Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American/Archive 1

topic for discussion
I suggest we limit this discussion to the topic of how to name "nationality x" categories pertaining to the United States assuming such categories will exist. I believe there are at least the following options: -- Rick Block (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) use "American x"
 * 2) use "United States x" (or "US x" or "U.S. x")
 * 3) use "x of/in/by/from the United States" even in categories whose other members are "fooish x"


 * This appears to be a discussion to gather arguments relevant to the nationality category names. Thus all we who don't have new arguments to add are just nodding when we see our comments already having been expressed.  (SEWilco 23:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC))


 * Why not use the formal country name? 13:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for "American x"

 * The most obvious argument for this naming is that "American" is in English the standard term for describing a national of the United States. See for instance the google count for any sort of "United States [occupation]" vs. "American [occupation]"; e.g. 18500 for United States author, 1370000 for American author, close to two full orders of magnitude difference. Even in the most generous cases, American is generally the dominant term: e.g., 614000 for "United States president" and 1890000 for "American president". Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, although I don't agree with those who claim this term is ambiguous in English (when people go to a category called "American pianists" they know it is about the United States), any concerns about ambiguity should be relieved by assuring that every category using American in this sense contains in its text a clear reference to the fact that the category is about the United States. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Google counts as of 2005-10-31:
 * "American president": 2,090,000
 * "United States president": 705,000
 * "US president": 9,100,000
 * So the most common form is not "American president", but rather "US president". Just thought you might be interested to know... &mdash; Haeleth Talk 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Google counts as of 2005-10-31:
 * "American pianist": 92,000
 * "United States pianist": 1,320
 * "US pianist": 11,800
 * So the most common form is "American pianist", not that it proves much... &mdash; Hiding talk 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My argument is about usage. I saw a TV show [on CBC ]several years ago in which reporters went to all the Provinces of Canda and asked folks what it meant to be an Canadian. The show began in PEI and traveled westward ontil they reached BC, each week spent in another province.  After a dozen on so weeks there was only one thing that all Canadians agreed upon. and that was, "We are NOT Americans" [a direct quote].  There was no confusion about who or what "Americans" were.  Most everyone in the world knows who "Americans" are.  When Iraquis say, "Let's kill Americans" they are not refering to Brazilians or Peruvians and every one knows it." Why are we dicking around with this here?  I'll probably have more to say later.  Carptrash 05:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We should go with this one because it is standard English. It is not true that it is nationalistic. If anything it is even more standard and less disputed in the UK than in the US. Piccadilly 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For cultural categories, this is parallel to how we handle most countries, e.g. Category:Spanish literature, Category:Romanian culture. However, this is not the case for more specifically "encyclopedic" categories (e.g. Category:Geography of France, Category:Politics of Spain.). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Naming conventions (categories). This discussion only refers to those categories where the policy is to use Nationality X. We already say "Geography of the United States", that is policy. The question is do we say "American literature", "United States literature" or "literature from the United States". Valiantis 13:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, this is a pretty straightforward matter. This is an English-language Wikipedia.  There are two independent nations in the continental Americas with English as a first language for a great many of their inhabitants&mdash;Canada and the United States.  (To be fair, we shouldn't forget Jamaica and the various Commonwealth islands in the Caribbean, but I don't think they differ in this regard, either).   In the United States, "American" means "pertaining to the United States of America."  In Canada, "American" means "pertaining to the United States of America."  I can't speak for all my countrymen, but I never met a Canadian who felt that he was being unfairly deprived of the right to label himself as an "American" (in the continental sense) by his neighbours to the south.  If anything, making the determination that American should be reserved for use in the continental sense is culturally insensitive, as it connotes the whole continent is "United Statesian."  -The Tom 05:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "American" is not used for the United States only in the English speaking world. A substantial number of the equivalent categories in other languages use it too. CalJW 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "American" is the term used by the CIA World Book, the U.S. government itself uses American in its legislation,  , and the BBC use it to refer to citizens of the United States of America,  .  It's common usage, an official term and as the English language Wiki we should reflect that usage.  Also, since we are discussing usage within category names, specifically in reference to nationality, it should thus not be easily confused with other usages of the term.  Hiding  talk 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should try to avoid US government sources, only for the reasoning that 1) they are inconsistent and 2) it's more important that we look at this from how other countries perceive the usage of "American". IMHO. &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  02:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that argument, I'm afraid. Wikipedia policy is Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. For example:


