Talk:American (word)/Archive 1

Older discussions

I moved the below version with a bit of editiorializing by User:209.166.90.165 here to talk. --Infrogmation 10:13 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

This entire debate is moot. The species homo sapiens evolved several million years ago in Africa; from this fact, we can derive two additional truths:

1) All humans are African. 2) Anyone who does not live in Africa either personally migrated to a different part of the world or descended from someone who did.

Impugnations of egocentrism are not founded on a sound grasp of human history. Anyone who doesn't think of himself as an African is "culturally imperialistic" and "egocentric". End of story.

American can mean "of the United States of America" (the most common egocentric usage in the English language ); it also means "of or relating to the the Americas".

This first usage is a typical egocentric attitude that the United States perpetuates in its culture. It should also be noted that:

• Fidel Castro is an American.
• Argentinians are Americans.
• Peruvians are Americans.
• There are a few considerate people in the USA who are actually offended by the egocentric usage of American to mean a citizen of the USA. The rest could care less about you and your brethren in whatever lesser nation you hail from.

No one thinks of Argentinians, Peruvians or Fidel Castro as American. Also - we have been known as Americans since the founding of this country, but now some arrogant people just want to take it on their own to change what we are called. No one had any confusion in calling us Americans as we stormed the beaches of Normandy to save Europe, but I guess now that Europe and the world has a problem with us - it's okay to make these kind of arrogant remarks about us. So tell me - when Le Monde had the headline after 9/11 saying - "We are all Americans now" did they include Cuba and Colombians in there? --JerseyDevil 10:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The revolutionary Che' Guevara in a 1960 speech to the Cuban Militia refered to Cuba and other latin nations as "our American homeland." I agree, it's North America and South America is it not.

But don't be silly, in the other side of the Rio Grande more people lives. So you ought to receive the One America name as Europeans did. Is a common name that might survive over the anglo-american.--Tugritch 12:27, 18 Feb 2006 (UTC)

No one thinks of Argentinians, Peruvians or Fidel Castro as American." No, actually millions of people do. Perhaps none of them happen to live in your neighborhood. As a global encyclopedia, we should note that some terms can be used with different meanings in different places, which the article appropriately does. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a very POV statement to say that these people aren't American just because you don't think so. Please consider the NPOV nature of Wikipedia. You are not everyone and don't get to decide what "no one" or "everyone" thinks. Instead, it is preferred that we give the reasons for our viewpoints and let the readers decide what to think. See Wikipedia:The perfect article. We are to mention which viewpoints are more popular (with reasoning for why they are popular), and mention other existing viewpoints. :)

Well if we would everybody ascribe to one of the 5 "traditional continents" you have to be either African, American, Asian, European or Oceanian. Of course when it has been established already that the word is an indication of nationality, American indicates the United States of America, if however there is no reason to assume that there is no reason to think so. In an article about birds "American species" or an article explaining how the Atlantic Ocean causes Americans to pay more than Europeans for a certain type of horse, there is sufficient reason to assume that the word does not (just) refers to a single country but rather to the American continents. 80.61.97.215 21:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't personally feel offense at the idea of being American. "Politically correct" terms include the usage of American as a nationality: African American, Asian American, etc. However, it should be mentioned on the page that not everyone agrees with this.

Most people in the United States don't consider it taboo, while in other regions it may be. That's all we need to say. Both sides are presented well and a reader can choose.--Sketchee 03:10, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry buddy, but in English (and in most languages, for that matter), an "American" is a resident of the United States. That's just how it is. (What else are you going to call them--United Statesers?) For Spanish-speakers, it may be different. Good for them. Funnyhat 03:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The easy solution "buddy" is to call US Americans "gringos", myself I have explained to the rest of the world (europeans, asians, australians) this is the term to use from now on. jorge1a 05:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No, we are not your buddies and we call you U.S.-American(s), if you realy care to know. --Ollinaie 12:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Venezuelans call people from the US "Americanos" and "Americano" refers only to one of the USA. They do not call citizens of the US "Americanos de los EEUU" or anything like that in conversation. In any case, what Spanish speakers use is completely irrelevant to what English speakers use, so the argument is completely moot because this article is in the English wiki. KyleGoetz 18:04, 8 May 2006 (CST)

Maybe we should call them USArs :) ViktorK 10:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not your buddies, Funnyhat, and your opinion shows how misinformed you are of the world around you (which, by the way, is characteristic of some US citizens). In portuguese and spanish, two other languagues spoken widely in the American continent, there are specific terms for those who are born in the US. And no, the terms are not "american". American means born in America, which all cubans, argentinians, brazilians, peruvians, equatorians, jamaicans, etc etc etc are.LtDoc 20:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting about Portuguese and Spanish, LtDoc, but also irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia, and in English, an American is someone from the United States. You don't see people in the U.S. complaining that people from Britain are called the English. After all, we speak English in America, too! Those egotistical Brits! How dare they? They must be misinformed about the world, obviously. (Yes, my sarcasm is directed at you.) Uris 01:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You demonstrate LtDoc's point well. People from Britain are not called English. While a Scot might tolerate a Spanish speaker using the word ingles to describe his homeland he would most probably, and not unreasonably object strongly to an "English" speaker using english. Mucky Duck 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I always find this issue odd. I hear the term "Amerikanos" used all the time by my Greek relatives to refer to people from the US, and presumably that's not due to them being egocentric Americans. It's just the generally accepted usage, English language or otherwise. --Delirium 18:34 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In Canada "American" means the United States...we don't describe ourselves as being "American" as in "from the Americas." Well, sometimes people do, but usually the only people who do that are the kinds that want Canada to join the US as a new state...otherwise Canadians are North Americans, Peruvians are not Americans, they are South Americans, as are Argentinians. (I've actually never heard Cubans being descibed as any sort of American, not even Central American.) Just thought I would add this, it seemed relevant :) Adam Bishop 18:51 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that, I mean there are enough Canadians who will refer to themselves as Americans, in a certain specific context, in the way a Welshman may refer to himself as a European. Doing that might even be used to remind some Yankee about manners.

---

The disambiguation page seems like more of a hassle than it is worth, whenever someone writes the word "American" in English, it is clear that it refers to a resident of "The United States of America". I have never heard it used in any other way. I would suggest changed this page to a redirect, but I won't change it because it seems some people feel very strongly about this realistically non-existent multiple meaning. What do other rational people think?

Given that it's an issue that is brought up periodically, I think it's worth having this explanation. It's information, and information is what we're all about. =] That said, I do agree that 99% of the uses of "American" are intended to refer to those from the USA, and this is true whether or not the person using the term is from the USA -- when a Greek says "Amerikanos" they mean person from the USA; when a German says "Amerikaner" they mean person from the USA; when a Briton says "American" they mean a person from the USA; and so on. So it really has nothing to do with US cultural imperialism, as this usage is standard in dozens of languages throughout the world. --Delirium 21:04 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you change this page to a redirect to United States of America, then you should put disambiguation text at the top of United States of America:

American redirects here. For other uses of the word American, see American (disambiguation).

Personally I dislike such things, from a reader's perspective, and thus almost always prefer hub disambiguation in such cases, with the current software. Martin 00:37 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I appreciate Infrogmation's attempt to be succinct, but I think it's pruned down a little too far now; it is a delicate subject for a number of people, and in this case extra explanation might forestall future flamage. Stan 19:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I think Infrogmation's second paragraph is perhaps better than the old one, if it is really true that some significant number of Latin Americans really use "American" (especially, in English usage) to include themselves. However, I liked the original first paragraph better and I definitely believe it is more accurate. Daniel Quinlan 20:00, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

I removed the article link to USian. I think it's very misleading as that neologism (yes, it is one, technically) is basically never used outside of Wikipedia and a few random sites (like usian.org). Just because someone was able to coin a word, I don't think it immediately makes it encyclopedic. There are a lot of non-preferred words we don't link to for similar reasons (including offense which is definitely a factor for USian). Just because a few pedantic or prejudiced editors object to the existence of the term "American", does not mean we need to link to a made-up so-called alternate word. The word is not used. People who live in the USA are "Americans" and almost all Americans want to be called "Americans" and virtually everyone calls them "Americans". Wikipedia should not be advocating language changes by trying to spread neologisms that were dead on arrival. Daniel Quinlan 20:03, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Google gets me 1290 hits for usian -wikipedia, and 1340 hits for usian. If you look at the article on Usian, it discusses all the various neologisms - not just this one, and the various neologisms as a group are certainly worth an article, in my opinion. Martin 20:10, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are 75,000,000 hits for "American" and if even only 10-50% of those are using the term for "American" rather than the part of a compound, then they dwarf "Usian" by a huge factor. The discussion of the neologism does not warrant such a long explanation here as most of this material is already in Alternative words for American (which I just renamed from Usian since it discusses all of the alternative words). I think they are absolutely worth an article, though, don't get me wrong. Daniel Quinlan 20:34, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I do see your point - my main concern was that the unadorned link to "Usian" on the page wasn't very clear, and might puzzle readers. Perhaps with your rename this is no longer an issue? Martin

---

So, this is no longer a disambiguation page as such - should we still fix links from [[American]] to [[United States|American]]? Most other nationalities redirect in this way, it would certainly be more consistent. What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I am troubled by the lack of specification that the use of American as a self-descriptor in North and South American nations is basically confined to Latin American countries. In Canada, it is generally considered an insult to refer to one as "American." Call a Canadian "American" and you will definately be corrected, if not assaulted.

---

I removed two links on this page to "controversy" and "derogatory". These are common english words, with no specific bearing on the topic at hand.

---

Controversy above quite funny, as often on Wikipedia. Reminds me of the fall of the Byzantine Empire when the Byzantines were quarreling over the gender of the angels while the Turks were besieging Constantinopolis. By the way, the use of the word "Turk" for the inhabitants of Turkey may be considered as egocentric as the use of the word "American" for the inhabitants of the USA. What about the people of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and so on? They also consider themselves Turks... Hardouin 01:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For those above who think that all the languages of the Earth use the word American both for the inhabitants of the USA and the inhabitants of the Americas, as is the case in English, let me remind you that this is not true in Chinese where 美国人 is used for an inhabitant of the USA, and 美洲人 is used for an inhabitant of the Americas. Same in Spanish were estadounidense is used for inhabitants of USA, and americano for inhabitants of Americas. I don't know all and every language, so there are possibly other languages which make the distinction. But already with Chinese and Spanish that's a quarter of mankind who make the distinction!! Hardouin 01:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued that ALL languages use the term that way, but rather that many of them do. More importantly, since this is the English version of Wikipedia, it should be noted that virtually all English-speakers do. In English, calling a guy from Ecuador an "American" is just plain weird. And calling a Canadian an "American" is a good way to get punched in the nose. Funnyhat 03:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Pointing out that the CIA world factbook is a US Gov't publication is redundant and calling extra attention to it is POV. Daniel Quinlan 05:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I decided to be bold and remove that sentence entirely, as it does nothing for the article itself. Mike H 08:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

América is a continent

América is a continent. Period. ALL the citizens (yes, ALL the citizens) of the continent are americans. Period. The citizens of Uruguay are Uruguayan, the citizens of Brazil are Brazilians and the citizens of the country called United States of America should find a name different from "american".--Vinoysandia 19:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. America is not a continent. North America and South America are continents.

Incorrect again. There are schools of thought that teach of "AMERICA" as a continent, or at least, a supercontinent.24.215.253.143 19:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All of his points are correct, for example see:[1]. While NPOV may require us to admit all sort of extreme minority positions, it contains the danger that when the usage of English words is disputed, it becomes impossible to write neutral articles. The best we can do is to use the words continent and America in their usual, english usage whilst making note of the fact that some people object to this. WilyD 20:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Yaddar 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC) The fact of Europe and Asia sharing a condition of 2 separate continents is a grandfathered term since Ancient Europeans didn't knew most of Asia actually existed... (see history of Eurasia here in wikipedia). In the case of the American Continent, it was recognized as a whole NEW LANDMASS for the Spanish, Portuguesse and Italian Sailors, thus people of the time named WHOLE NEW CONTINENT "America" (and then, the origin of the word would be that of an Italian Sailor)

And besides the US schools, in the vast rest of the world out there America is seen as a one Continent, with two subcontinents((North America and South America); or 4 Geographical Regions (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean) or 2 Cultural Regions (Latin America and Anglo America, -Instead of "North Amercia and Latin America" since we are talking about the LINGUISTIC origins of their population-)

So, the United States are the ONLY ONES who teach America the continent as plural and its in order to know if they are talking about the continent or their country... NOT because there are acctually TWO AMERICAS... "Americas" then would be a Regional terminology ruled by USAGE IN THE US and not for any Geographical nor Historical condition. (not the same as Europe and Asia, whose terminology comes across a Granfathered Historical condition).

Sice then we don't Speak of "Two Asias"... we don not say we have the Far East continent and the Middle East continent... we DO call them 'Geographical Regions'... North Amercia and South America aren't Continents, they are Subcontinents.

América is a Spanish word. You are on the English Wikipedia. Uris 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, señor! América is 2 continents: North America (continent) and South America (continent). Uncle Ed

Actually, I would like to amend my comment:

• The Spanish word América does indeed refer to a continent, consisting of North America, the Caribbean and South America.
• The English word America is hardly ever used to refer to a continent in the United States. Americans (USA-type) almost always use "America" to mean the USA.

How people should use the word is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Continents do not have citizens. While you may feel that a Uruguayan is an American, he may not consider himself one. We should not impose being an American on other people. Many people do not feel a sense of identity beyond their country of citizenship. Acjelen 20:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acjelen got it wrong; please note that Vinoysandia didnt say that continents have citizens. He was ponting out that Uruguayains and Brazilians, being born in the continent of America are also americans. Its the same thing with other continents. Both Chinese and Japanese are asians. People born in Morroco and Egypt are africans. German and French are european. Brazilians and Uruguayans are american. You say that no one should impose being an american on other people. No one is doing that! Being an american involves the fact that the person was born in the continent of America, plainly and simply, just as a Chinese-born will be called an asian. You misinterpret the text by giving the word "american" the sense that it only represents people who were born in the US, and that is not correct.LtDoc 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There is neither an ethnicity nor a continent named America. The continents, fyi, are called North America and South America, and their inhabitants are called (gasp) North Americans and South Americans. This is, by the way, completely unambiguous and far more widely used than "Americans from the Americas". Yes there are two opinions on the issue, one is the overwhelming majority view in the world and not ambiguous, the other is an obvious minority, not necessary to differentiate any group from anything, and causes ambiguity. Of course we can discuss both, there is a history behind them, but your biased attempt at logic is weak and plain wrong. Anyway I don't see the name of some Italian cartographer being worth so much. keith 10:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, "there is not a continent called America" ?? Your geography teachers should be expelled. The (inhabited/colonized) continents, fyi, are called Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and America. Do you realize that the Olympic flag has only five circles? How come there are two Americas and there arent two Europes, eastern and western? Or two "Easts", as in Middle East and Far East? Its proposterous to try to impose a point of view thats anglocentric because you dont want to be set in the same continent of Latin Americans.

At least Im glad you reckon there are more than one opinion about the subject. But believing that "overwhelming majority" thinks as you do is a colossal error. Ask outside of the US (believe me, theres life out here) and you will face a striking surpise, that the use of "americans" meaning born in the US is higly controversial in Latin America, and yes, somewhat offensive, not only because of the cultural appropriation which derives from this, but also from the fact that the identity of the various Latin American people (which is to say most of the continent of America) is thwarted and undervalorized.

And yes, there is a history behind calling "americans" exclusively those who were born in the US. Do you know it? Because it sheds great light on the matter, and makes it clear as why it is culturally imperalistic, why it is offensive to "other americans" (born in the continent of America). And instead of pointing fingers and saying "Its wrong! Its wrong!" try to show me why my (biased) attempt at logic is weak and wrong. These discussions are supposed to be productive, and not petty squabbles. BTW, if you dont think that the name of America is worth much, why do you care? Im asking because there are lots of Latin Americans who do. ~~LtDoc~~

First of all, the Olympic rings to not correspond to continents. It is only the colors that are relevant. They refer to the colors in all national flags. Secondly, please read the excellent little article on continents before criticizing my education. Lumping together North and South America while separating Europe and Asia is very eurocentric btw, why don't you go get offended at that? oh, and you must be Canadian... keith 04:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You are WAY wrong about this, the five rings represent the five continents, whether they are all cyan, magenta or pink. The colours were picked as you said. But the issue here is not the colours, is the quantity of rings that the flag holds. FIVE. Explain the reason for FIVE rings if you disagree about this. Raenk

If I were you, I wouldn't bother trying to argue this point. Latin Americans are convinced that the Americas is one continent because that is what they are taught in school and their culture generally accepts that. English speakers are convinced that the Americas are two continents because that is what they are taught in school and their culture generally accepts that. Trying to get a consensus between the two is less productive than pissing into the wind.--GringoInChile 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

America is not a continent on the English Wikipedia, period. Spanish speakers who consider America as one continent need to remember they are on the English Wikipedia, and in English "America" is not one continent, period. They should stick to the Spanish Wikipedia for using "America" as a continent. Uris 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Keith, if we can at least both agree to disagree about America being one, two or three continents, let me assure you that the rings in the Olympic Flag represent the 5 inhabited continents. I have never heard of this that you say that the rings represent the colors in all national flags, and that must be because this information is plainly false. First, theres no white ring in the OF. Are you telling me that theres no white in flags of countries around the world? Also, there are other colors as well in other flags, such as brown, pink, gold(en), several tonalities of red, blue, green, etc.etc. By the way, if you think shades of colors dont qualify as an argument, then neither yellow, white or black should be in the OF in the first place, since these colours could all be obtained in variations of RGB.

Actually, according to Wikipedia itself, the 5 rings of the Olympic flag represent the 5 "parts" of the world "which now are won over to Olympism and willing to accept healthy competition". In addition, the 6 colors (yes, 6: the background is white, which is included as a color) are colors included on all national flags. In other words, every national flag has AT LEAST ONE of these colors. It's not that EVERY SINGLE COLOR is on this flag. Specifically: "The blue and yellow of Sweden, the blue and white of Greece, the French, British, American, German, Belgian, Italian, and Hungarian tricolours, the yellow and red of Spain lie next to the new Brazilian and Australian flags, and the old Japan and the young China." Finally, "the IOC explicitly states no ring represents a specific continent". There are 7 continents: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia (or Oceania), and Antarctica.

As for "lumping N and S America togheter while separatin Europe and Asia" being eurocentic...well, sorry but, no, it isnt. Even if Europe and Asia share a continuos land mass (also with Africa, as is the same case in S/N America) they have vastly (make that a CAPS, bold vastly) diverse cultural, geographic, social and physical differences amonsgt them. Also, civilizations in Europe/Asia (and also Africa) began independently, without knowledge of each other, which was bound to happen, due to the huge land span. On top of that, There is a remarkable geographic incident that further helps to set those people on different continents.

Contrasting to these, even if the continent of America has a remarkable geographic incident, it also has similar cultural/geographical/social/physical background, at least similar enough to put them into a single "bundle" as you put it. It had the same civilization "type" before the discovery by europeans, those being mesoamericans (mayas, incas, and others) and native americans (native americans meaning not just the Apache or the Sioux, but also the Tupi-Guarani, the Tapajos, Timbiras, etc..). They were both ("N" and "S" America) colonized by european powers at relatively the same time frame, thus setting them in the same "civilization period" (in contrast to say, Europe and Africa), the people nowadays of both "N" and "S" America is a mix of european immigrants, african slaves and native americans (with bits of Asian/Arabic in them), they use the same (well, almost the same) alphabet, they write in the same way, their society is structured in a similar way... the common aspects are innumerous.

Thus, even we cant agree on wheter there are 2 or 1 America, it is more logical to understand it as one. Saying that Europe, Asia and Africa should be "bundled" togheter in the same continent is to ignore the differences between those continents. Recognizing these differences is not eurocentric; its just a natural and logical conclusion one comes to. Accusing it to be Eurocentric, in fact, shows a bit of typical behavior of the average US citzien - criticize everything that doenst set the US apart of the world, without the least of knowledge on the matter. Surely, what resident of the most gracious, glorious and godly nation on this earth would welcome such poor, ignorant and flea-bitten neighbours as those latinos in the south? And no, Im not Canadian, Im Brazilian.LtDoc 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I came here looking for an etymology of the term, otherwise quite hard to find online: I remember it as a whole-cloth creation of Benjamin Franklin (to apply 'American' to all the peoples of the British colonies), something that he later claimed as the invention he was most proud of. It's disappointing that the entire article deals with dead-end angst over his creation.

• I agree, oh unsigned writer, that the history of the term would be vital to such an article. Anyone? --Liberlogos 4 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

I find this whole talk hilarious. I live in Kazakhstan and I have lived in Russia. I'm Canadian. As in Spanish, Russian also has this False friend. The Spanish word "continent" and the Russian word "континент" have a different meanings than the English word "continent". Likewise, the Spanish word "América" has a different meaning than the English word "America". I agree, the two words look very similar, but they just aren't the same. Russian has borrowed the English usage of the word "Америка" but still, people often call me Американец (American) when they find out I'm a Canadian. I protest, but in reality, that's what they've been taught in geography class. They also have less "kontinenty" than us English-speakers have "continents" because they are simply defined differently. They have another word "материк". In "Америка" there are two "материки": North America and South America.

This whole argument has no basis, because our friends from South America are arguing their meaning of the word "América", which, incidentally, isn't an English word. Let's take a shot at translating that word (América) into English. It would translate as: The land mass made up of North and South America and the Islands nearby. Or, better yet: "The Americas" (there is, btw, a good reason why we English speakers use the English word "America" in the plural). Would anyone argue that LtDoc and I are not both from "The Americas"?? Of course not, at least a native speaker of English would not.

