| Revision as of 15:35, 21 April 2009 editKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,366 edits →Article Name← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:18, 31 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,334,459 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (311 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{RecurringThemes|Disputes and discussion about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of referring to citizens of the United States as Americans more properly belong at ]. For ''this'' page, please note that whether you personally find these words stupid or offensive or whether you think you've found a better one is irrelevant to the article.}} | |||
| ==is there not some page== | |||
| {{American English}} | |||
| about naming conventions for different nationalities/groups that this could be merged into? | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
| :also, it is my opinion that the title of this article be changed to simply "United States" as one heading in this article i'm referring to, and if it doesn't should it exist? | |||
| {{WikiProject United States|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(183d) | |||
| | archive = Talk:Demonyms for the United States/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 2 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives |auto=short |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=6 |units=months}} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Its name is problematic == | |||
| == Citation of 'Merkin' == | |||
| In response to: ] | |||
| Why don't we change it to "Demonyms of the United States" for better inclusiveness and conciseness, for: | |||
| According to a couple of folks I asked at Misplaced Pages: Verifiability, citations from a pay source, while not prefered are perfectly fine. There is considerable scope for verifiability as a large number of Unversities have access to the OED online. Equally possibly one could check a hard copy in a library, although I'm not sure if this definition would feature as yet, only having been made in 2002. | |||
| 1. Citizens are not the only United States people. | |||
| 2. It's shorter that way. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :A short search suggests "Demonyms for" is more common grammatical formation than "Demonyms of". Otherwise, even though I think you're wrong that there's a problem; Citizens are the only people we're talking about - I lived in the States for three years, but I was never an American. But, that's understood in Demonym as well. I do like it better than the slightly ungrammatical title it has now, which reads like a newspaper headline sacrificing grammar for compactness. So, I'd support such a move, even though I think the suggested motivation is wrong (and don't think it would change the page to start including names for non-Americans living Stateside. ]] 05:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Can you suggest any free site of comparable entomological authority which could be referenced? As there is already a citation there is no reason to have a citation request. --] 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I verify that the OED's on-line edition gives the following etymology: | |||
| :: | |||
| I'm talking about nationals though. Nationals and citizens are not identical. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| and the following quotations: | |||
| 1990 Re: Interesting Idioms in rec.sport.soccer (Usenet newsgroup) 1 Feb., Well, not always. Andy Roxburgh is Scotlands coach, we have no manager the noo. What's 'merkin for ‘booked’, or alternatively, ‘Right, sonwalk!’ 1992 Re: RFD: sci.cryonics in news.groups (Usenet newsgroup) 27 May, To me, cryonics means fridges etc (sorry ‘refrigerators’ to you 'merkins). 1993 Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 26 Sept. 24A, Computer software is in ‘Merkin’ (American English), and so are a lot of the courses at the Institute of Technology at the University of Lisboa. 1994 Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.) 21 Aug. B3 Black related an anecdote about touring the South back in the 1960s when his group was referred to as ‘Jay and the Merkins’. 1994 W. SAFIRE in N.Y. Times Mag. 11 Sept. 45/1 Americans have seized on this Britishism, which has become the most important contribution of the mother country to the lingo we call Merkin since not to worry and spot on. 1999 Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) (Nexis) 14 May 15 L.A. is only marginally American. It's a modern-day Babel, where it's the ‘real merkins’ who must feel linguistically and culturally alienated. | |||
| :American Samoans ? I'm skeptical any of our sources are even going to specify whether they're including or excluding them. ]] 20:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I believe it to be substantially older than 1990, possibly as old as Mencken; it has always been a spoof, usually in American English, of, I would suppose, ] pronunciationm akthough one of these suggests Southern (Alabamian?); I would spell it ''Murkin''. ] 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::lol no. I'm saying citizens and nationals are legally two different things. Consider someone who's of the American origin that is, say, a Chinese citizen. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::They're legally distinct but not actually distinct in practice, because (apart from American Samoans) all American citizens are American Nationals, and vice versa ]. So most sources won't distinguish. But I'm happy with the move for other reasons, and it seems no one is objecting, so we could probably move it. ]] 10:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::If they are a Chinese citizen it is highly unlikely that they have retained their American citizenship, so I'm not sure what your point is. The person in question would be a Chinese citizen of American origin. --] (]) 13:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move 15 October 2020 == | |||
