Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2012

December 7, 2012

 * Speed-deleted as abandoned. --Pi zero (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Mugalkhod Jeedga Mutta organizes mass marriage in Belgaum, India

 * All advice ignored, kill it with cleansing fire and stop wasting time. I expect any 'stale' or other tags removed, and the author to still fail to see the tree sticking out the corner of their eye. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete

 * --Brian McNeil / talk 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll cast a mildly nuanced vote on this. I see three possibilities:
 * There is no further meaningful work on the article. Which is far most likely.  There already hasn't been for two days (I don't consider spurious resubmission meaningful); in another two days it can be tagged abandoned, and two days after that, speedy-deleted.  Before when this formal deletion can complete.
 * Some sort of genuine, constructive effort is made on the article. This is unlikely, as the author has disavowed the article and imperfectly echoed parts of the party line of the anti-Wikinews loonies.  But were it to happen, I would withdraw my vote here.
 * Some sort of disruptive "work" is done that doesn't seem genuine/constructive but does technically prevent abandonment. Unlikely imho but, again, possible.  This is where the formal deletion process would come in handy.
 * So, subject to (2) and in case of (3), I'll register a vote.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Trucks
Ehhh, long time, no use of DR. I don't expect killing an encyclopedic category like this to be a difficult decision. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Just for the truckers in this DR. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm 'bundling' Portal:Trucks/Wikipedia with this, despite the fact that it's been set up in a bizarre way that doesn't even use the category (i.e. suggests a cut'n'paste by someone with no knowledge of DPL). --Brian McNeil / talk 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to the bundling. Agree it suggests dearth of DPL knowledge.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello I creator portal ; w:Portal:Trucks an french category fr:Catégorie:Camion. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Votes

 * 100% encyclopedic category. Who ever saw a "Truck news" section in a paper &mdash; other than one that comes in a plain brown wrapper. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 100% encyclopedic category. Who ever saw a "Truck news" section in a paper &mdash; other than one that comes in a plain brown wrapper. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup. Encyclopedic through and through.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Encyclopedic through and through.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Confusing. --LauraHale (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Confusing. --LauraHale (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Story preparation/North Korean leader and dictator Kim Jong Il dies at age XX
He died in December 2011, a story that Wikinews didn't cover despite having this (unreferenced and clearly forgotten) draft sitting around. As the window of opportunity for this story has been missed, there's no point in keeping it around. Bencherlite (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Actually we did cover his death... just not using the prepped article. See . --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shame that nobody added that article to Category:Kim Jong-il, which is what I checked. Would someone care to do the honours to save me adding a protected edit request? The fact that the death was covered without using the "prepared" story strengthens my view about the general uselessness of such items. Bencherlite (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature


 * --Brian McNeil / talk 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops to missing the story but clearly no longer relevant. --LauraHale (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsourced drafts are reasonably useless, and trying to compete with the mainstream for big events is largely pointless with the real strength being the wealth of under-reported events that can be reported better. As such, I'd have been inclined to delete this even if the author(s) hadn't forgotten about it and allowed it to stale. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How much of Category:Prepared stories do you feel like nuking? Most of the stories in there appear to be unsourced drafts, or useless, or both e.g. Story preparation/(Island country) evacuated, vanishes beneath sea, Story preparation/Former French President Jacques Chirac dies, Story preparation/Wikimedia founder Jimmy Wales dies aged XXX. I'll tag a few others as "abandoned" and see what happens. Bencherlite (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been mulling over, for some time now, housecleaning the story-preparation section. On the only modern occasions I recall where prepared story templates were actually used, they prevented us from publishing because they had been prepared without sourcing.  We may want to consider overhauling the whole concept of the section to make it compatible with review (perhaps with something similar to the "script review" concept we've been using for Crtew's weekly audio briefs).  --Pi zero (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged over thirty "story preparation" pages as abandoned, some dating back over five years. Most of the pre-"prepared" obituaries could be deleted without fuss if we had a new proposed deletion criterion that said something like "5. Prepared stories for future events (including a person's death) with inadequate references for existing facts".  Thoughts? Bencherlite (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could quite happily go with a PD criteria on unsourced prepwork. Probably need an SD on "prepared, unused, event now past". --Brian McNeil / talk 14:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes to PD and SD. --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable frying long-untouched interview ideas (and, by extension, possible features/investigations) as abandoned; two days' notice seems a tad cruel on things that may or may not be revived. I have just fryed one that was my own from god knows how long ago. Events that have passed seem suitable, and a speedy option seems sensible (I've nommed a pile of such before and they were deleted without controversy). I'll make exact suggestions for WN:PROD and WN:SD additions in a minute on the Water Cooler; in answer to the question, I'd prune a lot of the prepped stuff. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Prepped stories were good in the pre flagged revs days. Not so much now. Granted they could be useful again as long as they're at least backed some sourced information. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Citequote
This is a Wikipedia-style template that doe not fit our workflow, and its existence can only serve to occasionally confuse some newcomer. --Pi zero (talk)