As far as arguing that there are innumerous things that make people from North and South America similar, I completely agree. But we from the Americas also have lots of things in common with many Europeans. Obviously each culture, language, and educational system use many factors when deciding how to divide the land masses of the world up.

I would suggest that LtDoc get a good elementary school level book on geography in English. He'll see why the English word "continent" has a different meaning from the Portuguese equivalent.

From the article on Continent, it appears that in the UK perhaps the Americas are considered as one Continent (And yet they still use the plural for "some unknown reason"). I don't know how true this is (perhaps they do consider them one continent), but if it is, it doesn't shed light on the use of the word "American", as it is clear that even in the UK anyone would say, "No, I'm not American, I'm Canadian." And no Briton would reply "Canadians are Americans." They wouldn't say "Mexicans are Americans" and they sure as heck wouldn't say "Peruvians are Americans." If a Peruvian said "I'm an American" I'm sure people would be surprised when the man informed them that he was from Lima. They'd probably ask if he was an emigrant! I'll look around for an article using [2]. Here's a link [3]. AND [4]. So there you go. Other hits involved tourism to the UK for Americans (which ostensibly could apply to Canadians, but only because American and Canadian culture are very similar.) --chad 10:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

I am a citizen of a country called "the United States of America" which just so happens to be the same as the name of the continent. The political adjectives "United States" and "Republic", "Federal" and "Democratic" are adjectives found in practically every country in the world from Sudan to China to Mexico. These ever present adjectives describe the strictly political, not regional/ethnic identity. Why should the name (the noun for which the people in the U.S.A. are named) be changed to something else just to suit some misdirected anger towards American imperialism? After all you can't really be satisfied to identify us as the adjective "U.S.". Because we aren't the only U.S. people either and we would be "hijacking" the U.S. nomenclature from other U.S. citizens. We take away the respect of a Mexican who is also a "U.S. citizen" of Mexico. Ah... but the great continents beckon. For Spanish/English speakers, it's even more confusing as we are known as "E.U" which is confounding with "Unidad de Europa" (U.E.) which is in English "E.U."

While I agree that U.S. is filled with an arrogant, self-centered 21st century social atmosphere, we should be allowed to retain the name of our country, with the noun "American" without any hinderance.

Another strong reason is that throughout the history of the Western Hemisphere, none of the post-colonial societies referred to themselves as Americans EXCEPT those inhabiting the United States of America. That includes, intellectuals, politicians, ruling classes, independance movement leaders, public figures, etc. I cannot find a single Mexican, Brazilian, or Columbian reference where someone, oh lets say like Zapata, united the people culturally or politically with the word "American". Never found a "We are Americans" as a description in any historical context outside the U.S.A.

Why then should you want it so badly now? --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, there have been several people like Bolivar who have created important movements around the term "Americano" meaning someone from the continent/s, actually in this case it excluded USA and Canada. Gnarus 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

I am so tired of this. Here's the deal: to most people living in the Americas, they are Americans. To most of the English-speaking world, Americans are the white people living in the US. As for the rest of the planet, if the names are anything like those in Germanic/Romance languages, they probably don't care.

Now, you can go to Latin America, home to most people in the Americas, and point out how American you are, and they aren't. If that makes you feel patriotic or something, great, but it's not how you make friends. You see, it all depends on how you grow up. What doesn't? --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

I suppose it is good for the millions of people in the Americas that you know who they are. But just in case it isn't, be careful before you "kidnap" other people and stick them with a label of your own choosing. Oh and in my America, all immigrants to and citizens of the United States are Americans -Acjelen 8 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

I dont know what the world cares about this, but i know that ALL people in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil call themselve Americans because there is a continent called Amreica after Americo Vespucci, the first to think that the new lands were not India.

Most of them think that the people of USA are the most egocentric and the second most imperialistic (after UK). -- 201.252.49.90 8 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

So what? This is the English Wikipedia, and there are no schools in English countries that represent a single continent as being called "America". Uris 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I most strongly resent the comment of this unidentified IP address before Uris' comment. It is quite clearly breaching the NPOV policies of Wikipedia that are supposed to pervade even on the discussion pages. It is blatantly nationalist against the USA and the UK. --Lord Akria 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My only point was that it doesn't really matter, because the reality is not going to change. Personally, I would call anyone living in North, South, Central, East, West, up high, down low, too slow, or anywhere else "American" if they live on the continent, supercontinent or whatever. So, yes, a Mexican immigrant to the US was American before they crossed into White territory the border. If someone has a problem with that, or maybe thinks American only means estadounidense, so be it: it makes no difference. What's the problem here about, anyway? --ROY YOЯ 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this "White territory". Happily I was born in a country where citizenship is granted by birth within its borders and does not depend on nationality, ethnicity, bloodline, stock, or other such notions. Indeed, in my country one becomes an American upon immigration (and is thus a first-generation American). -Acjelen 9 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the demographics of the US and youll be familiarized with it. Oh, and which country is that that you were born? For I now none such. Perhaps in some remote Pacific Island?200.244.240.42 18:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Move

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

• Good move. Actually, on Wikipedia, the adjective forms of most country names do have disambiguation pages: French, German, Spanish, etc. are all disambiguation pages (because the term "Fooish" may refer to a citizen of Fooland; to the Fooish language; or to the Fooish ethnic group), so it makes sense for American to follow the same pattern. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments removed from article area

The following was added to the article, it is reposted here on the talk page (move made by Acjelen 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)):

Indeed the above user is correct in his comment, but he forgot to mention that the use of the word "american" (meaning US citzen) by French, German and Greek are a product of the use of the word which such meaning by the US citizens themselves, which is the misuse in the first place.LtDoc 20:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"América para los Americanos"

The place where a nation sits, ought to be strictly demarked in cartography, is the space on the earth where a culture is common to a group of Homo sapiens, groups that fight between.

So are we still prompt to name a sub continent with the same name of the whole one?, it seems crazy under our natural behavior but eventually it happened.

But today This continent is demographically a majority Spanish talking. Secondly is English, Third place goes for Portuguese, Fourth goes to French, and the fifth I don't know, but we have to mention the creolle, the guarani and the quechua. So when we talk about USA's land it can't be isolated from this relation, Spanish in that country is the second language, by far. And grows.

But, in USA how much of the people is trully "white(germanic-European)"? So what means to be citizen of the USA, be the classic chesse burger, coke, cowboy, star spangled banner, eagled, belled, may flowered,etc.?

Is it possible that this brothers beneath our self sky assume that USA is actually the mix of all the cultures, and primarly the sons of what they call the Latino America nations and the caribbean, also china, Japan and India countries. The yankees are a minority, Texas is Mexico, California is Asia and Mexico, Florida is Cuba-Puerto Rico and other antilles. And the asians are all over the states So where do the American citizens regard their nation place, in the cold New England?

AZTLAN is a hard name to pronounce, for a Yankee.

And Europe is placed in Europe, America is placed in America, to which place are you going to go? Because here we are americans. Tugritch 14:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This Page Is Nothing But Flamebait

I'd call for VfD, except all it would do would bring more attention to this manufactured controversy. When using English, the citizens of the United States of America are called "Americans." The corresponding adjective is "American." This "controversy" is simply a platform to slur a specifc people. The slur attempts to invalidate the self-identity of a people. The use of words such as "USian" in an English context says the people of the United States are too stupid to know what they really are. It says the people of the United States are arrogart and need a comeuppance.

If this was about any other country, then wouldn't be any controversy, in fact those calling to force a name upon the targeted group would be rightfully condemned.

There was no controversy, since meaning from context is clear, and the prefered term is dictated by the language being used, until roughly 2000. Antiamericanism has in recent years been on the rise in Europe and the rest of the world. This resentment has grown since the invasion of Iraq. Those that use such terms as "USian" typically aren't trying to avoid confusion, but rather making a political statement. That agenda can be seen clearly on this very page. For examples, see the original article included at the top of this page, the use of such terms as "the children of Bush", and the comments made by User:LtDoc (specifically his characterization that self-identity can ever be mistaken, and his comments about the people of the United States of America being some how more misinformed than the people of the rest of the world) and 201.252.49.90. 70.106.208.134 08:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Makes me wonder...the Organization of American States is just an American business? Ejrrjs | What? 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So I guess this response is nothing but a flame, huh. Lots of people would say that some people's "self-identity" is itself "confusion," and other people no longer wish to participate in that confusion. If English speakers and Spanish speakers (who outnumber us Anglos by the way) are using the same word to mean completely different things, it's about time to resolve the obvious and real "ambiguity." A subject doesn't have to win the endorsement of a majority of the self-involved citizens of the U.S. to warrant an article in Wikipedia.

Monroe Doctrine and the use of America and American

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

I'm glad you've read your history there Bub, but let me give you another example: Before WWII, one contry in Asia decided to have a go at everyone else and they coined the phrase "Asia for the Asians" Your own history books (including Brittanica and Americana) say the REAL intent there was "Everyone else stay out, because we're claiming this as our own". First question: can you tell me which country that was? Even better, can you tell me which phrase they stole the idea from? Maybe your critics aren't as wrong as you'd like them to be...

History of the word's usage

I don't know if such information exists from a source that will not cause more disagreement, but when I was reading this and associated articles the first and most presistent question that entered my mind was this:

When did American come to predominatly refer to the United States or its people?

Was this a term that was offically adopted by the government of the United States and popularized? Did it stem from European bias in colonizing North America and seeing it as having primary importance? Did it start outside of North America all together and only gain usage in the United States after it was established in Europe and other places? Do we even know? I think this information is a significant hole in the article. Dalf | Talk 18:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that it was first used in the 1700s or so for British people to discuss the British subjects living in North America relative to the British subjects living someplace else. And then I'm sure it likely was used much more often once the Revolutionary War was underfoot. Just an uninformed but reasonable guess. Uris 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy and neutrality

I have kept largely silent on this subject for the last 3 years, but I feel now may be a good time to weigh in on the issue. I have helped settle a number of Wikipedia:naming disputes for European and Asian countries. Now I shall turn my attention to an issue closer to home.

First of all, I find it unfortunate that no one has mentioned the Spanish word norteamericano -- sorry, I don't know where the accent(s) go. I have started studying Spanish, and the first lesson in Pimsleur's Spanish explains that Latin Americans when speaking Spanish generally refer to people from the United States as norteamericano (literally, North American).

Note that the English term North America has two distinct meanings:

1. geographically, it refers to Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and all the countries of Central America. In this context, it is used in contrast to South America, which begins with Columbia and continues all the way down to the southern tip.
2. socially, culturally, or politically, it can have other meanings than the purely geographical one.

Seen as two continents, therefore, "America" consists of the North American continent and the South American continent. in a geographical context in English there is no ambiguity here.

With me so far?

In contexts other than the purely geographical one of referring to continents, the meaning of the English words America and America are harder to pin down. I think it depends on context.

In a political context, in an English news story in the London Times or on the BBC (TV, radio or web site), American almost always refers to the United States. But maybe some people chafe at this usage, and maybe some activists want to change this usage.

In a linguistic or cultural context, the Spanish term norteamericano clearly 'is never intended to include Mexico or any other part of Latin America north of the equator. The Americas are divided lingusitically (and probably also culturally) into:

1. North America: Canada and the US
2. Latin America: Mexico, Central America, & South America

Is all of this correct? Uncle Ed 20:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

In fact you are wrong, if you are saying that the "americas" are divided linguistically, you should speak of "latin america" and "Anglo America", instead of "North America" --Yaddar 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the most common term, at least in Mexico, is ESTADOUNIDENSE. It may actually be because of Mexico being part of the region denominated as North America, however the use of norteamericano, as you stated, is generally used for US residents or Canadians. An interesting factor is that "South America" (according to US-based geography that insists splitting one continent into two) actually begins north of the equator. 10:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Er, it's not just U.S. geography that divides one continent into two. Your own school divided one continent into Europe and Asia, did it not? Please justify how North America and South America are not two different continents, but Europe and Asia are. Betcha can't do it! Uris 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Uris, please check my first post on "America is a continent" here in this section --Yaddar 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

American and americano are two different words!

see False Friends

The cause of all this trouble is that people think we are all talking about the same word but there really are two different words -- American and americano.

In all English-speaking countries, the word "American" is used pretty much exclusively to refer to the United States. It is the English speaking community (not just the USA but also the UK, Canada, Austalia, New Zealand and others) who have determined this interpretation of this word.

Spanish has a different yet similar sounding word -- americano which refers to some one or something from the Americas. For Spanish speakers, América is one single continent; they regard North and South America as subcontinents at best (try to convince them otherwise and they'll always bring up the Olympic flag).

In the English speaking world, the consensus is that the English word "American" means someone from the United States. In the Spanish speaking world, the consensus is that the Spanish word americano means someone from the Americas. Both are correct because each side has the right to define their own words to mean what they want them to mean.

Another case that illustrates the point is the difference between the English word "discussion" and the Spanish word discusión -- these are what are refered to as false friends. In English, "discussion" is an extended conversation about a particular topic whereas in Spanish, discusión is a dispute or arguement. If I'm speaking in Spanish, it would be ludicrous for me to insist on using discusión to refer to a friendly conversation just because I use a similar sounding word in English which has this meaning. Likewise, a Spanish speaker has no basis to demand that a discussion must be conflictive just because that's how he uses a similar word in Spanish.

I can certainly understand why Latin Americans resent the use of the word "American" and being from New Zealand, I share some of their suspicion of US cultural imperialism. But at the end of the day, if you are choosing to communicate in a second language, you must respect the norms and usage that have been determined by native speakers. This is why I have never and will never use americano to refer to someone from the United States.--GringoInChile 22:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In Spanish, you have americano for the inhabitant of some country of the Americas (in English, American, as in Organization of American States) and estadounidense for the, well, American people. These two meanings of American appear in all English dictionaries. What is all the fuss about? Ejrrjs | What? 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

From the Spanish point of view, they don't think they are causing the fuss because, as you mention, Spanish has two seperate terms for the two concepts. Their objections come from the fact that in English there is only one word to cover the two concepts and they strongly object to the use of "American" when it only applies to a subset of the continent. Furthermore, it is true that the English word "American" is used in the context refering to all of the the Americas when used in the Organization of American States. But this is the only time I've seen "American" used in this context and I suspect that the Latin American countries that numerically dominate the OAS have, for politicaly correct reasons, been able to impose this interpretation on the English name.--GringoInChile 04:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's an organization of states owned by the Americans, eh? Canada didn't join until we had a Tory government that wanted to be owned by the States. Anyway, I'm a Canadian, I'm not an American, and don't nobody try to tell me I am.

And what's this stuff about the terms North American and South American being rare? I hear them every day. John FitzGerald 15:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That's 'cause you're Canadian. In Canada, people say things like "North American English" and "North American dream" when everyone else in the world would just call it plain American (i.e. US) English and American (i.e. US) dream.

North American Air Defence Command, North American Free Trade Agreement. And South American certainly isn't rare. John FitzGerald 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's rather egocentric of the Hispanics to expect America to change its name to accomodate their bias. It's just as presumptuous as an American (yes, that means US citizen) demanding that the name of the South American continent be changed instead, and we'll keep "America" for ourselves. It's ironic that in the act of acusing America of egocentrism, they are guilty of propounding an even greater egocentrism of their own.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether we should change inoffensive English usage simply because a few people here claim it's offensive, although they aeem to be unwilling to provide any evidence that any significant number of people finds it offensive (my request below for evidence was repudiated as irrelevant and petty). A related issue which the proponents of a change repeatedly ignore is that their recommended usage would definitely be offensive. I am a Canadian and Canadians do not want to be considered Americans. The rest of their arguments seem to be largely ethnocentric – what they were taught in school is right and what English-speaking people are taught in school is wrong – case closed.

I'm open to real arguments for this recommended change, but its proponents seem unwilling to provide them and unable to resist calling anyone who disagrees with them ignorant or stupid. Funny behaviour from people who want to minimize offence. John FitzGerald 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Monotany

This article repeats itself at least three times, and I only got about half-way through it. However, I frankly don't care enough about the topic to sort everything out. I would suggest, though, that someone with loads of extra time on their hands do something about it. Canaen 06:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the exact same thing; several phrases are repeated almost exactly and several sections are redundant. 131.238.103.211 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved this article here from American, which then became a disambiguation page, because Wikipedia needed a place for information on the debate over the use of the words "America" and "American". Before that, the article tried to describe a great number of contradictory things from a range of perspectives as what American was. It seemed to me that the American space could serve both an informative and a directive purpose as a tight disambiguation page. People want to contribute to the debate about who can claim American and to discuss that debate. If the time has come for a re-write of this page, one should remember that Wikipedia users will continue to make their own contributions subsequently. -Acjelen 22:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Countries with "United States" in their name

The article stated, under section 1:

Additionally, several nations, including Mexico and Brazil, have the term "United States" in their official names.

I modified this in two ways: one, noting that Brazil doesn't bear that name anymore; two, removing the "several"; I don't know of any other countries with "United States" in their names, and couldn't find any in a quick search -- that, of course, is not to say there aren't any, but I thought it'd be safer to remove the "several" from the sentence. That said, if there really aren't any others, and being that Brazil hasn't had that name for a long time, maybe that part of the text deserves a greater restructuring. Any ideas/advice/opinions? --Cotoco 08:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia: The Virgin Islands of the United States is another "country" name with the United States in it. Another divided archipelago is the Samoan Islands, of which the US-controlled part styles itself American Samoa (or, extremely rarely, Eastern Samoa), but never United States' Samoa or Samoa of the United States. //Big Adamsky 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the Virgin Islands of the United States are an unincorporated territory of the United States, not a country. And considering they only have "United States" in the name because they are a territory of the United States of America, what's your point?DougOfDoom 17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No point in particular, Douggie. Compare country with state and nation. Cheeeers. =J //Big Adamsky 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Mexico is called "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" which could be translated as Mexican United States or United States of Mexico. But that is because one of the first constitutions was practically copied from the U.S.A. so they just changed 'America' to 'Mexico'. The funny thing is that the official name stuck to our days. 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Let me tell you that Mexican constituction differs from U.S. constitution in the first moment since Mexican one abolished slavery, and one of the first rights for a mexican inhabitant is to be free and equal to others. Every slave being in Mexico becomes free just for the sake of being on mexican territory. Is silly that you think that mexican constitutions are a copy from U.S one.

Mario

• Colombias name for a period was also Estados Unidos de Colombia, and I could swear off the top of my head there may have been at least another one or two countries in the Americas that had United States as well.

A Simpler Take On This

I don't believe I've ever run into a US citizen who, when asked which country he lives in, answers, "America." In order of usage frequency, the answer will be, "the U.S.," "the United States," or "the United Sates of America." US citizens, in other words, prefer to think of the name of their country as the "United States."

This becomes problematic in the english language, though, when a statement calls for an adjective form of the country name. "United States" is not a Proper Name (like Canada or Mexico) but a descriptive phrase (a plural noun preceded by an adjective) and there is no mechanism in english to make this an adjective. The term "United Statesian," sounds completely wrong in english (because it is) and that is why it is never used (at least not enough to become common/accepted). It is simply a result of language that US citizens therefore use the word "American." Paul 1:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you there. Many (US) Americans use the word "America" as a location. "Welcome to America", "I love America", and, indeed, "I'm from America". But such usage is by no means restricted to the USA; if an Englishman says "I have a cousin who lives in America", no one would think that he means Cuba or Canada. But look, this whole page is ridiculous. I think this all falls under WP:POINT, n'est-ce pas? This is an English-language encyclopedia. No English-speaking person types in "America" or "American" meaning anything other than United States of America or from the United States of America, respectively. Anyone claiming otherwise is just a disingenuous pettifogger with nothing better to do. Get a life, people.

Wow, a down-right pettifogger? Well, at any rate I would doubt that a Belizean or a Falkland Islander is ever going to self-describe as "an American". And the same goes for non-Anglophone neighbours of the US'ers aka Americans (Cubans, Mexicans, etc) simply because the word has become too closely associated with one country (see also Canadian identity and U.S.-Canada relations). I guess the Spanish language cognate América conveys a slightly broader meaning that challenges this "monopoly of meaning". In non-Iberian languages, such as Farsi or Hebrew "Amerika" is commonly understood to mean the US. Furthermore, I think this whole debate on prescriptive usage is too often fueled by arguments of etymology and semantic (il)logic, reminiscent of those hefty rows over how one ought to correctly use the words Latin American/Latino or Anti-Semitic. See also Hyphenated American and Mexican American(!). //Big Adamsky 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a great number of Americans, (see?) refer to the United States of America colloquially as simply "America". Much in the same way people don't call Mexico "The United States" (even though it is officially "The United Mexican States," because United States is a near-universally accepted term for the self-described "United States of America" (would you argue that name is invalid because the "United Mexican States" is also located on North America?), you don't use the term "America" to describe anything other than the USA. It just isn't how English works. If one means North America, one says "North America". If one means South America, one says "South America". If one means both, one says "The Americas". But if one uses the term America in the way nearly everyone in the English-speaking world does, one is referring to a union of fifty states, forty-eight of which are located between the largest land mass in the Commonwealth of Nations and the northernmost nation West of the Atlantic Ocean whose dominant language is Spanish. But wouldn't it be easier to say that the United States of America, the United States, the US, the USA, or yes, even America, is (mostly) south of Canada and North of Mexico? Many people refer to the European Union simply as "Europe," does that bother anyone? The usage of "American" and "America" came from the fact that the British referred to inhabitants of their colonies in the Americas as Americans. At the time of its inception, the United States of America was the only independent English-speaking nation in the Americas, so it made sense to call itself, informally, "America". And considering this historical usage and the fact that the USA is the only nation in the Americas whose name is simply an amalgamation of its political structure and the word "America." Why call someone from Canada an American? It makes for confusion because the word American is almost exclusively used to describe something a Canadian is not, in addition to the fact that one could simply call this person a Canadian. For the same reasons, when I was touring the "State" of Israel last year and told a member of its Air Force, upon being asked where I was from, that I was from "the States", there was no confusion. I would bet that, when speaking in English to one who speaks English, therw would be no ambiguity in referring to the United States of America as the latter, as the USA, as the US, as the States, or as America. This usage of "American" is an accepted evolution of the English language, and while it may be disputed by people of other nations in the Americas, it is generally NOT disputed by people of other English-speaking countries, and for a good reason: that's what people mean when they use it! Have you a better adjective for a citizen of the United States of America?DougOfDoom 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you a better one for someone born or living in the Americas? User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, this isn't a matter of American hubris, this is a matter of symantics. You define a word to mean what's meant when it's said. And yes, I have a better word for someone born or living in the Americas. A Canadian is a Canadian, a Venezuelan is a Venezuelan, a Panamanian is a Panamanian, a Cuban is a Cuban, a Brazilian is a Brazilian, and an American is an American. I agree that this is a peculiarity of the English language, to say the least, but the fact remains that both the history and the usage are there. I notice that those who complain about this usage are not from English-speaking countries; this makes sense, because this usage of "American" doesn't translate into other languages. But in English, though I see the conflict, of course, it does make sense. And considering that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, the article should reflect ACTUAL use of the word "American" in English. And in English, "American" means "someone from the United States of America" or "of or pertaining to the United States of America." The point is, like it or not, this is what it means when people (SPEAKING ENGLISH, this isn't a translingual term) say American.DougOfDoom 17:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, every dictionary I've checked mentions both meanings for American...and a couple more. For example: Merriam Webster online User:Ejrrjs says What? 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Symantics is both syntax/semantics?