| == Move? == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top (modified) --> | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
| ---- | |||
| <span id="reqmovetag"></span>{{check talk wp}} | |||
| Shouldn't this be ]? What about ] or ]? -] 05:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| |small = | |||
| |imageright = | |||
| |type = move | |||
| |text = '''It was proposed in this section that ] be ] to {{no redirect|Demonyms for the United States}}.''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>'''{{smallcaps|result:}}'''</small><br />''']''' See below support and no opposition, so this request is granted. ] to editors for your input, and ]''!'' <small>(] by ])</small><!-- This is User template ]. --> ''''']''''' ] ] <small>21:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ---- | |||
| <div class="floatleft">''Links:'' • • ]; consensus at ]}}&wpMovetalk=1}} direct move]</div> | |||
| <div class="floatright">{{resize|65%|''This is template {{tls|Requested move/end}}''}}</div> | |||
| <!-- This is template "subst:Requested move/end". --> | |||
| }} | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|Demonyms for the United States}} – It's been suggested that ] would be better, technically referring to people who are nationals but not citizens of the United States. The current title is also sort of a mess, should be United States' citizens, but even that's really newspaper headline shorthand for citizens of the United States, so the nice, succinct Demonyms for the United States is shorter, cleaner, and more grammatical. Since the origin discussion was a bit vague, I thought I'd just make a cleaner discussion. ]] 13:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == npov == | |||
| *'''Support''' ] (]) 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| this page seems to be highly biased in favor of the probably small minority who complain about the term "American". it's also filled with weasel words ("some say that ..."). i tried to fix it up; e.g. its "other languages" section claimed that lots of other languages use terms other than "American", and then quoted a bunch of English slang words and terms from obscure artificial languages. ] 07:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Most people on Latin America complaing agains the term America, and Latin America population almost doubles the US population, it's biased in favor of the US minority | |||
| :Considering that the predominant language of Latin America is Spanish (and in the case of Brazil, Portuguese), I don't see how they get a vote in what words English speakers are allowed to use or not use. No more than I as an English speaker would have any say in what Spanish or Portuguese words they might use to describe themselves. ] 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This entire article smells of troll. I'd go as far as to nominate deletion. Silly pointless cruft poking fun at United States isn't encyclopedic at all. ] 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| disagree, the article is not anti-(US)american. it points out a legitimate issue of ambiguity of usage of the term. npov is on the side of acknowledging that. it is biased towards the US usage not to. ] (]) 11:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sub-Proposed Deletion == | |||
| I do not think that this article is very encyclopedic, and should be deleted. This article could possibly be improved, in my opinion, if it had a major rewrite, and was moved to a more appropriate name. This article violates NPOV, and that's just the title. To find a consensus on whether this request should be moved to ], please poll in the space below. ] 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| : ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --> | |||
| *'''Support''' ] 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
| *'''Comment''' - wasn't the article originaly at something like ] - this strikes me as a better title, there are some sources which attest to the use or proposed use of alternate terms, and should hopefuly help with POV issues (as it does not imply that the current adjective is inappropriate). --] 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Us (verson 2)" listed at ] == | |||
| *'''Keep''' - article is actually informative and I found it useful. ] 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| *'''Keep (qualified)''' - article is useful, but needs a more sensical title (see below) — ] 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' has no place on the Misplaced Pages ] 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "United station" listed at ] == | |||