 * Article on the American Civil War: American English usage and spelling
 * Why, then, should we ignore the policy to use American English usage and instead consider other countries perspectives? Does the article on the American Revolution thus become the more historically accurate Rebellion of the American colonies of the British Empire, to take into account the perspective of the United Kingdom? Hiding  talk 10:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As a British English speaker, I know that the term "American" refers to the United States. If I needed to refer more generally to the North American continent, I would use "North American"; similarly if I wanted to refer to the South American continent, I would use "South American"; the term "Latin American" is also available where appropriate. (I know that it is not logical that "North American" refers to a larger area than "American". Language, however, is not mathematics). There are relatively few circumstances I can see in the cultural sphere where I would want to lump together both continents, though this might be more common in geographical or zoological contexts; where this is required the formulation "X in/of/by/from the Americas" is perfectly good English and exactly what is required. Valiantis 13:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid using "American" since it is ambiguous, but I'd rather have a consistent system. It's really irritating when choosing categories to have both systems used. -- Kjkolb 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, people know that when someone says somebody is "American", they come from the United States. It is not used the same way as "European". If you say to someone from Europe, "Hey there, I'm an American", no one is going to ask, "Oh, really, from what country?" It is common knowledge. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that is a common understanding in your dialect and experience, but not in everone's, I assure you. Jonathunder 08:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please name the dialects of English in which American is not widely understood to mean of the United States. Valiantis 13:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be some dispute that American is regularly used to refer specifically to the US in other countries, I'm posting links to the style guide of The Times (scroll down to American/US) and the style guide of The Guardian (scroll down to US). The Times' guide makes it clear that American is the preferred adjective when referring to culture etc, with US being preferred for politics and institutions (most of which are already categorised on WP as "X of country" and therefore outside the current discussion). The Guardian is also quite happy to allow America as a synonym for the US within its pages. Both strongly suggest that non-American English speakers are in fact more ready to recognise America(n) as specifically pertaining to the US than Americans are themselves. Valiantis 14:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Nuances of American X
I think that when one is talking about a culture, "American " is the proper term, but for geography it clearly should have the "United States" in there somewhere. Examples: American writers, Mountain ranges of the United States. The United States is a country, and so when talking about geography and borders, it simply makes sense, but the term "of the United States" doesn't imply the culture that may people from the United States think of as "American." -- Jacqui ★ 22:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jacqui's suggestion. Andrew Levine 23:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Naming conventions (categories) for the types of categories this discussion actually pertains to - it only applies where Nationality X is the standard. X of country is already the standard for geography. The question under discussion might be phrased as We currently refer to French writers, Spanish literature and Japanese environmental organisations. When naming categories should we refer to American writers, American literature, and American artists; or should we refer to United States writers, United States literature, and United States environmental organisations; or should we refer to writers from the United States, literature of the United States, and environmental organisations from the United States; or should we not have a policy on how to name categories when they refer to writers, literature and environmental organisations of the USA? (Of course, it affects more than these three category types, but they are typical of the different kinds of category). Valiantis 13:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against "American x"
See below. In particular, judicial texts do not use this because it is technically incorrect. The fact that many people use it anyway does not make them right - see appeal to the majority. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should strive towards correctness. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Judicial texts, in the form of Supreme Court opinions, which, speaking as a British citizen, I believe are highly regarded as judiciary texts, do use American.   Hiding  talk 10:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is US usage. Even if the majority of contributors are from the US, en.wikipedia is English language wikipedia. Pilatus 02:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * American as an adjective meaning of the United States is not "American usage" it is English usage. To say otherwise implies that in British English or Indian English or any other dialect of English, people would not naturally write "American film", "American music" etc. but would regard it as a strange Americanism. As a Briton, please be assured that I regularly use American to mean of the United States as do all the other Britons I know. Valiantis 12:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I have been asked for proof, as my word wasn't good enough, I personally have had to use the term "United States" versus "American" at the Olympics. This policy was handed down to the US military via the Olympic commitee during th 96 Olympics due to complaints from Canadian Olympians who thought the term was offensive. They fealt that they were American as well, and should not be confused with United States Olympians. Although this is a personal preference of those who live in Canada, I have Canadian friends who feel both ways on the subject. I think it should be a form of United States.  &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  02:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've lived in Canada all my life, and could count on the fingers of one hand the number of Canadians I've ever met who feel that the word "American" can or should be applied to us as well. And I'd still have enough fingers left over to count the Beatles...including the unofficial fifth one. And no, I'm not polydactyl -- the fact is, the number of Canadians I've ever met who felt that way is absolutely, unequivocally a big fat zero. I know a lot of Americans think Canadians get inflamed about the issue, but in reality we don't. Canadians simply do not lay any personal claim to the word "American" -- it's the word we use for citizens of the United States. Note also that in the vote below, every single Canadian who has voted chose the "American x" option. It's simply not true that we object to that use of the word; when we need to refer to the continent as a whole, we say North American. Bearcat 21:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for "United States x"
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means that is should enforce correctness over popular usage. For instance, Napoleon I of France is more commonly known as simply Napoleon, and 9/11 is a colloquial shorthand for the September 11, 2001 attacks - but the Wikipedia articles on both use their formally correct names, rather than the commonly used ones. The same principle should apply here. There are two continents known as "North America" and "South America", and one country that is named the "United States of America". Just because many people generally use a different name does not make them right - in particular, judicial texts do not use the word "American" to refer to the country. Most of the arguments above constitute an appeal to the majority logical fallacy. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Judicial texts do use the term American, see my rebuttal above. If we are to enforce correctness, as you suggest, I think the Legislature and Judicial Opinion of the United States of America is the best place to discover the formal term. Since they utilise the term American in reference to their citizens, I suggest it is some form of bias not to use it. Just because many people oppose the term, it does not make them right. Hiding  talk 10:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * When the Supreme Court refers to "American Courts" it's obvious from the context that the judges won't discuss courts on the American continent. Pilatus 02:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against "United States x"

