| Revision as of 13:22, 29 April 2009 editKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,366 edits →RfC: Title and phrase "US American"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:18, 31 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,333,782 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 | ||
| (253 intermediate revisions by 87 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) | |||
| :::See ]. It's certainly not the worst name, though admittedly it seems to be the one that looks the worst to one particularly squeaky wheel. And it's certainly not non-neutral; all significant views on the topic are presented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. It's the "propotionately" thing that's the kicker; the fact is "American" chiefly means "US American" in English; it's not at all confusing to the great majority of English speakers. Other langues would follow with their own most common word; I expect the Spanish version of this article would be called "Nombres para ''estadounidenses''" but replicate the same content.--] ]/] 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::That really is not right. "Canuck" can be attributive, but I wouldn't call an article about the nomenclature of Canadians "Names for Canucks". Obvious nonstarter, despite being "correct" and "clear". ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your opinion does not make it "obvious" to anyone else, and your example is not even grammatically analogous to "US American". ] (]) | |||
| I've found "US American" as far back as 1922, and from the American Library Association in 1955, but it seems to have really taken off around the year 2000. As you might expect, it's most common in sociological and intercultural texts, where there is a contrast between US and Latin American. Google books has thousands of texts which use the phrase (6570 hits, of which the majority are accurate). It may not be the title we want, but the argument that it isn't proper English is spurious. ] (]) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds about right, but to include it you'll need a reliable secondary source.--] ]/] 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You mean a source that overtly says that "US American" is proper English, or that states that its popularity is increasing? ] (]) 00:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Either one. As long as any interpretation is left to reliable secondary sources, it's fine. What we can't do is just list off some examples where it's used and use that to draw a conclusion.--] ]/] 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since when is that a criterion? I doubt we could justify half of the titles on Misplaced Pages by this standard. I mean, we have an article on ], but I doubt you'll find a ref stating that is proper English. All you're likely to find are books which use the phrase "Roman Greece" in their text or their titles. Same for ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. You have quite a few articles to your credit that would have to be renamed as OR if you applied this consistently. ] (]) 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since ] got attached to the ] policy. You will, in fact, find many articles about , just by looking at your college library or Google Scholar as I just did.--] ]/] 04:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::By your standards, those are not acceptable sources, at least not from what I can see in the links. Nowhere do they state that "Roman Greece" is correct English. They merely use the phrase ''as if it were'' correct English. Ergo, the title of ] is OR and must be moved to something we can substantiate with an actual reference. (And yes, I realize that argument is moronic. That's the point.) ] (]) 07:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::They're not ''my'' standards, they are policy. I admit I didn't look at the links I gave very closely, I realize now they don't serve my argument. I'm sure such sources do exist, however; at any rate that particular name is unlikely to be challenged since it is essentially a compound of two parts (the Roman ''period of'' Greece), but it could be something to bring up at ] if you really feel strongly about it. However, we're not discussing that article, we're discussing the one on names of the (U.S.) Americans. If you think "U.S. American" is correct English and want it used in the title as well as within the article text, ].--] ]/] 12:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Of course they're your standards. I've never heard anyone else say that "no OR" means we have to choose article names from a dictionary, an essentially impossible task since most phrases are not listed in dictionaries. "it is essentially a compound of two parts (the Roman ''period of'' Greece)"—well, so is "US American" a compound of two parts. I'm curious as to why this particular expression has been singled out for proof. | |||
| ::::::::I removed "US citizen" as unsupported by the ref. It's also not in my dictionary, which means it's OR and we can't use it in the article. Per Google, it has 3 Mhits per "US American"'s 1 Mhits, suggesting it isn't all that much more common, and so the OR claim may also be non-NPOV. ] (]) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Various policies speak to the sourcing issue. What you're proposing is to take ] (examples where "US American" is used), and ] an argument (that "US American" is correct and used frequently in the English language). Rather, when you made you didn't include any sources at all. This is ]. Our ] specifies that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", even if this necessitates a "reasonable minimum of ambiguity". The only thing U.S. citizens are really called in English is "Americans". You seem to believe "US American" is proper English and a regularly used alternative, but the ] is on you to show that it is, not on us to show that it's not. I have no idea what you mean by "the OR claim may also be non-NPOV."