| *'''Keep''' or combine with related material; the usage of "american" IS different between US & non-US english speakers. see the bbc for examples. the default international style seems to favour specifying the US first, then using "american" as appropriate, thereafter. i'm sorry but this really is a very sharp dividing line between the USA & the rest of the world. it is not a "minority" view. wikipolicy on neutral pov, international pov, is relevant here. wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the world, not just "americans", style & usage of terminology needs to reflect that. the writing could be improved tho. ] (]) 11:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == "Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens" sucks, too. == | |||
| * Non-U.S. vandals must not have found it yet… | |||
| * Non-citizen nationals. | |||
| * Wait. Isn't this article about ''nouns''? | |||
| If it were up to me, I'd tighten it up and either merge it back into ] or move it to ]: it would need a subtopic for Latin American usage, and some retrofitting in ], but it will make sense, and be pleasingly parallel to ]. | |||
| —] 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Brazilian POV== | |||
| First of all I have nothing against people from USA. I have relatives there, some naturalized and some really United Statian. The real problem is not politican either prejudice, anger and so on. The real problem is America isn't only USA, but Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and all other countries from our continent. That's why we preferer to use "United Statian" (Estadunidense, Estadounidense, Estado-Unidense). ] (]) 21:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I apologize for the confusion on reverting your edit. I reverted your edit because both the Spanish and Portuguese languages were already discussed in the first 2 bullets under "Other languages", so your addition was a repeat (both ''estadounidense'' and ''estadunidense'' were covered). ] (]) 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, I noticed that just now. No problem.] (]) 22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I am Brazilian as well and I disagree. I can affirm that the problem many Brazilians have with the word "American" is 140% motivated by anti-Americanism and silly pride. Mexico is called "Mexican United States" and yet we call them Mexicans, not Unitedstatesians. South Africans are morons, because Zimbabweans and Mozambicans also are South Africans aren't they? Yet who complains about South Africa? Same goes for Ecuador, the Equator belongs to many countries, Brazil included, but no one complains about Ecuadorians. Double, triple, quadruple standard! Once again: the problem many Brazilians have with the word "American" is 140% motivated by anti-Americanism, and this political motivation is absent from the article. ] (]) 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you have any ] which discuss that point of view that would be something good to add to the article.--] ]/] 02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Total rewrite== | |||
| I've rewritten this article into what I hope is a much more encyclopedic form. I've introduced a number of citations, and focused on the history of the different terms in different languages. Hopefully this is an improvement; I hope other editors will pick up what I've started here.--] ]/] 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for an excellent rewrite. This should relieve the ] article of some of its controversy. However, when I read the title, I expected to find an article about the names of all the residents of the Americas! This seems to the only point which can be considered contoversial. I am not about to edit it, (at this time, anyway) but ask you to give this point some consideration. A couple of suggestions: First, retitle it, "Names of the Americans (citizens/residents of the United States)". Or, second, add a subtitle, "in reference to citizens/residents of the United States". This would make the usage of word "American" in this article apparent, but preserve the use of the word "American" in the title. Thanks, ] (]) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that's always going to be an issue, and is addressed right in the lead. However, Misplaced Pages ] ], and as the article establishes, the only thing US Americans are commonly called in the English language is "Americans".--] ]/] 01:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recent edits== | |||
| The fact that there is confusion between the two meanings of the term "American" (ie pan-American vs US-American) is important to the subject of the article. I don't understand what is difficult about that? Additionally, the recent edit made several other changes that were not necessary (the formatting of the reference sections; changing the "yankee" line). The fact that using "American" to refer to US citizens has caused confusion and resentment is clearly important to the topic at hand.--] ]/] 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :At any rate I've added another cite for the first challenged sentence, from ''Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage'']. It discusses the matter much more directly than the OED, so hopefully this will settle it.--] ]/] 10:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removals== | |||