I myself was born and live in Venezuela, and I consider myself American, in public schools they teach us that we are American also just like someone who was born in Germany or France are European. The issue here is the people from the US feel like us those who also feel American (and are in fact American also) are trying to steal their identity which is completely false if you don't want us to be American also just nuke all of the countries in the americas and be done with it. Unfortunately most of English wikipedia is ran / edited by US nationals and as such will find much controversy about this issue with them not being able to accept that those poorer, black, hispanic, indigenous people from the south and those frenchy, weird people from the north are Americans alsoDamianFinol 13:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to welcome a Venzuelan-American to the discussion. Do give us some examples of how your friends use "American" in a sentence when they talk about themselves. Rjensen 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Same way the french, german or spaniard talk about themselves being "European" ; to make my (and those who supoprt me) point I'll give ya an example: If there were a country in Europe named "United States of Europe" or "Confederation of Europe" or "European States" would that render French, German, Spain, British/Wale/Sctoland/Irish/Portuguese/Italian nationals to stop being called "European"?. Don't think so.DamianFinol

Good point. Of course the French etc rarely speak of themselves as Europeans. On the other hand folks in the US speak of themselves as "Americans" every day. Rjensen 19:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's up to their culture, however just because they don't believe they are european doesn't make them extraterrestrials; IE my skin color is brown, It wouldn't matter if I believe with all my heart that I'm green, others would see me as brown. In this case it doesn't matter what the people in the US or the English language believes /states (even though American means from the Americas in a lot of dictionaries) people that live in the Americas CAN use the Americans name and expecting otherwise it's just a very imperialist and egocentric pov.DamianFinol 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We agree: people can call themselves whatever they want, and others should respect that choice. People in USA have been calling themselves "Americans" for 230 years so I suppose we can expect others to respect that terminology. Rjensen 22:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree, however saying that others from the American continent cannot be called "American" is incorrect, and saying that all "Americans" live in the US is also incorrect; again context should be adjusted to reflect this to many in the American continent (specially Latin Americans) being stripped of the "American" noun is insulting for comparison purposes: calling Mexican to any hispanic, Chinese to anyone from Asia or the "N" word to any Black person hence the controversy of the use of this in context. "American is killed in Iraq" is fine "American troops present in Iraq" is wrong when referring solely to US troops, right when referring to US/Canadian/Mexican/etc troops. I think context should determine whether the use of American is good or US National/Citizen should be used. Small edit: In most international airports in the US (like MIA) there are two sides on immigration one for "Immigrants" the other for "US Citizens" (I'm quoting the signs), why the use of "US Citizen" and not "Americans" on the federal level?DamianFinol 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Rjensen: People elsewhere have been calling themselves "Americans" for a longer time than 230 years. It's OK for U.S. Americans to call themselves Americans, the problem is diminishing other's right to do so (For example by appropriation). Have you ever seen a banner or bumper sticker that reads,

God Bless America! [Flag of United States of America] ?

How would you feel if you saw the same banner everywhere, instead with a flag of Mexico, or Argentina? Would you feel that your right to that aspect of your identity was being denied or stolen? (I'm assuming you are an U.S. American). It seems non-issue until you examine the other POV. --Deepstratagem 09:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely :)DamianFinol 16:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to the false statement: "People elsewhere have been calling themselves "Americans" for a longer time than 230 years. " That is not true, and no one on this page has found any evidence that anyone else called themselves American before 1800. Do you have evidence?? The dictionary compilers have been collecting the evidence. You might try the Oxford English Dictionary (which is online at most colleges) or the Century Dictionary (which is online free at http://www.global-language.com/CENTURY/ Rjensen 17:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary you cited is only a century old.* The Spanish conquered much of America in the late 1400's and the early 1500's; long before the British set foot on the continent. The inhabitants were already being referred to as Americans, including the Spanish Creoles (Spanish people born and raised in America) whose colonies the Spanish began to tax. Creoles were synonymous with Spanish American. It is difficult to find primary sources on the internet, but I found a letter written in 1799**, published in 1801, written to Spanish Americans (in the Spanish colonies) collectively. Since the letter has a persuasive tone of voice targeted toward "Spanish Americans" I doubt the author would choose a term that the audience would not identify with. Peralta Barnuevo, 1664-1743, of Perú described his creole people as Spanish Americans. An Encarta article*** on the Spanish Empire refers to the Spanish colonists in America through the 18th century as Americans.

* And published in the U.S.A.; Bias? Additionally, the first definition (and thus main definition, doesn't specifically refer to the United States of America.

** Letter to Spanish Americans 1799 this document contains an explanation (translatable through google) and two images of the letters, one in French and one in Spanish. A pdf is also available from the University of Montreal.

*** Encarta Spanish Empire. Of particular interest is Shifting Identities.

--Deepstratagem 12:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

People in Venezuela are welcome to call themselves Americans on an everyday basis. Or Venezuelan Americans. Or, like the 1799 letter, Spanish Americans. No problem at all. But please don't complain when people in USA call themselves Americans. Rjensen 17:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said? to make it short what I'm upset about is that the US nationals/citizens rpetend to be the ONLY Americans or the only people who can hold the noun AMERICANS. Please read what I say and don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.DamianFinol.

The good news is that it is false to say that. :) Somebody is pulling your leg, and I guess thelegs of all Venezuela-Americans. Rjensen 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a term that does not translate with the same meaning, but in English, "American" refers to the United States of America, period. DougOfDoom 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. Read any dictionary. For example: this one. User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If people outside the United States want to call themselves Americans, more power to them. I don't know of any English-speaking people outside the United States who call themselves Americans, though. Certainly English Canadians don't. This is the English Wikipedia, the meaning of American in English is clear, and the only time it should be avoided is when it is ambiguous. As I've noted on another of the many pages devoted to this tedious topic, I don't go to the French Wikipedia and tell them that they're insulting me because they use anglosaxon to mean something it doesn't mean in English (or, in fact. in any reasonable assessment of reality). It's their language, they can use words to mean whatever they want. Nor do I feel insulted by this usage, although like many English Canadians I am sometimes taken aback when all English Canadians (of Ukraininan, Irish, Scots, etc. descent) are described as Anglo-Saxon. John FitzGerald 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was on vacation in America-errr the United States of America one summer. I heard this song on the radio on the fourth of July

Well I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free!

Somehow I doubt most other Americanos would sing that with the same vim and vigour! HA! --chad 10:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Historically Provocative Language

This article refers to the founders of the United States as "rebels." This violates the Neutral Point of View policy, and generally common sense. Why refer to the founders of a continuously existing government that has since been recognized by, to the best of my knowledge, every sovereign nation and diplomatic authority, as rebels?DougOfDoom 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to open a can of worms here, but well, they WERE rebels to the English Crown :P, it's just that history is written by winners so they are seen as heroes (Not that I'm saying they shouldn't be)DamianFinol 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The founders of the United States were revolutionaries, not rebels, as George Woodcock has argued. They were motivated by a revolutionary ideology. At any rate, the description of them as rebels seems clearly POV to me. And unnecessary. John FitzGerald 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree (partially) with DamianFinol on this point. The original European settlers and their descendants who declared their independence from the English state were not so much revolutionaries in the 'common' usage of the term (i.e., a group dedicated to the overthrow of their current government and/or conversion to another form, such as from, say, a democracy to a despotism) but, rather, an overseas colony 'rebelling' against their homeland. It was a war of independence from England, not a civil war or, really, a revolutionary war. The term revolutionary in its most common form means 'radically new or different from the commonly accepted norm' and, really, this wasn't the case with the War of Independence. In any case, are people really to be restricted from using words in any language, whichever it is? This should only really be the case where the word itself is used in a manner that is obviously designed to give offence or is used in a way which either contradicts the most common usage of the term in its native language and/or is not clearly understandable, due to a vague definition or any other reason. The term 'rebel' is, in the opinion of a native English citizen, NPOV enough itself. It was obviously not used as an insult or in a way that would suggest prejudice against the 'American' (in the most common Standard English usage of the term) seceding states and is an unbiased noun in Standard English as spoken by some three hundred and ninety million people worldwide. Lastly, I really do think that this entire discussion page should be read thoroughly by all the various factions in the battle of words and, in that way, perhaps they will see just how much of a waste of time it all is. As has been pointed out innumerable times, this is the Standard English Wikipedia, with a potential user base of some three hundred and ninety million people. Supposing that, oh, say a third of these were asked whether they considered the term 'American', in the regard of a citizen of the United States of America, to be nationalist or in any way biased and there would likely only be a small proportion of the total surveyed that would answer in the positive. Human language and, indeed, humanity itself, has a huge scope for error and misunderstanding. Who can really say, with absolute one hundred percent certainty, that 'this word' means 'this definition' to an alien being, whether human or extraterrestrial? Humans strive for ultimate knowledge and understanding and it is, indeed, their self-appointed task, but this goal does not neccessarily have to include absolute precision or even absolute accuracy which, given the diversity of humanity and its linguistic systems, is almost impossible. Now, take all this from a 14 year old English student and get a bit of rest. --Lord Akria 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Real Debate Is About America, Not "American"

This debate on whether "Americans" are really Americans or something that no one ever heard of is really a debate about American power and an expression of non-Americans' resentment of it. Nothing would change if the word were "Thugglemuffit."

It's an expression of some non-Americans' resentment of it. For one thing, English and French-speaking non-Americans don't seem to have a problem with the usage. Canadians, for example, have no desire to be called Americans. I'd like some time to see some evidence of just how widespread the view is that the English usage of American is insulting – citations of scholarly articles, articles in prominent newspapers, etc. I suspect very few non-English-speaking non-Americans think we English-speakers should change the way we define terms to conform to the way they define them. I also think it's more offensive to go about Wikipedia editing articles to make English usage conform to Spanish or Portuguese usage. John FitzGerald 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This whole thing is a big fuss caused by Spanish and Portuguese people who want to impose meanings from their own languages onto the English language. This is the English Wikipedia, fact, and in English, American means someone from the United States, fact. What it means in Spanish and Portuguese really doesn't much matter here, fact. Uris 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are smart. Can you type more useless sentences and randomly insert the word "fact"? It sounds ridiculous. and it's making me laugh. Wait, this isn't the Japanese Wikipedia? --Deepstratagem 04:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You, on the other hand, are not. Uris 05:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue is that both the continent and the nation go by the same name. Just because you haven't heard about this until you browsed Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's an obscure fact. No one is trying to appropriate "your" name. They'd just like you to accept that it has been used elsewise since the naming of the continent. Any English dictionary shows that the word has multiple meanings and even the international scientific community uses it in taxonomical nomenclature to name species found everywhere in north and south America. The argument that the word American may differ from the word americano is valid, but again, look at the primary definition of any English-language dictionary. This matter lies beyond language differences. If you accept the geography of the continent (or continents, if you wish) then you must also accept that the people living there can be described by the name of the continent. Are Moroccans less African than South Africans? Are Mexicans less American than U.S. Americans? It's the same land mass no matter what language you speak. Draw a Venn Diagram. --Deepstratagem 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

Wrong! The continents go by North America and South America. Where is there a continent called America in the English language? It does not exist. Not to mention, by your logic, are people from the U.S. less English than the people from England? Why then are the British people called English and the U.S. people not even though they both speak the same language? Uris 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind reading what I wrote? I said "...continent (or continents...)". How are you disagreeing with me? Are the British English and U.S. Americans residing in the same continent? --Deepstratagem 04:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do they speak the same language? It's a parallel argument to what you wrote. The fact that you wrote "continent (or continents)" shows that you have no understanding of what the continents are named in the English language, or even that there are more than one of them. Is it one continent or two to English speakers? Let's get you on record. Uris 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be a good corruption of the argument that I wrote (but it is certainly no parallel: it doesn't matter if they speak the same language, because Moroccans don't speak Afrikaans, yet they are still African), but you still didn't answer the question. How are you disagreeing with me? Am I confused? no, when I say "continent or continents" I am recognizing that you believe there are two continents and allowing you to continue making your argument under that assumption. --Deepstratagem 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact, not an assumption. Again, "America" does not exist as a continent in the English language. Mexicans and Americans are equally North Americans, as both reside in North America. What does this have to do with Americans? Calling anyone from North America or South America an American is analogous to calling anyone from Europe or Asia a Eurasian. Do you do that, too? Uris 05:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, do I have to educate you on the word assumption in your own language? facts can be assumptions. You answered your own question, but I'll walk you through the answer in case you missed it. Think in terms of venn diagrams. Now look at a map of Florida. Split Florida as many times as you want in any proportion you like. Label some of those sections North Florida. Now label some of those sections South Florida. Pick any section and travel there. Ask a South Floridian if he or she is a Floridian. What did he or she say? You see, it doesn't matter if they are south or north Floridians, because they are still Floridians after their state of residence. Therefore an American is an American whether they are in the southern part of America or the northern. When something is considered "south of something" it is also considered part of that something. Do you understand now, or do I need to clarify in simpler terms? --Deepstratagem 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You are condescending and incorrect, but I'll humor you. Surely you see that Florida is a state, while America is not a continent. See the difference yet? North America and South America are not northern and southern parts of the same continent. Sure, people from any part of Florida, a singular state, are Floridians. Can you use the same example using two distinctly different places? Folks from North Dakota and South Dakota are not Dakotans, are they? Those from North Carolina and South Carolina are not Carolinians. Uris 06:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't call themselves Dakotans but they are. Again, look at a dictionary. Yes, I am condescending, because the underlying theme is that when something is the south part of something, it is part of that something regardless of what it is. Even little kids can understand that. --Deepstratagem 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrectly asserting that North America is not a continent, but rather the northern part of a "super-continent" named America. Even kids know that America is not a singular continent. By the way, I checked the dictionary as you instructed and people from South Dakota are not called Dakotans. You say they are, even if they don't use the word and the dictionary also disagrees with you. But you say they are, so I guess that must be right. Uris 06:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't assert that. I implied it. "Even kids know that America is not a singular continent"... lol, is that a fact, too? Ask any kid in "South America" and in some of what you consider "North America" and they'll say otherwise. But that is not the point. If you can't understand how a part relates to the whole then this argument is pointless. --Deepstratagem 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

North America is part of a greater continent called America? Again, no. Not in English schools, be they in the United States or Canada or the United Kingdom or Australia. These kids in South America, are they taught in English? Or Spanish? This would seem to be an example of a Spanish speaker imposing meanings from his own language on English speakers, on the English Wikipedia. Uris 06:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are generally taught in both Spanish and English. But again, that is beside the point. In the English language as in ANY language, when something is described as the southern part of something it is part of that something. The south pole is as much a part of the earth as the north pole. --Deepstratagem 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, no schools in English-speaking countries teach that America is one super-continent for South America to be the southern "part" of. And not to rub it in, but North Dakota and South Dakota are not part of one super-state called Dakota. At least not to anyone except, well, you, as you grasp at straws to defend a failed argument. Uris 07:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been explaining the same simple mathematical concept to you in describing a landmass or set of landmasses (in different ways so that you may grasp it's meaning). I didn't claim North and South Dakota formed a super-state. I'm claiming they are part of something larger which can be described by something they have in common, just like any other physical or geographical entity. Do you always believe what your teachers taught you or do you ever think for yourself? --Deepstratagem 07:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

North Dakota and South Dakota are part of something larger? Interesting... tell me more! What do they call this larger entity? Uris 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they not? For one, they are part of the United States. They are part of what you call North America. As a consequence, they are part of America. Can I go on? Formerly they were called the Dakota Territory. Get it yet? --Deepstratagem 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I get it! So these people from North Dakota and South Dakota are collectively called Dakotans, I suppose? Uris 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, but they could be described as such. --Deepstratagem 07:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says, you? Because the dictionary says otherwise. At this time I must ask you to cite a source, or admit that you are wrong. Uris 07:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say they are called Dakotans. I said they can be described as such. There is no conflict between your dictionary and what I said. --Deepstratagem 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Come up with that source saying they can be described as such? I'll wait right here. Uris 07:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason. --Deepstratagem 07:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote a random word, not a source. You have to cite a source. What's the URL or page number of this "Reason" book or "Reason" article? Or maybe it's true because you say so, which is fine but doesn't really work for us here on Wikipedia. Uris 07:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I guess Dakotan can't be used to refer to someone from either North Dakota or South Dakota afterall. Who knew? Uris 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one's going to provide that evidence I asked for, eh? All we're getting is more and more assertions that English-speaking people are either stupid or vicious. Until we get evidence of the type I asked for I'm going to assume this "controversy" has been made up out of whole cloth.

I think the proponents of a single continent called America need to read the part of the article about essentialism. Spanish-language dictionaries and atlases are no more arbiters of Truth than English-language ones are. As well as not showing us evidence that speakers of other languages find English usage insulting, no one has shown us any other kind of reason why Spanish or Portuguese usage is superior to English. Distinguishing the North American continent from the South American continent insults no one who isn't looking for a reason to be insulted. It also doesn't stop anyone who speaks another language from calling themselves American. There is no reason why all languages should use the same meanings of words, or even that speakers of the same language should use the same meanings. Speakers of British and American English define many words differently. Do we now have to fight over which of those alternative meanings is supposedly superior? John FitzGerald 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously missed the entire last section then. Besides, just because no one has bothered to reply to you in the last two days, doesn't mean that the evidence (to your petty demands) doesn't exist, or that it is even relevant. A landmass is still a landmass in any language, just as red is still red in any language. Extrapolate from that an adjective derived from the landmass(es) and you get what you were asking for. --Deepstratagem 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So the evidence which might persuade me may exist but you're not going to bother yourself to produce it. Then you misrepresent my statement saying I'd like to see some evidence as a "demand." Then you characterize the issue of the existence of a phenomenon you're adducing as a reason to change the way every anglophone speaks his or her native language as "petty" and possibly irrelevant. Then you go back to the same essentialism I suggested you read about. And red is not red in any language, as a little study of linguistics and psychology would tell you. John FitzGerald 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I overstated your desire for evidence as a demand. What I mean is that you are asking for irrelevant evidence. Why don't you show us some evidence that the word American as is generally used everywhere else is offensive to U.S. Americans, Singaporeans, New Zealanders, Australians and the English? What does such evidence do? Red is the same wavelength everywhere you go, call it what you may... Physics and Psychology are not incompatible. --Deepstratagem 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And isn't this an example of what I've been talking about? A request for evidence is met with abuse and by deductions from false premisses – that a single landmass is always a single continent and that colour definitions are the same in all languages. John FitzGerald 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What abuse? And where do I claim a single landmass is always is a single continent (isn't that your contention?). You are misrepresenting my statement: I don't claim color definitions are the same in all languages. I said "red is still red in any language." --Deepstratagem 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

For linguistic differences in colour perception see Color#Cultural_influences. John FitzGerald 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your link hardly discusses the psychology behind color. Just because a culture doesn't have a name for a color doesn't mean the members of the culture don't perceive that wavelength. In fact Biopsychology tells you that they do. --Deepstratagem 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "A landmass is a landmass in any language." The implication is clearly that North and South America are a single landmass and hence a single continent. However, Europe, Asia, and Africa are a single landmass and three continents. if that wasn't your implication, please clarify it.

And you wrote "red is still red in any language," not that people who speak different languages perceive the same wavelengths. Even if you had written the latter, it's beside the point, since it has nothing to do with language. Colours are defined differently in different languages, just as continents are.

And calling someone petty and demanding is abusive, especially when what he asked for is crucial to a discussion of the issue. You appear to be arguing that our usage is offensive regardless of whether there's any evidence that it's a serious source of offence. And how about the point you and similarly minded people here keep avoiding – that your recommended usage would be offensive (to Canadians, for example)? Or are all Canadians petty, and not just me? John FitzGerald 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've been advised that Wikipedia prefers that you not reply within another person's text. I used to do it myself, but replting in a single spot makes it easier to follow the argument.

I assumed each of your signatures signified a different idea (or thread) and that is why I replied there. I thought indentation was the standard modus operandi. However, the way you suggested makes sense.

I did not call anyone petty and demanding. I described the demands put forth and the quick dismissal (implication that because no one has yet posted such evidence in the space of two days that there isn't any) as petty. Nevertheless, I apologize if I was in any way abusive to you. As for Canadians, I think they'd rather not be associated with the word American given the new number of negative connotations associated with it (especially post-Bush election), however I do know several Canadians who would self describe as Americans in the right context. As for evidence that the use of the word in exclusion to the rest of the "Americas" is offensive, this discussion and the article (for their mere existence) are good place to start.

