. Technically Korea is one nation divided by two governments, but in time, Koreans will regard them as completely different nations, if this has not happened already. American Nationals would include American Indians, who sometimes do not accept or acknowledge US Citizenship, meaning they want nothing to do with the conquering Federal government. Thus, there is no such thing as an American Citizen, as there is no government named America. When American Citizen is used, it can only mean American National. Likewise, there is no such thing as a U.S. National, as the United States is not a nation, but a federation of state governments in a nation called America. Another way to look at it is this. If the French government completely collapsed (as often seems to happen with France), does that mean there are no French people? Unfortunately the French will still exist as a nation. Jcchat66 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those last two comments on the French are an example of what I called above "general population English speaker ethnocentric view". 70.122.50.106 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, those last two statements from me were meant to amuse, not offend, and has nothing to do with ethnicity whatsoever. Besides, the French are the same ethnicity as the English anyway, Romanized Celts who suffered through a series of Germanic invasions. The only real differencec is that the French could never abandon the relic laws of Rome, while the English at least came up with a new, progressive legal system for the people. So, while France has gone through many different governments, England has not. Jcchat66
 * You just spurted another ridiculous display of ignorance of the vernacular and the laws of Logic. Who talked about "ethnicity"? I was referring to "ethnocentric view".
 * Let me explain since you don't seem to have a large vocabulary: "ethnocentric view" is a euphemism for "prejudiced view". Oh, I forgot that you probably would not understand what "euphemism" means either. Use a dictionary this time, and go beyond the word "American", which you seem to be stuck in.
 * Also, the argument above trying to tie the number of governments to a legal system is a non sequitur which does not even deserve an explanation.
 * Oh sheesh, you probably don't know what non sequitur means either. While looking for the dictionary, also look for a basic manual of Logic as well. 72.254.25.231 (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Americans define their nationality by citizenship. The USA is not made up of a major ethnic group. The difference between an American and a non American is citizenship. You can be French(or Irish, or Mexican) without being a citizen of France. Of course these days, being French can mean being a citizen of France as well. Another point, This is the English wikipedia, English speakers no matter how ethnocentric you think they are, use American to refer to someone or something from the USA. Not only is American in every English dictionary it is in the name of many. Why isn't there an article titled American using this definition?
 * If American nationality is determined by citizenship, then what was the nationality of Dred Scott or Robert E. Lee? Also, just like French or English, American is too vague a term to use as the title of an article about U.S. nationals or U.S. nationality. -Acjelen (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dred Scot and Robert E. Lee were Virginian Americans. Your talking about a period in American history when citizenship was still predominately based upon the state of birth, which it still legally is. As a people, as a nation, we are Americans. But our actual legal citizenship is based upon the state of birth. Whether the name of the federation is called Confederate States or United States does not matter with regards to citizenship, because it was issued by the states anyway. Again you are confusing government recogniztion of citizenship with cultural nationality. Both citizens of the Union and the Confederacy had the choice on whether to call themselves Americans or not. But in time, if the Confederacy had survived, that would have most likely changed and all Americans would go back to using their state names, or using Northerners and Southerners instead. Who knows? The point is no one else has any business telling Americans they cannot call themselves Americans, especially when its the only word that has been used for centuries to define the cultural nationality of the United States. If this is all about Latin Americans being offended that we Americans are using the word to define our culture, then what? Abolish free speach and condemn its use? If the Latin Americans want to just call themselves American, that is their business. But if they are trying to to tell Americans they can't do it to undermine American culture, that is offensive. It would be like saying that Latins cannot use the word Latin anymore because they have no Roman heritage and don't speak Latin. Or that Jews cannot call themselves Jews anymore because they don't live in Israel. Jews are Jews no matter where they are, just as Americans of the United States are Americans, even if Americans live and raise their children in another country. Thus, nationality and citizenship is not the same. Jcchat66 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Another point, This is the English wikipedia, English speakers no matter how ethnocentric you think they are, use American to refer to someone or something from the USA. Not only is American in every English dictionary it is in the name of many. Why isn't there an article titled American using this definition?"


 * Why didn't you read the article? Or a dictionary? The main definition in most English dictionaries for 'American' is a resident of the landmass of America. Why isn't there an article titled 'American' using this definition?


 * Not only does the continental definition have historical basis, but it is still used in English frequently, and is not based on colloquialisms or lazy contractions. Deepstratagem (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, most if not all English dictionaries use both definitions equally, for the USA and for the landmass. A casual search on the Internet reveals this: American: 17c., from America (q.v.); originally in ref. to what are now called Native Americans; the sense of "resident of America of European descent" is first recorded 1765. American dream first recorded 1931. Americanism "attachment to the U.S." first recorded 1797 in writings of Thomas Jefferson. Jcchat66 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

History and respect
To say "America" just to say "U.S.A." is too despective for the rest of America. Well, I see it as "European" (I think it is just a region name). History called the continent with the name of America. Whitout any kind of negative meaning.

U.S.A. people decided to call its/his country using the name of the continent. Don't you think you have enough hatred in your people to set up more walls between cultures? What the heck is a "Latin American"? What is an "American"? We are all just humans. One of your presidents said: "We are all Americans" and that's right because America is a continent.

And now, ironicaly, if Bush goverment is still taking the freedom of invading other places... I think we all have to get the freedom and right of taking part in elections of the U.S.A. (not America) president. If you have humour sense you'll get this is a joke.

"Dont you change lifes for medals, soldier."

My apologies for my poor English and thanks for reading. Every interlocutor worths


 * --DRoBeR (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that the colonial English of the 1700's were trying to disrespect Latin America that far back? What was Latin America then? New Spain? Or the various Native American nations who probably did not call themselves Americans? That is the century in which the word amongst the English went from being used to describe the Native Americans to the colonial Americans who began to see themselves no longer as Europeans, but as Americans, decades before the American Revolution or the existence of the USA.


 * Hatred in our people? What people? What hatred? What does Bush have to do with this discussion? The whole purpose and intent of the USA was to challenge the European oppression and tyranny over the Americas to begin with, the same reason all Latin American nations declared their independence from Spain. ALL American nations (speaking about North and South America now) once had good relations until recently. Now, all of a sudden, Latin Americans have a problem with Anglo Americans calling themselves Americans as a culture and a national identity? No, sir, that is disrespect on YOUR part, not ours. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am an American, a Latin American. In my view, America spans all the way from Alaska to Patagonia. I have no problems at all with U.S. Citizens calling themselves Americans. But I think U.S. citizens, especially U.S. authorities, do have a problem if I call myself an American. They seem to believe U.S. Citizens are the only inhabitants of the continent entitled to use the word. --AVM (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments like this make us "UnitedStates-ians" think the rest of the world doesn't understand us. The reality is that we don't care what you call yourself.  That's your business.  Now, maybe there is cause for offense in the fact that the average citizen of the United States cares very little about what people in other countries do or say.  But the idea that we "UnitedStates-ians" care what people in other countries call themselves is completely wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.104.54 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe me when I say Americans don't feel strongly offended about this POV. Take a closer look and you'll see its us Canadians who really get aggravated over it.  We put ~150 years of vicious letter writing into getting our own country and are generally unhappy about the idea of just giving it away.  Americans have their own country - take pride in yours!  99.234.48.27 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if I can clear up one or two things... And, by the way, since nationalities seem to have such bearing on the subject, I am a Latin American.

