Jump to content

Talk:American/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

All words are not equal

What the above discussion has clarified (duh) to me, is why all disambiguation pages are not equally straightforward to compose. Not adjectives vs nouns, singulars and plurals, but complexity of the webs of meaning encoded in the some-more-arbitrary-than-others threads of language.

That is why the spirit of the guideline Ignore All Rules is important. Not that it is to be followed in every case, but that it always watches over us, like an angel :), ready to swoop down and save us from a bog where a heavy word is sinking. (Time to eat.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

    • The heavy word that seems to be sinking is "The American People" or "Americans." But the real question is, who is going to swoop in, on behalf of common sense, and save the article? But then you must ask yourself, is common sense really common? Doesn’t seem so in this parallel universe. Shouldn't a word be honored for what most people understand it to be? Isn't that the whole point of communication? The majority of English speaking (and non-english speaking) people understand the word American People to mean "People of the United States." So what is the value of an encyclopedia that refused to adhere to the same guidelines of the vast majority? Skeeter08865 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

American(s) may refer to:

American(s) may refer to:

1) A citizen or something of or from the United States

CORRECTION: There are no governments in the Americas issuing American Citizenship. ("U.S. Citizenship" in the U.S.A. are only issued) and not American Citizenship.

2) For the collective inhabitants of the U.S., see People of the United States of America

CORRECTION: No lawfull doctrine stating a U.S. Citizen or Continent-Wide Citizen is lawfully an "American".

3) For alternatives for reference, see Names for Americans

CORRECTION: for reference, "American" is slang for an inhabitant of the Americas and not a name at all.

4) A citizen of one of the nations of the Americas

CORRECTION: As stated before, "American" is slang and there is no lawfull American citizen recognized by any Department of Customs. (U.S. Citizens must say U.S. Citizen).

5) The indigenous peoples of the Americas American (word) In casual usage, American English: the version of English spoken in the U.S.

CORRECTION: again, "American" is not a word, it is slang.

The entire article for 'American' is in disambiguation, I say we redirect entirely to that section.

American(s) is just slang, and should be treated that way. "completely disambiguous" lawfully.

American(Can) (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction: slang is in the eye of the beholder.
In several of your "CORRECTION"s you put a lot of weight on what governments say. Governments have a POV, and while they may prescribe usage for official documents within their borders, their views are not necessarily definitive and they are no more NPOV than any other POV.
In several of your other "CORRECTION"s you simply assert that a word is "slang".
slang:
1: language peculiar to a particular group: as a: argot b: jargon 2
2: an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech"
You "corrected" by saying "for reference, "American" is slang for an inhabitant of the Americas and not a name at all." How is something being slang incompatible with it also being a name? You also objected that certain usages were not a "word" because they were "slang". How is being slang incompatible with being a word?
If you are going to say something is slang, please provide an explanation for why while referring one of the two definitions above, or referring to a definition from a reputable dictionary. And then say why we should care if it is slang. Readin (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia :)

Two quick notes* for now:

  • Within Wikipedia, the word "disambiguation" is a term of art. See WP:disambiguation (which has its own complexities, but start there).
  • Regarding "not a word" and other CORRECTIONs, see American (word) (which is not a complete coverage of the complexities of the word, but should illustrate some of the scope of such complexities).

* The two notes above should in no way be considered a dismissal of your concerns, but rather a welcoming communication providing some context for the Wikipedia process with regard to such concerns.
-- Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

re: the removal of the American (word) hatnote from the top of the page (and replacement with link somewhere below)

For "American" as a general descriptor, see American (word)

The above line has been removed from the top of the page, and
just "American (word)" stuck below "indigenous peoples of the Americas"
with the edit summary:

"(A disambig page shouldn't have a disambig hat note)" (dif)
I.E., The reason given is, it "shouldn't" be there.
  • I.E., the guidelines demand it not be there.
  • I.E., the guidelines trump all other considerations.
  • Or, that there are no reasons that would appear to outweigh following this guideline.

OK: Why put ... For "American" as a general descriptor, see American (word) ... up top?

