Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive ("U.S." or "American") 2

Use of America/American

See also: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)/Usage_of_American

See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive ("U.S." or "American")

Firstly, if this is the wrong page to raise this, I apologise and ask you to direct me to the correct one. In many places in Wikipedia the word America or American is used to mean the U.S.A. or citizen of that country. This page is a good example. Leaving aside an endless debate on 'cultural imperialism', should this not be discouraged? It is quite often ambiguous when used in articles about other American countries and presupposes the reader is aware the colloquial usage.Markb 13:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not particularly ambiguous in an English language encyclopedia. If this were a Spanish language one, you would have a better argument. Rmhermen 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If anything, one should be *more* careful in an English language encyclopedia, given that there are several versions of the English language, and, as a global language, one cannot assume the reader has any knowledge of it's usage in other countries. A Martian reader could very easily understand 'American President' to mean there is a President of the whole America. they may well then become confused to learn that this 'American President' is democratically elected, but only US citizens get to vote. Markb 14:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, in the interests of preciseness, there is no real reason not to recomend that the full term 'United States of America' be used rather than 'America'. As abreviations, 'United States' and 'U.S.A.' would be prefered to 'America'. --Barberio 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We keep getting suggestions to not use American in this form but they never answer one question: what do we replace it with? If people from Brazil are Brazillian, and people from Canada are Canadian, what do we use as an adjective for people from a county that is legally named "The United States of America"? Are they Unitedan? Stateser? United Stateser? United Statesean? United States of American? Are we really going to replace every instance of the adjective American with the prepositional phrase "of the Unted States of America"? Which will also require we repalce all occurrences of Peruvian with "of Peru", and every other use of an adjectival form of a nationality. (Is there a proper noun Peruvian Potato? How about American Cheese? Cheese of the United States of America, perhaps?) RJFJR 16:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about US Cheese? How about replacing 'American' with U.S. citizens. It's not difficult! It's about trying to use encyclopidiac standards in articles - attempting to use concise and accurate wordings that are clear to the reader. We cannot assume that users of Wikipedia share a common background and usage of EnglishMarkb 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do there really exist any dialects of English which don't include the word American as the name of people from the United States in their lexicon? I mean, I don't like the fact of it (I'm Canadian, live in the Americas, and yet somehow they have a monopoly on the term?), but pragmatically I don't think anyone who has linguistic competency in English is going to find it at all ambiguous in practice. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Saxifrage and RJFJR. Wikipedia policy is to use commonly used names for things. For example, the commonly used name in the science of linguistics for the dialect of English in the United States is American English. Furthermore, American English speakers are a majority of native-born English speakers. --Coolcaesar 05:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Majority of English speakers cannot explain Special Relativity, does that mean Wikipedia should not have articles describing it? The majority of people do not speak English as their first language; we should strive to be unambiguous wherever possible. I notice no one can explain why such usage adds to the clarity of entries on here. Markb 08:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest and recognize that things are called American not just because U.S. residents want to disrespect (or confuse) the rest of the Western hemisphere. The U.S. is the only nation in North or South America that has the word "America" in its name, so it's hardly surprising (or manifestly vague or unfair) for its citizens to be called Americans, its president to be called the American president, or for countless businesses and organizations based in the U.S. to use "American" in their names (American Airlines, American University, American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, American Express, American Bar Association, American Heart Association, American Stock and Options Exchange, American National Standards Institute, American Museum of Natural History, American Astronomical Society, and on and on and on).

Its common and reasonable to use "American" for U.S. references. Continent-wide references need to be explicit to avoid confusion, not the other way around. "The American president" is not going to to be confused with the "president" of North America. "American companies" is not going to be assumed to mean all businesses in the Western hemisphere. Continents don't have presidents; a reference to all companies in North and South America should say "Western Hemisphere businesses," certainly not "American businesses" unless that reference is explicity explained (as in an article on a free-trade zone for North and South America). A mandate in the style guide to not use "American" except in references to continent- or hemisphere-wide topics is not going to fly; it would almost be...anti-American. DavidH 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. "American" is usually used to refer to the USA in English; if there's any confusion we can always use U.S. or the likes. I would be slightly more careful with the term "America" to mean the U.S., but even here the context is usually clear. (It's my experience that this use is even more common in Britain than the States.) We should also note that although the United States of America is the only country with "America" in its title, it is not the only one with "United States." ProhibitOnions 16:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"How about US Cheese?" Surely you're joking—or perhaps are unaware of the foodstuff called American cheese. Calling it "US Cheese" would be inventing a neologism used nowhere in the world but on Wikipedia. I have a very simple question: in what native variant of English does the term "American" cause any confusion whatsoever?

I'm aware of other languages (for example, Spanish) where "American" usually refers to the continent, and some other adjective (for example, norteamericano—talk about ambiguous!—or estadounidense ["United Statesean"]) is used to refer to the country's attributes. And surely native speakers of those languages can be tripped up by the differing usage of the term in English. But there are hundreds of cases where English cognates are confusing to speakers of other languages; once we go down the road of avoiding confusing cognates, "stilted" will not even begin to describe the language we'll be forced into using.

Consider shortcake, whose opening sentence begins: "Shortcake is a sweet biscuit (in the American sense: that is, a crumbly, baking soda- or baking powder-leavened bread)...." How would you eliminate "American" there? "Shortcake is a sweet biscuit (in the US sense..."? "Shortcake is a sweet biscuit (as in US English:..."? Those are atrocious. "American" serves a useful purpose. When one is talking about the continents, one can say "of the American continents" or some such. That is such a rare usage it seems completely perverse to assign it the easy-to-use adjective and force the hugely more common usage to use circumlocutions. --TreyHarris 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

shortcake is a wonderful example, thank you. It's not a question of 'eliminating' Amercia, its about accuaracy. I'm no expert on shortcake, but I think stating 'in the USA, a crumbly, baking soda- or baking powder-leavened bread' describes to me exactly it's usage in the USA. Not in Peru, Brazil, etc; but in the USA.19:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If I make shortcake in New Zealand, it's still a crumbly baking soda- or baking powder-leavened bread. Its disposition doesn't change based on national borders. Shortcake is a biscuit in the American sense in the USA, in Ireland, in Zimbabwe. It's not a biscuit in the Commonwealth sense in any of those places, nor in the USA. You're confusing colocation with national affinity, which are two separate topics that sometimes, but not always, go together. Using USA where American is called for can be as incorrect as using Netherlands where Dutch is called for. --TreyHarris 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Shortcake *is* a good example. The phrase 'is a biscuit in the American sense' means that there is a continent-wide standard for biscuit, and shortbread conforms to it. Nowhere else can I can this American standard for what a biscuit it, probably because there is no such thing. Hence 'is a biscuit in the American sense' is incorrect. Or are you claiming that the word 'America' does not mean America anymore, it now means the USA? Markb 09:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This would be a fairly clear reference to the USA. As it has been said before, in English, unqualified references to "America" or "American" refer to the USA. There are rare instances when this might lead to ambiguity, such as discussions of geological features. The instance you cite does not. "American cheese" does not, either; it's a proper name.

