Talk:United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

'America(n)' Footer

I did read through the previous discussion regarding this, however upon reading the note I was (slightly) dismayed at how inadequately it read. It seemed to imply that I, say, as an American citizen, would take umbrage to someone's calling me American, or that (more generally) speaking of the U.S. as 'America' is an almost universally-offensive terminology. I amended the statements to, I hope, reflect reality, which is that most people, whether in my ancestral home (India), or France, or England, or Hong Kong, people casually refer to 'America' and 'Americans' at least as much as they do to the 'U.S.' I neglect U.S. citizen because I hardly hear people asking me, whether they're American or Indian or otherwise, " Hey, are you a U.S. citizen?" It's more often "American citizen." I invite more discussion (as I'm sure will happen) on my edits and look forward to streamlining the 'Note' further, though even as it stands I'm unhappy with the non-U.S. extraction and feel that it should be mentioned that its usually South Americans who dislike the term, as opposed to people living in Europe or Australasia, who frankly couldn't care. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:08, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Is this going to have to go to requests for comment? It seems to be going around in circles. older≠wiser 00:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should. I've tried rewording this several times so that it would reflect the reality of the meaning of the word as it is used rather than our opinion about what it should mean: it's possible to do so without getting into a debate about who is offended by it, and who's offended by that offense. But apparently the "offense" is felt by some to be so important it has to be inserted. - Nunh-huh 01:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This phrase:

The false expectation that cognate words in different languages should have identical meanings causes some people to feel offended by the use of America to refer exclusively to the U.S.

The sentence above is patronizing and POV. An encyclopedia should not tell people how to think on any issue, just give facts.

And this one:

However, there is no nation in the New World other than the United States whose inhabitants commonly refer to themselves as Americans.

The above sentence is of little value and also POV, as if trying to give excuses or taking sides. It seems pretty logical that no country will call their citizens by the name of their continent. It is just not a common practice, well, unless you are the U.S.

This is the reason why I have removed those two sentences from the footer. I tried to make a compromise version, but I just couldn't extract anything good from the text presented above. --Cantus 02:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can appreciate your objections to the specific phrases above and I'm glad you have articulated your objections here. However, in your edits, rather than simply removing these phrases, you seem to be simply reverting back to your preferred phrasing, which includes other changes besides what you list above. older≠wiser 02:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I welcome your edits on the current version. --Cantus 02:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would love if someone from the Americas, who is supposedly offended by the usage, would actually discuss it here. So far I don't see any, but people from other places who want to be offended FOR them. RickK 05:11, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Howdy. Here's the current (as of Jun 29th, 2004, 1:55 in the morning in NY) version:

In the English-speaking world, America has become synonymous with the nation of the United States while American refers to United States (U.S.) citizens; this is a standard usage that applies to much of Europe and Australasia. By pluralizing America to the Americas, the speaker intimates both the North and South American continents as a collective unit. In Spanish-speaking countries, particularly in Central and South America, the word America is used not to describe the nation of the U.S. but what English-speakers would term the Americas. Thus, many people of the Americas consider it technically incorrect and even offensive for the U.S. to be referred to as America and inhabitants of the U.S. as Americans. While, in some quarters, the accuracy and political correctness of such nomenclature is debated, current usage in English by sheer weight of occurrence inclines to America and American as linked to the nation and citizens of the United States.

I basically overhauled it. I felt that we could start working on it here, since there seems to be some good dialogue going on. I have, as is apparent, stratified this into three parts. 1) Dealing with common English usage of the words/names America, American, and Americas 2) The offense taken by non-U.S. inhabitants of the Americas and their preferred usages and 3) A final, as neutral as possible statement on how things are.