 * Inconsistent with other countries' categories, in which the national adjective (Canadian, British, Mexican, Spanish, etc.) is required when this format is used.
 * It isn't normal everyday usage.
 * As far as I can tell, this whole issue was invented to find a way to annoy Americans. When the people of one piece of the Former Yugoslavia decided to call their new nation Macadonia a large chuck of the Greek population had a hissy fit.  "On no: they cried, 'that's a Greek name . . . .etc . . .etc . . .  etc"  And the Greeks lost.  The reality is that folks get to decide for themselves what they are called.  Other wise you risk allowing Americans, for example, to decide what everyone else in the world is called.  We probably do have the votes.  Carptrash 19:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just plain clumsy. No one ever referred to "United States music" or "United States culture". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a U.S. citizen, a native speaker of English, and a bit on the pedantic side, but I am not at all annoyed by the use of "United States" as an adjective. It does occur in many contexts. I've even heard "United States culture" to use the specific example you gave. And, of course, we have "United States Congress", "United States passport" (that's what it says on mine), and so forth. Jonathunder 16:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"x of/in/by/from the United States"
NB: Only nationality-based categories are the subject of discussion, where the format fooish x is generally used. In country categories, x of/in/by/from Foo is universally used already.
 * Is the preceding note saying that this discussion is intended to apply to all country categories rather than only to nationality-based categories? Somehow I didn't notice announcement of this component.  (SEWilco 21:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Er, no. It was aimed obliquely at Jmabel's comment below. I've clarified it. -The Tom 23:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by the distinction between Nation and Country as it relates to the United States of America? 65.124.161.144 15:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's actually Nationality and Country above. Nationality is a term used to describe a person's country of origin or country to which they are recognised as a citizen. Hope that helps. Hiding talk 18:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you give example of how it would work in both systems? If all the other countries are using Politics in Spain and such, is the U.S. going to have American Politics instead, or is the change Politics in America? -- Kjkolb 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea would be to avoid use of the form "American x" in any context and use instead "x in/of/by the United States" (using an appropriate preposition). For example,
 * The US-related subcat of Category:Films by country would be "Films from the United States" rather than Category:American films (even though the other categories are like Category:Spanish films)
 * The US-related subcat of Category:Aircraft by country would be "Aircraft of the United States" rather than Category:U.S. aircraft (even though the other categories are like Category:Spanish aircraft).
 * Hypothetically, all the subcats of Category:American people by occupation would be renamed to " from the United States" rather than the current "American " (whether or not we rename such subcats for other nationalities).
 * -- Rick Block (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for "x of/in/by/from the United States"

 * It's parallel to how we handle most categories for most countries, e.g. Category:Geography of France, Category:Politics of Spain. However, this is less the case in cultural categories (e.g. Category:Spanish literature, Category:Romanian culture). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Geography of France, Category:Politics of Spain etc. take that form because the policy is that all Geography by country cats and all Politics by country cats take the form X of Foo. Hence we also have Category:Geography of the United States. However, we also find Category:French writers and Category:Spanish musicians. Please see Naming conventions (categories) for the types of categories this discussion actually pertains to. Valiantis 12:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the best compromise position if a standard is desired and no consensus is reached regarding American or United States. To me Musicians of the United States is preferable to United States musicians, which, as others have indicated, seems ungrammatically correct to my ear. Hiding  talk 13:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a 'national adjective', I think we should use United States directly as the adjective. We have United States Senate, so I feel it (though it may 'sound ungrammatical') should be equally valid to say United States artist or U.S. artist.  America, to be pedantic and precise is the southernmost continent of the western hemisphere.  Originally, America was America, and the continent to its north was North America.  We may all be used to calling United States-ians 'Americans' but not all United States-ians live in or have ever been to America.  Hawaii is in the United States but is not in "America" or even North America.  The very fact the we need a disambiguation page at American shows that using American to describe things from the United States is problematic.   Article titles and links should be unambiguous, and we should save the term "American" for things that are from America, not the U.S.A. Pedant 16:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against "x of/in/by/from the United States"

 * It's unnecesssary long and clumsy. Piccadilly 14:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It differs from the categories for nearly all other countries. The other exceptions have unusual names or are politically tricky. As their is a common adjective available, using this non-standard form would be a constant reminder that a political point was being made. CalJW 10:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Where do we go from here
While it's useful to have a summary including all pro- and con-arguments on this page, it does not ultimately accomplish anything. I believe the current comments are a bit one-sided because this page hasn't been advertised much. Basically, we can do two things with this issue.

