Talk:American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] America and American

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

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

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

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

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

I am Austrian for the records.


Stupid. Colombians are from Colombia, Mexicans from Mexico, Venezualan from Venezuala and Americans from America. This argument is agenda pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.250.74 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In order of usage

Having American being a citizen or relating to the United States was put first, and changed from second. Yes, many Latin Americans could take umbrage at that, but in usage the term American more commonly is for the United States than it is for Latin America, and definitely Canada. American is not a Spanish word, either. Especially as a noun, the default definition of "an American" would be a citizen or resident of the United States of America. The pan-American crowd has a stronger case with American as an adjective and America as being an ARCHAIC term for the Americas, and a term which is becoming more and more obsolete in current usage. But the noun "American," without a modifier (adjective) is primarily used for.... an American. It is not the same as Asian, European, or African, where the country of origin is ambiguous. Chiss Boy 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you have a reliable source for this? The reason we argue (and argue, and argue) is because we have no such source - WilyD 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use the talk page before making an radical moves of the American article. -Acjelen 13:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I plan on moving American back to American (disambiguation) or some equivalent site, and placing a redirect here (to United States). United States has a little notifier placed on top already, so the very few who make it to this page meaning Americas or, I dunno, American cheese can make it to the disamb page with just one extra click, and the vast majority (just check out the pages that link here!) can get taken directly to the desired page (United States). Objections? Matt Yeager 20:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Matt, I object. This article should remain as the diambiguation page and American (disambiguation) should remain a redirect. The reason is that otherwise Wikipedia users will change this page back and and forth to redirect to either United States or Americas. It is much better to prevent both sides from doing this by using this page as the disambiguation page. As the debate over what is American is unresolvable, it is better to make it moot with the handy tools available to us on Wikipedia. -Acjelen 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Umm, as a matter of fact, Acjelen, we do have a way of protecting pages like that so that they're uneditable. So that reason doesn't stand, as far as I can see. Matt Yeager 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Can pages, especially redirects, be protected permanently? If so, I'd be in favor of having the disambiguation page at American (disambiguation) (and America at America (disambiguation), but I'd also want American to be a redirect to American (disambiguation) and not United States. -Acjelen 02:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, pages can be protected permanently (Main Page, anyone?). I think that whatever the consensus we reach is, we should have American be a redirect to somewhere, and protect American.


And in the meantime, could you please move this page to American (disambiguation) and put a redirect from here to American (disambiguation)? Matt Yeager 20:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, no, for the reasons given in my answer above. -Acjelen 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
What are your reasons for reverting the move Acjelen, and please don't refer me to some previous discussion, I'd like your ideas?--Commander Keane 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well first of all, it was done without any discussion before hand. And secondly, I think the page should remain at American to quickly and directly inform people of its various uses and direct them to the appropriate article in Wikipedia. The debate over what is American is unresolvable. As editors of an encyclopedia, it is not our job to "end" the debate. Moreover, having the page at American instead of American (disambiguation) reduces edit wars over where American redirects to. I also want to address the issue of how many pages link to American but should link to United States. Generally the titles of WP articles are in the singular and the noun form. Thus Austrian is a redirect to Austria, Erotic to Eroticism, and Monkeys to Monkey. Ideally no articles should have a link to Austrian, but instead use the pipe character (i.e. Austrian) and other happy wikiness like Austrian. All those pages linking to American should be changed so that they link directly to United States. A similar problem occurs with the Prince of Wales. Since many people mistakenly refer to him as "Prince Charles" (and little wonder since the press does it constantly), there are many Prince Charles wikilinks. Redirects and see references help to send people to the right article, but all those "Prince Charles" occurrences are in error. It should be a regular habit to remove them. I would rather Prince Charles was the disambiguation page so that when editors came upon the list of preferred terms, they would realize that they needed to use Charles, Prince of Wales, Charles Edward Stuart, etc. I have not made an effort to switch Prince Charles and Prince Charles (disambiguation), but since American is already that way, it makes sense to keep it so. -Acjelen 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I can understand your point of view, but the thing is that every day editors continue to link to American but meaning United States. I accept that this will remain a dab for the forseeable future. Just out of curiosity then, who (exactly) uses "American" in any other way than meaning United States?
Well, besides the branding issues of American Airlines and American Motors, we have the fact that, apparently, everyone in Latin American considers him- or herself an American. Please see Use of the word American for more information on the debate. -Acjelen 05:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright. First, sorry about not discussing the move beforehand. My bad. Second... unlike Prince Charles, which actually is NOT the proper way to refer to the current Prince of Wales (right?), American actually IS the correct way to refer to someone or something from the United States.
And about the Latin American thing--well, all I know on that is that Canadians never refer to themselves as Americans. Presumably Latin Americans wouldn't either. Matt Yeager 07:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(resetting tabs) Latin Americans do exactly that all the time. Sing along with me #1 Sing along with me #2 (in Spanish, I'll translate if you're interested)