So, what now? --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:58, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

People keep leaving out:
4) Nobody cares that Americans are offended when they're told that they're not allowed to call themselves Americans. RickK 06:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Okay... let's discuss that sentence. Keep in mind that I'm American, so I'm speaking as an 'insider.' No one has ever made an issue of this usage in the public form in the U.S. and it is primarily a controversy south of the border. Thus, while it is indeed prudent to be aware of this, I think it would be overstating the point to intimate that Americans are offended by a largely unheard prohibition on the use of the term "American" to signify U.S. citizens. Essentially what I'm saying is that for most people in the U.S.A. it's a non-issue of which they've probably never even heard. Thus, I think it's fair to leave that statement out. Now, if you should insist on its inclusion, I feel a less truculent presentation would be the following:

"It may be noted that most U.S. citizens in general would probably object to a call for the proscription of the use of 'American' as a self-referential, or of 'America' as an alternate name for the United States."

So, my idea... preferably, leave this ostensible fourth sentence out completely. If the issue is pushed, I guess for the sake of (in this case unnecessary?) balance of viewpoints, we could utilize an attenuated statement, something along the lines of the spirit of my alteration. --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:28, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, you're correct that nobody ever makes an issue of it in the US. However, it comes up on Wikipedia and Usenet all the time, with, especially Brits, demanding that we change and feigning insult for the poor, oppressed brown people who don't seem to find it offensive at all. RickK 06:30, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, see: poor, oppressed brown people now that is offensive, since you're categorizing people not by the more meaningful category of geography and socio-economics but by race. Also, I happen to be what some people consider 'brown' (ethinically Indian). Luckily, I got over that in high school and think skin color categorizing is, for the most part, for pre-schoolers and racists (often with similar mentalities). Hopefully, we'll come to a stage where we hardly even think about black, white, brown or yellow.

Anyway, as for the America(n) thing; since it is an issue online, apparently, and several people seem to enjoy the amenabiliy of semantics to political squabbling, why don't you insert a sentence, preferably streamlined and neutral in tenor, about U.S. citizens and their feelings on the political correctness of the "America(n)" label? --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:40, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

We'd be better off leaving all four sentences out. We don't need to make a footnote each time someone is offended by the plain and accepted meaning of an English word. We should just link to American where this is already discussed. And anything that is retained should avoid the word "many", unless they can cite a survey. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I apologize, because it's not MY characterization (my niece is brown), but the characterization of the racist anti-Americans who feel that they have some sort of mandate to speak for other people. RickK 06:46, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Nunh-huh: Well, apparently, it means quite a lot to a few people, so a brief note with a reference to the main American article seems in order. Also, the idea that any random word which causes offense shouldn't be dealt with is a noteworthy call for moderation. However, I don't see most articles suffering from multiple instances of jargon-conflict. I personally really couldn't care less, as I learned my lesson about international and weighted usage of terms with the Kolkata/Calcutta debate. It seems that the best way of handling these situations is to 'say it as it is' and mention major voices in contention as briefly as possible. I feel it's being done here and since people feel strongly about it, the note needn't be excised from the page. --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

If we (unlike any citable dictionary) deem that "America" needs a usage note, we will be asserting our POV. As such the note should be removed until it can cite some authority who deems the word offensive. That a word offends a (or many) Wikipedian(s) is not noteworthy: that a word is thought by a Wikipedian to offend a certain group is not noteworthy: if a word is designated offensive in a dictionary, that is noteworthy. Nunh-huh - 07:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, NH, that's what I've been trying to say in my pathetic way. We keep hearing from people who think that OTHER people are offended. We never hear from people who are actually offended. RickK 18:32, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

With this sentiment I can actually agree. Perhaps I'll look around the net to see if there are any really discernible voices calling for a change in usage. In fact, if we find none, I guess it would indeed be fair to completely do away with it. Let's see what comes up. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:45, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

I note that we still have no citations to any authority that designates the use of "American" as offensive, and that nonetheless we still have the note. - Nunh-huh 19:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've known Latino people from other parts of the Western Hemisphere who find the common usage of "American" to be offensive, because to them it would seem to arrogantly imply that the only "Americans" are those living in the United States, and as such would prefer that "American" refer more generally to people from North America and South America, how the name was originally used. The only alternatives I can think of are "U.S. national" or "U.S. citizen". - Gilgamesh 20:05, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