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is all about in the above. If you prefer to use "U.S." or the likes instead of "America," go ahead. However, the fact that "America" in other languages refers primarily to the landmass has no bearing on English usage, in which its usual meaning is the USA. ProhibitOnions 11:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ProhibitOnions and TreyHarris. In the English language, "American" generally refers to the United States of America first, and the American continents second. What other languages use is irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. It makes no sense to adopt a usage that would be awkward, confusing, and irritating to the majority of English Wikipedia readers (who are native speakers of English).

Markb has obviously never worked in publishing or journalism. Any professional editor who proposed something that crazy would be fired on the spot. --Coolcaesar 06:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In English, when used without qualification, the word American completely unambiguously refers to the United States of America. Alternative meanings would only be read if it is stated unambiguously in the context that an alternative meaning is meant. I would even go so far as to say that anyone who does not understand this does not really have a command of English idiom. Language is a beatifully illogical and inconsistent thing, and it would be misguided to recommending avoiding use of American to refer to the United States. No clarity would be gained, and much naturalness would be lost. Nohat 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose we also change all occurrences of "hot dog" to "sausage with bread". "Hot dog" should be only used to indicate canines at high temperatures. PizzaMargherita 07:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no one can explain how using 'America' as opposed to U.S.A. adds clarity to an article. It would be interesting to see what global authority there is for statments like "In English, when used without qualification, the word American completely unambiguously refers to the United States of America". I rather suspect there isn't one.Markb 08:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd turn the tables: can you cite any style guide or dictionary where the primary usage of "American" is relating to the continents rather than to the United States? I've looked at several English dictionaries, both American and international, and have not found a single one where the continental definition is the first. I haven't even found a single one with a usage note explaining the possibility of ambiguity! The burden is on you to show us why the status quo should change, not on us to prove why it should remain. --TreyHarris 09:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/America. I am not suggesting that the words America or American should be banished, I'm merely suggesting that they should only be used where there is no ambiguity. No one yet has come up with an arguement that their usage should be prefered because they are more accurate than the alternatives. I wonder how much of the reaction so far is purely emotional, rather than rational.Markb 13:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, Mark, that's not very sporting. If people don't agree with you, that's "emotional, rather than rational"? But if I read you correctly, your most powerful argument in favor of turning this non-issue into a polarized debate is that there (a) might be Martians who are (b) too dim to have noticed the difference between a continental landmass and the geographic extent of the world's most powerful nation when (c) addressing the leader of the latter. Should this ever come to pass, I suspect we will have other things to worry about. Cheers, ProhibitOnions 14:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, to rejoice about. Ok sorry, I'll shut up now. PizzaMargherita 15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for coining neologisms or novel uses of words—no dialect of English contains the ambiguity you speak of. Furthermore, if there were a dialect that did, you would essentially be advocating that all of Wikipedia adopt this dialect's usage, which precedent has already rejected. (Compare with WP's policy on American and British English spellings.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

then I lay down the challenge; show me the article where the use of America or American provides a concise and unambiguous entry where the alternative would ADD to a reader's potential confusion. As to the concept that 'US President', or 'The President of the U.S.A' (for example) over 'American President' is a novel use of words; well, I'll leave it others to judge.Markb 19:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. American English. Using U.S. English would increase confusion because there is already a prominent (and highly controversial) organization with that name (go look on Google if you're not familiar with it). It would also confuse all Americans, who are generally accustomed to referring to their own dialect as American English.

My suspicion is that your motive is simply anti-Americanism. I see no rational motive underlying your position as all of your alleged motives have been rebutted. The consensus is clearly against you. If you continue to persist in troll-like behavior with regard to the Manual of Style, one of the admins may have to block you from Wikipedia for a while. --Coolcaesar 20:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, you have been asked not to make accusations and ascribe derisive intents like this in the past. Cool your jets. --Barberio 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My Summary of what forms should be used.

• In general, use United States of America or United States, and U.S. or U.S.A. as abreviations. Such as U.S. Politics or History of the United States House of Representatives
• When the particular phrase is a name, such as 'American Football', or 'American cheese', which is commonly and internationaly known as such, then that form should be used.

This is, in fact, the prelevent concensus view on Wikipedia, and the way articles have already been named and written. I see little reason to change this situation. However, let's take a straw poll on the issue to gauge if there's a concensus to change this. --Barberio 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, it would be an extremely long exercise to make the necessary changes. However, I believe that the style guide should direct people to use United States of America or United States, and U.S. or U.S.A. when referring to that country, as opposed to America/American. I rather suspect the misuse of the later is mainly down the cumbersome title of United States of America, people have lazily abbreviated it to America without thought for the potential for confusion. As to the charge of anti-Americanism, which 'America' am I accused of being against? Once again, an emotional response when a rational one is not available. Markb 10:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Is the current method, of consistantly using the name 'United States' or 'United State of America' (with exception for proper nouns and items such as 'American Football' which are commonly and international known as such) a suitable Wikipedia guideline? Vote with #'''Keep''' to keep the current method or #'''Change''' to change the method, and state your reasoning behind your vote, followed by a --~~~~ --Barberio 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the current Status Quo, this comes from the current Manual of Style wording on the issue,

"Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African."[1]

I belive it is pretty clear how this would be applied in reference to the issue at hand. If you want to Keep this guideline, vote Keep, if you wish to Change it to allow 'American' for 'United States', vote Change. --Barberio 18:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Keep Votes

1. Keep - This is a well established current practice. It is clear and unambiguious. It combats systemic bias. --Barberio 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes, I think since I made a pronouncement above. No doubt, "U.S." (I trip when reading "US" but that's another discussion) is the best adjective for things of the United States, "America/American" somewhat less so. "American" is more an evocative (and less precise) term. I don't want MoS to discourage evocative writing, and not just in titles. Most uses of American won't be confused with the continents or all countries of the hemishpere. Editing out "American" unless it's the entire "Americas" doesn't seem right. Ooops, I agree with --TreyHarris (below) too. DavidH 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(This was moved here after advisement from Markb. He wants to keep the Status Quo, but wants it explicitly stated in the Manual of Style. --Barberio 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

1. Yes - in new articles, and when amending existing ones, the use of United States of America or United States, and U.S. or U.S.A. is prefered over America, and U.S. citizen should be used rather than American. Where the 'America or American' is part of a proper noun, then it should be used. Markb 10:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Change Votes

---

Other Comments

• Object to straw poll. The above discussion shows a very clear consensus against changing the status quo. Straw polls are useful when there is lack of clarity as to whether a consensus is emerging. It is unnecessary here, and I urge others to agree with me here rather than voting above. Operating by consensus means we need to have a bias against voting. See Wikipedia:Consensus. --TreyHarris 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Please read Wikipedia:Consensus again, it actualy suggests polling surveys to gauge consensus. --Barberio 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yes: "Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails." But other than Markb continuing to press his point despite a clearly-built consensus, we don't have any failure to reach consensus here. (Consensus does not equal, nor require, perfect unanimity.) --TreyHarris 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misleading poll The characterization of the status quo is patently incorrect. Nohat 22:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with Nohat on this point. I think the status quo should remain, but I don't think Barberio's description of it is correct, which is another reason I am not casting a vote. --TreyHarris 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Although we have had our differences on other issues in the past, I concur with both of you on this one! --Coolcaesar 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Flawed poll. Agree with Nohat. Look at the votes--Markb agrees witht he "keep" votes, but is voting on the other side because he has a different assumption about what the "current method" is. · rodii · 16:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. MarkB was not disputing the status quo, but supporting it. He placed his vote in the 'change' section, because he wanted it explicitly stated in the Manual of Style. I've moved this based on this.