Exactly...in Spanish. This isn't the Spanish-language wikipedia, and this isn't the page for "americano." How often do Latin Americans refer to themselves by the English word "American," except perhaps to make a political statement? Twin Bird 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ejrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 00:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone above asked who uses "American" to mean anything but someone from the USA? I do. I use it to mean someone from the Americas. Like I use African to mean someone from Africa. And BTW, I live in Canada. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 05:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

American refers to the ones who belong to America. America is the name of a continent and the colloquial short for the country United States of America (USA). Please note that the CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Govt does NOT include 'America' as a short name for the USA. It results awkward (if not offensive) for Latin-Americans who have a strong feeling of community toward the continent (Simón Bolívar's dream) to assign this word excursively to the inhabitants of the USA. Citizens of any country on the American continent are as Americans as a USA citizen in the same way that Europeans are all the citizens of any countries in the European continent and not only the ones that belong to the European Union or to a particular country. The fact that USA have the biggest economical and military power makes some think that they can ignore the fact that America is the name of a continent and not of a country placed in this continent. The problem get worse by the fact that USA is also not a proper name, given that Mexico is called 'United Mexican States' and the USA is not the only United States of America. Better would be to give a proper name to the country . Godot 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's very nice, but what is an issue here is common usage in the English language, not Spanish or any other language, and not the fact that some Latin Americans might have their feelings hurt by the usage of a word.--RWR8189 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't know if I'm in a minority here, but I find any idea of "continental belonging" offensive. If the people of the rest of the western hemisphere wish to see themselves as one, then I'm glad that the United States of America bucks that trend. I'm not going to apologize for my independent and sovereign country. Second, that some don't recognize the two continents of North America and South America is fine, but the society I live in does; and I don't think we should be treated like we failed third-grade geography. -Acjelen 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the self-centered use of the language have made common the improper demonym. The use is in your favor. On the other hand, the somehow official facts provided by CIA World Factbook, is that the country it is NOT named America, and in consequence to call their inhabitants Americans in an exclusive way, creates a conflict. There are 885 million people that deserves the right to use the proper gentilic, and some wants to restrict it to less than 300 million. BTW, there are seven different models to enumerate the continents, only three of them makes distinction between North America and South America. Sorry if bothers you to share land with sudacas. It may help if you suggest either another demonym for inhabitants of The Americas or another for USA, but one that does NOT conflict with the other. Godot 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How about "human being" or "earthling"? There's no word for inhabitants of the Africa-Europe-Asia landmass, why does there need to be one for the Americas? -Acjelen 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You might prefer it if the language had two different words for someone from the Americas and someone from the United States, but it is not Wikipedia's job to dictate how words are used. I think you should apply Wikipedia's assume good faith policy to regular life and realize people from the United States don't mean to offend anyone when they use "American" to mean someone from their country, it's just an unfortunate trick of the language. I also think everyone should keep in mind that this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not for airing grievances or expressing personal opinions.--Cúchullain t/c 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologise for including personal opinions. My main interest reach a consensus of the correct gentilic and help Wikipedia to have the most accurate and complete definitions. Base on the later, I do think that is the job of any Encyclopedia to acknowledge the common use but also to state the correctness of the use. Does it follows the grammatical rules? is it used officially? Is the definition recognized by everybody? If a consensus is reached I would like to include a statement saying that to call American excursively to a US citizen is in principle a mistake that have been validated only by proper context. Why? because from the rules of gentilic American means from America and nor from United States of America, because USA official documents for foreign issues uses US citizen and not American, because the meaning is not recognized by everybody and so on. This IS a business of a Wikipedia editor. I AM assuming good faith, I don't think that the intension is to harm, I just think there are things that have been ignored, in good faith.
Any statement on this page about the incorrectness of a U.S.-exclusive use of American needs to be accompanied by another statement that some do not recognize another place called merely and soley "America" that would cause confusion over the label. -Acjelen 19:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not aware of a single educated person that did not recognize the name 'America' as a continent at least in one of the possible meanings. Let's cite the sources. With 'America' as the continent with first meaning I found: Webster's ,Merriam-Webster, American Heritage,Columbia University Press,Ultralingua.com,rhymezone.com,bartleby.com. I did NOT found a single one that ignored the name America as a continent. If you want a justification aside of the historical may be interesting to read: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org . I insist in the comment that you deleted, English is not a monopoly of the USA, and I look forward to find information about the meaning of the word for the people from Anglo-America other than USA, as Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago.Godot 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, we need to look at English speakers as a whole. According to our page on the English language, there are about 400-450 million speakers of English as a first language. The US has a population of almost 300 million, of whom most speak English. That's well more than half of all English speakers, so the argumentum ad populum works against your case there. And for the record, I'm pretty sure the US definition is the primary one in Ireland and the UK. I also think it is the primary definition for the majority of Canadians. I'd bet this is also the case in other parts of the New World where English is the primary tongue, not to mention the rest of the Anglosphere (New Zealand, Liberia, Vanuatu, etc.)