In the 1700's Latin America was a series of Spanish colonies (the U.S., a series of English ones). New Spain was an administrative division, a Viceroyalty which covered most of what today is called North America (Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and a good deal of the present day U.S.). If I am not wrong, there is also a New England, a region that retains its name to this day. New Spain was merely an administrative label, and was not kept after independence. If used, it is, at most, a reference to colonial Mexico, and not even all of Mexico, merely the center and south, and perhaps a part of Guatemala (what the Aztecs and Mayans once ruled, which was were the Spanish centered their colonial empire along with Peru).

I wonder when was it that, according to Jcchat, the countries of North and South America had those good relationships. The war with Mexico? The invasion of Nicaragua? Operation Condor? I don't want to turn this into a blaming marathon (the subject is too politically charged as it is, and I think DRoBeR's attitude doesn't help at all), but the "we all got along well until you had a problem with how we call ourselves" is ridiculous. And it really doesn't matter what the 1700's colonial English thought. When the country was named United States of America, the name from the continent (or continents, that is another matter) was taken away and given to a country. That really is the problem. At the time of the independece of Latin America, several countries had no name; they were American, and eventually took on a name. None used "America" as part of its official name because it was understood to stand for the whole thing.

As for "pride in our countries", we have plenty. That's part of the reason we get upset about this whole business; it is seen as something imposed by the most powerful country in the hemisphere, and the world for that matter. We don't want to give away the name that stands for all of us (Latin Americans and the rest of Americans). Think about it, if America meant only the USA, why would there even be a South America? I'm not dumb, I know that present day U.S. Americans don't use the term to offend; they've been hearing about it since they were kids. But that is as puzzling for us to understand as it is for you to get why it is that we protest. When I was a child, the first time I heard the use of "American" as U.S. only, I was confused about it. Now that I have a greater understanding of the matter, I still feel the use of America for the continent/supercontinent, with American as anything relating to it, makes more sense and is better supported by history.

The matter, as I said, is politically charged enough; that's why I tried to be cold-headed and answer what was written in this section without spite. But it is something that we feel deeply, I can assure you. Rocabatus (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly reminder that these talk pages are not for people to voice their opinions on the subject or use of the word but rather a place to discuss how to improve the article. Wikipedia is for describing the word "American" as used in the English language today and not how it should be used in others' opinions. Kman543210 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia does well not to limit itself to simply describing the word "American" as used in the English language today. Given 1) that most English wikipedians are native English speakers, I'd guess at least half of whom are Americans, and 2) that our normal usage of the word can arouse negative reactions from a substantial number of Latin Americans, surely there is an educational benefit to explaining (particularly to US citizens) the controversy in addition to simply noting common usage. Likewise, there is an educational benefit in explaining to Latin Americans that Canadians are every bit as unhappy about being called Americans. (Loved the bit above about "~150 years of vicious letter writing", btw.) Probably worth explaining as well that us U.S. citizens can be a bit touchy about complaints of ignorance/imperialism/whatever when referring to ourselves by the accepted English term for our nationality, which can sound like, and maybe sometimes is, an attack on our national self-identity. You are correct that talk pages are not opinion soap boxes, but given the high tempers this subject can provoke, a bit of opinion may lead to better understanding among editors and thus a better article. Certainly this article has improved greatly in the year or so since I last checked on it. Kudos to those involved. CAVincent (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object to opinions on improving the article, and I think the article does give all the viewpoints. But what I usually see on these talk pages, at least since I've been on Wikipedia for the last 6 months, is "drive-by" rants of how someone disapproves the term American to refer to a citizen of the United States. The talk pages themselves are not for soap boxing but for open discussion on how the article can be improved.  I don't see an single suggestion in this thread on how to improve the article, so what I meant to say was that the talk pages are not for "soap boxing rants" rather than to say not for "opinions". Kman543210 (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to maintain a civil tone; I don't think I "ranted", since actually I criticised the one who started this thread precisely because his tone was too agressive for the discussion. Also, I specifically said that I know that when people use American in its "US only" acception they don't do it to offend anyone. Finally, I tried to correct a couple of comments which held no regard for history.


 * That being said, you are probably right in that this thread is not very productive. However, the comments made here needed addressing; at least I felt so.


 * However, this is so political you can't hope to keep politics out of the discussion. And in a world so interconnected as the one we have, where translation is a frequent problem, you can't pretend that the article merely reflect the most common English language use for a word which was borrowed from another language. Rocabatus (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Norteamericano"
Hi. In sentences "Latin Americans also may employ the term norteamericano (North American), which itself conflates the United States and Canada. However, this term may also refer to anyone from the North American continent, which also includes Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean." must be added Mexico after Canada, because that is the original meaning of norteamericano, which now means "from/related to United States". Moreover, the sentences "However, this term..." only can be applied to term North American but no to norteamericano, because in Spanish language (and Iberoamerican culture) there are six continents and Norteamérica is a subcontinent from isthmus of Tehuantepec to North. Bye. --Lin linao (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As anyone who speaks Spanish fluently and has lived in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and/or South America knows, the word "norteamericano" is most often used and understood as referring specifically and exclusively to the United States, not the US and Canada; this is its primary connotation in actual speech. The word "estadounidense" is rarely used in speech, presumably since it hardly flows off the tongue and sounds very formal. I suggest that the current reference to "norteamericano" in Spanish referring to the US and Canada be removed. Also, these kinds of definitions should be avoided unless a source can be cited. Is there any Spanish dictionary that disucsses the varied connotations of this word? The RAE is not a good source since it is aimed more at style issues than linguistic accuracy.

In addition, the word "americano" is very frequently used in many Spanish-speaking countries (Mexico and Central America in particular) to refer specifically to the United States, with the meaning (continental or US-specific) obvious from context. It is less often used this way in print, however this usage is quite common in speech. Again, citations to sources is necessary.

Hi, I would like to comment that in other Spanish-spearking countries (such as Chile and Argentina) the word "americano" is not that frequently used to refer to someone from the U.S. While the word "norteamericano" can be used to refere both people from the U.S. and Canada. At least in my country (Chile) the most common way to refer specifically to the United States is just saying "de Estados Unidos" (from the United States). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.25.55 (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

3 words can kill this argument.
Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is a part of the Australian continent, and in fact, they could call themselves rightly "Australians". So if we're going to pick on Americans, we should rightly pick on Australians too, because they don't have a monopoly on the word "Australian".

Or, we could just let the U.S. have the term "American" because we were the first country in the American supercontinent (Much like Australia was the first country in the Australian continent) and let people with anti-American sentiment find some other route for their views other than silly nomenclature. ColdRedRain (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The country is called the "United States of America" and not "America". I don't know what is the first European country but let say it's Italy. Can Italians claim they are the only true Europeans? Anyways, as said in the article about Australia, the name Australia for the continent is a bad name many people doesn't agree with. In many languages the continent is named something which sounds like or translate to Oceania. 132.203.168.38 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference. Places like Italy, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Russia, and so forth were established (as inhabited regions of the world) before writing and reading were even invented. So, there was no way to write down (e.g.) "This is Italy". When North America was settled by emigrants from Europe (the one's that I'm taking about), the culture knew how to read and write. Thus, when someone wrote down "United States of America" (1776) and "American" (referring to their "nationality"), even earlier than that, it established a historic "copyright on the term - forevermore, because the owners (the people of the United States of America) aren't going to give it up. So, the name was claimed by writing it down, in English, and this is the English-language Wikipedia, and that settles it with the permanent historical written evidence.74.163.40.105 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the first people to write down "Italy" made a copyright on that name. There is no way for some other country, for example, in Scandinavia, to call itself "Italy". That name already BELONGS to someone else.