This may be required, but it shouldnt be, since it's already made clear that Globalization and Accuracy have primacy. --Barberio 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose this poll as per TreyHarris: consensus is clear. — Saxifrage ✎ 11:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally this poll as per Nohat and rodii. Currently established consensus is unclear. In the area of category naming, for example, a consensus in favor of "American" has emerged and is regularly upheld on WP:CfD. Gene Nygaard 14:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

These two comments directly contradict each other. This simply confirms that a poll is required to see if concencus supports continuing the status quo, since it's concencus is disputed. My declaration that this is the status quo is based entirly on the majority of edits I have seen reflecting this, and that aplication of globalization and accuracy guidelines leads to it. To apply the use of any diferent method would require special exception to these guidelines, thus a change to the status quo. --Barberio 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So what if they contradict each other? They're two different people, with two different arguments, who just happen to agree on the outcome. · rodii · 18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no contradiction—it just illustrates the procedural nature of our objections. No straw poll should take place when it includes any claims of existing consensus. Start over from scratch. Gene Nygaard 17:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the poll question. There is no assosiation or claim of existing consensus. Simply a statement of the current Staus Quo, which may or may not be supported by consensus. The status quo as identified is that based on the current Manual of Style guidelines on Identity. Explicitly, 'Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African.' If you feel there is no consensus to support the current Manual of Style guideline, please say so. There is no procedural issue here. We know what the Status Quo is, and now we're trying to see if there is a consensus in support of it. (It may be that you've assumed that a Status Quo automaticaly equates to Consensus support, it does not.) --Barberio 18:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of that MoS statement, and thus that this is the status quo, but I appreciate the clarification of the question. When you say "the status quo is based entirly on the majority of edits I have seen reflecting this," this simply confirms the shaky basis for your presummptions. Your attempt to draw a parallel between Africa" and "America" ignores the fact that, to many people, "America" is also a name for the United States of America. I'm all for discussing whether that should be deprecated, and I think Markb has done a good job of laying out the argument, though you can see from the discussion above that it won't be a popular move. But this poll, based on an attempt to claim your position as the officially-sanctioned "Status Quo," is not a good way to further that discussion. :::::I'm also removing your box as a poor attempt at denying the legitimacy of a position. If you're asking for input, you should listen to the input you get. · rodii · 18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The style guide provides no special exception for "America" being suitable a substitute for "United States of America", and the quoted text directly implies that it does the oposite. You have not argued any alternative reading. It may well be that to many people 'America' is also the name for the United States. This has no relevence what so ever to what the current Manual of Style has to say on the issue. If you belive that there is a consensus in oposition to this, then it should be demonstrated. The discussion had clearly stalemated, with both sides claiming (and still claiming) to have the consensus in the issue.

If you wish to berate me for 'claiming that the state is a status quo', then you should first demonstrate that it is not. As you should well know, simply saying I have a shaky argument is an Ad hominem against my wording. As I said, my belife it is status quo is the predominance of edits interperating the quoted phrase in the Manual of Style. So far, no person raising a procedural objection has actualy demonstrated why it is not the Status Quo. Till that happens, the poll stands. --Barberio 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Barberio, I'm not trying to hassle you. I apologize for coming off so strong. I just disagree with you. No incivility intended. · rodii · 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Pardon my confusion. I'll try again. The name of the country is America (like other countries, we ignore somewhat the "united" or "federated" or other grouping term in the official name). It is America, its people are Americans, and using American and America are entirely appropriate and should not in any way be restricted to a narrow "north and south america and all its landmasses and people" sense. No way. That's extreme nit-picking, IMHO. I haven't fully deciphered which vote would reflect that in this poll. DavidH 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is your view, you should vote Change, to alter the MoS to allow a special exception to naming convention for the United States. --Barberio 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We aren't taking the bait. When no clear consensus emerges, the result of disputes is status quo ante. By stating the status quo in terms that no one but you and Markb agree is the status quo, and urging those of us who want American to be a useful word for attributes of the US to vote "change", you're trying to game the system, so that, if no clear consensus emerges, you win. We aren't going to do it, which is why we're not voting—the status quo is not as you've laid it out, it is for American to have the broadly useful meaning (which, yes, is sometimes theoretically ambiguous, but is rarely ambiguous in practice) rather than the niche geophysical meaning you want to assign it. --TreyHarris 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The name of the county is *not* America! That's the name of the continent - it's just this sort of misunderstanding I'm seeking to avoid by suggesting the style guide explictly states the prefered title for the country is 'United States' or 'United State of America', or even 'U.S.A'. Markb 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not what English dictionaries say. Merriam-Webster gives "United States of America" as one of the definitions of America [2], as does The American Heritage Dictionary [3], and the Encarta Dictionary [4]. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English agrees: [5]. The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't define proper nouns, but sense 2b for American is "Belonging to the United States", and the Compact Oxford English Dictionary gives that meaning as the primary one [6]. Are you suggesting that all these dictionaries do not accurately reflect the language? Nohat 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Show me the entry in ANY of them that state that the name of the United States of Americais actually America. If this *is* correct, then which country is the United States of America? If America really is exactly the same as United States of America, then which continent might one find this country?Markb 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually look at those links? Those dictionaries explicitly define the word America as "United States of America". As for your first question, you should be aware that it is possible for something to have two names. The answer to your second question is obviously North America. Nohat 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries do not define Wikipedia policy. It is not specific to use America to mean United States. It is not neutral to use America to mean United States. Wikipedia already suffers from systemic bias, see WP:CSB, this change would be counter productive to the efforts to combat it. --Barberio 19:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question, now does it? Nohat 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Barberio is just plain wrong. It is specific and neutral to use America to refer to the United States. For example, there are two famous songs both titled "America" which are clearly about the "United States." One is a traditional folk song and the other is a pop song by Neil Diamond (he performed it live on nationwide television at the rededication of the Statue of Liberty in 1986). I also see many British publications referring to "America" to mean the "United States" all the time.--Coolcaesar 20:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, this issue of The Economist (a UK publication) I happen to have sitting next to me (the March 11th-17th 2006 edition). Every issue has separate sections on "United States" and "The Americas"—so one would think, if any publication would avoid using "America" to refer to the United States, this would be it. But let's turn to p. 25, the first page of the "United States" section. The very first sentence refers to "six American ports"! The second paragraph goes one to use "American" to refer to the United States three times ("six American ports" again, "the UAE is an American ally", and "two-thirds of Americans oppose the deal"). And it goes on from there. --TreyHarris 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of common useage. Wikipedia is not The Economist. Wikipedia is not even a Neil Diamond song. 'Other publications do it' is not, and has never been, justification for doing something in Wikipedia. 'The Economist' doesnt have a NPOV policy, nor does it try to combat systemic bias, it has a relativly small and targeted readership, while Wikipedia is global in scope. --Barberio 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So anyone else's usage doesn't matter to what Wikipedia uses, and Wikipedia should be in the business of combating systemic bias by changing the definitions of the words it uses. That isn't NPOV, Barberio; that's Newspeak. WP:CSB is not a Wikipedia policy, it's a project. Changing the very English language we use in the Wikipedia is way beyond its scope, in my opinion. --TreyHarris 20:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Markb, you miss the point. Telling us to change "American" to "of the United States" is like saying that all occurrences of "Russian" need to be changed to "of the Russian Federation" and all occurrences of "Mexican" need to be changed to "of the United Mexican States". One is vernacular, and one is pedantry, and you want the pedantry to trump. It's not going to. --TreyHarris 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian and Mexican are still specific terms, American is not, since it can mean different things to different people. So to remove possibility of confusion in a reader, United States should be used.