--] ]/] 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is OR to claim that "US citizen" is a common alternative, but "US American" is not. Also, your claim that speakers would not easily recognize "US citizens" or "US Americans" is OR. ] (]) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't recall making either of those claims, and I don't see how they are OR anway. I think you're grasping at straws now. Look, Kwami, let's take a break for a while. This discussion hasn't been productive for some time. I respect you as an editor and I know we're all trying to improve the encyclopedia. I think we'll be able to resolve this much easier after a breather, once our heads clear a bit.--] ]/] 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Dictionaries aren't generally going to list noun phrases as entries, but I found one that uses "US American" in one of its definitions. ''A Dictionary of European Anglicisms'' by Manfred Görlach (2005), in the usage notes for the entry on "Yankee", states, "European languages have adopted the British use (late eighteenth century) referring to an '''US American''' (not specifically a northerner)." ] (]) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This Görlach fellow is German, and uses the incorrect article ("an" rather than "a"). Looks more like faulty translation than endorsement of "US American". Incidentally, the claims above about Google getting a million hits for "US American"... this is silly. Aside from mocking a certain beauty pageant contestant, 90% or more of these are obviously not using the phrase "U.S. American" but are just using the word "us" followed by the word "American". The citation you recently added to the article suffers from a similar defect. ] (]) 22:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Plenty of English speakers write the article wrongly as ''an'' before words beginning with vowels; your conclusion that the ref is not pertinent because of this is OR. ] (]) 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh, if you actually ''looked'' at the ref, which is at Google Books, you'd see that 0% talk about the beauty pageant, and that while there are cases of "us American" or "US, American", these are in the minority, at least through the first hundred hits. ] (]) 01:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hence, "similar defect" and not "same defect". I counted 64 usages of "U.S. American" or "US American" in the first hundred hits on Google Books; looks like the percentages of accurate hits starts to drop off the farther one goes in the list. I didn't say it was silly to assert that "U.S. American" does exist in published books, just to suggest that the phrase was so common as to generate a million hits on plain vanilla Google. ] (]) 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wasn't using that as a ref, only as a comparison with "US citizen", which suffers from the same defects in a search. My point was that the ratio of hits of US citizen to US American was 3:1. ] (]) 02:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since you won't accept that the usage is "occasional", I took out that word. But "US Americans" is a phrase that's used, so that stays. ] (]) 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Title and phrase "US American" == | |||
| {{RFClang | section=RfC: Title and phrase "US American" !! reason=(1) Is the title "Names for Americans" inappropriate for this article? (2) Should the phrase "US American" be covered *in* the article? !! time=07:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Summary by ] (]): The article concerns alternate names for US Americans, such as ''norteamericano'' or ''estadounidense'' in Spanish, and more obscure words like ] in English, that don't have the ambiguity of "American", since technically Canadians and Peruvians are also Americans. There are two issues. First, the article was moved to "Names for Americans", with the reasoning that "Americans" is the most common term for these people in English and therefore per the MOS it ''must'' be the name of the article. I and others have objected that this is deeply ironic, and that the title of the article needs to be clear that it is not concerned with names for all Americans, but only for US Americans. I moved it to "Names for US citizens" for what I consider necessary clarity, though there are plenty of other phrasings that I'd be happy with. The second issue is including the phrase "]" in the text. A search in Google Books returns plenty of books that use this phrase, as far back as 1920 but especially after 1990. (I've collected some citations ].) As a noun/adjectival phrase, "US American" is not found in dictionaries. The objection is that we cannot include it in the article, despite its attestations, because books using a term are not a ] that the term is used; that we need source that specifically ''states'' that the term is used. By this argument, the article ] wouldn't be able to use the phrase "Roman Greece", since you can't find that in a dictionary either. 07:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' As for inclusion of "US American/U.S. American", I see no problem with it. It's not common, but neither are any of these terms; the article isn't "Common names for U.S. citizens". Kwami has accumulated enough sources to verify that it's really out there, regardless of whether any of us have heard it in everyday speech. As for naming...yes, "Names for Americans" is not very appropriate because, as kwami points out, "America" can be the entire Western hemisphere, even though that's not how it's commonly used anymore (and it's not really our fault that the whole USA appropriated the term for itself). "Names for U.S. citizens" is a perfectly reasonable alternative, and I see no reason to fall back on a problematic naming when this one exists. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 11:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The objection to 'citizens' is that not all US Americans are necessarily citizens. Personally, I think it's close enough, but a more accurate term would be nice. ] (]) 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, I considered that as well, but then I figured, non-citizens who reside here are generally not referred to as "Americans" anyway, at least not in my experience. (Of course, that is probably a sticky controversial issue; I'm thinking mainly people who are here on a short-term basis and don't self-identify as American, but I'm sure an argument can also be made about people who live here their entire lives but are denied citizenship). <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::"U.S. citizens" is less offensive than "U.S. American" for the title (I would prefer "U.S. national"). The fact is, there's no good thing to call this, since there's no good thing to call Americans besides ''Americans''. I deliniated why I object to "U.S. citizens" above: basically, because it classifies United Staters by citizenship rather than nationality (there is a nuanced, but important difference which plays out for all ], for example.) As for "U.S. American", it can't be included as of yet, because in fact neither Kwami nor anyone else has included any sources for it at all. All Kwami's done so far is give us Google Books search, which is not a reliable source, his ] on this talk page, and made a proclamation that "'US Americans' is a phrase that's used, so that stays." None of these things are acceptible. If he wants it included he's going to have to follow policy and find a reliable, secondary source that discusses the phrase directly. This could be a dictionary, a manual of style, a book on English usage, whatever. If it's really as common as he says, it will appear ''somewhere'', he just needs to do the actual work of tracking that down. The ] is on him to defend the challenged material, not on the rest of us to prove it isn't used.--] ]/] 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| As to sources for "U.S. American": | |||
| "'''Yankee''' ''n.'' 1 an inhabitant of the USA; an American ¶ European languages have adopted the British use (late eighteenth century) referring to an US American (not specifically a northerner)" (A Dictionary of European Anglicisms, p. 350). Although this is an explanation at "Yankee", it uses the term "US American" in its definition. | |||
| Görlach, Manfred (2005) ''A Dictionary of European Anglicisms''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | |||
| "U.S. American Ambassador, American Consulate Gen. - 17A, Alexandria, Egypt. ¶ U.S. American Ambassador, American Embassy - 17, Cairo, Egypt." (ALA Membership Directory, p. 304) This is a list, not prose. Still, it defines the representatives of the United States of America as "U.S. American Ambassador(s)." | |||
| American Library Association (1955) ''ALA Membership Directory''. Chicago: American Library Association. | |||
| As to titling the page: '''U.S. nationals''' would seem preferable to '''U.S. citizens''', in my opinion. The term "nationals" is used variously to refer to citizens, residents, and those claiming sociocultural ]. ] (]) 16:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for those examples. I am still against using passing examples such as these in an encyclopedia article. ] guideline has this to say: "Sources should '''directly support''' the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". These instances of the phrase being used do not directly support the argument that this is a commonly-used phrase in the English language. They could be used as ] (ie, examples where the phrase is used in context), but ] specifically prohibits drawing conclusions based on primary sources. As such, we have to rely on dictionaries, style manuals, books on English usage, and other secondary sources in order to make claims such as this. As the article currently stands, primary sources are used only to make descriptive claims (The Federalist 24 says x; George Washington said y), while all interpretive claims are left to the ''OED'', ''The Columbia Guide to Standard American English'', ''M-W's Dictionary of English Usage'', et al.--] ]/] 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::But Cúchullain, you violate this all the time. According to your user page, you've worked on articles with titles that violate this strict interpretation of OR. I doubt you can find ] or ] in a dictionary or style guide, for example. Or ]—you are presenting this as a noun phrase, and if I were to object that it is OR to create such a phrase, because I've certainly never heard it before, I doubt you could defend it to the extent you demand for "US American". | |||
| ::But we do have two votes now for "Names for US nationals" over "US citizens". (Shouldn't it be "words for"?) ] (]) 22:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Kwami, that is nonsense. The titles "]" and "]" can be found in many secondary sources typed out exactly like that ("]" is a bit different, I'll admit, but if you or anyone has a better title for that list I'd gladly consent to a change). Those are articles about ''things'', the titles are taken from secondary sources which refer to them with a conventional ''name''. Sources for that will be sources discussing the thing. This article is about the ''names'' that are conventionally attached to a ''thing'', the people of the United States. As such we rely on a different set of sources to back up the article. The thing is, I've checked all the usage guides, style manuals, and dictionaries I listed above, and none of them give "U.S. American" as an accepted and common phrase for people from the United States (and some of them mention all manner of alternative names, including very obscure ones; you'd think they'd have thought of this one if it was really used with frequency.)--] ]/] 01:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, it would be okay to have an article titled ], as long as it didn't discuss the name? | |||
| ::::The reason the lists of obscure words for US Americans don't include "US American" is that they're lists of ''words,'' and "US American" isn't a word, but a ''phrase.'' There are plenty of other phrases they don't include. For example, while they may mention "US citizen" as a common phrasing, they don't mention "US national", despite the fact that the latter is the legal status of American Samoans. "US Americans" is clearly more prevalent than something like "Fredonian". We evidently haven't found a source, assuming there is one, that lists all phrases as well as all words for this distinction. Which is not unreasonable, considering that phrases are an open category, seldom bothered with in dictionaries when they are self-explanatory, and it would be very difficult to list every one ever used. ] (]) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, it would not, since that is not the ] for Americans. Lancelot-Grail is the common name for the Lancelot-Grail, on the other hand, as attested in various reliable secondary sources including the ones listed in the article. Many articles on things discuss the name additionally if there is reason to, this is a rare case where the name itself deserves its own article. Anyway, regardless of how this plays out in other articles, or whether you think policy is too strict, ] says that "ll quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Your inclusion of the phrase "US American" has been challenged, you will do better to find sources than to continue arguing that your statement is ].