 * as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally Wikipedia-ish. Why did it even end up here? Diego Grez (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not something we really have a need for. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Riley
This text does not appear like a news article, and maybe violates Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people. Should be deleted. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

Comments

 * Wikinews is not Wikipedia. BLP does not apply here. Secondly, this listing was unneeded. Articles are automatically deleted when deemed stale. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note that the policy he has cited is not a Wikipedia-centric one, rather a global one designed to address all projects. Foxj (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fox is right. Then again, I look at it and it only "urges" things. Wikinews already has extremely high standards for all articles, in part because the vast majority do concern living people. I therefore see no need to heed the resolution, givne that our standards are already amongst the highest on WMF. (As a side-note, Wikinews is a news website. It does not carry biographies of anyone.) Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A "resolution" isn't a policy. And, as BRS highlights, the resolution merely urges certain standards. It, in itself, is specifically aimed at Wikipedia which has a policy.
 * The article in question should simply be marked as stale and/or abandoned. Then it can be deleted in three days, not the usual seven for a formal deletion request. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it abandoned. So both procedures are now running in parallel, with the abandonment procedure likely to complete much sooner.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * With no sources, anything like this is full of potential libel and must go. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we make no-sources another x-day-warning deletion criterion? --Pi zero (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:WhatAmerica?
Bad taste? Probably. This was meant as a rather pointed joke and, seemingly, didn't come across that way. However, this is a recurring problem in that United States citizens self-identify as "Americans". With Wikinews intended for an international audience, the point being made rather bluntly by this template needs taken on-board by contributors within the United States. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do delete the template on the grounds of taste as mentioned by the nominator. I'm all for a separate discussion on this point as a matter of style. Where do we start that?Crtew (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * About this template:
 * it is opinion disguised as editing,
 * it is a misrepresentation of Wikinews’ style guide (which may be further grounds for speedy delete),
 * and it is condescending in tone, visual style and substance
 * -- Crtew (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About the term American: One can at the same time hold an international mindset, refer to a people by what they call themselves, and self-identify as an "American" without contradiction. The premise of the template and the self-nomination above is that it wrong to "self-identify" as an American and by doing so a writer doesn't have the "proper" mindset.
 * Self-identification: Just because U.S. citizens call themselves "Americans" doesn't mean they don't recognize that others in the western hemisphere also use the term. That's not an issue. The template does not show any kind of understanding for the meaning of the term as it is used in the culture.
 * Self-determination is also a concept that should also be reflected in policy. For example, most would never think of calling Tibetans "Chinese" out of respect for their rights. Like it or not, people who live in the United States use the term "America" and call themselves "Americans," and that's not going to change anytime soon. America is even part of the country's name (U.S.A.).
 * The term USians, which has been used frequently at Wikinews, is an imaginary term and nobody inside the United States or around the world uses it. Is it the proper use of Wikinews to invent a term and impose it on an entire people? Is Wikinews displaying a counter-bias by raising concerns over the term "American"? Furthermore, I've also seen the term Amerika used at Wikinews. This can be derogatory depending on its source, target and usage, and it similarly should never appear in editing comments.
 * I'll raise this in the style discussion later, but if you scan the Wikinews style guide, you will find the term "American" several times. Either editors should change the Wikinews style guide or refrain from bringing their own issues into critiques.
 * -- Crtew (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've several comments.
 * We are an international publication and, verily, shouldn't insult the rest of the supercontinent by calling the US "America". There's more to it than that, a whole horribly unhealthy US-centrist mindset.  I note that BRS's criticism of the article was not limited to the use of the word, but was in fact about omission of significant facts merely because they weren't about USians &mdash; learning to avoid such bias is part of learning to be a Wikinewsie, and learning not to call USians "Americans" is part of learning to avoid such bias.