| Ive noticed some of the more relevant information has been deleted by recent edits. If we keep the name of the article as 'Names For Americans', than currently used words like 'seppo' should be included, the archaic words from 200 years ago are less important in my opinion.] (]) 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The archaic words are (a) attributed to a reliable source (b) of historical importance as they represented serious attempts to change what US citizens are called, and (c) given the historical context in which they are important. "Seppo" and most of the others on the list were much more recent nicknames, not attempts to rename a citizenry. Additionally, I don't recall any of them being sourced, and they were just put in a bulleted list, which doesn't establish why they were important to include. I agree that the more prominent nicknames should be included, and I left in the two most important ones I know of; "gringo" and "yankee", and explained why they were significant using reliable sources. If you have any more, please add them in, but make sure you cite your sources and give context.--] ]/] 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Names for US Citizens== | |||
| Isn't it better to change the article to "Names for U.S. Citizens" since "Names for Americans" sounds rather silly and biased? I mean, the article istself is about about the usage of terms other than Americans. Also, aren't there many other articles that discuss this issue? - ] (]) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The manual of style dictates that we use the English language title most recognisable to English speakers. So "Names for Americans" is correct. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::By that argument, that common usage trumps accuracy, we should move ] to "England", because that is what the majority of English speakers call it. When you fill in the customs form upon entering the US, it doesn't ask if you are an "American", it asks if you are a "U.S. citizen". That's precisely the issue here. ] (]) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I happen to have my passport at hand and notice it lists my "Nationality" as "United States of America". However, in case of emergency it instructs me to contact the nearest American embassy. Presumably they don't expect me to contact an Argentintian embassy if it happens to be closer than a United States embassy. ] (]) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==American in Portuguese== | |||
| The cognate for American, americano/a, is quite frequently used to mean someone/thing of the US in Portuguese, and not just in colloquial uses. In fact, you can see it in BBC Brasil (Buy American is translated as compre produtos americanos) and in A Folha, one of Brazil's biggest papers, (Senador americano processa Deus - American Senator sues God). While americano/a for of the US is less common in Portuguese than in say, French or Italian, it is still relatively common, much more so than in Spanish, and doesn't merit being put in the same generalized sentence saying that it "chiefly use terms derived from Estados Unidos, the cognate of "United States", as this is patently false. ] | ] 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == "Gringo" == | |||
| According to the Oxford English Dictionary, gringo is "a contemptuous name for an Englishman or an Anglo-American." Since this term signifies race, not citizenship, I propose the reference in this article be removed. After all, not all Americans are "Anglo-Americans," and so it ''isn't'' another name for a U.S. citizen. <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 01:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Except that the term is frequently used for US citizens. The various uses of the term are discussed at ]. The article would have a serious omission if it didn't discuss this word.--] ]/] 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you can provide a reliable source that says the term is frequently used for Americans, than I would agree to keeping it. Since the reference attached to this sentence only specifies Englishman and Anglo-Americans, I'm attaching a fact tag to it being used universally for Americans. <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is well-travelled terrain. The ] article has multiple citations. Your phrase "used universally for Americans" is unclear, but I am guessing you are asking for a citation that a possible use of the word gringo is in application to Americans regardless of ethnicity. Here are several that make no referrence to ethnicity. There are multiple meanings, one of which is Americans generally. I expect the OED referrence you object to is actually in the article to support the date for written English usage. ] (]) 05:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was able to find an article in which Asian-Americans are called gringos as well. However, since Americans don't call themselves gringos, I propose the sentence be moved to "International use." <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why don't you include that reference you have found? At any rate I am sure that when the OED says Anglo-American, they mean English-speaking American, regardless of ethnicity - black Americans are called Gringo all the time, as would be Irish Americans, etc. CAVincent is correct in his reading of the sentence, the OED entry is being used to show that gringo is used in English and has been for a long time. You are incorrect that Americans don't use the term to refer to themselves, as demonstrated by that same OED article (why else would it appear in the dictionary?). And regardless, the best place for the word is the section for "alternate names" rather than international use, since it is an alternate, rather than primary, term in any language.--] ]/] 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Article Name == | |||
