Talk:American (word)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page needs some cleanup: Spanish terms[edit]

While pointing out the origin of the 'controversy' in misapplication of foreign (particularly Spanish) usage to English, the article still has several flaws aside from the general need for cleanup and formatting. First (and less importantly) yanqui and gringo are not simple synonyms for norteamericanos (and, I'm just curious here, do Canadian Hispanophones get in such a huff over that usage?) but are pejoratives, albeit sometimes used lovingly or jokingly. -LlywelynII (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Is there a consistent or absolute way of saying something is pejorative or not? To most latins I know the terms yanque and gringo are not at all pejoratives.LtDoc (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[]
My understanding is that the term can be used in an affectionate way. Even when used negatively, it doesn't rise to the level of a curse. There are parts of the world where the term American is viewed very negatively due to political or other conflict.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[]
See Real Academia's gringo definition to realize that usage varies from country to country. HaŋaRoa (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[]

Page needs some cleanup: 'American POV' claims[edit]

Second and more importantly, the article makes numerous specific claims that "American" is only or primarily used as a synonym for "citizen of the United States of America" by speakers of American English. E.g.,

English, French, German, Italian, Japanese,[36] Hebrew, Arabic, Portuguese, and Russian[37] speakers may use the term American to refer to either inhabitants of the Americas or to US nationals. They generally have other terms specific to US nationals, such as German US-Amerikaner, French étatsunien, Japanese 米国人 beikokujin, and Italian statunitense, but these may be less common than the term American...

is simply untrue: "American" is by far the most common American demonym in all dialects of English and specification of any other use must be made in all of them. A Canadian, Briton, or Aussie speaking about "American English" will never be talking about or even imagine he could be confused with talking about "Canadian English" or "Latin American English." Similarly, while there are various synonyms for Americans (e.g., British Yank, Aussie Seppo) that could be included into the article, they are typically informal and no native English speaker refers to Latin Americans as (unqualified) Americans precisely because the word refers to the United States. Article claims or assumptions that this originates from or is exclusive to American dialect are unsupportable, misleading, and POV. -LlywelynII (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I've added [citation needed] tags for the French and German US-specific terms described in the article. All someone has to do is link to a dictionary, at least in the French case. That being the case, it still leaves unanswered the question of the reasons for using different terms in different contexts. For French, the term "étasunien" appears to be a very recent neologism--it does not appear in the most recent edition of the dictionary of the Académie Française. Why was it coined? For simple disambiguation? To make a political point?
You seem to be pretty confident about all of the other languages, are we to presume you are fluent inEnglish, French, German, Italian, Japanese,[36] Hebrew, Arabic, Portuguese, and Russian? As a portuguese speaker, I assure you that in Portuguese, while some people use the word american to describe a US Citzen, that is an incorrect use. And people who use american meaning US citizen know the term to be innapropiate (the term north-american, commonly used as well, is equally imprecise).
A very frequent conception by people with your point of view is that the word american only describes USA, or USA-related things. The point is that for most other people, mainly Latin Americans, I'd wager, american describes things related to all of the americas (note Im using the US-centric definition of Americas) as opposed to US related. So, when saying that a Canadian is American is the equivalent of saying that a Frenchman is European, because American means from America.201.17.97.254 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I concur with the above statement. I don't go with popular conceptions, I go with the correct by definition ones. First, American is not a denomym for the US Citizens, it is the demonym for all the inhabitants of "The Americas" this is supported by the fact that in all legal & federal matters in the US you are a US Citizen, not an American. Second, "The Americas" is a wrong term. It is logical that America consist of the landmass from Canada to Southern Chile. Why? Well, if America was the United States, it logically means that Texas is in South America.Douken (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[]
The whole argument on this page seems derived from Anti-Americanism or personal bias, and not from a pertinent and real linguistic dilemma. Why is there no argument regarding the Australia page directing to the Commonwealth of Australia and not the continent? Equally there is no debate regarding the demonym Australian excluding Australian-continent Indonesian and Papua New Guinean citizens. Since when is citizenship defined by membership of a super-continent the Americas. I've noticed a lot of the anger is misplaced understanding of the prevalent continent-naming-system in English versus other languages. In English the Americas (landmass) is defined as two continents, North and South America; whereas in other languages it is regarded as one continent. In the former membership is commonly described as inclusion as North American or South American, where I have noticed, at least in Spanish, the demonym is to the singular landmass/continent descriptor. It is an often ignored fact that no other country except than the United States of America, in English and to my knowledge any other language, uses the demonyn American for its citizens. The disambiguation comes in when a person is regarded in continental/regional membership/geographical membership, and not with national/stately membership. So the discussion to call US citizens American is certainly not a 'politically' incorrect argument. Lastly, American is the demonym for a US citizen, and to argue against its use as such, in English, is not factual. See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_U.S._citizens --Extrabatteries (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[]