People you know, however, are not a citable reference, and are not authorities on language. - Nunh-huh 20:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 20:26, 5 July 2004 (UTC)

There are articles about the subject, you can find them either on paper or over the internet; however, since the vast majority are in any language but English I doubt you will consider them as a "citable reference". Well, here is one article in English (don't worry, the only thing in Spanish is the title, and the author is a USian): "¿Todos Somos Americanos? Cultural Diversity in the 21st Century." BTW, people south of the border of the U.S. are not of a single race or culture, that is simplistic; there are as many white, brown and black people in other American countries as there are in the U.S. and Canada. As an example, I am white and some in my family are blonde and/or tall and have blue or green eyes. Peace, regards. --148.63.136.60 15:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those are some mighty big strawmen you've introduced, but the point is that you're citing a political speech on a website (in which someone laments that the word American doesn't mean what he thinks it ought to mean) rather than an authority on the English language (citing the use of American as offensive). We still have the "usage" note with no citation to any authority on usage who agrees with it. - Nunh-huh 21:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hope I didn't start another controversy by saying that Native Americans are also, not formerly, known as (American) Indians. This is noted under Native American, and what is said there agrees with my experience. --JerryFriedman 16:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"American" as used to refer to citizens of the US offends me but I'm from the 'between Mexico and Canada'... I think that replacing any instance of American with American covers the issue nicely though, since it's pretty well discussed in American and I think it's definitely worthy of it's own article and discussion. I don't think we need to protect the entire United States from one word, lets leave the discussion and controversy in the article: American...Comments?Pedant 23:38, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

As per my United States of America passport, citizens of the United States are called "U.S. Citizens" on page 3 in the IRS section. Funny enough, our embassies are called "American Embassies" on page 4. I reiterate my point above in the discussion about the formal title of the country to notate all permutations regarding our citizenry descriptions and the objections to the colloquial use of "American". Revmachine21

We still have no citations to any authority that designates the use of "American" as offensive, and that nonetheless we still have the note. - Nunh-huh 22:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

States

The boilerplate of the US states & territories is too small. Please increase the font size. ¶ nichalp 19:52, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. poli divisions template

Can anyone diagnose why "United States" is not bolded on this page within the "Political divisions of the United States" template, even though Iowa bolds on the Iowa page, Howland Island bolds on Howland Island, etc.? jengod 21:49, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

An issue of apostrophes. The words "United States" were already located within apostrophes meant to make the words bold, so the new apostrophes were wrongly closing the old ones. I fixed it by making the cell a header cell. (aka using an exclamation mark "!" instead of apostrophes to make the words bold). Aris Katsaris 00:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Flag

Why is the flag at 90 degrees to what one would expect (and what is the norm at other country articles)? zoney ███ talk 00:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, why on earth is it a jpg? It makes it hundreds of times larger than it should be. I've reverted it to the old version. Marnanel 00:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

UK investment

I deleted this sentence: "The largest source and destination of US foreign direct investment is the United Kingdom." It's not clear whether it refers to investment in private equities, private bonds, government bonds, totals, or what. I have no problem with a sentence or paragraph about capital flows it's clear. Purchases of U.S. government debt by the governments of China and Japan, to prop up their currencies, have become significant, also. JamesMLane 01:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry President?

To my dismay, I found that this wiki article has been modified so that the President of the United States is listed as "John Kerry." Such childish edits are not appreciated by the community. I have taken it upon myself to correct this malignant edit. Reverend Brett A. Kirken

• John Kerry? I thought it was Al Gore. He invented the Internet after all, told me so himself :) --66.102.74.57 01:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Third or fourth largest country by area?