--Cúchullain t/c 21:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, my point is that the improper use of the word American is biased in one side from the self-centered perspective of the US citizens, that comes probably from the fact the US is a pretty big country in population, economy and military power. That is why I am interested in the perspective of other non US Anglo-Americans. I acknowledge that there is other side on the problem, and is that there is no proper gentilic for descriptive names as 'United States of America', or 'United Arab Emirates' and so on. All would be easier if the US defined an alternative name for the country like Mexico, United Kingdom, etc. Indeed it was attempted which shows that it is needed.Godot 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"Proper?" Well who is to say what is proper? But, Dude, while you replaced what i'd posted. it seems that you did not read it. The term "American" was used in 1835 by a Frenchman to describe the folks living in the USA. This was long efore they were rich and powerful and famous. Pick your fights with more care - is my opinion. Carptrash 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The very article you linked says that the demonym is "American." It says the short form is "United States," but that's not what we're talking about. Twin Bird 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
That is actually a very recent change on the page; probably a result of this discussion and recent neo-conservative policy. Deepstratagem 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I strongly doubt that, but I can't prove it false. That said, I challenge you to find a single English-language Canadian, British, Irish, Australian, or New Zealand publication or style guide, primarily by and intended for native speakers, that by habit uses "American," without qualifier, to mean "of the Americas," and not to mean "of the United States." Twin Bird 07:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm mistaken about the change... There was no change, I thought we were talking about the country's short name. As far as publications that use American by habit: Encarta - Spanish Empire, Linguistics Journal Article, the Monroe Doctrine; National Geographic uses both as does Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers; The Organization of American States predominantly uses American to mean "of the 'Americas'"; Legal international contracts like NAFTA avoid using American even once to mean "of the United States"; Most dictionaries and encyclopedias (even "American" language guides) acknowledge that American refers to the Americas. Deepstratagem 13:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm an idiot: by "publication," I meant an indefinite serial, since anything else could avoid ambiguity by clear context. It sounds like I'm backpedalling, but I really did intend that - if I hadn't, I wouldn't have said "or style guide," since that is a kind of publication. Secondly, every last one of those, with the exception of NAFTA, is either from somewhere where English is not the common tongue, or from the one Anglophone country I purposefully excluded, the United States themselves. Make no mistake, we do use the word (you yourself have demonstrated that), but some publications will use awkward phrasings to avoid accusations of patriotic or even racist bias, especially by our large percentage of native or habitual speakers of Spanish who have learned English. NAFTA does use "American" as a demonym (usually in the phrase "American or Mexican"); though due to the structure of the document, I can't point to it, I count three uses, which a text search should give you. Third, although I said nothing on this, many of them are quite old; by similar justifications, you could argue that "Dutch" should mean "of Benelux." A neologism is so only for a finite period. Finally, addressing your repeated claim to dictionaries, I have never seen a dictionary of the English language that acknowledges one definition and not the other, and I don't think you can find one. Twin Bird 05:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I have to agree with you. I didn't even notice you excluded the United States as a source for the publications. I'm not sure what the motivation for using American in reference to the Americas (in the United States) is; it might be to be politically correct (or just to be correct). American in reference to the United States sounds colloquial and unnofficial; this might also be a motivation.
I don't think I'm going to find Australian or Irish publications using American to mean "of the Americas" by habit. First, the majority of available scholarly papers on the internet comes from the United States. Second, the United States has a greater influence on the English dialects of Anglophone countries than do Mexico or Columbia. Third, U.S. Americans introduce themselves as Americans everywhere they go, while Mexicans or Canadians don't (for obvious reasons, such as why Irish people don't introduce themselves as U.K.-ean) despite technically being so, thus it might be hard to know there is a long standing dispute on the matter for an Australian or Irish person. Fourth, I don't have access to many Australian or English journals, though it is very likely that Biology or History journals and textbooks routinely refer to objects associated with the Americas as American.
Nevertheless, people use American to refer to the United States of America because it doesn't have a proper name. United States of America is a description and if we pay attention to the prepositions it's clear which term is normatively correct. Deepstratagem 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