| Someone moved this to "Names for U.S. Americans", which I reverted. I agree the title "Names for Americans" is not ideal, as it assumes that U.S. citizen/national = American. However, "U.S. American" is simply unacceptable as part of the article name, as the term is, frankly, bizarre. No anglophone would routinely use such a phrase. ] (]) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's just a disambiguating title. It doesn't have to be an existing phrase. By your argument, "tone (linguistics)" is an inappropriate title, because the normal English expression is just "tone". "U.S." here is just modifying "Americans"; it's not a claim that "U.S. Americans" is the normal expression. | |||
| :I moved the article back, because it is not about "names for Americans", but specifically excludes the majority of Americans. The word "Americans" has two meanings in English, just as "America" does, so if we're going to use it for only one, we need some way to disambiguate. Perhaps you can come up with a more elegant solution? The problem, just as with a lot of other dab'd titles, is that there is no routinely used phrase that is adequate. ] (]) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey, here's a book title that uses it: ''Transcultural women of late twentieth-century U.S. American literature'' (Pauline T. Newton, 2005). There the disambiguation is needed because some of the immigrant writers are from elsewhere in America, such as the Caribbean. ("first-generation migrant US American writers", "longer exposure to US American society might allow them to mingle with US American culture", "their relationships with other US American women", "their US American-born status", contrasting "US American society" with "Puerto Rican culture", "once she visits the Dominican Republic she sounds too US American", "a US American college", "US American soldiers and journalists", "cannot dismiss US American ideas", "a product of US American television", "native-born US American", "migrant writers must educate the US American people", etc.) | |||
| :Wiktionary has an entry for "US Americans" with a quote from a Miss Teen USA pageant contestant. | |||
| :Anyway, the old title "Names for Americans" is improper because it is factually wrong (it is not about names for Americans) and because it violates the neutrality clause of Misplaced Pages naming conventions. "Names for U.S. Americans" is not great, because it's not common wording, but this is a problem with all articles that require dabbing. ] (]) 21:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look, as you can tell from above comments, the name of this article is a matter of contention. I would support something like "Alternative names for U.S. citizens" for exactly the reason that American has different meanings. Or, following your example of article names that need disambiguation, "Names for Americans (U.S. citizens)". However, the way to deal with this is to discuss and build consensus for an alternative, not to simply make a change that is obviously contentious. Further, the Miss Teen USA deal was notable because the phrase "U.S. American" is so very, very weird, the sort of thing a not-so-bright teenager in a beauty contest might say. Sure, you can find usages of the phrase but it is deeply wrong to move this article to it. Please restore and participate in discussion for an alternative. ] (]) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, there is nothing "wrong" with it. It is simply a disambiguated term. You're demanding that we use a factually incorrect and non-neutral term, which violates the MOS, because you don't like the fluidity of the title, which is a secondary consideration. That's like insisting on leaving the article on the UK at "England" while we debate whether "United Kingdom" or "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the better title. Since "Names for Americans" is incorrect and in some circles even offensive—especially in light of this article discussing precisely this issue!,—while "Names for U.S. Americans" is correct if not mellifluous, the later needs to be our starting point. The irony of calling this "Names for Americans" should be obvious. "Names for Americans (U.S. citizens)" is okay by me, as is "Alternative names for U.S. citizens", though we were once at the latter and it was not popular. ] (]) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Another, shorter possibility would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, the irony of titling this article "Names for Americans" is clear, and I would be highly sympathetic to the claim that it is a NPOV problem because it assumes a definition that is under contention. However, 1) '''there is nothing factually incorrect''' about "Names for Americans", as it is an article about the naming of U.S. citizens/nationals and a legitimate and indeed by far the most common English term for such people is American. 