Wikipedia talk:Category titles/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Wikipedia:Category titles (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 5 >>

Contents

From Village Pump

<begin copy from Village Pump>

I just listed Category:United States painters for merging/renaming to Category:American painters on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Currently, the subcategories of Category:American people lack uniformity, with it split between "United States", "U.S.", and "American", though most use the latter. I just wanted to make sure that this discussion got wider exposure, because based on past experience on the CfD page, I think the misplaced good intentions of a few have prevented a permanent and proper solution to the lack of category naming consistency.

The simple fact is that in all forms of English (not to mention through cognates in many other languages), "American" is the only term for referring to someone or something that is of the United States. This is regardless of the fact that this linguistic appropriation of an adjective that may have otherwise belong to two continents may be politically incorrect. The fact is that it's simply the way that it is. That's the convention.

"United States painter" gets a paltry 603 google hits, most of which seem to be Wikipedia mirrors (alas, this awkward and obtuse phrase shows up in some article text). There is obviously no such linguistic usage, nor should we invent one. "United States" is not in any way an adjective. Or look at it this way: would anyone, regardless of what part of the world you live in, expect someone to say "Hi, I'm a United States"? or "Hi, I'm a U.S."? when they introduce themselves? Yeah, they could say "Hi, I'm from the U.S.", but if they want to use the simple noun form, or an adjective, no one would say anything but "I'm an American" or "I'm American." Even though "U.S." may have some currency as an adjective, 1) it primarily refers to the government, 2) its usage is definitely minor compared to "American", and 3) it simply doesn't work for people ("No, I'm not Canadian, I'm U.S.")

I've never seen anyone who has disagreed that this convention is binding or pervasive actually offer any evidence supporting that "American" does not overwhelmingly and dominantly mean "of the United States", or that there are other comparatively prominent and correct alternatives. Please let's fix this, or at least discuss it with relevance to our policies and actual terminology, not socio-political motivations. Postdlf 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

See also Alternative words for American, which is about how substitutes for "American" have failed to catch on. Postdlf 16:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Whilst we're at it, then, could we standardise British and UK into British, since British is the term used to describe the nationality of citizens of the UK, as per the British passport. Hiding 21:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think the intention of the prevailing phrasing is to give possession of the person to the country. We'd have to rename a vast quantity of categories if this were changed... -Splash 21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The prevailing phrasing is actually "American ____": see the entries in Category:American people by occupation, which mostly use that form. Even were that not the case, the "prevailing phrasing" should be changed if it is incorrect (that's what bots are for, after all). The actual (and proper) convention in category naming of people is to apply the adjective form of the nationality, because that's what the English language uses. We don't have Category:The Netherlands people or Category:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics people, we have Category:Dutch people and Category:Soviet people. The nonconformists in Category:People by nationality are in the minority and should also be changed. Postdlf 21:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