You are correct in writing that I was (unintentionally) ambiguous regarding red being red in any language. To clarify, I do mean that a particular color is still perceivable no matter what language you speak, just as a particular landmass is still perceivable no matter what language you speak. When I write "landmass" I mean both the singular and the plural (since I am speaking generally). And when you say this has nothing to do with a particular language, that is precisely my point.

Yes, continents are defined differently in different languages. That's very clear by now. However, in English an adjective describes a noun; and in English "south" is an adjective like "north", "central" and "latin". Such are the adjectives qualifying America. So regardless of whether you believe there are one or two continents, this continent, "America" or super-set of continents "Americas" have something in common: people who can (by the rules of grammar) be described as American (the adjectival form of the noun America).

Since I'm almost sure Uris would like to point out (ad nauseam) that North and South Dakotans "absolutely cannot be described as Dakotan", I'd like to point him in advance to the following google search so he can do his own research: "dakotans -north -south" (no quotation marks). There are at least 700 sources (but one will suffice - Minnesotans and Dakotans enter Yale Class...) which serve as examples that North and South Dakotans are at times called Dakotans.

As for insulting English speakers, we would never do that. We speak English, too. --Deepstratagem 09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I won't ignore your request for evidence that the use of the word American in exclusion of people from "the Americas" may be found offensive in the "Americas". --Deepstratagem 09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My observation about interrupting text was based on hasty observation (I was in a rush) and unjustified, so I apologize for wasting your time with it. It was not intended to be insulting but I realized later it could be taken that way. I did get called on that myself so I'm perhaps hypersensitive to it.

Thanks for the apology. I think part of the problem on this page is that there's more heat than light. I still don't see my request as petty, though. For example, I live in a city many of whose residents were born in South America, I worked in the school system for a long time, I still know many people who work in the school system, I follow educational issues, and I have never heard of any suggestion from anyone that the schools adopt your definition of America in geography or English class. In other words, I have no reason to believe that this usage is a serious source of concern. You might think that people originally from other countries would be reticent to suggest that, but reticence is not common here. Furthermore, there are many native-born Canadians of Soth American descent who wouldn't feel reticent. Adn it is an educational issue, which also should make people less reticent.

As for my only waiting two days for evidence, my point was that the post in which I made the request led to a lot of entries from you, in none of which you addressed my request.

As for a particular colour being perceivable no matter what language you speak, you again seem to be missing the point. Colours probably are "perceivable" (I'm using quotation marks to emphasize this is the word you used, not to question its appropriateness) by speakers of all languages, but the languages they speak do not define colours the same way.

As for landmasses being perceivable in all languages, well sure. But I don't see the point When I go to Niagara Falls, I perceive the same falls the Americans do, but I call them the Canadian and American Falls and they call them the Horsehoe and Niagara Falls. Should I demand that Americans change the name of the Horseshoe Falls to Canadian Falls because they're trying to ignore Canadians? Many Canadians would tell you tht the name Horsehoe Falls is used to disguise the fact that the bigger falls are in Canada. My answer to that question is no, they shouldn't. In the absence of any supporting evidence that Americans' choice of words is abusive, why would I demand that? Similarly, I'm unaware of any evidence of American attitudes you could provide which would confirm that the use of American in English is abusive.

Yes, Americans have condescending attitudes towards Canadians in general. However, for the most part that works in Canadians' favour. When it doesn't, I think there are more important issues to be worried about than the names Americans give to things.

Yes "this continent, "America" or super-set of continents "Americas" have something in common: people who can (by the rules of grammar) be described as American (the adjectival form of the noun America)." On the other hand, they can also be described in other ways, and we English speakers have chosen to describe them in another way. When I look at a map of the western hemisphere I see two large landmasses joined by an isthmus. Considering them to be two continents doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

As I have said repeatedly, no one's preventing anyone from calling themselves American. If Spanish and Portuguese speakers want to conceive of North and South America as a single continent all of whose residents are American, that's fine with me and I'm sure it's fine with almost every other native speaker of English. If they want to insist that my usage is part of a campaign to vilify them, then they're wrong. I was taught in school that there are two continents in the western hemisphere, but not that Americans are called Americans so we can demean South Americans.

Now, Hispanic Americans have been demeaned by other Americans, just as English and French Canadians demean each other, and as pretty well every people demeans every other people. However, I doubt that disputes over the number of continents in the western hemisphere figure largely in Hispanic American consciousness. I'm open to correction on that point, of course, but first someone has to show me some objective evidence that I need to correct that view.

Canadians' unwillingness to be described as American goes back farther than the Bush adminstration. Ontario was largely settled by refugees from the post-revolutionary U. S. The United States invaded us in 1812 with the goal of taking what is now southern Ontario for its own. As late as the 1860s the United States was trying to arrange to take over southern Ontario. It supported the Fenian raids. It conspired with the United Kingdom to take territory from us in the Alaska Boundary Dispute. Even today the chief duty of the American ambassador to Canada seems to be to go around the country telling us what assholes we are. Etc. The only context, as you call it, that I know of in which most Canadians would be willing to be called American would be hell freezing over. If you want us to adopt your usage, you better start working on getting that to happen.

As for Dakotan, the unmodified term has almost no currency in English. I would never use it.

You write "As for insulting English speakers, we would never do that. We speak English, too." I'm using the term English speakers in the sense in which Canadians use the term anglophone – to mean native speakers of English. What has been written here seems to sugest that anglophones are in a conspiracy against Spanish speakers, and I really need to see some evidence of that to be persuaded that the allegation is not insulting.

As I have also noted repeatedly, I don't go to the French Wikipedia and inform them that their word anglosaxon is inaccurate (which it manifestly is) and insulting. The French use of anglosaxon is ludicrous from our perspective, and could easily be considered offensive. However, I have no evidence that francophones are trying to demean me when they call me Anglo-Saxon, so I assume they're using the term in some way that's effective for them. Historically and socially inaccurate, but effective. No doubt their use of the term may keep them from obtaining a useful understanding of the anglophone world, but that's best dealt with by dealing with problems of misunderstanding as they arise.

Finally, why are Europe, Asia, and Africa three continents if America has to be one? John FitzGerald 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

quick note - I still dont understand how come the french use of anglosaxon is this insulting to you. And speaking of failre to understand, Europe, Asia and Africa are continents on their own. America is a single continent, as is Europe, as is Africa, as is Asia. What did you mean with your question?LtDoc 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not really insulted (more amused). However, Irish people are not Anglo-Saxon. In fact, in Irish Saxon means an Englishman (among other things).

In North America the term is used by many people as synonymous with British or Irish. I don't find that's useful because it destroys the distinctions between three useful terms. Similarly, the French usage destroys the distinction between Anglo-Saxon and English-speaking.

However, the French and the speakers of all the other languages who identify Anglo-Saxon with English-speaking can do what they want with their languages as far as I'm concerned. They obviously are using the word to some purpose.

Europe, Asia, and Africa are a single landmass. If America is supposed to be one continent because it's a single landmass then it seems to me Europe, Asia, and Africa should also be a single continent. John FitzGerald 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if a single landmass, the cultures of Europe, Asia and Africa are vastly different. The ethnic groups are completely different, as oposed to the ones in America (and I mean the continent). All civilizations in America (I´ll save us time by saying that when I write America I mean the continent) are in same "time frame" - be it the colonization period, the revolutionary period, or if you want to be technical even the period in which America was inhabited by its natives. The same cant be said about Asia, Europe and Africa, for their peoples were in completely different stages of technology, advancements and social caractheristics. Also, the alphabet used by all peoples in America is the same (well, almost the same, since Brazil doesnt use the K, W and Y in common nouns) while Asia, Europe and Africa have a myriad of alphabets to choose from. Lets not forget social values and struturization, political and religious differences.... which ultimately leads to a different culture. In suma, America is a single continent not only because of the unique landmass, but also because of the cultural closeness of the nations in it. Europe, Asia and Africa, even if technically a single landmass, have vast cultural differences setting those societies apart from each other. Not to mention that there are geographical incidents that separate them well enough.LtDoc 23:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since continent is a geographical concept, I don't see the relevance of cultural variation to its definition (even if I agreed with you about it). Anyway, the original observation was simply that a landmass is a landmass, not that a culture is a culture or an alphabet is an alphabet. You also mention that "geographical incidents...separate them well enough." It seems to me that the isthmus of Panama separates North and South America better than the Ural Mountains separate Europe and Asia. Which I suppose raises another point about culture – if culture, alphabets, and geographical incidents define continents, couldn't we consider India and China to be different continents, separated by the Himalayas? John FitzGerald 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Guess I'm not getting an answer to that question. John FitzGerald 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Even Simpler

What do North America, South America, Central America and Latin America have in common? Each is a set of two words composed of an adjective and a noun. Which one is the noun? America. Latin in Latin America (even as it is used in English) qualifies the portion of America that is "Latin" or "Latinized", just as North or South America describe the portion of America that is northern or southern - In the English language. When someone says "Latin Americans" they are equivalently describing the Americans by saying they are Latin. Latin Americans are a subset of Americans. Q.E.D. --Deepstratagem 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were correct, the same would apply to North Dakotans and South Dakotans, both subsets of the "Dakotans". You are not correct. Uris 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. Think about it. The argument refers to description not nomenclature. (That's what adjectives do.) --Deepstratagem 22:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, I guess I just didn't think about it. Nope, still wrong. North Dakotans and South Dakotans are not collectively called Dakotans. Can you provide a source saying otherwise? Uris 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you need me to explain the difference between description and nomenclature? You are not really disagreeing with me. --Deepstratagem 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're both saying that things relating to anywhere in North or South Dakota are not all called Dakotan and that things relating to anywhere in North or South America are not all called American, then we agree. Cool! Uris 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your English sucks. Second, read what I write if you want to reply. --Deepstratagem 22:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So we both agree that you are wrong, then? Every time you lose out in these discussions, you resort to "oh yeah, well you suck!" How old are you? Uris 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just that your replies warrant such condescension. Again, read what I write if you want to reply. --Deepstratagem 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you lose. Dakotan absolutely does not mean anyone living in North or South Dakota. You seem to want to keep talking without saying anything long enough so that people will gloss over the fact that you lost this argument again. Uris 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep missing the point, that's why it's not worth discussing with you. There are plenty of sources that show that Dakotans can be called so - but again that is beside the point. I am not talking about nomenclature I am talking about description. If you don't understand reason, then no source is going to do you any good. --Deepstratagem 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You claim "plenty of sources" but haven't cited any. I guess you're just holding back. Uris 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actual Usage of the English Word American

Why are we arguing about whether American should or should not refer to things relating to the United States in the English language? An encyclopedia reflects what is, not what someone thinks it should be. Just because Spanish-speaking people don't want American to predominantly refer to U.S. topics, doesn't mean that it isn't so. Uris 22:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And just what is? --Deepstratagem 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you rephrase your question in a way that I can answer it? Uris 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you said "An encyclopedia reflects what is...". And just what is?

I'd be happy to help you out with this. In the English language, American is almost exclusively used to refer to things of or relating to the United States. Uris 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we graduated from black and white thinking to shades of gray. "...[A]lmost exclusively", congratulations. --Deepstratagem 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In no way is it a shade of grey. We can look for examples if you want, let's put the percentage around 95-99%. Uris 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you 2 have against each other? Y'all are always argueing. Tennis Dynamite 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this doesn't belong on wikipedia, but it's difficult to hold a civilized discussion when the other person's "arguments" don't follow or they make irrelevant conclusions à la ignoratio elenchi. In case it appears that I am insulting him, I'd like to clarify that I'm not insulting him, but rather his non sequitur logic, and false conclusions (based supposedly, on what I say) as evidenced in the Even Simpler section above. --Deepstratagem 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. first of all let me say i think this is an extremly strange place to carry out this kind of discussion. The purpose of this wiki is to disemenate information. If a discussion needs to take place regarding the use of a certain term, then so be it. But to come here and claim all americans are stupid or ignorant or arogant because they call themselves Americans is absurd and fascist. Practically the whole world calls citizens of the USA americans so why shouldn't they do so as well? Whether is it correct (historically or politically) is not really the point now is it? I think it is totally acceptable to point out this fact within the article itself rather than throwing mud around here on the discussions page. Clearly some of the contributors here are anti-american and the arguments and posts made by them have totally destroyed the possibilty of legitimatly discussing this topic here. Where is the objectivity here!!!???!!! I myself am a US citizen, an expat living in Europe. After years in Europe and watching the development of the EU, I have begun to realise what our forefathers intended for the Union when they founded it. When people ask me where i am from, I reply that I am a Texan. I am in fact a citizen of Texas as stated in the US constitution. Texan is also my nationality, again as stated in the US constitution. I am further a citizen of the United States. I tend not to use the term American. Not because of the rantings of some politically frustrated anti-american, but because I feel that this term and this notion of nationality was not intended for use by our founding fathers. On the occaisions that I DO use the term American, it is only because most of the citizens of other countries use and recognize that term to refer to citizens of the USA. If this bothers anyone, especially someone from north or south america who is not a citizen of the USA, then I'm sorry, but no i dont really care. Like many things these days, the term american has simply become part of our planets culture. And since there is no perfectly historically and politically correct term in common usage to refer to US citizens, the term american will probably remain forever. That having been said, the news agencies of many european countries do in fact use the term US-Americans to refer to US citizens. I support this usage, but it really doesnt move me one way or the other. Personally I would prefer for US citizens to be refered to as being citizens of the state they are from. Similar to the way citizens of the EU still refer to themselves as Germans, British or Dutch, to name some examples.

We are not anti-American; we are pro-American. This is a serious question: Do you believe you are being more objective than the rest of us? If so, how? Surely we all have a POV, but what makes you different? Additionally, we are not all claiming you are stupid. Some of us are trying to be constructive in finding a way to accomodate everyone's views. --Deepstratagem 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The insult comes from using an obscure linguistic point about how continents are named to delegitimize a term Americans are very proud and sensitive about. That is the attack is seen as a deliberate insult, sort of like nasty cartoons in some countries. Rjensen 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Americans are not the only people who feel proud about this term. And the very people whom you think are insulting you feel insulted for the same reason you describe above. Using linguistics as "proof" is only one aspect of the "point". The use of the adjective to mean "of America or of the Americas" may be obscure to you, but is not to every English dictionary, and it is not to the millions of people in the Americas. --Deepstratagem 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think so. The folks involved in this don't know much about linguistics--NOT ONE CITATION to a linguistic journal, for example. So they are faking it. As for hurt pride, I think that's a recent invention too. Let's look for quotes pre 1900 say....see if you can find a lot....I doubt it. Try before 1950??? 1970??? So it's a recent fakery. 04:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you need to see in a linguistics journal? That an adjective describes a noun? - As for faking, the same could be said about U.S. Americans. Do you have any references, quotes (pre 1900s) indicating "hurt pride"? Would lack of such references be proof that you are not offended? --Deepstratagem 04:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

People who rely on linguistics and know zip about it are faking. As for hurt pride, try . "A Profound National Devotion": The Civil War Union Leagues and the Construction of a New National Patriotism by Melinda Lawson; Civil War History, Vol. 48, 2002

She notes that Philip Nolan became "the man without a country," and Civil War Americans, refereing to the 1863 story "A Man Without a Country" that became a staple of millions of textbooks for 100 years (I read it at age 8 or 10). He was a soldier and court martialed; at his sentencing he was asked if he had anything to say that might suggest his abiding loyalty to the United States. But in a "fit of frenzy," Nolan cried out, "Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!" The presiding colonel granted Nolan's wish. He would never, by the authority of the court, hear the name of the United States again. Nolan spent the next fifty-five years on a series of naval vessels. The crews on those ships were forbidden to speak to him of the United States; the ships never docked at home until he was transferred to a new vessel. Deprived of a homeland, Nolan slowly and painfully learned the true worth of his country. He missed it more than his friends or family, more than art or music or love or nature. Without it, he was nothing. He transformed his cabin into "a little shrine." The stars and stripes were draped around a picture of Washington. Over his bed Nolan had painted an eagle, with lightening "blazing from his beak" and his claw grasping the globe. At the foot of his bed was a dated map of the old territories. Turning to his visitor, Nolan smiled. "Here, you see, I have a country!" -- well, maybe that's an argument for using "United States" instead of "America"!! :) Rjensen 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a beautiful story, but your whole argument is like a Chewbacca defense. Why does relying on linguistics as a method of logic imply fakery? And what does your story have to do with the use of the word "American"? --Deepstratagem 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You asked about old evidence having to do with love of the name of the country, and I obliged with an extremely popular 1863 story. People who rely on linguistics but never actually read the journals are faking it, They in fact don't know what linguists say. This has been a very big issue for 40 years in US regarding dictionaries. (are they normative or descriptive?) Rjensen 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

in the story by the way, "everybody was permitted to lend him books, if they were not published in America and made no allusion to it. These were common enough in the old days, when people in the other hemisphere talked of the United States as little as we do of Paraguay. He had almost all the foreign papers that came into the ship, sooner or later; only somebody must go over them first, and cut out any advertisement or stray paragraph that alluded to America. " [Hale 1863] Rjensen 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask for "old evidence having to do with love of the name of a country", I merely mirrored your request for evidence of "hurt pride" by the use of the word American (as is used in the Americas). I also tacitly questioned the relevance of such a request. You replied with a personal statement that "People who rely on linguistics and know zip about it are faking," and quoted a cute but non-sequitur passage. --Deepstratagem 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To be exact: I challenge the statement that people outside the US feel hurt by the use of the word "American" in the US. Not a single bit of solid evidence has been presented.. How many feel bad in Mexico-- a hundred people, a thousand, 10k, 100k, 1 million, 10 million, 1000 million -- just an order of magnitude would help. As for linguistics and dictionaries and atlases, no one on this discussion has mentioned a serious book or article on the topic, and that I suggest is they have never read one. It comes down to unsupported POV that is forbidden on Wiki. Rjensen 07:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's paramount to asking how many people in the United States feel hurt by the use of the word "American" in "the Americas." Who would have quantified it? As for references, several serious articles, books and references have been mentioned and referenced on the topic already. The letter to Spanish Americans of 1799, the history of the word America and American, Americans from the 1400-present, just about every available dictionary in the English language. More sources can easily be found, but you seem to overlook both sources and logic. The argument from a linguistic point of view is trivial... it shows that in English the word American can refer to Latin Americans and others in "the Americas", just as it does in Spanish. As further evidence, the majority of wikipedia articles on America (in every language) have a picture of what you call South and North America shaded in red (global concensus). The logic has been described with basic set theory (math) and basic linguistics (grammar). If you think the logic is wrong, you might try to identify where that is. --Deepstratagem 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's all what can be charitably called "original research." That is a no-no in Wiki. We are only allowed to report fasts that have been verified elsewhere. Rjensen 08:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm using the logic to support the other sources that have already been cited and verified, not to publish on wikipedia. --Deepstratagem 08:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone said a bit up there, I can't find it now because I just read real fast and well, this topic is really getting BIG and going nowhere, that just because in the US the word American is used (and in the english language) it should be used like that and no discussion should be made. Just a little reminder, just because society decides to call something something doesn't make it happen so; if all the people in the world vote against gravity it won't stop earth from pulling things. Democracy in this doesn't work. PS: Regarding the use of the word and how it is part of the Lexicon, well "negro" was very common and part of the lexicon 100 years ago and now it's very rarely used, it's disrepectful, racist and a major faux pax, so yes believe it or not words come into disuse.DamianFinol 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, words fall, or are pushed, into disuse. Usually it's for good reason, though. No one can even document the extent of the supposed offence which the English usage of American supposedly provokes. Negro was abandoned because it clearly offended large numbers of people (and a lot more recently than you seem to think). Abandoning it also did not require that English-speakers abandon important concepts in geography. Insisting that there is only a single continent of America doesn't make it so, and so far that's all the argument that has been offered. In fact, there is no reason why different languages shouldn't use different definitions of the continents, so insisting that there is only one continent is beside the point.

Seriously, I'd be willing to consider using another term if it was clear that it offended large numbers of people. But I live in a city where Spanish and Portuguese are widely spoken and I have never heard this issue raised here (despite 18 years working for school boards, where you might expect this issue to come up occasionally). John FitzGerald 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets consider politics, migration, etymology and geography

I'll simplify "American" right here.

• In a contemporarily technical and diplomatic manner, America applies to the political territories of North America and South America
• American is a lazy and innaccurate term used most frequently for inhabitants of the United States of America.

1. The U.S.A is made up of numerous States.
2. Each state has a name and perhaps the only true technical American would have to be an inhabitant of Washington D.C., but then again, that person is a citizen of the U.S.A., more specifically than that of America (a term that can encompass both the Northern and Southern political regions).
3. While a person may call themselves American, it can only be proved by their residency throughout the USA, otherwise they are merely Californians, Texans, Alaskans, etc. Or they can be Hawaiian Washingtonians or Californian Nebraskans--reflecting their homestate and the state to which they have defected to.

• Because the word American has an Italian origin, it also implies an Italian and Latin connection which makes the word rather anti-nationalist towards the USA.

Excuse my rant, but the whole idea of "American" as a political concept outside of its Age of Exploration origin is rather comical to me anyway. I think the real question is what defines the U.S.A. and how can it exactly be described when the current institution perpetuates an ethnic-religious-morality bias and essentially is oriented toward the perpetuation of Anglo-American history rather than being democratic and designed for all of its citizens, including those that defected from abroad, colonized & displaced, subjugated or who were enslaved or kidnapped (All Immigrants including the founders, Native-Americans, Mexicans, African and Chinese respectively) during the country's conception.