UK, Canada, Ireland, and the primary use of "American" is the US definition.

(response to Matt Yeager - tabs were reset by Ejrrjs) Actually, American doesn't just refer to U.S. Citizens more frequently. Take Latin American or South American for example. By the way U.S. Citizens rarely call the U.S., United States of America. Does that mean there isn't a place called United States of America? Deepstratagem 04:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this article is about the word "American" not "Latin American" you can find that article at Latin_American. The word "American" without a qualifier is most commonly used to describe a US person in the English language, that cannot be in serious dispute.--RWR8189 05:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Latin American is two words. The word American with a qualifier is usually used in correspondance with all of America (New World). So, yes it can be in "serious dispute". Deepstratagem 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Most articles have more than one word in their title. The use of the word "American" without a word like "Latin" or "South" used as a qualifier before the word almost always refers to a US person in the English language. When someone speaks about an "American writer" or the "American president" an English speaker doesn't stop and wonder which "American" country that president or writer is from. When an English speaker identifies himself as an "American", an overwhelming majority of people will associate that with meaning that he is from the United States. This is just common sense.--RWR8189 06:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
And when people say they are Latin American, an overwhelming majority of people will associate that with meaning that this person is not from the United States. This is just common sense. Deepstratagem 07:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there. "Latin American" is also used to mean someone who is a US citizen and is of Latino background. The bottom line is, like it or not, the primary, unqualified meaning of "American" in the English language is "of or related to the United States". This is just a fact, and we need to reflect it here.--Cúchullain t/c 07:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My previous reply is just a mirror of RWR8189's. Of course it is neither here nor there. That's the point. And your reply to me is just a variation of RWR8189's, so it also is neither here nor there. Deepstratagem 08:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If you concede the obvious that the use of the word "American" unqualified usually refers to a US person in the English language, I don't see what this discussion is about.--RWR8189 08:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Likewise if you concede American qualified often refers to the continent/s of the New World. Something which you have not succesfully refuted. Deepstratagem 09:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That is something I have never disputed, but this article is not about "South Americans" or "Latin Americans" it is about the word "American" unqualified, which to most English indicates a person is from the United States. To use that word to refer to the New World is more ambiguous and less specific.
I would also say that if this is to remain a disambiguation page, per Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), "A person or attribute of the United States of America" should appear first on the list. Seeing as this has been established as the most common use of the word in the English language.
The Manual of Style says that frequency or chronology can be used to determine which entry goes first. (1) We haven't established which meaning is more common. (2) Chronologically speaking America (New World) would go first. (3) You are making Wikipedia worse by changing the order to favor a popular misnomer in place of a more correct definition. See Microsoft Encarta - America Deepstratagem 10:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be dishonest to claim "U.S. national" isn't the most common use of the term in the English language. "Popular misnomer"? "More correct definition?" It's not Wikipedia's job to decide whose use of a word is "correct". Both uses are correct. One is more common. That one should go first. End of story.--Cúchullain t/c 12:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Since American (U.S.) is derived from America (U.S.) which is derived from America (New World), the continental definition is more correct. Since there is no adequate way to measure which use is more common, taking qualifiers into account, the best way to go about it is chronological or an "etymological" order. Besides American is based on collapsed name when it refers to the U.S. and it is based on itself when it refers to the continent. No matter how you slice it you are doing a disservice to the world (and U.S. Americans) by favoring a misnomer. Deepstratagem 13:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following post by Carptrash by mistake, so I am putting it back. Godot 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that de Tocqueville's Democracy in America was published [1830s - look it up if you need a more exact date] in French at that time as De la démocratie en Amérique suggesting that the term was used long before the United States was what it is today. The term was not dictated from a position of power but was just what the place and people were called. 175 years ago. And mostly still is today. I was amazed to see a Canadian [somewhere around here] wanting [or something] to be called an American. I saw a TV show on CBC where a film crew went all around Canada trying to find out what Canadians had in common and it all came down to ONE thing. {i quote} "We are NOT Americans". Carptrash 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the "correctness" argument again. It isn't Wikipedia's place to decide which is correct. Both Wikipedia and the English language work by consensus. If I said "Jenny is an American" to virtually any US national, they would assume I meant US American. The same goes for saying this to most of the rest of the English speaking world. If you want some official examples of "American being used this way", here's some: American Samoa is the recognized name for this territory. African American is an ethnic group in the United States, according to all US census reports. It refers specifically to U.S. Americans who are of African descent. For an international use, there is Americo-Liberians. They are an ethnic group in Liberia composed of descendants of US American slaves. I reiterate that while both uses of the word "American" are perfectly valid, it is dishonest to suggest that without a qualifier, US American isn't the primary use for the majority of English speakers.--Cúchullain t/c 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a correctness argument, presumably, you asked me to clarify, so I did. It still stands that there is no adequate way to measure which use is more common, but we can know which came into use first. Deepstratagem 23:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Wikipedia:Requested moves