18 July

I seem to recall seeing a lot of discussion a few months back that proposed changing adjectival forms (e.g. Fooish Thingies) of category names to use genitive prepositional phrases (e.g. Thingies of Fooland). My recollection is that that this had general support for two reasons: the correct adjectival form of a place is not always obvious; and adjectival forms for places tend to be vaguer and more ambiguous. I can't find any proof of overarching consensus, and I certainly can't find it in Wikipedia:Naming conventions, but I did find some relevant discussion in Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Political parties, and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 12. This policy, if followed more widely, would bring us to "Painters of the United States" or "Painters of the United States of America" to avoid ambiguity. Bovlb 05:36:17, 2005-07-18 (UTC)
That's one solution that is certainly preferable to ignoring a real convention in favor of a make-believe one, but it has a few drawbacks. One, the natural tendency in English is to label people by the adjectival form, and so absent those few obscure countries that don't have well known or obvious naming conventions, the adjectival categories are going to be continually recreated by those who don't know about the change. Two, your solution is the one that entails the most work at this point because it involves changing over nearly all of the people by nationality categories and subcategories. Quite a lot of work even for a bot, and too much work compared to the insignificance of the problems. Postdlf 05:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a guideline against abbreviations in titles, so "U.S." would fall short of that (however, it seems many people disagree with said guideline so maybe it needs further discussion). Since we're an encyclopedia, we should not use the word 'American' to refer to the country known as the United States, since in fact it refers to the entire continent. Radiant_>|< 11:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • However, what is the term used to define a citizen of the US? Isn't it American? Therefore, isn't it correct usage when describing somebody's nationality if they are of the USA? Hiding | Talk 13:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • "In fact"? I'm getting rather frustrated and continually surprised by these absolute and incorrect statements from people otherwise reasonable. First, this isn't about referring to the country, it's about referring to things/people of the country, for which "United States" is improper and has no usage as an adjective (outside of the obtuse usages found on this site—google doesn't lie on this point). Second, "American" does not "in fact" refer to the entire continent except in minority usage, when not qualified by a modifier such as "North", "South", or "Latin". Note the qualification Britannica makes of what "Latin American literature" consists of,[1] in contrast to unqualified "American literature."[2] I guess their editors are just ignorant about proper terminology? Third, there is no viable alternative to the use of "American" to refer to someone from the U.S. Please, anyone who wants to comment here, do more than just express an unelaborated opinion without support—that isn't accomplishing anything, and you're simply repeating opinions that have already been addressed in greater substance. This isn't a poll—we're trying to clarify and substantiate what the actual real world outside of Wikipedia uses in actual real world language. Not what we want to use or think better than what is actually used. Postdlf 17:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The correct name is the United States of America. It is not the short US or United States. As someone pointed out, American is already widely used to describe people from the USA. Try Ugly American. Or Native American to describe the American Indians. Vegaswikian 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose the CIA World Factbook got its terminology wrong too.[3] If no one of the opposite opinion presents any evidence beyond unelaborated conclusory statements, we should just consider this matter resolved. Or perhaps we should take a vote on whether "African Americans" are really called "United States black people." Postdlf 18:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that we need a clear consensus on this. I recently tried ot have category:U.S. philanthropists renamed to category:American philanthropists, to which the response was "Oh no let's rename it to category:United States philanthropists" "agreed", etc. We need a clear consensus to name them category:American foos. Category redirects don't work because I think creating blue links means that people are likely to think they exist and populate them in error. Dunc|☺ 15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  1. Where is the guideline against abbreviations in titles?
  2. Should we move this discussion to a separate page? (If so, I'll save my reasoning for there.)
  3. My preference, in descending order:
    1. American foo
    2. U.S. foo
    3. USA foo
    4. etc.
    5. Foo of the USA
    6. Foo of the United States Maurreen 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree to a seperate page. I can't find any mention of abbreviations at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. However, are we covered by Wikipedia:Naming dispute here, in which case the common usage should apply? Hiding talk 18:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, how about something like this: we just use whatever the nationality in question means you have as your nationality in the back of your passport? I presume USA passports say (guessing) "Citizen of the United States of America", and mine says "British Citizen". I think it deeply unlikely that the USA passport proclaims an "American Citizen". This information should be obtainable in all but the most obscure cases such as when a new country is formed. Then there's the question of what to do with the full "United States of America" designation...there are other United Stateses after all (isn't Mexico actually The United Mexican States?). So, I'd suggest going with the exact form, no matter how lengthy, that's in the back of the passport. There's no question of accuracy, usage, NPOV, geographical confusion or anything. -Splash 23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) And, if someone has multiple nationality it still works: it even avoids fights over which cat they should go in: they just go in all of them. It also washes away things like the Northern Irish question. Their passports (I think) proclaim them British, so we wouldn't have to have that debate or similar ones, either. -Splash 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC) </end copy from Village Pump>

19 July

  • American passports just say the name of the country. They don't give an adjectival or simple noun form (as British passports do, apparently). But this is irrelevant anyway because the issue is what the proper term is in the language, as real people use it, and what gov't bureaucrats happened to use in a particular context doesn't determine that. Do you actually have evidence of English language usage to back up your position? I've presented plenty. Most of the arguments I've seen are irrelevant too, because these are the underlying points as I see them:
  1. We take the language as we find it. Whatever things are most commonly called is what they should be called by us.
  2. What we want a linguistic convention to be is irrelevant, no matter if we think our way is better, more clear, more descriptive, etc.
  3. That a word may have some alternate meanings does not justify use of an alternative when there is an overwhelmingly dominant usage that is the presumption absent contextual clues to the contrary.
  4. Alternatives that have no comparatively prevalent actual usage in the language are not viable alternatives.
  5. It would be POV to disregard clear linguistic custom to placate socio-political interests. It is not POV to simply follow linguistic custom.
  6. Who may be offended by the convention is irrelevant, and "equitable" alternatives are irrelevant until they actually manage to change common usage (think of "womyn"...not a spelling we're going to use).