1. Partly for the same reason that the Wiktionary lookup is up top, and not at the bottom (which, by the way, is where American (word) ended up in the first phase of dab-cleanup under "See also")
  • "American" doesn't refer to "American (word)" ... it is the word.
  • I.E., American (word) is the Wikipedia article version of the Wiktionary entry for American. It's about the word. Those should be together up top.
2. The "messiness" about the sometimes adjective American vs the always noun Americans is handled up top. If you're looking for American as a descriptor, go to American (word)
  • THEN we can focus on disambiguating the nouns. (Americans) (with a touch more flexibility around the first entry)
PREEMPTIVE REBUTTAL: Please note that the adjective and noun stuff does matter. It matters in how readers (and editors) perceive it.
  • If you you design the information "right" ... there is less contention.
  • If you give editors a signal/cue that common sense has been addressed in the design of the content, then there will be less impulse to change it.
  • If the reader is looking for the word "American," why should they have to look through a list of noun forms to find it stuck somewhere arbitrarily other than up top ... near the Wiktionary entry?
3. American and Americans redirect here. (See higher up the page.) NOTE that German and Germans do not redirect to the same page. The fact that America and Americans do, makes the top of the page more potentially confusing to the reader. That is part of the reason for that hat note up there.
4. "American(s)" is a "loaded" (with meaning, passion) word. American superpower status and all that, too. I.E., getting the top of this page right is more important, and more delicate than most other disambiguation pages. It is not a run-of-the-mill the-guidelines-are-good-enough kind of page.

THE GUIDELINES are guidelines—they are a great benefit, but they are not the highest priority. In this case, I argue, the particular challenges of the page (mentioned above) justify the trivial flexibility of putting ...

For "American" as a general descriptor, see American (word)

... up top, near the Wiktionary entry, for all the reasons stated above. AND, I assert, those considerations allow for that flexibility in the guidelines (which the guidelines allow for).

BOTTOM LINE: "shouldn't" is NOT a persuasive rebuttal to the above. Removing the hatnote from the top, and sticking American (word) somewhere lower on the page:

  1. Does not enhance the readers experience.
  2. Does not improve the quality of the encyclopedia.
  3. Does not do anything but be a blind following of a guideline.

That is most certainly not good enough reason to do it.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

therefore: undone

For the above reasons, the edit removing the top-of-page "descriptor" link to American (word) (and reinserting just the link somewhere below) has been undone.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader, I completely agree and strongly support your reversion. I'll be keeping an eye on this page to watch for similar improper changes. Thanks, Doc Tropics 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A dab page should be a list of pages with ambiguous titles. You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. I re-added American (word) back into the list.--Cúchullain t/c 13:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ITEM (ref-CRRA2) - re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)

RHETORICAL INTERACTION

ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSIS

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS (NOTES)
RE RESPONSE BY: User:Cuchullain - Revision as of 13:31, 3 April 2009

  1. "I disagree."
    NOTE: What is disagreed with is a detailed argument of some length, hereby tersely dismissed with the following waving of hands:
  2. "A dab page should be a list of pages with ambiguous titles."
    NOTE: The entries on this page do not fit that description. I.E., A normative statement applied to an obviously exceptional page has no persuasive force.
  3. "You're making this more complicated than it needs to be."
    NOTE: Rhetorical hand-waving of no persuasive force.
  4. "I re-added American (word) back into the list."
    NOTE: Taking action as if a case has been made (rather than a terse, dismissive comment based on an argument that does not apply) for a reversion, has no persuasive force.

SUMMARY:

  • a terse, dismissive communication
  • non-responsive to issues raised
  • implying the authority of guideline WHICH is ignored for (nearly) every item on the page.
  • used as a justification for presumptive action

REMINDER(S):

  • This is an editorial behavior dispute (in the context of policy regarding disambiguation page cleaning)
  • This is NOT a content dispute. (The behavior of dab-cleaners has an effect on content which can be analyzed—hence the significance of the changes to this page.)
  • The fact that the behavior in question includes the actions of editors who are also administrators implies a greater level of significance.