One. We can invoke the standard Wikipolicy on such controversial style issues as British-vs-American-English, or AD/BC vs CE/BCE. Which is to say, we assert that both stances are POV, take no further action, and explicitly forbid any effort to change pages from one style to another, keeping them all in the style they were originally written in.

Or two. We finish off this debate and summarize it into a neat bullet list of points that showcases both sides fairly (and doesn't have signatures or comments like "I agree with the above"), and then advertise a wikiwide poll on the issue. I believe the easiest way to do this would be to hold a simple majority vote with four options: 1) "American", 2) "United States", 3) "Do not standardize", and 4) "don't care either way as long as it's consistent". When the vote closes, all votes in category #4 would be added to #1 or #2, whichever is largest. Hope that made sense :)

Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I recommend more broadly advertising this page for a bit. There are Wikipedians out there who do dissent with what appears to be a consensus thus far or else this issue wouldn't have come up before.  I'd like to see those points appear here and satisfy ourselves that this page contains a representative sampling of opinion from across the wiki before moving to a poll here, involving the same folks who've at least taken the time to read this and familiarize themselves with the nuances of this thing. -The Tom


 * Radiant's second suggestion sounds good to me. -- Kjkolb 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm disturbed by the idea that any votes for consistency get added to the larger of the two options, as this could lead to a theoretical situation where a one vote victory ensues. I think people who endorse a standard should be expected to endorse a given standard, otherwise I'm not sure how they can truly endors a standard.  I also feel we should not discount the third option x of/in/by/from the United States, which matches other problematic nations, e.g. Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  I'm also not sure that a vote is entirely neccessary, consensus can be just as easily achieved through discussion.  Like The Tom, I would like to wait and see more opinion. Hiding  talk 10:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to discussing it more. But this is really a binary issue. We know all the arguments both ways, and we still disagree; there exists no compromise, and from a certain point on there will only be "me-too" comments. This time the page leans mostly one way, last time we tried it it leaned mostly the other way.
 * Regarding the four vote types - a one-vote victory can ensue anyway, regardless of voting method, so that's really a moot point. The reason that I'm suggesting it this way is that there are many people that want a standard, but do not particularly care which standard it is. An alternative way of putting it would be to have two (simultaneous) polls - one that says "should we standardize this?" and the second that says "assuming we standardize this, what should the standard be"? Maybe that's clearer. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I for one am not of the opinion that consensus is reached by a one vote majority. I'm also unclear how, if there are three options on this page, it becomes a binary issue. Hiding  talk 13:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * People are using the terms "consensus" and "opinion" here. However, "wait and see more opinion" is difficult when the topic is a list of arguments.  I look at the list, see my arguments already present, and have nothing to add.  The only "opinion" which will be added are new arguments.  If you're counting the size of the list of arguments, the winner may simply be the topic for which there are the most positive comments which can be made although that may merely reflect that topic has more complexity about which comments can be made.  You have to move to a format which invites collection of answers from all participants before you have any idea whether there is a "consensus" of anything.  (SEWilco 15:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC))


 * Fair play. How about adding some support sections to each area, and add no standard section.  That would allow us to see where the land lies regarding any consensus? Hiding  talk 15:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable (it's also roughly what I suggested :) ). I'd suggest merging some of the sections - the sections against "American" and "United States" are pretty much redundant with the sections for the other one. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well obviously. Great minds and all that.  It just wouldn't be a binding poll. Hiding  talk 19:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A list of arguments is not a poll anyway. Give me a proposal to vote or comment on; people haven't been voting on numerous arguments (and that is difficult because early voters wouldn't see all the arguments).  (SEWilco 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC))