Postdlf 04:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

    • Doesn't an American passport give the nationality on the page with the photograph. Mine lists me as a British Citizen, hence the term British should be used to define people and things said to be of the UK. Since the U.S. Department of State refers to American citizens, I would assume that would be the term used.[4] I also think that the common usage is the best and clearest policy here. It's also worth noting that if citizens of the US refer to themselves as American, then Wikipedia should use the term when describing things or people of the US as per usage of English. Hiding talk 10:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • In my personal experience, dealing with peoples from North and South Americas, most of them were quite offended by United States citizens referring to them selves as Americans and decluding the rest of the peoples from the same continents. Mainly during large international events such as the Olympics. I know the terms "United States foo" sounds odd, I offered an alternative on the philanthropists Cfr "Philanthropists of the United States". Of course no one really liked the wording, but it is far better than a grammatically incorrect version. I have not yet performed any extra external research on the topic, this is just from personal experience, and the guidelines set out of the security personell (sp) during the 1996 Olympics. Athletes from Canada and Mexico made a formal protest about people referring to United States Olympians as American Olympians, such that both the Olympic committee and the military, made it policy for the rest of the event, to refer to them as United States Olympians. Ever since then, I have tried to refrain from using American, and simply state; "I am from the US". I believe to be both fair and uniform, we should follow the "<thing> of <country>" as proposed. ∞Who?¿? 08:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. Another option is to follow the format of the title of the most-closely related article. Why should categories have different standards than article (other than those that are inherently dependent on form)?
  2. I expect that any uses of "United States" as an adjective are relatively few. Does anyone know of any non-WP style guide or writing guide that supports this? That is, mainly something used by people who write for a living or the general public?
  3. I believe it is WP convention to use the most common name. Is there any evidence that "American" is not most common, or that "United States" as an adjective is anywhere close to common, or that "foo of Country" is more common that "adjective foo"?
  4. Even if "American" is decided against, I see no need to be wordy. I think abbreviations would be acceptable here. I believe "U.S." and "USA" are very widely known, "U.S." or "US" are often used in articles, and they are probably more widely known than many other abbreviations used in WP.
  5. Tangentially, I think that sometimes standardization is carried too far. And I'm going to break up this discussion by date. Maurreen 13:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Just some comments:
1. That would give United States of America, United Kingdom, Monaco without a shadow of a doubt. It would, I suspect lead to fights over "no, my article is more important than yours" at times, but I guess that's pretty easy to squash. EDIT: For some crazy reason, United States of America is a redirect to United States. Why??
2. and 3. You are probably right on these points. But there is a question of geographic accuracy (which, Postdlf, is not an irrelevancy): American does necessarily refer to all the Americas unless qualified. I'm not arguing against it on this grounds, but it is true, as Who's example points out.
4. U.S. is America-centric, there are other United Stateses, one of them called the United Mexican States for example. Again, geo-political accuracy is not an irrelevance. So if we go against "American" I'd prefer to see USA (or U.S.A.).
5. I agree. This particular one though, does need settling as there seems to a CfD at least every other day related to the broader principle (i.e. countries other than than the USA). -Splash 14:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
1. Just for clarification, when I said the most-closely related article, I didn't mean the article for the country in general. I meant the article that was closest to the specific topic of the category, which would often be a list. I mean items such as those in Category:Lists of people by nationality and Category:Geography lists. A few more specific examples are:


That's a good point. As it's been pointed out, "United States" is not an adjective. Don't let congress know about that, though. I'm sure the United States Senate [5] and United States House of Representatives [6] would be miffed to hear they need to change their letterhead. And I suppose the President of the United States [7] and the Supreme Court of the United States [8] would need to change also. Because common usage is "American". So, why can't we use (thing) of (country) again? --Kbdank71 16:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"U.S. is America-centric"??? That's like saying "Bill Clinton" is "William Jefferson Clinton-centric" because there are other "Bill Clintons" in the world. That's really a good example of how absurd this discussion has been, because you're either trying to turn a definition into a sign of cultural oppression, or just totally ignoring real world linguistic usage to invent a possibility of ambiguity, in what I can only understand as a politically motivated attempt to be "fair" or to undermine what you perceive as American hegemony. Both admirable motivations (particularly with the current corrupt U.S. government), but totally misguided when it comes to the simple fact of our language. Do you honestly believe that if any English speaker says "The president of the U.S. spoke on TV last night," that there will be great uncertainty as to who they're talking about? ("Vicente Fox? Really?") Mexico is not known by "U.S." in the English language. Mexico is not known by "United States" in the English language. Only one country is known by those terms in the English language. That's all that matters on this issue.
And only the people of one country are known as "Americans" in the English language. Once again, gimme some evidence that "American" has the same widespread usage as "European" does as a continental reference (which seems to be what people are implying, though without showing evidence of this), or that absent "North", "South", "Central", or "Latin", that people will not presume it means of the U.S. (and I don't mean Mexico). And only "American" is the term by which the people of the United States (and I don't mean Mexico) are known by. That's accuracy. I've given you evidence for that, both of usage and academic definition. Gimme some evidence to the contrary other than unfounded concerns.
Are you confused by "California" as to whether people mean the American state or the Mexican state of Baja California? Postdlf 18:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but you didn't answer why can't we use (thing) of (country) again? Or were you not responding to me? --Kbdank71 18:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I was actually responding to Splash, up above. Sorry, the order gets a little confusing. As to why we can't just use thing of country, perhaps most importantly, it's not natural to do that with people in the English language—the convention is to use the adjectival form. And it's the option with the greatest amount of work; we'd be changing over the entire category scheme of Category:People by nationality for all countries just to avoid using "American" for one. That's not a good reason. And perhaps least important, but nonetheless an issue, it could result in ambiguous connotations because normally "U.S." or "United States" are used instead of "American" to associate people with the federal government. Category:American judges, for example, when turned into Category:Judges of the United States strongly implies that all of its contents are federal judges, which is not the case, and something that "American" does not connote. Postdlf 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I think "President of the United States" is pretty natural. So is "Supreme Court of the United States". Conventions can be changed. As for how much work it will cause, we have bots for that who wouldn't complain one bit. As for American Judges, you can either preface Judges of the United States with an intro, or make two categories, Federal judges and State judges. This isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. Seriously, I respect your point of view on this matter, but this in my mind is a pretty good compromise. --Kbdank71 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Once again, your examples are titles of governmental offices/agencies. "Jerry Lewis is an American celebrity" is natural. "Jerry Lewis is a celebrity of the United States" is not, and seems to imply something other than just his nationality; is he a government spokesperson? Or only a celebrity within the U.S.? "Robert Rauschenberg is an American artist." Natural. "Robert Rauschenberg is an artist of the United States." Is he getting government pay and has a title? Postdlf 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
"Conventions can be changed." It's not our place to change them, any more than it is our place to change accepted fact based on original research or POV advocacy. We take the language as we find it. It would be POV of us to ignore conventions and create our own.
I think the most acceptable substitute is to use "U.S." It's actually an adjective, and though it has some governmental connotation, it's not as strong as "of the United States." I'm still opposed to this, however, because there is a more proper term to use that has dominant usage worldwide and despite unfounded assertions to the contrary, clear meaning absent contextual signs to the contrary. Postdlf 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

20 July

Confused by the seperation of discussion so starting a reply in 20 July for uniformity.