American → American (disambiguation) (and make American redirect to United States); The principle usage of the word is "of the United States of America"; virtually all links to American refer to that usage; a header is already in place on United States in case someone wanted a different meaning of US, USA, or U.S.A, so adding American to that makes sense. Matt Yeager 02:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose Unlike the other examples, which are alternative names for the country, “American” is not something that anyone looking for the United States article is likely to type in the search box, which is the primary use for redirects. Furthermore, linking nationalities directly is a mistake made by unfamiliar users, and reporting this on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links alerts editors to any other problems with the articles. Susvolans ⇔ 12:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    Comment. We are well aware of the American situation at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. It required about 5000 links to be fixed from the last dump, with about 0.5% not needing to be directed to United States.--Commander Keane 14:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, naturally, for reasons stated in the nomination. Matt Yeager 23:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "American" is not principly used to mean of the US rather than of the Americas, and even if it were so, the inaccuracy shouldn't necessarily be propagated. James F. (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I have stated my oppostion to this move and especially to making American a redirect to United States on several occasions. -Acjelen 23:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Give people the opportunity to learn something. Ejrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See Use of the word American. This should redirect to Americas or America (continent) or People of the Americas. Deepstratagem 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this request from Wikipedia:Requested moves per this discussion. If the consensus should change, feel free to relist. —Cleared as filed. 01:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Immigrants as Americans

Hi, Acjelen. It seems to me that the "pioneers" of the U.S. weren't "immigrants" to America, they were the founders. People who were in the country when the United States was formed automatically became citizens. I think leaving "immigrants" as part of the definition is confusing, since most people wouldn't consider a legal immigrant an "American" until they became a citizen, including the immigrant. —Cleared as filed. 14:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