Aminatam 12:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what evidence is there of this ethnic-religious-morality bias? In fsct, just what is this bias? And agains someone needs to consider the issue of essentialism. Dervation from an Italian name implies nothing. Anyway, you have now broadened this discussion to a point where any country's name is indefensible. England – named for the Angles! It implies the British are all Angles when they have many different origins. France – named for the Franks! John FitzGerald 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that England named for the Angles and France named for the Franks is the OPPOSITE of the USA named for America. Also, it does not imply that the British are all Angles. Britain != England. In fact, if England tried to call itself Britain, then that would be a parallel case to what is happening here. England is part of Britain, so it is correct for an Englishman to say that he is (like a Scotsman) also a "Briton, in broad terms, is an inhabitant of the geographical region of Great Britain" [[5]], but it would be somewhat arrogant or perhaps simply ignorant for him to completely equate Great Britain with England. In sum, I'm very glad that you brought up that case because it does shed a bit of light. If we take the logic of calling the USA America a step further, we should just rename it "the World" and its inhabitants "Worldians", that is to say, "the only people on earth", which is apparently how they conceive themselves, and they are free to do so, but on international fora like Wikipedia this sort of view is not very constructive. By the way, I'm from the USA, which, as the name implies, is in America, a continent (or two, that is an arbitrary difference).

Adam Mathias 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the issues you're interested in yourself, what you said implies exactly what I said it did. But if you want to argue your point, why are you implying that Native Americans aren't entitled to call themselves that, since they're not the only people born in America, even defined in the narrow sense?

We agree on one thing, though – the disageement about the number of continents in the western hemisphere is arbitrary. My point is that it will always be arbitrary. But then I'm from Canada, where we tolerate arbitrary differences quite well. To each his own, brother, and no sense inventing reasons to get worked up. If I want to question Americans' motives I can think of a lot more important issues about which I would be more justified in questioning them.

I do get the impression that a large proportion of the American population looks down on the rest of the world (not just the rest of the western hemisphere) as inferior, but, you know, that's to the advantage of the rest of us. And another large proportion of the American population thinks differently. And both call themselves Americans. John FitzGerald 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to draw a difference between calling a bigger entity by the name of one of its subentities (as is the case for almost all demonyms and country names), and a subentity simply giving itself the name of its superentity. Of course, in many formal contexts everything says US or US citizen, but apparently this encyclopedia isn't formal enough!

And so yes, we are left with a dispute - two people call themselves Americans, but I believe the people outside of the USA who do so are doing so in the sense of saying "we are Americans too because we live in America (the continent)", but what they don't do is refer to say, Venezuela, as America, in the sense of being "American citizens" (just realizing how stupid that phrase is makes me laugh).

As for Native Americans, I am not implying what you say, because they are spread out throughout the continent (from Alaska and Nunavut to Tierra del Fuego), and because it has a qualifier, Native, just like US Americans or Latin Americans or South Americans do. Also, the name is under some dispute, no? My Canadian professor always referred to them as "First Nations'" this or that anyway.

As for issues in which we would be more justified in questioning them, I think the reason people are making such a stink here is precisely because of those issues! Because arrogance and self-entitlement begins with how US citizens conceive of themselves: the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, US uniqueness ("American exceptionalism"), the one and only, God's gift to the earth, the be all and the end all, the justifications and hypocrisy of their genocide against Native Americans and descendants of Africans, relations with (and invasions of) neighboring countries, their view of their role in the World Wars and the Cold War, Pax Americana, and yes, the fact that they call themselves by the name of one (or according to them, two!) whole continents. Of course, I recognize if they weren't in Iraq right now this talk page would be shorter. And if it weren't for the US, there wouldn't be WP anyway! But (warning: typical US optimism / happy ending follows) that doesn't mean we can't objectively broach this issue to help them understand the world from other shoes.

I guess what I'm saying is, since WP is supposed to be objective and English-language WP should be from an English-language but not an English or US perspective, then it only makes sense to refer to the US as the US, except when quoting others or names or titles, etc. Adam Mathias 01:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We're probably closer on this issue than it seems. However, from an English-language perspective Americans are citizens of the United States. Sure, Wikipedia hould not reflect American POV, but neither should it reflect anti-American POV. As you may recall, I noted that if you want to get upset about American imperialism there are more important issues to work on. Perhaps, for example, you could spend some time informing your fellow citizens about how the United States is imposing its will on Canada in the softwood lumber dispute in violation of treaty provisions it agreed to, or how the Bush administration's idea of relations with Canada is sending its ambassador around our country to tell us all what assholes we are.

Changing the meaning of American does nothing for Canadians and nothing for anyone else who's not a citizen of the United States. If you want to end American imperialism, take action on some real issues. Write your Congressman about the softwood lumber tariffs, for example – it's Congress that's the problem. The tariffs not only hurt Canadians, they raise house prices in the States.

I still don't see why Native American is acceptable. The people designated as Native Americans do not include all natives of the Americas. Ergo, according to your reasoning, their name is wrong.

Aboriginal people in Canada (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) rarely refer to themselves as Native Americans. That term and Native Canadian are also considered offensive by many non-aboriginal natives of the country. And they do not reflect the views of many aboriginal people and organizations, particularly First Nations ones, about their sovereignty.

I suspect where we agree is in the belief that United States is often a clearer substitute for American. That also appears to be the position of people who write American law. Coverage of Bush's illegal wiretaps showed that the relevant laws apply to "United States persons" rather than to "Americans." John FitzGerald 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

P. S. For those of us who are not American citizens, American imperialism is not just a phrase but a fact of life. And over the last five years it has cost the U. S. A. dearly. If you think you can solve that problem by choosing a nicer name for yourselves you're mistaken.

Like I said previously, I don't mind the use of the word American by US Citizens, as long as they nor the article claims refers to them solely as Americans; for example: "A recent poll stated that 95% of Americans like to breathe air, 80% of Canadians like to breathe water, and 45% Latin Americans breathe helium" All three are AMERICANS so using "American" in that sentence is incorrect, in other cases "American troops where killed in Iraq" is fine when referring to any troops from the americas (Including US) but saying "20 Americans and 1 Canadian died in Iraq" is wrong. DamianFinol 17:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see this as an anti-U.S. American issue. People elsewhere in the Americas seriously consider themselves Americans. --Deepstratagem 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And as I have said repeatedly, they are welcome to consider themselves Americans. The post I was replying to above, though, clearly made demeaning generalizations about Americans. And no, it is most emphatically not wrong to distinguish Canadians from Americans. For one thing, it eliminates ambiguity. And no, Damian, Canadians are most emphatically not Americans, as you will find when you move to Canada (I hope that plan is progressing, by the way). Hell, a large proportion of the population doesn't even consider itself Canadian. The entire point about Canada is that it's not American.

Anyway, as I said just up there (I said something similar, anyway), saying Canadians are Americans doesn't make them so. Of course, Canadians saying they're not Americans doesn't make them different in your eyes or language, and again you're entirely entitled to think that. In the absence, though, of evidence of any offence caused by American, the English Wikipedia should reflect prevailing English usage.

But this is getting repetitive and the hour late. A good weekend to all, American, Canadian, Venezuelan, Brazilian, and everybody else. John FitzGerald 21:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, however, as adults we are we have to come to an understanding where both parties can agree, Like I said way up just because the French doesn't like to be called Europeans doesn't make them any less Europeans, so just because Canadians don't feel like Americans they are Americans. So I propose we come with a solution where both parties can be satisfied and stick to it, sort of a model. I'm really tired of looking at articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Dancer_%28comics%29 where the entry of the character said "in Colorado, America" and I had to edit it to "in Colorado, USA" and just like that there are many other articles. So I propose we reach a solution that both views can support; this whole deal is indeed an issue, otherwise we wouldn't have such a long talk page so ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room isn't going to work.DamianFinol 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been semi-following this thread, but just to note, it should be "Colorado, United States" or "Colorado, U.S." according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format, with the first preferred over the second. Both should be linked. "USA" should not be used. //MrD9 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct and I will take note of it for future changes.DamianFinol 06:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, provide some of the evidence that's been asked for, and a reasonable alternative term. And let me know at my talk page when you do. I think we're all spinning our wheels here until someone provides some evidence that current usage is unduly offensive and harmful to international relations. Much of the recent exchange boils down to "'Is not!' 'Is too!' 'Is not!' 'Is too!'" I also have noticed that when I respoond to someone's arguments seriously with a counterexample they don't bother to reply. So I'm going to stop following this discussion till someone comes up with the information we would need to make a case for change. John FitzGerald 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have repeated facts, and evidence over and over, I'm trying my best here to find a solution like two adults, not only myself but others that have also participated in this discussion. What I'm asking is that we come to an agreement, or solution that all parties can agree upon. Is that too much to ask?. Note: I'm not conceding on my position, I'm just trying to work something out so we can all stop this "Is not!" "Is too" argument.DamianFinol 06:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this page is made of up 93930 threads regarding the same thing. While I haven't read all of them and have read some others a few weeks ago, it seems that nobody is getting anywhere. Basically, regardless of what anyone wants the word to mean, people from the United States (and I can honestly say twice now in the past minute, the first time when I clicked the "edit this page" button thinking about what to write and the second time while I was attempting to cast this sentence, I was about to use "American" to refer to people from the United States) will use the word to refer to people from the United States. Depending on the context, it can either mean U.S. citizens (as in those who have citizenship, not just those who live in the U.S. with green cards or illegally or whatever; there is a difference, especially since illegal immigrants can now get licenses to drive becasue it's not the motor vehicle agencies' jobs to do what immigration does... another issue) OR simply people who live in the U.S. This meaning is probably used by others in the English-speaking world (and I think people have said so above or below or wherever on this page). To people from the U.S., "American" rarely refers to anything other than the U.S. unless:

• Something like the "Organization of American States," in which case it's obviously a joint North-South American thing
• "North American" (or South) is used, which means someone from the continent of North (or South) America. But like was discussed here or on a related page, to the English-speaking world--as in the one in which English is the primary (and/or only) language, not where it's a second/third/... language--America is the U.S. and NOT a continent; N.A. and S.A. are the continents.

However, by people who speak English who are not from the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, ... (and again, I do not mean to generalize what I wrote above to these countires, but I think people from them have agreed what I said) and who are from a place where English isnt the primary language, it is quite possible that "American" commonly refers to someone from the combined North and South America in their non-English languages. Therefore, while it would logically not carry the same meaning in English (but would be translated to what had the equivalent meaning in English), it's obvious that some peole may interpret it to mean something else than the United States. Therefore, it's basically useless to argue if it's correct or not, becasuse both are correct--one in the standard use of English, and one in a non-English way. Therefore, to say that Americans do this or that or something to mean the U.S. is correct, since it's standard English usage. Saying "Americans ..." to mean North Americans or South Americans, while it could probably be argued that it's correct, would be useless: readres would assume it refers to the U.S., since most Englsih speakers are from the U.S. (2/3 of native English speakers) or other English-speaking countries. Saying "Americans, Canadians, ..." is NOT redundant or wrong becuase it means that "people from the U.S. and from Canada and ...." Basically, therefore, to say on this page (the article, not the talk page) that "American" can sometimes mean people from N/S America is a good idea for clarification. Saying that Colorado is located in America is a bad idea--"United States" is the accepted name of the country, both within and in the rest of the world. But to run around writing that "Americans ..." to mean peole from N/S America is a bad idea, since "American" is most commonly used to mean those form the United States, which is why writing "American" to mean someone from the UNited States would be perfectly correct--especially since it's the word used for the United States in these cases. (This is too long to check for typos/lapses in grammar due to long sentences at this hour, so please excuse them.) //MrD9 07:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, and I would like to point out that I'm not against the use of "American" when refering to people from the US, what I'm against is refusing to accept that people from N/S America can also be referred to as Americans. And to do that I make comparisons: Nigerians are Nigerians and Africans, Vietnamese are Vietnamese and Asians, French are French and Europeans, Canadians are Canadians and Americans (wether they like it or not). I do agree that this is English wikipedia and that there is no current word for Americans (in the country way) so what I'm asking is that we draw some conclusions regarding this whole subject because it's getting TOO long, I am Venezuelan and in here it's offensive to refer to US Citizens as the solely Americans, and yes we are not in Venezuela, nor the article is about venezuela or whatever, but the connotation is offensive for others in the american continent. Now, we should lay some format rules for this whole thing, I think we should work on what we agree upon and then work on what we disagree on; for example I agree that the whole "Colorado, America" is in the wrong format, there are other articles also that have said "Came to America" that I had to edit for obvious reasons.DamianFinol 19:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem, then, is the "America" vs. "North America and South America" issue. From what I've always seen/heard/experienced--and actually until I read whatever part of this page that talked about it--I had never thought that others might consider N and S America to be one continent. Therefore, it's foreign for us (people who speak Engilsh as their primary langauge and use the concept of 7 continents) to think of "America" to mean N and S America. "America" = the US (unless it's something obvious, like I said above, like Org. of Amer. States), and "North America"/"South America" = the continents. I've never encountered "America" used to describe both N and S America--it's always been "North and South America(n)." And I do not think it's just the people from the US--I think it's most of the world that primarily speaks English. Furthermore, by including non-Americans (or, as you'd call it, people who are not from the United States; and again, I wrote what I wrote before the parenthesis not on purpose, but because it's how my brain or whatever told myself to express the thought of "not people from the U.S.") under the umbrella of "America" in general things (without something obvious to make it mean N/S America collectively), it's goign to be interpreted as people from only the U.S. by many (if not most) people.

To parallel what you said before, "... French are French and Europeans, Canadians are..." North Americans. Or at least that's what we'd say, and how we'd think of it. We would not use "American" for that, since Canada is not American, but North American.

Somewhat of a similar situation is the use of the term "New York." I live in northeastern NJ (New Jersey), and around here, "New York," depending on context or lack thereof, can mean the state, the city, or the NY area (includes northern NJ). When speaking to other people from here, it's common to say "I'm going to New York," for example. This, and most uses of the term without any qualification, means "New York, New York" (the city). If you're going to New York the state, it's "... going to New York State" (Or a place within it). At the same time, however, we recognize that this is nonstandard usage. Most people (at least from the nation, not necessarily the world) associate "New York" with the state and "New York City" with the city. While we predominantly use "New York State" (or "New York the state") for the state and "New York" (or if there's confusion, "New York the city") for the city, we (or at least many people I've discussed this with) "witch" over when talking to people not from here. Then, it becomes I'm from "the New York area," or if someone says he or she's from "New York," it's assumed he or she means the state. Or, my favorite, as I've heard many people say this to other people not from the area, "I'm from xxx, NJ. [person asks where that is] I live 20 minutes from New York, but 5 minutes from New York State (meaning Rockland/Orange counties; made up numbers, might not work out) Basically, what I'm trying to say is that many people in the New York Tri-State use "New York" against the norm for the rest of the country, but at the same time, we recognize that, while we prefer our usage, the "real" usage would be to accept what the nation in general does.

With "America," it's up a level--and reversed. But I agree that something has to work out, and it's apparent that you're not going to conceed, but at the same time, general English interprets "American" in without some weird limiting context to be the U.S., with the continents "North American" and "South American." //MrD9 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole N/S America point is somewhat moot because they are both called "The American continent", by for example international organizations: (The Organization of American states), the Olympics (One ring for the Americas), the meaning of "Americas", etc. The UK is an island and not part of continental Europe, Eurasia is another division, in reality you could divide the world into Oceania, America and Eurasiafrica. My point is that the divisions are subjective, some geographical authors will make 5 continents, other 6, others 7 and so on, as an enclyopedia we should adopt the usage that is most common IN INTERNATIONAL law and custom (not just english language), with that said there is an Organization of American states, The Treaty of Free Trade of the Americas, and many other documents and treaties that doesn't make that Nourth and South distinction. Also, there was no north/south america 115 years ago, just one continent until the construction of the panama canal and even then both are connected by bridges. Conclusion: we can't just say 'there is a N/S America so suck it' because it's subjective and depends on the author. With that said I agree with MrD9 that we should work something outDamianFinol 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said "suck it," and I am aware that there are different "versions" of the continents. However, for your examples, which again are the Org. of Amer. States (context saying it's N/S America and not just the U.S.), the Olmypics, the pending "Free Trade Area of the Americas," and Americas (which says that it's the collective N/S America, actually), look at List of United States treaties for a large list of "International Law" treaties... Russo-American, Canadian-American, NAFTA, Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (clarification making it obvious it's not just the U.S.), and a bunch of other [something]-American treaties (meaning the U.S.) and other things. Again, I'm not trying to say that "American" can't mean the American continents, but what I am saying is that saying "Americans..." (regarding people) is going to be interpreted to mean people of the United States, not people of North and South America in general. And the less-than-7 continent versions are more useful geologically; socially and politically, I think I'm safe in saying that Asia and Europe are quite different from each other... //MrD9 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly, the difference is subjective, some authors will say it's 5, others 7, others 10, others 20, others 3. We as an enclyopedia and it's editors need to come to an agreement or format; this is one of the weakness of a project like Wikipedia, it doesn't have a centralized POV so unless Jimmy Wales comes here and say "We are going to use 3 continents" we as it's editors have to say: "Ok, this is what we are going to do" and to do that we have to talk and reach a conclusion on this issue. My suggestion is we start on working on what we agree on and work from there.DamianFinol 06:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we all agree that the word American means at least two different things? --Deepstratagem 07:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we already agreed upon that. I've merely been trying to say, though, that "American" = "one from the United States" is much more common (at least in primary English) than "American" = "one from North and/or South America" is, and therefore, it would be a bad idea to use "American" in the context of the latter when giving statistics, since many people will interpret it to mean people from the United States. Instead, unless there is some obvious context (such as the Organization of American States) where it's obvious, "North and South Americans" disambiguates and is much more in line with standard, clear English that will not confuse people (or make them think the wrong thing) when they read it. //MrD9 21:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Although we are talking about the english language here, the fact is that almost all other languages use the word "American" to describe citizens of the United States of America. I have lived in and visited several different countries in my lifetime; France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Bavaria. And in every one of these countries I was called an American by the nationals. This whole issue is brought about by jealousy and hatred. The Mexicans hate us so they hate us calling ourselves Americans. People all over the American continents hate the U.S. so they make a big stink over our description of ourselves as Americans. Then there are the self haters in our own country who believe that they make themselves look 'so international' by downing the country they live in. I don't see this kind of controversy over Mexicans and other south/central Americans calling themselves "Spanish" which they certainly are NOT, any more than I am a German, although my ancestory is German. Where is the outcry over the misuse of the term "Spanish" to describe a person born and raised in Mexico? There is none. No this whole issue is about nothing but hatred for Americans. 03/18/2006

Just a brief comment, you typed "Mexicans and other south/central Americans" Mexico is part of North America (continent of sub-continent). Gnarus 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The "fact that almost all other languages use the word 'American' to describe citizens of the United States of America" doesn't make it any less of a misnomer. So what if you don't see this controversy over Mexicans and other Americans calling themselves Spanish? Can you explain how they are not influenced by Spanish language, culture and ancestry? --Deepstratagem 08:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, they are not denying Spaniards their Hispanicity. --Deepstratagem 08:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The English language is chock full of misnomers. Jellyfish aren't fish. Peanut butter isn't butter. Cable modems aren't modems. We should embrace the beautiful idiosyncrasies and quirks of our language rather than set off on quixotic quests to change what words mean. Nohat 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure cable modems aren't modems? I know for a fact that ADSL modems are modems but know very little about cable modems since I don't have cable where I live. However it sounds to me like cable modems must be modems since what else could they be? According to the cable modem article, "a cable modem is a special type of modem that is designed to modulate a data signal over cable television infrastructure". Other then the fact the article refers to it as a modem, it also says it is modulating a data signal... Nil Einne 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but jellyfish don't care if you call them jellyfish or not. They have no psychological attachment to identity or sense of self-concept. There is no absolute moral (or logical) reason for embracing idiosyncracies be they beautiful or otherwise. Acculturating people who choose to be ignorant and complacent is a quixotic task. And the meaning was there long before you wrote that sentence. --Deepstratagem 09:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You agree it's quixotic, but yet you continue to argue. You're never going to be successful changing the language—so why bother trying? Why not instead focus your energy on bettering the world in a way that might actually work?Nohat 18:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agreed acculturating people is quixotic only if they are ignorant and complacent. But no one is trying to change the language (well, maybe you are). It's more like educating people on the meaning of a word that has been obscured in certain parts of the world by ignorance and misinformation. There's certainly more at stake in this than whether jelly fish are fish. Imagine constantly reminding a Georgian (from the country) than he is not really a Georgian because he wasn't born in the United States. Then imagine spreading such misinformation to the rest of the world through mass media. But maybe U.S. Americans are not all ignorant and complacent and maybe acculturating people is not a quixotic task. --Deepstratagem 20:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who is trying to change the language by deprecating a useful sense of a word. I am only defending the language as it is used. I don't think anyone is trying to tell anyone that they're not "American". All that's being argued is that in English, "American" typically means "of or relating to the United States of America". It certainly also means "of or relating to North and South America", and I don't think anyone disputes that. It's just that, when used without qualification, the English word "American", especially when attributed to people, almost always means the former rather than the latter, even when not used by Americans. It is a characteristic of the English language that unless otherwise specified, the word American refers to the United States, and the reason for this is not anything nefarious or imperialistic: it is just a matter of frequency—there are simply many more cases where it is convenient to talk about the United States as an entity than it is to talk about all of North and South America as an entity. As for the tilting at windmills, I really don't see the point—changing the language isn't going to acculturate anyone, and besides, you can't change the language. The reality is that culturally, demographically, and economically, the United States (and Canada) are very different from Latin America, and thus the word American, used to group them all together, does not make a strong case for its usefulness. Trying to co-opt a useful word to group all these peoples and cultures together under the aegis of "acculturation" and liberation from ignorance seems almost perverse. Why should the English language be made less useful for your crusade of political correctness? Nohat 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The word is actually quite perverse as it is frequently currently used in the U.S.A to everyone else in the American continent. Keep in mind most people don't encounter a dissonance as such until they either learn a second language or travel outside their box. That is why you think it is a useful word, because you encounter no resistance in the United States. Try traveling to the rest of the American continent and you'll see how it no longer is a useful word. The meaning has been different from what you consider useful long before the United States earned its independence. Perhaps you should embrace the idiosyncracies of the word. --Deepstratagem 03:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the various testimonies on this page can attest, Canadians seem quite content to not be called Americans. And the rest of the North and South America don't really speak English, so I'm not clear why their opinions of English words matter. Nohat 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the one Canadian? The rest of North and South America do speak English (sometimes better than native speakers in the U.S.A.) If you don't understand this, then I'm not sure why your opinion matters either. --Deepstratagem 05:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In reality, opinion is irrelevant to this debate: it is a fact that the word is used in the way it is and nothing that you say or do is going to change it. Nohat 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not consistent with what you have said so far. You use the opinion of Canadians in your argument, but claim it is irrelevant. You claim the rest of North and South Americans don't really speak English and that as a consequence their opinion is null; such a statement implies that someone's opinion does matter. Thus, I begin to wonder if opinion only matters when it is in favor of what you believe, as this hypothesis would be entirely consistent with what you have said.