I think we have to look at this more of an encyclopedic reference point of view and not a literal one (as in spoken word). For a meager example, if you were to look in the Yellow Pages, for say "discount store", "super store", "general store", etc, whatever term you commonly refer to it as, you may not find them as they have been put in pre-defined category chosen by the consensus or publisher, generally "department stores" We all have a common way that we say things, but they are often referenced by a very specific category. I may refer to it as a "super market" and would probably find it referenced under "grocery stores". The point is, although in every day literal sense we say American, but we being in the United States of America, understand it as just that. However, if I were to take a printed book to, say Canada, and reference anything other than them as American, although to me it may be understood, they are Americans as well, and are now being decluded just from my point of view of what American is. We far too often defer to commonly used slang words as accepted usage globally, what American in true context means is, United States American, to abbreviate it just for our sake of efficiency and comfort would not change the fact of what it really means, so why label it otherwise in any context? To address some of the concerns of "Judges of the United States", we quite simply add "by state", however pointless it may seem, it solves the problem of defining the category as Federal judges. I am not sure if we have moved on or began to address American ethnicities yet (African American, Chinese American, Italian Americans, etc.), so I will only put in the phrase "PC (politically correct)" to be used in further discussions, please ask me to comment when we move on to that topic. ∞Who?¿? 04:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • So you're stating that Canadians commonly use and understand "American" to mean "of the continents of North and South America," and will not use it or understand it to mean "of the United States." Some quick googling suggests that's not the case; though "U.S." is also used, "American" is clearly used by Canadian media outlets to refer to the United States.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] and this significant usage by a prominent Canadian politician speaking to Canadian press. Do you have proof to the contrary? Everyone keeps on claiming confusion in other countries, yet no one has explained how this confusion can really exist when so many non-American media outlets use "American." Postdlf 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually no I wasn't statiing it unequivically, just as a reference to another continental American group. Although we can cite resources on word usage, my main point is the actual country name is United States of America, so without any doubt, I could find listings for peoples, objects, etc... under this category, rather than wonder if the articles listed under American is North, South, Central, I just suggest we use the proper name and cut loose commonly used slang, which has come to be the norm. As for actual proof, the problem with media relating to titles, is most friendly govts and media outlets have referred to PC titles, as even used common literal terminology, so there isn't going to be much in finding someone actually using the full proper name, but it's still the proper name reguardless. Mainly for any reference sake, we use the full appropriate name of something, rather than a short or even commonly used one. ∞Who?¿? 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And one final point...it's not merely your POV that they're not Americans if they don't call themselves American either (which they don't, just North Americans), and they call you American in a reference to your U.S. citizenship (which they do). That's not POV. That's the fact of the English language, however unjust it may be that the U.S. successfully appropriated that adjective. Postdlf 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that we coined the phrase, and I can not prove that I have personally witnessed the dislike of the usage from some peoples. Btw, I actually have Candadian friends that refer to them selves as American, and others that despise the title. ∞Who?¿? 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The same is also apparently true of English-language Israeli media outlets,[18],[19], Lebanese,[20], and Chinese.[21] Postdlf 05:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, so you've giving evidence that some media outlets use American. You've also given evidence that they use "United States". You've also said that American almost always means "of the US". So basically, we're not making ANYTHING up by using United States. People use it all the time to refer to, the United States. And nothing else. People use American to refer to "of the United States", but they also use it to refer to other things. Seriously, I'm not seeing how your argument is holding much weight. Why are you so opposed to the compromises? --Kbdank71 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "U.S." is the second best term to use. However, I'm still because all the arguments I've seen are based on hypothetical confusion and irrelevant offense, which actual widespread international usage of "American" to mean "U.S." belie. While there are undoubtedly occasions in which people have used "American" to mean "of the Americas," this is such a minor usage that the presumption is that it means "of the U.S." If, after substantially more people join in this discussion, the consensus is against "American", I can live with "U.S.," if only to prevent really inane alternatives from being adopted. Postdlf 10:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Country vs nationality

I believe this is a false argument, since categorising by nationality is categorising by nation, the term nationality literally meaning of nation. I also think it's a blind alley, since if we start categorising by nation we run into horrible things with countries which change their names, especially the United Kingdom where it is far easier to categorise by nationality, which has been constantly British since the union of the two crowns, rather than by country name, which has changed over the years. How would one then categorise the British monarchy? Would it be categorised in parts, with the monarchy of Great Britain, and then the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and then the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, without then igniting the already bubbling arguments about whether it is also the monarchy of Canada and so on.