By pioneer, I meant the people who settled the middle of the country, not the colonists. Many 19th century immigrants never became naturalized, but were clearly Americans. Also, do you think Alexander Hamilton wasn't an American until the ratification of the constitution? It is fine if you do, but it clearly demonstrates the word's ambiguity. -Acjelen 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Most of the people who settled the middle of the country came from the edges, didn't they? Alexander Hamilton wasn't an American until the Declaration of Independence; before that, he was a British colonist like everyone else. Why do you say that immigrants who never became naturalized were "clearly" Americans? I think just the opposite. A lot of people become citizens so that they can "become" Americans. —Cleared as filed. 19:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Many people who settled the middle of the United States came from countries in Europe. In what manner did the Declaration of Independence make Alexander Hamilton an American (by which I mean a citizen of the United States)? -Acjelen 04:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, additionally, here is the definition from M-W.com:
  1.  : an American Indian of No. America or So. America
  2.  : a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America
  3.  : a citizen of the U.S.
  4.  : AMERICAN ENGLISH
We already cover 1, 2, and 4 elsewhere. Number 3 doesn't say anything about immigrants. Not that the dictionary defines what we include where, but I just submit that in addition to what I already said about it being confusing as well. —Cleared as filed. 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to translate this page to Spanish

I'm very surprised to see that the term Americano doesn't exist in the Spanish wikipedia and would very much add the definition and translate this discussion about the ambiguity of the use of American which has been translated to the Spanish Americano. I'm new here and don't know how to go about this. Can anyone help? I'll be happy to come back and check for answers here but you could also send email to (email removed)

68.163.183.159 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed your email (I don't want a Wikipedia enthusiast to get spam), and anyway, we always answer on talk pages. If you want to contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Portada, it would be best to head over there and ask about content (eg Americano). Remember, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which might be why they don't have an article "Americano". I've noticed they do have es:América (desambiguación) and es:América. If you have any more questions ask again, I don't think I understood your question completely.--Commander Keane 19:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT IS AN AMERCAN??

[edit] I just cut this out

"This is actually a wrong use of the term." of the following sentence. A person or attribute of the United States of America. This is actually a wrong use of the term. Really, I though we'd gotten past this. Carptrash 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure; the Brazilians or the Canadians would be quite surprised to be told that they are not American ! Perhaps it would be more politically correct ro refer to the unitedstatians as unitedstatians (well, OK, the Brazil is made of united states too ;-) ). Froggy75012 09:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Canadians are not Americans. A few hardcore anti-monarchists might wish that we were, but we're not. Please don't post such offensive nonsense here again. 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) WilyD 15:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean they are Asian ? African ? Oceanian ? ... I added it back, in a different formulation. Kings themselves have to kneel in front of semantics; everybody does, except Humpty-Dumpty and leaders of totalitarian countries, of courseFroggy75012 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We're North American, obviously. It'll keep being removed on the triple-cause that a) it's unsourced, b)its inappropriate for a disambiguation page, and b) it's wrong. American means "of or relating to the United States" in the Queen's own English. Disambiguation pages just have the minimum amount of information needed to direct people to where they're going. Unsourced soapboxing is not welcome. Cheers, WilyD 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] order of elements

Originally, I grouped the various items on this dab page by part of speech (e.g. nouns, adjectives, etc.). Later this was altered to the present grouping. The link to 4-4-0 is at the top because it was orginally with the noun group, along with people of the United States and people of the Americas. At present this first section contains uses of American that can stand alone: ("What's that?" "It's an American."). The second section are items where American serves as the adjective or as a portion of a name but frequently appears alone. Native Americans were originally mentioned because of the archaic term "American race" to refer to them. Without mention of American race, they don't really need to be here. I doubt if anyone will search for "American" to find information on American Indians.