And on Wikipedia, pedantry is suposed to win. The whole idea is to have enougth pedants around to correct all the mistakes. --Barberio 20:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, dictionaries do not define WP policy. But common usage is a core naming convention. No one has yet given clear evidence that in any dialect of English there is any real confusion regarding the use of the term in context -- as I see, it those raising objections usually base their arguments on some variation of political correctness. But Wikipedia is not here to promote an agenda of "correcting" common usage. My own view, to the extent possible without introducing neologisms ("U.S. cheese") or awkward circumlocutions, we should try to specify "United States" or "U.S." rather than "American", but I see no reason to write this into the guideline (with the almost inevitable effect of some users running amok making indiscriminant substitutions). older ≠ wiser 20:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad's position works for me--acknowledging the systemic bias issue but allowing for some nuance in its appilication, and most importantly, not writing it into guidelines so the legalistically-minded can beat people up with it.· rodii · 22:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. Under the Status Quo, 'American Cheese' or 'American Football', would be fine, since it is a very specific term commonly applied. 'American Politics' however, would not, since it has ambiguity in meaning, and 'United States Politics' would be preferable. --Barberio 20:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, but "United States" is not an adjective. That is really at the heart of the issue -- there is no good adjectival form for United States and constantly writing "X of the United States" is just clumsy style. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

'U.S.' can be used as an adjective. 'U.S. Politics' or 'United States Politics' for example. There are many ways to maintain this useage, and still have readability. For instance 'Attitudes within the United States', is not only an acceptable alternative to 'American attitudes', it less of a blanket statement. --Barberio 21:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "U.S." is OK as an adjective in some cases. But 'United States Politics' sounds decidedly odd to my ear. And 'Attitudes within the United States' sounds completely awful and remarkably uninformative. older ≠ wiser 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Barberio, this poll is dead. Let it drop. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

'No one has yet given clear evidence that in any dialect of English there is any real confusion regarding the use of the term in context'.

Really? Try: American Politics. Ask a group of students to write a 2,000 word essay on the subject. Markb 05:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not evidence. Saying so doesn't make it so. Even if you had citable evidence about students' confusion when writing on the subject, that has nothing to do with dialect and ambiguity in a linguistic meaning. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll throw your argument back to you: show me the evidence that 'America' is clearer usage than 'United States of America'. Markb 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply pointing out that it's established usage, which is the only measure Wikipedia uses. Wikipedia's job is not correcting the English language. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So esablished usage rules - there never will be any scope to amend the current Style Guide? Are you suggesting this discussion page should be deleted and all future debate stifled? Markb 05:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to put words into Saxifrage's mouth, but I think "established usage" was referring to established usage in the world at large, where American is rarely ambiguous in practice, and is used even when it is. But you aren't that far off from the truth—it is extraordinarily rare to use policy and guideline pages to force widespread change into the encyclopedia. Usually policies and guidelines just document what is already common practice in the encyclopedia to enforce consistency, not to effect change. --TreyHarris 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for any such evidence. If you want to make a change to the MoS, the burden is on you to prove that there actually is a problem that needs to be fixed and that the suggested change will actually fix the problem. Neither has been provided. Nohat 19:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see I have to repeat myself. The 'problem' is that the use of America to describe the United States of America is inaccurate. No one has yet refuted this, but so far the arguments to support the incorrect usage seem to be:

1. The name of the United States of America is actually America, to suggest otherwise is wrong.

2. It is well established on Wikipedia that the use of America is superior to United States of America, to suggest that the correct form should be used would involve change, and that is not allowed as established use takes precedent.

No no, TreyHarris' explanation of my words above is accurate. My argument is not that it's established usage on Wikipedia and therefore superior, my argument is that it's established usage in the entire English-speaking world and Wikipedia policy expressely forbids using language that contray to popular usage in the outside-Wikipedia world. Nothing I can think of can counter this argument. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that in the entire English-speaking world, America is a more accurate description of the Country than United States of America? Does that mean that, for example, the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/) is not part of the English-speaking world? Could you please tell me which language the following is written in:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish ::Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America Markb 09:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about accuracy at all and accuracy has nothing to do with why Wikipedia can't adopt your proposal. I am simply saying this: Wikipedia has a strict policy of using the most common existing words (or sets of words) for things. America and American are at least and likely more common than "US" and those alternatives. Therefore, assuming that my statements about the usage of American and America in the English-speaking world are empirically true, then Wikipedia must use them. It has nothing to do with accuracy or what the English language should be. It has everything to do with what the English language is. Wikipedia's job is not correcting the world, it is documenting it. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Has No Such Policy. Please go read the Identity section of the Manual of Style. Specificialy the phrases "Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence", "Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African", and "Do not assume that any one term is the most inclusive or accurate". You may be confused with the policy on article title names. And even then, the wikipedia naming convention for places says "Generally, use the official English name for the place and its type", note official name, not any slang or nickname for the country. By current policy, guideline, and general practice, 'United States of America' or 'United States' is the correct form. --Barberio 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Current policy is debatable, as can be shown by the fact that we are debating it, here. The guideline is unclear in this case, as can be shown by the fact that at least some of us don't understand it. General practice is to use "United States" for the country, but "American" for its residents. And United States is no more or less the correct form than America - either is usually understood, but rarely ambiguous. GRuban 17:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying something is debatable is no reason to avoid the issue of actualy debating it. So far not a single person has provided solid argument to demonstrate that this is not Wikipedia policy. All argument so far has been based on either vauge assertations on 'general useage' and "we should do what $insert_here do!", or "but it makes it harder for me to write well". Neither of those are valid arguments against any policy of Wikipedia, especialy not the NPOV policy. This is a joint issue of national POV, and preciseness. Compromising on either for 'clarity' or to 'follow common useage' is a dangerious step, and should not be taken. --Barberio 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Barberio, this is not a question of preciseness or POV. What this is is a transparent attempt to manipulate Wikipedia policy to leverage a politically motivated assault on the English language. It is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia policy to further your nefarious attempt to rewrite the rules of the language. We use the English language here, not the politically correct subset approved by you. Unless you can show some actual examples where a native English speaker would legitimately be confused about the word American, please spare us your sanctimonious demagoguery about how we're compromising on clarity and take your campaign elsewhere. Nohat 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple example. Say we have a sentence in a 'Bi-Valve Sprocket' article, "All members of an 1930 American trade negotiation party belived bi-valve sprockets to be an export asset." Does this sentence refer to a group from the United States, a group from North America, a group made up of representatives from North, Middle and South america... Since it's hardly unknown for 'American' in this context not to refer to the U.S.