I find this seems to boil down to the fact that people do not want to use American to describe the nationality of those people and objects of the USA. However, surely common usage and the manual of style trump that. If The US government uses the term American to describe the nationality of its citizens, and the people themselves do, then we should reflect that term. Any confusion can quickly be ameliorated by the paragraph which describes the contents of the category. Hiding talk 13:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree with that argument. Just because systemic bias is present in the real world, doesn't mean we should have it in Wikipedia. WP:CSB was created precisely to prevent that. Just because the majority of Wikipedians live in the USA doesn't mean that the meaning of any term as used in the USA should trump that term's meaning worldwide. We strive for correctness, after all, not for POV. Radiant_>|< 14:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
And is there any indication of actual confusion about "American"? Maurreen 14:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And is there any indication of actual confusion about "United States"? Radiant_>|< 17:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is, it is just as much systematic bias the other way, in that the large number of wikipedians who do not live in the USA reject the term that the United States government uses about its own citizens. What other country would Wikipedia disregard the naming conventions of in this way? And if we are striving for correctness, why are you ignoring all the sources cited above and failing to cite any sources to back up your own argument? If there is any POV, then surely the POV is on the side of those that reject American because it has numerous meanings. I have yet to see anyone apply the same to British, which not only means a citizen of the UK but also an inhabitant of the British Isles, thus including Irish citizens. We also don't use Britisher, which is used to describe the British in N. America, because we respect the terms that a country uses to describe itself when determining which word to use. Are we really going to be renaming Category:American football? And if not, where, then, lies the counter argument?
  • As to systematic bias in the real world, in the real world, the name of the country is technically America, in the same way that the Repiblic of Brazil is the country of Brazil and so on and so forth. So I question the validity of the systematic bias argument used against the term American. If it is common usage, is officially sanctioned and internationally recognised amongst English speaking countries, where is the problem in utilising the term in the english language Wikipedia? Hiding talk 15:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • The big problem here is that the Wikipedians who are rejecting the term that the U.S. uses for its own citizens do not reflect actual rejection of that term outside of Wikipedia. "American" almost always means "of the U.S." and (more importantly?) only "American" means "of the U.S." in the English language (and in cognates in many others) the whole world over. What the U.S. and its people use wouldn't matter if no one else followed it. But they do. I can't think of better evidence of non-U.S. English media usage than the BBC, and the widespread term "American football" (used in many, many languages, not just English) really clinches it. Unless someone would like to argue that non-Americans, when they hear "American football", think it just means soccer played in North and South America, or think Brazilians and Cubans are equally likely to be playing the non-"soccer" variant of football. Postdlf 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd be with you if "American" always means "of the U.S." But "almost always" isn't "always". You asked before if someone would be confused at the phrase, "President of the U.S.". No, the answer is no. So I ask again, what is the problem with (thing) of (country)? --Kbdank71 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just saw your response to thing of country above. --Kbdank71 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The use of the terms "America" and "American"

As an American, I consider the name of my country to be America, not just The United States of America. If my country is America, I therefore am an American. It is pretty simple in that context, but there are many people, particularly those who live in other countries in both North and South America to resent this use of the term. A similar issue comes up with the term "Colombia", but rarely do people object to the use of the word Colombian. A term that is sometimes applied to citizens of the USA is USAian, which is a term I find particularly offensive and inappropriate.

I will be the first to admit that the use of the name America is in part a hold-over from the colonization of North America by England, and in part the "Manifest Destiny" attitude that prevailed in the 19th Century within the USA. Still, by what other name would you call this country? If there were a politcal revolution and a new communist government put in instead, it would be called the "People's Republic of America" or some other similar term. Or try on "Kingdom of America" or "American Empire". "Kingdom of the United States", I guess, could be somewhat reasonable, but not really correct in usage.

There are political reasons for using the term "United States", just as there is for "European Union". Perhaps more so. "United States" is in part a reference to the governments of America, and a political desire to encourage federal governments around the world. In this sense the European Union and the United States are similar and equivalent sorts of polical organizations. That historcally speaking the American states (like New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc.) did not last long as independent soverign nations may be true, but they were and the US government still has soverignty that is derived from the states, not the other way around. In this sense I consider Texas to be equal with France or Israel, not an inferior subordinate political organization. And yes Texas has its own military force and would likely be considered a nuclear power if it weren't for the fact that it is just one of several states in the USA.

