Talk:Americanism

Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary

Contents

1 Needs Attention 2 Formatting 3 Material removal 4 Sincerest apologies 5 Adding a different example

Needs Attention

Article seemed to relate "Americanism" as something being adapted to the British language from America. I think the article needs a more specific definition and explanation.

I expected to find examples of uniquely American terms similar to the entry for Britishisms. Instead there's only one example, and a needlessly inflammatory one at that. Comparing the difference of the term liberal in it's American and British usages would have been useful.

• I think a list without context and explanation is not a proper encyclopedia entry. It is true that more examples could have been included but, again, once one selects a word and demonstrates that it differs in its denotative and/or connotative meaning from, say, that expected in Australia, where does one draw the line? As to the example actually selected, it would be a quite clear breach of NPOV only to compare American and British meanings. The requirement is to give non-specific explanations wherever possible. And,with respect, merely asserting that the entry is "inflammatory" without explaining why it would be considered offensive by the reasonable man is not a constructive criticism. If you convince me, I would be delighted to redraft the element or replace it with an analysis of another "Americanism". --David91 11:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

Cantus, what is that you are doing? Is that klunky change supposed to happen to all disambiguation cases? -SV(talk) 07:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why use such idiosyncratic formatting when just a <hr> will do? Dysprosia 07:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine, removed at popular request :-P --Cantus 07:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was nice-looking and all, but seriously, unless you figure out a way to turn every disambig page into something like that, while also removing the markup so it edits normally - then its BTTDB for you, young man. ;) -SV(talk) 07:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Material removal

VV - your methods speak volumes, but I ask that you qualitatively substantiate your removal of material. Thanks. -SV(talk) 06:45, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what policy violation you speak of. I had reverted once, undoing your revert, just like you; but I gave reasons for my changes, and I did not see you explain your revert of them. I think having Americanism link to the anti-Americanism article is a good idea, but the link means we do not have to repeat that material. The characterization of Americanism the way you did (as derogatory of other cultures) was rather negative and unnecessarily so; connecting it to the idea of "superiority" mythos can be represented as an idea some espouse, but one should be careful to qualify such statements, as I did. Also, such speculation and inference does not need to be in the intro paragraph, which serves as a definition. -- VV 07:40, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The new policy I speak of is a "3 revert rule", a guideline which may soon allow for sanctions for violators (like you and I) via consensus quickpolls. The idea was catalyzed and germinated by Eloquence, and appears to have support, in the hopes that people will defer to discussion rather than revert/comment. So, your giving 'reasons for reverting' does nothing to show your openness to discussion or consensus, and in light of the proposed new guideline, I took a step back and chose to initiate conversation. As for reducing material to merely links, this has never been a good idea, and its contradicted by a rather large body of (mostly disconnected) policy in favor of inclusion, rather than exclusion. Providing a link out of context does little to improve the article. Removing context in favor of floating links, can be borderline vandalism, if the person in question refuses to agree to discussion. Finally, your claim basically characterized my edits as espousing a POV, though you do nothing to argue the actual points, nor the actual substance of my edit, which was to reclassify the term as a political one. In anycase, I know youre not entirely without reason or faculties, and I will appreciate any FB you have on the current text, and the possible merger with anti-Americanism. Rsfy,SV(talk) 08:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies

I have completely rewritten this page. It seemed to me that it lacked neutrality, judging propriety by reference to some supposed gold standard in the British version of English whereas that is completely irrelevant to the nature of the topic. This is about linguistics and semiotics and, in my view, the entry should maintain neutrality by approaching the issue conceptually rather than by spraying examples around with no context. Naturally, anyone and everyone is free to disagree for cause. David91 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Adding a different example

Since two people have complained that my first example was unacceptable (the nuances of local politics are rarely understood by outsiders), I have changed the example to one which I hope will inspire less anger. It is, however, a curious reflection on a culture when it seems resentful of academic commentary. --David91 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That last comment is disingenuous and fallacious. Academic commentary is ubiquitous and unremarkable here; political commentary in the guise of an encyclopedia article is not (in theory) acceptable on Wikipedia, thus the objections. --Kevin Myers 13:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My comment simply reflects the fact that the reaction to the page which was intended as a contribution under the headings of semiotics and linguistics, was to delete the entire page. If the objection had truly been limited to bias in the example (which I selected simply on the ground that it was of contemporary interest), then you would not have deleted the academic basis for the analysis. But let us not fall out over this. I hope you feel that I have responded contructively. If I have not met your objections, please identify residual issues and I will seek to draft a further compromise version that we can both accept. --David91 16:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)