Thats a simple example showing ambiguity that could exist for native english speakers living in the US! Imagine the ambiguity that could apply for non-native english speakers living in Venezuela.

Now, I'd like an apology for your deciding to induldge in a personal attack by labeling me a 'politicaly motivated politicaly correct santimonious demagogue'. --Barberio 19:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By "actual examples" I guess it was unclear that I meant actual examples, not invented ones. It is possible to construct a sentence that makes any word ambiguous—having done so proves nothing. I don't think anyone is against a policy which says that words should not be used in an ambiguous way—that's just a characteristic of good writing. What we are against is ruling against all uses of a particular sense of a particular word because it might be ambiguous. In most cases, American is completely unambiguous, and in most cases, it does not need to be replaced by an awkward substitute. Finally, I didn't label you anything. I merely characterized your campaign for what it really is. Nohat 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This will be my final responce to you, since you fail to keep personal attacks out of this.

My point was that you, as a native english speaker living in north america, might find use of 'american' to be unambiguious in many situations that a fluent but non-native speaker from another country would find confusing. You, and I, are totaly unqualified to say if a useage would be confusing to them, without consulting a large proportion of them. It thus makes a much simpler guideline to use language that is precise.

For instance, heres a quote from my watch list '14:30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (diff; hist) . . Joema (Talk | contribs) (Last rv causes ambiguity: "common" can mean either "occurring frequently", or "shared between". Rephrase to fix.)', is this pedantic, yes. Would most native speakers have understood the original use, yes. Does this add extra effort on behalf of the editors, yes. Are any of those a reason not to revise the article, no. Because Clarity and Preciseness for all readers is Important. The same applies to this storm in a teacup. United States is the more accurate term due to it's official recognition, thus it is the recomended term. --Barberio 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite the diff please? Also, stop using precise and accurate interchangeably—they are entirely different things. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your premises are correct—it is a good thing to replace ambiguous usage with unambiguous ones. However, your example again is not germane to the issue at hand, and your conclusions are not warranted by the evidence presented. In most cases, America and American are not ambiguous, and so don't need to be replaced. Speculating about hypothetical readers without showing actual cases of actual ambiguous sentences causing confusion is not sufficient to require that the MoS explicitly disprefer use of the words America and American to refer to the United States. I would argue that your hypothetical "fluent but non-native speaker" is not really fluent if he or she finds unambiguous uses of the word American to be confusing. Part of being fluent in a language is knowing what senses of words are salient. It is implicit in the MoS that bad writing should be replaced with good writing, but it does not necessarily follow that all cases of the word American referring to the United States of America should be changed.

As I said before, if you want to make a change to the MoS, the burden is on you to prove that there actually is a problem that needs to be fixed and that the suggested change will actually fix the problem and not cause a worse problem in its wake. No such satisfactory proof has been provided. Nohat 21:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

3. The form United States of America, is cumbersome and to use it would lead to awkward phrases. Awkward phrases are to be avoided whether or not they introduce confusion into an article.

4. I am on the look out for 'anti-americanism'. This debate is 'anti-american'.

That should be "This debate is anti-United-States-of-American". GRuban 17:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Have I missed anything? Markb 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the counter-proposal immediately below your entry, even though it's been there several days. I inserted corrections from it to your points above. GRuban 17:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If preciseness and lack of ambiguity is really what Barberio and Markb are going for, then surely they'd have no issue with disallowing "America" and "American" from referring to the landmass, preferring "the Americas" and "North, Central, and South American" instead. Correct? We've clearly demonstrated that "America" and "Americas" can refer to either of two things in certain contexts. The problem with simply adopting an unambiguous usage, let me emphasize, is that there is no adjectival form of United States nor United States of America, nor demonym for citizens thereof apart from American.

United States, like any noun in English, can be used in pre-nominal attributive form, so in many cases it can be used where American would otherwise be used, thus reducing the alleged ambiguity. For instance, "members of a 1930 United States negotiating party". But it cannot be used in all contexts where an adjective can be:

The athlete was disqualified from the European event because his nationality was Australian.

vs.

The athlete was disqualified from the European event because his nationality was American.

vs.

*The athlete was disqualified from the European event because his nationality was United States.

(In linguistics, the asterisk denotes an ungrammatical utterance.) No one is claiming that United States is an incorrect name for the country. It's just an incorrect adjective or demonym. And short of adopting Usonian or United Statesean or some other neologism, we can't stop using American without resorting to circumlocutions. And when choosing between usage that is circumlocutory and usage that might be slightly ambiguous to those without a strong command of the language, style (this is, after all, a Manual of Style) would prefer the latter—because circumlocution is never stylistically valid. --TreyHarris 20:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Style should never overide Accuracy. --Barberio 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about accuracy or precision? This distinction is important because style does override precision, but accuracy overrides style. It's the difference between giving facts (accuracy) and giving detail (precision). — Saxifrage ✎ 21:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The athlete was disqualified from the European event because his was a U.S. Citizen.

This one falls into category 3 above The form United States of America, is cumbersome and to use it would lead to awkward phrases. Awkward phrases are to be avoided whether or not they introduce confusion into an article.
As stated elsewhere, it's not the role of Wikipedia to 'correct' language, but it should strive for accuracy and unambigious articles. For what it's worth, there is a similiar problem where I live. The official title is the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', even more of a mouthfull! The accepted, shorter version is United Kingdom or U.K. However, many people are tempted to use 'Britain' or 'British', but this is ambigous, it could be seen to refer to the British Isles, the collection of islands in the North Sea. As this includes the Irish Republic, the use is incorrect. Markb 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(As an aside, "?The athlete was disqualified from the European event because his was a U.S. Citizen" isn't grammatical in the English I speak, so you could put a question mark in front of it to show that some consider it grammatical and others do not. If you changed his to he, it would be grammatical again, but it would no longer refer to his nationality, so it would no longer have the correct meaning. As Saxifrage puts it, more precise, but less accurate.)

You're getting at the problem, but I think you still miss it. In the case of a citizen of the United Kingdom, you can narrow it down. You can call the person Scottish if they are, or Welsh if they are. There is nothing along those lines you can do for a citizen of the United States. American is the only word. (Few people identify with the states in which they live, so Idahoan is not appropriate as a nationality.)

"United States" refers to a political artifice, the government, of America, the nation and cultural entity. The people and culture of the United States of America are not of the "United States" so much as they are "of America". It's our poor judgment that we chose to name our country, as opposed to our political structure, ambiguously, but there we are. If you look at any of the great anthropologists or external observers of this country (such as Alexis de Tocqueville), you will be hard pressed to find any that refer to United States culture or the United States people—because the culture and the people have little to do with the political United States, and much more to do with the cultural America. ('"We, the People of the United States" doesn't count—that's a governing document, and so of course references the political entity.)