--Proofreader77 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist on communicating in such an abstruse manner, Proofreader, but it's very tiring for people who have less time than you do to edit Wikipedia. I can do little else to clarify my position than reiterate what I've (we've) already said. Wikipedia has quite a nice guideline for formatting disambig pages, a guideline derived at by the consensus (yes there's that word again) of the community over time, with the intention of meeting the readers' needs. I can't understand why you feel like this guideline is "ignored for (nearly) every item on the page)", it only include entries which share a title so that the reader who types in "American" can be redirected. You disagree, clearly, but your opinion alone does not trump the opinions of others. I also resent your innuendo about me as an administrator; not once in this conversation have I ever used or even alluded to my admin powers or any presumed authority I have because of them. As to the alleged terseness and dismissiveness of my reply, I'm sure you understand that not everyone can be arsed to write a sonnet expressing their feelings about Wikipedia disambiguation pages.--Cúchullain t/c 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
While your response is being processed, see: re: the removal of the American (word) hatnote from the top of the page (and replacement with link somewhere below) (this topic, above) for an analysis of the issues involved. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this issue is being discussed in the most productive way possible, but since it seems to boil down to whether it is useful to make an exception to the disambiguation guidelines by putting the link to American (word) in a hatnote, my opinion is that it is. (For the reasons set out by Proofreader.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentiment, Kotniski. This has gotten flat stupid. I continue to disagree that this ideosyncratic exception to the guideline provides any service to the reader; rather, I feel that it makes it much more complicated than it ought to be. However, several other users seem to agree with Proofreader, so you won't hear any more about this from me. I've had quite enough of getting poetically browbeaten over a relatively insignificant disagreement about disambiguation guidelines. I'm going back to writing articles now.--Cúchullain t/c 02:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(issue status)

Resolved

Ethnocentric

It's interesting how frequently the same people that argue that US Citizens are being arrogant in calling themselves Americans will then go on and just assume Canadians even want to be called American. Isn't that a bit arrogant, assuming you know what Canadians want to be called? On Thermonuclear War (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Skeeter08865 (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(New discussion of the word "American" ignoring previous discussion)

The posting of the following comments below, perhaps indicate it is time to again refresh our perspective (briefly) on the matter of the word "American" and the perennial controversy having to do with United States hegemony etc.

Notes for new participants:

  1. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. See: WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX
  2. The topic title (below) "I Smile At You!" (and it's content) is an example of a rant/polemic, not a topic for discussion for editing the encyclopedia. It would normally be deleted on sight with the edit summary "Not a forum," but let us pause to note it is inappropriate form for Wikipedia.
  3. Please scan the talk page for previous discussions related to this matter. Beginning with the presumption this has never been discussed before, does not illustrate the care with which one should wade into a complex issue.
  4. The people of the United States did not write this article disambiguation page.
  5. The items in section one that are there (and in that order), reflect past efforts at consensus amidst controversy—as well as consideration for linkage and disambiguation. The reason for the unusual level of embedded comments is to stop editors who have not been participants in past discussions from rushing in to change what has been fought tooth and nail over to reach a tenuous balance of consensus. yada yada yada
  6. This is a disambiguation page. It is NOT an article.
  7. For an article on the word "American" ... see American (word), where you may wish to improve the article with cited research.
  8. Note that the issue that American and Americans both redirect here is of some import, and is discussed (or at least raised) above.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(The two new sections added by by prof.rick 21 April 2009)

(1) I Smile At You!

Yes, you...the people of the United States! You consider yourselves to be the most important nation on this planet...the strongest; the most morally upright; leaders of the world; those with a "perfect" political system which you seem determined to inflict upon others (regardless of the death toll of your self-righteous ambitions); the world's economic leaders (although you are driving the world to its ruin through your greed and subsequent destruction through the depletion of non-renewable natural resources); the world's heroes!

I often wonder why you love wars so much! How many have you had? How many have you won? Any? Got more oil?

The rest of the world sees you for what you are...and it is NOT GOOD! You're ONLY hope is that Obama can begin to change that image...through POSITIVE ACTION.

Perhaps your greatest crime is the very theft of the word "America" (and its adjectival form, "American"). You have claimed the name of a hemisphere as your own! The people of Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Cuba, Jamaica, Chile, Peru, Argentina, etc., etc., are as AMERICAN as you! "American" is simply an adjective, meaning "of America". You offend us very deeply!

It's hard to believe that such a "great" nation has failed to arrive at a name for its people! Legally, you are neither a nation called "America" nor an exclusive people called "Americans".