This is flat wrong. There is no continent called "America." There are two continents, one called North America and one called South America. Usage of the term American to refer to U.S. nationals is not inconsistent with the names of the continents. The North American Free Trade Agreement uses the name of the continent, while the Americans with Disabilities Act refers to protection of U.S. residents with disabilities. If it were the North American Disabilities Act, one would assume it was an international treaty covering North America. Spanish or other usage is really irrelevant to this article, since it is an English-language word. If Spanish speakers want to use another term in their language, Americans will not insist that they change their language to match English usage. But on the other side, some people who speak Spanish want to assail and convert the English-language term. It would seem that the imposition and conflict is coming from the Spanish-speaking side. As a general rule, people should respect other languages and the terms they choose. Given the fact that George Washington, the first American president, used the terms America and American to describe his nation and people, others should really lay off. When Washington did that, the people in all of these Spanish-speaking Latin American countries were Spanish in the sense of being Spanish colonies. Why would they have any claim to the term American when they were in fact Spanish? The fact is, the change and objection came about after they were liberated from Spain. Americans are not going to stop using this term when they speak English. If they visit a Spanish-speaking country and speak Spanish there, it would be polite and correct Spanish to use whatever term is standard in Spanish. Likewise, Spanish-speaking people should respect the American English term when they visit the United States. If Americans visit any other country and are criticized about how they speak English, they should explain that American English uses this term, and that if they want to know how to speak American English, they should take note.--MoebiusFlip (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[]
People in Spanish colonies were "Spanish Americans" by then. Why? Because the name of the whole continent precedes the differentiation into two continents in current prevalent US usage. Take a look at some XVIIth c. English maps. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
I don't see how that enters into argument. The ambiguity is over whether a speaker is referring to themselves in political or geographical attribute. "I am in American" meaning either: I am a citizen of a specific country the United States of America, or I am a person from the combined continental landmass of North and South America. At least in English, the latter is a highly unlikely use of self-designation akin to someone saying "I am a Eurasian." The ambiguity of political versus geographical is continuously being redefined on wikipedia in edit wars based on little more than regionalism. Further, the naming of peoples from a pre-national colonial era does not prevent those terms indefinitely from evolving to take on new usage as is evident in the evolving usage and attribution of the word American.--Extrabatteries (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
The original sense survives today in some current expressions. For example, "Latin American". Are we referring to Latin "North" Americans or Latin "South" Americans. Well, to both of them. And the same can be said about the very name of the USA. They are the US of "America". Not the US of "North America". The tectonic-based continental division of the "two" continents is irrelevant for these uses. So the word "America" to refer to "both Americas" do make sense in English, although it may not be the prevalen usage. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
I am not debating these validity of these historic notes as fact. However, they invoke a totally different word usage. There are subtle variations in their common usage using the same qualifier 'American' -- which are discernible to an English speaker, e.g. Spanish American, Latino American, Italian American (all with American used as a political designation)... vs Latin American, Hispanic American (both using American as a cultural designation).--Extrabatteries (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
It is not a cultural definition, but a geographical one that denotes the whole lands of the Western Hemisphere. Anyway, however it may be both series of expressions (plus some other, ambiguous ones, i.e. "Native American") do use the word "American" as a meaningful qualifying adjective. So, these (and other) multiple connotations have to be dealt with. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
I am fully aware of the definitions of the word combination. Are you suggesting something be changed or added to the article? I am not understanding the purpose of your statements. I infer, maybe incorrectly, that you are stating that the use of American (as a political adjective) carries some ambiguity. American carries no ambiguity in the political sense, only in the confusion between its usage as a political vs geographical designator. The ambiguity is a failure or problem with whatever sentence or context in which it is used, and not something inherent to the word; not any more than any other multiple-definition words used in conjunction with another or set in ambiguous context. The ambiguity throughout this talk page is usually not based on ambiguity at all but on clear understanding of the political definition used, and a dislike of the American to ever be used as a political designator. Which is to say, its not in fact ambiguous, but instead controversial.--Extrabatteries (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
Of course it is controversial, hence the debate. But you are wrong both in understanding that the different usages should not be dealt with here in Wikipedia, because they may be auto-evident, and in assuming that there are not political ambiguous usages for the term. I give you two examples for this: Organization of American States (OAS), Pan-American. Both political terms derive from the "America as a single entity that includes both 'North' and 'South' America" definition. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
When I say political terms, I mean American (singular word usage, as per this article title) in regards to the names of US citizens. The alternate word definitions and uses should be clearly articulated, I agree, I am not arguing the different usage should not be defined. Providing correct information avoids creating confusion, confusion which certainly leads and has led to more controversy. Presenting the origins of the term, origins of its use as a demonym for citizens of the United States, its historical context, and broader explanation of continent-naming systems differences (America as a continent in Spanish/America not as a continent in English), these pieces of information defuse the accusations of arrogance being seen on this talk page and its archives. The wikipedia pages regarding American, American (word), America, Names for US citizens, all have a 'teach the controversy' approach. I am not arguing that wikipedia should be in the business of solving a controversy, but it certainly is a disservices to fuel a controversy by not clearly outlining information which diffuses the better of it.--Extrabatteries (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
The debate does not merely refer to English vs. foreign-languages definition of a continent. As I explained before, America/American do make sense in English when it is used to denote "both Americas". Furthermore, this English usage is not restricted to non-political definitions, as the very name of Washinton D.C.-headquartered "Organization of American States" shows clearly enough. Thus the need to: 1) disambiguate the usages of the term "American"; 2) make explicit reference to the current controversy regarding its usage. It is a must for an encyclopedia to deal with this. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
I agree, and I think this article does a good job at doing just this. The article shouldn't lean into favor or disfavor of the word appropriation, but only present cited facts. It is possible we are simply agreeing with each other in a very argumentative way. --Extrabatteries (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
Fine enough, then :) Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]