 * The template is therefore slightly off-target as it focuses solely on the word usage, while what is likely needed is a template addressing a somewhat wider point; it would be advisable to succinctly mention the word along the way.
 * Since the template is single-author, and "author request" is a speedy-deletion criterion, and the author is an admin, the author in this case can simply delete it.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I also find the concept that Wikinews invented the informal term 'USian' to be hilarious, as equally do I find the notion that one should not use a(n instantly recognisable) German word in an edit summary. (It is also used in Czech, Danish, Dutch, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Swahili, Turkish, and a few others according to Wiktionary. It is also the title of a song poking mild fun at symbols of US culture.) I find it extraordinary that using an alternative based on the name of a country is 'inflicting' but using the name of two continents to mean a country is not. I also believe, but do not know, that USian originated amongst USians. Too unknown for mainspace, but instantly udnerstandable outside of it. Equally, the template as-written is more inflamatory than useful and needs modified (and shrunk. It's huge.). That is not in itself a reason to delete but it is an issue that prevents it being used as-is. Much though I did smirk at the wording, it isn't going to have the desired effect. Where is this meant to be used? On contributors talk pages? That needs figured out.  What nobody here seems to be discussing is that the use of 'America' is a relatively minor issue. It's an annoyance and a pet hate, and I do point it out when I see it, but it's just a question of finding something less ambiguous. I wouldn't use it to mean the American nations collectively, either; same reason. Ambiguity. It's a simple case of word-replacing and any templated message should be understated to reflect that. Accordingly, musch downsizing required. Another thing nobody has mentioned is that we all use 'America' to mean the US. We do. I do. Often without realising it. It's usually pretty clear and (apart from maybe a mild dig) I don't mind it in discussions etc. Mainspace should strive to be absolutely clear and the easiest thing to do is avoid the word entirely. If we are to take the recent article as an example, there were a lot of other nationalities involved. If one of them was, say, Brazilian then we'd have real confusion on our hands. Given how ignored the other nationalities were, such a situation wouldn't surprise me. We must always remember that the the US anexing of the word 'America' to mean a single nation is not malicious, and neither are individual uses. It's not the best inspiration to cite, that article; it had much more serious problems when I reviewed. I would usually replace 'America' when editing; if that's the only problem with an article, it will tend to get passed. There's also a bit of ignorance going on here, which is much more easy to sort out. (We are all ignorant about many things, and WN has a steep learning curve, so there's nothing wrong with this. I always hesitate around using 'ignorance' because of the negative connotations; I'm not saying it as a put-down.) The only namespace that matters as far as careful phrasing goes is mainspace. When a sense of humour is totally banned I will replace the Main Page with porn, leave, and never return. If we're going down the self-identification route, I note there are Amerikans here who self-identify as USians. I also cannot think of any other ambiguous self-identification. The evolution of the word's use is, frankly, unfortunate. This is too ungainly for a DR. We should have this on the water cooler, and return here only if we can't agree a way to sort this template. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) [...] > > > As for Henry, as a non-citizen
 * Crtew's argument is difficult to follow. So far as I can determine, xyr argument is that it's okay for him to use something that some people find insulting becuase other people do it, but if anyone dare respond, that is condescending and unacceptible. I find it difficult to believe someone so clearly intelligent could make such a fallacious argument; so, what am I missing? (It's probably something quite obvious, being me.).
 * with five minutes work, I've traced use of "USian" as far back as 1987 &mdash; the year I first got Internet access. Invented? By-and-large all words are; but this one most-certainly is not a Wikinews invention since this project didn't come into existence for another seventeen years. Moving forward a little under two years, I'm going to excerpt from a discussion that precisely sums up the problems of those outside the United States with attitudes emanating from within the country:

> > Henry is a citizen of Canada. I am a citizen of Australia. > > I fail to see what > > the relevence is. The net is not a U.S. dominion.

> You picked out an insignificant part of my entire paragraph, quoted it > out of context, and blew it up far beyond anything I actually said.

