Talk:United States/Archive 7

America
Moved to Talk:United_States/Name

Opening sentence
From LaurelBush 16:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Laurel Bush - 16 Kennedy Terrace - UK - KWI 5BN):
 * I suggest the article's opening sentence should read
 * “The United States of America, also referred to as the United States, U.S.A., U.S., America,¹ or the States, is a sovereign power and federal republic centred on Washington DC in central North America …”
 * The expression ‘sovereign power’ places the US on a map of sovereign powers, of which others include the UK (centred on London or Westminster), France (Paris) and Ireland (Dublin). Or is 'UN-recognised sovereign power' more precise?


 * How about "country"? &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-01-28 16:47 Z 


 * I second the motion to use the word country. Terms of art like 'federal republic' and 'sovereign power' belong in the article, but further down. brassrat

American versus USean
I removed the following:

&sup1;America'' is incorrectly used to refer to the nation of the United States. Actually America is the name of a continent ranging to the Canadian North Pole to the Chilean South Pole. This continent was named after the Italian cartographer Amerigo Vespucci. Most people from this continent, mainly Latinamericans, find offensive the use of the term American to mean a citizen of the United States of America. The correct and proper way in Spanish to address to a Citizen of the United States of America is Estadounidense which could easily be translated to English as USean (the pronunciation of US is a usual and ean as in FloridEAN.''

and replaced it with (from a previous edit):

&sup1;America may refer to the nation of the United States or to the Americas''&mdash;North and South America. The later usage is more common in Latin American countries where the Spanish word Am&eacute;rica refers to both continents. The United States is a less ambiguous term and less likely to cause offense. Unfortunately the term American meaning a citizen or national of the United States has no straightforward unambiguous synonym.''

America is not incorrect in this use. It is accepted in the United States, and overseas as well. Germans use it this way. Polish use it this way. British use it this way. I'd wager that plenty of others do as well. It is therefore accepted and correct. It is ambiguous, but correct.

Additionally, America is not a single continent. America may refer to the North American and South American continents collectively, but that's two continents, not one. In English, we refer to The Americas to specify both continents. The use of the word America to refer to The Americas in English is rare at best, and nonexistent at worst. This is an English language encyclopedia. As such, we should follow English standards. If Spanish-speaking people use the word America differently, that's fine. They have their use. We have ours.

Finally, USean/USian sounds ridiculous in English. Again, if it works in Spanish, keep it there. We don't attempt to force Anglicizations on Spanish language texts. It's equally inappropriate to attempt to force Latinizations (better word for this?) on English texts.

If anyone has a good compromise, please, add your input.

-- Dpark 06:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should stay. That "USean/USian" sounds ridicolous is YOUR opinion, and is not enough reason to remove a whole paragraph. What, your view suddently became universal, eh? BAH! Besides, it's "The Americans, not "The Americas". That sounds like some backwatered mexican-town way of pronouncin' it. So speak for yourself: What's so wrong with spanish influences to the text (You DO know that English has been made up by "rip-off's" from the Latinic language, right?) when YOU make "The Americas" rare at best? Prepostirous, in their world "Americans" would be as rare as well - It all depends, not on your imperialistic view, 'tho. Not only that, you're lynching negroes - Removing the thing about Amerigo Vespucci too, which is, in fact, RIGHT....and you're too using an hypocrisy, since you do the same. And Spanish? 'Tis not latinization, but espanozifications. It's more justifyable to "force" (it's not even that, since it's sometimes used) Spanish on English since English was, in fact, MADE UP by a few Spanish words. English was not. Therefore, it cannot be equal. The paragraph's should stay.--OleMurder 09:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of the conjured terms USean and USian would amount to advocacy of use of those terms, which are simply not in anything resembling what could be called "common use". The unqualified term American is by far the most common word used to describe citizens of the United States; and in English almost always refers to people of that country. The qualified terms North American, Central American and South American are used to denote regional origin. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is ever a need (which in my experience is rare) to describe someone as being from North or South America more generally than "North American" or "South American" the phrase "from the Americas" is used instead. In British English "American" is almost always used to mean "a person from the United States of America" unless it is being used to make a point about Canada/Canadians (usually) or Mexico/Mexicans (less frequently). In the future the same may happen with regard "European" as countries such as Norway and Switzerland are geographically in Europe but not in the European Union (then you have Cyprus which is culturally European and a member of the EU, but geographically in Asia. Turkey may also join the EU in future, and that is partly in Europe but the vast majority is in Asia). In short, use American but explain that while it is potentially ambiguous it is by far the most common term in the English-speaking world (or, in other words, do what the article currently does). It might be worth a mention that USean has been proposed as an alternative by some, but hasn't caught on in popular usage. Thryduulf 10:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dpark and Tony Sidaway on this. The whole USean bit comes out of nowhere with no support or sommon usage and doesn;t even really make much sense overall. Including it would be advocacy/personal research/nonnotable/unverifiable/vanity and a long list of other things violating Wikipedia policy. DreamGuy 10:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, you totally went off on some tangents, there. I'll try to actually address your stuff, though.