IN CONSIDERATION OF ALL NON-USA AMERICANS, GET A NAME FOR YOURSELF! (Through your military, political, economic and environmentally destructive actions, you have earned a "bad name" in world opinion. Other Americans do NOT want to be associated with you!) Of course, more than a change of name will be required to change the world's view of your nation. Isn't it time to start thinking about the well-being of the world, rather than just your own nation?

Please, think about it! (United Stations? United Bullies? United Thieves?) But first, you should seriously consider if you are in fact United!

Prof.rick 08:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(2) Is This Fair?

In attempting to edit the lead of this Article, I encountered a warning to the effect that editing the first three sections of the article is likely to be treated as an abuse of the privilege of editing Wikipedia.

WHY?

The first item listed is "a citizen or something from the United States". The word "American" is adjectival, derived from the noun, "America". America refers to the entire Western Hemisphere. United States comprises roughly 1/3 the population of the Western Hemisphere.

Obviously, the second definition should be placed first ("a citizen of one of the nations of the Americas"), since this refers to 100% of the population of the hemisphere (America).

Furthermore, the term "America" carries no legal status in reference to the United States; neither does the term "American" carry legal status in reference to citizens of the United States. The fact that the words "America" and "American" are often used in reference to the United States and its citizen is irrelevant, since such usage is self-generated by citizens of the United States, carries no legal status, and is objectionable to many Americans of other nations. Essentially, the use of the terms "America" and "American" in exclusive reference to the nation of USA and its citizens is, in effect, slang.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO USA?

The USA is not viewed favorably by much of the world. The use of the words "America" and "American" tends to associate other American countries with USA, and therefore generates unfavourable views of other American countries.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO WIKIPEDIA?

The present state of this article reflects a pro-USA bias, not to be viewed favorably by much (if not most) of the world. This is NOT conducive to Wikipedia's reputation as an "international" encyclopedia, but may prove to be a hindrance.

I open the floor for discussion! Prof.rick 09:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Prof.rick's two sections re the word "American"

  • Section (1) is clearly a polemic and should simply be deleted as inappropriate for a talk page in Wikipedia. Further comment perhaps tomorrow.
  • Section (2) apparently presumes these issues have not been discussed before, but raises the important issue of the embedded comments and their prohibitions. (More tomorrow)

(to be continued) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that Prof.rick's comments deserve only a very brief response; to wit, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find the articles that they are looking for, not the ones that we as editors think they should be looking for. When readers arrive at a disambiguation page, they should be able to see a list of articles that they might refer to by the term used as the page title -- nothing more and nothing less. Certainly they do not expect or deserve a lecture about why they are looking for the wrong term! In short, the entire discussion above is entirely off-topic and should be ignored by all responsible editors. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry for "sounding off", and doing so in an inappropriate place. I had overlooked the fact that this is a disambiguation page. I therefore agree, my above comments should be deleted. However, I still feel that, even on a disambiguation page, the word "American" should refer first to the continent, and second to the United States. Prof.rick 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below. A determination of which usage to place first should not be based on the size of the landmass or even the number of people, but on the frequency of usage. Readin (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this clarification, Readin. I accept and respect your quote from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages). (Some of us are a little slow learning the technicalities of Wikipedia.) It is understood that the term, "American", most commonly refers to citizens of the United States. Proofreader's removal of the three subsidiary United States links has been most constructive. A worthwhile compromise has thus been achieved. In "raw Canadian English", I accept the page as it now stands, but reserve the right to future comment. Prof.rick 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


(issue status)

Resolved
  • Since Prof.rick has retracted the comments (as inappropriate for a disambiguation page), and his concern with the order of the top entries has been addressed by Readin (and not refuted by Prof.rick), let us assume this issue is, for the moment, resolved. If that situation changes, please strike though this summary, and remove the {{resolved}} template. --Proofreader77 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    -- (striking through) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For the moment, resolved by the removal of the subsidiary links to United States entry. (If that situation changes, please strike though this note, and remove the {{resolved}} template.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(But before we move on) Embedded comment "warning"

In marking this resolved, I will highlight the apparent inspiration for Prof.rick's remarks. To wit: the warning in the embedded comments.


Which refers to:

Any comments re the embedded comments?