Objections
I object to the proposed form of the vote, a majority vote with 4 candidates. That is how "Americans" got their current "President". Suggestion one could be worse than suggestion any of suggestions 2, 3, or 4, but we could get 20 percent voting for 2, 30 percent for 3, and 10 percent for 4, and 40 percent for number one, even though 60 percent would prefer anything but suggestion one. I suggest we use an actually consensus process rather than a vote. Let's discuss this until a clear preference is arrived at. Let's also actively solicit opinions from those outside the North American continent. This is an important issue, right? Let's not go off half-cocked and decide it hastily. Pedant 17:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not again
We've argued about this practically since the first article was created. We've been round and round on the same arguments and never reached consensus. I don't see any chance that we're going to reach consensus this time either. The arguments always boil down to: I have argued before that our mission as an encyclopedia compels us to strive for precision in thought and language. Even if only one person in a thousand will be confused, we should attempt to be as clear as possible. America refers to a geography, some senses of which are not contiguous with the nationality. Personally, I find nothing frustrating or pejorative about being called a US. However, the bottom line is that Wikipedia is inconsistent. Fix the ones you see and don't get into edit wars over it either way. Rossami (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points - but the issue frequently comes up at WP:CFD, as people in good faith nominate categories for renaming either way. If there was a significant majority in favor of either side, we could use that to automatically decide those issues, rather than rehashing the debate every time. At the moment, it can be a lottery depending on who happens to read CFD that week. On the other hand, it may sound unwikish to set such a tight standard. I do believe that repetitive discussion is pointless, so in my opinion we should either adopt the rule to "never rename" (like we do with AD/CE issues), or we should adopt a rule to "always rename" to either standard. But YMMV. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to have the rule be to follow the majority of entries in each category? While not the best it would establish how to decide which way to go.  Of course this suggestion is not problem free if you have multiple levels of subcats with diffrent leanings.  Vegaswikian 22:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be somewhat impractical, as this mostly applies to cats like Category:Countryname Profession. Generally, those categories contain the articles of dozens of people from that country, which can be worded in a wide variety of ways. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that people are confused. Some say the usage is unclear because they are against it, but it seems improbable that they don't know what it means in everyday English as well as the rest of us. Indeed they may be more keenly aware of what it is being used to signify than the rest of us. CalJW 21:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They could easily be 'American fauna', 'American history', 'American geography', could all be either continental or country specifc. Better to say as precisely as possible what you mean. Trollderella 03:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe I have already addressed this point above. When writing about the continents of North and South America then the forms North American X and South American X make it clear what is being referred to. In the fairly rare occurrences when it is appropriate to have a category which refers to both diverse continents then the form X of the Americas is perfectly good English. More to the point, this discussion is about how we name categories that would be subcats of Category:Categories by nationality (i.e. principally categories of people who are nationals of the USA and cultural items (music, literature etc) that come from the USA) or the small minority of subcats of Category:Categories by country where it has been agreed that nationality X is the standard (see Naming conventions (categories)). The examples of 'American geography'. 'American history' etc. are therefore beside the point as where these pertain to the USA, they should be named "Geography of the United States", "History of the United States" etc. (By corollary, those that are continental should logically be named "Geography of North America" etc. but I don't believe there is actually a policy on this). Valiantis 12:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While it's easy to imagine someone being confused by this term, it's much harder coming up with actual examples of confused people. I don't see any comment here to the effect of "I personally was genuinely confused by the term American x." Besides which, every dictionary I consulted, including the OED, gives 'relating to the USA' as the first meaning of 'American (adj)'. People who state that the term is 'wrong' in this usage because it's illogical are simply ignoring reality: words are defined by usage, and not the other way around. But the real point is: it isn't wrong at all: this is the correct dictionary definition of 'American (adj)'.Eaglizard 17:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll
Okay, since people feel the arguments sections above have rather played themselves out, let's see where the support lies for each position. Add your support to the section or sections as you see fit using # ~.

How should categories related to the United States be handled in categories where the naming convention is otherwise Nationality something, such as Category:Literature by country or all the subcategories of Category:American people by occupation. This affects most subcategories of Category:Categories by nationality but relatively few subcategories of Category:Categories by country.

For "American x"

 * 1) The Tom 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Rick Block (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Valiantis 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Christopher Parham (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC), obviously, since it is the only correct term.
 * 6) Idont Havaname 01:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Kjkolb 10:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC), this is a hard one, pitting my hatred for ambiguity against my love for standardization.
 * 8) CalJW 21:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC) It is not ambiguous. Opponents of this usage understand it perfectly well.
 * 9)  Lord Vold  e  mort  (Dark Mark)  13:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)  Common knowledge what is meant.
 * 10) Eaglizard 18:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Dictionaries (including the OED), define 'American' as 'of or relating to the USA'. It is the correct term.
 * 11) Radagast 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC) I have yet to meet a Canadian who is offended by NOT being called 'American'.
 * 12) Andrew Levine 19:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC) This is an English Wikipedia, so why not use the term that is common to all English-speaking countries (Canada included)?
 * 13) Carina22 19:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) rob 04:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Brandon39 04:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Sigma 04:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Mwalcoff 03:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) btm 09:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Hiding talk 21:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Common usage; United States is also not unique to the USA.
 * 1) BrianSmithson 15:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC). Common usage, dictionaries and style guides overwhelmingly prefer it. "US x" is clunky unless speaking about government-related items.
 * 2) SimonP 15:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Vegaswikian 23:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC) This will give the categories involved names that actually make sense.
 * 4) nixie 03:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Bearcat 21:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) HollyAm 06:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) HGB 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC), when referring to culture, though US or some derivative is fine when referring to govt or institutions.
 * 9) Jamie 01:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Herostratus 09:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC) at leat until "United Stateser" or "United Statesian" come into common usage
 * 11) Matt Yeager 05:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Please.