I'm sorry if you're upset, but I'm tired of the USAcentric attitude that pervades the net. As an Australian living in, and materially contributing to, the United States I'm exquisitely aware of the casual parochialism of many USians. Casual prejudice is prejudice still.

I'm also tired of people bashing Henry, or supporting the people who bash him by taking their position. He's one of the clearest heads on the net, for all his faults. And he has them.

But if you must criticise, there are far more valid places to start from than the irrelevant point of his nationality. You're just reinforcing the USian attitudes towards foreigners... attitudes that harm the USA, by the way, as much if not more than the foreigners in question.

It's insignificant to you, but not to me. The fact that it's insignificant to you is itself part of the problem. Oh well, you probably never thought of it as a problem. I trust you will now.

Can we put this behind us now?
 * — Peter da Silva April 3, 1989.


 * I've quoted this in it's entirety, because I've participated in, and seen, this self-same discussion played-out for pretty much the entire 20+ years since Peter's complaint as above. It is a deep-seated point of irritation that originates within the United States.


 * The 1987 use? By an 'American'. An 'American' somewhat uncomfortable with the claiming of citizenship of the supercontinent. This, perhaps is the crux of the matter. You are saying that Mexicans, Canadians, Columbians, etc., etc. are not 'American citizens'; they most certainly are! What they are not, is Citizens of the United States.


 * As to the Style Guide? "American" is used frequently as the generally-accepted name of what is "American English" (less-so for "American" date formats), and that's somewhere we do not want to have people from this side of the Atlantic taking the discussion and giving their frank and forthright views on the topic.