Just as a person is not a Russian Federationist, he is a Russian, we are not United Statesean (even if such a word were extant), we are American. Going to the White House website is not going to help you here—the president is president of the political United States. (Though I should mention that the American President is one way that presidential historians have referred to the cultural as opposed to legal peculiarities of the office as compared to other presidencies.) The point here is not, let me repeat one more time since you seem to be fond of claiming otherwise, that America is a more correct name for the official political boundaries. But no circumlocution involving United States gets at the cultural and national aspects invoked by American. I, personally, would accept the semantics of (U.S.) American—put it into parentheses to make it clear that we're not inventing a nationality here but are clarifying which American we're talking about. But until you can demonstrate an actual case where confusion has resulted over bare American, I don't see why we have to adopt such an ugly usage. --TreyHarris 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that that the people and culture of the USA are a special case and so should have a special word on Wikipedia (America) to refer to them, to distinguish them from their government? Why not the French, or the Germans? If you are, then I suggest to make a change to the style guide, otherwise there now three possible means to the word 'America': the continent, the U.S.A & the people who happen to live in that country, but not any official body.

PS the use of 'his' in because his was a U.S. Citizen was a typo, I meant 'he'. Markb 18:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why indeed not the French, or the Germans? Why do you not call them French Republicans, or German Federal Republicans? Because the French Republic does not refer to the nation of French or to French culture, but to the political entity and government. Because the German Federal Republic does not refer to the nation of Germans or the German culture, but to the political entity and government. The fact is that the French Republic is more commonly known as France, and the German Federal Republic is more commonly known as Germany. The United States is only a "special case" insofar as it is known by at least three different common names, USA, United States, and America. You deny the last as invalid, I understand—but I think you deny it only as incorrect, not as uncommon.

I've been trying, and am about to give up trying, to make two points: 1) there is no adjective or demonym for USA or United States while there is one for America, and the circumlocutions required to make do without an adjective or demonym are stylistically unacceptable; and 2) USA and United States refer to a political entity, whereas America refers to a nation, so there are places where circumlocutions involving United States would be not just stylistically unacceptable, but also incorrect.

The correction to your grammatical error is illuminating to me. It seems to me that you believe citizenship is the same thing as cultural and social nationality. If that were true, then everything else you have written begins to make sense to me. There can't be any difference between "American" and "U.S." (except in terms of the former being ambiguous), if there is no difference between U.S. citizenship and American nationality. But there is a difference. If I emigrate to Botswana, I may become a citizen of Botwsana, but I would still be an American. I would no longer be a United States citizen, though, and I certainly wouldn't "live in the United States". --TreyHarris 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need to invent a special word to refer to people from the culture that overlaps the United States, because English already has one: American. This is the basic point I've been making about "established usage". And yes, as TreyHarris already pointed out, there is a special word for the cultural identity of all peoples. Someone can live in Austria or France (among French people, note) and be German. This fact actually had much to do with the First World War... — Saxifrage ✎ 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So we are begining to see agreement emerging. 'America' & 'American' actually refer to some sort of collective culture enjoyed within the U.S.A. , it does not refer to the actual country (whether the geographic area or any official body). Hence there is agreement that 'America' is *not* the same as United States of America. I'm glad that Saxifrage & TreyHarris support me on this. What we now need to agree on is a suitable term of phrase that should be used to describe this cultural entity.

As an aside, I'm begining to wonder if this 'established' usage is because:
1. Most contributors to the English Wikipedia live in the U.S.A.
2. Colloquially, the use of 'America' or 'American' is acceptable within the U.S.A. to refer to the country or culture. It is a large country; few of it's citizens travel without it's borders (before anyone gets excited, this is not an attack on any individual or culture), and rarely find themselves in a postion where they need to qualifiy their usage.

However, Wikipedia is a global resource, no one should assume that a reader is embedded within a particular culture, e.g. apparently there are more people in China learning English than reside in the U.S.A. Markb 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody else notice that both Markb and Barberio don't seem to understand the huge grammatical difference between "it's" and "its"? PizzaMargherita 07:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm dyslexic. I asume you have some condition that excuses you being a jerk about it? --Barberio 10:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we try and keep things civilised? I'm fully aware of the different semantics, but I sometimes make syntatical errors. Maybe, PizzaMargherita, you should follow your own advice about language proficiency. Markb 10:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your right, sorry. PizzaMargherita 12:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

Markb and Barberio are completely correct, that America is not the name of the country. (However, they are wrong in saying that it is the name of the continent. Which continent? North or South? But that's besides the point.)

However, they didn't take their argument far enough. United States is not the name of the country either. The hypothetical Martian would be very confused about United States of Belgium, United States of Indonesia, and even in America --errr, either North or South America-- United States of Brazil, United States of Venezuela, United States of Colombia, and others. In short, Markb's and Barberio's proposal would make the Wikipedia no more suitable for Martians. We can't have that. The only sane proposal is to:

1. Remove the highly biased and inflammatory redirect of United States to United States of America
2. Specify United States of American cheese, and Elvis Presley, the United States of American singer, and the United States of American Indian Movement
3. And do so in a Martian-friendly top level domain. I suggest http://mars.wikipedia.org/

All in favor? GRuban 20:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

HIja'! PizzaMargherita 22:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say WP:POINT, but I'm too amused to even think of mentioning it. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Won't somebody think of the Martians? · rodii · 14:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I worry that the Martians might be pedantic trolls, and there'd be no end to this kind of thing:

Elvis Presley, the United States of America, North America, Earth singer...

Earth? Who gave you the right to use earth as the name of just one planet? So all other carbon-based-life-form-producing planets have to say topsoil or dirt instead? And it's ambiguous, how are we to know this Presley isn't a form of plant life? (etc)

Anyway, what's the point? Most titles use U.S. anyway, but there are some cases where America would be the more likely choice, referring to the U.S. And in body text, America and American refer to the USA, but you can use whatever adjectives you want, and if it's jarring someone will fix it anyway. Is that the status quo? Who knows. ProhibitOnions 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of Elvis Parsley. · rodii · 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh-heh! The truth is stranger than silly analogies... ProhibitOnions 21:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

With tongue firmly in cheek, might I suggest we replace the adjective American with Yankee? I believe it's unambiguous. WLD 11:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm from Tennessee (sort of)! The correct term is Damn Yankee! Sorry, it ain't unambiguous - in fact, it's un-American! (here we go again....) ProhibitOnions 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Darn. I should have been a bit more careful. It's unambiguous to those who hail from outside the USA. Applying it to all citizens of the USA would help pay back for all those Scots and Welsh who are labelled as being English rather than British, although calling a sheriff from small-town Alabama a Yankee while he's citing me for speeding might produce 'interesting' results! WLD 15:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

This discussion has gone on for over a week now, so let's draw a conclusion.

There is demonstratably no consensus for changing the the current wording of any relevent guideline or policy. At the moment, the guidelines advise use of the officialy recognized name of the country, which is 'The United States of America' or 'United States'. I can't see any further discussion being usefull without consensus to change these guidelines.