For "United States x"

 * 1) Users should appreciate that while for native English speakers it is usual to use "America" for the USA, combinations such as "Amerindian", "Latin American", "South American" and even "North American" merely confuse the issue. Although there are ther "United States" about, the USA is by far the best known. --MacRusgail 16:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 1st preference. Anything but "American x", which is highly ambiguous and therefore completely inappropriate for usage in an encyclopedia. Blank Verse   &empty;  20:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Nicely specific and easy to write with.  (SEWilco 15:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC))
 * 4) 'American' is slang which has become commonly used. 'United States' has a single direct meaning [edit: see comment at bottom].--Sansvoix 06:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Anything by 'American', except where to do so would be ugly, and would not provide more clarity in the context. Trollderella 03:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) An encyclopedia should favor corectness over common usage. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) See below. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  11:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * American is correct. Common English words belong to the general public, not to groups of academics or special interest groups with a point to make. And there are several "united States" CalJW 22:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) More accurate.  Martin  23:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) "United States" is unambiguous. "American" might refer to the US, or to the (North) American continent. Pilatus 02:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Unambiguous. Ejrrjs | What? 22:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) As per Pilatus. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 13:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) United States in generally unambiguous. (Either standard is better than no standard, however.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --Lumijaguaari 06:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --Broux 03:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

For "x of/in/by/from the United States"

 * 1)  &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  06:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 2nd preference. Anything but "American x", which is highly ambiguous and therefore completely inappropriate for usage in an encyclopedia. Blank Verse   &empty;  20:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC) -
 * 3) *This user has voted for both this option and the one above. CalJW 22:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) **Since there were no rules against it, I've use Preferential voting. Blank  Verse  09:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) ***It's only a straw poll and it is mentioned at top that people are free to support a section or multiple sections as they see fit. Hiding  talk 09:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Do not standardise"

 * 1) Christopher Parham (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) That said, in non academic articles, like American Football, 'American' is fine. --Sansvoix 06:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) They should naturally develop to whatever individual people put it as, I dont have a problem with either term, and vast category changes can cause more problems than they solve Astrokey44 11:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Some topics, like American football and American English always use the adjective "American". Other topics, like United States Department of State, always use the noun "United States" attributively. Standardization in one direction or the other would force us to have some article names that are simply solecisms. --Angr/undefined 16:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Angr, I don't think the proposal intends to change categories like United States Department of State. There was previously a discussion of the type of categories to be changed here. -- Kjkolb 01:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

For standardization of some sort

 * 1) Kjkolb 11:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Jacqui ★ 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
''RE: 'American' is slang which has become commonly used. 'United States' has a single direct meaning.--Sansvoix 06:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)''
 * Normally I wouldn't comment on someone else's position, but what about United States of Europe, United States of Mexico, The United States of Leland, United States of Canada, United States of Brasil, United States Of Great Austria, United States of Africa, United States of South America, The United States of America (band), and last, and probably least, United States of Whatever? -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  17:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * good point. I wasn't clear. 'American' carries many meanings, symbols, opinions, feelings, while 'United States' is a more direct academic term.  Ex: Some people might associate the term 'American' with U.S. patriotism.  --sansv&oslash;ix 08:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If the problem with using "American" is ambiguity, then we shouldn't use a different ambiguous term. Instead of "United States writers" or "Writers from the United States", it should be "United States of America writers" or "Writers from the United States of America". I don't care whether its American or not, as long as it's standardized. -- Kjkolb 08:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And "American" is definitely not "slang." In the United States, it is a word used in federal court opinions, on the floor of Congress, in scholarly works, in respected news sources, and in the names of major NGOs and official government organizations alike. Andrew Levine 19:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we need to talk a little more about culture vs. geography, but I agree that standarization should take place. -- Jacqui ★ 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Geographic Bias?
On another note, I think its fair to ask: 'does this vote have a geographic bias?'.(sansv&oslash;ix 08:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are there any WP:BIAS people in here who could help us think about non-Western ways of thinking about the issue? -- Jacqui ★ 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? Trollderella 00:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

These are the inherent biases as I see them, and yes I am part of the 'countering systemic bias project' but don't let that add any new bias to the discussion I'm not going to explain or defend any of what I wrote below, I'm not taking a side in this section, and there are biases that go both ways below.:
 * 'In the United States of America' most people do not know that there are in actuality two nations, the 50 States, united with respect to the 'outside world' and the United States of America, a corporate entity.
 * The name United States of America in itself is biased. Los Estados Unidos de Mexico is a United States, that is also in "America"
 * Originally "America" was the southern continent, and "North America" was the continent to its north
 * "American" has numerous connotations associated with it, in the USA, these connotations are predominantly positive (such as American Made, American Justice, Proud to be an American, American as apple pie) while the rest of the world has other connotations, some of which are decidedly negative (Ugly American, American Imperialism, American justice)... "American" has different feelings attached to it depending on where it is used.
 * to an American, "American" is the national adjective.
 * to an American, "United States cooking", "United States culture", "United States aggression" seems awkward and ungrammatical, but in the USA there are also "United States ship", "United States President" which are usually not thought of as awkward constructions. In many parts of the rest of the world, it does not seem particularly awkward to use "United States" as a 'national adjective'.