If there is nothing I can do to elaborate on the meaning of the word and enlighten a few people in the process, then what is your concern? It's not really just a word, is it? It, to some extent, encompasses the way you feel about yourself, and that is why you are here arguing about its use. --Deepstratagem 09:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My feelings about the word do not enter in this debate. The only thing I feel strongly about it in this matter is when the language gets attacked by people who want to legislate it. The reason I said that opinions are irrelevant is because it is simply a fact that it doesn't matter if some people have the opinion that the meaning of a word should be changed: a word's meaning doesn't change simply because a small number of people disagree with it. A word's meaning goes away only if that meaning ceases to be useful. These are the only opinions that matter—those of the majority of people who use a word. If you look at the distribution of native speakers, you start to get a picture of the relative significance of different groups of speakers. The reason the opinions of the English speakers in the Americas outside of the U.S. and Canada don't matter is because they are too small to have a significant impact on overall usage. And regardless of how benighted you think the vast majority of English speakers are, the meaning of the word in question is tremendously useful, as can be measured by the sheer volume of usage. It doesn't look like the contentious meaning of this word is going to go away anytime soon. I'm sorry you find this usage offensive, but I think it is a pretty ridiculous idea to be offended by a language, and even more ridiculous to believe that the language could or even should be changed by some kind of edict. You of course can continue to use some of the ridiculous alternative constructions like "U.S. American" (you can even advocate such usage, though preferably not here on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soapbox), but you should know that when you do so you appear ignorant of how to use the language idiomatically.

So let's focus on removing any lingering POV from the article and get that {{POV}} tag out of there, OK? Nohat 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is trying to legislate the language? What is ridiculous about the word U.S. American? It is unambiguous and widely used outside wikipedia for that very reason. I'm not merely advocating it. I'm using it to be clear. It is no less ridiculous than the redundant neologisms like "Mexican-American" or "Panamanian-American".

You claim language is being attacked, but I can equally say I am defending it. You seem to think that your POV is absolutely right and that anything else is wrong. I'm not sure who put the POV tag, but you are certainly not going to get it off by passing your viewpoint off as the only POV. Since no one is attacking the language and no one is trying to legislate it, then why are you still concerned? Are you offended by the alternative uses of the language perhaps? By your standards that would be pretty ridiculous, but I see no alternative explanation for your need to deprecate everyone else's use of the language on the grounds that it appeals to the [ignorant] masses.

You do make some good points, but you continue to see the issue in black and white, and to diminish any opinion that is not your own. I don't understand how you are qualified to make this page NPOV without making some constructive compromises. Why should Wikipedia reflect only your opinion of what the word means? --Deepstratagem 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what language you're using

The English word "America" when used by non-Latinos generally means United States of America, and likewise "American" means "of America (USA)". However, when speaking or writing in Spanish, everyone (including Anglos) uses the word América to mean America (continent).

Confusingly, the English word "North America" usually is taken to include Mexico while the Spanish word norteamericano almost always is taken to exclude Mexico.

I have no opinion on which usage is "right". I just try to remain aware of the context in which the various words are used. --Uncle Ed 23:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So? The Spanish word actual means "current" and the English word actual mean "actual". However, no one would argue that we shouldn't use the word actual because it means something else in a different language. It remains patently unclear to me what relevance how Spanish and other languages use cognates of the word American has to the topic of how people who are speaking English use the word American. Nohat 07:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not related, of course. This is a matter of advocacy, and therefore we contributors should merely report the various points of view on how "America" / "American" ought to be used in English. My modified intro does not endorse or condemn any particular usage. --Uncle Ed 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good examples Nohat! There are many more! All languages have words that are cognates and have different meanings (see for the billionth time false friend). I would suggest that all the non-native speakers of English (you know who you are) google the word "American". You can go to Google UK, Google Canada, Google Australia, Google New Zealand, and, for good measure Google South Africa. Search for the following terms "American", "Americans", "Americas", "South American", "North American", etc. Make sure to put multiple words in quotes, so you'll find "South American" as a cluster, for example. Just look at those sites, see the usage. It may be painful at first, but soon, you'll understand that that's the way things gotta be. I for one, am very resentful when people call me an "American". Although if i ever learned to speak Spanish, I wouldn't care if someone called me an "Americano". --chad 11:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

On another note: американо (americano) in Russian, is a type of coffee, which i have never had in America or Canada or Mexico, and if someone called me that, i would say "I'm not a beverage, I'm a person" HA! --chad 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

On the same note, ein Berliner means "a pastry" (not "a person from Berlin"). In the early days of Wikipedia, a contributor implied that Kennedy called himself a pastry in a famous speeech. When he said Ich bin ein Berliner neither he, his translator, nor the audience misunderstood his minor error as some sort of absurd self-belittling remark. They know he meant something more like "I am Spartacus", i.e., I'm with you, I share common-cause with you. (Sheesh! You may as well say that I'm calling myself a magazine or a hotel when I call myself a New Yorker: see New Yorker (magazine) and New Yorker (hotel). Uncle Ed 12:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course, the United States has an informatic monopoly (benign or otherwise). Most websites in the world are hosted in the U.S.A. so google searches are no accurate indicator. Additionally, the localized google sites you mentioned yield the exact same information, they are simply "fronts" in different dialects of English. In fact, why don't you try Google Malaysia, or Google Saudi Arabia, or Google Klingon. They all yield the same results (save for cache differences). --Deepstratagem 13:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of where the sites are hosted. Maybe I'll hand you a peer-reviewed journal article on this issue, and you'll just say that it was peer-reviewed by USians, or that USians have all peer-reviewed journals under their thumbs. And that they've brainwashed us Canadians into believing that we are not Americans. But the fact is, i haven't heard a native speaker of english dispute the fact that the ENGLISH word "American" by itself with no modifiers or adjectives, and referring to a person means (in the vast majority of cases where it's used by a native speaker) RELATING TO THE USA. Read the sentence again, slowly. Remember this fact. No hard feelings. But this is the English wikipedia. If you feel you have correctly translated the word "americano" as "American", you are wrong. You have mistranslated this word. Now you now that "americano" means "of the Americas" or "pertaining to the Americas", but in no way does it translate "American". They are two different languages.

Face it, you've learned a new word "American". It has nothing to do with an "informatic monopoly", and even if it did, usage is usage. I could say that it was the "human rights conspiracy" that resulted in the word "nigger" being derogatory, and say that i will use it. The curreny usage is different than it was before. I use the current usage so as to be understood. I, being caucasian, would never be understood if I said "I believe in equal rights for niggers!". There's the Russian word "негр", which upon hearing it sounds very much like "nigger", yet is the accepted word for "black" people in Russian. Some people who really think that "nigger" and "негр" sound identical (mostly people who have poor pronunciation and can differentiate short i and short e sounds) say that the correct term is "Афро-американец" (translated roughly "Afro-American"). They prefer this term to the former, because they think "black" people will be offended. So they use the term "Afro-American" to describe black people who have never been in America (or the "Americas", to be patronising) all because they think it's offensive to say "негр". But there's no other word in Russian to describe black people. Just like there's no other word in English to describe people from the US. The only word we have is American. That's it. That's what we use. We're not going to stop. Sorry. --chad 06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of where the sites are hosted lies in that the linguistic differences or schematic nuances of other English speakers are not well represented if most of the information is coming from the United States. I'm not saying it is a conspiracy at all; you may continue to twist my words, but at least give them some thought.

It's nice that you can read Russian and all. Many people can. Additional examples of false friends are not necessary. I'm not telling you to stop referring to U.S. Americans as Americans. I'm saying it is just fine to refer to everyone else in the American continent as Americans, and that this should be well represented in the article. It's not a new idea. It is in nearly every English language dictionary. Current scientific journals published in the U.S. (and everywhere in the world) also use such terminology regardless of whether they are in the English language or not.

The English language is not only shaped by "native speakers". There are more English speakers in the world than there are people in the United States. Anglo-America does not consist merely of the United States. There is no reason for English Wikipedia to be U.S.-centric.

Finally, you might want to stop apologizing for your short-comings. You are lucky in that not everyone gets to make absurd and poorly thought-of arguments (like the Google Search argument) and still feel proud of yourself (Google Қазақстан is no different in search results than Google Klingon). Or pretend you are an expert because you own a Russian keyboard and can type in a few false friends. In case you've missed it, we are beyond that. We've established that the word means a few closely related things in English and imposing a word on someone else is a moot action. But the differences should be elaborated on in Wikipedia, and the article should probably be made as neutral in POV as possible, even if it means that the more frequent English "in relation to the United States" use of the word gets more coverage. --Deepstratagem 09:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure you misunderstood my google argument. I should have added that you check the box which says "Search in Canadian Sites only" or whatever. Then you get Canadian hosted sites, and same for all the other examples I gave. In all fairness, we could add a sentence or two to the article regarding some non-native speakers' use (albeit incorrect use) of the word American, and give reaasons why it's used that way by them. But we have to remember that we're talking about the Use of the word American, not its meaning, not its etymology, but how it's used. Under Use of the word actual if there were such an article, it would be presposterous to add info to it about how people whose English level is poor use the word "actual" because they think it has the same meaning as a similar sounding word in their language. We just need to keep to the facts about the USE of the word American by native speakers. --chad 07:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you meant clicking on the "search Canadian sites only" radio button, then I did misunderstand you. My apologies for some of the unjustified sarcasm. Keep in mind, though, that a lot of the results are the proper names of U.S. Companies or organizations with presence abroad.--Deepstratagem 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe all this depends on whether the speaker / writer is using American English. Spanish speakers from Latin America may possibly speak a variant of American English. I'd have to do some research: would this be called Latino English (not "Spanglish" I hope). --Uncle Ed 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

Well Spanglish isn't really considered a language of its own, and most Latino Americans speaking Spanish English, would probably not intermix Spanish words to make blatantly corrupt English sentences. On the other hand, I don't know how prevalent the view that English outside the U.S. and Canada, in the Americas, is its own variant of English. Definitely worth researching. (Latin American English perhaps?) --Deepstratagem 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC), --Deepstratagem 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here and in the intro to the article it's now been changed from English to American English. Presumably that's the only form that matters.

I don't think that there is any evidence that this is a phenomenon peculiar to American English. The BBC, the canonical example of non-American English, follows the same patterns described in this article: using the word American to refer to people from the United States and referring to North and South America as "the Americas". See for yourself: [6]Nohat 21:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

America and American: US cultural plunder.

The term America and American is just another example of both simplistic approach to reality and linguistic and cultural appropriation that is typical in US culture. They use the term as is they were the only Americans.

Another example is the term Christian. Some people in the US use it in contrast with the term Catholic. The real terms are Catholic and Protestant.

Another example is "white": they use the term as if they were the only whites in the American Continent, or as if America was only a white country. People in Europe should watch out for this one: Now some of them are calling themselves European-Americans. I would not be surprised if in the future they would consider tehmselves more European than the Europeans themselves.

It seems that they somehow appropriate and plunder through language the basic terms of Western Civilization. —This unsigned comment was added by 65.10.133.252 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you, anonymous, for this thoughful and balanced analysis. It is clearly well-researched as evidenced by the copious citations you have provided. You can rest assured that all the relevant and verifiable points you bring up will be included in this article. Nohat 02:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it can be verified or not is up to the millions of people who live in the US and visit it and are familiar with the way those terms in particular are used.

Warning, another anonymous attempt to demonize Western Civilization, since, after all, Westerners had te audacity to be the first civilization EVER to abolish slavery. Mm, and I suppose the 1st Century Christians actually new of the real terms Protestant and Catholic? How anti-semitic since most early Christians were Jews, you know, like Jesus and the Apostles? Oh, and never mind that the American Revolution started the ball rolling for democracies around the world to emerge. How evil! What a yutz. Jcchat66 05:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Structure

There have been many complaints over the readability of the article. While there is much to be done, I've restructured some of the article in the hope that repeated arguments will be easier to spot and may be consolidated into clearer, crisper writing. --Deepstratagem 11:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm done for the time being. It still looks a little cluttered (especially the demonym section, which I particularly dislike). Most edits were structural, so if you can't find something please search well before reverting edits. On the other hand, this is Wikipedia, so please restructure further and change section names where you feel necessary. --Deepstratagem 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is much improved now. Nohat 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input in discussion; it was helpful, too. --Deepstratagem 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientific usage?

Can someone change that section. It uses the Latin word americanus. Please use that example in the latin wikipedia. not here. Get an example of the english word American in reference to a species that lives somewhere in the America's. I'm sure you'll find one. American bison perhaps? --chad 07:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

Not sure what you mean. So we are going to exclude American animals as examples because their scientific names are in Latin? Feel free to change the animal or the section, but I don't get it. --Deepstratagem 08:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

After further thought, I see what you mean... You want the English adjective American explicitly laid out instead of described by the species. --Deepstratagem 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, if the article were "Use of the Latin word americanus" the example would be appropriate. As it is about English usage, the example tells us nothing. That's why American bison is a better example. --chad 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We need a table

SINCE most of the confusion and/or disputes of what "American" or "America" does mean or should mean have to do with the varying points of view of the people using these words ...

THEN it may be useful to lay out in a table the various usages and who uses them.

We have two sorts of contributors editing and discussing the article:

• those who advocate correct usage, from their various points of view; and,
• those who seek only (or mainly) to describe the various usages.

I'm more interested in continuing this discussion with the describers than with the advocates.

Usage of "American":

Part of speech	Used by this group	Means this to them
Adjective	Geographers	Pertaining to the any place in North America or South America, including the Caribbean
Adjective	Latin Americans	Pertaining to America (continent)
Noun	Latin Americans	Resident (or person born in) America (continent)

We can add to this, and when it's fairly complete even place it in the article somewhere. --Uncle Ed 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your [refined] table might work well in the contexts section, and might reduce the need to have such wordy viewpoints in the controversy section (especially the politico-cultural section). --Deepstratagem 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive and Summarize

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

Revision notes

I've been following the conversation on this talk page, but I hadn't taken a look at the article itself for awhile. When I did, I found that the early parts had been englommed with a lot of problematic stuff: some pretty blatantly POV wording that takes one side in the dispute, and some really oddly worded sentences. So, I made some revisions. Because I didn't have enough room in the edit summary to explain what I was doing, here are some notes:

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

Not only were the edits by User:Ila Falfo flagrantly POV, but they were overly verbose and poorly written. I have attempted to work out some of that too. Thanks for your help. Nohat 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Come off it

This is all so silly. In American English, "American" means "of America", i.e., "of the United States", just as "America" means "United States of America"

It's only non-Americans who insist that "American" ought to mean something else, and they delight in forcing Americans to pick some word other than "American" to express themselves in. Reminds me of policital activists who would short-circuit every political discussion in which opponents would use the word "democracy" or "Communist" any way other than that which the activists insisted was the only correct word. They delight in making dominating their conversational partner, by running verbal rings around them and making them tongue-tied.

It's a great way to prevent communication and increase frustration and resentment all around. The result of not letting people talk the way they want, is that they're going to go out of their way to avoid talking to you because you're so obnoxious and annoying. Will you then accuse them of not paying enough attention to you?

There are only 2 reasons to change words like "American" and "America" to phrases like "from the US" or "the United States":

1. you are afraid someone will take offense
2. it's likely someone will misunderstand

At this encyclopedia, context can take care of problem #2, but problem #1 will never go away as long as there is someone, somewhere eager to turn the common adjective for the world's richest and most powerful country into a taboo. --Uncle Ed 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see it this way. I'm an "American", that is, I live in Pennsyvlania, but Ive always thought using that term to describe citizens of the United States was problematic. It is a widespread usage, but one always feels that it is technically false. You would seem to agree that American can not be used for citizens of South America or Canada or Mexico because America is not the continent in which they reside; indeed, that it is not a continent at all. I suggest that it is not a continent in English, but that does not mean it is not a region. America is a body of land consisting of northern and southern parts, which we label as continents. But whether or not America is a continent is irrelevant. It is a landmass with perfectly clear delineations. It doesn't make any sense that the United States is all of America when other countries are part of North or South America, as north and south simply describe halves of America. Consider North and South Korea. If there were a hypothetical province, located in South Korea, whose official name was "the united Villages of Korea", it is clear that not only they would be Koreans, but also everyone in either North or South Korea. The US may be the only country which refers to JUST America, but all American countries lie in a part of America,and all of their citizens are technically Americans. It is simply a question of forming an adjective from a noun, and nationalistic, imperialistic, and anti-American sentiments play no part in it. The article should reflect that all citizens of North and South America are Americans, but that American is commonly but not exclusively used to indicate only citizens of the United States.71.224.93.219 11:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon: incidentally, and just because I'm curious, how do you feel about the use of the word "Colombian" to refer specifically to the Republic of Colombia and its people? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said, 71.224.93.219. --Deepstratagem 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Article section that introduces "controversy"

I just took a quick read of the article and for some reason or other gained almost nothing from it. Looking at the comments here, it appears that people have been hard at work, however, so I expect it to improve with time. Still, I think it would be helpful if someone could explain in the body of the article, preferably at the outset of the section captioned "Controversy," just who it is that asserts that the use of the word "American" is "controversial" as opposed to being a word that is sometimes confusing or imprecise. I don't see any references to organizations or large publishers claiming that the use of "American" to pertain to things or people from the US is "controversial." Perhaps there are some, particularly non-Anglophone publishers, but they need to be listed and their relative status vis a vis their influence in the publishing or other spheres should be described. I see a lot of angry words in some of the comments on the talk pages but I think it takes more than that to call an otherwise equivocal word a "controversial" one. On a personal level, my US public school teachers made a very clear point of making sure every kid in grade school and beyond understood the ambiguities and possibility of perceived bias in the non-careful use of the word "American," and that was at least 35 years ago. According to my grade school nephews, they have also been made clearly aware of possible problems, so it seems that my experience is not one unique to my generation or school district. Ande B 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to your question, Ande. It's been asked several times here in one form or another, and never answered. John FitzGerald 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mexican-American or Canadian-American"? Nope.

The paragraph with the line "Mexican-American or Canadian-American to refer to people of Mexican or Canadian origin living in the United States" really ought to go, as it is misleading. My francophone ancestors lived in Acadia and Quebec for many years before coming south; that would arguably make me Franco-American, but I doubt I've seen the phrase "Canadian-American" in my life (and I highly doubt any Canadian's living in the US would want to be referred as anything but Canadian). As for Mexican-Americans, sure that phrase gets used, though I'd generally use Chicano, as that is (in my experience) the preferred term by the people to whom the term applies.