 * No, Oceana has a different, distinct meaning. It includes Australia, New Guinea (all of it), New Zealand, Fiji, Samoa, American Samoa, French Polynesia, the Solomon Islands, the Kerguelen Islands, all of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, and doubtless other islands. Hawaii is an exceptional case, being part of Polynesia, not part of North America, but governmentally part of the United States of America, and so, lets provisionally exclude Hawaii from Oceana.74.163.40.105 (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The USA was named after the continent of America, and Americans were named after the continent before the country even existed. The continent of Australia, however, was named after the country/island. There are other names for the continent: Sahul and Meganesia. (Oceania is not a continent, it's a region, and within Oceania, New Zealand forms its own continent with New Caledonia that is separate from Sahul.) There is no history of New Guineans calling themselves "Australians", and they have no Australian identity. However, other continental Americans do have a long history of calling themselves Americans, and they do have American identities. kwami (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So....
Since according to Latins, we're not "American", can we have the name to our sport back? I mean, "estadounidos football" doesn't roll off the tongue that well. ColdRedRain (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ColdRedRain, I am afraid that your comments are plagued with national sentimentalism and have little credibility. What exactly is "your sport"? Who are these Latins?(mabye you are referring to latin-americans) What do you mean have the name back?(surely you know that football exists from long before american football and is internationally known as football, the U.S. being the only country that uses the term "soccer"). My suggestion would be to stop taking linguistic corrections as an insult to your nation and to be a bit more serious in your interventions.190.75.42.89 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure ColdRedRain was only being humorous in light of the barrage of attacks Americans suffer every day against their culture from the opinions of intellectual fanatics from around the world. The very notion that Americans call themselves Americans to belittle or insult another culture is utterly absurd, while in turn a grave insult to American culture. This whole article has only served to alienate the American nations. So, a little humor doesn't hurt. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1, yes I was being humorous, 2, many countries call Association football "Soccer" because other football codes are popular in various countries. (Rugby is very popular in South Africa, NZ and Australia, Gaelic code is popular in Ireland, and Canadian rules football is the second most watched sport in Canada).  ColdRedRain (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm.... Japan uses the word soccer ChesterTheWorm (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?
why is there an article titled American(word)? There are many words with multiple definitions. For example: Football, when I say football I mean the tackle, gridiron American Football. I know outside of the US this means what I mean by soccer. If I search football, do I get an article on Football(word)? We should handle American the same way. Have an article for each definition as it is now, I can't find an article on Americans. I can find one about the French, but not the Americans? Do we have to exist for a few more hundreds of years to be significant enough for a stub? Frankly, I don't know where this controversy came from, and it has been on wikipedia for years. I am still trying to find it in the real world. (I asked some Spanish speakers about it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.208.3 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Football (word) Wily D 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, but still there is no article on American meaning either referring to the USA or the Western Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The United States and the Americas respectively. Wily D  17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Drive by comment
Reading a story about statements made by Canadian officials concerning their discussions with an Obama staffer I couldn't help noticing this quote from the Canadian PM Stephen Harper:


 * "I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election," he told the country's parliament. [|link]

He doesn't say "US Election" as might be fashionable in some quarters but there isn't any doubt which country he's talking about. I'm sure someone will say that because the US is in the Americas that that's the "American" he was talking about but any fluent English speaker would know that isn't true.

My regards to all of you still fighting cultural imperialism in this little corner of the world. (Cultural imperialism, as in the attempt by Spanish speakers to linguistically colonize the English word "American".)

Sumergocognito (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What corner of the world are you speaking of? Deepstratagem (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cultural imperialism is what every non-Spanish speaking American feels when someone says "no hablo espanol?" by a Spanish-speaking person with contempt and disdain in the Unites States. Though every American should speak Spanish and many other languages as a matter of education, to be looked upon with contempt for not speaking Spanish, is a problem. Jcchat66 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone ever looked at you in contempt for not speaking Spanish? As far as I am aware, only the opposite is the case. Not that this has anything to do with my question. Deepstratagem (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I made this change to keep the article neutral. The introduction should not be argumentative (and the rest of the article shouldn't either). I think we can all agree that the current introduction is more encyclopedic, in that it states what is, instead of sneakily trying to impose a narrow point of view. Deepstratagem (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears not argumentative, but quite encyclopedic, as it states facts with citations. How is this being sneaky? It is completely pertinent to the article. With all due respect, it is quite arrogant to state "I think we can all agree that the current introduction is more encyclopedic ..." when there has not yet been any dicussion. Jcchat66 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Removing encyclopedic content does not make an article more encyclopedic.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the tautology. See below. Deepstratagem (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone can state facts with citations. It is commonly done at debates. This doesn't make debates encyclopedic. The introduction gives undue weight to a particular point of view, without addressing the topic at hand in a balanced fashion. I would direct you to the wikipedia page on neutrality, where it is made clear that "facts with citations" do not make for a neutral article. A verifiable fact alone doesn't make for encyclopedic content. Deepstratagem (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved down the discussion of the phrase "United States", which doesn't need to be in the intro, but does have a place in this article. The other part is clearly relevant to the use of the word in question. And Deep, you know I never said a verifiable fact necessarily makes for encyclopedic content, I said this material was encyclopedic and should not be removed. You are one of the few who disagrees.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I also didn't claim the material should be removed. I just didn't think it belonged in the introduction. Perhaps we misunderstood each other. Deepstratagem (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on this I agree as well, doesn't have to be apart of the intro. But Deep, you should have moved it instead of deleting it, or opened the matter up for discussion. Jcchat66 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted. In this case, I see you have some issues at hand. I'm still removing the tag - if you wish to put an updated tag outlining current issues, then by all means do so.Jjdon (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article is much better than it was. Deepstratagem (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation and context
I object to this change on the grounds that it is an incorrect translation. Normally, when translating from one language to another, the grammar, structure, and context and audience are to be taken into account. This is how professional and legal translations are done. The original paragraph is specifically discussing the English use of the word, and it is explicit: "(in English, without an accent)" Furthermore, the only place where italics are necessary are in the first and last words. And the accent marks, obviously, are not necessary either, since this article is in English. Deepstratagem (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Under most circumstances, I would agree with you; however, because it's discussing terminology, I think it's important to use the terms in the Spanish language without translation. If we translate everything, including the word americano to American, it could leave the reader with the impression that the RAE is discussing the English word, which it is clearly not. They are simply trying to clarify the Spanish language usage to discourage the English language usage. Kman543210 (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your objection as well. The first word 'americano' is appropriate, as that is what is meant. But to not translate the last 3 words would be counter to the intent of the author. The sentence loses its original meaning without justification. Deepstratagem (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But these words are in italics in the original (on the RAE website), clearly indicating that they are discussing these words and necessitating that they be left in italics and with the accent mark. Your objection that the current version "loses its original meaning" makes sense only if you think the RAE is trying to define the English word American. This does not appear to be the case (though I admit it is a possible interpretation) and in any event their authority to define American in English is nil. CAVincent (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I didn't notice that at some point an editor had incorrectly italicized the final appearance of "americano" in the previous translation version (I just compared it to the RAE site). Since the RAE did not italicize this word, it is at least reasonable to translate this word (and it should not be italicized) though the words the RAE did italicize need to stay in Spanish including accent marks. Sorry, Deep, your last edit was good and I changed back to it. p.s. whatever this ends up as I don't think a capitalized "Americano" is a word in any languange. CAVincent (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice until our discussion had ended either, so I changed it accordingly; sorry for not commenting on that change. I also agree that americano ought to stay as in the original. Deepstratagem (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"The first, official usage of the formal country name"
The article states that the Declaration of Independence proclaimed a country named the United States of America and that this was the "first, official usage" of the name. I'm not certain this is true. As a technical matter, I don't think there was any legal entity know as the "United States of America" until either 1777 (final draft of the Articles of Confederation) or possibly 1781 (the de jure adoption of the Articles). Also, it isn't clear to me that the people signing the Declaration or even the Articles necessarily considered the union of thirteen states to be a single country. CAVincent (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

History of the Name
Very little space in this article is given over to the history of how the term "America" and "American" came, in certain connotations, to refer to the United States specifically, both in that country and in perhaps most countries around the world. Are there any reliable published academic sources that have researched this mystery, that I'm sure many people have wondered at? 72.70.118.105 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada: reason for removal of term "Dominion of Canada"
I removed the term "Dominion of Canada", since, according to the Btitish North American Act (1867), the country's official name is just "Canada". Quoting from Article 2:

"the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada [...] those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly."

"Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act."

Compare this to the wording of the Royal Proclamation of 1907 (regarding New Zealand):

"Whereas We have [..] determined that the title of Dominion of New Zealand shall be substituted for that of the Colony of New Zealand as the designation of the said Colony, We have therefore by and with the advice of Our Privy Council thought fit to issue this Our Royal Proclamation [...], the said Colony of New Zealand and the territory belonging thereto shall be called and known by the title of the Dominion of New Zealand."

I hope this clarifies the facts! Prof.rick (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

American countries - ASK ALL
There are an assumed 36 countries in America (the Western Hemisphere). It seems rather presumptuous of ONE of those countries to call itself "America", and its citizens, "Americans". The name "United States of America" might imply that all American (Western Hemisphere) countries are members of these "united states".

No it doesn't and no it won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.222.239 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Others of the Western World have no problem with the name of your country...Gee thanks...we can simply call it the "United States". But when you call it "America" we feel you have stolen the name of a hemisphere,,,We didn't steal it. It was given to us. All we did was accept it,,, and made it your own. The other 35 countries are clearly not members of the United States.

We also have great difficulty with the term "American". You use it to identify your nationality, but ALL who live in the Western Hemisphere are Americans. (Couldn't you call yourselves United Statians, or something like that? Much of the the world identifies you thusly, but it is difficult in English!)

This is why so many non-USA Americans feel threatened when you call your country America, and yourselves Americans. Can you not think of another name to call yourselves, even United Staters?

Perhaps your founding fathers had no idea of the future implications of the naming of your country, "The United States of America". (Or perhaps they suffered from a dilusion that evenentually you would would rule the entire Western Hemisphere?) Prof.rick (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume (perhaps naively) that most U.S. citizens would prefer to be known as U.S. citizens, rather than Americans. They know the implications of the latter name to the rest of the world...for better or for worse! (Of course, there are a few who would like to maintain your identity as "America" and "Americans"...for better or for worse.

Since this article is about "American (word)", I feel all these comments are completely relevant to the article. In fact, the article is as much about the abuse of the term "American" as about the legitimate use of the term.

Views from other countries of the Americas and the rest of the world would be most welcome!

Your comments can greatly contribute to the "tone" of the article! PLEASE, let your voice be heard!

I am a Canadian, and have mixed feelings! I object to one country stealing the name of our hemisphere as its own; likewise, I do not want to be identified as an "American" because of the sore reputation of the U.S., which is widely known as "America".

I hope my comments wil bring forth some light, and stimulate further discussion of this very "touchy" article. PLEASE, CONTRIBUTE YOUR VIEWS! Prof.rick (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your just another American hater. Nobody hates Americans like Canadians. This guy wants to stamp out the use of the word American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.18.61 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The collective authorship of the article very nakedly wants to co-opt the term "American" to replace "Pan-American" and leave the Americans with no name at all. It is very obviously unbalanced, at least by the "By reading, do I know the bias of the author?" test, which's the best I know of.
 * It is not Americans who call themselves Americans, it is the population of Anglophones in general, and the second (& smaller third, fourth ...) language speakers (though the latter is probably getting this from the former to some extent).
 * There's no difficulty in English, certainly if you spoke Canadian English it'd be double-plus unhard - to first order, the Canadian Indentity is defined by how we're not American. Obviously there's some nonzero support for annexation of Canada by America - proponents of this may like the phrase "Canadians are Americans" but they'd probably not say it aloud, for fear of being jerseyed and left in the banks for hungry bears to find.
 * I'm not sure it all matters much. This page gets ~100 views a day, but that's probably most the activist(s) pushing this co-opting of "American" viewpoint and the few people it annoys enough to try to keep from getting way too extreme.
 * Anyways, Wily D 11:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and concur with WilyD's cogent analysis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree, with my typical reservations towards Wily's Canadian-nationalist-anti-pan-American bias. I also want to note that in his edits, Prof.rick removed several sourced bits of information, replacing them with unsourced comments with generally inferior wording. I have corrected this, and encourage him to be more careful in the future.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, please don't get me wrong. America is a very nice country and Americans are very nice people.  Certainly most of my international travel has been to America, and my experiences there have been overwhelmingly positive.
 * There is a huge problem in the Canadian national identity however, with how our culture is defined, due to our similarities with Americans. With American domination of Canadian media, American influence on Canadian culture (especially anglophone culture) there is a real concern that our culture, our national identity could be lost, swallowed up by the Americans.  As someone who's rather fond of my culture and heritage, I view this as a distasteful possibility.  I realise I may not always make this distinction, but it's worth making.  Wily D  03:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's actually my reservation exactly. You sometimes let your concerns about Canadian national identity and its relation to American culture get in the way of your objectivity. "American" can refer to the (super)continent of the Americas, but you resist that objective fact because of the implications you percieve it having on Canadian national identity.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks to everyone who has contributed to my request for more opinions. (Can we hear from more Canadians, eh?) Your contributions are sincerely appreciated. This is inevitably a controversial article, since the term "American" is itself controversial, and the very reason for the existence of this Article. For the most part, I like the rewrite of the lead, although I might edit a word or two!

I understand that the people of the United States have few choices in identifying themselves, and almost always fall back on the word, "American". History can prove helpful in how this all came about, and (one chance in a million) resolve the issue. I'll write more later, but meanwhile await further comments! Best to all, Prof.rick (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to an otherwise exceptionally well-written lead: removed the word "originally", since reference is made to "The Americas" (modern usage), and the evolution of the term American is discussed. ("Originally" suggests this is no longer true.)

Changed "Latin Americans" to "other members of the Americas", since Canadians generally share this view, and are not predominantly Latin-American.

I also question Reference 1, since it refers to a book published in the U.S., and therefore may be biased. Similarly, I question the removal of my references from a Canadian English Dictionary!!!

This Article will inevitably continue to be contoversial...so, fellow editors, let us all approach it with as much open-mindedness and mutual understanding as possible. Sincerely, Prof.rick (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite in the "Canada" section. I hope, if you disagree, you will not simply revert without discussion on this page. I also intend to add a new section on the obvious dilemma "What can US citizens call themselves?" US citizens are in the most unfortunate position of being able to refer to themselves only through the use a word which refers to continents! Of course, it seems egocentric to much of the world, but you're in a tough position!