2) In contrast, "Names for U.S. Americans" '''is not an accepted English phrasing'''. I do not believe you will find a single English language dictionary that supports (or even alludes to the existence of) the phrase "U.S. American". Sure it disambiguates, but only in the manner of trying to describe a concept in a language one speaks imperfectly by stringing words together in a grammatically ideosyncratic manner. One could as easily move ] to ]. In English (and unlike, say, German) the word American is not modified by sticking U.S. in front. ] (]) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Is there any support, or more importantly any strong opposition, to moving this article to ]? I believe this would be the normal disambiguating manner to title the article, and would seem to resolve the issues at hand.] (]) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I moved the page here from ] to ] to be in line with the various articles we have titled ], ], ], etc. I did this because of an ongoing issue at the article now titled ]. The problem that kept coming up there, and that comes up frequently in real life, is that whether we like it or not, there's just no alternate name for citizens of the United States in English. So I decided to be bold and split that article in two; one that would discuss the word American itself and its history and different uses, and one that would discuss what different languages call United Staters. I struggled even at that time with the clunky title, but we are hamstrung by two points (1) that the word "American" has another (admittedly much less common) use in English, and (2) there is no other common name for Americans in English. I really object to using "U.S. citizens" here, because that defines them by citizenship rather than nationality (on top of ]ns, there are more nuanced examples, such as ] appears in collections of American literature despite giving up his citizenship, and there are plenty of long-term resident aliens who are treated as Americans in various ways despite not being citizens). I think "U.S. Americans" is a decent compromise, but just plain old "Americans" certainly isn't an incorrect use of the word, though some people might find it distasteful and perhaps confusing. I'm going to move us back to the status quo ] until we can sort out a compromise, it's always a bad idea to move things around when consensus isn't behind it.--] ]/] 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then we call them "citizens of the United States" or "US citizens", as they do in US gov documents. You yourself say "there's just no alternate name for citizens of the United States in English", using the phrasing of the current title (names for US citizens). You say that it's a bad idea to move things when there's no consensus, but that's precisely what you did. It's okay for you to be bold and move it, but not for others to do so? One of the main points of this article is that the name "American" is technically incorrect, so choosing that name is, to be kind, ironic. There ''are'' other viable terms in use, some in official use. The fact that "citizen" doesn't cover 100% of the population doesn't change the fact that these words do apply to US citizens, whereas they do ''not'' apply to the majority of technical Americans. | |||
| ::One phrase that might answer your concern would be "names for U.S. nationals" or "names for nationals of the United States", since a national is "a citizen or a subject" and includes American Samoans. (However, there is a question as to whether an American Samoan is an American/Usonian, since American Samoa is its own country; also, "Usonian" may be contrasted with "Puerto Rican".) And TS Eliot did once have US citizenship, which is good enough for a lit collection. We could still argue that Eliot isn't an American, so I don't see how that fixes things there anyway. | |||
| ::Per the OED, "nationals" are: | |||
| ::*"persons belonging to the same nation; (one's) fellow-countrymen" | |||
| ::*"all the members of a state, whether covereign, subjects or citizens" | |||
| ::When an "American" says "Americans", they mean their "fellow-country(wo)men", so this is appropriate. Personally, I think "US Americans" is just fine, but absent that, "Americans" is simply perverse. Could you imagine us creating an article on "names for Macedonians" covering solely Macedonian Slavs? | |||
| ::] (]) 01:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Given that the use of simply "American" is perverse considering the topic of the article, which possibilities do people like or dislike? "Names for: | |||
| *US citizens / citizens of the United States | |||
| *US nationals / nationals of the United States | |||
| *US Americans / Americans (United States) | |||
| *(other) | |||
| *Using "U.S." as an adjective is not desireable. While it's used in newspapers to save space and whatnot, it really is something that ought to be eschewed. One could say "Names for citizens of the United States" or "Names for residents of the United States", but those are both legal jargon-y terms that might confuse. "Names for Americans" obviously follows the usual titling convention of using the most common/recognisable English name, one might plead special exception here. "US Americans" is not an English construction, and is likely to be very confusing, I think it has to be a non-starter (my instinct is to either correct the capitalisation, and move it to a title that is more appropriate, since I am not an American, for instance). American nationals is probably also far too jargon-y. "Inhabitants of the United States" might work, though Americans living outside the United States are obviously still Americans. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :At any rate I stand by the assertion that is is bad editing to engage in a move war, or any ], when it is obvious such a move is disputed (as in this case). It was okay for me to "be bold" and move the page when I did it originally because ''there was no article here''. I wrote it. Before that it was just a listing of nicknames for American citizens; I removed that and replaced it with real, cited article content. Kwami, I think you're going overboard when you say that using simply "American" is "technically incorrect", "non-neutral" or "perverse". If we're quoting the OED, see their entry for "American": "Originally: a native or inhabitant of America, esp. of the British colonies in North America, of European descent (now hist.). Now chiefly: a native or citizen of the United States." Clearly this isn't a matter of being "wrong" or "perverse"; English is not a ]. There are obvious defects with using just Americans, but if this discussion has shown anything its that the alternatives are equally problematic. The page should be moved back to the status quo title ] and we can move from there; the moves are not solving anything.