 * Sorry for the length of this. To call 'throwaway', imprecise, use of America and/or American Cultural Imperialism is likely putting the case in-extremis; but, reading that Wikipedia article after the above might make it more clear why a great number of uses of 'America[n]' are close to, if not an outright breach of WN:NPOV. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * More on USian: Alright, I acknowledge I was inaccurate above and that the term "USian" has apparently been around for many years. My intended point, though, was that hardly anybody uses it. My Google search brought up "Urban Dictionary," which is not a reliable source, and others that had the same problem. The Wiktionary entry designates "USian" as "rare". Personally, I have heard exactly zero people use this word outside of Wikinews. The use of a term that is out of the mainstream is not likely to bring credibility but rather marginalization. Crtew (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find all this talk about the provenance and prevalence (try saying that three times fast) of "USian" a jarring nonsequitur. It makes me wonder what issue you think is being discussed.  The comment about Tibet also invites the term nonsequitur and suggests parties talking past each other.  Much of what you write below probably can't be properly understood without identifying the miscommunication; in fact, my sense is that until we sort out the miscommunication, all attempts to discuss the original issue (cultural insensitivity) will go sideways.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * About geography and naming: By calling U.S. citizens “USians,” people are not acknowledging the reason why people there adopted “Americans” in the first place. The "United States" is different than other countries in the western hemisphere or countries around the world in that the first part of its name doesn't refer to a place but to its bond as a nation. The "... of America" part, is the place in the full name that is meant to point to a place. Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians don't share this naming situation. The use of the place was decided around the founding of the nation when the country's people were emerging from a revolution and beginning to form a nation. So the United States is not "annexing" the term "America" in the present tense. My impression is that the use of the word "USians" is a form of complaint or apology that is directed at the power and influence that the U.S.A. has displayed in more recent history. The vast majority of people around the world use the term "Americans" for U.S. citizens, and there was a history of its use before the argument of cultural imperialism”. Crtew (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The preposition "of" acknowledges that people who live in the states do not believe they are the only people who occupy or have a claim to "America".Crtew (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The term USian also has NPOV problems.Crtew (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Or let’s be consistent: “UKians”? Crtew (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not seriously proposing this.Crtew (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Style: I reject the notion in the template that the term "America" for a place or "American" for a people is an  insult for reasons stated at the top and above. At the same time, I would agree that it is not precise. "U.S." is the widely accepted adjective. I would tend to prefer the use of U.S. citizen(s) in place of Americans, but I can see using "American(s)" in clear situations (e.g., "Americans turned out to vote today to choose which candidate will be their next president", when the story is clearly about, hypothetically, the U.S. elections.). Alternatively, I could see someone writing "U.S. Americans" for international consumption. Crtew (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the noun, the use of U.S. or U.S.A. is standard and would be the best usage. But when there is obviously no ambiguity, everybody knows that the U.S. is the place mentioned, I see no problem with saying America.Crtew (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Were there no ambiguity that "America" referred to the United States of America then this link America would be a redirect to United States. (I know, Wikipedia not considered a reliable source). So, returning to the "Wikinews articles must be written for an international audience", it must be considered that the audience may include people who could not find the US on a map, but could find the Americas on a map. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be absolutely clear here, nobody is proposing using USian within articles! The discussion here seems to have been misinterpreted; my input is intended to, 'pointedly', drive home the point that "America[n]", on it's own, should be avoided. If this is not a given in a journalism course, I'm surprised. If students aspire to write for, say, The Washington Post, TIME, or seek employment outwith the US, then they will encounter this problem with the use of the word(s) "America[n]". That self-same 'problem' exists here on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The template became an issue because a person trying to submit an article used the term "American(s)" and also the stories selected by that person appeared to the editor to be selected primarily for a U.S. audience. I agree with the second part of the editor's evaluation; story selection should be undertaken with a global audience in mind. The above discussion only addressed the use of "Americans" as problematic. A template was then placed on the collaboration page about the use of the term "American(s)". The template, in my view, was offensive, but it also stretched Wikinews policy into areas that doesn't seem well documented. We need to have a style discussion elsewhere. But as a further point of clarification, the person who wrote the article was summarizing an Associated Press article that used "American(s)" in the article. Moreover, the item "American" is listed in the Associated Press Stylebook as an "acceptable description" for U.S. citizens. Crtew (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia search: A search on "American" brings up a disambiguation page, while a search on "Americans" brings up a page that equates "American" with U.S. citizenship. Crtew (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Wikinews is also not the Associated Press, though I'm sorry to hear they've made that mistake.  The template is somewhat acerbic in making its point, but calling it "offensive" puts me in mind of the US radical Christian right claiming religious persecution when told they can't use the government to impose their religion on everyone else.
 * I only brought up Wikipedia because it was mentioned above. When I did that search on WP:American, I was actually taken to the United States Project page.Crtew (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still boggling over the bit a while back about Tibet. The closest thing to an equivalent situation re Tibet would be if a contingent of Tibetans were insisting that Tibetans, and Tibetans alone, should be identified by the unadorned term "Asian".
 * The point was about self-determination. Each people should decide what they are called.
 * We're having a policy discussion. A lopsided one, with you taking one position and experienced Wikinewsies taking another.  Afaics, having a policy discussion seems to have been the main reason this deletion nomination was made (as I've pointed out, the nominator could have speedy-deleted the template at any time under a bog-standard speedy-deletion criterion).
 * Ok, let's delete it! Crtew (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this as a fundamental disagreement with editing at Wikniews. I actually agree with the vast number of edits made and see how the process leads to a better product. This is an issue that doesn't require the experience at Wikinews that others do. Let's open this up as a style discussion. Crtew (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for being blunt, Crtew. You haven't got a leg to stand on, with this.  You're arguing in favor of not bothering to be precise, and of doing so in a culturally insensitive way.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what I've been saying. The term "U.S." with "citizen (or variant)" is specific but can be clunky in use as writers don't always refer to a person but a collective noun and other nationalities ("the British") don't necessarily have to take the citizen (or variant) as a qaulifier. Most people understand what "American(s)" refers to in cases where there can be no ambiguity. It would be confusing to write about the "American position," for example when talking about a meeting between members of the Organization of American States. However, in a story about a meeting between U.S. and Chinese officials, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong or confusing to write the "American position."
 * I didn't say it would be confusing, although sometimes it would be. I said it would be imprecise and culturally insensitive.  In the hypothetical situation you describe, saying "American position" instead of "US position" would be completely gratuitous; the only (almost certainly &mdash; hypotheticals are treacherous) reason to prefer "American position" would be morbid cultural imperialism.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The American disambiguation page on Wikipedia does not list U.S. Citizen as first, instead conceding the point my template crudely made: An American is, "A person or attribute of one of the nations of the Americas". --Brian McNeil / talk 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that as making my point too! An "American" can refer to people in the hemisphere but also to people from the United States. Both can be true at the same time. To the vast majority of people this is not a contradiction or an insult. To make it an insult is to gloss over history, culture, and linguistic uses of the word in context.Crtew (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)