Your Canadian Friend, Prof.rick (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Special Message to Wily: The weakest definition of Canadian I have ever hear is not American. (Sure, I've heard it as a joke.) But we have much which makes us a unique nation, I wouldn't try to list it all...it would take forever. Also, most of us do NOT want to become an annex of the United States. We treasure our Canadian identity. Prof.rick (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, Prof.rick, your change from "Latin Americans" to "members of countries of the Americas beyond the United States" altered something taken directly from a source: the source does not indicate that Canadians (or people from the English- and Dutch-speaking Caribbean, etc) are included, it says specifically "Latin Americans". Second, if you have some real reason to doubt that The Columbia Guide to Standard American English is not a reliable source, please bring that up, but the simple fact that it was published in the United States is not at all sufficient. Third, no one that I can tell removed any of your references from a Canadian English dictionary; you didn't include any references for any of your edits.
 * This article is of course somewhat controversial, and has been for years. It is not Wikipedia's duty to change the world to make word use more fair, it is our duty to report on the ways things are. All we can do is assemble an article based on what reliable sources - not personal opinion - have said.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I think I've gotten a start on eliminating a lot of the repeated confusion over terminolgy with the new article on Names of the Americans (forged from what was a fairly shitty article on Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens). From now on discussion of what to call United Staters should go there, while this article will be on how the word is used.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of the Americans
This Section was becoming rather lengthy and confusing; thus, the new Section.

Hello, Cuchallain! You're move to recreate a new Article on "Names of the Americans" was BRILLIANT! (I agree, the last attempt to propose names for residents/citizens of the U.S. was shitty!) This should at very least relieve the present Article from some of its elements of controversy. THANK YOU! Prof.rick (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I question your reversion of the "Canada" section, suggesting that the term "American" applies only to residents/citizens of the U.S., and to Latin America. (You have excluded Canada, the largest country, by area, of the Americas, and Greenland, the world's largest island! If this is true, we may as well exclude Canada from the Article.  No doubt other Canadians will eventually insist that "American" is a term belonging also to Canadians, and not just residents/citizens of the U.S. and to Latin Americans.

Sorry for my lack of references! It was the middle of the night when I rewrote the section on Canada, and I was simply too tired to add references, but KNOWING they were present in the Articles to which I provided links.

Furthermore, the term "American" referring to inhabitants of United States, obviously excludes Hawaii, which is NOT part of the Americas. Although your source may be valid, it is very easy to find other sources which refer to Americans as ALL residents/citizens of the Americas.

For now, I will simply remove the section on "Canada", since you do not regard Canadians as Americans. (This does NOT exclude the possibily of the future inclusion of Canada, with a rewrite which may involve many editors, eventually arriving at logical decisions.

It might also be worth noting that NAFTA refers to the U.S. (not U.S.A.)

Let's stick with it!!! Prof.rick (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank for for your interest and continuing efforts in this, a most difficult article for all sincere editors! Prof.rick (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've edited Par. 1 of the lead to include not only Latin Americans but Canadians, citing a reliable source. (Further references in the Article further justify this edit, despite the claim that "American" refers only to residents of U.S., and Latin America! If anyone wishes to challenge this logical and documented edit, (let alone reverting it without explanation), I will probably abandon the article entirely. I am a Professor of Music, not politics!  Still, I have strong political views, and would like to continue to strive towards the ever-challenging neutralization of this Article!  I am convinced, if we  KEEP WORKING AT IT, we can achieve an unbiased and factual article, of which we will all eventually be proud to have contributed.  (I've attempted, in my edits, to convey the fact that not all Canadians regard the term "American" (in reference to the United States) to be pejorative! Prof.rick (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I don't know what you mean by my reversion of the Canada section; "American" can mean either "US citizen" or "somebody/thing from the Americas", and Canada is clearly included in the latter definition. Also, the "Canada" section you've now removed was largely sourced, so I have replaced it - you can work on it if you wish, but reliable sources are necessary - the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And finally US citizens from Hawaii are definitely called "Americans", simply because Hawaii isn't in the Americas has no bearing on what US citizens are called, just ask Barack Obama. I've also altered what you added to the lead, so that cites are attached to individual statements, rather than two unrelated cites being synthesized into an statement (I retained your cite).--Cúchullain t/ c 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked Barack, and he agreed with you. (This statement is not verifiable!) Nonetheless, I concede.  Keep you your fine work! Prof.rick (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"American" Referred to British North Americans Before the United States Existed
During the first half of the eighteenth century the term "American" generally meant Native American.

During the second half of the eighteenth century, especially during the French and Indian War (the North American theater of the Seven Years War) of 1754–1763, the term "American" acquired the meaning of a British subject from one of the British North American colonies. This may have been associated with a war-related distinction between "Americans" serving part-time in militia units and professional soldiers from the British Isles in the regular army.


 * (Digression: The precursor to the American flag also dates from this period.  Part-time militia units composed of local British subjects were distinguished from regular army units by flying a flag with the British Grand Union flag in the upper left-hand quarter and red and white stripes (like the modern American flag) in the remaining three quarters, where the British "red ensign" was completely red instead of striped.  This flag was apparently used by "American" forces in the earliest days of the Revolutionary War (known as War of American Independence in Great Britain), though it was recognized as absurd to do so and the Grand Union device was soon replaced with a "union" of thirteen stars as depicted in the widely recognized "Betsy Ross" style flag.)


 * (Digression: At that time, pounds sterling were not allowed to circulate outside of the British Isles.  As a result, the most common coinage found in the British North American colonies during the period when "American" was acquiring its modern meaning was the Spanish peso, minted in what is now Mexico.  These coins were commonly referred to in English as "dollars" and are known to aficionados of pirate lore as pieces of eight because they were stamped so that they could be broken into eight pieces or bits, pie-wedge style.  (Thus, a 25-cent coin may still be referred to in U.S. English as "two bits").  When the United States of America sought to define a currency for itself, the amount of silver in the U.S. "dollar" (Thomas Jefferson thought the term too informal and preferred "unit") was determined by calculating the average amount of silver in Spanish pesos circulating within the territory of the United States of America.  This was less than the amount of silver in the true peso, because the coins in U.S. circulation were not recently minted and were worn with time.)


 * (Sorry for the stream of consciousness; however, there is a point to the digressions. They illustrate the accidental nature of much of what appears to define the United States to the rest of the world.)

The English-speaking colonists of British North America who came to refer to themselves as "Americans" during the French and Indian War (Seven Years War) probably did not view themselves as engaging in an exercise of global hegemony and certainly were not a world power by anyone's standards. Indeed, when the British generals used the term about the members of the militias under their command, it was unlikely to have been spoken as a compliment. The terminology, like much else about the United States, is accidental. People should not read too much into it. -- Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus -- Aervanath (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

American (word) → American — make the article about the word the primary topic for "American", hatnote linking to American (disambiguation) for other topics known as "American" — JHunterJ (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose. According to WP:D, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."  I can't imagine any credible argument that readers of the encyclopedia nwho search for "American" are significantly more likely to be looking for information about the varying meanings of the word than they are to be looking for information about the United States.  If anything has a claim to being the primary topic, it is the United States, but there has been significant opposition to such a move in the past and I'm not proposing it now.  Let me also raise a practical concern.  American is probably one of the two or three disambiguation pages that attracts the most new links on a daily basis, and requires constant monitoring and attention to keep those links from building up.  If this move were approved, links to American would no longer be links to a disambiguation page (and 90% of them, I can assure you from personal experience, should really be links to United States).  They would no longer be monitored by WP:DPL and erroneous links would accumulate without anyone reviewing or fixing them. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification: ( I added temporary underline above ) lol, it's confusing enough. R'n'B when typing "America" probably meant who search for "American" , BUT let's be sure. Not disagreeing at all with the issue of links (99.95% of  American  links have to be piped to  American  )&mdash;just getting on the same page. Yet it does seem to me a search for "American" is a different animal than a search for "America." Yes, or no? Proofreader77 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ALSO NOTE: (Speaking of America, American, Americas, and Americans)
 * America (disambiguation): Let us note the profound absurdity that the first entry on that disambiguation page is not the United States. (AND P.S., just wait 'till the recent dab-cleaners of American see that page. lol) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While Americans redirects to American ... America is a disambiguation page, and Americas is an article. Which is not to say that's not how it should be, but does illustrate the broader context of confusion, um, contentions. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally :), let it be noted again, in conclusion, that R'n'B apparently mistyped America when he meant to type American &mdash; or did he? :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Topic was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. As a neutral, previously-uninvolved editor in the disambiguation project, I propose a solution in which the article about the word is moved to the primary topic (base name). This will enable pages that link directly to American to be "right" (links to dab pages are usually in need of fixing) if they don't intend one of the other definitions specifically. If will also enable the dab page to either (a) cover just those terms that aren't on the word article (such as America (band)) or (b) list both word-article terms and other terms, hopefully without further drama. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Different countries same nationality
Yes, we are diffrent countries in America but we all share the same Nationality and that is American.