--] ]/] 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." I agree that if I were to make claims about frequency, popularity, or differences in meaning of phrases, I would need secondary sources. However, a claim that the phrase exists only requires demonstration that it exists, including primary sources, which I have done. Others have agreed. (I haven't said policy is too strict. I said your interpretation of it is too narrow.) ] (]) 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ''My vote is for'' "'''Names for Americans (United States)'''" ] (]) 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, since hopefully the issue of the phrase is settled (or if it's not, we're just talking past each other), can we get back to the name of the article? Who agrees with Readin? US nationals? US citizens? citizens/nationals of the United States? Names for? Words for? ] (]) 14:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The article covers several kinds of "Americans" such as citizens, nationals and "people from the United States". It may at some point make sense to expand it to refer to ethnic Americans (including people who are descended from Americans or raised by Americans but who are not U.S. nationals, for example Winston Churchill who might be termed an "American English" because his mother was American). By using the slightly open-ended term "American" we can cover the topics of interest for people who come to this page. By including "(United States)" we disambiguate from the less common use of the term "American" that refers to people from the Americas. ] (]) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppose the issue of the phrase is settled so long as it is not added back into the article without proper sources. As for the title, Readin's rationale is somewhat convincing, but I think it is unnecessarily complicated. This version is perhaps better than "Names for U.S. citizens" (and far better than "Names for U.S. Americans". The best title in my mind is still just "Names for Americans".--] ]/] 19:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cuchullain has chosen to define "Americans" as "citizens of the US" in the lede to this section, so American Samoans are by our definition ''not'' Americans, and the current title is appropriate. BTW, I'm restoring "U.S. Americans", which Cuchullain deleted against RS's and contrary opinion here. ] (]) 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Kwami, now you're just being disruptive. You know that material is challenged, and that discussion attempting to establish consensus is ongoing, but you re-added it citing only to a for ''''. This is highly unconstructive. I don't know why you are being so difficult, but it is growing very tiresome. I ask you again to please stop this behavior or else further dispute resolution may be required.--] ]/] 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And I find your edits disruptive. You asked for sources, I gave you sources. Of course I compiled the list! If you would prefer that I combine them into a footnote for this article, fine; that changes nothing. Now if you wish to continue your idiosyncratic interpretation of sourcing requirements, I suggest you find something to back you up. Personal interpretations of policy are as much OR as anything else. ] (]) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Citing your own wiktionary page is a definite no-no. ] (]) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's simply a place to compile the references. I'm not quoting myself, so I don't see how it matters whether the refs are here or there. But I can paste them into a footnote here if you prefer. | |||
| ::::::What you are saying is that you did your ], which consisted of ] an argument out of ], and ] at a website anyone can edit. Look, I'm tired of being bludgeoned by your persistence. If you want "US American" here so bad despite the lack of ''any'' secondary sources, I'm not going to fight it anymore. But Wiktionary is not a reliable source for ''anything'', I shouldn't have to tell you that. You will ''at least'' need to give the full citations here (page numbers, publication information, inline citations), since you can't be bothered to look for any secondary sources.--] ]/] 12:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The lede I see for the article says "Different languages use different terms for citizens and nationals of the United States, the people...". That contains more than just citizens. And regardless of what the lede says, the rest of the article clearly covers more territory. Finally, even if this article does cover just U.S. citizens at the moment, there is an equal need for an article that covers other names (such as U.S. nationals, and ethnic Americans). To place such information in a separate article would be an unnecessary and confusing split. Simply saying "American" qualified with "(United States)" is specific enough to tell the user where they are, common enough that users will intuitively recognize the meaning, and broad enough to void artificial restrictions on the article. ] (]) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that if we go with Cúchullain's personal interpretation of sourcing policy, all that has to be deleted, because according to his source "American" means only a citizen of the US. (I obviously don't agree with his interpretation.) ] (]) 02:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are grasping at straws. I'm not rising to it.--] ]/] 12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Don't be an idiot. You can't ask for refs, delete those refs, and then complain that there aren't any refs. I had assumed you were editing in good faith, but it seems you intend to disrupt anything you disagree with. I will restore the references I added at your request. Removing references is vandalism. ] (]) 13:22, 29 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)