Since there is no consensus to change the MoS to reflect use of 'American', can we consider this discussion closed in reference to MoS? Those wishing to continue the debate should probably find a more relevant forum to do so. --Barberio 00:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation to that particular place in the guidelines please? Thanks. · rodii · 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been repetedly cited above. Manual of Style, Identity, "Use specific terminology: People from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) should be described as Ethiopian, not African.", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) "Generally, use the official English name for the place"; these are clear guidelines which indicate against general use of 'America' for 'United States'. --Barberio 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, then, as above, I dispute your interpretation of those guidelines, so there we are, yet again. The analogous guideline would be "People from America (a country in North America) should be described as American, not North American." (Note that the "official English name" of Ethiopia is "The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia." I don't hear anyone arguing that "Ethiopian" should be replaced by "Federal Democratic Republican.") I have a lot of respect for Markb's argument about systematic bias, but yours is a red herring, a quibble, and your continuing effort to define the consensus to mean what you want it to mean (and to convince those who disagree with you to go elsewhere) based on such a weak reed is, in my opinion, unsuccessful. Markb's original point was that the use of "America" to mean "United States of America" is all too common--using "United States" is, in fact, anything but standard practice here. If you want to make the case against the use of "American," go ahead, but stop trying to pre-emptively declare yourself the winner. · rodii · 02:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No current section of the MoS deals specifically with what demonym or adjectival form to use for people from and things relating to the United States of America. The "use specific terminology" guideline refers to not using a less specific term when a more specific one is appropriate, but since "American" is specific to the country (just not necessarily unambiguous), that guideline does not apply. The "use official English name" guideline applies only to nominal references to the country, and not to demonymic or attributive references. Thus, United States is preferred to America in nominal usage, but no one has disputed this. The question of whether American is appropriate for demonymic or attributive reference to the United States is not currently covered by the MoS. Nohat 02:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote to Barberio here almost a week ago:

We aren't taking the bait. When no clear consensus emerges, the result of disputes is status quo ante. By stating the status quo in terms that no one but you and Markb agree is the status quo, and urging those of us who want American to be a useful word for attributes of the US to vote "change", you're trying to game the system, so that, if no clear consensus emerges, you win. We aren't going to do it, which is why we're not voting—the status quo is not as you've laid it out, it is for American to have the broadly useful meaning (which, yes, is sometimes theoretically ambiguous, but is rarely ambiguous in practice) rather than the niche geophysical meaning you want to assign it. --TreyHarris 19:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My prediction has come to pass—no consensus emerged, and so Barberio tried to declare his interpretation of the status quo maintained. But there is no consensus as to the right interpretation of the current wording with regards to demonymic or adjectival use. The status quo is "no agreement". --TreyHarris 06:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of analogous cases, where one country seems to usurp the name of a larger region, to the resentment of others in that region, and it's not easy. There's the Federated States of Micronesia, which people call "Micronesia" for convenience, though Micronesia is a broader region. There's (stretching it here) South Africa, which is not the only country in Southern Africa. That's about it. I don't see a lot of ambiguity in either case, and it's easily remedied by using a longer version of the name, and I don't see a lot of resentment. I have to conclude that the issue here is not the US's "usurpation" of the name so much as its economic, political and cultural dominance in the Americas; the issue of the US being called "America" is more an expression of resentment over that dominance than it is a real substantive opposition to the use of the name. As such, this doesn't seem like an issue for the MoS so much as it does a general question of a need for clarity, sensitivity to cultural issues and willingness to discuss and seek consensus on a case-by-case basis. If, as Trey, I think, suggests, someone can point to a case where actual confusion about the facts has resulted from this, I will grant that and say we should fix it. Otherwise, this is just using the MoS as a tool in a cultural struggle (please note I am refraining from using the obnoxious term "political correctness"), and I think that's inappropriate. · rodii · 18:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Baberio is still trying to game the system, with an idiosyncratic interpretation of existing guidelines.

BTW, there is a fairly specific consensus on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American Gene Nygaard 22:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good! I missed that poll. This seems to give us yet another way out of this morass: adopt a consistent style with how categories do it. Anyone want to argue that the body text should use a different style for adjectival/demonymic use than category names do? --TreyHarris 23:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Er... If you read the talk page, you'd have noted that only a weak consensus was found by the straw poll. And that it contradicted current naming practice consensus. Thats why the page wasnt addopted as a guideline. (note, lack of that nice guideline template) --Barberio 09:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As user Rick Block correctly points out, this was a 69% preference, which in my book is closer to a sweeping majority than to a "weak consensus", and it's even less close to a "split consensus", "slight preference" or "slight support" (all actual quotations).

We can now list many instances in which Barberio has tried (unsuccessfully) to twist, "interpret" or blatantly misquote existing guidelines and other users' words (even admins in an arbitration!), but this one is just too much.

So, hoping to put the word "end" to all this, I have a couple of questions: a) should we re-open that poll? b) what's missing for that consensus to become an official guideline? PizzaMargherita 15:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Checking over the figures, the 69% one was incorect. It was actualy 67% since 'undecideds' were not counted. In such a small poll sample, 17% in favour of something can't be said to be a consensus. Especialy, as was raised *during the poll*, when it is recognised that the poll will be institutionaly biased towards those more comfortable with 'American' solely because of their nationality. (Hence why it died without reaching consensus) Aditionaly, the poll was solely on article name standards, and was not a Manual of Style issue. This is not the consensus you are looking for on the issue you seem to want to promote. --Barberio 21:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check again. I count 31 ("American") / 12 "United States x" / 2 "of the United States" with Steve Block (no relation) voting twice ("American" and "of US") and 2 voting for any standard (which is not the same as voting against American). I think perhaps the best way to put this as a percentage is 33 (counting the 2 "any" standard votes) / 46 (total voters) = ~72%. Furthermore, calling 67% "17% in favour" is wholely misleading. Better than 2/3 majority is I think one phrase used for such a number. And, as Wikipedia polls go, it's actually a pretty large sample. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're counting Undecided and Undeclared votes in with those votes in Support? Doesn't this give you even slight pause? It's not an acceptable way of tallying the votes at all. And when there are multiple choices, a majority should always be expressed as its margin, since that is the most useful figure. It would still require a much wider margin to be able to conclude consensus. Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, the only times voting has any relevance is in Supermajority. --Barberio 09:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It gives me pause enough to explain exactly where the number comes from. I assume you're getting 67% by dividing 31 by 46? This counts the "any standard" votes in the total but not for any specific proposal, which is certainly as misleading as counting them for every proposal. And if you want "margin", wouldn't it be margin against the next most popular choice making the margin number 43% (assuming you want to ignore the "any standard" votes, i.e. 27% [12 out of 44] favoring "United States" vs. 70% [31 out of 44] favoring "American")? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This 17% is one of Barberio's "interpretations" of the truth, to which we should now be accustomed.

So anyway, shall we have a vote over whether or not 70% (or thereabout) is consensus or not? That should be fun... PizzaMargherita 14:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's this 17% nonsense?