American (word) is the shared nationality of the 35 countries of America, and should be treated that way.

Kind Regards, American(Can) (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what the word "nationality" means. kwami (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but what is it called? Continentalality?? Also, how would the Colombians feel if people from British Columbia or the District of Columbia (spelling differences aside) started saying, "But we're Columbians too, so you have to call yourselves something different!" I sincerely doubt they'd adopt a new name any time soon! - BillCJ (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In Spanish, District of Columbia is Distrito de Colombia, so there is indeed much room for confusion, as the spellings are the same.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If the original spelling hadn't been changed there would no "room for confusion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.76.246 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC) There was a District of Columbia long before there was a Republic of Colombia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.76.246 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Common sense
Can we have a section about using common sense? Stating something along the lines of. Other countries dispute the use of the word american to refer to citizens of the USA because this term is said, by them, to refer to everyone from the americas. However, since the residents of the US are residing on the continent of north america, it seams reasonable, nay commonsensical to refer to them as Americans. International affairs are rarely common sense affairs however" What do you think, could do with some ironing out but it seems to make its point quite well, yay or nay? Signed: a European, British, English man. :)Kungfukats2 (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No. --Deepstratagem (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not, smartass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.16.78 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn´t "make its point quite well". Deepstratagem (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

American Samoa
I would like to know if any of those Spanish-speaking countries have made diplomatic protests over the name of American Samoa. The UN recognizes the name, as do all countries in the Americas. It is not a territory of any of those other countries in the W. Hemisphere, it is a U.S. territory. There is no confusion in Polynesia, New Zealand, or Australia about the term American Samoa. Everybody knows what American means. This is just one more example why people opposed to the American usage of the term American are fighting a losing, uphill battle.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to confuse documentation with propaganda. There is a dispute over naming, which some people are interested in, and which we have an article on. There is certainly long-standing ambiguity over the name, even if it is relatively minor compared to general usage. Who is "correct" in your or my or anyone else's opinion is entirely irrelevant. kwami (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad you use the term "relatively minor" with respect to this tempest in a teapot. The above arguments are pretty heated, so the teapot must be boiling for some people.  The fact is that for the Anglo world, there is pretty much consensus on what American means, and which country's territory American Samoa is.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples
The article doesn't benefit from a long list of examples where the word "American" is used in U.S. laws to refer to the United States, as has been recently added. And the fact that Hillary Clinton, like virtually all other people in the country, refers to US citizens as Americans is not necessary. Primary sources being compiled in such a way as to make interpretive claims (such as "The State Department has no record of a diplomatic protest over the use of the term American to refer to U.S. citizens or U.S. institutions in any of these countries" or "These travel guides, however, do not urge caution to people from American Samoa not to use the name of their U.S. territory, however") is against the no original research policy.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article benefits from a balanced set of examples in American diplomacy, which is what that section was about. One quote by Bill Clinton is not enough to show that use of the term varies.  The American federal agency entrusted with diplomacy is the State Department, and the head of that department is Hillary Clinton at the moment.  It is indeed notable that the Secretary of State uses the term American while doing her official duties overseas.  She is not just some ordinary citizen; she represents the United States overseas, and presumably recognizes protocols when she speaks.  Similarly, it is notable that the State Department websites for the American Embassies in Spain, Mexico, and Brazil all use the term American and American Embassy.  If it were a big deal for the governments of those countries, they would have made a diplomatic protest, and there is no record of one.  This is 100% notable on the topic of use of the term American diplomatically.  There is nothing original about pointing out these things.  They are facts.  Look at the websites and see.  Facts, Cuchullain.  This encyclopedia is about notable facts, is it not?  State Department=NOTABLE for U.S. diplomacy.  It's far more notable than some random travel guide from a non-official source, and you had no problem with that.


 * If the State Department cannot be included on the section on US diplomacy, certainly Bill Clinton's lone quote doesn't belong there. If anything, you are not being neutral WP:NPOVin picking one quote out of his many speeches.  He was speaking after a natural disaster there.  He didn't mean we are all *actually* Americans any more than the president of France meant that French people were Americans after 9/11.  I believe the French quote was, "we are all Americans today."  That kind of language often happens after disasters.  It does not indicate American or French diplomatic protocols--it is soothing rhetoric.  Bill Clinton's quote doesn't belong because it is too contextual and misleading to fit the diplomatic meaning; I have excised it.


 * And regarding the section on U.S. laws, you are 100% wrong, dude. Black's Law Dictionary is not a source of U.S. law.  The federal government has not enacted that into law.  Black's is a reference, not a source of black-letter law.  Actually passed U.S. acts ARE U.S. laws.  It is more legitimate to mention ACTUAL U.S. laws than it is some law dictionary.  Mention of the Americans with Disabilities Act belongs there.  But since U.S. laws can't be included in the US LAWS section, I have deleted the whole section, because a section on U.S. laws that only mentions one law dictionary is absurd.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bill Clinton quote is interesting in that he is clearly using the pan-American sense of "Americano", and this was translated into the pan-American sense of "American" by the Washington Post, whether you like it or not. On Black's versus quoting the actual text of the legislation, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So what, are you trying to say that a law dictionary is a better reference on US laws than actual US laws? You have got to be kidding.  Bill Clinton's quote was in the context of a natural disaster.  Did you not read what I wrote at all?  Did you not read the source material in the reference?  It is misleading to say that it was anything other than what the French did after 9/11.  We are supposed "to avoid misleading the reader" WP:NPOV.