Incidentally, I'm surprised no one here has really discussed the cultural implications of the word American e.g. that America refers not just to a geographic or political entity, but to a cultural one. Some here have suggested that Americans ought to consider themselves Californians or Texans or New Yorkers, etc. based on the state of habitation, in the same way members of the European Union could be Italians or Germans in addition to Europeans. But the comparison is not at all apt; despite our regional differences we very much consider national identity to be far more important than states. And Latin Americans don't share that identity (though as a pro-immigrant, I'm cool with Latinos who want to join us). -Bert 171.159.64.10 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why the article suggests that those terms, "Canadian-American" and "Mexican-American," are redundant. I agree that Mexican-American is a terrible term, but Chicano is a politically-loaded term, and a sizable population of Mexicans residing in the U.S. don't identify with "Chicano" either. See Chicano for reference. A more accurate term would be U.S. Americans, Mexicans, or U.S. Americans of Mexican descent, depending on the specific case. --Deepstratagem 04:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You misconstrued or misrepresented my point. In the US, a hyphenated American refers exclusively to ethnicity, not to geography. No one would ever call a Canadian living in the US a "Candian-American" because we don't recognize a Canadian ethnicity. Americans recognize Canada as a multi-ethnic nationality, and I assume Canadians do as well. It has absolutely zero to do with issues of redundancy. I've removed the discussion of "Canadian-Americans", but left Mexico as it illustrates what you see as redundancy (though I disagree). 171.159.64.10 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I did misconstrue part of what you said and your point is taken. Deepstratagem 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

US American is not a common alternative in English

In the list of alternative names and terminology the term U.S American and United States American were listed as a so-called "commonly used alternative" instead of being listed with the foreign (language) alternatives, which is where it belongs since it is mostly a direct translation of a foreign term. I changed this and mentioned U.S American with the German US-Amerikaner entry in the common foreign alternatives list. US or United States American is simply in no way common terminology in English speaking countries or media. I, as a German speaker, know the word is extremely common in German media but it is virtually non-existent in mainstream English media and common usage. The fact is that there is no common alternative in English at the moment. Please do not revert this edit again. --Westee 07:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Google "U.S. Americans" with the quotation marks. Why would it be listed with the foreign language alternatives if it is used in English? In scholarly papers and political arguments involving other Americans it is often used to be clear and precise. The fact it is not as common as American doesn't mean that as an alternative it is not commonly used. Also, the U.S. media has no reason to use alternatives due to context and familiarity by the primary audience, especially if the issues raised here would incite anger upon inadvertently questioning the identity of its audience (or at least the word it is associated with). The point is, the media (the popular/mass media) is not a very good meter for gauging the use of such an alternative, and neither, for various reasons, is it the final authority on reality. Maybe you mean U.S. American is not as widely used as American... in which case you should reconsider your edit. --Deepstratagem 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the google results for "U.S American" or "U.S Americans" are from German sources or have nothing to do with the phrase U.S American in the usage suggested here; please check the results and you will see what I mean - most of these results are for phrases with the word "us" followed by American such as about us- Americans.... or contact us: American.... or us Americans and have nothing to do with the demonym at issue here. Or you can do a google news search for the term and see how many news sources you get (based in Anglophone countries). Listen I have lived in three different predominently English-speaking countries (UK, USA, South Africa) in the past 5 years with frequent visits to the Rep. of Ireland and never once have i heard the term used in media or in a normal conversation between English speakers. U.S American is simply not a common term and if you doubt please provide evidence of this. I simply do not see much reason for debate to be honest - the word is not a common alternative in English. US American is largely a German construction, although it may perhaps be used in other non-English speaking societies as well. Why did you only mention the US media above, the British media also does not use the term and I don't see any proof that the mainstream Canadian, Australian, Irish, or other Anglophone-countries' media use it either. And even if you ignore the media (but why?) then what about common speech and academia and I know for a fact that US American is not a commonly or widely used everyday word to describe US citizens in any English-speaking society I have visited (not in Canada,Britain, Australia, NZ, SA, or Jamaica) and I also have no evidence of it being widespread or standard in the Anglophone academic world. U.S American is simply not an English term as such and that why I stand behind my edit. Not only is it not common it also arguably not English but merely a direct translation of a foreign term (mostly from German) with no real use in English. --Westee 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I accept that there might be some English-speaking circles where the term may be used but that never the less does not make it a commonly used. My main problem with using the word common to describe the phrase is that it is confusing and give a false notion for non-native speakers of English about the term. Many of these people would easily think the term is commonly used in English, when in fact most native English-speakers (regardless of nationality) would probably be suprised to hear the term and consider it merely a foreigner's incorrect English and not a specific choice of words or worse they would consider it patronizing and many average native-speaking English teachers would almost certainly consider the term incorrect in the same they would somebody writing the term UK-British, instead of the adjective British. I do not think the phrase belongs at the top of subsection on alternatives name or that it should be called common but perhaps it should be merged into the list of "unusual alternatives" and maybe this list should be called "possible alternatives" instead of being called unusual. --Westee 10:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't think Americans, That is US Citizens use the word American the way they do out of arrogance. Nowdays it is used out of habit and tradtion. As Politically correct as the US is America will always mean USA. Need also drives the usage. What else to replace it. I suspect the term came from what English speakers refered to all colonists in the Americas(thats the term my text books use). The if the indivual colonies had't united we wouldn't have this problem. The group of states were all American. All the other colonies in the Americas didn't unite the same way. Argentina didn't join with Chile and Paraguay. As the US became one nation it was called what it had always been called America. country of orgin labeling is hard. Whats an White person whose family has lived in Africa for generations and moves to America? Is he a African American, yes and no. If there is a problem suggest a solution.

English speakers and English usage

Speakers of American English use "American" to refer to America (USA). Do we all agree with this? --Uncle Ed 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Legal and proper use well-defined.

It is quite clearly established that America is the proper and legal name of a nation, apart from the union that governs that nation, and acknowledged by monarchs and founders since its establishment. The following should make this clear:

Declaration of Independence; “IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” (As you can see, the word “united” was not capitalized yet, because it was not considered a name.)

Articles of Confederation; Article 8, last paragraph reads as follows: “In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.”

1783 Treaty of Paris; Article 3, “… of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty …” Article 6, “… ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at Liberty …” Article 7, “… property of the American inhabitants …” and “…the American artillery that may be therein …” Article 9, “… said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed …”

This should be conclusive evidence that America is the name of the nation and its people, and that “United States”, “Union”, “Confederation”, are merely words to describe a nation of states. This holds true for the United Mexican States, Federative Republic of Brazil, the United Kingdom, and other countries that are not nation-states or city-states. Are Mexicans called United Mexicans? Are the British called United Kingdom citizens? Are Brazilians called Federative Republic citizens? Then why should American be called United States citizens?

If in the Latin world America is the name of the continents of North and South America together (the Americas), then the name will have to be shared. This also begs the question of why anyone would use the continental name at all to describe their origins. Egyptians do no call themselves Africans, and nor do Russians or Israelis call themselves Asians. There are no countries named Africa, North America, South America, Asia, or Europe. Australia is the only exception because only one nation has ever occupied it. If India conquers a part of Australia for themselves, then I'm sure they will call their part something else as a nation. Australia would not be bound to change its name if it lost control over the whole continent.

But there is a nation called America, established in the Eighteenth Century, and like then as now, no nation has used the word to name their country. Otherwise we would be the United States of Columbia, or the United States of Philadelphia, or some other name. America would not be used if it had not been intended to be the name of their country.

Interesting sources. Nice work finding them; it would be cool if you could work a bit of that into the article. However, I should point out that the Treaty of Paris seems to support the idea that "American" (which, strictly speaking, is the subject of this article) means "estadounidense", but that "America" is ambiguous at best, possibly referring to the whole of the New World. The larger context of one of your quotes is, "... the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use ... and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty ...", etc., etc.[7]. That is, "his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America" seems to be referring to Canada. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the usage of America in the portion showed of the Treaty of Paris doesn't seen to refer to the United States but to the whole "New World". And I have to point the very beggining of the Constitution of the United States: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a ..." The document doesn't even use the name America to refer to the country. And, correct me if I am wrong (because I really might be), if America is the real name for the USA wouldn't be wrong to capitalize United States when used without America since that way it wouldn't be actually a name but more like a descripition, just like if one talk about Brazil only as federative republic?

I disagree that America is the name giving to both North and South America only in the Latin world, because independently of being a continent or not, this landmass has a name, America, like for example, the landmass of Europe and Asia has the name Eurasia.

And the case of Autralia being both the name of a continent and a country is different, Australia (the continent) was named after the country, and the most accepted term (internationaly) for the continent is not Australia but Oceania, because of the confusion it causes, the same that happens with America. And Autralia is not the only country in the continent, countries like New Zealand and Fiji are also in the continent. And if someone could help me with this one I wanted to now if in Australia (Oceania) they call the continent Australia or Oceania (or maybe another name)- Matt 8 04:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to find a derivative?

the article as of now reads "This usage dispute is apparently related to the fact that the United States of America (USA) is the only legal name of the country: if "American" is unacceptable, a proper adjective does seem difficult to derive from such a relatively long name."

is it really that difficult to say United Statesian? the reason people don't want to change what they say stems from not sympathizing with the reason for changing what has been traditionally accepted.

it is thus insincere to say the dispute is related to the difficulty in finding a derivative when i say many at the bottom of the page. jessicanr 20 april 2006

There's no general rule in the English language that you can stick "-ian" on the end of something as a suffix and make a new word. "United Statesian" is ugly by English standards because it doesn't follow the normal rules of the "-ian" suffix. "United Stateser" would make more sense (as a noun, at least), but I've never heard anyone suggest that, probably because it sounds strange. Further, people are used to the idea that the names of countries are usually in the form "X of Y" and that the adjective form is found by modifying the Y portion, not the X. That's what people mean when they say that's difficult to derive an adjective other than "American" from "United States of America". - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We say Parisian so your argument doesn't hold as far as whether you can add "-ian" to the end of a word. -jessicanr 23 April 2006

You misunderstand. Nat's point is that the suffix "-ian" is not productive. You can't just add it to any old word to make a new word. Only words that are already established with the "-ian" suffix can use that suffix. The number of words that can take "-ian" as a suffix is finite, established, and unchanging. "Paris" is one such word. "States" is not. Nohat 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Language is constantly changing. Slang is often times derived from non-existent words so i don't see why it's a problem for someone to add "-ian" to a word. Adding/changing endings to words has always happened and will continue to happen. A similar argument as yours was made against those who wanted to change the word homo-phile to homo-sexual. Glad people were open-minded enough to realize that it's ok for words to evolve to convey a better, more accurate meaning. -jessicanr 25 April 2006

Language does change, but it is difficult at best for one to try to make it change. We are explaining why coming up with an adjective other than "American" out of "United States of America" is indeed difficult—it requires changing the language—not completely impossible. Also, your example of "homosexual" and "homophile" is mixed up. A look at the article on homophile shows that "homophile" was a term used by homosexual people in the mid-20th century that was intended to be more polite, not less so. This is an example of the language not changing, even though some people thought it should. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it can take a while for people to change the words they use. but it has to start somewhere. i'm sure going from calling black people Negro to African-American wasn't exactly accepted at the beginning (and still sometimes isn't), but with people becoming more "aware" of the things they say, they started to change. for all the evolution of our language i see adding "-ian" to something as one of the smallest changes. As for my example with homosexuality, my point was that endings were added to words to convey a different point of view. It happens all the time.-jessicanr 25 april 2006

We seem to be drifting afield from the topic at hand. It's clear that the language could change, and it's clear that you want it to change. I still maintain that "United Statesian" is not currently an English word, and thus it is hard to torture "United States of America" into confessing an adjective that is an English word, other than "American".

Incidentally, as long as we're making up new names, why go with something long and ungainly like "United Statesian"? How about we start calling the U.S. "Oreia" and its people "Oreian", which come from the Greek word for "beautiful", which makes sense because the Chinese word for U.S.-istan already means "beautiful country"? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What?. Productivity isn't a rule: It's purely descriptive. And besides the -n, -an, -ian suffix is indeed productive. Reference Venusians, Pratchett's Klatchians, Star Trek's Romulans etc. etc. Mucky Duck 10:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that -ian isn't totally nonproductive. However, that said, examples from works of fiction are not good examples, because the author has ample opportunity to introduce new terms of art according to his own fancy. I submit that "United Statesian" is itself a counter-example, since I doubt most English speakers would recognize it as an English word, although I'm sure they could figure out what you are trying to say. Another similar example would be "New Yorkian". - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They'd not have to "figure it out"; they'd know immediately what it meant. Moreover, if asked to make up a name for someone from say "Glop" they would most likely choose the word "Glopian". Similarly people stear away from the term "Argentine" to refer to either a native of Argentina or pertaining to Argentina in favour of "Argentinian". You might consider it ugly but it's most certainly a productive suffix - a classic example of one, in fact.

A bit of a side issue here, though. Mucky Duck 08:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal and proper use well-defined Part II

It should be pointed out that my quotes taken from the Treaty of Paris are indeed out of context to save space. Over all the United States is mentioned often, and the use of the words America and American not clearly defined. But America and American are used in a treaty that acknowledges the independence of the United States of America, the only country to use the name America at all, and this has legal importance.

The Declaration of Independence is the document that establish a nation, and then its government with the Articles, and then more firmly with the US Constitution. People are often confused that the concepts of government and nation are separate, though often established together. Not so with America. The nation was created first before the government. And that is precisely why the constitution does not include the word America, but just United States in its preamble. Constitutions only establish governments or laws (see Wikipedia article), not nations. Nations are established by people, and those people usually call themselves something like Russians or Germans, not Federation citizens or Federal Republicans.

“United States” in an of itself is meaningless. Any government can call itself the “United States.” The words do not define a nation or a culture, or its people. So, should citizens of the United States call themselves Americans?

I will probably add a main article to Wiki soon, so opinions and debate is encouraged. Thank you all for your time. Jcchat66 06:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I still think the example of the Treaty of Paris implies a disconnect between the word "American" and the word "America". To wit, it appears to use "American" to mean U.S.-ian (so to speak), but "America" to mean "the New World". That said, this article is about use of the word American, not use of the word America.

By the way, I read part of a book one time—although it's conversational tone did little to establish its credibility in my mind, and I can't remember the title of it anyway—which speculated that the reason the name of the nation goes unmentioned in the Constitution is that it might have been seen as implying that the federation would be too powerful, too national: a threat to the powers of the several states. That is, the name of a nation was seen as too powerful a thing to invoke. The same book speculated that, if a name had been included, it would have been Columbia rather than America, although I find that presumption a bit harder to credit. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 08:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the Treaty of Paris is not entirely a good argument, but it does use the both American and America often, and in relation to the United States, which in itself is important. The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation I would lean more heavilly on than the Treaty of Paris.

That said, thank you! You reminded me of the mindset of the early Americans. Most citizens called themselves by the state in which they were born, and seldom Americans. It was not until later in American history were Americans encouraged to call themselves citizens of the United States while abroad. Otherwise, they called themselves by their state origin. Since I read this long ago I have no current links, so help is welcome. Jcchat66 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

New intro

I'm not so sure about this new intro: "Use of the word "American" to describe the United States or its citizens became increasingly controversial as the 21st century began. In the US, this is the standard usage, but it is less so in other English-speaking countries. / In the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America, considerable numbers of people bristle at any seeing or hearing the word used in the narrow sense; many advocate a more general and inclusive meaning which parallels the Spanish word Americá." For one thing, it's not clear that this usage is really becoming more controversial; however, I guess we can leave that for the moment, since it's true at least from Wikipedia's perspective. For another, it's not clear that using "American" to mean "U.S.-ish" is less common in other English-speaking countries; it might even be more common, if U.S.-ians are in fact becoming sensitised to the political incorrectness of "American". Thirdly, it's never really been satisfactorily established who exactly bristles at the narrow sense of "America". "Considerable" is fairly vague, but it seems somewhat acceptable because we presumably wouldn't have an article on the subject if the number of people involved were not considerable (I would hope so, anyway!). However, "many advocate" strikes me as an overstatement: I suspect that the large majority of people in Latin Americans don't advocate anything regarding English word usage. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should read "became increasingly controversial on Wikipedia"/ "some Wikipedia editors bristle"... / "some Wikipedia editors advocate", and so on, unless any of these claims are verified by citations from reliable sources. Nohat 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though I have no reliable source to give you all, except for my own word, I can assure you that the usage of American meaning US citizens and America meaning the USA is considered offensive in Latin American countries. I say that as a Latin American, and I never, NEVER, met anyone in Brazil (place where I'm from) that I talked about it that didn't complain about this usage. And they do complain about the usage in English too, especially the usage of America, since we never use it to refer to the US. But I do have objections about the intro, I not sure if it actually became a bigger deal in the 21st century than it was before. And I think it should be added that not only Spanish speaking countries have problem with the usage of the word but also Portuguese speaking countries, and not only because I am Brazillian but also because it represents more than half of the people in South America. Matt 8 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely... This is the way it is in just about any Latin American country... how do you cite something that is essentially common sense in Latin America...? It's like saying that water flows... does anyone have scholarly proof that water flows? No... everyone who has seen water flow knows that it flows... therefore there is no need for studies that indicate it does. Everyone I know in Latin America feels the same way. --Deepstratagem 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If the sentiment truly were as widespread as you claim, then it would be trivial to present a source. If you want to find scholarly proof that water flows, you could easily find it in introductory texts on, say, fluid mechanics. If it truly is just "common sense" then there should be no problem at all presenting citations that demonstrate the presumption. Nohat 07:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is trivial to present a source (there are plenty of blogs on the internet). However, there simply aren't scholarly articles on popular opinion on this matter. The several dictionaries and primary and secondary data that has been presented regarding earlier use (in this discussion page) have been been tossed aside and ignored. The water flow example may not be the most adequate, but I challenge you to produce more than one scholarly study directly proving that water flows (is capable of doing so) (not articles on its viscosity or rate of flow or any derivations on the axiom). --Deepstratagem 12:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK—well let's see some of the unreliable sources. Maybe we can start with them and they will point us to something more reliable. As it stands, the refusal to provide sources for a claim made in the article in unacceptable, and neither is the shifting of the burden of proof. The article makes the following disputed claims:

• Use of the word "American" to exclusively describe citizens of the United States became perceptibly controversial as the 21st century began.
• In the US and Canada, this is the standard usage, but it is less so in other English-speaking countries.
• In the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America, considerable numbers of people bristle at seeing or hearing the word used in the narrow sense; many advocate a more general and inclusive meaning which parallels the Spanish word América.

None of these claims are backed up with sources. If they cannot be, then they shall be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain...Any edit lacking a source may be removed". Nohat 17:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the existence of the controversy might be as obvious as water running downhill to people who live in Latin America. However, it's definitely not obvious to most English speakers. Therefore, assuming that it's a real phenomenon, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to find a good citation which was written to explain the situation to North Americans and the rest of the English-speaking world. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Although citations in Spanish (or Portuguese) would also be perfectly acceptable, assuming we can scare up translations to go along with them. I can offer to provide idiomatic translations of Spanish into English. Nohat 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your offer and expertise are certainly appreciated and welcome. --Deepstratagem 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine given verifiability over truth in Wikipedia, (BTW, I don't agree with all of the quoted excerpts above) But where does that leave the claim that the word American refers only to the United States (or at all)? I haven't seen any solid, reliable sources provided to support that claim either. I also haven't seen any sources for the claim that American doesn't refer to or infrequently refers to the American continent. The way the article stands, it's basically one POV v the other (regardless of whether I believe there is some consistency or truth to both views).

You are right. The claims should be backed up with sources, but let's be fair and hold all sides to the same requisites. If this means we won't find any reliable sources indicating what I and others have experienced in Latin America (namely, that as a result of history, logic, precedence and common sense, that America consists of Canada, U.S.A. Mexico, Guatemala,..., Brazil, etc... whether speaking in English or otherwise, and that exclusive reference to the U.S.A. is considered offensive and incorrect), then I'm willing to wait until reliable sources become available. But I would expect everyone else to be held to the same standards regardless of their native language(s). --Deepstratagem 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The new intro certainly is a problem. The talk page makes it sound like its basically Central Americans and South Americans who object to the term., but the intro makes it sound like only Americans use the term to describe Statesiders. In Canadian English and Newfoundland English, American refers strictly to people from the United States of America. Take a trip to Peterborough and call someone an American and you'll get a stern lecture. Insist on it and you're likely to get a punch in the jaw. I've seen no evidence that in any anglophone country they actually use American to refer to anything but Americans ... can someone provide an example? If not, I have to insist the article reflect the situations that American means American, and some Latin Americans don't like this - the current situation suggesting only Americans use America to mean "The country south of 49" is wholly intolerable. WilyD 12:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely educated Canadians would understand that they technically are Americans in the continental sense. --Deepstratagem 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And surely educated Latin Americans would understand that they are not Americans in the national sense. What's the controversy, then? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is in the misuse of the word. Surely educated Canadians and educated Latin Americans understand both meanings, but educated U.S. Americans seem to be lagging behind. The controversy is in the exclusive sense used by the latter, as if Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. were not Americans. --Deepstratagem 15:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Canadians do not understand both senses. Neither do Americans. Do any anglophones? 128.100.89.51 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC) aka WilyD 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, we are most certainly not! I am a North American, I am from the Americas, but I am not American, I am not from America. I do not live in America. Using "American" to refer to a resident of the Americas is unequivically wrong in Canadian English, I would no sooner say "American" to refer to residents of the Americas than I would use "Zqqytikilloot" to refer to residents of the Americas - both are completely wrong and unacceptable. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go lie down. Your use of "American" to refer to Canadians has angried up my blood. I am a North American in the continental sense - but I'm not an American in the continental sense, for there is no continent called America. Canadian English has no common adjective meaning "of the new world".128.100.89.51 15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC) aka WilyD 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not purely my intention to anger your personified blood, but what are your sources? --Deepstratagem 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to cite something negatively. I mean, I can find examples of Americans clearly used to mean people only from the United States [[8]][[9]][[10]] in today's issue of the Globe & Mail but how do I prove a negative? If you claimed that "qyyk" was a common term for dog in Canada, how can I prove its not? I'm not sure. To be clear, there are lots of citable instances of Anglophones using American to mean American, and no instances of them to mean from the Western Hemisphere. The "citable" fact is that American means American, refering only to Statesiders, and this pisses off Latin Americans. WilyD

And there are a lot of "citable" instances of Anglophones referring to Latin America+U.S.A+Canada as America, for example, this page. But that doesn't get us anywhere does it? None of your citations above are scholarly nor are they clearly equating American with relation to the U.S.A in a strict one to one mapping fashion. --Deepstratagem 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The second part of your claim is false, all the examples I gave clearly show use of the term American to mean "of the United States", and clearly specifically exclude Canadians from being Americans. Scholarly examples are harder to find precisely because there isn't any debate on the issue, I'd also have a hard time finding scholarly articles showing that the word frog does not refer to small mammels with leathery wings. I only offered it as an *example* that in Canadian English the word "American" refers unambigiously to the united States of America. I stated initially they were only examples. But I have serious doubts about your ability to find examples of anglophones using the word to mean anything but American, as far as I can see, all the individuals advocating for American to mean "of the Americas" are in fact allophones ... do you have any examples of anglophones ever using American to mean anything other than American? WilyD 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See my reply below to Sumergocognito for an example of an Anglophone meaning "New World" when using the word America. Look, I understand where you are coming from (in the idiomatic colloquial sense, and not a sarcastic one) and hopefully you can see that besides the unbalanced demography of users/editors frequenting this page resulting in some systematic bias in favor of your views, your "common sense" is no more adequately verifiable (at this time) than mine despite our strong belief that it is so.