 * I'm pretty sure that many or most natively English-speaking people would agree that USean sounds ridiculous. It's not just my opinion.  We don't form words like that.  If we did, we'd have words like "NASAean" to describe someone who works for NASA, or NATOean for a member of NATO.  We don't form words that way, though.  As others pointed out, including the term would be tantamount to endorsing it.  Just because a few people think its a good idea doesn't mean we should endorse it.  I'm sure I could round up a few people who think it'd be fun to refer to Europeans as "EUs" (pronounced "eews").  But having a few crazy supporters does not make it worthy of inclusion in the article about Europe.


 * No, it's not "The Americans". No one ever uses that term to refer to North and South America collectively.  "The Americans" would typically refer to the citizens of the US.


 * What's wrong with Spanish influences? Nothing, when they occur naturally.  We've incorporated words such as "siesta" over time, and that fine.  It's not fine to force wierd Spanish-esque words on English speakers to avoid offending a few zealots, though.  (Your understanding of the history of the English language is lacking, and I will not address the claims that it's made up of Latin language "rip-offs".  You can read about the English language for yourself if you wish.)


 * We're not "lynching negroes". And if you cannot reply in a civil manner, your opinion will not be respected.


 * I removed the whole paragraph. I wasn't specifically trying to remove the bit about Amerigo Vespucci.  It just got dropped in the shuffle.  If that information is important, though, it might be better to simply add it to the article, or link to Americas where it's further explained.  It was rather out of place in that footnote.


 * "espanozifications" is most definitely not a word, though it's quite fun to say.


 * It's not justifiable to force Spanish on the English language. You haven't given any reason why this is acceptable, and I'm sorry, but your opinion, however zealous, is not a valid reason.  And again, please read about the English language before making claims about it being "made up by a few Spanish words".
 * -- Dpark 15:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Dpark, for your rational post. Here is the entire USean/USonian "controversy" in a nutshell: in Europe, most specifically in France, a mini-debate now rages around the term "American". In France, some want to replace the term "américain(e)" with the neologism "états-unien(ne)". This so-called movement is ideological and more often than not linked to virulent anti-Americanism. The French Wiki site is not immune to the debate, and many contributors prefer the new term. But the English-speaking world is not France; it is not drawn in to the same kind of political slugfests; it does not yet see "American" as imposed by imperialist running dogs. Rather, "American" is simply standard usage in both U.S. and British English. Wikipedia will accept "USonian" once it is standard usage, and not before. We should not impose a (very) weak and (very) politicized neologism upon every English article in Wikipedia. --Mason (a francophile American)


 * Thanks for your reply. I can (sort of) understand why some people want to use the terms America and American to refer to the Americas and any citzen thereof, and if it were common usage, I might agree with them.  What I want to avoid are the "political slugfests" you refer to.  I'm hoping we can reach a consensus and simply point to it whenever there's a disagreement on usage of America/American.  I'm also wanting to avoid the petty reverting/re-reverting that happens with miles vs km already.  So far it looks like no one actually sees "USean" as valid common usage, but instead as what they wish was common usage.  And in that light, I definitely think we should keep it out of articles unless/until it actually makes its way into common usage. -- Dpark 19:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added the following to the first note: Many alternative words for American have been proprosed, but none have enjoyed widespread acceptance. Perhaps that's an acceptable compromise. It presents the possibility of other terms, without appearing to actively endorse them. -- Dpark 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Americas are also called "the western hemisphere". I have to agree that common usage among native English speakers is that "American" means a person from the United States. I say this as an American who regularly reads British publications (Economist and Nature, in particular). AdamRetchless 21:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A legal definition exist. The government is called the United States "the Federal Corporation" in Title 28 Section 3002. This government is a republic and not a democracy or representative democracy. See the revision and Article IV of the Constitution. Example:  No one ever voted on income tax or abortion...but it happended. These are probably the two greatest issues today. The republican form created these laws.
 * 28 USC 3002(15) does not create a legal definition of the term "United States". That subsection simply defines the words "United States" when they are used in that particular chapter of the United States Code. This is simply a way of saving words in the remainder of that chapter of the U.S. Code. (And by the way, Congress and the legislatures of three-quarters of the states voted to legalize the income tax by adopting the Sixteenth Amendment.) Mateo SA | talk 00:44, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 6

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 8