The following anonymous comment was left on my livejournal from 69.140.15.221 (the IP address responsible for these two edits: [1] [2]):

The US, Mr David, is the fourth largest nation in the world. It is slightly smaller than China. If you are using the CIA WorldFactbook I would advise you not to as I believe they are taking curvatures into consideration. I would suggest the World Book (encyclopedia).

I originally reverted his edits because he didn't offer any explanation as to why he'd changed the text from "the world's third largest nation (total area)" to "the world's fourth largest nation (total area)." Now that he has, is there anyone more knowledgeable than me who can assess it? Thanks! —Stormie 23:24, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Class

I suggest removing the random details from the "class" section of the article. By this, I mean the reference to Bill Gates, Computer ownership, and home ownership. These things are very difficult to interpret in a general way. Bill Gates is just one person. Computer ownership is just a small part of life, and many (most?) homes are not owned outright--they are mortgaged. I think it would be best to include figures that cover wide parts of the population and economy, rather than this anecdotal stuff. I'm not familiar with this article, so I won't make the corrections myself. This whole subsection should probably be moved to the "economy" section. AdamRetchless 00:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Negative perception of the US

One of the most significant points of note about the United States, especially at the moment, is the prevalence of negative sentiment towards it. Imagine an alien comes from another planet to find out about the United States and reads Wikipedia for its information. Isn't it a bit misleading that the article doesn't mention the significant amount of negative feeling in the world towards the US, its government and its cultural and economic influence?

You may disagree with that sentiment. You may think its inevitable that a country with the influence of the US will attract such sentiment. Surely, though, you accept that the sentiment exists, and that it's relevant to an encyclopedic article about the country.

There used to be a rather small paragraph about anti-US feeling, but it's been reduced to this poor remnant:

The immense cultural, economic, and military influence of the United States has made foreign relations an especially important topic in its politics, with considerable concern about the image of the United States throughout the world.

This sentence only implies that there is negative feeling against the US: i.e. why would US politicians be concerned about the US image unless there was some negative perception out there? By implication there is a negative perception, but the sentence trivialises that perception as being merely a biproduct of America's greatness.

To get back to a neutral point of view (IMO) we need at least 2-3 paragraphs on the topic of negative sentiment toward the US, including:

• a NPOV summary touching on or listing the key reasons that such sentiment exists such as military involvement in other countries, conflict with traditional Islam and the perceived exploitative nature of US-driven global capitalism
• comment that anti-american sentiment worldwide has increased since the Iraq war
• mention of the large-scale street protests against the Iraq war, to highlight that anti-american sentiment is not confined to middle-eastern or third-world countries
• and yes, possibly some suggestion that the international perception of US affects its domestic politics, although I don't believe this is crucial to the main article and could easily be relegated to the article on US politics

Any takers?

Ben Arnold 05:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree that the current sentence is weak, and that a (single) paragraph covering at least the first item above would be appropriate. Using the most recent conflict in Iraq as one example of cause is good, but I would be wary of citing it as a primary cause; taken over the longer term it's one in a chain of aggressive US foreign policies. I wonder if it might it also be worth discussing the dismissal of global anti-americanism as 'jealousy' by its domestic politicians ? NPOV is hard, presenting a balanced selection of US and non-US POV's could be the way to go. - TB 09:15, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I'm an American currently living in another country, and I find that it's really difficult for me to get people here to speak candidly about their opinions toward the US. I suppose someone who's not an American might have more success, but I'm still not sure how we are supposed to go about collecting objective information for such a section. Also, how much of the anti-Iraq-War sentiment should count as anti-Americanism? There were protests in the US, too; do those count as anti-American? - Nat Krause 09:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well it might be useful to point out that some groups distinguish between Americans and the policies of the US government, and other groups fail to make that distinction, resenting Americans for the actions of their government. The fact that Americans marched against the war can be cited as evidence for the distinction. This is the kind of complexity that makes me think it would stretch to more than a single paragraph.