Please see the manual of style of disambiguation page (here). Generally there is only one blue link per line to the appropriate article, unpiped and avoiding redirects. -Acjelen 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just took a glance at the MOS page you cited. It says Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top.. That is pretty much what I did. I don't see how your version relates to the style guide. --Wing Nut 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Because "American" generally means (1) a person or attribute of the United States; (2) a person or attribute of the Americas; or (3) a particular sort of engine. While which meaning should be first is debated, the choice for third place is obvious. Many people also use "American" when they mean their airline, their credit card company, their cheese preference, or their dialect of English; so we've included these, but separated from the first three. The page contains more links when the correct title on Wikipedia isn't obvious, such as American Recordings, in an attempt to be helpful. I admit that more has been spoken of and written about Native Americans than the 4-4-0 steam engine; and that the former has had a greater impact on the history of mankind than the former, but very seldomly do people use American by itself to refer to Amerindians. Disambiguation pages are not thesaurus's. They are places where Wikipedia asks her users, "When you typed in 'foo', did you mean X, Y, or Z?" -Acjelen 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm so overcome by the courtesy of your reply that I conceded defeat. :-) --Wing Nut 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that. -Acjelen 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-American + Inter-America

I've noticed the World/Goverment has chosen to use the term Inter-American as the term expressing, a person or attribute of the Americas, and Inter-America for the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere.


Continentally Speaking any inhabitant of America is considered an "Inter-American" and not "American" anymore. If you Google or Yahoo the term Inter-American or Inter-America you will find several millions of hits on this Neologism which we should add but I am under the impression Wikipedia is not currently accepting Neologism in the request for articles for creation but we should add them none the less. Intuitionz 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Americas will remain the title of any Wikipedia article on the lands of the western hemisphere, you best bet is to create a redirect link for Inter-America and sent it there. -Acjelen 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, however we are talking about a totally different entity that should not be a re-driect, let me give you some examples..
The Draft resolution for: Implementation of the Inter-American Program Human Rights and Support for the work of the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism.
The Draft resolution for: Development of an inter-American strategy to combat threats to Security.
The Draft resolution for: Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons of Acquisitions.
or..
The Inter-American cooperation to meet a global threat such (Presented by the Delegates of Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Haití, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, United States, Antigua and Barbuda, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Suriname, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). Intuitionz 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Those titles are just using the English prefix "inter". There isn't an entity being described: in all three cases it is an adjective modifying something else. -Acjelen 04:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Inter-American - inter- (prefix "within, between, mutual, reciprocal") Americ- ("America") -an (adjectival suffix). Inter-American just means "related to within/between the land of America." It doesn't make sense to call a person an Inter-American (unless they are cyclically migratory birds or something like that). Try googling "Inter-American person"; or "Inter-American people" it will return 0 entries until this page is cached. Deepstratagem 04:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I Yahoo'd the first article I found and it speaks of Inter-Americans visiting to Tailand from Inter-America, I do not understand why you cannot find an entity concerning Inter-Americans of Inter-America. Just check out http://www.interamerica.org/users/index.php?type=news&id=62&language=en which is the first entry on yahoo. There are more as well explaining this new Neologism so don't tell me it doesn't exsist. Intuitionz 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Inter-Americans refers to Inter-American Divisionists of the Seventh Adventist Church; The article you cited is written by the IAD, so they can shorten "members of the Inter-American Division of the Seventh Adventist Church" to Inter-Americans, and the intended audience will understand. Deepstratagem 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not building the web here