Proofreader77 says:

  • Let us agree such a comment block is a rare thing. :)
  • Let us also agree that this talk page provides evidence of why such an elaborate embedded comment may be warranted.
  • Is the "warning" "unfair"? That does seem to be a legitimate issue for discussion raised by Prof.rick. My response: Given the past (and current) contentions with regard to this page, I am going to surprise myself and side with Jerzy (who inserted them) to the extent that something is needed to prevent drive-by editing. :) Is this "too much"? A hard problem. This is one answer to the problem. More discussion is surely possible. :) (Please excuse all the smileys, but this issue makes me smile for various reasons.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

American ethnicity

I have reverted the following entry by 130.49.34.206 (but added the link beside the other ethnic group link in the United States section—note: the two articles have been suggested for merge) who is raising an interesting idea, but the linked article isn't about that idea: American ethnicity.


NOTE: 130.49.34.206 recently raised this idea on this talk page: Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States#The_existence_of_an_American_ethnicity

The basis for this idea's connection to the article on Ethnic groups in the United States is (apparently) the table statistic listing 7.2% who, when asked, listed their ethnicity as simply "American." Well, there is a lot to say about that statistic, and perhaps much to say about the idea of "American ethnicity," but the article Ethnic groups in the United States is not about that. SO, I've moved the link up beside the other link about ethnic groups in America. But clearly, there is cleaning/clarifying to be done in that indented area under the United States.

Comments? Questions? Proofreader77 (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the concept of American ethnicity is interesting. The trend of U.S. citizens identifying as having American ancestry is expected to continue. I have created a page on American ethnicity and edited the American page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosenza (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
note (controversial): This will inspire conversation. And that's good. :) A lot on my plate at the moment, but letting you know (as a preliminary response) that the entry (and article) are perhaps problematic ... For later follow up. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Prof.rick continues discussion of "American" concerns here

(topic title added by Proofreader77,—comments are not in the context of "American ethnicity" topic) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader, thanks for clarifying many points. I understand that this page requires some form of protection; however, I feel that some improvements could still be made in the opening lines, to make it more agreeable to all. For example:
"For alternatives and references see Names for Americans." (I expected this link to lead to "Names for the peoples of the Americas" (who are all American; instead it leads directly to the page, Names for U.S. citizens (redirected from Names for Americans). Perhaps changing the name of the link to the the name of the Article to which it redirects, would be a fair start.
Another possibility is to place a link, "Names for Americans" under the existing heading, "A citizen of one of the nations of the Americas", which might link to a page referring primarily to such.
Incidentally, I have followed the evolution of this page for some time, but decided long ago not to become involved! (I am out or my arena, which is music, and admittedly know as little about United States history as most U.S.'ers know about Canadian history.) The page's wording and organization will probably continue to be a sore issue for some time.
As a Canadian, I recognize that the source of controversy regarding the word "American" is centuries old, and will not likely be resolved any time soon. Perhaps this is a personal opinion, but it seems to me that the origin of the problem rests in the naming of a nation thru the borrowing of the name of its continent and hemisphere. Of course, some animosity about the matter persists in Canada, but we are "learning to live with it"! In fact, we sometimes smile, or even pity the people of the United States because they don't otherwise have a name by which to refer to themselves! (United Stations?)
If someone from Peru is living in United States, but is not yet a citizen, is he an American? Prof.rick 05:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

  • Bypass of redirect Names for Americans to Names for U.S. citizens.  Done
  • Since you wish to continue discussion of your concerns regarding the organization of the top of the page, the resolved tag above will be removed, and discussion will continue there—i.e., let us not fragment what is one discussion.
  • First respond to Readin's quotation of policy regarding order of entries.
  • Re: Link to article for Names for Americans as citizens of North and South America—there is no such article.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Bypass of redirect (your first item above): Good move!
  • Your removal of the subsidiary "United States" links is reasonable, fair to all, and draws Wikipedia closer to becoming both a complete and international encyclopedia. This has satisfied my concerns re the top of the page.
  • Response to Readin's quotation of policy:  Done
  • Re: Link to articles for Names of Americans as citizens of the Western Hemisphere; I realize there is no such article. Perhaps one should be started. Prof.rick 03:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: 21 April 2009 rename of the article Names for Americans to Names for U.S. citizens