Native English speakers use the term "American" almost exclusively to refer to a citizen of the United States, which they almost exclusively refer to as "America". This is not a Spanish or Portugese Wiki article. It is an English Language Wikipedia Article and the Native Speakers of English despite how Spanish speakers from Latin America may feel about this topic do not get to insert an Anti-American bias here by attempting to impose their linguistic standard on people who don't speak Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.83.241 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[]

This. I think people appear to be forgetting this is the English wikipedia. It is very rare for 'American' or 'America' to be used in the English-speaking world as meaning anything non-specific to the United States. Non-English speakers don't get to redefine English words - that is a bizarre concept. A disambiguation page and all of this nonsense is extremely unnecessary. Further, in the English-speaking world, there is virtually no adoption of the Americas as one single continent in education - they are always referred to as two separate continents (since they were actually detached until just a few million years ago). This controversy is akin to someone from Finland sparking controversy by calling themselves an Afroeurasian - to an English speaker. 68.110.28.104 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[]

Ok some in the discussion here are quite convinced how the term is used in all of the English world. The reference [1] in the article to confirm this is however still with a book about "Standard American English". When you look it up it explicitely references the position of the people of the United States. So the argument that this meaning appplies to all of the English language speakers is not well founded by the references. Would be nice if a better reference could be given. I just looked up Meriam-Webster and on position 1. and 2. it mentions different meanings for the term than put forward in this article. On the other hand my Oxford learning dictionary just mentions the meaning which agrees with this article.Jocme (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Regarding the Political and cultural views section[edit]

First, I have no idea why this should fall under the United Nations usage category. Second, two of the sub-sections "Spain and Hispanic America" and "Portugal and Brazil" cite nothing relevant to the political and cultural views of the English word "American" which is what this page is about. These two sections should be moved into a new category regarding American (word) in foreign languages. Otherwise its acts on the assumption that American = Americano which these two sections refute as a false friend.--Extrabatteries (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]

I think this is quite well answered in the last thread. As for the foreign-language usages, they fit perfectly as a subsection to this same "word-defining" article. Methinks. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
Yes, and in word defining wouldn't these two sections fit better in the "US national in other languages" section?--Extrabatteries (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
No, because the usages of the word exceed the "US national" definition. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
Certainly you can read the section Spain and Hispanic America and agree that it is only talking about the Spanish usage and not English usage, and that the Portugal and Brazil section talks about Portuguese usage of americano. Both of these sections are talking about the US national definition and not a more broad definition. How can it be argued that either of these sections fit into the Usage at the United Nations section better than the US national in other languages section? --Extrabatteries (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]
This article probably needs a cleanup for the sake of the coherence of its organization. You are probably right. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[]

Richard Amerike[edit]

Why was the reference to Richard Amerike removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcchat66 (talkcontribs) 04:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[]

Probably because America comes from the Italian Amerigo Vespucci, not Amerike. 69.125.249.6 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Phrasing of the page opening[edit]

Is this really neutral phrasing?