 * Cuchullain is so obviously biased. US diplomacy section without the State Department and with one misleading quote in a very particular, natural disaster context.  US laws section without mention of US laws.  Will someone else please weigh in here?--MoebiusFlip (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to stop revert warring. That was your third revert today. I did read what you wrote, and you are incorrect on both fronts. Wikipedia articles are chiefly sourced to secondary sources. If these are reliable, they are superior to Primary sources, which may be used only to quote, not to make any interpration, as you are trying to do. The Bill Clinton quote is quite clear and quite relevant as a rare instance where someone, in an official capacity no less, uses the pan-American sense of the word. If you think he actually meant to imply, even figuratively, that "we are all U.S. Americans" rather than "people from the Americas", you are gravely mistaken.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am gravely mistaken? What evidence do you have of that?  Did Clinton actually say he meant Pan-American, or is it just an opinion of yours?  Do you have special insight into what the president meant that the rest of us do not have?  Does he explain it elsewhere in his speech?  What about the French?  On 9/11 did they mean we are all "people from the Americas" too when they said we are all Americans?  Please look into your own special oracle and let the rest of us know.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say you began the edit warring by reverting my reasonable changes and additions, both through edits and outright reverts. You have made at least 3.  And you can't get out of it just by claiming you didn't hit the undo button 3 times.  Undo edits also count.  I am glad that you have recorded your reasoning here on the talk page, so others can reference it.  This is your notice that I have reported you on Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring.  I hope an administrator will clear up this issue quickly.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as you can see, your report, which provided no evidence of a 3RR or NPOV violation, has been roundly disregarded. Perhaps it is time to take a few steps back. Do you really believe that Clinton was telling the Hondurans that "we are all U.S. Americans"? This would be as if the French president, in the wake of 9/11, were to say, "today we are all French." I reiterate that you should read over PRIMARY and SECONDARY, which discusses in detail why using primary sources to draw conclusions is not appropriate. Additionally, I urge you to remove the unsourced bits about the word Columbia you just added, which is a clear instance of editing to prove a point.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pot, kettle, black, man. You are defending that lonely Clinton quote because YOU think he meant American in the Pan-American sense.  Unless Clinton explained that he meant it that way (please find a secondary source explaining this), it is just your opinion.  As for the 3RR and NPOV problems with what you've done, I think you should wait until someone else actually has a look.  You, again, assume that you have done nothing wrong because nobody has made a comment yet.  If you read the two Wikipedia articles on Columbia and Colombia, it is so obvious that they are appropriating a word for the Americas in exactly the same way that American is being used.  This is both interesting and relevant for those exploring the term American.  It is a widely-known fact that the etymology of these words come from Christopher Columbus (Colombo in Spanish).  In many other languages, the name of the country uses the u.  Maybe I should mention that as well.  The reason this belongs is that the name of the country (Colombia) is nearly identical to the name of the continent (Columbia, Colombia in Spanish).  In fact, in Spanish, District of Columbia is Distrito de Colombia.  And this is precisely the problem Latin American people have with the term American.  If you want to do something useful, you can hunt around for where there has been confusion or disdain (Americans get disdain for using that term--the Spanish reference in the article called it abuse) over use of either Columbian as another American word to be scoffed at, or Colombian, for the same reason.  It is exactly the same issue, and it belongs in the article.  No original research needs to be done.  One needs merely mention that Colombia is also a name for the continent, just as Latin Americans claim that America is the name for the continent.  There is nothing original about that.  It is a fact.  I don't believe I have done any interpretation at all, unlike your Clinton quote, which does need interpretation and you have provided none.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the ambiguity regarding "Columbia" is really as notable as you claim it wouldn't be hard to back up your statements with reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Template
As this talk page and the article itself make clear, there is a concerted effort to show that there is more controversy about this term than there really is. There are also efforts to show that there is diversity in the United States about the term, and this is an incredible stretch that takes a lot of wp:original research to even assert. There have been edit wars to keep out sourced information from wp:verifiable references that do not fit some editors' preferences for the "argument of the article." The article is neither balanced nor neutral. It needs new and neutral help, and it needs some careful eyes to prevent wp:own problems, which seem to be rife here. Stating that a large verifiable source does not include certain notable information (like the fact that there are no diplomatic protests evidenced on the State Department website) is not wp:original research, any more than pointing out that a dictionary had a definition one year, but later did not. Certain editors are attempting to co-opt the article and prevent introduction of information to balance out information in the article. This is not neutral, and it needs to stop.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You clearly haven't looked at previous discussions or the article history if you think my agenda is to co-opt the word "America" to refer to the Americas. I have advocated against such a turn in the past. The bottom line is that "American" has two meanings - check any dictionary. Nowadays the "U.S. American" sense is much more common, but the "pan-American" sense is still in use, but there remains ambiguity and contention, and that needs to be discussed. The fact that there are two meanings makes partisans on either side displeased, but that's the way it is.
 * As to your point about the references you added, I have pointed out PRIMARY and SECONDARY a number of times above. Please read them. Primary sources are easy to misuse, and can only be used to describe what is said within the source. They cannot be used for interpretation, such as your inference that since the State Department doesn't refer to any diplomatic protests about their use of the word, the ambiguity is overblown. This interpretation itself would be fine if there were any reliable secondary sources backing it up - in this case, a language guide, a scholarly article, etc. - but drawing this interpretation from primary sources alone in original research.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone, I don't know if it was you, was trying to argue that the absence of the term American citizen in the NAFTA was evidence that American citizen and American are not terms used in international law. This was 100% wrong, and I added the referenced citations to many other treaties to show it.  I modified the NAFTA part by saying "at least one" treats it that way.  That is an instance of balance, neutrality.  The previous editor was trying to make an invalid point.  With regard to the US laws section, I don't USE the laws at all.  I merely mentioned that US laws use the term frequently.  I gave a reference to Cornell's legal website to show this, and you deleted it.  Isn't a university institute website a secondary source?  How about when there is a Wikipedia article on Americans with Disabilities Act.  Why did you delete the reference to that?  To make people believe it isn't there?  Again, insisting that only a law dictionary is notable and is a valid and appropriate source for how American is used in US laws is patently absurd, and shows you are trying to establish that use of the term is becoming less common in US laws, when in fact it isn't.  Even the biggest political event in the USA in 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment_Act of 2009.  Simply listing US laws is not original research by any stretch of the imagination.  Listing examples of State Department use of the term American and American Embassy in the countries where the controversy is brewing isn't either.  By the article's own terms, Spanish sources and Brazilian sources have criticized the term American.  If that is true, it is interesting and relevant to know that the diplomatic agency of the U.S. government uses those terms in those countries.  If there is friction about State using those terms, it would help to find secondary sources criticizing it.  Mentioning State's use is not original research.  I don't need to add any interpretation or argument to it.  It added balance to the Bill Clinton quote you were defending tooth and nail (a quote which needed interpretation, btw).  The section mentioned that diplomatic usage varied, but there was only one questionable quote there by a former president.  To show variation, you need to show both sides.  That's the neutrality problem with what you've done.  But you need to have a justification that follows some WP policy before you axe the other side.  There are other primary sources on the page.  You must show, before you edit or revert, that these additions are more original research than the ones that have been allowed.  You haven't.  You merely throw around the PRIMARY, SECONDARY, and original research links and act like you've made a point.  This is very poor argument.  It is like saying, when you are in a losing argument, "go to the library and read some more," just to escape.  I have explained myself and my edits, above.  Now it is your turn to explain why they do not belong.  Refute them.  Be precise, and don't just throw links around.  You should have done this before you intruded with your excisions and reverts.


 * Hopefully the neutrality template will attract some editors/admins who are willing to take a look at these issues and chime in.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at that Washington Post article. Let's look at what it said:

Among those wearing camouflage fatigues and waving American flags in the audience today was Army Maj. Michael Beard of Miami, who is helping organize two task forces in Guatemala and one each in El Salvador and Nicaragua under the New Horizons mission. Immediately after Mitch hit, he said, relief groups from Japan, Spain, the Netherlands, Mexico and Cuba joined U.S. forces in rushing to the region's aid. "But now they're all gone," Beard said. "We're the only ones left. . . . The American people can really pat themselves on the back for what they've done here."

Clinton, who speaks little Spanish, won loud cheers when he said the response to Mitch's damage "reminds us that, in good times and bad, todos somos Americanos" – we are all Americans.