I find that this whole discussion about trying to change the terms of categories from "American painters" to "Painters from the United States" to be more politically charged than trying to accomplish any useful task here on Wikipedia. If this is politically charged and motivated, then please state your cause. Also remember that while a large number of people may post on here with this discussion, it doesn't necessarily represent the "majority" opinion, even here on Wikipedia. I wouldn't have even found this page if I hadn't found it on the Village Pump, and I hardly ever even read that. I was trying to find discussion about some other point at the time.

Having lived for substantial amounts of time in a country outside of the USA (it was Brazil), I do appreciate the complaints to the use of the term American. However, I find it slightly offensive to be called a "Norte Americano" (North American) as though Canada and Mexico don't count as countries either. I am not here to change the world, however, but the usage of the term American in the English language certainly can and should refer to citizens of The United States of America.

In short, if I have to vote, I would say keep the term American as it stands currently, and it is the correct useage of the term, both from an official policy statement from the Government of the United States of America, and from common usage of its citizens. This isn't the first time I've had to fight this idea, and I'm sure it won't be the last. --Robert Horning 12:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Compromise with abbreviation

Maybe we can get a consensus with compromise by abbreviating, such as in "U.S. foo"? Maurreen 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • We're not there yet. Wait until those advocating against "American" present evidence on their side. Until then, the discussion isn't complete enough to move on to an alternative. Postdlf 03:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't mean we can't discuss it though. If we go with U.S., I see no reason not to go with U.S.A. — it's the proper name. Clamours for evidence aren't needed here, I can point you to any encyclopedia you like. And, I can think of no sensible reason for omitting the 'A' other common, slang, usage. -Splash 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And, declaring this to be "sides" is most confrontational. Can't we just discuss it a bit? -Splash 14:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
If we do abbreviate, "U.S. foo" follows WP convention of using the most common name.
True, but "most common name" shouldn't be mistaken for using what is just a convenience in speech/writing. The country's name is the United States of America (even if the WP article doesn't think so). I mean, we couldn't call the vacuum cleaners article Hoovers, could we? -Splash 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Remember we're talking about category names here. They need to be as concise as possible while still being clear. Category:United States of America people not only sounds dumb, but it's unduly cumbersome. If we really want to be obsessed with "proper names," then Category:German people should be replaced by Category:Federal Republic of Germany people, or even better, Category:Bundesrepublik Deutschland people, because the translated name is by no means the proper name. We'd also have Category:Росси́йская Федера́ция people instead of Category:Russian people. Oh, and we wouldn't have Category:British people, Category:UK people or even Category:United Kingdom people. We'd have Category:The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland people. Why on earth the article for that country is instead at United Kingdom, I simply don't know. It's not the proper name. Postdlf 10:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
You've seen the comments below, but on your final point. Personally, I think it should be at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Much as United States of America should not redirect to United States. I presume the "most common name" things applies, and shows that it doesn't really work for an encyclopedia. -Splash 16:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
And I respect Postdlf's request for evidence, but I doubt it will come to much. It appears that the strongest feelings are against "United States" and "American", and I am unsure that anyone who already has an opinion will be persuaded. Maurreen 15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
About vacuum cleaners -- that name is more common than Hoovers where I live. Also, I expect that the convention of using the most common name is to avoid disagreements about other issues. Often, using the most common name would settle the issue. Maurreen 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so that was a UK-centric example... -Splash 16:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily i know plenty of people who refer to vacuum's as Hoovers, but you point being that just about every one I know also uses variations of "Coke", "soda", "pop", which none are the actual real name, and "Coke" would definately not be accepted as a title, as it is proper to an actual brand. So using any common/slang words, no matter how well known, are not good reasons for a title. ∞Who?¿? 20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Compromise with word order

Maybe we can reach a compromise by using "<thing> of the United States" (or "... of the U.S.") - using this phrasing avoids the entire issue of whether or not it may be used as an adjective. Radiant_>|< 07:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, this does seem like a good compromise way to go. Should we use "of" or "from"? Residence, or birth/citizenship? -Splash 14:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd go with "of" because it allows for consistency with e.g. [[Economy of <country>]] (economy from country doesn't sound good does it). Radiant_>|< 14:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I see no need to be wordy. Maurreen 15:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with <thing> of <foo>. As Radiant points out, it can be used easier with non biographical articles. ∞Who?¿? 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)