The "United-States-Is-Not-America" hobbyhorse is off to the races again. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom the expression "United-States-Is-Not-American" hobbyhorse was addressed, but even as a Canadian, I agree, United States is as American as apple pie! But so is every nation of the Americas. (Every cow is a mammal; therefore every mammal is a cow?) There is certain validity in the statement, "American is not United States", but certainly United States is American! Prof.rick 04:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Note sneaky word "America" in comment, rather than American. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Noted! Please read my new section at bottom of page, "Further discussion re America/American" (if it's completed when you read this). Thanks. Prof.rick 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Move was made by administrator User:Kwamikagami without talk page participation (where much discussion on the matter was evident) with the following edit summary:


  • COMMENT: While this move may be a good one, the edit summary is inappropriate, and insufficient for the situation.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Notes for those who arrive here on the "United-States-is-not-America" hobbyhorse

  • Wikipedia is not the place to change "the world" (the public realm of meaning)

SUGGESTION:

  • 1. Pick one mainstream newspaper in each English-speaking country, e.g., New York Times, Guardian, Globe and Mail ... and persuade them they must not use "American" to refer to the United States.
  • 2. Pick a major book publisher and convince them they must refrain from using "American" in the title of books about the United States.
  • 3. With 2 and 3 complete, construct a media campaign to convince all the other news outlets and publishers to follow the example of 1 and 2.
  • 4. Now move to broadcast journalism and commentary.
  • 5. Etc, etc.
  • 6. When the English-speaking public realm agrees with you that "American" does not refer to the United States, then Wikipedia can be adjusted to that state.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to "the Americas" (and the western hemisphere) and the word "American"

  • Begin collecting citations from reliable sources in which "American" is used (without qualification of "North," "South," "Central") to refer to anything but the United States — except in the context of "the discovery of the world history" a few hundred years ago, or within specialist academic literature as a term of art. :)
  • If the number of such citations reaches a dozen. Congratulations, that is quite a feat. :) Now find several billion more. (Humor notice)

(to be continued, perhaps)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archiving (let's do)

It is not a reasonable requirement to force new participants to a talk page to wade through years of comments ... only to place a comment where it may never be found.
I.E., Time to analyze and archive.
Proofreader77 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I became aware of that post while working on breaking out and cleaning up (e.g., cases of misplacement of a comment relative to the comment it addresses; unsigned contribs) an essentially lost section; i think, after hurried dialogue, that Pfr'r has agreed to defer the archiving while i do further cleanup, and while there is discussion of creation & review of refactored records of passages prior to their being archived.
    --Jerzy•t 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
re: waiting
Has to do with a leisurely potential DR process regarding the recent "clean-up" (still flagged as necessary—note {{disambig-cleanup}} template).
Will attempt a more informative (and carefully worded) follow-up a bit later. Thanks—time to put "all this" on my front burner.
NOTE: I do not concur with the characterization of events as: " ... Pfr'r has agreed ... "
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's been another six months and nothing has happened. I propose to implement auto-archiving by a bot for topics over 60 days old. I will do so in a week unless there are reasoned objections. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I have removed the following links subsidiary to United States entry (which had been previously removed a while back, and I had restored due to the redirection of "Americans" to this page.) BECAUSE: Ongoing contention/flux (article name-changing, possible merges etc) of those articles.

(More discussion on this matter to follow)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Americans

The usage of Americans is up for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 21 and Talk:People of the United States. 184.144.170.159 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The term American should be changed. It is a term of political importance in the continent of America. The term Americans should not be understood as "a person or attribute of one of the nations of the Americas" and "A citizen or attribute of or from the United States" because it causes misunderstandings on international regulations and political declarations. Therefore, I urge the Wikipedia community to delete the definition of american as "A citizen or attribute of or from the United States" because this term really involves all citizens from North America, Central America and South America.

Cordially

Julián Ricardo Díaz Posada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diazjrdp (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Julián: You misunderstand the purpose of this page. It is not designed to say how a term "should be understood." It says how the term "is" understood. People widely use the word "American" to refer to citizens of the United States. You may think they are wrong, but they still do it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

American ethnicity

Could not the American ethnicity item be incorporated into the sub-bullet below "A citizen or attribute of the United States"? It just seems silly to have a separate line just for it. --SchutteGod (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:American/Archive_2&oldid=1030695218"