the main bias against using "United States _________ " in the US is that most Americans are comfortable with and accustomed to calling themselves Americans, and are unaccustomed to any other term. I feel that most who would support "American ___________" rather than "United States _________" consider themselves to be Americans. Pedant 17:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In response to your points:


 * "In the United States of America" most people do not know that there are in actuality two nations, the 50 States, united with respect to the 'outside world' and the United States of America, a corporate entity. Show me where in the Constitution it says this (or which federal court ruling or federal law established it).
 * The name United States of America in itself is biased. Los Estados Unidos de Mexico is a United States, that is also in "America." Nobody in any English-speaking country calls Mexico "The United States of America." Nobody in the English-speaking world calls Mexico part of "America" because that more commonly refers to the country to its immediate north. It is part of "the Americas."
 * Originally "America" was the southern continent, and "North America" was the continent to its north Has this usage been prevalent anywhere in the past 200 years?
 * "American" has numerous connotations associated with it, in the USA, these connotations are predominantly positive (such as American Made, American Justice, Proud to be an American, American as apple pie) while the rest of the world has other connotations, some of which are decidedly negative (Ugly American, American Imperialism, American justice)... "American" has different feelings attached to it depending on where it is used. This argument verges on stereotyping Americans as ignorant and jingoistic. All three of the negative phrases you assert as being mainly used outside the US are also well-known and widespread within the country. We use "American" for both good and bad, because, as you say in your next point...
 * to an American, "American" is the national adjective. How is this is a reason to deprecate its use?
 * to an American, "United States cooking", "United States culture", "United States aggression" seems awkward and ungrammatical, but in the USA there are also "United States ship", "United States President" which are usually not thought of as awkward constructions. In many parts of the rest of the world, it does not seem particularly awkward to use "United States" as a 'national adjective'. Again, are we speaking of anglophone countries? In Spanish-speaking countries they have a convenient one-word adjective that means "from the United States", but this is the English Wikipedia and must reflect English usage. Which country are you from, and in which English-language context have you heard terms like "United States culture" being used more often than "American culture"? Andrew Levine 16:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In order to make this poll less allegedly biased, I have advertised it at WP:RFC and WP:CS. Whomever started it should have done that in the first place. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You may feel that most who would support American X "consider themselves to be Americans" but you're not offering any evidence for your feeling. (If you look at those users above who support American X you'll notice several self-identified Canadians and at least one Briton - myself). As you say, the word American does have different feelings attached to it - but the feelings attached to the word are feelings that people have about the USA, not the word American itself. They would have the same feelings whether we use the term American or the term United States. (The fact that these positive and negative associations outside the USA attach themselves to the word American is surely indicative that American refers to the USA outside the USA as much as it does within the USA). Valiantis 12:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a compromise middle path?
I find arguments on both sides compelling. Perhaps it is not a clear case of either or. American implies people and things from the US wherever they may be, e.g. American Culture, American Musicians, etc... Of the U.S. implies they are uniquely from the U.S., e.g. Presidents of the United States. Is it possible to say American musicians (U.S.) whenever American is called for? Perhaps there is yet another way to use both terms that is consistant, and grammatically correct that hasn't been considered? -- Samuel Wantman 04:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In cases where there is clear connection to the government of the United States (presidents, senators, etc.) I think "United States X" works. In cases where there is no connection to the the US government, I think saying both American and US is confusing.  "American musicians (U.S.)" seems to imply a subset of "American musicians" (perhaps those currently living in the US?).  Looking at the straw poll, it doesn't seem likely to me that there will be a supermajority consensus.  I like the thought of looking for another approach to settle this.  Is there any reason "local usage" shouldn't be adhered to in this case?  I'm not sure I buy that most supporters of "American X" are from the US, but even if it were 100% of people from the US favor "American X" and 0% of non-US people favor this wouldn't we generally defer to local usage?  -- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, institutions of government and political office-holders already fall under the by-country rubric, not the by-nationality one (ie Category:Federal political office-holders in the United States, Category:Presidents of the United States). Secondly, what sort of supermajority does precedent generally call for?  We're running, as of this writing, above 2/3rds for "American xxxx," but I think it's clear that an absolute consensus is not going to develop. -The Tom 17:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thrash out the differences
Is it at all possible to reach a consensus on this issue through discussion? By that I mean, are people willing to change their views on anything? Looking through the arguments expressed in support of the "United States", they mostly argue that "American" is ambiguous. Given that the straw poll currently shows a majority for "American", are people prepared to forsake that view to reach consensus, i.e. could we agree that common usage might in this case trump any amiguity? Do people agree that any ambiguity could be solved by placing a note on each category page, or that the category structure would dispell any confusion, since we are categorising by nationality and not by continent?