"In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[1] However, this default use has been the source of complaint by some residents of Latin America who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.[2][3] They argue instead that "American" should be broadened to include people from anywhere in North or South America, not just the United States; these critics admit their proposed usage is uncommon."

This makes it seems like the only opponents to the term are "some residents of Latin America". People from other parts of the world can (and do) debate and disagree about the usage of the word "American", shouldn't this be acknowledged too? And what is the source for the statement that "these critics admit their proposed usage is uncommon"? Taking a look at the source number [1], it only seems to discuss what people from the U.S. call themselves, not "native English speakers". Indeed, the fact that there is a large debate about the meaning of "America/American" indicates otherwise to me. 85.229.199.235 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[]

the statement probably exaggerates the complaints " by some residents of Latin America" who are not named. Who are these people and what do they know about English usage? And who are the unnammed and uncited people elsewhere who agree with them. Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[]

In addition, isn't this extremely outdated? The sources it lists stem from 1947 [2] and 1983 [3]. Is it even accurate to leave this in there when the previous sentence is talking about 'In modern English'.

When it comes to language, "modern" includes the last century & longer. For example, in my case I learned English in the 1940s :) Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[]
But, with respect, your example of being a native speaker who was socialized into the norms of the 1940s actually underscores the point that language has a shelf-life. The English that you learned in the 1940s probably doesn't do a great job of preparing you to understand what teenagers are saying on social media today, right? Those teenagers are native speakers, too. And, although some might grimace at the thought, those people are the future of the language. Those among their number who choose to have kids will teach their kids to speak the language within the modalities with which they are familiar -- which may or may not align with those that you are familiar with.
In language, evolution and change are constant, and with the advent of modern technology, the rate of change is more rapid now than it's ever been. Look at how popular modes of address from the 1990s are already dated and possibly even offensive, in some contexts, due to rapidly changing demographic and sociological trends in the modern world. I recently went back and watched a couple epidoes of Friends, an iconic show from the '90s, and due to cultural changes, it was surprising and striking how much of the content comes across as Archie Bunker-esque in the year 2020, even though nobody associated that mien with that show when it first came out.
"Language is the soul of culture." When culture changes, language must inevitably change with it. When you were a young man, words like colored, negro, or possibly even nigger where commonplace in the US. Now, the use of any of these, in most contexts, will mark you as something of a social reprobate in polite company. Just one, small example to underscore the point, but there are countless others.
Perhaps the word "modern" isn't academically correct, but colloquially speaking, in its sense of "contemporary", it is true that sources from 1947 are woefully out of date and do nothing to attest to the current state of the language. PhilHudson82 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American (word). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American (word). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[]

Unxplained rollback[edit]

As my five recent edits were rolled back by BilCat without explanation, I figure I should take the matter to the talk page. Regarding the statement, "I gave an explanation - it's not my fault you ignored it", with due respect to BilCat, that is not the case. His or her edit summary read, "Reverted undiscussed changes to citation format, other unnecessary changes". An edit having neither been previously discussed nor necessary is not in itself a reason for reversion. But even that aside, I would object to the assertion that, e.g., the correction of entirely inaccurately attributed quotations is "unnecessary". And there was no particularly substantial change to the citation format given that we are already using a system of footnotes with a "Works cited" list.

That being the case, with what do you take issue, BilCat, and what led you to believe the five edits to warrant using rollback? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[]