That it is indeed the consensus can be seen by looking not only at the poll, but at the action taken on all the various nominations at WP:CfD since then. Of course, you won't see any of them any more; most of them have already been done, and you'll need to dig out the archived nominations. Plus, the people who do a large amount of categorizing already know what the standard is, so they now name the categories appropriately in the first place. Gene Nygaard 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at CfD, it appears that the current consensus looks in support of using "of the United States" for naming with special exceptions. The above discussed naming polls showed significant oposition to using adjectival forms for article names. --Barberio 09:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's "of" or "in" "the United States" where other categories are of or in "Spain", and it's "American" or "Americans" where other categories are "Spanish" or "Spaniards" (as in Category:Fictional characters by origin). Take a look at the subcategories of Category:Occupations by nationality, for example. And Category:American people by national origin, and others such as Category:American Canadians and Category:American-Brazilians. Gene Nygaard 11:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no "current naming practice consensus," no matter how many times you stick your fingers in your ears and proclaim there is. · rodii · 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A way to move forward?

As I said, I think a week's discussion has not gotten us any closer to resolution. However, it has been illuminating to me on what perspectives exist.

Let me ask this: what are people's thoughts about the adjective/demonym (U.S.) American (or (US) American for articles written in that abbreviation style)? I don't like it, but I don't hate it, either. The parenthetical adds the precision desired without falsely claiming that United States equals American. Perhaps we could move things forward with a more widely-publicized centralized discussion starting with the following choices, with the status quo correctly stated as "there is no current agreement on what demonym or adjective, if any, is correct for the present-day United States":

1. Don't use a demonym or adjective for people or attributes of the present-day United States; reword to use United States instead (because accuracy should trump style)
2. Use (U.S./US) American in demonymic and adjectival use only; otherwise, use United States (because precision should trump not creating neologisms)
3. Use American in demonymic and adjectival use only; otherwise, use United States (because style and following established use should trump precision)

If Barberio and Markb are okay with (U.S./US) American, perhaps we can even eliminate the first choice. I'm not thrilled with inventing a new form, but it seems better to me than creating yet another no-consensus issue that, I'm sure, will perennially flare up.

Barberio is absolutely right that discussion on the issue itself appears to have peaked, and we're just re-treading the same old points. So I'd ask that this thread just discuss the meta-issue of whether and how we can resolve this dispute, not what the resolution should be. --TreyHarris 07:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy with US American, where it was needed. But would prefer to use the official and accurate terms unless there is no way to do so. --Barberio 09:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That certainly adds clarity . Markb 10:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This silly neologism ("US American") would set a very bad precedent. Most participants in this discussion agree that "America" and "American" refer to the United States of America in English, as found in most standard reference works, and that there's no problem using these terms alongside "U.S.", "USA", "United States", etc., except in the very rare instance that it might not be perfectly clear what is being discussed. There is no reason to change this; this is, again, a non-issue.

"US American" is similar to phrases in some foreign languages (German: "US-amerikanisch") in which America ("Amerika") refers to what we in English call "the Americas"; this does not have, and should not have, any bearing on English use. ProhibitOnions 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, you're arguing the dispute again—don't do that. :-) How do we move forward so that we can get some actual language inserted into the MoS rather than leaving the subject disputed? And to all three of you, my suggestion was "(U.S.) American" or "(US) American" with parentheses, not without. Use of parentheses are not really a neologism, any more than any disambiguator is (for instance, "John Smith (the son) gave John Smith (his father) an apple" doesn't create neologisms for the two John Smiths). I think "US American", without the parentheses, definitely feels like a neologism—I have never seen it outside of Wikipedia.

But what is neologistic is to use the disambiguator even when no ambiguity exists. So another possibility:

In demonymic and adjectival use only, use American. If there is demonstrable ambiguity in the article as to whether American refers to the country or landmass, use "(U.S.) American" (or "(US) American"). In all other cases, use United States.

(Given the way Wikipedia's been going of late, it would probably be worthwhile to add a bit to note that bots and AWB users can't distinguish ambiguity, so bots and AWB should not be used to enforce such a rule.) What are people's reactions to this? --TreyHarris 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Question. Which instances of "American" in this article would be ambiguous? (Currently, "U.S." and "US" are used throughout, and guess who makes unwarranted reversions in that article?) PizzaMargherita 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is total nonsense. Gene Nygaard 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? I'm trying, I really, really am, to find some way to actually move forward rather than just having us all flame each other. Your comment does not seem useful to me to finding a better solution, since you neither suggest a less nonsensical proposal nor [don't] say why (or for that matter, which) proposal is nonsensical. Barberio and Markb have shown that they're not going to give up on the idea that bare American is ambiguous, and several of the rest of us have made a stand that we're not going to use circumlocutions. I'm trying to figure a way out of this impasse. --TreyHarris 22:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Updated: sorry, I didn't see that you did suggest a different possibility with the naming conventions for categories. --TreyHarris 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree to any specific change to the MoS to give special treatment for the U.S., no one has so far shown a reason why there should be any rule change or addition over this. --Barberio 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what disturbs me and why I'm trying to find some sort of compromise to move forward. Barberio, you think that the MoS should stay the same because it currently disallows American from referring to the country because it isn't specific enough. Many others here think that the MoS should stay the same because it currently allows American to refer to the country because it's established usage and the best word available. Can't both sides see that if you each think the MoS backs you up, despite your contradictory views, then one of three things is going on: 1) one of you is reading the MoS wrong; 2) both of you are reading the MoS wrong; or 3) the MoS itself is ambiguous on this point?

Barberio, the simple fact is that everyone in this thread (except, perhaps, Markb) has stated explicitly or implicitly that they disagree with your reading of the MoS (whether or not they think that the current text prescribes American or whether it's simply silent on the question). You need to give up the notion that you can leave the text alone and have your point of view upheld. It isn't going to happen. (And I can't believe you'd say "no one has so far shown a reason why there should be any rule change or addition over this". I count at least a dozen separate major points made above by at least nine different editors as to why the adjectival/demonymic attribution of the United States is special, though possible not unique. Do you really need me to cut and paste them one at a time for you from the above?) --TreyHarris 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I accept that emotional reactions and petty arguments take precedence in such matters. Maybe in a few years time the English Wikipedia will have become mature enough to become the world-wide, unbiased and definitive source of information it seeks to be. Mean while I'll sit back and wait, as any attempt to introduce clarity will be shouted down. Markb 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why can't it be an honest difference of opinion, with reasoned arguments on both sides? I've repeatedly tried to make it clear that I respect your arguments and think they're worth discussing, and the proposal above is an attempt at compromise. Why characterize that as "shouting down"? We're not enemies. (I will admit there has been some petty argumentation on both sides.) · rodii · 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer willing to put up with the confrontational nature of some of the people involved in this discussion. This discussion is functionaly dead, and no longer worth continuing. --Barberio 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well enough. It will be archived in its own time. In the meantime, others may wish to continue without you. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time off from this. However, if only to do justice to all the time that has been spent on this matter (here and in the archived vote), I think that we should bring this do its only logical conclusion. PizzaMargherita 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What logical conclusion? Dancing bears? — Saxifrage ✎ 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, dancing bears and this becoming a guideline. PizzaMargherita 06:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel like you didn't get a fair hearing, Barberio. · rodii · 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)