--] ]/] 15:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(Wily) Of course "US" can be used as an attributive. It is all the time. You may not approve, but it is definitely a starter. Of course, there's nothing wrong with spelling it out either. | |||
| ::(Cuchullain) The perversity is not in calling US nationals "Americans", but doing so in an article which discusses how this can be ambiguous. It is non-neutral in the context of saying that "Americans" can mean inhabitants of all of America, to then go on and use it in the title to mean inhabitants of the US. In other articles, where there is no ambiguity, I wouldn't care less, but it's a bit rich to do it here. While we debate the best name, we shouldn't leave the article at the worst name. ] (]) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:18, 31 January 2024
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
|
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 183 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Its name is problematic
Why don't we change it to "Demonyms of the United States" for better inclusiveness and conciseness, for: 1. Citizens are not the only United States people. 2. It's shorter that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Yoon (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- A short search suggests "Demonyms for" is more common grammatical formation than "Demonyms of". Otherwise, even though I think you're wrong that there's a problem; Citizens are the only people we're talking about - I lived in the States for three years, but I was never an American. But, that's understood in Demonym as well. I do like it better than the slightly ungrammatical title it has now, which reads like a newspaper headline sacrificing grammar for compactness. So, I'd support such a move, even though I think the suggested motivation is wrong (and don't think it would change the page to start including names for non-Americans living Stateside. WilyD 05:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking about nationals though. Nationals and citizens are not identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Yoon (talk • contribs) 08:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- American Samoans ? I'm skeptical any of our sources are even going to specify whether they're including or excluding them. WilyD 20:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- lol no. I'm saying citizens and nationals are legally two different things. Consider someone who's of the American origin that is, say, a Chinese citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Yoon (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- They're legally distinct but not actually distinct in practice, because (apart from American Samoans) all American citizens are American Nationals, and vice versa United_States_nationality_law#Nationals. So most sources won't distinguish. But I'm happy with the move for other reasons, and it seems no one is objecting, so we could probably move it. WilyD 10:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- If they are a Chinese citizen it is highly unlikely that they have retained their American citizenship, so I'm not sure what your point is. The person in question would be a Chinese citizen of American origin. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- lol no. I'm saying citizens and nationals are legally two different things. Consider someone who's of the American origin that is, say, a Chinese citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Yoon (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 15 October 2020
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 | It was proposed in this section that Names for United States citizens be renamed and moved to Demonyms for the United States.
result: Links: current log • target log • direct move This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
Names for United States citizens → Demonyms for the United States – It's been suggested that Demonyms for the United States would be better, technically referring to people who are nationals but not citizens of the United States. The current title is also sort of a mess, should be United States' citizens, but even that's really newspaper headline shorthand for citizens of the United States, so the nice, succinct Demonyms for the United States is shorter, cleaner, and more grammatical. Since the origin discussion was a bit vague, I thought I'd just make a cleaner discussion. WilyD 13:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Us (verson 2)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Us (verson 2). The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#Us (verson 2) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"United station" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect United station. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#United station until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)