Is it worth bearing in mind that this page only seeks consensus on such usage in category names? Therefore, how confusing is it going to be to see "American painters" at the bottom of Jackson Pollock, for example, given he is introduced as an "American" in the lead? Hiding talk 17:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This would be a good time for those who oppose "American XXXX" to offer suggestions that would make the "American XXXX" titling as amenable to them as possible. Assuming that any standard would revolve around this usage, could we make any additional changes that would allow us to broaden the consensus? For instance, changes to the text of the categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the article we have at Use of the word American is sufficient to explain any problems people have with using Category:American artists etc... and in fact I think it allows us to ignore the problems re ambiguity etc. of the use of 'American'. I'd be happy with using either, or both.  Perhaps we could use United States for US govt. stuff and American for others, like American west and American food and U.S., US, or United States for things like United States Senate, United States foreign policy etc., which seems to me to be the lines along which we have already settled and might save us a lot of work changing things if we just deem this the standard. I don't particularly care, and I don't think most of us care that much, since as good wikipedians we don't any of us have a personal stake in it,  but I think we all have agreed that it should be standardised in some way to avoid extra work. Maybe our consensus can start there? Pedant 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed the 'American xxxx' examples I have used are all redirects to either United States xxxxx or U.S. xxxxx. But still, can we agree that we need a standard?  Pedant 08:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, what we're trying to achieve here is a standard in category naming when describing the nationality of a citizen of the United States of America. Is it possible to get agreement on a few points? Hiding talk 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Points of agreement?

 * No correct term
 * There is no correct term to describe the nationality of the citizens of the USA. Nobody has been able to cite a source to define this one way or the other.


 * United States is ambiguous
 * Although arguably less so, the term United States is also ambiguous.


 * American is common usage.
 * The term "American" is the most commonly used term to describe the nationality of a citizen of the United States of America in the English speaking world.


 * Wikipedia is not wholly submissive to encyclopedic precision over common usage
 * Naming conflict dictates:


 * Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.


 * Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Do people agree with the above points? Hiding talk 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * Personally I have no desire to discuss this once more. I believe both sides have reasonable arguments, but consensus lies on the side of "American". In the spirit of progress and consistency, we should take that consensus and work with it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I Agree to the above 4 points. Our article Use of the word American pretty much says it all.  Even though it may be 'wrong' (which I think there is a genral consensus on) to use 'American', it is awkward to use 'United States' as a national adjective.  (It seems this is a consensus as well.)  I would be happy to use 'American' due to common usage.  I think there is a bare consensus to use 'American'.  However I think we should insist on the use of United States, in terms such as United States Senate and not use 'American' in cases where the words United States are part of the actual name or title. Pedant 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think your points do represent the majority view. The question is do we have concensus.  I would like to think that we can reach concensus on this.  Both forms have a place as you describe above.  Just use both and move on.  Vegaswikian 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to say (yet again) that this is a discussion that refers to a limited group of categories. I'm fully in agreement with Pedant's comments with regard to calling the United States Senate (etc.) by that name. However, in theory this should seldom be an issue here as categories on the subject of political office etc. take the form "X of country" not "nationality-adjective X". (So for such categories we should get category:Senators of the United States etc. presuming we are treating these as part of some larger category of senators. In fact we have category:United States Senators (which may be wrongly capitalised) but that is not a subcat of Category:Senators, category:Senators by nationality or category:Senators by country. I am assuming the reasonable thinking here would be that the meaning of the term "senator" is so different from country to country that a supranational cat is not useful). Valiantis 13:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Political office-holders fall under a by-country rubric rather than a by-nationality one, so this is a non-issue. The Tom 21:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 75% support is well above the bar for consensus. I think it's clear that category names should be named "American foo" rather than "United States foo", except in the obvious case of proper nouns. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Question
Where does the use of terms like English American, British American, Anglo-Saxon American, European American, White American, etc. come in? There may be no such thing as an American nationality in the conventional meaning of the word but there is definitely an American nationality in the sense of citizenship in the country known as the United States of America.

There is, however, another problem with the use of the word American to designate a nationality which has not been raised. There is an Anglo-Saxon American ethnicity which commonly and publicly goes under the name American. By doing so it claims the status of a nationality rather then being, technically, only a politically, culturally and linguistically dominant ethnicity within the United States. How do we ferret that usage out or do we? And if we don't are we not participants in a hoax? Dass 05:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean here... By There is an Anglo-Saxon American ethnicity which commonly and publicly goes under the name American do you mean white racist splinter groups? Other than that, I've never heard anyone use American to mean Anglo-Saxon... I don't think anyone says "American" and expects to be understood to automatically mean "American of Anglo-Saxon ancestry" except perhaps for splinter white racists talking within their group... I guess if there was usage such as "Americans don't like spicy food or hip-hop music but they do like to attend their local Episcopal church", but does that sort of thing really come up anymore? Herostratus 09:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)