As for objective reasons for the negative feeling toward the US, I'm pretty confident in at least the three reasons I've suggested: military involvement in other countries, conflict of American culture with traditional cultures (particularly Islam) and the perceived exploitative nature of US-driven global capitalism. I come from New Zealand, where negative feeling towards the US is widespread but comparatively moderate, so I'm probably in a reasonable position to be fairly objective. Ben Arnold 23:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As an 'American', I'd appreciate a non American writing the paragraph on negative perceptions. From my point of view it seems like the world considers the US and it's citizens to be something like a retarded child playing with explosives. Is that the case? or worse? better? I simply don't know, and won't know withoput being told by someone other than the US mainstream media which I KNOW tells me lies. I'd take the word of a stranger over anything the media tells me, almost.Pedant 00:07, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Vivi's redundancy

Vivi continues to add the last sentence (in bold), which is already mentioned in the first paragraph (in italics.) This section in whole seems to be repeated twice, with slight modifications.

Class

In terms of relative wealth, most U.S. residents enjoy a standard of personal economic wealth that is far greater than that known in most of the world. For example, 51 percent of all households have access to a computer and 67.9 percent of U.S. households owned their dwellings in 2002.

However, the social structure of the United States is one of the most highly stratified in the world, with a large proportion of the wealth of the country controlled by a small fraction of the population which are often alleged to hold disproportionate cultural and political influence. American software mogul Bill Gates alone controls an amount of wealth equal to 1/250th of the total American GDP. The United States' Gini coefficient of 40.8 percent is the highest of all developed nations.

The social structure of the United States is somewhat stratified, with a significant class of very wealthy individuals, which are often alleged to hold disproportionate cultural and political influence. Its Gini coefficient of 40.8 percent is the highest of all developed nations. However, in terms of relative wealth, most U.S. residents enjoy a standard of personal economic wealth that is far greater than that known in most of the world. For example, 51 percent of all households have access to a computer and 67.9 percent of U.S. households owned their dwellings in 2002.

Vivi, please have the decency of checking that what you are adding is not already mentioned before you begin removing other people's constributions. Danke. --Cantus 19:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I was undoing Shorne's repeated reverts of my NPOV edits. That duplication must have gotten shuffled in in some sort of edit conflict. It's fixed now. 19:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't think that he reads this stuff, do you? Oh, no! VeryVerily doesn't have to follow the rules that apply to everyone else. Or so he thinks. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Shorne 19:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Without attacking anyone personally, I will flatly state that this is false. MORE households have ACCESS to computers, since they are available in most libraries, and LESS households own their dwellings. In my entire life I've known ONE person who owned his house. Most are owned by banks. I won't argue that we don't have a much higher standard of living than the rest of the world, just that those 'facts' are NOT accurate, not by a long shot. I don't have a problem with including accurate info which makes the substantially-same point, but not twice, not bold and not italicised .Pedant

When unprotected

I am loathe to edit when it's protected, so mental notes:

• We should probably change the $20 to the $1, if we have a proper picture of it.
• Check usage of "polyglot-mongrel" as stated below. Thanks. --Golbez 21:38, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Mongrel Heritage????

I am definetly not familiar with how things around here work as far as editing an article and this article is apparently not open to editing from just anyone so I will say what I think needs to be fixed/changed.

My problem is with this phrase under the Ethnicity and Race section -- "Furthermore, the categories disregard the polyglot-mongrel heritage of many Americans". Can somebody who know how this works consider changing the word monrgel to something less offensive; perhaps multi-ethnic or mixed heritage. The word mongrel is okay for describing dogs but it feels a bit too "racialist" when describing people. Thanks- hope I didn't do this (discussion comment) wrong Danny Oct. 13, 2004

Welcome to Wikipedia Danny. You can sign you comments with four tilde characters in a row like ~~~~

this will make a signature and datestamp like:Pedant 01:39, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

I agree with Danny, the word mongrel has a negative connotation in the US, but that section needs a massage in general to make it more readable. The info is good, it's just a bit awkward.Pedant

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 3

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 5