Primarily two things, but the first is so major that it wasn't possible to just undo those alone.
First, you changed the citation format of the article. Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." You may think your changes were minor, but the are not. Get a consensus first.
Second, some of your copy edits changes are improper, for example, changing "U.S." to "US". Per WP:NOTUSA - "...retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it." You gave no such reason. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[]
@BilCat: Primarily two things, but the first is so major that it wasn't possible to just undo those alone. That wasn't the most major change made by the edits, but regardless, it's always impossible to reverse any particular changes alone. And that doesn't explain why rollback was used on a good-faith edit.
Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." You may think your changes were minor, but the [sic] are not. Get a consensus first. What concerns do you have, in that case? And regarding that provision of WP:CITEVAR, nothing precluded "seeking consensus" through editing if there were no particular concerns raised.
Second, some of your copy edits changes are improper. Which in particular? Regarding U.S. vs US, neither was in consistent use as required by the MOS, hence why the change was made. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[]
Rollbacks can be used on good-faith edits, as long as an explanation is given in an edit summary. I gave one. As to the citation style, it's up to you to give a good reason for changing it, and to get a consensus for it. It's a confusing style for some editors. As to U.S./US, there were more instances of the former than the latter, so you should have defaulted to that style. - BilCat (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[]
As to the citation style, it's up to you to give a good reason for changing it, and to get a consensus for it. As WP:BRD indicates, "Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit." Without that, it's hard to know which aspect of it to justify given that I haven't the faintest idea what your concern is. Is it the use of {{sfn}}? Or something else?
As to U.S./US, there were more instances of the former than the latter, so you should have defaulted to that style. Why would we default to U.S. when WP:NOTUSA provides that we should "use US in an article with other country abbreviations"?
And finally, am I correct in understanding that these are your only concerns with the five edits rolled back? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[]
Again, it's up to you to justify your changes. You propose a valid reason for changing citation styles, and then we can discuss it. As to US/U.S., remove the other abbreviations then. - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[]
@BilCat: Regarding the citation style, again, our guidelines say: "Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement)". But regardless, as I still don't know which aspect of the change to address, I suppose I'll discuss the inclusion of {{sfn}}. This is not a substantive change to an established citation style as the article already uses a separate "Works cited" section. The inclusion of {{sfn}} is for the purpose of conforming to the existing citation style, insofar as there is one. So what is your concern with that?
As to US/U.S., remove the other abbreviations then. Why? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[]
As far as I can tell, those were the main objections. I'll be happy to help restore those in a spirt of good faith. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[]
Why was my correction of your unresolved edit summary reverted again? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[]
Also, please do not revert the addition of someone else's comment in the case of an edit conflict. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[]
Edit conflicts. It happens sometimes when you make too many changes to existing comments. Be more careful. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[]
Are you suggesting I made "too many changes to existing comments"? I made one change, which you reversed multiple times, along with the addition of another comment. WP:EDITCONFLICT is clear that the onus is on you to resolve the edit conflict and removing someone else's comment for no reason is a clear violation of WP:TPO. How and why do you suggest I "[b]e more careful"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[]

Gratifying to see that, a decade on, common sense has prevailed[edit]

I remember coming to this debate back in the 2000s as a native English speaker and being flummoxed to find out that non-native speakers were trying to redefine words in someone else's language, lol. They managed to cause much angst and wrangling for a long time, as the history for this page attests, but it's nice to know that, as is always the case in life, the troublemakers eventually tired and went away, and when they did, simple fact was able to prevail.

This page, in its current form in 2019, now strikes all the right notes. It acknowledges that this tempest in a teapot exists, while also being intellectually honest about the fact that, endogenously within the native-speaker community, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. It was only when non-natives tried to speak someone else's language in a culturally illiterate way that there was ever a problem to begin with.

This is the English wiki, and as such, it simply DOES NOT MATTER what people in other languages say or think. If it bothers you, feel free to go add the relevant info on those respective languages' wikis -- and leave this one alone! =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.13.126 (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[]

Rollback conflict, redux[edit]

This diff inserts two things that are flatly incorrect - the use of American is not a misappropriation - that idea doesn't appear in the cited reference, and even if it did such a fringe position would need to be attributed to whoever was arguing it rather than using Wikipedia's voice; and it's not incorrect to use American to refer to " to refer to people connected to the United States when intending a geographical meaning" - that isn't assert in the reference (the author does imply that other people might believe it and he's not interested in arguing with them, but he doesn't assert him, and again for such a fringe position it would need to be attributed to him if he held it, but he doesn't. It's also the case that basically every linguist would assert English-language usage can't be right or wrong, merely more common/standard or less common/standard, so we probably can't ever call usage an error in this way with an authoritative voice. this diff is also veering into original research-y territory (and is probably wrong to boot); in at least some contexts there is a widely used alternative (US as an adjective; it's use cases are somewhat limited, but US President and American President are both widely used, and are synonyms). A few of the other changes might be plausible, but when you stick in wrong information and misuse sources to push a fringe POV, you should expect the whole edit to get reverted, rather than expect people to devote a lot of time to see if there's anything worth salvaging. WilyD 08:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[]