 * I find it very interesting that they were waving "American" flags, and that the general present said, "The American people..." And the Washington Post made a point of mentioning Clinton's limited knowledge of Spanish.  For goodness' sake.  Clinton probably had NO IDEA that there was controversy over the name American, or that there was more than one meaning.  Certainly the article gives no indication whatsoever that Clinton meant it in the Pan-American way you imply.  You include it to make a point of your own, Cuchullain, and a very shaky one at that.  You could infer that "Japan, Spain, the Netherlands, Mexico, and Cuba" are all "the American people" because of the general's quote.  Even secondary sources can be confusing and used to advance an unjustified position.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, using primary sources to make interpretative claims is not acceptable. You were making the claim that there really isn't any ambiguity over the term, and basing this on your list of places where "American" is used to refer to the US. But lets say no such claims were made: what would be the point of listing off a bunch of laws that use the term "American"?--Cúchullain t/ c 07:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't use a primary source. I quoted the exact same article you were defending and showed that one has to interpret it in a certain way to get the result you wanted.  YOU were the one making interpretive claims, friend, not I.  You are not even getting what I am saying.  If you want claim that diplomatic use of the term American varies, you had better find a better quote than that one.  It is ambiguous what he meant, especially since he said it in Spanish and the newspaper made a point of saying his knowledge of Spanish was limited.  My quotes from official State Department websites show the other side of the "varies" equation.  American is regularly used in diplomatic circles to refer to U.S. citizens.  The burden is on you to show that it is ever not used that way.  The best you can say about this Clinton quote is that it is possible that he used it in a Pan-American sense, but it is impossible to be sure given his minimal Spanish.  If you want to put the quote back there, go ahead, but couch it in the reality of the picture.  Do a block quote of the whole thing, and let people decide for themselves.  By putting a dubious quote that requires not just interpretation, but one-sided interpretation to make the point you were defending, you violate NPOV.  Maybe you don't understand NPOV.  The webpage about it says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  The State Department is a reliable source.


 * Further, I was NOT claiming there is no ambiguity over the term. I said that if you are going to claim that in diplomatic contexts that usage varies, you have to show both sides.  NPOV  And given the fact that earlier in the article it was claimed that Latin Americans are the ones objecting, it is important to show what State Department usage is in those countries.  I gave examples from Spain, Mexico, and Brazil--actual State Department websites.  Your Clinton quote was put there to make a dubious point.  If it is going to remain, examples of diplomatic usage the other way in Latin America are appropriate.  And elsewhere in the article it claims that usage of the term American in those other countries causes friction, then it is OF COURSE appropriate to say whether there have been diplomatic protests or any other kind of protests over it on State's website.  It is just as important as showing that use of the term in a dictionary isn't there.  You were defending that absence in the article, so why do you oppose mentioning the situation at State?


 * Regarding "listing off laws that use the term American," you really have to be daft not to see the point of that. The law dictionary reference said that earlier versions used the term American to refer to US citizens  but it was left out of later editions.  This statement of fact had the effect of implying that use of the term American in that way was becoming less frequent, when in fact it is not at all.  Maybe I should have stuck to big laws in 2009 so that the point was clearer.  Listing a few (there are scores) US laws that use the term American serves to show that in US law (that was the title of the section), the term American was used.  It is the exact same thing as mentioning the dictionaries in that way.  One used as secondary source to prove a point, and the other (listing laws) used a primary source simply to show that American is used in US laws.  It was on the same topic as the section.  It seems your problem is with relevancy.  How can an absent definition be more important that FACTS?  That is what we are talking about here, facts.  Does the term American used that way disappear in the Black's dictionary.  Yes.  This is a fact, and it is interesting in the section on American law.  But we also have an obligation not to be misleading.  Listing a few US laws (esp. recent ones) to show that it is still in legal usage prevents the section from being misleading.


 * You have used the Clinton quote in a misleading way, and stripping mention of US laws using the term American in the US laws section while leaving the dictionary references there is also misleading. Don't think being misleading is a big deal?  Do you know who Jimmy Wales is?  He has said that, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information."   Why don't you explain the situation to him and see what he thinks of the way you edit.  The transcript is right here on this talk page.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For the last time, you were listing a bunch of laws and quotes that use the term "American" in the US sense, and using that list to back up claims such as "The State Department has no record of a diplomatic protest over the use of the term American to refer to U.S. citizens or U.S. institutions in any of these countries"; "The explanation also does not explain how use of American by people from the United States is abusive other than possible confusion"; "It may be that the North American Free Trade Agreement is the exception rather than the rule in not using the term American. It can hardly be argued that the terms American and American citizen are not used in international law, as the above treaties make clear"; and "These are interesting because they imply that the Mexican government has no problems with calling the United States America or U.S. citizens Americans." Drawing such inferences from primary source is an unnaceptable use.
 * And on the Clinton line, I have no further answer to your continued willful misreading of the source, but I will not keep arguing for its inclusion. I don't have the energy or the inclination, and it was only being used as a very minor point anyway. I would like to note that I was not the one who added it in in the first place.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with Cúchullain's overall position, I concur with his cogent analysis of MoebiusFlip's extremely improper use of sources in this specific context. MoebiusFlip, if you can't see you're drawing an inference not directly supported by the sources, you have my condolences.  In the top U.S. law schools they give out C and D grades for citation errors like that (in the Bluebook system it's the difference between direct citation without signals and citation with the see, e.g., signal).  The problem is that citations requiring the latter signal are original research which are impermissible on Wikipedia.--Coolcaesar (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Coolcaesar. I think if we can move past this hangup over improper use of sources we may be able to progress with the article. I'm still unsure what overall position I'm meant to have; looking above certain users have thought me some kind of jingoistic yankee imperialist for my impious suggestion that the primary use of "American" refers to the United States.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Columbia/Colombia Continent/Country-Country Confusion
Is it not a fact that people from Colombia are called Colombians? Do you really think this is dubious? Yes, I would like to hear some discussion on that point. This article makes the point that people from the United States call themselves Americans. I would think this to be an indisputable sentence.

Merriam's reference at the bottom of the article shows past usage of Columbian for American.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are being quite daft if you are really claiming that people still call (US) Americans "Columbians" with enough frequency that it causes confusion with Colombians.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing daft claimed there. I never claimed at any point that Americans and Colombians were confused about each other nowadays.  Read it carefully.  Ah, I see you are on and took the liberty of removing the Columbia stuff without obtaining agreement.  I am going to undo it and put it back until we get some agreement on removing it.  Your naming it "dubious" and simply removing it is an example of WP:Own.  You do not own this article, Cuchullain, even though you edit it to death and take things out that don't fit your own agenda and POV.  I haven't removed anything about the Latin American fussiness, even though I find it rich that Spanish speakers would criticize English speakers for their word choice in their own language.


 * Also, it is interesting that the controversy over the term is in Spanish. In English, there really is no controversy besides that one reference to Canada from 1927.  Take a look at the Toronto Star (Canada's largest newspaper) and do a search.  America is repeatedly used to refer to the United States, and American to US nationals.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Columbia" bits are dubious, and are currently quite irrelevant to this article, which is not on the word Columbia, nor on what U.S. citizens are called, nor on what the Americas are called. What are your grounds for believing that Columbia referred to the United States in the 19th century, until it was "appropriated" (your words) by Colombia? Usage of Columbia as a term for the Americas as a whole is well documented. There are interesting parallels between the histories of the words Columbia and America, and both are now largely used, but this is dealt with elsewhere in the article, and in a more neutral fashion. Your insertion is clearly done to make a point.
 * Your alteration of the Canadian usage is also not acceptable. As indicated above, challenging the interpretation of a reliable secondary source by your own interpretation of primary sources is a violation of the no original research policy. Especially in this case, where you haven't even given any primary sources, only a link to the front page of the Toronto Star's website.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)