Deep and Acj: Guys, how is someone meant to find American way (for example) if they can't get a pointer by simply typing in "American"? The previous "used as an adjective" and "other uses" version is able to get more users to more articles than what we have now. Mediatetheconflict 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone looking for American way wouldn't just type in American, they'd type the whole thing. Disambig pages are for listing pages that might be ambiguous, they're not dictionary definitions or lists of every article that begin with the title word.--Cúchullain t/c 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if disambiguation pages should necessarily be used in the "*PAGENAME something" manner that you desire. English, a disambiguation page, does not include links to White tea a.k.a. English tea, Homosexuality a.k.a. the English disease, or non-Amish U.S. residents. British, claiming to be a disambiguation page, doesn't include any "used as an adjective" links. If this page linked to all artice's beginning with American it would become unwieldy. Looking at French, though, I may have found a solution for you. -Acjelen 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be a digression to point out, Cúchullain, that your first comment is invalid (how do you find something you don't know the name of?), and that the proposal wasn't about including all relevantly-prefixed articles; and to Acjelen, that there must be a cultural thing here because English tea plainly refers to English breakfast tea; but what's more important is that the "list of" article you've included is a good solution. I appreciate the constructive and useful response, and the effort you obviously put into finding it.
    So would it be ok to create and redirect American cultural hegemony to American way??
    Mediatetheconflict 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I once knew a Polish-Canadian woman who said that in Russia, white tea is called Polish tea, but in Poland it is called German tea. She further went on to say that the Germans call white tea French tea and the French call it English tea. The English, of course, call white tea tea -65.66.103.43 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) -Oops, must have timed out. -Acjelen 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My first comment was not invalid. Disambiguation pages are not for listing various articles that happen to be related to title in some way, or merely begin with them. They are not lists or search indices. They are for disambiguating ambiguous terms. If someone didn't know the name of "American way", they shouldn't expect to find it here. The same goes for English tea at English, whatever it's called. As for American cultural hegemony, I don't think that's a very plausible search term for American way, but you should probably bring it up over there.--Cúchullain t/c 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dioses estadounidense?

Yesterday the library where I work received the copy of Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Our previous copy never returned from its last check-out. Oddly, the book that arrived was the Spanish translation by Robert Falcó and published by es:Norma EditorialNorma Editorial out of Barcelona. We had ordered it by accident in part because of the title. One would safely assume that a book about Old World pagan dieties in the United States for the Spanish-reading public wouldn't be titled "American Gods". I mention the incident here as a real-world example of the ambiguous status of American in its two senses. -Acjelen 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The origin of the confusion

I believe a definition must primarily be centered in the essence of the object in question, that is, in the quality that best defines the being of that object. The essence only emerges after the (abstract) suppression of all the accessory-non-essential elements. In that sense, even tough many USA citizens could take umbrage of my approximation (which is actually not mine), "American" is not primarily liked to USA, instead, is essentially linked to America, the continent. USA, as any other American country, is only an accessory element of the America's essence. Given that the frequency in the use of any word will never change the underlying object's essence, the most frequent meaning necessarily deserves only a secondary position in the list. Finally, the origin of the confusion historically relies in the fact that USA lacks a specific-given name. I didn't find, in Wikipedia or any other easily accessible source, an explanation about why that country have no a proper name, so it's a pendent topic to discuss.--75.9.62.221 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe the origin of the confusion lies in whether any such continent as America exists. -Acjelen 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the continent America exists, it's North and South Ameica. It still has the words America in it and it is very incorrect to use that term to describe U.S. Citizens. Just because U.S. citizens chose a gay name for a country, doesnt mean it has the right to hold a title to themselves that anyone born in the Americas can have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel4sw (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] solution

I think the controversy could be solved if my proposal is implanted: given that in US are distinguished several categories of "americans": "african-americans", "italian-americans", "native-americans", etc, etc, and given that "american" seems to be deserved for the white people (non-latin, of course) born in USA. To be fully democratic, we should start calling "US-americans" to the people born in US (no matter the race) and "Latin-americans" to the rest. The only problem I see in my solution is the classification of Canadian, Haitian, etc. which are no US born and neither Latins. But we can ignore them, they are too few. Alternatively, we could simplify the classification just calling "American" to any person (or animal, or plant) born in any american territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VACM (talk • contribs) 02:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • If nothing else, this is still a novel proposal unacceptable to Wikipedia, see WP:NOR. African Americans, Italian Americans, Native Americans are all "Americans" whereas Canadians, Haitians and so on are not "Americans". I don't think white Americans are really thought of as any more American than black Americans. WilyD 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That would mean also that a German is not a European ? If yes, explain. If no, please clarify your position. I do not expect cartesianism and rationality to be the rule in the United States, but at least trying would be appreciated for the sake of reason. 89.159.229.197 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'll say: No, I'm not a rationalist or a Cartesian. I'm a member of a philosophical school that really traces its origins to Galileo, Copernicus and a few others. Germans are Europeans, I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. The comparable statements are "Canadians are North Americans" or "Haitians are North Americans" or "Costa Ricans are North Americans" ... relating the country to the continent. WilyD 14:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)