By the way, all of the Allophones expressing their views on this page are Anglophones. Deepstratagem 09:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Deepstratagem, you'll find its quite impossible for your last assertion to be true. I may be misidentifying people, which is why I asked. But a person can only have one first language, so the allophones are not anglophones. The Federalist Papers are an interesting but I suspect people will be tempted to reject it on the age criteria. In 1800, place names in the Americas were clearly not the same as they are today (For an example, see Canada), and since all the anglos are getting riled up based on current usage, corresponding current usage is likely better. I'm not sure - I'll think about it some more. WilyD 12:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Impossible? How so? There are two main defitions of Allophone, one Quebequois and another more logical. Under the Quebequois definition (someone whose native language is not French or English) all of the Allophones on this page are also Anglophones simply because they speak English. This is the kind of misinterpretation that fuels discussions like this one.

Also, what prevents someone from having two native languages? There are plenty of people with two native languages, in say, Singapore, Indonesia, India and places where you grow up learning and speaking two languages or more at a very early age. Deepstratagem 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing really prevents people from having two native languages, however if a person were immersed from birth in two separate and not altogether concordant idioms might evince rather idiosyncratic usage. A person who spoke German and English from birth might strongly favor "present" and "fog" in English even though "gift" and "mist" have no negative connotations in English like they do in German. Wikipedia is targeted, I think, at a general English readership, it would be better to speak to them at thier own level. Sumergocognito 03:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but that same Germanglophone would agree that both "present" and "fog" do not exclude the usage of "gift" and "mist", nor do they cease to exist as synonyms, despite the positive/negative connotations. Deepstratagem 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that misunderstanding is likely my bad. I was speaking with the definition you call "Quebeqois", which is universal in Canadian English. Under this definitiong, Anglophones have a native language of English, whereas Allophones do not (they also don't have French as a native language, but that seemed an irrelevent point). Whereas there may be some specialised meaning of "native" among linguists, I was using the ordinary definition. Which means that no amount of fluency will ever give one "native" speaker status, or remove it. I will always be a native speaker of English, and can never become a native speaker of French, for example. It may be possible in highly extraordinary circumstances for someone to have two native languages - but all such circumstances are so contrived that the claim that *all* the allophones in this discussion are also anglophones is false on its face. WilyD 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

There are a lot of Anglophone sources that use the word "America" to mean Latin America and the US and Canada together? I'd be fascinated to see them, where are they? This page obviously doesn't count, that would be a circular argument. Moreover, newspapers might not be scholarly, but on a question of proper English usage a major newspaper like the Globe and Mail is a perfectly respectable source.

Considering the specific articles, I cannot see where you get nor are they clearly equating American with relation to the U.S.A in a strict one to one mapping fashion. In the first cited article, note the contrastive use of "American" versus "North American". When an English speaker wishes to describe a phenomenon that transcends the national boundary between Canada and the U.S. that's how they do it. Had they included South America they would have probably said "the New World" or "the Western Hemisphere" or "The Americas". In the second article notice how "American" is used interchangeably with [people]"from the U.S." or "from the U.S.A." Yet the article is about foreign tourism in Canada if a Canadian citizen were within the ambit of the term "American" as English speakers conventionally use the it, the article would be incoherent. Sumergocognito 21:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anglophone sources: Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, for one. He referred to the the New World as America, while contrasting it from the United States.
• ...When and English speaker wishes to describe a phenomenon that transcends the national boundary between Canada and the U.S. that's how they do it...they would have probably said "the New World" or...: circular logic [they don't refer to it as A because they don't refer to it as A] and dangerously close to original research.
• Interchangeable use: Yes, and I can use Canadian interchangeably with Torontian if I want to; But that doesn't mean that all Canadians are Torontians. Deepstratagem 08:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

My impression is that Canadians and Americans can probably be talked into understanding the putative continental sense of "American" (although Canadians might refuse to get the point if they suspect your motive is U.S. cultural imperialism). That is, the conversation would go something like, "Listen, Alanis Morissette, you're American." "No, I'm not. Actually, I'm Canadian." "Yeah, but, Canada is, you know, in North America. So that makes you American." "Eh? You mean, I'm North American." "Yeah, but 'North America' is part of the New World, which can be called 'America', especially in historical contexts and such. That is, after all, why it's called North America, right? So, in that sense, as you are from the New World, you're an American." "Hmmm, yeah, that makes sense. I guess if you look at it that way, then you could say that I am American. Thank you, pedantic stranger." However, that doesn't change the fact that English speakers very rarely use the word in that sense and, as a result, they probably wouldn't normally understand what you mean by it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nat, if I may be so bold as to call you that, rest assured that I get your point. It's a well reasoned point, but (and this may be POV) English is a descriptive language, not a prescriptive language. Roughly speaking, your argument makes sense, but English does not work that way. English Speakers (at least, in US/Canada) do not use American to mean *from the Americas*, so it does not mean that. Anyways, I strongly agree with the articles assertion that we need a citation for the claim that non American anglophones ever use American to refer to residents of the Americas who are not American. If such evidence is not forthcoming, the claim will have to be removed. WilyD 16:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do call me Nat. Just to be clear, the point that you are making is essentially the same as the one that I was attempting to make. Cheers, Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The problem with the new introduction is that it continually says United States when it actually means Anglosphere. This needs to be fixed, but I suspect it needs to be hashed out here first. WilyD 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Do I understand correctly that this controversy boils down to the confusion between Spanish speakers when they say América and americano and English speakers when they say America and American? If something is very clear to 380 million native English speakers then that seems to be the end of the issue. After all this is the English Wikipedia it should reflect the conventional usage of people who speak English as their primary language. What is the alternative? Force new and unfamiliar meanings on well established English words and invent ugly neologisms to take their former meanings? More importantly, why? Should Germans stop using the word Gift to mean "poison" because the same group of letters means something altogether different in English? Who's being culturally imperialistic now? Sumergocognito 19:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a Spanish thing, I think, but it has nothing to do with ignorance. I've had two encounters in the last year with Latin Americans objecting to my use of "American" to refer to the USA. One was a student in an ESL class I was teaching. He actually walked out over the issue, never to return!

These are not "confused" people. They are resentful and feel left out. Americans (USA) are dishonest exploiters to them. --Uncle Ed 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not just because it is more commonly used to refer to US citizens that American doesn't also means from the Americas in English. What happens is that there are way less times when you need to use American as "from the Americas" then from the USA. And you can't say that America is not the North and South America together in English, because it is actually the name of the landmass.

It is just because it is exclusively used to refer to US citizens that American doesn't also mean from the Americans in English. What happens is that there are exactly zero times when you need to use American as "from the Americas" as opposed to from the States which it actually means. And you can easily say that America isn't North and South American together in English, because that combination is only refered to as the Americas (or the Western Hemisphere, or the New World). WilyD 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And I don't know how, in a world like we live today, the English Wikipedia is suppose to represent only the views of the ones that have English as FIRST language.Matt 8 01:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds suspiciously like you see no reason to write an English language wikipedia in English, Matt 8. Is that your claim? WilyD 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that today English is daily used not only by the ones that have it as a first langueage but also by people all around the world, and because of that the English Wikipedia should represent the views of all those people.

And American is not used only for US citizens, using again the example of the Organization of American States, and you can say that this might have been pressure from Latin American countries but if it actually was wrong it wouldn't be used in English. And there are many words that are not frequently used or almost not used at all, as might be the case of America (as the landmass), but that doesn't means that it doens't exist and have a meaning anymore.Matt 8 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue however, is not what is within the absolute limits of valid usage in any context, but what is appropriate and sensible in a specific context. The OAS is a fairly esoteric usage (and in fact, ambiguous, a person might easily mistake the OAS as a group for Alabama, Alaska and so on rather than the nation-states of the Americas). When it appears in a general context without qualification to English speakers the word "America" means "the U.S." for instance, Alistair Cooke's famous Letters from America [[11]] similarly, "American" means someone or something from the United States.

In substantive matters, I agree that the English Wikipedia should represent all relevant views regardless of language or nationality. However, when the issue is simply correct English grammar, that is ultimately determined by the consensus of native English speakers. After all, what use is an English encyclopedia if it doesn't make sense to "the ones that have it as a first language"? Sumergocognito 23:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How is American(~country) more correct grammatically than American(~continent) where ~ indicates "in relation to"? --24.20.153.15 10:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, this is because anglophones are unaware of any continent called America. If I pull out the standard list of continents taught to anglos, it goes Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, Antartica, North America, South America. Some debate exists on whether Oceania should be the prefered name for Australia, and many "official-like" sources prefer it.WilyD 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I still say that it doesn't really matter if its a continent or not, the landmass is called America, the fact that you see Asia and Europe as two separate continents doesn't make you reject the existence of Eurasia. And it shouldn't be that hard for anglophones to figure out that the union of North and South America is America, and of Latin and Anglo America also is.Matt 8 00:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"it shouldn't be that hard for anglophones to figure out"... Lovely. Thank you for volunteering to teach us how to speak our own language. We should really put this in the New York Times and the the Times of London to let all us stupid anglophones know. I can see the headlines: "American population grows by 500+ million overnight, Canadians really annoyed". 171.159.64.10 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have chosen to respond to this thread, but I decided to anyway. First, I don't think the issue at stake is quite grammar exactly, although it has something to do with the rules of how the language works, so I'll not split hairs. Second, I must object to the characterisation of America qua continent as "a landmass". I think that, unlike "continent", "landmass" can and should have a fairly objective meaning: Europe and Asia are seen as two continents, but they are objectively one landmass; America is seen by some people as one continent, but it is definitely not one landmass. Third, there is nothing other than the U.S. that is normally called "America" in English, except when one is talking about discoveries by Columbus and such. Fourth, you say, "it shouldn't be that hard for anglophones to figure out that the union of North and South America is America", but (in addition to the fact that I'm not sure that they need to figure out their own language) anglophones do know what the union of North and South America adds up to: 1 America + 1 America = the Americas. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you're correct, and what's more there is a landmass called America - it's located primarily between the landmasses known as Canada and Mexico. And people who live there are known as Americans! WilyD 04:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if America were a hypothetical continent, it would still be grammatically correct. Deepstratagem 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that people who are raised speaking English would be confused. The reason languages have rules (grammar) is to minimize ambiguity. If one insists on using a word that most people understand to refer to the USA in an idiosyncratic way readers will be confused and then annoyed that one refuses to communicate clearly when terms already exist to facilitate that. cf. North American or the phrase "inhabitant of the Americas". Sumergocognito 02:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So we should withhold something you agree is grammatically correct because it is confusing? Or are you saying it's too difficult to grasp for general readers? Because then maybe we should get rid of the articles on quantum mechanics, I mean, they are just too confusing for general readership. I mean why would anyone go to an encyclopedia, except to confirm what they already "know"!?. Deepstratagem 21:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize that what I said the way I said sounded insultive, but what I said is not a matter of language, America is the name of everything from Greenland to tierra del fuego, and it doesn't matter if the USA also is or not. North ans South America are called like this because they are part of a continent that was called America (and still is for many countries), being a continent or not doesn't take its name away.

I agree that the issue with the word America and American is not really about if it is correct gramaticaly but about it being offensive and disrespectful with other people. American as a citizen of the United States is correct in Enlgish, it is correct in Portuguese, and as far as I know it is correct in Spanish too, but the point is that it shouldn't be correct.Matt 8 00:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "the point is that it shouldn't be correct"? I hope you don't mean that the article should take the stance that it shouldn't be correct, because it is not Wikipedia's place to declare what should and shouldn't be. It is only Wikipedia's place to describe what is and isn't. Wikipedia is not a forum to advocate for language reform. (And yes, americano does mean "from the United States" in Spanish too, as shown by the citation to the Diccionario Real.) Nohat 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Matt, I think you hit the key point of the issue, that it is about "being offensive and disrespectful". The people of the United States are American in a cultural context, and in a sense of the word that has nothing to do with geography. The word American is integral to how we think of ourselves as individuals and collectively as a people, it is our national identity. What you, Deepstratagem, and others are proposing is to utterly change the meaning of the word, from a powerful sense of national identity to a trivial sense of geographic location. To me and probably most American nationals, THIS IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE AND DISRESPECTFUL. We have far more emotionally invested in the word than you do. I honestly am not sure whether you and others are debating this point because you honestly think that the Spanish sense of the word should be imposed on all Anglophones and don't realize how offensive this is to us (not to mention to Canadians), or if you fully understand and are just doing it because you dislike us gringos and know that it really pisses us off. I suspect the latter, but I'm trying to be fair. 171.159.64.10 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The reverse can be said, too. Many people outside the U.S.A. find your usage extremely offensive and extremely ignorant. But I'm not advocating any sort of language reform (especially since the word long meant what you claim it doesn't). I just think the article should not be replete with your personal ignorant bias. Besides, Alexander Hamilton wouldn't have found American(~continent) offensive. Deepstratagem 03:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what should this article be replete with? Because frankly it could use some help. Seriously, what exactly is the point of this article? I'm not saying it shouldn't exist. I honestly think that it IS important to note that to Spanish speakers Americano (and by implication American) applies to people throughout the hemisphere, and that what anglophones refer to as two continents is conceived as a single continent. If Latinos truly care about the issue as much as you suggest, the article introduction should probably better clarify the depth of passion on the issue. But I don't see how trivia like American bison migratory patterns sheds any light on the issue. (I know, someone wanted to establish a non-exclusionary use of the word in English, but this is roughly as enlightening as pointing out that Swiss cheese exists outside of Switzerland.) And incidently, I used the word "ignorance" not to question your understanding of the issue or even the rationality of your argument, but whether you understand the strength of the emotional reaction to that argument. As for Hamilton, true, but he also would not find slave-owning offensive, and I don't think wikipedia would be well served by insisting on only using 18th century definitions. And if my use of the word American to mean a U.S. national makes me ignorant, then I suppose I'm not competent to speak my native language, nor is any other Anglophone. That's a whole lot of ignorance. (Though it might explain the Bush/Blair thing, I guess.) 171.159.64.10 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think the article could use some help. Look, I think people from the United States are American in at least two senses of the word. If I take an extreme side in saying you have no proof of this, it just serves to give you a taste of why I cannot at this time find reliable sources for the alternative view(yet). Frankly, this discussion has enlightened me, in that I would not have previously made the distinction between American(~country) ^ American(~continent). I actually didn't put up the reference to American Bison (and I think it could go). But as the page included use in cultural contexts (needing citation of course) presumably as support for one meaning as opposed to the other, I thought a scientific context section would bring balance to the page. They are both inadequate sections nonetheless. Finally, your use of the word American to mean a U.S. national does not make you ignorant, for it does mean so, even in Spanish. But let's not be close-minded. Deepstratagem 06:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Anglophones

The current claim is that Americans and Canadians use American to refer exclusively to Americans - but that this is less true of other English speakers? Is there any basis for this claim other than wishful thinking? Even the unverifiable attestation of someone from Britain, Austrailia, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Ireland, Singapore, Bahamas, Jamaica, South Africa or any other country with anglos? Anyone? Would a Jamaican accept being labeled as an American? Is there any evidence that this occurs whatsoever? WilyD 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm an Aussie and my unverifiable assertion is that if I were told "He's an American", I'd think "He's from the USA", not "He's from somewhere in North, South or Central America". It's not that American is never used in the more general sense, but it would require a very particular context. Generally speaking, to label a Jamaican as "an American" would be considered at the very least grossly misleading, if not a downright lie, in Australia. If the speaker justified themselves by saying they were technically correct, they would be branded a nitpicking wanker. JackofOz 08:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Would the Village Pump be the right place to post a notice about this request? I think this discussion would benefit from as wide a range of opinions as possible. Not only Anglophones from around the world but non-natve speakers of English describing what they understand the word "American" to mean in English. Also non-English non-Spanish speaking inhabitants of the Americas, like Hatians and Québécois, do they consider themselves Américaine? Sumergocognito 23:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglophones are people whose linguistic origins are traced to a city in Denmark called "Anglyn" (which refers to either the shape of the peninsulia or the fact that the people were big time fishermen). Just like Spanish people are derived from Espagna region of a land formely known as a district of Pax Imperium Romania. The fact is, this has nothing to do with the region known to Americans and other English speakers as "America". It's simple, everyone from Jamaica to Hong Kong knows this. This is all about making Americans pay for the ignorant policies of our political leaders and corrupt businessmen, and also for our middle American racist attitudes towards non-Americans. Ok, two wrongs don't make a right. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"This is all about making Americans pay for the ignorant policies of our political leaders and corrupt businessmen, and also for our middle American racist attitudes towards non-Americans." Quote from above by Zaphnathpaaneah. Where did that come from, and what does it have to do with the use of the word American? Are you for or against this being used exclusively for US citizens? Jcchat66 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

I am a citizen of a country called "the United States of America" which just so happens to be the same as the name of the continent. The political adjectives "United States" and "Republic", "Federal" and "Democratic" are adjectives found in practically every country in the world from Sudan to China to Mexico. These ever present adjectives describe the strictly political, not regional/ethnic identity. Why should the name (the noun for which the people in the U.S.A. are named) be changed to something else just to suit some misdirected anger towards American imperialism? After all you can't really be satisfied to identify us as the adjective "U.S.". Because we aren't the only U.S. people either and we would be "hijacking" the U.S. nomenclature from other U.S. citizens. We take away the respect of a Mexican who is also a "U.S. citizen" of Mexico. Ah... but the great continents beckon. For Spanish/English speakers, it's even more confusing as we are known as "E.U" which is confounding with "Unidad de Europa" (U.E.) which is in English "E.U."

While I agree that U.S. is filled with an arrogant, self-centered 21st century social atmosphere, we should be allowed to retain the name of our country, with the noun "American" without any hinderance.

Another strong reason is that throughout the history of the Western Hemisphere, none of the post-colonial societies referred to themselves as Americans EXCEPT those inhabiting the United States of America. That includes, intellectuals, politicians, ruling classes, independance movement leaders, public figures, etc. I cannot find a single Mexican, Brazilian, or Columbian reference where someone, oh lets say like Zapata, united the people culturally or politically with the word "American". Never found a "We are Americans" as a description in any historical context outside the U.S.A.

Why then should you want it so badly now? --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, the articule should basically make the point "In English, Americans are people from the United States of America. America refers exclusively to the country known as the United States of America. This upsets an unknown number of Latin Americans, who feel that American should refer to any resident of the Americas, which should also be known as America, in parallel with the spanish usage of *americano*. Careful though, calling a Canadian an American is likely to get you a shot in the jaw. This issue creates the obvious problem that English contains no universal word for America or Americans other than that. While regional terms may exist (for example, "the States" is widely used among Canadians to refer to America), the only universally recognised terms are American and America." WilyD 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Canadians do consider themselves Americans(~continent). Deepstratagem 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to continue rejecting this claim as false until some evidence of it is provided. I have included on this talk page several examples of how Candian English regards "American" and "Of the United States" to be unambigious synonyms. While Latin Americans might regard the use of American to mean American as cultural imperialism of the Americans towards them, Canadians would regard the expansion of the term American to include Canadians as American cultural imperialism towards us. And if there is anything Canadians take offense to, it's American cultural empiricism towards us. WilyD 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the evidence you requested.

In fact, Mexico is an American country, the flag of Mexico is an American flag, and all Mexicans are Americans. Much of the Mexican population is descended from people who were living here in America thousands of years before our ancestors arrived from Europe. Moreover, the Europeans arrived in Mexico before they arrived in the U.S.A.

Mark Marshall

Toronto, Canada, America

The first link is a Canadian response to a political cartoon. The second is an extended discussion of the controversy regarding the response. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618177/posts responses to the letter to the commentary]. Notice the signature: Toronto, Canada, America. Deepstratagem 05:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is a start where it leads us, I don't know. Of course, my gut feeling (you can call it me being stubborn) is that he's not an anglo - only 50% of us Torontonians are, but maybe we'll put that aside. In any event, the issue of whether the usage of American in America is any different from the rest of the Anglosphere remains unresolved. WilyD 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence would be the results of linguistic research, not a single post on a single website by someone whose existence can't be verified. Or does evidence mean something else in other languages?John FitzGerald 02:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence can be found in many places. It seems that you are implying that the above reference is not verifiable. I disagree. The letter to the editor was published in a printed newspaper in the United States in a location near Canada. If it was mailed, the stamp would obviously be from Canada. If it was emailed, the originating IP address would also be tracked back to Canada, if not, it wouldn't be in the interest of a major U.S. paper to publish such alienating information about a cartoon authored by their own staff. Deepstratagem 10:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in Spanish it's "EE.UU.". User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would Zapata want to publicly unite everyone in America(continent)? I'm pretty sure he understood U.S. citizens are American, too, and wasn't appropriating the word. BTW, what makes you think this is a recent "phenomenon"? Haven't you read the rest of the discussion page? Deepstratagem 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Both are right and Wrong... I believe it's all in the eye of the beholder. Seriously there will always be someone to argue they are right or wrong. This is probably one of those debates that people just argue because they just feel the need to be right. I would like to add however in my unbiased opinion... does it make sense that Latin countries such as mexico would call citizens of the United States "Americanos", when they themselves are part of America? "Estados Unidos Mexicanos de America? Yeah it's a little confusing and I'm sure that this subject has been covered somewhere in the debate, but i'm too lazy to read every part of the debate. Once again... "It's all in the eye of the beholder." BTW Deepstratagem seems to have a point just about everywhere in this debate? What are your credentials Deep? --originally unsigned, 24.20.153.15

I don't think you understand my position on the subject. Either way, I'm not going to present my credentials to an anonymous poster, nor do I think I would trust someone merely based on their credentials. Take for example the hundreds of middle school teachers in the United States; they all have credentials, and most are mediocre teachers who would be fired for incompetence in any European country. Deepstratagem 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue here really is not *correct* usage, it's actual usage. It isn't about who's right or wrong, but what makes for an accurate encyclopedia. Nobody's opinion should have *any* part of what appears in the article. WilyD 12:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What does mediocre teachers have anything to do with this subject? That is a very poor example. Lay of the roids man. All I'm saying is how can anyone here make an article if there ins't credentials to back them up? ok sources are good but, what makes you such a good researcher or reporter? It should be illegal in America to post such articles without credentials.